PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1974

1313

bers of the Congress, and the American people, there was no deal, period, under no circumstances.

CONGRESSWOMAN HOLTZMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that statement, and I am sure many of the American people do, as well. But they also are asking questions about the pardon, and I would like to specify a few of them for you so that perhaps we can have some of these answered.

I think, from the mail I have received from all over the country, as well as my own district, I know that the people want to understand how you can explain having pardoned Richard Nixon without specifying any of the crimes for which he was pardoned. And how can you explain pardoning Richard Nixon without obtaining any acknowledgement of guilt from him? How do you explain the failure to consult the Attorney General of the United States with respect to the issuance of the pardon, even though in your confirmation hearings you had indicated the Attorney General's opinion would be critical in any decision to pardon the former President?

How can this extraordinary haste in which the pardon was decided on and the secrecy with which it was carried out be explained, and how can you explain the pardon of Richard Nixon, accompanied by an agreement with respect to the tapes which, in essence, in the public's mind, hampered the Special Prosecutor's access to these materials, and this was done, also, in the public's mind, in disregard of the public's right to know the full story about Richard Nixon's misconduct in office.

And, in addition, the public, I think, wants an explanation of how Benton Becker was used to represent the interests of the United States in negotiating a tapes agreement when at that very time, he was under investigation by the United States for possible criminal charges?

And how, also, can you explain not having consulted Leon Jaworski, the Special Prosecutor, before approving of the tapes agreement? And I think, Mr. President, that these are only a few of the questions that have existed in the public's mind before and unfortunately still remain not resolved. And since I have very brief time, I would like to ask you, in addition to these questions, one further one, and that is that suspicions have been raised that the reason for the pardon and the simultaneous tapes agreement was to insure that the tape recordings between yourself and Richard Nixon never came out in public. To alleviate this suspicion once and for all, would you be willing to turn over to this subcommittee all tape recordings of conversations between yourself and Richard Nixon?

THE PRESIDENT. Those tapes, under an opinion of the Attorney General which I sought, according to the Attorney General—and, I might add, according to past precedent—belong to President Nixon. Those tapes are in our control. They are under an agreement which protects them, totally, fully, for the Special Prosecutor's office or for any other criminal proceedings.

Those tapes will not be delivered to anybody until a satisfactory agreement is reached with the Special Prosecutor's office. We have held them because his office did request that, and as long as we have them held in our possession for the Special Prosecutor's benefit, I see no way whatsoever that they can be destroyed, that they can be kept from proper utilization in criminal proceedings.

Now, those tapes belong to Mr. Nixon according to the Attorney General, but they are being held for the benefit of the Special Prosecutor, and I think that is the proper place for them to be kept.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan.

CONGRESSMAN LAWRENCE J. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am frankly amazed at my good friend, the gentlelady from New York, and her accusatory opening speech, because certainly, the gentlelady knows it is the usual and ordinary and routine procedure of this subcommittee and this committee, to operate under the 5-minute rule.

There is nothing extraordinary about us today allocating 5 minutes of time for questioning to each member of the committee. We always operate this way.

Her other observation about not doing any preparatory work by calling other witnesses was rejected as far as I recall by all other members of the subcommittee on the basis that this resolution of inquiry is directed to the President of the United States and properly so.

So, it would be totally inappropriate for the resolution of inquiry to address itself to individuals other than the subject of that resolution of inquiry.

Mr. President, I would like to join, too, in commending you for your statement and your openness and candor in coming in this very historic event.

Frankly, I am concerned at some of the questioning by my colleagues, asking questions, if all men are not equal under the law, because certainly, being the outstanding lawyers that they are, they know that the pardoning power itself is inherently inequitable, but for a larger purpose, it grants to the Chief Executive of the Federal Government or the State, in the case of State crimes, to pardon individuals who may or have been indicted or convicted of crimes.

So, we should not expect this to apply as if there were a trial of these criminal offenses. And furthermore, we also know that in our system of criminal justice, even the prosecutors themselves exercise prosecutive discretion. There is no question whatsoever that the Constitution gives to the President of the United States broad and absolute power to pardon individuals of criminal offenses.

We also know, from the debates of the framers of the Constitution, that they specifically rejected, including in the Constitution the words "after conviction."

They also, in the debate at that time, indicated situations where it might be necessary or desirable to grant

Volume 10—Number 42

1314

a pardon even before indictment was the case in this instance.

Mr. President, I know that you followed very carefully the deliberations of this committee during the impeachment inquiry, and I know you are also aware that this committee unanimously concluded that the President was guilty of an impeachable offense growing out of obstruction of justice.

So, in a sense, couldn't we not say that this was at least the basis for a possible criminal charge which was already spread on the record with ample evidence to justify it? So, those who say you should have waited until there were formalized charges really are overlooking the fact that there was a very formalized charge and indictment, if you will, by this committee.

**THE PRESIDENT.** Well, the unanimous vote of the House Committee on the Judiciary, all 35 members, certainly is very, very substantial evidence that the former President was guilty of an impeachable offense.

There is no doubt in my mind that that recommendation of this full committee would have carried in the House, which would have been even more formal as an indication of criminal activity, or certainly to be more specific, an impeachable offense. And, of course, the prospects in the Senate with such a formidable vote in the committee and in the House would have been even more persuasive.

**CONGRESSMAN HOGAN.** Mr. President, referring to the memorandum from Mr. Ruthto Mr. Jaworski enumerating the 10 possible criminal offenses, it is true that this committee addressed itself, if I am not mistaken, to every single one of these charges and assessed evidence as to each one of them, and we found them wanting, that they were not sufficient justification for an impeachable offense.

The last paragraph of that memorandum says, and I quote, "None of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation by Mr. Nixon."

Now, this memorandum does not include the obstruction of justice which I addressed myself to earlier, so I think we can logically assume that there would not have been any indictments resulting from Mr. Jaworski's activities other than in the area of obstruction of justice and with further corroboration of that point, I allude to a story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday where Mr. Jaworski—who, incidentally, not only agrees with your pardon but also the legality and the timeliness of it—and he says very specifically that there was going to be no additional disclosures resulting from his activities that the public was not already aware of relating to Mr. Nixon.

So, those who are saying we should wait until there is a formal charge I think are missing the point that there already has been a formal charge approved by this committee.

Mr. President, don't you feel that the very acceptance

of the pardon if the former President is tantamount to an admission of guilt on his part?

**THE PRESIDENT.** I do, sir.

**CONGRESSMAN HOGAN.** So, those who say again that they would have preferred that the President admit his culpability before a pardon being issued again are overlooking that fact?

**THE PRESIDENT.** The acceptance of a pardon, according to the legal authorities—and we have checked them out very carefully—does indicate that by the acceptance, the person who has accepted it does in effect admit guilt.

**CONGRESSMAN HOGAN.** Thank you, Mr. President, and again I would like to express my personal appreciation for your candor and your openness and your cooperation with the co-equal branch.

**THE PRESIDENT.** Thank you very much.

**CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE.** Mr. President, as you can see, the peculiar strength of this subcommittee lies in the fact that the subcommittee members bring so much knowledge to it and the subcommittee Chairman takes so little away.

And I noticed in page 10 [p. 1304 of this issue] of your statement that when you were first hit with the possibility of this responsibility, you indicated you wanted to talk to your wife before making a decision.

Mr. President, did you do that?

**THE PRESIDENT.** I certainly did, Mr. Chairman, because the probability or possibility of my becoming President obviously would have had a significant impact on her life as well as our lives.

**CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE.** That destroys my theory that, if you had talked to her, you would have waited until indictment or Christmas Eve, one or the other.

Let me ask if any attempt was made by you or your representative to contact the Federal Pardon Attorney as to his opinion as to customary procedures followed in issuing a pardon?

**THE PRESIDENT.** I did not, sir.

**CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE.** Mr. President, I go to page 20 [p. 1306 of this issue] of the statement, and I am addressing myself to the health question. In the first responses provided, the press releases, in one of these, page 3, it refers to September 16 now as the date of this press conference after the pardon decision in which you were quoted, "I asked Dr. Lukash, who is the head physician in the White House, to keep me posted in proper channels as to the former President's health. I have been informed on a routine day-to-day basis, but I don't think I am at liberty to give information."

My question is, Mr. President, had he reported prior to the pardon date or only after?

**THE PRESIDENT.** Dr. Lukash gave me no information concerning President Nixon's health prior to the time that I issued the pardon. He did, at my request, when I heard rumors about the former President's health, keep me

Volume 10—Number 42

1315

posted in proper channels, but that all occurred after the
pardon took place.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. The gentleman from Indi-
ana is seeking recognition.

CONGRESSMAN DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to request that we make a part of the
record the text of the opinion of the United States Su-
preme Court in *Ex Parte Garland* 4 Wall. 333 and also
the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in *Bur-
dick* against the *United States*, 236 U.S. 79, which deals
with the point that a pardon must be accepted.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. Without objection, it will
be made part of the record.

CONGRESSMAN DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would also
like to make a part of the record, if I may, the article
referred to by my colleague Mr. Hogan, which appeared
in the Wall Street Journal of October 16, 1974, and is
headed "The Pardon of Nixon Was Timely, Legal,
Jaworksi Believes."

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. Without objection, it is so
ordered, and now briefly—

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chairman, may I add to some-
thing I said just to make it correct?

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Somebody asked about when I last
saw the President. I said that I had seen him on the 9th.
I did as he departed, but I had also seen the President
the morning of the 8th at the time I was asked to come
and see him, and at that time we spent an hour and 20
minutes together, or thereabouts, when he told me that
he was going to resign.

So, I saw him both the 8th and the 9th, just to make the
record accurate.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. All of us are aware of our
time constraints. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin
for a question.

CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to, for the record, indicate that the state-
ment of the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan, the
effect that the proposal that this subcommittee try to con-
tact certain staff members, such as General Haig and
others, was supported by me.

I think it would have been excellent. We have in the
past done very well in terms of staff work preliminary to
hearings that might have helped put some of the questions
Ms. Holtzman had to rest.

Mr. President, you indicated that as far as Mr. Haig
was concerned, that he had suggested certain options to
you, but did not in fact make a recommendation to you
with respect to the pardon, is that correct?

THE PRESIDENT. That is correct. I answered that, I
think, as fully as I can in my prepared statement. He dis-
cussed the options. He made no recommendation.

CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER. Which other persons to
you personally made recommendations that the former

President be pardoned from that time in early August
to the day of September 6 when you made your decision?

THE PRESIDENT. No other person, to my knowledge,
made any recommendation to me from that time until
the time that I made a decision about September 6;
nobody made any recommendation to me for the pardon
of the former President.

CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER. With respect to discus-
sions between General Haig and Mr. Nixon, or other mat-
ters in question, too, you indicated you had no personal
knowledge, both in writing and I think in your statement
today.

I take it you would have no objection if the subcommit-
tee sought to question Mr. Haig or others on the subject
before us this morning to supplement this hearing and this
inquiry?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that is within my pre-
rogative. I have come here to testify as to the specific
facts, as I know them, but what the subcommittee does is
a judgment for the subcommittee and not me.

CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER. The Chair is advised
that the House is in recess waiting for the conclusion of
this hearing before reconvening, so if I might, I will yield
to Mr. Hogan for a question at this point, and then to
Ms. Holtzman for a question, and we will then conclude.

Mr. Hogan.

CONGRESSMAN HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. President, on page 20 [p. 1306 of this issue] of your
statement you talk about the health issue and that you
had not gotten any official reports from physicians that
were controlling in your decision. You state that observa-
tions were reported to you from others.

Now, there have been press reports that Dr. Kissinger
is alleged to have said to you that he feared that former
President Nixon would commit suicide. That's appeared
in several news accounts. Is there any truth to that?

THE PRESIDENT. There is no truth to it whatsoever as
far as I know.

CONGRESSMAN HOGAN. It appeared in the New York
Times, the Washington Post on two occasions, and is
alluded to in a research paper prepared for the sub-
committee.

THE PRESIDENT. There was no discussion between Dr.
Kissinger and myself that included any such comment.

CONGRESSMAN HOGAN. I think if I might add a
gratuitous comment, Mr. Chairman, that much of the
controversy has been generated by the press, by just such
efforts to give false information.

Thank you, Mr. President.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. I will ask for one concise
question because we want to respect the time.

CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, what were the precise instructions given
to Benton Becker by you when he went to San Clemente
to negotiate Mr. Nixon's acceptance of the pardon?

Volume 10—Number 42

1316

THE PRESIDENT. The precise instructions given to Mr. Becker were actually given by my counsel, Mr. Buchen. In general I knew what they were. They were instructions to negotiate the protection of those documents, including the tapes, for the benefit of the Special Prosecutor in whatever use he felt was essential, and at the same time to keep them inviolate during a period of time which we felt was a proper one.

CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS. But not to offer the pardon unless that agreement had been negotiated?

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Edwards, those negotiations as to the custody or ownership of the documents, including tapes, were undertaken prior to August 27, because we were or more less beseiged—when I say “we,” the White House—as to what to do with those documents, including tapes.

That negotiation had no relevance whatsoever to the decision on my part to pardon the President.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. The Chair would remind all of the constraints of time, and call on Ms. Holtzman for one final question.

CONGRESSWOMAN HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ford, you've stated that the theory on which you pardoned Richard Nixon was that he had suffered enough, and I am interested in that theory because the logical consequence of that is that somebody who resigns in the face of virtually certain impeachment or somebody who is impeached should not be punished because the impeachment or the resignation in face of impeachment is punishment enough.

And I wondered whether anybody had brought to your attention the fact the Constitution specifically states that even though somebody is impeached, that person shall nonetheless be liable to punishment according to law.

THE PRESIDENT. Ms. Holtzman, I was fully cognizant of the fact that the President on resignation was accountable for any criminal charges. But I would like to say that the reason I gave the pardon was not as to Mr. Nixon, himself. I repeat, and I repeat with emphasis, the purpose of the pardon was to try and get the United States, the Congress, the President, and the American people focusing on the serious problems we have both at home and abroad, and I was absolutely convinced, then, as I am now, that if we had this series—an indictment, a trial, a conviction, and anything else that transpired after that—that the attention of the President, the Congress, and the American people would have been diverted from the problems that we have to solve.

That was the principal reason for my granting of the pardon.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. Mr. Smith.

CONGRESSMAN SMITH. Mr. Chairman, just before we adjourn this hearing, I again would like to commend the President and thank him for coming.

I think, Mr. President, that you have probably opened a new era between the executive and the legislative departments, and I am very happy for it.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to express to you and to the other members of the committee or subcommittee my appreciation for the fine manner and, I think, the fair way in which this meeting was held this morning.

I felt that it was absolutely essential because I am the only one who could explain the background and the decisionmaking process. And I hope, as I said in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that I have at least cleared the air so that most Americans will understand what was done and why it was done.

And again I trust that all of us can get back to the job of trying to solve our problems, both at home and abroad. I thank you very, very much.

CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE. Mr. President, on behalf of the subcommittee, we express our appreciation to you for your appearance here today and recognition of the responsibility we all have to complete this work and get on with the business.

The transcripts will be furnished as quickly as possible to members of the subcommittee.

The subcommittee will adjourn subject to call of the Chair.

## Second Veto of Continuing Appropriations Resolution

*The President's Message to the House of Representatives Returning H.J. Res. 1163 Without His Approval Because of Provisions Concerning Military Assistance to Turkey. October 17, 1974*

*To the House of Representatives:*

I greatly regret that for the second time I must return without my approval the Continuing Resolution granting funds for the operation of several departments and agencies and for the temporary continuation of our foreign aid programs, H.J. Res. 1163.

My previous veto message and my public statements on this matter have clearly expressed our objectives with respect to the resolution of the Cyprus dispute as well as the dangers posed by legislative restrictions destroying our ability to assist the parties involved. The Congress, despite the best efforts of the bipartisan leaders of both Houses, has for the second time refused to recognize the realities of the situation.

While the language of this new bill is different, its effect is similar to the earlier Continuing Resolution which required my veto on October 14. I need not reiterate the extensive comments which I made at that time and

Volume 10—Number 42

1318

P. S. [et al]

# Ramadan

## Message of the President. October 17, 1974

On the occasion of the special feast days concluding Ramadan, Mrs. Ford and I wish to extend our warmest greetings to all Americans of the Islamic Faith.

For nearly two hundred years, our nation has derived its strength from the diversity of its people and of their beliefs. That strength has been greatly enhanced by your own religious heritage.

I am sure that the completion of your month of fasting will bring home to you more than ever the importance of religious responsibilities in daily life. Fellow citizens of all faiths join you in this sentiment. We will be with you in spirit as you reaffirm your commitment to principles which exalt man's existence.

May your celebration and the special message of these holy days fortify and uplift each of you and add to our vitality as a nation.

GERALD R. FORD

NOTE: The message was made available by the White House Press Office. It was not issued in the form of a White House press release.

# Veto of Freedom of Information Act Amendments

## The President's Message to the House of Representatives Returning H.R. 12471 Without His Approval.
October 17, 1974

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 12471, a bill to amend the public access to documents provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. In August, I transmitted a letter to the conferees expressing my support for the direction of this legislation and presenting my concern with some of its provisions. Although I am gratified by the Congressional response in amending several of these provisions, significant problems have not been resolved.

First, I remain concerned that our military or intelligence secrets and diplomatic relations could be adversely affected by this bill. This provision remains unaltered following my earlier letter.

I am prepared to accept those aspects of the provision which would enable courts to inspect classified documents and review the justification for their classification. However, the courts should not be forced to make what amounts to the initial classification decision in sensitive and complex areas where they have no particular expertise. As the legislation now stands, a determination by the

Secretary of Defense that disclosure of a document would endanger our national security would, even though reasonable, have to be overturned by a district judge who thought the plaintiff's position just as reasonable. Such a provision would violate constitutional principles, and give less weight before the courts to an executive determination involving the protection of our most vital national defense interests than is accorded determinations involving routine regulatory matters.

I propose, therefore, that where classified documents are requested the courts could review the classification, but would have to uphold the classification if there is a reasonable basis to support it. In determining the reasonableness of the classification, the courts would consider all attendant evidence prior to resorting to an in camera examination of the document.

Second, I believe that confidentiality would not be maintained if many millions of pages of FBI and other investigatory law enforcement files would be subject to compulsory disclosure at the behest of any person unless the Government could prove to a court—separately for each paragraph of each document—that disclosure “would” cause a type of harm specified in the amendment. Our law enforcement agencies do not have, and could not obtain, the large number of trained and knowledgeable personnel that would be needed to make such a line-by-line examination of information requests that sometimes involve hundreds of thousands of documents, within the time constraints added to current law by this bill.

Therefore, I propose that more flexible criteria govern the responses to requests for particularly lengthy investigatory records to mitigate the burden which these amendments would otherwise impose, in order not to dilute the primary responsibilities of these law enforcement activities.

Finally, the ten days afforded an agency to determine whether to furnish a requested document and the twenty days afforded for determinations on appeal are, despite the provision concerning unusual circumstances, simply unrealistic in some cases. It is essential that additional latitude be provided.

I shall submit shortly language which would dispel my concerns regarding the manner of judicial review of classified material and for mitigating the administrative burden placed on the agencies, especially our law enforcement agencies, by the bill as presently enrolled. It is only my conviction that the bill as enrolled is unconstitutional and unworkable that would cause me to return the bill without my approval. I sincerely hope that this legislation, which has come so far toward realizing its laudable goals, will be reenacted with the changes I propose and returned to me for signature during this session of Congress.

GERALD R. FORD

The White House,
October 17, 1974.

Volume 10—Number 42

1323

Drug Abuse Prevention Week, 1974

Proclamation 4328. October 18, 1974

By the President of the United States of America
a Proclamation

The drug trade, by destroying individual lives and dividing families and communities, strikes at the heart of our national well-being.

America's response has not been passive. During the past half decade, we have given the highest priority to eliminating this threat to the very fabric of our society.

Our enforcement programs, undertaken with the co-
operation of 60 other nations, are aimed at stamping out
the drug trade at all levels, from the growing process to
street sales.

We are also rendering special Federal assistance to
local law enforcement agencies. As a result, drug arrests
are up, major traffickers have been jailed, and supplies
have been reduced. But too many Americans still are
victimized by drug abuse.

We must redouble our efforts to cut supplies and punish
suppliers. And we must make a national commitment to
rehabilitate former users.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of
the United States of America, do hereby designate the
week of October 20-26, as Drug Abuse Prevention Week,
1974.

An important focus of our effort should be on the com-
munity acceptance of former drug abusers. For without
a way back into society, the former addict still is prey
to the pressures and pointlessness that contributed to his
abuse in the first place. Let us begin, this week, to search
out the techniques and resources we will need to help
former drug abusers find their place in productive so-
ciety—techniques and resources that will complement the
work presently being carried out at the 1,240 Federally
funded treatment centers and service points in more than
350 communities across the Nation.

I call upon officials at every level of government, upon
educators, medical professionals, and communicators,
upon the business community and the civic groups of our
Nation, upon the churches and clergy, and upon all who
bear the special trusts of community leadership, to rededi-
cate themselves during this week to the total banishment
of drug abuse from American life.

I again urge every American to commit himself whole-
heartedly, beginning now, to this supremely important
humanitarian cause.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this eighteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord
nineteen hundred seventy-four, and of the Independence

of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-
ninth.

GERALD R. FORD

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:45 a.m.,
October 19, 1974]

Meeting With President Francisco da
Costa Gomes of Portugal

Joint United States-Portuguese Communique.
October 18, 1974

At the invitation of President Ford, His Excellency
Francisco da Costa Gomes, President of the Republic of
Portugal, visited Washington on October 18. President
Costa Gomes, who was accompanied by the Foreign
Minister, Dr. Mario Soares, had meetings with President
Ford and with Secretary of State Kissinger and was the
guest of honor at a luncheon given by Secretary
Kissinger.

President Costa Gomes outlined the achievements of
the Portuguese Government in light of recent events in
restoring civil and political liberties to Portugal and in
creating the basis for a return to democracy. He reported
on the negotiations which had led to the independence
of Guinea-Bissau and explained his government's plans
for the granting of self-determination and independence
to the remaining overseas territories. He reaffirmed his
government's commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty
and its desire to develop even closer ties to the United
States.

President Ford expressed his admiration for the states-
manship shown by Portuguese leaders in undertaking to
restore democracy to Portugal by holding free elections
soon and in making possible the enjoyment of the right
of self-determination and independence by the peoples
of Portugal's overseas territories. He noted with pleasure
President Costa Gomes' reaffirmation of Portugal's com-
mitment to NATO and expressed his confidence that ties
between the United States and Portugal will become ever
closer.

The two Presidents agreed that, as these developments
proceed, it would be in our mutual interest to intensify the
cooperation between the two countries to embrace new
activities in a broad range of areas, such as education,
health, energy, agriculture, transportation and communi-
cations, among others. They agreed that this expansion
of their cooperation could begin with technical talks in
the fields of agriculture, public health, education and
financial and economic matters, as requested by the
Portuguese authorities.

They also agreed that the two countries should continue
and intensify negotiations relating to cooperation in the
Azores.

Volume 10—Number 42

- 25 - #54-10/23

Q Ron, has the President any comment on Governor Rockefeller's refusal to answer any more questions about his confirmation until he reappears?

MR. NESSEN: No specific comment.

Q Ron, there are reports in the Arab press that two days before the pardon of Mr. Nixon, our Ambassador, Mr. Akins, asked for an urgent meeting with King Faisal, which the Arab press interprets as a notification 48 hours in advance of what the King had requested of the President.

I remember the King's statement that "Anyone that is opposed to Nixon is opposed to me."

I was wondering if there is any truth in this, or would you deny it or confirm it?

MR. NESSEN: I would not have any comments on Arab newspaper accounts.

Q Ron, let me ask you the specific, then, if I may. Did King Faisal at any time ask President Ford to pardon former President Nixon?

MR. NESSEN: I am not aware of any, Jim.

Q You are not aware of it. Are you saying there that you are not denying it, you just don't know anything about it? Or is that supposed to be taken as a sort of a denial?

MR. NESSEN: The President, as I understand it, told the full story of the pardon to the Hungate committee and in other settings, and I have no reason to believe that King Faisal was involved in any way.

Q Was he aware of the pardon before it was announced?

MR. NESSEN: You will have to ask King Faisal that.

Q Back on the matter of oil, the President asked for the reductions by the end of 1975?

MR. NESSEN: Yes.

Q You say he has now started to review the oil consumption levels?

MORE #54

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

October 27, 1974

No. 444

EXCHANGE OF TOASTS
BETWEEN
HIS EXCELLENCY Y.B. CHAVAN
MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OF INDIA
AND THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT A DINNER HOSTED BY MR. CHAVAN
NEW DELHI, INDIA
OCTOBER 27, 1974

Minister Chavan

On behalf of the Government of India, I have great pleasure to extend a warm and cordial welcome to you and Mrs. Kissinger. I enjoyed meeting you in Washington a few weeks ago, and I am indeed happy that you were able to pay us an official visit and provide an opportunity to exchange views on important international problems and matters of bilateral interest.

India and the United States of America are both democratic countries with well established traditions of representative government, social responsibility and individual freedom. We have admired this creative genius of the American people and their contribution to human progress. We are confident that our two countries can work together to create a better world in which men and women can realize their potential both as individuals and useful citizens and contribute to the development of society and welfare of mankind. It is also a unique feature of our relations that, in spite of occasional differences, we have been able to maintain dialogue and contact at all times and at all levels. This provides a good basis for our working together in the future also to promote mutual understanding, international peace and progress.

Mr. Secretary, since your last visit to New Delhi, far-reaching changes have taken place in this region. Out of the agony of the Subcontinent, a new nation was born, underlining an historical truth that popular aspirations cannot be long suppressed. On the basis of the realities of the situation, we have been trying to build a new structure of peace, friendship and cooperation in this region. We note that your own country shares this view and has supported the Simla process of bilateral and peaceful normalization and reconciliation without external interference. It need hardly be stressed that peace is particularly essential to us and other countries of the region to meet the challenge of economic and social growth. We are fully conscious of our responsibilities and of the need to build friendship and cooperation with our neighbours. We have achieved this objective in our relations with most of our neighbours and hope to do the same with the remaining one or two governments.

For further information contact:

P0444

-2-

Indo-American relations have improved in the last year or two. Although it would be idle to pretend that there are no differences between us, we both recognize the need for building up a mature and constructive relationship on the basis of equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit. There is potential for strengthening our relations and we look forward to our discussions with you on ways and means of furthering Indo-American understanding. In today's world, no country can remain isolated or become totally self sufficient in all its requirements. We are interested in promoting cooperation between India and America in various fields including trade, science, technology, education and culture. I am confident that our discussions will enable us not only to remove past misunderstandings but also generate momentum for a better, more mature and realistic relationship in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Secretary, you are not a newcomer to India. However, since this is Mrs. Kissinger's first visit to our country, may I wish her a cordial welcome and a most pleasant stay here. In drawing up your program, we have taken particular care to ensure that you, Mrs. Kissinger, have some opportunity to see a bit of India. We hope you will come again and see more of our country. And we hope you, Mr. Secretary, would also come with her.

Secretary Kissinger

Mr. Foreign Minister, Distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am delighted to have been able to accept the invitation to visit your great country in order to renew longstanding friendships, to remove old misunderstandings, and to build a new and mature relationship. This trip has been prepared over a considerable period of time by your distinguished predecessor, and by the two indefatigable ambassadors that represent our two countries. As for our Ambassador, I would like to point out to you that those of his dispatches that appear in the *New York Times* are only the tip of the iceberg of what I have to contend with. And indeed what saves me from more exposure in the *New York Times* is the limitation of space which is inevitably imposed by a daily newspaper. But suffice it to say that our Ambassador to New Delhi never lets me forget for a moment how important our relationship is, and he has worked with great dedication sharing my own conviction, and President Ford's conviction, of the importance that we attach to close ties with India. As for your Ambassador, my friend Tikki Kaul, he checks on me periodically, but I would like to request of you, Mr. Foreign Minister, that you change his instructions so that he needs to call on me only twice a week to make sure that I am not tilting the wrong way. I would like to pay tribute to his friendship and to his dedication.

In the United States in recent years, just as has India, we have had to make many adjustments to new conditions. We are interested in building a worldwide structure of peace in which all the nations feel they have a sense of participation, and a structure of peace which transends the antagonisms of the period of the Cold War and tries to draw on the dedication of all parts of the world. In this structure of peace, the structure of peace in the Subcontinent to which the Foreign Minister has referred plays, of course, a crucial role. The United States strongly supports the Simla process. The United States feels that the development of peace in the Subcontinent, free of outside interference, on the basis of equality and negotiation, is an essential precondition to peace in the world. And our relationship prospers to the precise extent that this process has taken root and has continued. The Foreign Minister pointed out India's desire to extend cooperative relationships with the United States in many fields. We reciprocate this feeling, and in the work

PR #444

-3-

which we will do here, in the institutions which we plan to create, we see
but the beginning of further cooperative ventures to the joint benefit of
both of our nations, of the peoples of the Subcontinent, and all of the
people in the world.

I look forward very much to my talks here with the Prime Minister,
with the Foreign Minister, and with his colleagues. I want you to know
that I come here with good will to contribute to the buildings of a
strong relationship between two great democracies sharing many similar
ideals, two democracies, which, whatever their occasional differences
on particular issues, have a common interest in a peaceful world, in a
developing world, and in a cooperative world. It is with this attitude
that my colleagues and I will conduct our talks, it is in this spirit
that I would like to propose a toast to the Foreign Minister and to
friendship between the Indian and American people.

* * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

October 27, 1974

No. 444

Minister Chavan

PR #444

-2-

## Secretary Kissinger

In the United States in recent years, just as has India, we have had to make many adjustments to new conditions. We are interested in building a worldwide structure of peace in which all the nations feel they have a sense of participation, and a structure of peace which transmits the antagonisms of the period of the Cold War and tries to draw on the dedication of all parts of the world. In this structure of peace, the structure of peace in the Subcontinent to which the Foreign Minister has referred plays, of course, a crucial role. The United States strongly supports the Simla process. The United States feels that the development of peace in the Subcontinent, free of outside interference, on the basis of equality and negotiation, is an essential precondition to peace in the world. And our relationship prospers to the precise extent that this process has taken root and has continued. The Foreign Minister pointed out India's desire to extend cooperative relationships with the United States in many fields. We reciprocate this feeling, and in the work

PR #444

-3-

* * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

October 28, 1974

As Prepared for
Delivery

No. 445

SPEECH BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE INDIAN COUNCIL ON WORLD AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI, INDIA
OCTOBER 28, 1974

Dr. Bharat Ram, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am honored to be invited to address such a distinguished gathering, for the basic objective of this Organization — to comprehend, communicate and help shape the state of world affairs — has been the central purpose of my own life since long before I served in Government. And I since have found that the statesman, too, has no more important task.

Former President Radhakrishnan once said, "Life becomes meaningful only when we grasp the character of the age we live in, see its significance, understand the objectives it sets for us and strive to realize them."

The fundamental reality of our age is that we live in a world inextricably linked by interdependent economies and universal aspirations, by the speed of communications and the specter of nuclear war. The political lesson of our age is that the national interest can no longer be defined or attained in isolation from the global interest, and the moral challenge of our age is to free ourselves from the narrow perception of the nation state and to shape a conception of global community.

## A New World

The three years since I was last in New Delhi have seen profound changes in the relationship between India and the United States, in the whole region and in the world.

On my last trip to South Asia I paid my first visit to Peking. On this trip I have visited Moscow. Moving about among capitals only recently considered hostile is a new pattern for the United States. It signified the transition from a bipolar world locked in confrontation and seemingly destined for some final encounter to the new world of dispersed power and reduced tension.

This changed environment is more complex and therefore, for some, less assuring. Yet we see it as a world of hope. For the process of detente among major powers has not made the world more complex; it merely signifies that leaders have recognized its complexity. Those who ought always to have known how serious is man's predicament have learned how little benefit confrontation brings and how absolute is the need for cooperation.

PR #445

-2-

This has not been an effortless transition for the American people. Nor is it without difficulties in other nations of the world, for it requires coming to terms with less simple views of right and wrong, of the possible and the ideal than have permeated political thinking for a generation.

This new American view, it is appropriate to acknowledge, owes much to an old vision of India's national leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru perceived the impermanence of the post-war world — into which India was born — of frozen hostility between the superpowers and their insistent efforts to enlist other nations on one side or the other. Under Nehru and since, India sought to deflect, to moderate and to redirect those forces. This was the origin of the concept of nonalignment.

It is not necessary to debate now whether the United States should have welcomed the concept at that time in order to agree that in the present world it is for nations such as India an altogether understandable and practical position. The United States accepts nonalignment. In fact, America sees a world of free, independent, sovereign states as being decidedly in its own national interest. Support of national independence and of the diversity that goes with it has become a central theme of American foreign policy.

Nowhere is this clearer than with respect to South Asia, where a fifth of mankind lives. In testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee six weeks ago, I stated this principle of American foreign policy in explicit terms: "We do not look at the Subcontinent as being composed of some countries that are clients of China, others that are clients of the Soviet Union, others that should be clients of the United States. We believe that we can have productive relationships with all of them. And we believe also, specifically with respect to India, that our relations are in a stage of dramatic improvement."

The warming of our bilateral relations has been increasingly manifest for some time. It began inevitably as the Simla process began, and it has proceeded and strengthened as that process has proceeded and strengthened. For it was conflict with the Subcontinent that brought the involement of outsiders in the first place. And correspondingly, the region's political capacity to resolve regional conflict has, to a considerable degree, diminished outside involvement. President Ford has asked me to affirm that the United States strongly supports the efforts of peaceful settlement on the Subcontinent, free of imposition, or pressure or outside interference. We want political stability and economic success for South Asia. That is what we believe South Asians hope for, and what the rest of the world should hope for as well.

The statesmanship of all of South Asia's leaders has been at the heart of this process. It has taken great courage to persevere toward the goal agreed upon by Pakistan and India at the Simla Conference in 1972: "The promotion of friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of a durable peace in the Subcontinent."

The size and position of India give it a special role of leadership in South Asian and in world affairs. They confer on it at the same time the special responsibility for accommodation and restraint that strength entails. The United States recognizes both these realities. They are wholly compatible with the close friendships and special bonds we have with all the nations of the region. As we wish South Asia well, we wish India well.

PR #445

-3-

Thus a more mature and durable relationship is emerging between India and the United States — one which leaves behind the peaks and valleys of the past.

Both India and the United States still consider themselves youthful nations. The restlessness, the striving and the ideals of our people attest to the reality of that image. But a basic quality of youth — enthusiasm unseasoned by experience — often caused us to assume or expect too much. We are two great nations of independent judgment and perspective; often our zeal and moral convictions have led us into disagreements with a passion that might not have been present had we not been conscious of similar ideals.

For a quarter of a century our relations tended to oscillate between high expectation and deep suspicion. The low point occurred in 1971 when a basic disagreement flowed from different political judgments. We faced these differences candidly; that crisis is now behind us. We have surmounted past strains and moved ahead with promise. We can now build our relationship free of past distortions and conscious of the interests and values we share.

From the events of the past — from our experience with the world as well as yours — we have both developed a more balanced view. Both of us independently have come to temper our zeal and understand limitations on our ability to bend the world to our expectations. In parallel with this, in our relations with each other we both stress the basic compatibility of our interests. This promises to provide a durable basis for cooperation and friendship.

## America's Purposes

For our new relationship to thrive, a great deal depends on our mutual understanding. Nations face different problems and different opportunities — their perspectives and power inevitably vary. Let me therefore briefly sketch America's broader purposes — especially as they have evolved in recent years in a changing international environment.

Around the world today, the new and the old coexist in uneasy equilibrium. The frozen international landscape of the past quarter century has begun to thaw but we have yet to put a durable structure of cooperation in its place. A new era of stability has begun in Europe and Asia, while chronic disputes in the Middle East and Indochina still endanger regional and global peace. The United States and the Soviet Union have perceived a common interest in avoiding nuclear holocaust, while some potential for conflict persists and the arsenals of the two sides continue to grow. The United States and the People's Republic of China have succeeded in overcoming two decades of estrangement, but important differences in philosophy remain. And as the old blocs among old powers decline, new blocs among new nations threaten to emerge.

The United States sees its central task today as helping the world to shape a new pattern of stability, justice and international cooperation. We have rejected the old extremes of world policeman and isolation. But we recognize that American's principles, strength and resources imposed upon us a special responsibility.

Our goal is to move toward a world where power blocs and balances are not dominant, where justice not stability can be our overriding preoccupation, where countries consider cooperation in the global interest to be in their national interest. For all that has been achieved, we must realize that we have taken only the first hesitant steps on a long and arduous road.

(LC)

PR 445

-4-

The United States has three principal policy objectives:

First, America has sought to foster a new spirit of responsibility and restraint among all powers.

The cornerstone of our foreign policy is — as it has been for a generation — our partnership with our Atlantic allies and Japan. These bonds have served both the world's peace and its prosperity. Our co-operation provided a solid foundation for efforts to reduce tensions with our adversaries. It has enabled us to contribute to world economic growth. And the nations which provide the industrial, financial and technological sinews of the global economy now share a heavy collective responsibility to concert their efforts in a time of global economic stress.

In the last five years the United States has also sought to put its relations with the Communist powers on a new and steady basis.

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, man's fears of holocaust and his hopes for peace have turned on the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. Never before have two nations had the physical ability to annihilate civilization. Never before has it been so important that the two nuclear giants maintain close contact with one another to avoid conflicts which would menace other nations as much as themselves.

Progress has been achieved in our relationship with the Soviet Union which would have been unthinkable a decade ago. We take the easing of tensions for granted only at the risk of the return of confrontation. In my discussions in Moscow I stated yet again the determination of the American Government to maintain the momentum of the process of detente, and was assured by the Soviet leaders that they shared this intention. The United States will persevere to reduce military competition with the Soviet Union in all its aspects; to ensure that our political competition is guided by principles of restraint especially in moments of crisis; and to move beyond restraint to cooperation in helping find lasting solutions to chronic conflicts.

American's relations with the People's Republic of China are also of fundamental importance. There cannot be a stable peace in Asia — or in the world — without a pattern of peaceful international relationships that includes this powerful and talented nation. It was essential to end a generation of mutual isolation and hostility.

Yet rapprochement with the People's Republic of China is not sought at the expense of any other nations; on the contrary, it attempts to serve a wider purpose. The principles of the Shanghai Communique commit our two nations to respect the independence, sovereignty and integrity of all countries as we work to improve our own relationships.

Our relations with the non-aligned countries are another pillar of our foreign policy. No accommodation among countries, however powerful, can be durable if negotiated over the heads of others or if an attempt is made to impose it on others. Our attitude toward the non-aligned will be based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and shared endeavors and on the premise that all countries have a stake in a peaceful world. Condominium, hegemony, spheres of influence are historically obsolete and morally and politically untenable.

It is a corollary of this, however, that bloc diplomacy of any kind is anachronistic and self-defeating. We see a danger of new patterns of alignment that are as artificial, rigid and ritualistic as the old ones.

PR #445

-5-

The issues the world faces are so urgent that they must be considered on their merits, on the basis of their implications for humanity, and for world peace — rather than on some abstract notion of ideological or bloc advantage. In a real sense the world is no longer divided between East and West, North and South, developed and developing, consumer and producer. We will solve our problems together or we will not solve them at all.

Second, America seeks to limit and ultimately to reduce nuclear weapons competition.

The relaxation of international tensions cannot survive an unrestrained arms race by the two strongest nuclear powers. And international stability will be seriously jeopardized by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is why the United States has made it a major objective to bring about a more stable nuclear environment.

The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks are among the most crucial negotiations ever conducted. The agreements already signed by the United States and the Soviet Union represent a major step toward strategic stability. They placed a permanent limit on defensive weapons and an interim limit on offensive nuclear weapons. Our task now is to control the qualitative as well as quantitative advance of weapons. We seek a long-term agreement which would establish stable ceilings and other restraints, from which we could begin the long-sought process of arms reductions. Progress in this direction was made during my recent talks in Moscow.

At the same time, a world in which an ever-increasing number of nations possess nuclear weapons vastly magnified the risks of both regional and global conflict. And proliferation complicates — if it does not inhibit — international cooperation in the peaceful uses of the atom.

Last month at the United Nations I proposed a comprehensive global effort. The United States is of the view that countries capable of exporting nuclear technology should agree to common restraints on a multi-lateral basis which would further the peaceful, but inhibit the military uses of nuclear power. We take seriously India's affirmation that it has no intention to develop nuclear weapons. But India of course has the capability to export nuclear technology; it therefore has an important role in this multilateral endeavor. Needless to say, the United States does not ask other countries for restraint on the export of nuclear materials and technology which it is not prepared to apply to itself. We will work vigorously with others on the practical steps which should be taken to limit the dangers of the atom while furthering its potential for human good.

A third objective of American policy is to build global cooperation to meet unprecedented global problems.

The traditional agenda of international affairs — the balance among major powers, the security of nations — no longer defines our perils or our possibilities. To some extent we have mastered many of the familiar challenges of diplomacy. Yet suddenly we are witnessing a new threat to the governability of national societies and to the structure of international stability. A crisis threatens the world's economic system. The industrialized nations see decades of prosperity in jeopardy; the developing countries see hopes for development and progress shattered or postponed indefinitely. And even the newly wealthy oil producers are beginning to perceive that their recent gains will be swept away in a global crisis.

[LC]

PR #445

-6-

The dangers are as self-evident for the United States as they are for India and other countries: rates of inflation unknown in the past quarter century; financial institutions staggering under the most massive and rapid movements of reserves in history; and profoundly disturbing questions about the ability to meet man's most fundamental needs for energy and food.

This is not a conventional political problem, which can be dealt with by conventional diplomacy or on the basis of conventional premises of social and economic theory. It affects all countries and groups. There is no gain for one at the expense of another. Piecemeal solutions offer no hope: a global enterprise is imperative. No nation or bloc of nations can impose its narrow interests without tearing the fabric of international cooperation. Whatever our ideological belief or social structure, we are part of a single international system on which our national objectives depend. Our common destiny is now not a slogan; it is an unmistakable reality.

The United States is prepared to dedicate itself in practical ways to this global effort. At the World Food Conference next week we will offer a comprehensive program as our contribution to freeing mankind from the eternal struggle for sustenance. We recognize that America's agricultural productivity, advanced technology, and tradition of assistance represent a major obligation. We know that we cannot speak of the global responsibility of others without practicing global responsibility ourselves. America pioneered in development assistance, particularly with respect to food; we are determined to step up our past contributions. We will increase our production at home so there will be more food available for shipment abroad. And we will help developing nations increase their own production which is the only long-term solution to the problem.

The magnitude of the world's food needs — and the redistribution of the world's wealth — imply that others must enlist in the fight against famine. The United States will work cooperatively with other exporters, with food importers, and with those countries in a position to help finance increased food production in the developing countries.

But it is an objective fact that we cannot meet man's need for food, much less ensure economic and social advance, without coming to grips with the energy crisis. Higher oil prices directly affect food prices by increasing the costs of fertilizer, of operating agricultural machinery, and of transporting food to deficit areas. This in turn contributes to the more general economic crisis of inflation and stagnation which will surely doom the ability of the economically advanced countries to fulfill their obligations to the less well-endowed. Both consumers and producers have a parallel stake in a global economy that is stable and growing. The economic progress of thirty years has brought the goal of universal well being closer; today's crisis puts it in jeopardy. This is why the United States has emphasized global interdependence and seeks cooperative global solutions.

## The United States and India

The American purposes I have described are, we believe, consistent with India's purposes. We are nations whose values and aspirations are so similar that our disputes are often in the nature of a family quarrel. We have no conflict of interest, no basic animosity or disagreement that keeps us apart. And we face a world in crisis and transition, that compels us to work together.

PR #445

-7-

We are both democracies, with all that implies for the kinds of decisions we are able to make. The leaders of a democracy can only sustain policies which their electorate will support. If there are no general rules as to what such policies are likely to be, there are specific limitations as to what they cannot be. It is clear that our relationship cannot be based — in either country — on the dependence of one on the other. Nor can our relationship survive constant criticism of one by the other in all international forums. There must be a sense of common purposes in at least some endeavors. To India-American relations equality and mutual respect are more than doctrines of international law. They are political necessities.

In the past year or two we have removed major obstacles to an improved relationship. Our energies are now focussed on the positive content of our relationship. Even more importantly, we find once again that as two great nations we share certain aspirations for the world at large: We share a concern for cooperative solutions to man's fundamental needs.

The present crisis confronting both developed and developing nations reveals all too clearly the world's past failure to address global problems on a truly cooperative basis. India and the United States have much to contribute. The world's best minds must be mobilized, and India has the third largest pool of scientific talent while the United States has the first. We must apply the great economic strength of our two nations; the United States has the largest industrial output in the world and India the tenth largest. Our economies are complimentary; the fact that India is only the 26th largest trading partner of the United States reveals what potential is yet untapped.

The joint commission we are establishing — for scientific, cultural and economic cooperation — provides a new means to match our resources with our challenges. It is the symbol of the new area of equality, and the United States stands ready to expand the concept of the joint commission into other areas.

We share a concern for economic development.

It is impossible to visit South Asia without being deeply affected by the plight of so many of the peoples of this region. Individual hopes for survival and national aspirations for development have been dealt a cruel blow by the crises in energy, food and inflation.

The American people want to be helpful, while avoiding the dependence we both reject. Earlier this year, the United States wrote off the largest amount of foreign debt ever cancelled in history. This year the United States will launch a modest bilateral aid program. A substantial portion of our multilateral aid already comes to India. Our new food program, which I will outline at the World Food Conference next week, will be of particular relevance to India.

We share a concern for world peace.

Neither India nor the United States will ever be satisfied with a world of chronic conflicts, uneasy truces and offsetting blocs. We have a joint interest in a comprehensive, institutionalized peace, based not merely on a balance of forces but on a sense of justice.

In recent months our dialogue on the entire range of global concerns has assumed a new frequency and depth. Our consultation has defined areas where we agree and narrowed those where we do not. We have found anew the basis for collaboration in many areas.

PR #445

-8-

Tagore wrote with foresight: "During the evolution of the nation the moral culture of brotherhood was limited by geographic boundaries, because at that time those boundaries were true. Now they have become imaginary lines of tradition divested of the qualities of real obstacles. So the time has come when man's moral nature must deal with this fact with all seriousness or perish."

The time has come for nations to act on this vision. Let there be hope rather than despair, creativity rather than disarray. The recognition and understanding of our problems are clearly emerging; we have the technical means to solve them. And the urgency of our talks impels us.

Half a century ago, Mahatma Gandhi wrote that we must launch "experiments with truth." In this spirit, let us resolve to strengthen the new beginnings between India and America. Let us build a relationship that can endure and serve common ends for a long time. Let us make our contribution to help mankind match its capacity to its challenges for the benefit of our two peoples and of all mankind.

* * * * *

1376

Public Statement

# American Education Week, 1974

Proclamation 4330. October 28, 1974

The greatness of a nation of free institutions is measured by the degree of enlightenment of its citizens.

By that measure, ours is a great Nation. Our States provide schools for all Americans. And those schools—public, private and church-affiliated—are the vital centers of neighborhood and community life throughout the Nation.

It is most appropriate that the theme of this year's American Education Week is "Stay Involved," for there is no end to the educational process. "Staying involved" means that each of us is sufficiently concerned about the training and development of our young people to make the contribution to that educational process that our special training, experience, and perspective allow us to make.

I know that all Americans will resolve to stay involved in the educational process, for the knowledge we impart to our children today will determine the future of our people.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate the week of October 27 through November 2, 1974, as American Education Week.

I invite all Americans to join with me and the dedicated educators of our Nation in exploring the more vital role schools can play in neighborhood and community life.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of October, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-ninth.

GERALD R. FORD

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 9:34 a.m., October 29, 1974]

Nine years ago, when National Parkinson Week was first proclaimed, the outlook for Parkinson's disease patients was one of increasing darkness. Today, however, the prospect is one of dawning hope. Because of progress in drug treatment, thousands of Americans formerly disabled by Parkinson's disease are now leading more normal lives. Yet the battle is not won. Although drugs presently control the symptoms of Parkinson's disease, they do not cure or arrest it. Because the cause is still unknown, prevention is not possible.

With the great strides which have been made in treatment, however, we have reason to hope that research will soon find the cause of the disorder and thousands of our older citizens will be spared this disabling affliction. In recognition of the need to heighten public awareness of this disease, the Congress has, by Public Law 89–294, authorized and requested the President to proclaim annually National Parkinson Week.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the week beginning October 27 as National Parkinson Week, 1974. I invite the Governors of the States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and other areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to issue similar proclamations.

I also call upon the Nation's communications media, the medical and health professions, Government and private agencies, and individuals concerned with Parkinson's disease to sponsor activities during that week designed to inform every American of the need for their support as we continue in our efforts to prevent and cure Parkinson's disease.

GERALD R. FORD

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 9:35 a.m., October 29, 1974]

# National Parkinson Week, 1974

Proclamation 4331. October 28, 1974

Parkinson's disease is one of the most devastating afflictions threatening our older population. Experts have estimated that one in forty Americans past mid-life may develop the disorder. Over the centuries, it has caused incalculable suffering.

# THE PRESIDENT'S NEWS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 29, 1974

## APPOINTMENTS IN THE ENERGY PROGRAM

THE PRESIDENT. This morning, before the press conference, I would like to announce several appointments, and then we will have the press conference subsequently.

At the outset, let me remind you that on October 8 I announced that Rog Morton would be the head of the

Volume 10—Number 44

1377

Energy Council and that subsequently I would make
several other appointments predicated on legislation en-
acted by the Congress and some reorganization in the
Energy Administration.

Rog Morton is here. Rog, I think most of you know
him. He is pretty hard to miss. [Laughter] But the new
appointments are as follows:

Dr. Robert Seamans, former Secretary of the Air Force and formerly a very high-ranking official in NASA, had a great deal to do with the manned space program, will be the new Administrator of the ERDA, the Energy Research and Development Agency.

Bob, we are glad to have you on board.

Then to head FEA, John Sawhill is resigning, and we
will give him a good appointment in the Government,
but the new head of FEA will be Andy Gibson, who was
an Assistant Secretary of Commerce and was in charge
of the Maritime Administration, will be the new head
of FEA.

Andy, glad to have you on board.

Then, for the new Nuclear Regulatory Agency, I am
nominating Bill Anders, who is currently a member of the
AEC, but who will be the Chairman, once confirmed, of
the new regulatory agency.

You are all familiar with Bill Anders' record as an
astronaut and his service as a member of the Atomic
Energy Commission.

And then, Dixy Lee Ray will be the new Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Matters.

Dixy Lee.

This is the new team that will be in charge of the energy
program, which we will see moving ahead, I think, under
Rog Morton's stewardship with the new faces and the
experience of Bob Seamans, Andy Gibson, Bill Anders,
and Dixy Lee Ray.

And I thank all of them for taking on these new respon-
sibilities. I think they are an outstanding group of admin-
istrators with experience both outside of Government and
within the Government.

So, Rog, you have got a good group, and I am proud
of them, and I think they will do a first-class job. Thank
you very, very much.¹

Well, with those preliminary announcements, I will be
glad now to respond to any questions.

Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].

QUESTIONS

THE ECONOMY

Q. Mr. President, the Government's leading economic
indicators announced today show that last month they
experienced the sharpest drop in 23 years. Might this sort
of thing prompt you to amend your economic program to

put more emphasis on fighting recession rather than fight-
ing inflation? And if so, what steps might you take?

THE PRESIDENT. The 31-point program that I sub-
mitted to the Congress and the American people did take
into recognition the problems of some deterioration in
some parts of the economy and at the same time recog-
nized the need to do something about inflation.

It was a finely tuned, I think, constructive program to
meet both of these problems.

Now, the program is before the Congress and the Con-
gress must act on certain aspects of it. This, perhaps, will
take some time and, in the interim, if there are any eco-
nomic factors which justify a change, I will be open to
suggestions.

But at this point I still believe the plan or program as I
submitted it is sound, both to meet the challenge of infla-
tion and any deterioration in the economy.

VOTER INTEREST IN THE ELECTION

Q. Mr. President, in view of the Watergate and infla-
tion and other urgent problems facing the Nation, how
do you account for the voter apathy in this country? And
I have a follow-up.

THE PRESIDENT. I wish I knew the answer to that, Mr.
Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Christian Science Monitor].
It would seem to me that with the problems we have, par-
ticularly at home—both Watergate and others—that the
voters should be extremely interested in the kind of Mem-
bers of the House and Senate that are elected or defeated.

One of the reasons that I am campaigning is to try and
get the voters off of apathy and on to interest. I happen
to believe that a big public showing of voter participation
would be very helpful, and I am disturbed that these fore-
casters say that only 42 percent of the eligible voters are
going to vote on November 5.

So, if I can in any way stimulate voter interest, I intend
to do so.

Q. That leads to my second question. Do you think you
are breaking through this apathy, are you shaking up this
interest? What is your finding?

THE PRESIDENT. From my contacts with Members of
Congress or candidates who are in the various places
where I have stopped, they tell me that voter interest has
been stimulated by my appearance. I suspect we will get
a few who don't approve of my appearance in a certain
community, but I believe overall there has been an increase
in voter interest as a result of my visits. And as I said, that
is one reason why I intend to continue them.

Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press
International].

VICE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE ROCKEFELLER

Q. Mr. President, do you think that Nelson Rocke-
feller will be confirmed as Vice President, and when?

THE PRESIDENT. I believe that Nelson Rockefeller will
be confirmed. I strongly support him today as I did when

¹For releases on the appointments and the resignation, see pages
1382-1383 of this issue.

Volume 10—Number 44

1378

I nominated him in August. I had trust that the Senate and House committees, as well as the two bodies themselves, will act promptly on the nomination. I think he would make a very good Vice President.

Q. Then you don't think the financial problems that have suddenly cropped up will affect the outcome?

THE PRESIDENT. I do not.

## THE PRESIDENT'S CONGRESSIONAL VOTING RECORD

Q. Mr. President, the Democratic Study Group, and an analysis they made of your voting record over the last 3 years you were in the House, showed you voted 86 percent of the time in support of spending proposals beyond the Nixon budget, and it amounted to some $16.9 billion. How do you square that with your campaign argument that the Democrats are the big spenders?

THE PRESIDENT. I think their own survey, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], showed that I had a much better record of saving than the Democrats did in the House of Representatives.

In other words, their own document showed that the Democrats were much bigger spenders than I was and that I was a much better saver than they were. So, I will rely on their document to prove that I am a saver and they are spenders.

Q. Mr. President, do you know how you came out net?

THE PRESIDENT. It is my recollection that I was about 8 percentage points better than the Democrats as a whole, so even using their figures or their document, I am a saver and the Democrats are spenders.

## VETERANS EDUCATION BILL

Q. Mr. President, sir, I want to know if you are going to sign the veterans G.I. education bill that has been left at the Senate so you would not pocket veto it, but they are ready to send it down if you are ready to say today you will sign it.

THE PRESIDENT. Well I worked very closely, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service], with the Members of that conference committee in trying to find a solution to a bill that I want to sign. The bill has not come down. It has not been staffed out by my staff. Until it arrives at the White House, I am not going to prejudge what I am going to do. I hope that we can find a way for me to sign it, because I want to help the Vietnam veterans, particularly, but until it comes down to the White House, I think it is premature for me to make any decision.

Q. Sir, it calls for an 18 percent cost-of-living increase, plus up to 23 percent, and that additional would pay for the cost of going to college. Would that be agreeable to you?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I recall, that compromise is 20 percent.

MISS MCCLENDON. Twenty-three percent.

THE PRESIDENT. But in addition, they did add a $600 loan provision to the veteran. They did add 9 more months of eligibility beyond what either World War II or Korean veterans got in the way of educational benefits.

So, when they, the Congress, send the conference report down to me, we will staff it out. I will make an honest judgment. I hope it is a piece of legislation that I can sign.

## BUDGET REDUCTIONS

Q. Mr. President, in your speech before Congress on the economy, you said you would do the hard work of making decisions where to cut. Could you give us some specific examples, maybe half a dozen, of the programs you would like to cut?

THE PRESIDENT. I have had one meeting with the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] and others on that very subject, and later today, before I go to Grand Rapids, I am spending another hour with the same group. We have a long list of items where they give me certain options.

We have not made any final determination. If all of them were put into effect—and some of them would require legislative action by the Congress—I think the anticipated saving in fiscal year 1975 would be around $7.5 billion.

We are going to make a maximum effort to cut at least $5.4 billion, so there is some flexibility between the 5.4 and the 7.5, and I am going to continue to work on it. And when Congress comes back, we will have some recommendations.

Q. Mr. President, as to specifics now of some of those programs that you would put priorities to cut—

THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not give you any specifics because it is a long shopping list, and I think it is unwise for me to be categorical as long as I try to make an honest judgment on which of maybe a hundred or more proposals they have submitted to me for consideration.

## THE MIDDLE EAST; PLANS FOR TRIP TO JAPAN

Q. Mr. President, I have a two-part question on foreign affairs.

Number one, the emergence of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] in the Middle East, how does this affect our position regarding the Middle East?

And the second part, also on foreign affairs, negative reports out of Japan, anti-American feelings and items like that, whether you are reconsidering going to Japan.

THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer the second question first.

No developments in Japan have changed my attitude. I intend to go to Japan, as has been planned for some time.

The decision by the Arab nations to turn over the negotiating for the west bank to the PLO may or may not—at

Volume 10—Number 44

1379

this stage we aren't certain what impact it will have on our
role in the Middle East.

We, of course, feel that there must be movement
toward settlement of the problems between Israel and
Egypt on the one hand, between Israel and Jordan or the
PLO on the other, and the problems between Israel and
Syria in the other category.

We have not had an opportunity yet to make any firm
decision on what impact there will be from this Arab
decision. I can only say that we think it is of maximum
importance that continued movement toward peace on a
justifiable basis in the Middle East is vital to that area
of the world, and probably to the world as a whole.

OUTLOOK FOR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Q. Mr. President—you, as one who knows the House better than we do—what is your best estimate of Republican losses or gains in the House, and what would be the level which would make your efforts seem all worthwhile?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't like to get into a numbers
game. I did on one occasion back in 1966, but I had
somewhat different responsibilities then. I can only say
that it is important to have a competitive relationship or
ratio in the House as well as in the Senate.

It seems to me that if you have a reasonably close ratio
of Democrats to Republicans, the public is better off.
They get better legislation. They get better handling of
appropriations. They get, I think, a better tax bill, when-
ever the relationship between the two major political
parties is reasonably similar.

At the present time, in the House I think it is 243 to
187. I would hope that that ratio would not be seriously
changed.

RESIGNATION OF JOHN SAWHILL

Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you about your
energy program. Why have you dumped John Sawhill?
Was his advice too blunt and politically unattractive at
this time?

THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. I put a new man in
charge—Secretary Morton. He replaced the Secretary of
State (the Treasury), Bill Simon, who went over to the
economic council.

Rogers Morton and I discussed the kind of a team that
he wanted and that I thought would do a good job. And
the people that I have nominated fit that pattern.

THE VICE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE

Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could return to the
Rockefeller affair. If you had known then, before the
nomination, all that is public knowledge now about Mr.
Rockefeller's financial dealings, would you still have
named him to be your Vice President?

THE PRESIDENT. I think I would. Nelson Rockefeller
has been a superb Governor of the State of New York. He

served both Democratic and Republican Presidents in
the past in the executive branch of the Government. It is
my judgment that he would be a very good Vice President.
And, therefore, these disclosures indicate that he does
believe in helping his friends. And a man of that wealth
certainly, in my judgment, has that right to give as long
as the law is obeyed, and as I understand it, he has.

It seems to me that his qualifications from previous
public service fully qualify him to be Vice President. And
therefore I fully support his nomination.

THE 25TH AMENDMENT

Q. Mr. President, as the only living veteran of the 25th
amendment, how say you as to its continuance?

THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the 25th amendment
has served a good purpose despite my own involvement
in it. But leave that aside. It was, of course, if you go back
and study the history of it, actually proposed and approved
for quite different reasons.

On the other hand, in the last year, certain circum-
stances have arisen which, in my judgment, may prompt
the need for some changes.

I think, for example, the Congress ought to study the
desirability of putting a time limitation on the time that
the Congress should have for the consideration—approval
or rejection. But these are matters that Congress can, in
the remaining days of this session or in the next session,
investigate, because of the experiences of the last year
or so.

CONDITION OF THE ECONOMY

Q. Mr. President, your friend, Paul McCracken, has
said that we are entering a V-shaped recession and that
we ought to call a spade a spade. Yet Administration offi-
cials have been avoiding the word "recession." Would you
apply that term to our economic condition now?

THE PRESIDENT. Recession has been defined. I think
the National Bureau of Economic Research actually is
the authority on this matter. It is my understanding they
are going to come up with some answer on this question
in the very near future.

But let me make an observation of my own, if I might.
We are facing some difficult economic circumstances. We
have too many people unemployed, and we want to do
something about it. And my economic package that I sub-
mitted to the Congress and the American people will do
something about it.

The American people are concerned about inflation,
and my economic program would do something about
inflation. So what we have tried to do, instead of getting
into semantics, is to offer constructive proposals to meet
the problem. Whether it is a recession or not a recession
is immaterial. We have problems. The plan I submitted
is aimed at solving these problems. And, therefore, I really
do not care what the name is. We want solutions. And my
proposal, I think, will offer that opportunity.

Volume 10—Number 44

1380

STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS

Q. Mr. President, since Secretary Kissinger has been to Moscow, do you have any optimistic outlook now on the SALT agreement?

THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the Secretary's discussions with the General Secretary, Mr. Brezhnev, were very constructive. Some of the differences, as I understand it, between their view and ours, have been narrowed. And as a result of the progress that was made in Moscow, the announcement was made that I would meet with Mr. Brezhnev in Vladivostok the latter part of November. We hope that each step will mean more progress and that we will end up with a SALT Two agreement.

OIL IMPORTS

Q. Mr. President, your Press Secretary, Mr. Nessen, has hinted or implied that you may be considering limiting oil imports, that is, limiting imports of Arab oil if necessary to make your goal of cutting oil imports by one million a day, perhaps in the form of a dollar figure, a dollar limit on imports. Are you considering it? Is this a live possibility?

THE PRESIDENT. Our first objective is to cut the 6 million barrels per day imports of crude oil by 1 million barrels. We believe that, with the energy conservation recommendations we have made, that objective can be accomplished.

However, if there isn't the saving of one million barrels per day of oil imports by voluntary action, we will, of course, move to any other alternative, including the possibility of mandatory limitations, to achieve that result.

That is essential from the point of view of our economy, our balance of payments, et cetera.

THE VICE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE

Q. Mr. President, if Rockefeller is confirmed, would you ask him to refrain from giving gifts as he has given in the past to public officials and other politicians?

THE PRESIDENT. My judgment would be that Mr. Rockefeller would use excellent judgment in the future in however he wishes to dispense the funds that he has available. I think that his approach in the future would certainly be related to the experiences he has had in the past.

CONGRESSIONAL PAY INCREASE

Q. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk on the Hill that Congress might come back after the election and vote themselves a pay increase. There is also talk if they don't do it this fall, it certainly will be voted early next year. Would you sign a bill that would provide Congress with a pay increase at this time?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it is premature for me to make any judgment. I have not talked to the Democratic or Republican leadership about the matter. I know of no specific proposal by the Congress nor by this Administration,

so I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to make any judgment at this point.

PLANS FOR CABINET CHANGES

Q. Are you planning any other Cabinet changes, particularly in the Agriculture Department?

THE PRESIDENT. I think Secretary Butz, over a period of 3 or 4 years, has done a good job. He has been very outspoken. He is a good, hard worker, and I have no plans to remove the Secretary of Agriculture or no specific plans to call for the resignation of any other Cabinet officer.

FORMER PRESIDENT'S TAPES AND DOCUMENTS

Q. Mr. President, could you tell us the status of negotiations on the Nixon Administration's tapes and documents? Are they still in the White House or—

THE PRESIDENT. They are being held—I can't give you the precise location—but they are being held under an agreement with the Special Prosecutor's office, and, of course, now there are two other elements that have developed. One, Judge Richey has issued an injunction concerning all or some of the documents. A third involvement is a law suit by former President Nixon against the head of GSA, Mr. Sampson, so we think, under the circumstances, and particularly under our agreement with the Special Prosecutor's office, they should remain intact until legal matters and any other commitments have been handled.

RESIGNATION OF MR. SAWHILL

Q. To follow that up, the "Mr. Sawhill" matter for a minute—

THE PRESIDENT. I can't see who asked that. I can't see with the lights and without my glasses.

Q. Kraslow [David Kraslow, Cox Newspapers]. What policy differences, sir, did you have, you and Mr. Morton have with Mr. Sawhill which precipitated his resignation?

THE PRESIDENT. As I said a moment ago, I appointed a new man to head up the Energy Council, and that requires, I think, when you give a man a new assignment, the opportunity to make recommendations for those that will work with him on the Council. It seems to me that with Rog Morton being given that job, he ought to have the right, with my approval, to make changes, and that is why we made the changes. I think they are good people. Mr. Sawhill, who I admire, will be offered a first-class assignment in this Administration.

Q. Are you saying, Mr. President, that there were no policy disagreements?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there were any major policy differences. I think there may have been some differences in approach or technique, but if you give a man a job, you have to give him the people he wants to carry out that responsibility.

Volume 10—Number 44

1381

CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE CONGRESS
AND FOREIGN POLICY

Q. Mr. President, in Oklahoma City, you said that overwhelming victories in Congress this fall by the opposition party, being the Democrats, would seriously jeopardize world peace. This is our first chance to question you on that. I was wondering if you would elaborate on that. Did you mean it in the sense that some Democrats accused you of demagoguery, or is this consistent with your original announced policy that you were going to try to unify the country after Watergate?

THE PRESIDENT. Well I think the facts that I referred to involved the conflict we had with a majority of the Members of the House and Senate over the limitations and restrictions they put on the continuing resolution. Those limitations and restrictions on that particular piece of legislation, in my judgment and in the judgment of the Secretary of State, will make it more difficult for the United States to help the Greeks. It will make it more difficult for us to work to bring about a negotiated settlement in the Cyprus matter.

That Congressional limitation will not help our relations with Turkey.

I point out that both the United States and Turkey are members of NATO, and if our relationship with Turkey is destroyed or harmed, it will hurt our interest as well as NATO's.

Secondly, we do have an agreement with Turkey as to some military installations, and those installations are important for both Turkey and ourselves. And if, through Congressional action, we undercut our relationship with Turkey, hurt our relations with NATO, hurt the Greeks, because it will make it more difficult for a settlement of the Cyprus matter, then I think the Congress has made a mistake. And if a Congress that is more prone to do that is elected on November 5, it will make our efforts much harder to execute and implement foreign policy to build for peace and maintain the peace.

As Mr. Nessen explained in a subsequent press conference, I was referring as much to Republicans as I was to Democrats who don't cooperate in giving a President of the United States an opportunity to meet the day-to-day problems that are involved in foreign policy.

A President has to be able to act. He has to be able to work with allies and with some potential adversaries. And if the Congress is going to so limit a President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican, that he has no flexibility, in my opinion, the opportunity for a successful foreign policy is harmed considerably.

Q. A follow-up question, please, Mr. President.

How would overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress undermine your policy and Secretary Kissinger's policy of détente and relations with China?

THE PRESIDENT. Let me say at the outset the Democratic leadership—both Senator Mansfield and the Speaker of the House and other leading Democrats—were very helpful to me in that struggle that I just described.

If you will carefully read, which I have, reread my statements both in Oklahoma City and Cleveland, I was very careful not to be critical of the Democratic leadership, because they did try very hard.

The problem was the troops did not believe either their own leadership or the President of the United States.

If we have a runaway Congress that does not understand the need and necessity for the broadening of détente, that does not understand the need and necessity for a continuation of our policy vis-à-vis the People's Republic of China, then it is going to make it much harder for a President to carry out a policy of peace abroad.

Now, a runaway Congress is one that does not, at least, pay some attention to their own leadership on both sides of the aisle and to the President of the United States.

PARDON FOR FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON

Q. Mr. President, can I get back to the conversation with General Haig in early August. I know you said there was no deal or no commitment, but sometimes things are done more subtly. When he brought up as a sixth option the possibility of a pardon, did you point out to him that in your testimony on confirmation you had indicated opposition to such a move, or did you in some way indicate to him that you might be inclined, without exactly saying so, that you might be inclined to go along with an early pardon?

THE PRESIDENT. I think the testimony I gave before the House Committee on the Judiciary or subcommittee of that committee speaks for itself, and I will stand by that testimony.

I would like to point out, in addition, in the testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I answered it as follows:

One, I did not think the American people would stand for a pardon, in answer to the hypothetical question that was asked me.

Secondly, because I was not familiar with the precise authority and power of a President to grant a pardon, I did not want to get into any of the technicalities involving that issue, but the testimony I gave before the House committee will speak for itself, and I will let it stand at that.

FISCAL YEAR 1976 BUDGET

Q. Mr. President, looking a bit further down the road on your anti-inflation program, sir, do you have any particular figures or program in mind for your 1976 budget, which is now in the process of being prepared?

Volume 10—Number 44

1382

THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is another matter that I will be working with Roy Ash and his people on after we get through the long shopping list of proposed rescissions, deferrals, and cutbacks for fiscal year 1975.

I can assure you it will be a tight budget, very tight budget, because we do have to hold the lid on spending, not only in the remaining months of fiscal year 1975 but we have to reassure the American people that in the next fiscal year we will be just as firm in controlling and holding down expenditures.

Q. Mr. President, when you say a tight budget, do you mean a budget surplus or balanced or possible deficit?

THE PRESIDENT. Our objective will be a balanced budget. We will do the very best we can.

REPORTER. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

NOTE: President Ford's fourth news conference was held at 10:56 a.m. on Tuesday, October 29, 1974, in the Briefing Room at the White House.

## Administrator of Energy Research and Development

*Announcement of Intention To Nominate*
*Robert C. Seamans. October 29, 1974*

The President today announced his intention to nominate Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., of Washington, D.C., to be Administrator of Energy Research and Development. This is a new position created by Public Law 93-438 of October 11, 1974.

Since May 15, 1973, Dr. Seamans has served as president of the National Academy of Engineering. From February 1969 to May 1973, he was Secretary of the Air Force. In 1968, he was appointed a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1960 to 1968, he was an Associate Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He also was a member of the Scientific Advisory Board from 1959 to 1962 after serving as an associate adviser to the Board.

Dr. Seamans was born on October 30, 1918, in Salem, Mass. He received his B.S. degree from Harvard University in 1939 and his M.S. degree from MIT in 1942. He received his doctor of science degree from MIT in 1951.

Dr. Seamans is married to the former Eugenia A. Merrill, and they have five children. They reside in Washington, D.C.

## Federal Energy Administration

*Exchange of Letters Between the President and John C. Sawhill Upon Mr. Sawhill's Resignation as Administrator. October 29, 1974*

October 29, 1974

Dear John:

Thank you for your October 25, 1974, letter of resignation as Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration. In accepting your resignation, I want to express to you my deep personal thanks for your dedicated and capable service to the Nation, first as Deputy and then as Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration. You have performed with distinction in a difficult job during a period when, for the first time, America has confronted a major energy shortage. In particular, along with millions of other Americans, I have admired your candor and directness in addressing the difficult choices which face the Nation as we confront the energy problem.

As I indicated during our conversation together, it is my strong desire that you continue to serve in government so that the American people and my Administration may continue to benefit from your very great talents and your broad experience.

Finally, I am grateful for your agreement to stay at the Federal Energy Administration until the first of the year to bring the Project Independence Blueprint to a conclusion and to insure a smooth transition in the leadership of that very important agency.

With warm personal regards.

Sincerely,

JERRY FORD

October 25, 1974

Dear Mr. President:

I am today submitting my resignation as Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration.

When I began my present assignment several months ago, I set three major goals for myself and the organization. The first was to establish the new Administration, the second was to prepare a Blueprint for Project Independence which could serve as the basis for developing a national energy policy, and the third was to set in motion an orderly process for decontrolling the oil industry. The FEA is now established and fully staffed; the Project Independence Blueprint is nearing completion; and—with the implementation of an entitlements program—the groundwork has been laid for beginning to remove controls from the oil industry. Thus, the tasks that I set out to accomplish are complete, and I feel that the time has come for me to move on to new responsibilities.

Volume 10—Number 44

[L.C.]

Public Statements

PRESS

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

October 30, 1974

No. 449

JOINT COMMUNIQUE
ISSUED AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE VISIT OF SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER
TO NEW DELHI, INDIA
OCTOBER 27-30, 1974

October 29, 1974 ✓

At the invitation of the Government of India, the US Secretary of State, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, paid an official visit to India from 27 to 30 October, 1974. The Secretary called on the President of India and held discussions with the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and other senior Ministers and officials of the Government of India. He conveyed to the President and the Prime Minister, President Ford's personal greetings and his satisfaction over the improvement in US-Indian relations. The cordial and frank nature of the discussions during the Secretary's visit reflected the desire and interest of both countries in broadening the basis for their relationship and in strengthening the many contacts and ties between the Indian and American people.

During the discussions there was an exchange of views on various aspects of bilateral relations, the situation in South Asia and neighboring regions and a review of the global situation including the world economic situation.

The Indian side explained the initiative and steps it had taken under the Simla Agreement towards normalization, and for the establishment of durable peace and cooperative relations between the countries of the Subcontinent. The American side expressed its satisfaction at the initiative taken by the Prime Minister of India and the effort of other leaders of South Asia and at the progress that had been made in bringing about regional peace and cooperation and expressed their support for the Simla process. Both sides agreed that it was in the interest of all the countries of the region to live in peace and harmony on the basis of sovereign equality and without intervention by outside powers or attempts by such powers to gain positions of special privilege in the region.

The two sides expressed their satisfaction at the improvement that has taken place in their bilateral relations and agreed that based on their democratic traditions, structure of government and past relationship, there was considerable scope for further strengthening of bilateral relations. Both sides affirmed that there is no conflict of national interests and that Indo-American relations are based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and mutual understanding.

The two sides agreed that it was desirable to promote cooperation between the two countries and that the agreement to set up an Indo-US joint commission which Secretary Kissinger and Foreign Minister Chavan signed on October 28 marked a significant step forward in building a

[v]

PR #449

-2-

framework for more mature and meaningful relations and active cooperation. They expressed confidence that the joint commission would facilitate contacts and exchanges in the fields of trade and commerce, economic cooperation, science and technology, education and culture and other fields. The first meeting of the joint commission was held in New Delhi on 28 October 1974 and the next meeting will be held in Washington early next year. It was also agreed that sub-commissions would soon be established and begin their regular meetings in New Delhi and Washington.

The Secretary reviewed recent developments toward a lasting peace in the Middle East. The Indian side welcomed the progress so far achieved. Both sides expressed the hope that a just and lasting peace will be achieved on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The Secretary reviewed progress to date in implementing the Paris Accords on Indo-China. Both sides expressed the hope that just and lasting peace would be established in Indo-China on the basis of respect for the independence and sovereignty of the states of the region without any outside interference.

Both sides noted with satisfaction that series of agreements which have helped to reduce tension in Europe. They expressed satisfaction at the process of decolonization in Africa and expressed the hope that this process will be accelerated.

In reviewing the international situation, both sides expressed satisfaction that relaxation of tensions and development of cooperation are becoming the main characteristics of international life. They expressed their strong support for further efforts to reduce international tensions and build a global detente. On disarmament matters the Secretary described current US-Soviet efforts to accelerate progress in reaching agreements on strategic arms limitation. Both sides expressed their support for the realization of concrete measures in the field of arms limitation and disarmament. The Secretary also discussed US concern over the implications for regional and global stability of nuclear proliferation. The Indian side reiterated its consistent position that the highest priority in international efforts should be accorded to nuclear disarmament and that in order to achieve international peace and stability, all proliferation of nuclear weapons should be stopped. The Indian side also affirmed India's policy not to develop nuclear weapons and to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. The US side welcomes the Government of India's affirmation in this regard. There was mutual recognition of the need of putting nuclear technology to constructive use, particularly for developing countries, and of ensuring that nuclear energy does not contribute to any proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In reviewing the current international economic situation and the rising prices of food, fertilizer, fuel, industrial materials and technology both sides agreed that cooperative efforts by governments were called for to prevent further deterioration of the world economic structure to the detriment of both the developed and the developing nations. The two sides noted the serious situation developing in the most seriously affected countries as a result of rising prices and the paucity of resources now available to them. They expressed the hope that the forthcoming World Food Conference in Rome will find a way of conserving world food stocks and making them available to the most seriously affecting developing nations on more favorable terms. They also agreed to exchange views and technology on a bilateral and multilateral basis in order to achieve increase in national food production and ensuring the necessary inputs of energy, fertilizers, technology, etc.

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[Lc]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 STATE 238075

AMEMBASSY LONDON
AMEMBASSY PARIS
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
AMEMBASSY ROME
USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
USMISSION NATO
AMEMBASSY SANAA
USINT BAGHDAD
AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
AMEMBASSY DACCA PRIORITY

UNCLASS STATE 238075

TOSEC 329, ZFF NEW DELHI ONLY

E.O. 11652: N/A
TAGS: PFOR, SA, XF, IN
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING

NEW DELHI FOR SECRETARY'S PARTY

GENEVA FOR MEPC DEL

FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS
FROM DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN'S PRESS BRIEFING OCTOBER 29, 1974:

QUOTE: Q. ARE WE GOING TO START DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE PLO NOW, AS A RESULT OF THE ACTION IN RABAT BY THE ARAB SUMMIT CONFERENCE?

A. AS YOU KNOW, THE PRESIDENT ADDRESSED HIMSELF TO THE NEWS FROM RABAT. I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO SAY TO THAT SUBJECT.

Q. RESPECTFULLY, THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T DO MUCH OF A JOB OF ADDRESSING HIMSELF TO IT. HE SEEMED TO TRY TO GET IN THE MIDDLE AND NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. ISN'T THERE BETTER GUIDANCE FROM THIS BUILDING?

A. I THINK IN FAIRNESS THE PRESIDENT SAID IT WAS A LITTLE TOO EARLY TO ASSESS THE IMPACT.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 STATE 238075

Q. DIDN'T WE ANTICIPATE THIS AS AN OPTION OR AN ALTER-NATIVE, A POSSIBILITY TO COME OUT OF IT?

A. I AM NOT GOING TO STAND HERE AND DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU.

Q. CAN YOU TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER THE RABAT DECISION -- HOW IT AFFECTS DR. KISSINGER'S PLANS TO NEGOTIATE IN THE MIDDLE ST?

A. SORRY -- I CAN'T.

Q. CAN YOU TELL US HOW IT AFFECTS HIS TRAVELS TO GO TO THE MIDDLE EAST?

A. SAME ANSWER.

Q. DO YOU READ THE COMMUNIQUE AS SAYING THAT SADAT CAN GO AHEAD ON BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL?

A. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE PUT IN A POSITION OF INTERPRE-TING ANY OF THAT.

Q. DO YOU HAVE -- WELL, DO THE MEETINGS TODAY BETWEEN SISCO AND THE AMBASSADORS IN KUWAIT AND ISRAEL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RABAT MEETING?

A. I COULDN'T EXCLUDE THEY WOULD DISCUSS IT.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETINGS IS?

A. FRANKLY I DO NOT, NO.

Q. IS THERE ANYTHING NEW ABOUT THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZING NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES IN THEIR INDEPENDENT COURSE OVER THE LAST TWO ADMINISTRATIONS AT LEAST?

A. I'M NOT SURE I GET THE POINT OF THE QUESTION.

Q. I'M TALKING ABOUT INDIA AND THE INTERPRETATION THAT WAS PUT ON THE SECRETARY'S REMARKS THERE, THAT SOMEHOW OR

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 04 STATE 238075

OTHER THE UNITED STATES HAD COME UP WITH A BRAND NEW
RECOGNITION OF UNILATERAL POLICIES.

A. LOOK, IF YOU ARE ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN --

Q. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN. IS THERE ANYTHING NEW ABOUT U.S. POLICY AT THIS POINT TOWARDS INDIA.

A. WELL, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. IF YOU ARE ASKING ME TO
JUDGE OTHER'S JUDGMENTS OF THIS, I WON'T BE DRAWN INTO
THAT. I WILL STAND ON WHAT THE SECRETARY SAID.

Q. JOHN, THERE ARE REPORTS THAT SAUDI ARABIA IS GOING TO UNILATERALLY CUT THE PRICE OF -- POSTED PRICE OF OIL, AND THAT OTHER ARAB COUNTRIES ARE EXPECTED TO DO THAT BY THEMSELVES AT A LATER TIME. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONFIRMATION OF THAT?

A. I JUST SAW THE REPORT. I HAVE NO CONFIRMATION ON IT.

Q. LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO TOPICS -- ONE
DEALING WITH RABAT AND THE OTHER WITH THE REPORTS THAT
PERSIST THAT THERE IS A SECRET AGREEMENT WITH SAUDI ARABIA
ON A BIG ARMS DEAL. BUT FIRST ABOUT RABAT. HAS THE STATE
DEPARTMENT RECEIVED TEXTS OF STATEMENTS MADE BY ARAB
LEADERS TO OUR PEOPLE IN RABAT, AND HAVE THESE BEEN COM-
MUNICATED TO THE WHITE HOUSE, AND DO THESE FURNISH THE
BASIS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENT THIS MORNING?

A. WELL, I CAN'T ANSWER THE LAST QUESTION. I CAN REPLY
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO THE FIRST TWO.

Q. WAIT A MINUTE. STATEMENTS MADE TO OUR PEOPLE -- MEAN-
ING TO AMERICAN OFFICIALS IN RABAT? THAT IS WHAT THE
QUESTION WAS.

A. WELL, I MISSED THAT PART OF IT. BUT IF YOU ARE TALK-
ING ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENTS ISSUED IN RABAT ARE
AVAILABLE TO US, THE ANSWER IS YES, FROM OUR EMBASSY. AND
THAT IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 05 STATE 238075

Q. ARE THESE PUBLIC STATEMENTS YOU ARE REFERRING TO?

A. YES.

Q. IS THAT WHAT JOE WAS REFERRING TO? WAS THIS YOUR
QUESTION, JOR -- PUBLIC STATEMENTS?

Q. PUBLIC STATEMENTS- ALL RIGHT. NOW, THAT IS ONE PART.
THE OTHER PART IS WHAT ABOUT STATEMENTS THAT WERE NOT
MADE PUBLIC?

A. I WOULD NEVER DISCUSS THAT.

Q. WELL HAS OUR EMBASSY MADE ANY -- HAD ANY ASSOCIATIONS
WITH THE ARAB LEADERS IN RABAT AS TO THE U.S. POSITION ON
THIS MATTER?

A. WELL, LOOK, JOE -- IT SHOULD BE SELF-EVIDENT WE ARE
QUITE INTERESTED IN WHAT IS GOING ON IN RABAT. EMBASSIES
ARE PAID TO DO POLITICAL REPORTING FROM THE FIELD. THAT
IS THEIR FUNCTION, ONE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS. AND FRANKLY,
IT SEEMS TO ME A LITTLE INNOCENT TO POSE QUESTIONS LIKE
THIS WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT AN EMBASSY DOES.

Q. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT. I AM ASKING YOU WHETHER OR
NOT OUR PEOPLE AT THE EMBASSY IN RABAT ACTUALLY MINGLED
WITH THE ARABS AND TOLD THEM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS
DECISION THAT MIGHT BE MADE?

A. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROPER THING FOR ME TO
ADDRESS HERE.

Q. NOW, LET'S GO BACK TO THIS ARMS DEAL, THEN, THAT
RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION. THERE ARE APPARENTLY
TWO SECRET DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING ALL BUT THE SEALING OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SAUDI ARABIA ON A
MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR ARMS DEAL. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT
THAT?

A. TELL YOU WHAT?

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 06 STATE 238075

Q. WELL, ARE THERE TWO SECRET DOCUMENTS -- TWO DOCUMENTS, DATED SEPTEMBER 13 AND 16, ACCORDING TO THIS REPORT -- THE SEPTEMBER 16 BEING AN ACTION MEMORANDUM FROM ALFRED L. ATHERTON, JR. AND GEORGE VEST TO JOSEPH SISCO?

A. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE DOCUMENT. I HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT.

Q. WELL, THERE IS A DOCUMENT, THEN, OF SEPTEMBER 16?

A. I AM NOT QUARRELING WITH THAT, NO. WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

Q. THE QUESTION IS -- FIRST WE WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE THESE DOCUMENTS.

A. THE FIRST ANSWER IS NO, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE DOCUMENT.

Q. BUT THERE IS A DOCUMENT.

A. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I SAY I AM NOT QUARRELLING WITH THAT.

Q. TWO DOCUMENTS.

Q. THE SECOND QUESTION, THEN -- IN RELATION TO THIS, HAVE WE ACTUALLY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAUDIS ON AN ARMS DEAL?

A. THE ANSWER IS NO.

Q. WE HAVE NOT YET SIGNED IT.

A. WELL, JOE, YOU KNOW, YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DISCUSSION LAST WEEK ABOUT THIS WHOLE ISSUE -- WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DID A SURVEY OF THE SAUDI ARABIAN DEFENSE FORCES NEEDS FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT SURVEY. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SAID THAT THESE WERE NOT WHAT YOU WOULD CALL LETTERS OF OFFER OR PROPOSALS TO SELL ARMS TO THE SAUDI ARABIANS. WE HAVE HAD AN ARMS RELATIONSHIP WITH SAUDI ARABIA THAT GOES BACK THIRTY YEARS. WE

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 07 STATE 238075

HOPE TO CONTINUE IT. BUT LET'S NOT MISUNDERSTAND HERE
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Q. WELL, ARE THESE DOCUMENTS MERELY REPORTING THIS SURVEY
-- IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? AND THEY ARE NOT OFFERING
--

A. WELL, I AM NOT REALLY SURE. I KNOW ABOUT THE SURVEY.
I AM NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THIS OTHER --

Q. WELL, THE IMPORT OF THE QUESTION APPEARS TO BE THAT
THE ARMS RECOMMENDED IN THE SURVEY WERE IN SEPTEMBER, IN
THESE COMMUNIQUES, WHATEVER THEY ARE -- WERE OFFERED, --

A. NO.

Q. --- FOR SALE TO THE SAUDI ARABIAN GOVERNMENT.

A. NO. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE SURVEY MERELY PROJECTED
THE COUNTRY'S DEFENSE NEEDS IN ALL ITS ASPECTS, AND THAT
IS A PROJECTION. THAT IS NOT AN OFFER TO SELL. THAT IS
NOT A PROPOSAL OR A PROPOSITION.

Q. WELL, THESE PIECES OF PAPER THAT JOE WAS TALKING
ABOUT, ARE THEY --

A. WELL, THIS IS WHAT I'M AFRAID WE ARE ALL CONFUSED
ABOUT HERE.

Q. CAN WE ASSUME, THOUGH, THIS SURVEY OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS, WE WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL EVERYTHING WE THINK
THEY NEED TO THEM, WOULDN'T WE?

A. AS I HAVE SAID, WE HAVE HAD A LONG-STANDING ARMS
SUPPLY RELATIONSHIP WITH SAUDI ARABIA.

Q. WELL, I WONDER IF THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH OF A
DISTINCTION IN THIS DIFFERENCE YOU ARE DRAWING BETWEEN A
SURVEY AND AN OFFER, PROPOSAL.

A. WELL, I WOULD THINK SO.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 08 STATE 238075

Q. WHAT WOULD THAT BE?

A. WELL, A SURVEY IS JUST THAT. IN THE YEAR 1984 THE NEEDS OF THE DEFENSE FORCES WILL BE X. THAT IS NOT AN OFFER TO SELL OR PROPOSITION TO SELL ARMS.

Q. ARE THERE SOLID FIGURES IN THE SURVEY?

A. I DON'T THINK SO.

Q. IN AN OFFER THERE SHOULD BE.

A. WELL, YES, I SUPPOSE SO.

Q. IN THE SURVEY THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE WAS DONE, IS THIS DONE BY PENTAGON OFFICIALS, OR DO THEY HAVE WITH THEM PEOPLE REPRESENTING COMPANIES THAT PRODUCE THESE PARTICULAR KINDS OF EQUIPMENT?

A. NO -- IT IS OFFICIAL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT -- AN OFFICIAL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FUNCTION.

Q. AND THAT IS PENTAGON PEOPLE.

A. YES.

Q. SECONDLY WHEN JOE MENTIONED A SEPTEMBER 16 DOCUMENT QUITE SPECIFICALLY FROM MR. ATHERTON AND MR. VEST TO MR. SISCO, YOU SAID YOU WERE NOT QUARRELING WITH IT. ARE YOU IN EFFECT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SUCH A DOCUMENT EXISTS?

A. NO. LOOK, I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE THING THAT JOE WAS REFERRING TO.

Q. BUT YOU ARE SAYING IT MAY EXIST.

A. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS A MATTER OF SOME INTEREST TO THIS BUILDING THAT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IS WORKING WITH SAUDI AUTHORITIES ON DEFENSE PROJECTIONS. AND IT IS PROPERLY THE PROVINCE OF SEVERAL BUREAUS IN THIS DEPARTMENT TO BE INFORMED AND KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE THINGS.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[LC]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 09 STATE 238075

Q. WELL, CAN WE FIND OUT, (A) IF THE DOCUMENT EXISTS;
(B) IF IT ENDORSES THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PENTAGON;
AND (C) WHETHER THIS DOCUMENT ALSO DESCRIBES THE POLITICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WOULD BE THE
PROVINCE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

A. WELL, WE HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION EVER SINCE WE HAVE
HAD TO LIVE WITH THE PHENOMENON OF LEAKED DOCUMENTS THAT
WE DON'T CONFIRM OR DENY THEIR AUTHENTICITY. WE SOMETIMES
ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE SUBSTANCE RAISED, AND I HAVE YET
TO LEARN HERE WHAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT IS.

Q. COULD I READ IT TO YOU? THE MEMORANDUM SAYS THAT
"SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY A. KISSINGER APPROVED LAST
MARCH 8 THE IDEA OF A PENTAGON 'SURVEY' OF SAUDI ARMED
FORCES AND 'MASTER PLANS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT' OVER THE
NEXT FIVE OR TEN YEARS. IT RECOMMENDS 'THE DESIGN OF A
BALANCED MODERN FORCE STRUCTURE BY 1984' WHICH IS PROPERLY
TRAINED AND COMMANDED SHOULD PROVIDE THE SAG (SAUDI
ARABIAN GPVERNMENT) WITH THE CAPABILITIES TO ..." AND THEN
IT LISTS A WHOLE SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH I COULD READ
INTO THE RECORD IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE TIME.

A. WELL, LOOK, I HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THE POSITION I AM
NOT GOING TO CONFIRM OR DENY THE AUTHENTICITY OF A DOCU-
MENT IN THIS CASE OR IN ANY OTHER WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO
HERE. BUT WHAT YOU HAVE READ THERE, JOE, DOESN'T TELL ME
THAT THAT IS WHAT SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK IT IS.

Q. OKAY. TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IT IS.

A. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THEY ARE DISCUSSING THE PROJECTION
OF FORCE LEVELS AND NEEDS OF THE DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SAUDI ARABIA FOR THE NEXT FIVE OR TEN YEARS.

Q. YES. WELL, THE FACTOR THAT IS IMPORTANT HERE, WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN CLEARED UP AND WHICH WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE
CLEARED UP SOONER OR LATER, IS IS THIS EQUIPMENT THAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT FOR SAUDI ARABIA INTENDED TO BE USED BY

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 10 STATE 238075

SAUDI ARABIA FOR SPECIFIC MILITARY PURPOSE, AND IF SO,
WHAT PURPOSE?

A. SELF DEFENSE.

Q. SELF DEFENSE AGAINST WHOM?

A. SELF DEFENSE AGAINST ANYONE.

Q. WELL, ANYONE. I MEAN WHO? ARE THEY GOING TO FIGHT
KUWAIT?

A. I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO A THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF
THIS. BUT LET'S ACCEPT THAT COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD
PERCEIVE THEIR DEFENSE AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS IN SUCH
A WAY THAT THEY MAY FEEL THEY NEED THIS . . .

Q. WELL --

Q. YOU ARE SAYING THE PENTAGON ALSO SAYS THEY NEED IT,
BECAUSE THEY MADE RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT. THIS IS AN AMERICAN PERCEPTION. THIS IS NOT
A SAUDI PERCEPTION.

A. NO, NO, THIS IS A TECHNICAL STUDY.

Q. YES. BUT IT IS A TECHNICAL STUDY BY THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARMS FOR A GOVERN-
MENT WHICH PERCEIVES ITS NEEDS.

A. WELL --

Q. RIGHT?

A. THEN WHAT DOES THAT ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE
SITUATION?

Q. IT IS CERTAINLY AN AMERICAN ENDORSEMENT, IS IT NOT, OF
SAUDI PERCEPTIONS?

A. WE HAVE BEEN IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SAUDI GOVERN-

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 11 STATE 238075

MENT FOR THIRTY YEARS. WHAT IS SO STARTLING ABOUT THIS?

Q. WELL, THE GOVERNMENT IS MAKING A DECISION AND IT IS BEING QUESTIONED BY RESPONSIBLE NEWS PEOPLE.

A. WHO IS MAKING A DECISION?

Q. THE GOVERNMENT.

A. WHICH GOVERNMENT?

Q. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

A. WELL, TO COOPERATE WITH A FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT IN DEFENSE MATTERS SHOULD NOT ASTONISH YOU PEOPLE.

Q. BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT --

A. THE SAUDI ARABIAN GOVERNMENT HAS MADE NO DECISIONS IN THIS MATTER.

Q. I THINK WITH ALL DUE RESPECT IT SHOULD BE THE PROVINCE OF THE PRESS TO QUESTION DECISIONS WHILE THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MADE RATHER THAN AFTER IT IS TOO LATE.

Q. WHAT THIS AMOUNTS TO IS THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO THE SAUDIS A SHOPPING LIST THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT DECIDE TO BUY. IS THAT RIGHT?

A. NOW, THAT IS YOUR SHORTHAND. I WON'T ACCEPT IT. THIS IS A TECHNICAL SURVEY OF THEIR DEFENSE NEEDS AS OUR EXPERTS SEE THEM OVER THE NEXT DECADE.

Q. WELL, IF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SURVEY WERE ADOPTED, WOULD IT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR SAUDI ARABIA?

A. WELL, RECOGNIZING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A HYPO-THESIS HERE, I WOULD STILL SAY YES.

Q. YEST, WHAT?

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 12 STATE 238075

Q. YOU WOULD SAY YES, IT WOULD --

A. IF THE SAUDIS DECIDE TO ACCEPT ANY OF THE SURVEY, IT WOULD.

Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THE PHRASE "A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE". WOULD IT AMOUNT TO MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR LEVELS?

A. LET ME RESERVE ON "SUBSTANTIAL". I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- I AM JUST TRYING TO BE COMMON-SENSICAL HERE.

Q. I AM, TOO.

A. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHESIS -- A SURVEY AND PROJECTION OF SAUDI ARABIAN DEFENSE NEEDS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SAUDIS ARE GOING TO DECIDE TO DO. AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE JUDGMENTS HERE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO THAT, AND THEREFORE THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

Q. WELL, THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. YOU ARE ANSWERING A QUESTION THAT WAS NOT ASKED. THE POINT IS -- YES, WE ARE ACCEPTING, OR I AM ACCEPTING NO DEAL HAS BEEN MADE, NO DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED. THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY IS, IF THEY ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHAT WOULD THE LEVEL

OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY SALES TO SAUDI ARABIA AMOUNT TO IN GENERAL TERMS? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR EFFORT?

A. I AM FRANK TO TELL YOU I DON'T HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA. BUT I DO AGREE TO YOU THAT WE ARE IN A HYPOTHETICAL AREA. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SAUDI ARABIAN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DECIDE, AND YOU DON'T. AND I REALLY THINK A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THEM.

Q. TO GO BACK TO KEN'S QUESTION, THEN, ARE WE DEPENDENT, THEREFORE, ON WHATEVER THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT DECIDES, AND WE WILL GO ALONG WITH THEIR DECISION? IS THAT FOREORDAINED?

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[L]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 13 STATE 238075

A. I CAN'T SAY. WE DON'T KNOW.

Q. BUT HAVING MADE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, IF THEY THEN GO ALONG WITH IT, CAN WE THEN SAY "NO, WE DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA."

A. NEXT SUBJECT.

Q. LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION. BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT THE SURVEY WAS OF TECHNICAL NEEDS AS OUR EXPERTS SEE THEM IN SAUDI ARABIA, OR FOR SAUDI ARABIA -- "FOR SAUDI ARABIA" ARE MY WORDS, BUT YOU ARE QUOTED CORRECTLY ON THE OTHER PART. NOW, IF OUR EXPERTS WENT TO SAUDI ARABIA TO SURVEY THEIR TECHNICAL NEEDS, WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING FOR? THE ATTACK IS TO COME FROM WHERE IN SELF DEFENSE? WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT? THEY DIDN'T GO THERE IN A VACUUM TO SEE HOW MANY STRANDS OF ROPE WE ARE GOING TO SEND THEM.

A. I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE COOPERATED FOR THREE DECADES IN DEFENSE MATTERS -- I AM GOING TO KEEP IT AT THIS -- I AM NOT GOING TO LET YOU DRAW ME INTO A HYPOTHETICAL DISCUSSION HERE. WE HAVE COOPERATED WITH THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT FOR THIRTY YEARS. AND I SEE NOTHING NEW OR -- WELL -- OUT OF LINE IN THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT APPROVING THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SURVEYING SAUDI'S DEFENSE NEEDS.

Q. I KNOW. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET AT. WHAT I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ARMS THAT WE ARE SENDING SAUDI ARABIA, OR PREPARED TO SEND TO SAUDI ARABIA?

A. WE HAVE BEEN OVER THAT. I SAID IT IS FOR THEIR SELF DEFENSE.

Q. SELF DEFENSE AGAINST WHOM?

A. YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE SAUDIS. THEY PERCEIVE THEIR OWN DEFENSE NEEDS AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE NOT TELLING THEM.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 14 STATE 238075

Q. WHO INITIATED THIS SURVEY?

A. IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS A JOINT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS.

Q. NOW, THE REPORT THERE SUGGESTS THAT ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF 440 HELICOPTERS, AND ACCORDING TO THE INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, THE PRESENT NUMBER OF HELICOPTERS THAT THE SAUDIS HAVE IS JUST A FEW DOZEN. SO THAT WOULD INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HELICOPTERS THAT THE SAUDIS HAVE. NOW, I AM JUST TRYING TO GET SOME GENERALIZED DESCRIPTION OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN ESCALATING PROGRAM UNDER CONSIDERATION. WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO AN ESCALATION? WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT IT WOULD INVOLVE A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR EFFORT?

A. I AM JUST NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY JUDGMENTS ON THIS UNTIL WE KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.

Q. DO YOU EXPECT A DECISION ON THESE PROPOSALS AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING IN SAUDI ARABIA?

A. I CAN'T SAY. I DON'T KNOW. THIS IS REALLY THE FUNCTION OF THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT.

Q. WELL, TWO OFFICIALS OF THIS GOVERNMENT ARE GOING TO SAUDI ARABIA TO MEET WITH THEM TO DISCUSS THIS THING IN EARLY NOVEMBER. AND I AM JUST AKSING, DO YOU EXPECT A DECISION AT THAT MEETING?

A. THEY ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE SURVEY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHICH IS A RATHER COMPLICATED DOCUMENT.

Q. COULD YOU TELL US MORE ABOUT THAT DELEGATION?

A. IT IS JUST MR. ELLSWORTH AND MR. VEST.

Q. IS YOUR ANSWER THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE WILL BE A DECISION AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING?

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 13 STATE 238075

A. NEXT SUBJECT.

Q. SELF DEFENSE AGINST WHOM?

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 14 STATE 238075

Q. WHO INITIATED THIS SURVEY?

UNCLASSIFIED

["Department of State", "TELEGRAM", "UNCLASSIFIED", "PAGE 15 STATE 238075", "A. THAT IS RIGHT.", "Q. THERE MIGHT BE OR THERE MIGHT NOT BE.", "A. I PROBABLY AM IN NEED OF A LITTLE BETTER GUIDANCE,\nBECAUSE I HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED TO THEM ABOUT WHAT THEY\nEXPECET.", "Q. SO AS FAR AS YOU KNOW --", "A. BEYOND GOING TO DISCUSS THE -- DON'T LET'S BUILD\nOURSELVES INTO A STORY HERE. IT MAY BE JUST A TECHNICAL\nADD-ON -- THAT IS A MEETING WITH EXPERTS TO GO OVER THE\nTERMS OF THE SURVEY. I DON'T KNOW. YOU ARE ASKING ME\nWHETHER THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DECIDE AFTER TALK-\NING TO THE AMERICAN TEAM NEXT MONTH, WHETHER TO GO AHEAD\nAND DO ALL THESE THINGS THAT YOU ARE SO INTERESTED IN.", "Q. WHAT IS THE UNITED STATES EXPECTING IN RETURN? WILL\nTHAT BE AN ATTEMPT TO GET A PLEDGE FROM SAUDI ARABIA TO\nKNOCK DOWN OIL PRICES?", "A. COME ON -- I'M NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE THESE THINGS UP\nHERE.", "Q. NO. THAT'S SERIOUS.", "A. FIRST OF ALL, THIS TAKES US BACK TO A CONFUSED DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST WEEK ABOUT AN ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO. AND WE HAVE DENIED THAT. AND I WILL REITERATE THE DENIAL TODAY. BUT IT SHOULD BE CLEAR TO YOU FROM EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID FROM EVERY PLANE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT WE THINK THE PRICE OF OIL IS TOO HIGH. BUT TO TIE THAT TOGETHER WITH WHAT THE OTHERS HERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IS INCORRECT.", "Q. MAY I ASK A BASIC QUESTION ON ANY ARMS SALES. WHEN A\nFOREIGN GOVERNMENT, WITH WHICH WE HAVE HAD A MILITARY\nRELATIONSHIP, WANTS TO PURCHASE ARMS, AND IF IT IS WILLING\nTO PAY CASH, AND THERE ARE NO CREDITS INVOLVED AND NO AID", "UNCLASSIFIED"]

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 16 STATE 238075

INVOLVED, DOES CONGRESS HAVE ANY SAY AS TO WHETHER THESE
ARMS CAN GO, OR CAN ARMS GO LIKE ANYTHING ELSE?

A. WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF ARMS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, I SUPPOSE.

Q. I AM TALKING ABOUT HELICOPTERS, AIRPLANES, TANKS.

A. I DON'T KNOW --

Q. SPARE PARTS AND AMMUNITION.

A. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Q. YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANY?

A. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY, NO.

Q. DOES THAT MEAN THEY CAN JUST BE SOLD LIKE A COMMERCIAL SALE?

A. WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

Q. I AM TALKING ABOUT ANY COUNTRY THAT WANTS TO BUY AND HAS THE MONEY.

A. AND I AM TALKING ABOUT ANY KIND OF WEAPONS. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE MC MAHON ACT GOVERNING NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AND MATERIAL. YOU HAVE OTHER RESTRICTIONS WHICH I MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF HERE. BUT AS A GENERAL MATTER, THESE THINGS ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT MUNITIONS CONTROL OFFICE.

Q. YOU MUST HAVE A LICENSE, THOUGH.

A. YES.

Q. IT IS NOT LIKE SELLING APPLES. YOU MUST HAVE A LICENSE FROM HERE.

Q. AND WHEN THEY DO THIS LICENSING, DO THEY TAKE INTO

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 17 STATE 238075

CONSIDERATION VARIOUS ANALYSES OF EFFECT OF THOSE SALES?
I AM JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REGULAR PROCEDURE ONE GOES
THROUGH.

A. IT'S A LITTLE TOO --

Q. I WOULD RECOMMEND A LITTLE FURTHER RESEARCH ON YOUR
PART ON THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MUNITIONS CONTROL BOARD.
I DON'T THINK THEY DO IN FACT LICENSE THIS KIND OF THING.
I JUST RAISE THE POINT IN A GENTLEMANLY WAY.

A. IF I AM MISTAKEN, I WILL CORRECT THE RECORD. BUT I
HAVE A CONTRARY UNDERSTANDING.

Q. HAS EITHER THE HOUSE OR SENATE ARMED SERVICES COM-
MITTEE BEEN INFORMED OF THIS SURVEY AND GIVEN THE DETAILS
AND THE PROGRESS MADE ON IT?

A. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. COULD YOU GIVE US SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THIS DELE-
GATION? YOU SAY THAT IT IS HEADED BY MR. ELLSWORTH AND
MR. VEST, WHICH TO ME SOUNDS LIKE A RATHER HIGH-LEVEL
INTER-AGENCY DELEGATION. IT IS NOT A TECHNICAL WORKING
LEVEL AT ALL, BUT IT IS VERY CLOSE TO A POLICY MAKING
LEVEL. IT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THIS WHOLE THING IS A GOOD
DEAL FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD THAN YOU SUGGEST.

A. NO -- I AM NOT SUGGESTING IT IS FARTHER DOWN THE ROAD
OR CLOSER UP THE ROAD OR ANYTHING ELSE. I AM JUST NOT
JUMPING TO ANY CONCLUSIONS HERE. I DO ALLOW AS HOW
MR. VEST AND MR. ELLSWORTH ARE IN POLICY MAKING POSITIONS.
BUT TO GO FROM THAT TO THE JUDGMENT THAT SOMETHING IS GOING
TO HAPPEN, SOMETHING DRAMATIC IS GOING TO EVENTUATE HERE,
IS -- WELL, I AM NOT GOING TO TELL YOU HOW TO WRITE YOUR
STORIES.

Q. WELL, IT IS NOT WILD SPECULATION, IS IT, IF YOU ARE
GOING TO HAVE A DELEGATION WITH THAT KIND OF MAKE-UP -- IT
SEEMS TO HAVE PROGRESSED WELL PAST THE TECHNICAL PAPER-
PUSHING STAGE.

UNCLASSIFIED

- 12

#58-10/30

Q Will it be available here?

MR. NESSEN: A good question. Yes.

Q Will he be seeing the Emperor?

MR. NESSEN: I have not seen the schedule yet, Helen.

Secretary Kissinger is in Dacca, Bangladesh, where I spent a fun-filled month with David Kennerly one time. He completed yesterday a three-day visit to India, where he held extensive conversations with Prime Minister Ghandi and other Indian leaders.

You have probably seen the joint communique issued at the conclusion of the Secretary's visit to New Delhi, and I would draw your attention to the fact that Secretary Kissinger accepted on behalf of the President an invitation from Prime Minister Ghandi to visit India in 1975.

The Secretary, incidentally, has been keeping the President informed with regular reports on his conversations during his travels, and the President has been following the Secretary's cabled reports carefully. The President is pleased that Secretary Kissinger's discussions are going well and proving extremely useful.

Q Last night, the President said that he was encouraged -- this was at the informal cocktail ad lib wherever it was we were, Grand Rapids -- he said he was encouraged by what Secretary Kissinger told him in Moscow, and he cited places along the line.

Can you give us any of the specifics of what encouraged the President in Moscow or at other stops along Secretary Kissinger's route?

MR. NESSEN: Not beyond what the Secretary has said publicly along the way.

Q Do they come in daily or do you have them every morning?

MR. NESSEN: They have been coming in daily or more than once a day.

Q Did they discuss the Arab summit in Rabat?

MR. NESSEN: Has who discussed the Arab summit in Rabat?

MORE

#58

- 13 -

#58-10/30

Q Has Mr. Kissinger sent any information to Mr. Ford, any news reports?

MR. NESSEN: You probably know that the Secretary made a statement to the reporters traveling with him concerning that. I am told that the State Department has some material on the subject, if you will contact them.

Q Ron, are you taking foreign policy questions now, because if you are --

MR. NESSEN: I have not finished my announcements yet.

Q Can I ask one question related to that?

MR. NESSEN: Sure.

Q At yesterday's press conference, President Ford said apparently for the first time that "We, of course, feel there must be movement toward settlement of the problems between Israel and Egypt on the one hand, between Israel and Jordan or the PLO on the other," and then he went on.

In the past, Secretary Kissinger and other American officials have always made the point that the Palestinian refugee problem should be solved in the context of negotiations between Israel and Jordan and not the PLO.

Does President Ford's statement yesterday represent a shift of American policy?

MR. NESSEN: The President's statement yesterday does not represent any change in American policy, and that policy has been stated on a number of occasions by Secretary Kissinger, and there is no change in it.

The President's answer yesterday was based on preliminary and incomplete reports of the Arab summit, and he stated clearly that we could not draw any conclusions at this stage. Beyond that, as I say, the State Department will be helpful to you in this area.

Q Ron, may I follow up? Are you, in effect, withdrawing that phrase, "or the PLO," which comes after Jordan?

MR. NESSEN: I am not withdrawing anything that the President said. I am simply saying that there has been no change in American policy.

MORE

#58

- 14 -

#58-10/30

Q What has been American policy?

MR. NESSEN: As I say, the Secretary has spoken extensively on that, and if you will contact the State Department, you can get information.

Q I would like clarification then, and this is a more --

MR. NESSEN: I hate to use that word, "clarification."

Q I'd still like explanation, then, Ron.

MR. NESSEN: I think I have given the explanation, which is that the President made no change in American policy yesterday and that American policy remains as Secretary Kissinger stated on many occasions.

Q But it says "or." It says "between Israel and Jordan or the PLO on the other."

MR. NESSEN: I am going to have to direct your further questions to the State Department, which is prepared to comment.

Q Did the President make a mistake yesterday when he said that, Ron?

MR. NESSEN: He certainly did not. As I say, he said his remarks were based on preliminary and incomplete reports and that he was not making any judgments based on those reports.

Q Does he have better information now that would lead him to speak differently if he were out here today?

MR. NESSEN: I have no indication that he does.

Q Ron, is he sending Dr. Kissinger back to the Middle East?

MR. NESSEN: I think Dr. Kissinger himself is -- you have probably seen the press reports, but what Dr. Kissinger said to the reporters traveling with him was, probably I will go to the Middle East, but that decision will be made in the next 72 hours.

Q Based on what? Do you know based on what?

MR. NESSEN: What do you mean, based on what? The decision. I don't, Helen.

Q Ron, when will these 72 hours be up?

MR. NESSEN: I think he said that about 24 hours ago.

MORE

#58

#58-10/30

- 18 -

Q Ron, presumably President Ford would make
the decision --

MR. NESSEN: On whether he should go to the Middle
East? I would certainly think that Dr. Kissinger would
confer with the President about it.

Q But presumably the President would make
the decision, would he not?

MR. NESSEN: As I say, I think the President and
the Secretary will confer on it.

Q Is this 72 hours a matter of conferring with
the governments with whom he would visit?

MR. NESSEN: I am going to have to suggest that,
as I said, that the State Department can give you a good
deal more material on this than I can.

Q Ron, so in effect, what you are saying is that
the President stands by his statement yesterday that Israel
should negotiate with Jordan or the PLO?

MR. NESSEN: I am saying there was no change in
American position in the President's statement yesterday.

Q Is the American position that ---

MR. NESSEN: You will have to ask the State
Department for the American position.

Q Is it your understanding that the American
position is that the PLO is not considered the entity
to negotiate with Israel?

MR. NESSEN: I would rather, in the interest
of accuracy, that you contact the State Department for
the precise American position.

Q You are not prepared to answer that question today?

MR. NESSEN: I said that they have extensive information they can provide you.

Q You said repeatedly the President made no
change in American policy yesterday. Did he make a change
in American policy earlier, and enunciate it yesterday?

MR. NESSEN: Not that I know of.

MORE

#58

- 16 -

#58-10/30

Q Does the President now accept and agree to the idea that the PLO will represent the Palestinian refugees in Geneva, or any other negotiating place? Does he accept that?

MR. NESSEN: Jim, the President made no change in American policy and for the precise details of American policy, you really need to call the State Department.

There is one other announcement today. Fran, I think, and some others, asked a while back about our policy on releasing photos, and I have looked into this, and we made some changes in our photo release policy to try to eliminate some of the problems.

The most noticeable change we are going to make is when the White House provides a photo or a group of photos for a publication or for a network, the same photo or photos will be made available to anybody else who wants it, on the date of publication.

And, by way of starting this procedure from now on, this will be posted, that, "Today, National Geographic is publishing four photos provided by the White House. Here are the copies of them, if you want copies of them. Ollie Atkins will make them for you." That will be posted, but today to get this procedure started, I think I will make the announcement orally.

A photo of the President and Liberty and the dog trainer who has been hired, is being made available for publication tomorrow in the Alexandria Journal of Virginia, and according to the procedure this will be posted, and for those of you who want this same photo for your publications, you can have it made.

Q So there will be one day's notice?

MR. NESSEN: There will be a day's notice: that is correct.

Q What do you do about, say --

MR. NESSEN: Well, let me go down the other seven rules or whatever I have enforced here.

All requests from publications or networks for photos taken by the White House will be approved or disapproved by myself or Jack Hushen, so that nobody else down the line will have the authority to approve these photo requests.

MORE

#58

- 20 -

#58-10/30

Q Would you take a question on the schedule
on the Far West tour?

MR. NESSEN: What was the question you had?

Q I have two questions dealing with
remarks by the President, two remarks by the President.

The question of Jordan or the PLO made it clear
that the President is equating the PLO with Jordan.
Now you referred this point to the State Department. Is
it a fact that the President, perhaps inadvertently,
gave notice of a change in American tactics, if not
policy, and why are you leaving it, the White House, to
the State Department to clarify a remark made by
the President?

MR. NESSEN: I do not think that the President's
remarks need any clarification.

Q Well, let's put it this way: If I understand our previous policy -- and I am subject to correction because I am not sure I do -- then the State Department is going to tell us, no, we are not equating the PLO with Jordan and the State Department, in effect, is going to be contradicting the President and we won't know where we stand.

MR. NESSEN: I really think you need to talk to
the State Department and find out precisely what
American policy toward the PLO has been as stated on
many occasions by Secretary Kissinger, and then match
it up with the President's statement tomorrow and
you will see that there has been no change.

Q Ron, have you ever asked, as a reporter
yourself, have you ever gone through the experience of
asking the State Department about a statement made by the
President and had them automatically refer it to the
White House?

Now, what is this, a shuttle. Really, Ron,
he made a statement that is in the minds of almost
everyone of us here, opened a new vista of American
foreign policy. Can you either withdraw it or explain
it or something?

Q It is ambiguous, to say the least, Ron.

MR. NESSEN: I am telling you that the State
Department has extensive information to give you on
this subject, and I suggest that you take the trouble to
make the call or the visit to get that extensive
information.

MORE

#58

- 21 -

#58-10/30

Q Ron, did you misspeak yourself a moment ago when you said the President has a statement to make tomorrow? Did you mean yesterday?

MR. NESSEN: On what subject?

Q On this subject. You said this will become clear with the President's statement tomorrow, and I don't know if you meant tomorrow or if you meant yesterday.

MR. NESSEN: On the subject of the PLO? I am sorry, match up what the State Department will give you with what he said yesterday, and you will see that there has been no change in American policy.

Q May I go to the second point; that is, the President yesterday in Michigan said that he did not get the kind of support in Congress that he thinks is needed to help us find the difficult key to the problems of the Middle East, and they are tough and they are treacherous and they are explosive.

What is he talking about, that the Congress did not support him on the Middle East?

MR. NESSEN: I have not asked him that specific question. I know that the specific episode that has brought on a number of similar statements concerning Congressional bipartisan support for foreign policy was the action in cutting off aid to Turkey as part of the continuing resolution. That I know was primarily on his mind when he began these statements.

Q But that is not the area, Ron, we are talking about.

MR. NESSEN: Isn't Turkey in the Middle East?

Q Greece is not, is it? The question is, though, he is talking here about the Near East, Israel and the Arabs.

MR. NESSEN: I don't want to go beyond the President's statement. He feels that bipartisan support of the Presidential policy-making power in foreign matters is very important to seeking peace in all parts of the world.

Q Did the President misspeak himself there, Ron? Was he referring to the Turkish and Cypriot and Greek situation, or was he referring to the Israeli-Arab situation?

MORE

#58

- 22 -

#58-10/30

MR. NESSEN: The President did not misspeak himself, Jim, and I don't want to go beyond what he said.

Q Ron, can I go back to one question about the Japan trip? You said Mrs. Ford probably would not go.

MR. NESSEN: Right.

Q I take it because she is still in a stage of convalescence, is that correct?

MR. NESSEN: No, not at all. As you recall, the trip originally was planned as a trip to Japan and back. It has turned out to be a much longer trip involving two other countries, and on the basis of it being much longer, it was decided that she probably wouldn't go.

Q You still say probably. Is it ruled out? That is the question.

MR. NESSEN: I think I would just like to leave that word in there.

Q Ron, to go back to this last campaign trip and the schedule, is there any chance now that the President will call on Mr. Nixon?

MR. NESSEN: I really would like to go through the Cabinet meeting, if you don't mind.

Q Can you answer that yes or no?

MR. NESSEN: There are no plans for the President to visit the former President.

Q Can I ask a follow-up question to that, if I may.

MR. NESSEN: We are just going to wipe out the Cabinet meeting now because -- go right ahead. I think it is important to hear what happened at the Cabinet meeting.

Q In view of the pardon and in view of statements which come from that rostrum about mercy relating to other Nixon officials and in view of the fact that the man is acknowledged to be very sick, how can the fact that Mr. Ford is going to California and not seeing Mr. Nixon be acknowledged as anything but a snub.

MORE

#58

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 6487

PAGE 01 DACCA 04930 301254Z

47

ACTION SS-15

INFO OCT-01 RSC-01 SS0-00 CCO-00 ISO-00 NSC-05 NSCE-00
NEA-10 PRS-01 PA-02 SAM-01 /036 W

0 3010217 OCT 74

FM AMEMBASSY DACCA

TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4715

UNCLAS DACCA 4930

SECTO 230

DEPT PASS WHITE HOUSE FOR GENERAL SCOWCROFT AND NESSEN

E.D. 116528 N/A

TAGS : OVIP (KISSINGER, HENRY A.)

SUBJECT : PRESS GUIDANCE

SECRETARY AUTHORIZED THE FOLLOWING ON-THE-RECORD STATEMENT
DURING BACKGROUND BRIEFING OF THE TRAVELLING PRESS
FROM NEW DELHI TO DACCA ON OCTOBER 30, 1974: QUOTE I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THE DOOR TO ALL NEGOTIATIONS IN THE MIDDLE
EAST IS CLOSED BUT IN WHAT FRAMEWORK THERE CAN BE NEGOTIA-
TIONS - THAT WILL HAVE TO BE SEEN. PROBABLY I WILL GO TO THE
MIDDLE EAST BUT THAT DECISION WILL BE MADE ONLY IN THE NEXT
72 HOURS. UNQUOTE.

KISSINGER

UNCLASSIFIED

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

October 31, 1974

No. 460

JOINT COMMUNIQUE
ISSUED AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE VISIT OF SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER
TO ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
OCTOBER 31-NOVEMBER 1, 1974

At the invitation of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the United States Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger, visited Pakistan from October 31 to November 1. Secretary Kissinger held comprehensive discussions with the Prime Minister and Minister of State Aziz Ahmed on Pakistan-United States bilateral relations and on a broad range of other international issues. The discussions took place in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect, in keeping with the special friendship and close ties that exist between Pakistan and the United States.

The Secretary conveyed to the Prime Minister, President Ford's personal greetings and reiterated the President's desire to maintain and expand the close and friendly relations which have traditionally existed between the two nations. The Prime Minister warmly reciprocated President Ford's message and welcomed the President's assurances that the U. S. would continue to support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a strong, secure and prosperous Pakistan as an important element in the maintenance of international peace, and that this would remain an important principle of American foreign policy. The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed that mutual respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs was essential for peaceful relations among all states.

The Prime Minister reviewed with the Secretary the efforts the government of Pakistan has made to restore peace and bolster stability in the South Asian region. The Secretary expressed U. S. admiration of the Prime Minister's efforts to normalize Pakistan's relations with India and Bangladesh. He told the Prime Minister that the visits he had recently completed to New Delhi and Dacca had heightened his awareness of the importance of the normalization process and his confidence in its continued progress. He expressed his particular satisfaction with the progress Pakistan and India had made in moving forward together toward the implementation of the provisions of the 1972 Simla Agreement.

The Prime Minister called the Secretary's attention to the proposal for a nuclear weapons free zone in South Asia which Pakistan has sponsored in the current session of the United Nations General Assembly. They took note of the adverse implications for stability of nuclear proliferation and agreed that renewed efforts should be made to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

The Prime Minister expressed his government's continued appreciation for the economic assistance the U. S. has over the years provided Pakistan. He welcomed the United States Government's

PR # 460

[Lc]

- 2 -

decision to furnish approximately 100,000 tons of wheat under Public Law 480 program to help meet Pakistan's immediate needs. The Secretary assured the Prime Minister that the U.S. would continue to give careful consideration to Pakistan's additional requirements.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary took note of the increasing world economic interdependence and expressed concern over the steep rise in price levels of essential goods. They stressed the need for cooperative endeavors by all the governments concerned to prevent further aggravation of the world economic situation. They hoped that the forthcoming World Food Conference in Rome would succeed in taking necessary steps to stabilize the food situation and especially to mitigate the serious food situation and especially to mitigate the serious food shortages faced by the most seriously affected developing countries.

The Secretary welcomed the initiatives being taken by the Government of Pakistan designed to achieve self-sufficiency in food for Pakistan itself and to expand Pakistan's food exports to deficit countries. He noted that the U.S. has been assisting the Government of Pakistan's expanded agricultural research efforts and pledged further U.S. assistance in such high priority areas as fertilizer production and water resources utilization.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary reviewed the efforts now going forward to bring about further progress toward a just and lasting solution to the problems of the Middle East. The Prime Minister commended the Secretary for the initiatives he had taken during his recent visit to Middle Eastern capitals and urged him to continue these valuable efforts.

The Secretary expressed his deep appreciation to the Prime Minister for the warm hospitality he and his colleagues had again received in Pakistan. He and the Prime Minister agreed that the discussions they had held had been most useful and they looked forward to meeting again to exchange views. In this connection, Secretary Kissinger delivered an invitation to Prime Minister Bhutto from President Ford to visit with him in Washington at a mutually convenient date within the first three months of the coming year. The Prime Minister accepted the invitation with pleasure. The Prime Minister conveyed an invitation for President Ford to visit Pakistan in 1975, and Secretary Kissinger accepted the invitation of behalf of the President.

* * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

November 1, 1974

No. 462

JOINT STATEMENT
ISSUED AT CONCLUSION OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE'S
DISCUSSIONS
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
NOVEMBER 1, 1974

United States Secretary of State, Henry A. Kissinger, paid an official visit to the Republic of Afghanistan on November 1, 1974, at the invitation of the Government of Afghanistan. During his stay he was received by the Head of State and Prime Minister, Mohammad Daoud and met Mr. Mohammad Naim and Deputy Foreign Minister Waheed Abdullah. He had lunch with the Head of State and Prime Minister Mohammad Daoud.

The two sides conducted frank discussions on a wide range of issues in the friendly atmosphere that characterizes U.S.-Afghan relations. The topics included bilateral relations, recent developments in the Near East and South Asia region, progress in international detente, and the mutual interests of both nations of securing a peaceful, stable, and cooperative world. The Afghan side informed Secretary Kissinger of its views and position on a number of international issues including the situation prevailing in the region to which Afghanistan belongs. Secretary Kissinger informed the Afghan side of his discussions with other governments in the region. They agreed that the way to find lasting, durable and peaceful solutions to existing problems and differences between states is through constructive and thorough discussions among all sides concerned.

Both sides expressed pleasure at the warm and friendly relations between their governments. In expressing his appreciation for this opportunity to visit Afghanistan, the Secretary affirmed his admiration for the progress being made by the government and people of the Republic of Afghanistan. Secretary Kissinger also conveyed to President Daoud warm personal wishes from President Ford.

The Afghan and American sides stressed the importance of international cooperation in the field of economic and technical development and its major role in strengthening international stability and peace. The Afghan side expressed its pleasure at the contribution towards this end being made by the Untied States in Afghanistan through bilateral economic, technical, and educational cooperation.

The Secretary expressed the continuing desire of the United States to cooperate with the Republic of Afghanistan in achieving its economic development goals. In this connection the Secretary informed the Afghan side that he will ask a senior official of the U.S. Agency for International Development to visit Afghanistan in the near future to review with the Afghan authorities joint programs and progress in bringing projects to fruition.

* * * * * * * *

1411

that you have in that voting booth is of great importance—
yes, to you and to me, but more importantly to all of us.

And I urge you not for the sake of one political party,
but for the sake of America, be a leader next Tuesday; be
a leader in making the right decision. Let your vote and
your voice re-elect and elect the kinds of men and women
to public office who will bring out the best in our great
country.

I am confident that you will, and that is why I am here
to see all of you.

Good luck, Bob. Good luck to all of you who support
him.

Let me express my very deep appreciation and gratitude. I am not going to get into a discussion whether your bands or your football team is the best, but let me say this: I like a mayor who thinks they have the best band and the best football team.

And may I add that I have got a 16-year-old son
who is working as a ranch hand out in Lolo, Montana.
He decided that he wanted to learn to be a rancher so he
is out there, and I am going to see him tomorrow. And I
am not going to tell him I have this great, great cowboy
hat. I will tell him, maybe I cannot ride as well as he can,
but I might look like a cowboy, if I cannot perform the
function.

Thank you very, very much.

NOTE: The President spoke at 12:10 p.m. at the Fresno Air Terminal, Fresno, Calif.

As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

## White House Conference on Domestic and Economic Affairs

*The President's Remarks to the Conference in Portland, Oregon. November 1, 1974*

Thank you very much. Thank you very, very much Governor McCall, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Killian, Secretary of the Treasury Simon, Secretary of HUD Jim Lynn, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

Let me express my deep gratitude for the very warm welcome that Tom McCall has extended on this occasion. If my memory is correct, Governor, you were the first Governor that I saw in the first State that I visited back about a year ago when I was nominated Vice President of the United States. The warmth of the reception then is only duplicated by the kindness that you have shown me on this occasion.

I am deeply grateful. I am especially pleased to be here to participate in one of Bill Baroody's programs, the White House Conference on Domestic and Economic Affairs,

where business, labor, consumer, environmental organizations have joined in sponsoring this meeting to improve the lines of communication between nongovernmental organizations and the White House itself.

You can generate a new climate of confidence and understanding on national issues of greatest concern to us individually, as well as collectively.

This is my first participation in this nationwide series of meetings that can have, as I see it, a very vital impact on America's response to the state of our economy, housing, environment, and general domestic affairs. And the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of HUD are here, I think, portrays vividly the importance that we consider meetings of this sort.

In this context, I would like to discuss the question of confidence in our political system and our ability as a nation to cope with this very serious issue.

The question of credibility is often raised. A mood of some cynicism exists in certain quarters. There are even those who say that my Administration's openness is just another coverup. The question is asked: Is everything phony? Is everything cynical in Government today?

I categorically reject any such conclusion. But I would like to offer some thoughts on why there is some doubt and, perhaps, some division.

Confidence in America's institutions have been deteriorating since the early 1960's. There were, unfortunately, assassinations, upheavals in great cities and in school systems throughout our country, riots and terrorism, crime, drug abuse, pollution, the Vietnam War, the Watergate affair with the first Presidential resignation in America's history, the energy shortage, rising inflation, and other almost unbelievable blows to America's self-image.

This chain of tragic events affected our institutions and actually our way of life. It did not start with the present inflationary problem nor with Watergate nor even the tragic murder of President Kennedy. America and the world are going through a hurricane of very rapid change—technological, economical, social, and political.

Americans put men on the Moon, but have yet to cope with the rapidly changing life on this globe. Other industrial nations are also, in varying degree—often without our resilience and our resources—going through precisely the same experience.

That explains my participation in this meeting today. I came to talk with you about how Americans can mobilize to regenerate our institutions, beginning with the economy.

I am speaking now to Republicans, Democrats, Independents, to labor, to management, and to every segment of our great society. We are all in this problem together, and that is why I consider it so very vital, so very important to be in Portland on this occasion.

I offered approximately a month ago a comprehensive program to mobilize America against inflation. I con-

Volume 10—Number 45

1412

PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD 47

cede and admit that we are not in what one would call a traditional problem of inflation with an accelerating rate of cost-of-living problems.

We are faced with inflation on the one hand and some softness in our economy on the other, and this rather finely-tuned program that I submitted was aimed at meeting this problem, the dual difficulty—one of a softening of the economy and the devastation of inflation itself.

This conference, however, as I understand it, was generated to take an honest look at the problems of inflation. A 31-point program that I submitted to the Congress and to the American people, as I indicated a moment ago, was finely tuned, a comprehensive plan aimed at the dual difficulties we face.

I am pleased to report to you that a massive voluntary citizens' mobilization is gearing up. We in the White House have received roughly 150,000 requests for these WIN buttons and any other information and helpful hints that we can give to people all throughout the United States.

New steps, I think you recognize, have been taken to cope with the energy situation, and all of our actions seek to avoid an unfair burden on those who can least afford the tragedy of inflation or the tragedy of a softening economy.

It is my judgment that Americans are rallying to whip inflation. They can help—and have been helping—by demanding action on legislative proposals pending before the Congress. They can press for State and local initiative. They can innovate voluntary programs at the local level.

America, if we look back over the history, does not require dogmatic laws to control every action that we take, whether it is action at home, in our schools, in our businesses, in our labor organizations, in our churches.

My policies, as I have presented them, I think are firm and good and sound, but any President has to be cognizant of the need, if circumstances change, to take a new look.

I am committed to no rigid economic formula, but the basic American philosophy that made our economy great, I am totally committed to.

As I look back over the history during my lifetime, America is built primarily on mutual trust. It is governed by popular consent and consensus. Federal, State, and local units of government responding to the will of the people will whip inflation.

I am perfectly confident that industries, businesses, and great trade unions will whip inflation. I also have an abiding faith that consumer and environmental groups will whip inflation.

Let us begin the dialog that was referred to by Governor McCall. Let's build that dialog that can establish this confidence between environmentalists and energy

and industry, between consumers and between business, between labor and management, and between 213 million Americans and their government, at the Federal, State, or local level.

Let's give dialog a chance for a change. Let's continue to challenge, but also continue in the sincere good will on both sides of every issue.

Institutions, as I have looked at it, are nothing more than people. Let us never lose faith in humanity, the individuals that we meet, regardless of the circumstances. Let us never lose faith in that one-to-one confrontation, and of course, let's not lose faith in ourselves.

Meetings of this sort are excellent forms to generate confidence. Yet, the time has come for action as well as for talk. Accordingly, the function of leadership belongs to those placed in responsibility.

As President, I accept my obligation, and I call upon every Member of the Congress, Governors, mayors, and all others concerned with government, and the leaders of every private sector in America, including all of you represented here. We, individually and collectively, must provide that leadership. A free government, if we look over history, cannot cope with inflation or energy shortages or any other problems without the consent and the total cooperation of those governed.

Too many people have been saying what the other guy should do to whip inflation. We hear that all the time. We hear business complaining about labor and labor complaining about business. We hear about other segments complaining about their adversaries, never reflecting as to what their own responsibility might be.

Some tell us what the oil companies should do. Others would instruct labor on its responsibilities. Yet others have all kinds of sacrifices to suggest. Almost inevitably, it is not how they can sacrifice.

Our great Northwest—and I am pleased to be here again—is aware that inflation has dried up the supply of mortgage credit and sent housing into a tailspin. Now, Jim Lynn over here is going to solve all of those problems for you, along with the money provided by Bill Simon, but it is a lot broader and a lot deeper subject than what those two fine Secretaries in the Cabinet can do. And it has been inflation that hit consumer confidence and put the brakes on consumer spending harder than at any time since World War II.

I assure the people of the great Northwest that I do not accept the dismal projection that pollution is the inevitable price of prosperity, nor that we must compromise the environment to gain economic growth in the future.

We cannot enrich our lives by impoverishing our lands. We can raise both the standard of living on the one hand, and the quality of life on the other. The worst inflationary toll of all is the most subtle—the erosion of confidence in the future, the loss of faith in the American society and our government.

Volume 10—Number 45

1413

Indeed, this disenchantment seems to grow at the same pace that prices increase. That is why fighting inflation is my priority as President of this great country.

Americans do have the will to preserve our economy and our institutions. These central, absolutely crucial need my program underscores is to control government spending on the one hand and to finance any new outlays with new taxes. Government simply can no longer go on spending beyond its means.

Inflation, as I have said so many times—and the more I say it, the more I believe it—is public enemy number one. And all the polls seems to conclude that. The latest I saw indicated on a nationwide basis that among all of the problems, all of the issues, regardless of your position in life, 83 percent of the Americans selected inflation as that which was of most concern to them.

Obviously, under those circumstances the fight against inflation is a nonpartisan challenge. It is everyone's fight.

If I were to take the easy route of additional pump priming and deficit spending as the economy cools off this winter, it would really cause trouble. We could see the current inflation rate—and I speak very categorically— the current inflation rate, if we don't do a little sacrificing and belt tightening, that rate could double by 1976.

That is not a very happy prospect. So, it ought to encourage us to make the big battle now in order not to have that problem then.

America, as I have seen it, remains a model for the rest of the world. Later this month, I am visiting the Far East, going first to Japan, then to South Korea, and then finally to Vladivostok in the U.S.S.R.—the latter, of course, to move forward, laying additional steppingstones for the culmination of what I hope and I believe is an agreement in strategic arms limitations beyond the present.

But as I visit these three vital areas of the world, I will seek to cement relationships essential for world economic stability as well as SALT Two.

It is obvious as we read—and both Secretary Simon and Secretary Lynn have been abroad—we know that inflation crosses borders and somehow leapfrogs oceans. And if I can be helpful by going to the other side of the world on this dual mission—and I think I can be helpful—that is part of my obligation. As President, I am convinced that this Nation—yours and mine—can show the world that Americans do retain confidence in our system. We can conserve, we can stop wasting, we can expand our production base while preserving our national heritage.

We can become more efficient, more productive and pay for what we spend in our government as we do.

Now, some cynics and skeptics freely predict the end of America—that great country that we know and we love. I feel just the opposite. I think they are very wrong. I intend to prove they are wrong, because I am totally confident in the dedication of this group and for many others throughout America.

As Abraham Lincoln once put it, this Nation is still “the last, best hope of earth.” And a new and stronger United States will grow from the disillusionment of the past. Indeed, the ordeal we have gone through since the early 1960’s may serve, as I see it, like a national purge, clearing our system, renewing our energies, and creating a new and more realistic American ethic and, perhaps, an American lifestyle.

The bountiful resources of this blessed land are available, and you in Oregon are about as blessed as any of the 50 States, and you should be happy and proud that you are so blessed.

Let us, on the overall, however, devise a future based on conservation, as well as consumption. The truth is, you look at the statistics, and I get them weekly—I used to from Bill Simon, now from Rog Morton—we have run short of energy, but we are going to do something about it as we conserve on the one hand, and build a productive base on the other.

We have run short of mortgage credit—and don't blame Jim Lynn altogether—and we have run short of a lot of other things. But we have not, as I see it, run short of American know-how or the American spirit of fairplay, or of American forgiveness, or American self-respect, or American pride, nor will we ever.

A great national test will be imposed in the days and the months ahead. But that ought to be a challenge. That ought to appeal to us. We ought to respond to it. If we do, we will meet the test, and I pledge all of my energy to a free society with a strong economy, a sound environment, sufficient energy, and a secure and inspiring future.

And I ask each and every one of you here, and those who follow in other meetings, to join with me in that wonderful quest.

Thank you very much.

NOTE: The President spoke at 5:10 p.m. at the Memorial Coli-
seum, Portland, Oreg.

Portland, Oregon

*The President's Remarks at a Reception for Republican Candidates. November 1, 1974*

Thank you very much, Vic, Tom. It is just wonderful to be here in a gathering of this magnitude and friendliness. Every time I come to Oregon, I seem to find more friendly people, more diversification in all the things you do.

Last year, I think 48 hours after I was nominated as Vice President, I came out for a longstanding speaking commitment that I made. And your great Governor, Tom McCall, met me and was so hospitable and helpful. I

Volume 10—Number 45

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

November 2, 1974

No. 463

JOINT COMMUNIQUE
ISSUED AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE VISIT OF SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER
TO TEHRAN, IRAN

NOVEMBER 2, 1974

At the invitation of the Government of Iran the Secretary of State of the United States, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, visited Iran November 1-3, 1974. The visit was another expression of long-standing close and friendly relations between the two countries and their interest in further stengthening the ties between them.

During the visit Dr. Kissinger was received by His Imperial Majesty, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Shahanshah of Iran. Secretary Kissinger conveyed to His Majesty the warm personal greetings of President Ford, together with the President's expressions of appreciation for His Majesty's leadership and statesmanlike role in world affairs. His Majesty and the Secretary of State reviewed the international situation and discussed matters of bilateral interest in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding that has long characterized U.S.-Iranian relations. Dr. Kissinger also met with Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Abbas Ali Khalatbary and Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Hushang Ansary.

In their review of the international situation the two sides expressed satisfaction with the progress toward global detente and agreed on the need for further efforts to reduce tensions. The two sides also noted their close similarity of views on regional security issues. The U.S. side expressed its continuing support for Iran's programs to strengthen itself and to work cooperatively with its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and wider Indian Ocean regions. It also stated appreciation for Iranian efforts to promote peaceful solutions to disputes among its neighbors. The Iranian side explained its concept of increasing economic cooperation among the countries on the Indian Ocean littoral. Both sides reaffirmed their continued support of CENTO and the contribution which it makes to regional security and economic development.

Secretary Kissinger described the efforts the U.S. is making in search of a lasting peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Secretary reaffirmed the determination of the United States to Press its efforts to help maintain the momentum of the negotiations begun earlier this year. The Iranian side reaffirmed its support for the peacemaking efforts of the United States.

PR # 463

2

The two sides engaged in a full, constructive and friendly discussion of the global petroleum price and supply question in the context of a review of the overall world economic situation. The two sides also reviewed other aspects of the world economic situation and agreed on the need for cooperative efforts to check inflation and avert the common misfortune of a major economic crisis. The Iranian side explained its programs of bilateral financial assistance to other countries and its proposal for a new multilateral organization to aid developing countries. The American side welcomed Iran's far-sighted policies in this respect. The two sides agreed to cooperate in global and regional programs to eliminate the world food deficit. The two sides agreed to form a U.S.-Iran Joint Commission designed to increase and intensify the ties of cooperation that already exists between the two countries. It was decided that the U.S. Secretary of State and the Iranian Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance would serve as the co-chairmen of the Commission. The first meeting of the Joint Commission which was held November 2, laid out a broad program of cooperation in the political, economic, cultural, defense, scientific, and technological fields. Joint working groups will be formed to carry out the work of the Commission and to enlist the energies and skills of governmental and private institutions in fulfilling the aims of the Commission. The next meeting of the Commission will be held in Washington next year.

A major element in the work of the Joint Commission will be a program in the field of nuclear energy, especially power generation, for which an agreement for cooperation is now under discussion. Meanwhile, contracts have been signed under which the United States is to provide enriched fuel for two power reactors. Contracts for fuel for six additional reactors will be signed in the near future. Iran will be discussing construction of the reactors with American firms. The Iranian side has also expressed interest in participating in a proposed commercial uranium enrichment facility to be built in the United States. The two sides were in full agreement on the need for better national and international controls over nuclear materials to prevent them from falling into irresponsible hands. They further agreed that every effort should be made to discourage further national development of nuclear weapons capabilities building on the principles of the non-proliferation treaty to which both are parties.

Among other fields in which cooperation is already underway and will be further expanded are joint ventures with Iran in the fields of agriculture, the development of petrochemical and electronics industries as well as animal husbandry, telecommunications, highway construction, geology, space technology, education and social services. Other fields of cooperation will be developed as the work of the Joint Commission progresses.

**********

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

November 2, 1974

No. 464

#35

PRESS CONFERENCE BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND HIS EXCELLENCY HUSHANG ANSARY
MINISTER OF FINANCE AND ECONOMY OF IRAN
TEHRAN, IRAN
NOVEMBER 2, 1974

MINISTER ANSARY: Gentlemen, we have just emerged from a meeting with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his distinguished colleagues. At this meeting let me start by saying we have expressed our pleasure and privilege at the opportunity to have the Secretary here in Iran and to discuss matters of mutual interest, not only with His Imperial Majesty the Shahanshah as was done last night, but also here at this Ministry in connection with the various aspects of our cooperation between the United States and Iran. I took the opportunity at the meeting with the Secretary to express our great appreciation for the good work he has done and is continuing in connection with peacemaking efforts in the Middle East. We have followed his itinerary very closely and we are highly appreciative of his personal contributions, which have been great, in bringing about conditions to create peace and stability in the area, as we have always felt in this country it is high time that the people of the region in this part of the world disengage themselves from the problems of confrontation and instead embark on extensive programs of economic development and social reform that should be aimed at raising the standard of living and insuring welfare and prosperity for the people of these countries. In that respect, we have expressed not only our appreciation for the great contributions of the Secretary of State, but also wished him continued success in his efforts. May I say also that we are very pleased that concurrent with the visit of the Secretary, agreement has been reached on the formation of a joint commission at ministerial level to oversee and supervise the development of relations between the countries in many areas of special interest, including political and economic, scientific, cultural and other subjects of interest. We are gratified that the Secretary personally has agreed to co-chair the commission, and we are certain that as a result of the talks that we had this morning, the commission should be able to make important contributions to the development of relations between the two countries, a relationship that has traditionally been very close and will continue to be close in the taking its inspiration from the wishes of His Imperial Majesty and the leaders of your country, the United States. With that brief remark, ladies and gentlemen, may I now give you the Secretary of State.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Mr. Minister, ladies and gentlemen, after reading some of the accounts about the Iranian-American relationships over recent weeks, I think it is important to emphasize that I've come here to visit old and trusted and steady friends. All of my colleagues and I have been very grateful for the traditionally cordial and warm reception we have had

PR #464

[ic]

-2-

here. I have had the privilege of spending over two hours with His Imperial
Majesty last evening and this morning the Minister of Finance, and I, as
well as our associates, had a very full exchange about the commission that
we have agreed to set up — but a commission that makes sense only within
the framework of compatible views about the future evolution of this area
and of the world economy.

So all our talks here have been very positive and with an attitude
that we share a common destiny. I think the Communique speaks for itself,
and I see no point in reviewing it. But it makes clear that a considerable
amount of attention was devoted to a review of the international situation
in which we always benefit from His Majesty's advice and perceptions.

Another important part of our discussions both last evening and this
morning was devoted to the future of the world and how to master some of the
current dislocations. With respect to the related problems of energy, food
and inflation, there is a clear recognition on both sides that the stability
and progress of the industrialized world as well as the development of the
least developed parts of the world are essential to maintaining all that
has been achieved in the last generation and equally essential to the future
peace and stability of the whole world.

It was in this context — that of the general economic set of relationships — that the question of oil prices was discussed in a constructive and positive spirit, and with a sense of hopeful evolution with respect to the contribution that can be made to the objective that I previously stated. Our Iranian friends have, in addition, a full recognition of the crucial importance of the problem of food, and we have discussed several methods by which our two countries can cooperate in meeting the needs of the world for additional food and for additional resources to produce more food. And finally, we discussed in this context the necessity of master-ing the world inflation because none of these problems can be dealt with on an isolated basis. Within the next month we will set up sub-groups in various fields including those that have been mentioned by the Minister of Finance and myself, which have been assured of the highest level attention in both countries charged with preparing, hopefully within six months, major advances in these fields for another meeting of the joint commission, which we plan to hold in Washington, though we will not be able to match the hospitality — and you will have to keep in mind that we have a shorter history in which to learn these civilized methods.

So, we are very pleased with our meeting here, and I would like to
express my appreciation and to convey the greetings of President Ford,
who hopes to make the acquaintance of His Imperial Majesty very soon.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, will you take some questions?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Yes.

**QUESTION:** Put maybe overly simply, the United States favors lower oil prices and Iran has favored higher oil prices. Based on your visit here, do you think there will be any narrowing of the views on prices?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I think, of course, the statement of the issue, as you yourself said, is overly simple. I think that you, of course, all have to keep in mind that Iran cannot make these decisions unilaterally and will have to consult its partners in OPEC about any conclusions that it may reach with respect to oil prices. I think the views with respect to the linked problems of oil prices and inflation have been brought closer.

PR #464

[L.C.]

-3-

**QUESTION:** The suggestion of that, sir, is that you would hope that Iran at some point in the near future would use its influence in the direction of lowering prices. Is that correct?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, as I've tried to explain on a number of occasions, the oil price problem has many aspects. When prices have been rising, there are many other things that can be done other than immediately lowering them. But, first of all, some of you will have an opportunity to meet with His Imperial Majesty. Secondly, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into details except to say that we had a constructive and positive talk on the subject and that our views have been brought closer.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, are you hopeful that in the medium run that oil prices might be reduced?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I'm hopeful that the impact of oil prices on the world economy can be brought under control, and I believe that this requires, on the other side, some recognition of the impact of the inflation of the world on the oil-producing countries. But I think in that framework progress is possible.

**QUESTION:** But in the immediate future, do you anticipate any further rise in oil prices, perhaps not a very great one, but a further rise as a result of the OPEC meeting in Vienna?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, I think we should wait until we see what His Imperial Majesty will propose at the OPEC meeting. Of course, the hope of the United States is that further rises can be avoided.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, did you discuss with the Shah the prospects for a possible meeting between producers and the consumers anytime soon?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Yes, we discussed the initiatives that have been made with respect to meetings of producers and consumers. I explained to His Imperial Majesty the general American approach to the problem of the dialogues. We, in any event, will remain in close contact with His Majesty, as we traditionally do, to make sure that we understand each other's views. The United States is not opposed to a dialogue between consumers and producers, and the problem is to conduct it in such a manner that it will achieve the desired results for both parties.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, on the Middle East, did you have a considerable discussion with the Shah on this issue, and would you tell us whether there is any fundamental difference in US and Iranian views?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I had an extensive discussion with His Imperial Majesty on the Middle East and benefitted from his evaluation of the situation. I believe that, as has been the case in the past, our analysis is substantially congruent.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, what is the American view on His Imperial Majesty's proposal for a fixed price of just under $10.00?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** We are not, in principle, opposed to the idea of a fixed price, but we are studying it further.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, has the question of food supply been linked with the question of energy supply?

PR #464

-4-

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** No, the issue of food supply has not been linked with the issue of energy supply. But on the other hand, there is an inherent connection between the willingness of the world to take a global view to one problem and the ability of the world to take a global view to the other problem. This is not a question of a condition; this is a question of the approach. We will proceed with our food policy without reference to any decisions that have been made or will be made. But any thoughtful person must recognize that reality establishes a connection between the ability of the world to deal globally with its problems in various fields. But I would also like to add that, at least as far as Iran and the United States are concerned, this is not a problem.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, what is the US view on the role that Iran should play in the Indian Ocean?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, as you know, I'm trying to curb the missionary spirit in our bureaucracy, and therefore I'm trying to reduce our natural propensity of telling other people what to do. But Iran, by virtue of its resources, its political cohesion, and its perception of itself, can play a significant and stabilizing role. It has already attempted to contribute, and not without success, to easing relations between several of its neighbors, and I believe that this is a role it can continue to play. In the field of agriculture, for example, Iran can make a major contribution to enhancing the productivity of other countries in the Indian ocean, and we discussed various methods by which our technology and the Iranian resources can combine to bring this about, which will become apparent during and after the World Food Conference. So we consider that Iran's role in the Indian Ocean is a constructive one and one which we tend to support.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, can you tell us whether the United States is moving towards a reassessment of its attitudes toward the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and whether this subject came up . . .

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I have to tell you, Mr. Minister, this is the press that travels with me that normally sees me on background, and now they are trying to ask on the record all the questions to which they have already heard my answers on background. [Laughter] As I've pointed out to you gentlemen previously . . .

**MINISTER ANSARY:** They were wondering if you'd changed your mind. . .

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** No, they want to get it on the record. As I pointed out to you gentlemen previously, I will probably visit the Middle East next week in order to assess and to talk to the participants at the Rabat summit and to other countries in the area that for obvious reasons were not at the Rabat summit about their conclusions with respect to recent events. The United States is not, at this moment, undertaking a reassessment of its policy; after I return from the area, naturally, the President and his senior advisors will consider the overall situation. But I do not expect a change in American policy.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, following up on Mr. Koppel's question about the Indian Ocean, did you discuss with the Shah the prospect of an American base on the island of Diego Garcia? Could you tell us a little about that?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I will answer that question, but I think you gentlemen have to recognize that I cannot in this press conference give a full account of a four-hour discussion with the Shah. We did not discuss this issue. But could we have some questions from the Iranian journalists present?

PR #464

-5-

**QUESTION:** Yes. Mr. Secretary, could you kindly tell me if there is any chance of Iranian investment in American companies, like Iranian investment in Germany's Krupp Company?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It is not an issue that came up directly, but it is the sort of issue that would be addressed by the joint commission. I can say that in principle we have no objection to this.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, will the work of the joint commission be limited to the bilateral relations, or will you be doing things together in turn?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Now, the work of the commission will include such problems as possible investment in third countries, for example, and it will address itself, I believe, also to what can be contributed through our bilateral relations to the regional development in, for example, the Indian Ocean.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, did the question of arms deliveries to Iran come up and, if so, in what context?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, as you know, we have an ongoing arms relationship with Iran and one or two issues in connection with this came up tangentially. There there is no policy issue that requires a great deal of consideration at this moment.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, at the outset you said that the joint commission only makes sense in the light of the compatible views of the two countries on the world economy. Do you consider, after your talks, that both nations have a compatible view now on the world economy?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I said that His Imperial Majesty and I discussed how essential it was for the industrial nations to maintain their stability, their possibility for progress, for maintaining the kind of earth that brought us to the present situation, or that brought us not to the present situation but brought about the evolution of the whole post-World War II period, and secondly, also, the necessity of helping the least developed countries. I believe, with respect to those objectives and to the objectives of bringing about global solutions to the problems of energy, food and inflation. The objectives of the United States and Iran can be said to be substantially compatible.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, does what you have said on oil previously mean that you now expect Iran to support efforts to hold the line on oil prices?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I don't think I should be any more specific than I have been, and I think that you will just have to wait to see what position Iran will take.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, nevertheless, in speaking of the United States and leaving Iran out of it, you said that the hope of the United States is that further rises can be avoided. What happens to our hope for lower prices?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Before you can have lower prices, you have to have stable prices.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, Iran has proposed this unitary price of $9.85 in the Gulf. Do you regard this as a true weighted average reflecting current rates in the Gulf, or as an increase?

PR #464

-6-

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I was warned before I got here under no circumstances to get myself involved in a detailed discussion of oil prices, because my Iranian counterpart would be infinitely more competent than I and would overwhelm me with statistics. So I'm not prepared to go into a discussion of what price would be considered the correct price by the United States, or a price from which indexing might be considered appropriate. But it is one of the problems that has to be discussed.

QUESTION: Can we ask, perhaps, the question from Mr. Ansary? How would Iran regard an arbitration of the present oil price?

MINISTER ANSARY: Well, as you know, His Imperial Majesty has proposed that he would be prepared to link the price of oil with the rate of inflation in the industrial countries. Once you link the two together, they can move in either direction together.

QUESTION: Mr. Minister, when you say once you link them together they can move in either direction, do you believe that, in a period when there is massive world inflation, it is realistic to expect a downward trend in oil prices linked to a downward trend in other commodity prices?

MINISTER ANSARY: I stand on my statement that the idea is to link the two together. Once you do that, they both have the same destiny. Now whether it's realistic or not depends on the approach that we all make to the problem toward inflation.

QUESTION: Mr. Ansary, I wasn't challenging your statement by any means, sir. I was seeking further amplification of it.

MINISTER ANSARY: As you know, we're all concerned with the rampant inflation with which the world has been faced. This proposal was made initially by His Imperial Majesty in the context of his desire for the entire community of nations to cooperate in lowering the rate of inflation, which is only beneficial to the entire world community.

QUESTION: Mr. Minister, does Iran want to mate the two at the present levels, when the price of oil is artificially high, or would it be willing to go back to some previous index level from previous years?

MINISTER ANSARY: All I can say is that linking can only take place at the time you talk about it. There was no question of making the link retroactive.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, did you and His Majesty specifically discuss his plan for indexing and for linking 20 or 30 commodities to the price of oil and, if so, I assume you're familiar with the criticism of that, that it amounts to institutionalizing inflation? Did that come up?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Yes, that came up, and I will have to stand on what I said; I cannot go into more detail about it. I repeat what I said, that what we discussed was within the context of considering the impact on the world economy, especially on the industrialized nations as well as on the least-developed nations, of the energy crisis, as well as the impact, on the producers, of inflation. Now, obviously, it is in neither side's interest to build an institutionalized system that accentuates the tendencies on both sides. And some means will have to be found to take account of these objectives, and I left the meeting with some encouragement that an evolution in a constructive direction was possible. Now, what form this will take, one will have to await Iran's proposals at the OPEC meetings and other discussions that may take place.

MINISTER ANSARY: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I think since the Secretary has to leave for the airport immediately in about five minutes from now, we'll close the meeting. Thank you very much.

* * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[lc]

November 5, 1974

No. 477

As Prepared For Delivery

ADDRESS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE
ROME, ITALY
NOVEMBER 5, 1974

Secretary Kissinger:

We meet to address man's most fundamental need. The threat of famine, the fact of hunger have haunted men and nations throughout history. Our presence here is recognition that this eternal problem has now taken on unprecedented scale and urgency and that it can only be dealt with by concerted worldwide action.

Our challenge goes far deeper than one area of human endeavor or one international conference. We are faced not just with the problem of food but with the accelerating momentum of our interdependence. The world is midway between the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the twenty-first century. We are stranded between old conceptions of political conduct and a wholly new environment, between the inadequacy of the nation-state and the emerging imperative of global community. In the past thirty years the world came to assume that a stable economic system and spreading prosperity would continue indefinitely. New nations launched themselves confidently on the path of economic and social development; technical innovation and industrial expansion promised steady improvement in the standard of living of all nations; surpluses of fuel, food and raw materials were considered a burden rather than a blessing. While poverty and misery still afflicted many parts of the globe, over the long run there was universal hope; the period was fairly characterized as a "revolution of rising expectations." That time has ended. Now there are fundamental questions about our capacity to meet even our most basic needs. In 1972, partly due to bad weather around the globe, world grain production declined for the first time in two decades. We were made ominously conscious of the thin edge between hope and hunger, and of the world's dependence on the surplus production of a few nations. In 1973 first a political embargo and then abruptly raised prices for oil curbed production in the world's factories and farms, and sharply accelerated a global inflation that was already at the margin of government's ability to control. In 1974, the international monetary and trading system continues under mounting stress, not yet able to absorb the accumulated weight of repeated shocks. Its institutions still struggling to respond. The same interdependence that brought common advance now threatens us with common decline.

We must act now and we must act together to regain control over our shared destiny. Catastrophe when it cannot be foreseen can be blamed on a failure of vision or on forces beyond our control. But the current trend is obvious and the remedy is within our power. If we do not

- 2 -

PR #477

act bodily, disaster will result from a failure of will; moral
cupability will be inherent in our foreknowledge.

The political challenge is straightforward: will the nations of
the world cooperate to confront a crisis which is both self-evident
and global in nature? Or will each nation or region or bloc see its
special advantages as a weapon instead of as a contribution? Will we
pool our strengths and progress together, or test our strengths and
sink together?

President Ford has instructed me to declare on behalf of the
United States: We regard our good fortune and strength in the field
of food as a global trust. We recognize the responsibilities we bear
by virtue of our extraordinary productivity, our advanced technology,
and our tradition of assistance. That is why we proposed this conference.
That is why a Secretary of State is giving this address. The United
States will make a major effort to match its capacity to the magnitude
of the challenge. We are convinced that the collective response will
have an important influence on the nature of the world that our
children inherit.

As we move toward the next century the nations assembled here must
begin to fashion a global conception. For we are irreversibly linked
to each other -- by interdependent economies and human aspirations, by
instant communications and nuclear peril. The contemporary agenda of
energy, food and inflation exceeds the capacity of any single government,
or even of a few governments together, to resolve.

All nations -- east and west, north and south -- are linked to a
single economic system. Preoccupation with narrow advantage is fore-
doomed. It is bound to lead to sterile confrontations, undermining the
international cooperation upon which achievement of national objectives
depends. The poorest and weakest nations will suffer most. Discontent
and instabilities will be magnified in all countries. New dangers will
be posed to recent progress in reducing international tensions. But
this need not be our future. There is great opportunity as well as grave
danger in the present crisis. Recognition of our condition can
disenthrall us from outdated conceptions, from institutional inertia, from
sterile rivalries. If we comprehend our reality and act upon it, we can
usher in a period of unprecedented advance with consequences far
transcending the issues before this Conference. We will have built an
international system worthy of the capacities and aspiration of mankind.

## The Food Challenge

We must begin here with the challenge of food. No social system,
ideology or principle of justice can tolerate a world in which the
spiritual and physical potential of hundreds of millions is stunted
from elemental hunger or inadequate nutrition. National pride or regional
suspicions lose any moral and practical justification if they prevent us
from overcoming this scourge.

A generation ago many farmers were self-sufficient; today fuel,
fertilizer, capital and technology are essential for their economic
survival. A generation ago many nations were self-sufficient; today a
good many exporters provide the margin between life and death for many
millions.

Thus food has become a central element of the international economy. A world of energy shortages, rampant inflation, and a weakening trade and monetary system will be a world of food shortages as well. And food shortages in turn sabotage growth and accelerate inflation.

The food problem has two levels -- first, coping with food emergency.
and second, assuring long-term supplies and an adequate standard of

PR #477

nutrition for our growing populations.

During the 1950's and 60's global food production grew with great consistency. Per capita output expanded even in the food-deficit nations; the world's total output increased by more than half. But at the precise moment when growing populations and rising expectations made a continuation of this trend essential, a dramatic change occurred: during the past three years, world cereal production has fallen; reserves have dropped to the point where significant crop failure can spell a major disaster.

The longer-term picture is, if anything, starker still. Even today hundreds of millions of people do not eat enough for decent and productive lives. Since increases in production are not evenly distributed, the absolute number of malnourished people are, in fact, probably greater today than ever before except in times of famine. In many parts of the world thirty to fifty percent of the children die before the age of five, millions of them from malnutrition. Many survive only with permanent damage to their intellectual and physical capacities.

World population is projected to double by the end of the century. It is clear that we must meet the food need that this entails. But it is equally clear that population cannot continue indefinitely to double every generation. At some point we will inevitably exceed the earth's capacity to sustain human life. The near as well as the long-term challenges of food have three components:

- There is the problem of production in the face of population trends, maintaining even current inadequate levels of nutrition and food security will require that we produce twice as much food by the end of this century. Adequate nutrition would require 150 per cent more food, or a total annual output of three billions tons of grain.

- There is the problem of distribution. Secretary General Marei estimates that at the present rate of growth of 2½ per cent a year the gap between what the developing countries produce themselves and what they need will rise from 25 million to 85 million tons a year by 1985. For the foreseeable future, food will have to be transferred on a substantial scale from where it is in surplus to where it is in shortage.

- There is the problem of reserves. Protection against the vagaries of weather and disaster urgently requires a food reserve. Our estimate is that as much as 60 million tons over current carryover levels may be required.

In short, we are convinced that the world faces a challenge new in its severity, its pervasiveness, and its global dimension. Our minimum objective of the next quarter century must be to more than double world food production and to improve its quality. To meet this objective the United States proposes to this Conference a comprehensive program of urgent, cooperative world-wide action of five fronts:

- Increasing the production of food exporters;

- Accelerating the production in developing countries;

- Improving means of food distribution and financing;

- Enhancing food quality;

- Ensuring security against food emergencies.

PR #477

- 4 -

Let me deal with each of these in turn.

## Increased Production By Food Exporters

A handful of countries, through good fortune and technology, can produce more than they need and thus are able to export. Reliance on this production is certain to grow through the next decade and perhaps beyond. Unless we are to doom the world to chronic famine, the major exporting nations must rapidly expand their potential and seek to ensure the dependable long-term growth of their supplies.

They must begin by adjusting their agricultural policies to a new economic reality. For years these policies were based on the premise that production to full capacity created undesirable surpluses and depressed markets, depriving farmers of incentives to invest and produce. It is now abundantly clear that this is not the problem we face; there is no surplus so long as there is an unmet need. In that sense, no real surplus has ever existed. The problem has always been a collective failure to transfer apparent surpluses to areas of shortages. In current and foreseeable conditions this can surely be accomplished without dampening incentives for production in either area.

The United States has taken sweeping steps to expand its output to the maximum. It already has 167 million acres under grain production alone, an increase of twenty-three million acres from two years ago. In an address to the Congress last month, President Ford asked for a greater effort still; he called upon every American farmer to produce to full capacity. He directed the elimination of all restrictive practices which raise food prices; he assured farmers that he will use present authority and seek additional authority to allocate the fuel and fertilizer they require; and he urged the removal of remaining acreage limitations.

These efforts should be matched by all exporting countries. Maximum production will require a substantial increase in investment. The best land, the most accessible water, and the most obvious improvements are already in use. Last year the United States raised its investment in agriculture by $2.5 billion. The United States Government is launching a systematic survey of additional investment requirements and of ways to ensure that they are met.

A comparable effort by other nations is essential. The United States believes that cooperative action among exporting countries is required to stimulate rational planning and the necessary increases in output. We are prepared to join with other major exporters in a common commitment to raise production, to make the necessary investment, and to begin rebuilding reserves for food security. Immediately following the conclusion of this Conference, the United States proposes to convene a group of major exporters -- an export planning group -- to shape a concrete and coordinated program to achieve these goals.

## Accelerated Production of Developing Countries

The food exporting nations alone will simply not be able to meet the world's basic needs. Ironically but fortunately, it is the nations with the most rapidly growing food deficits which also possess the greatest

[LJ]

PR # 477

- 6 -

planning of global production.

The United States will also make available the results of these projects for other nations.

Finally, President Ford is requesting the National Academy of Sciences, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and other governmental agencies, to design a far-reaching food and nutrition research program to mobilize America's talent. It is the President's aim to dedicate America's resources and America's scientific talent to finding new solutions, commensurate both with the magnitude of the human need and the wealth of our scientific capacities.

While we can hope for technological breakthroughs, we cannot count on them. There is no substitute for additional investment in chronic food-deficit countries. New irrigation systems, storage and distribution systems, production facilities for fertilizer, pesticide and seed and agricultural credit institutions are all urgently needed. Much of this can be stimulated and financed locally. But substantial outside resources will be needed for some time to come.

The United States believes that investment should be concentrated in strategic areas, applying existing, and in some cases very simple, technologies to critical variables in the process of food production. Among these are fertilizer, better storage facilities and pesticides.

Modern fertilizer is probably the most critical single input for increasing crop yields; it is also the most dependent on new investment. In our view fertilizer production is an ideal area for collaboration between wealthier and poorer nations, especially combining the technology of the developed countries, the capital and raw materials of the oil producers and the growing needs of the least developed countries. Existing production capacity is inadequate worldwide; new fertilizer industries should be created especially in the developing countries to meet local and regional needs for the long term. This could be done most efficiently on the basis of regional cooperation.

The United States will strongly support such regional efforts. In our investment and assistance programs we will give priority to the building of fertilizer industries and will share our advanced technology.

Another major priority must be to reduce losses from inadequate storage, transport, and pest control. Tragically, as much as 15 percent of a country's food production is often lost after harvesting because of pests that attack grains in substandard storage facilities. Better methods of safe storage must be taught and spread as widely as possible. Existing pesticides must be made more generally available. Many of these techniques are simple and inexpensive; investment in these areas could have a rapid and substantial impact on the world's food supply.

PR #477

- 5 -

capacity for increased production. They have the largest amounts of unused land and water. While they now have 35 percent more land in grain production than the developed nations, they produce 20 percent less on this land. In short, the largest growth in world food production can -- and must -- take place in the chronic deficit countries.

Yet the gap between supply and demand in these countries is growing, not narrowing. At the current growth rate, the grain supply deficit is estimated to more than triple and reach some 85 million tons by 1985. To cut this gap in half would require accelerating their growth rate from the historically high average of 2½ percent per annum to 3½ percent -- an increase in the rate of growth of 40 percent.

Two key areas need major emphasis to achieve even this minimum goal: new research and new investment.

International and national research programs must be concentrated on the special needs of the chronic food deficit nations and they must be intensified. New technologies must be developed to increase yields and reduce costs, making use of the special features of their labor-intensive, capital-short economies.

On the international plane, we must strengthen and expand the research network linking the less developed countries with research institutions in the industrialized countries and with the existing eight international agricultural research centers. We propose that resources for these centers be more than doubled by 1980. For its part the United States will in the same period triple its own contribution for the international centers, for agricultural research efforts in the less developed countries, and for research by American universities on the agricultural problems of developing nations. The existing Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research can play an important coordinating role in this effort.

The United States is gratified by the progress of two initiatives which we proposed at the Sixth Special Session of the UN General Assembly last April: The International Fertilizer Development Center and the study on the impact of climate change of food supply. The Fertilizer Center opened its doors last month in the United States with funds provided by Canada and the United States: we invite wider participation and pledge its resources to the needs of the developing nations. And the important study on climate and food supply has been taken on by the United Nations World Meteorological Organization.

National as well as international research efforts must be brought to bear. The United States offers to share with developing nations the results of its advanced research. We already have underway a considerable range of promising projects: to increase the protein content of common cereals; to fortify staple foods with inexpensive nutrients; to improve plant fixation of atmospheric nitrogen to reduce the need for costly fertilizers; to develop new low cost, small-scale tools and machines for the world's millions of small farmers.

We also plan a number of new projects. Next year, our space, agriculture and weather agencies will test advanced satellite techniques for surveying and forecasting important food crops. We will begin in North America and then broaden the project to other parts of the world. To supplement the WMO study on climate, we have begun our own analysis of the relationship between climatic patterns and crop yields over a statistically significant period. This is a promising and potentially vital contribution to rational

PR # 477

- 7 -

To plan a coherent investment strategy, the United States proposes the immediate formation of a coordinating group for food production and investment. We recommend that the World Bank join with the Food and Agricultural Organization and the UN Development Program to convene such a group this year. It should bring together representatives from both traditional donors and new financial powers, from multilateral agencies and from developing countries, with the following mandate:

-- To encourage bilateral and international assistance programs to provide the required external resources.

-- To help governments stimulate greater internal resources for agriculture.

-- To promote the most effective uses of new investment by the chronic deficit countries.

The United States has long been a major contributor to agricultural development. We intend to expand this contribution. We have reordered our development assistance priorities to place the central emphasis on food and nutrition programs. We have requested an increase of almost $350 million for them in our current budget. This new emphasis will continue for as long as the need exists.

For all these international measures to be effective, governments must reexamine their overall agricultural policies and practices. Outside countries can assist with technology and the transfer of resources; the setting of priorities properly remains the province of national authorities. In far too many countries, farmers have no incentive to make the investment required for increased production because prices are set at unremunerative levels, because credit is unavailable, or because transportation and distribution facilities are inadequate. Just as the exporting countries must adjust their own policies to new realities, so must developing countries give a higher priority for food production in their development budgets and in their tax, credit and investment policies.

## Improving Food Distribution and Financing

While we must urgently produce more food, the problem of its distribution will remain crucial. Even with maximum foreseeable agricultural growth in the developing countries, their food import requirement is likely to amount to some 40 million tons a year in the mid-1980's, or nearly twice the current level.

[LC]

PR #477

-8-

How is the cost of these imports to be met?

The earnings of the developing countries themselves, of course, remain the principal source. The industrialized nations can make a significant contribution simply by improving access to their markets. With the imminent passage of the trade bill, the United States reaffirms its commitment to institute a system of generalized tariff preferences for the developing nations and to pay special attention to their needs in the coming multilateral trade negotiations.

Nevertheless, an expanded flow of food aid will clearly be necessary. During this fiscal year, the United States will increase its food aid contribution, despite the adverse weather conditions which have affected our crops. The American people have a deep and enduring commitment to help feed the starving and the hungry. We will do every thing humanly possible to assure that our future contribution will be responsive to the growing needs.

The responsibility for financing food imports cannot, however, rest with the food exporters alone. Over the next few years in particular, the financing needs of the food-deficit developing countries will simply be too large for either their own limited resources or the traditional food aid donors.

The oil exporters have a special responsibility in this regard. Many of them have income far in excess of that needed to balance their international payments or to finance their economic development. The continuing massive transfer of wealth and the resulting impetus to worldwide inflation have shattered the ability of the developing countries to purchase food, fertilizer and other goods. And the economic crisis has severely reduced the imports of the industrialized countries from the developing nations.

The United States recommends that the traditional donors and the new financial powers participating in the coordinating group for food production and investment make a major effort to provide the food and funds required. They could form a subcommittee on food financing which, as a first task, would negotiate a minimum global quantity of food for whose transfer to food-deficit developing countries over the next three years they are prepared to find the necessary finances.

I have outlined various measures to expand production, to improve the earning capacity of developing countries, to generate new sources of external assistance. But it is not clear that even these measures will be sufficient to meet the longer-term challenge, particularly if our current estimates of the gap by 1985 and beyond prove to be too conservative.

Therefore, ways must be found to move more of the surplus oil revenue into long-term lending or grants to the poorer countries. The United States proposes that the development committee, created at the recent session of the Governors of the International Bank and Monetary Fund,

-9-

PR#477

be charged with the urgent study of whether existing sources of financing are sufficient to meet the expected import requirements of developing countries. If these sources are not sufficient, new means must be found to supplement them. This must become one of the priority objectives of the countries and institutions that have the major influence in the international monetary system.

## Enhancing Food Quality

Supplies alone do not guarantee man's nutritional requirements. Even in developed countries, with ample supplies, serious health problems are caused by the wrong kinds and amounts of food. In developing countries, the problem is magnified. Not only inadequate distribution but also the rising cost of food domms the poorest and most vulnerable groups -- children and mothers -- to inferior quality as well as insufficient quantity of food. Even with massive gains in food production, the world could still be haunted by the spectre of inadequate nutrition.

First, we must understand the problem better. We know a good deal about the state of global production. But our knowledge of the state of global nutrition is abysmal. Therefore the United States proposes that a global nutrition surveillance system be established by the World Health Organiztion, the Food and Agricultural Organization and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. Particular attention should be devoted to the special needs of mothers and young children and to responding quickly to local emergencies affecting these particularly vulnerable groups. Nutrition surveying is a field with which the United States has considerable experience; we are ready to share our knowledge and techniques.

Second, we need new methods for combatting malnutrition. The United States invites the WHO, FAO and UNICEF to arrange for an internationally coordinated program in applied nutritional research. Such a program should set priorities, identify the best centers for research, and generate the necessary funding. The United States is willing to contribute $5 million to initiate such a program.

Third, we need to act on problems which are already clear. The United States proposes an immediate campaign against two of the most prevalent and blighting effects of malnutrition: Vitamin A blindness and iron deficiency anemia. The former is responsible for well over half of the millions of cases of blindness in less developed countries; the current food shortages will predictably increase this number. Iron deficiency anemia is responsible for low productivity in many parts of the world.

Just as the world has come close to eradicating smallpox, yellow fever and polio, it can conquer these diseases. There are available new and relatively inexpensive techniques which could have a substantial impact, The United States is ready to cooperate with developing countries and international donors to carry out the necessary programs. We are prepared to contribute $10 million to an international effort.

Finally, we need to reflect our concern for food quality in existing programs. This Conference should devote special attention to food aid programs explicitly designed to fight malnutrition among the most vulnerable groups. The United States will increase funding for such programs by at least $50 million this year.

-10-

PR#477

## Ensuring Against Food Emergencies

The events of the past few years have brought home the grave vulnerability of mankind to food emergencies caused by crop failures, floods, wars and other disasters. The world has come to depend on a few exporting countries, and particularly the United States, to maintain the necessary reserves. But reserves no longer exist, despite the fact that the United States has removed virtually all of its restrictions on production and our farmers have made an all-out effort to maximize output. A worldwide reserve of as much as 60 million tons of food above present carryover levels may be needed to assure adequate food security.

It is neither prudent nor practical for one or even a few countries to be the world's sole holder of reserves. Nations with a history of radical fluctuations in import requirements have an obligation, both to their own people and to the world community, to participate in a system which shares that responsibility more widely. And exporting countries can no longer afford to be caught by surprise. They must have advance information to plan production and exports.

We commend FAO Director General Boerma for his initiative in the area of reserves. The United States shares his view that a cooperative multilateral system is essential for greatened equity and efficiency. We therefore propose that this Conference organize a Reserves Coordinating Group to negotiate a detailed agreement on an international system of nationally-held grain reserves at the earliest possible time. It should include all the major exporters as well as those whose import needs are likely to be greatest. This group's work should be carried out in close cooperation with other international efforts to improve the world trading system.

An International Reserve System should include the following elements:

- Exchange of information on levels of reserve and working stocks, on crop prospects and on intentions regarding imports or exports;

- Agreement on the size of global reserves required to protect against famine and price fluctuations;

- Sharing of the responsibility for holding reserves;

- Guidelines on the management of national reserves, defining the conditions for adding to reserves and for releasing from them;

- Preference for cooperating countries in the distribution of reserves;

- Procedures for adjustment of targets and settlement of disputes and measures for dealing with non-compliance.

## Agenda For The Future

The challenge before this conference is to translate needs into programs and programs into results. We have no time to lose.

I have set forth a five point platform for joint action:

- To concert the efforts of the major surplus countries to help meet the global demand;

- To expand the capacity of chronic food deficit developing nations for growth and greater self-sufficiency;

-11-

PR#477

-- To transfer resources and food to meet the gaps which remain;

-- To improve the quality of food to ensure adequate nutrition;

-- To safeguard men and nations from sudden emergencies and the vagaries of weather.

I have outlined the contribution that the United States is prepared to make in national or multilateral programs to achieve each of these goals. And I have proposed three new international groups to strengthen national efforts, coordinate them and give them global focus;

-- The Exporters Planning Group;

-- The Food Production and Investment Coordinating Group;

-- The Reserves Coordinating Group.

A number of suggestions have been made for a central body to fuse our efforts and provide leadership. The United States is openminded about such an institution. We strongly believe, however, that whatever the mechanisms, a unified, concerted and comprehensive approach is an absolute requirement. The American delegation headed by our distinguished Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz is prepared to begin urgent discussions to implement our proposals. We welcome the suggestions of other nations gathered here. We will work hard and we will work cooperatively.

## Conclusion

Nothing more overwhelms the human spirit, or mocks our values and our dreams, than the desperate struggle for sustenance. No tragedy is more wounding than the look of despair in the eyes of a starving child.

Once famine was considered part of the normal cycle of man's existence, a local or at worst a national tragedy. Now our consciousness is global. Our achievements, our expectations, and our moral convictions have made this issue into a universal political concern.

The profound promise of our era is that for the first time we may have the technical capacity to free mankind from the scourge of hunger. Therefore, today we must proclaim a bold objective -- that within a decade no child will go to bed hungry, that no family will fear for its next day's bread, and that no human being's future and capacities will be stunted by malnutrition.

Our responsibility is clear.

Let the nations gathered here resolve to confront the challenge, not each other.

Let us agree that the scale and severity of the task require a collaborative effort unprecedented in history.

And let us make global cooperation in food a model for our response to other challenges of an interdependent world -- energy, inflation, population, protection of the environment.

William Faulkner expressed the confidence that "man will not merely endure, he will prevail." We live today in a world so complex that even only to endure, man must prevail. Global community is no longer a

["-12-", "PR#477", "sentimental ideal but a practical necessity. National purposes, international realities and human needs all summon man to a new test of his capacity and his morality.", "We cannot turn back or turn away.", "\"Human reason,\" Thomas Mann wrote, \"needs only to will more strongly than fate and it is fate.\"", "* * * * *", "## Conclusion", "WOMEN, more and more morning more overwhelmingly wailing than the look of death our cream, than the deadness of our cream, than the deadness of morning more overwhelmingly wailing than the look of death our cream, than the deadness of our cream, than the deadness of", "Once again we considered hard of wailing than the look of death our cream, than the deadness of our cream, than the deadness of morning more overwhelmingly wailing than the look of death our cream, than the deadness of our cream, than the deadness of", "hard and we will be hard and we

Department of State

[L] Public Statements

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 0741

PAGE 01 CAIRO 08823 052151Z

64

ACTION NEA-10

INFO OCT-01 EUR-12 ISO-00 SSD-00 NSCE-00 USIE-00 INRE-00
CIAE-00 DODE-00 PM-03 H-02 INR-07 L-02 NSAE-00 NSC-05
PA-02 RSC-01 PRS-01 SP-02 SS-15 CCO-00 SAM-01 IO-10

AID-05 7/079 W

------------------ 125027

O R 052135Z NOV 74
PM AMEMBASSY CAIRO
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9990
INFO AMEMBASSY AMMAN
AMEMBASSY ANKARA
AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS
USDEL RIYADH
AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV

UNCLAS CAIRO 08823

NSC FOR GENERAL SCOWCROFT AND NESSEN

E.O. 11652: N/A

TAGS: OVIP (KISSINGER, HENRY A.)

SUBJECT: ARRIVAL REMARKS OF SECRETARY KISSINGER AT CAIRO AIRPORT NOVEMBER 5.

RIYADH FOR SECRETARY'S PARTY.

REF: BELGRADE 5505

REMARKS OF SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER ON ARRIVAL AT CAIRO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NOVEMBER 5, 1974; QUOTE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM ON A QUICK VISIT TO CAIRO TO SEE PRESIDENT SADAT AND FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY TO DISCUSS WITH THEM THEIR CONCLUSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RABAT SUMMIT AS TO HOW FURTHER PROGRESS CAN BE MADE TOWARDS A SUCCESSFUL AND LASTING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THE UNITED STATES STANDS READY AS IT HAS THROUGHOUT THE

UNCLASSIFIED

Public Statement

[L]

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#61

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JACK HUSHEN

AT 12:50 P.M. EST

NOVEMBER 5, 1974

TUESDAY

MR. HUSHEN: President Ford met with President Tolbert at about 11 a.m. today. The meeting lasted 45 minutes.

The two Presidents had not met previously, and they took advantage of President Tolbert's presence in the United States on a private visit to become acquainted.

For your information, President Tolbert is here to receive the "Family of Man" award in New York.

They had a wide-ranging and cordial conversation on world issues of mutual concern and in particular on African issues.

President Ford was particularly interested in receiving President Tolbert's views concerning recent events in the Portuguese-African territories and what these events mean for the future of Africa.

The President reaffirmed to President Tolbert that African interests will be taken seriously in the foreign policy of President Ford's Administration, and President Ford's primary goal is to increase our understanding of the problems and aspirations of Africa and to find new ways in which we can be helpful.

The meeting also included a review of our bilateral relations with Liberia, which are excellent.

Attending the meeting, in addition to the two Presidents, were Liberia's Foreign Minister C. Cecil Dennis, and General Brent Scowcroft.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jack.

END

(AT 12:53 P.M. EDT)

#61

Public Statements

No. 5

[c]

- 8 -

#60-11/5

Q Ron, let me ask that another way --
(Laughter) -- is it true that there is a search on for
a gentleman to replace Mr. Sampson, or possibly even
a lady?

MR. NESSEN: Since there has been no decision
to replace Mr. Sampson, the rest of the question doesn't
make any sense.

Q But your answer implies it is under
consideration that he be replaced?

MR. NESSEN: You will have to infer what you
want, Helen.

Q Is it being contemplated?

MR. NESSEN: No decision has been made to
replace Mr. Sampson.

Q In the event of a prolonged coal miner's
strike, does the White House or does the President, the
Administration, have any sort of emergency contingency
plans to deal with the resulting energy shortages?

MR. NESSEN: Well, you know we are saying that
Mr. Usery hopes to resume negotiations and settle this
through collective bargaining. There is hope to avert
a strike, so I think it is really just premature to talk
about a long strike or any strike. The President has seen
an analysis of the economic consequences of a strike, and
it is not a happy prospect because no strike is good for
the economy. But at the moment there is the hope of
averting a strike, and I don't think we ought to look
down the road to the worst possibilities.

Q But you are aware of the statements by
union officials that the strike is virtually inevitable
now, and that is why I raise that question.

MR. NESSEN: I am saying that the hope at the
White House is to avert a strike and settle it by
collective bargaining.

Q Ron, I would like to go back to a question
of a few days ago that related to the President's statement
at his press conference that Israel should settle its
problems with Jordan or the PLO, and you will recall at
the time I think that you told us two things: One that
this was not a change in policy, and two, that we should
check with the State Department.

MR. NESSEN: Yes.

MORE

#60

#60-11/5

Q My understanding is that when reporters checked with the State Department two things happened, one, the first thing that happened was the State Department referred them back to the White House, but, subsequently, the State Department, it is my understanding, did issue a statement in which it said that our policy had always been to prefer and to encourage negotiations between Israel and Jordan, and that we felt that this was the most productive approach.

In light of that State Department statement, why did the President add the three words "or the PLO"? Now that we have this statement from the State Department, why did he add the words "PLO"?

MR. NESSEN: I don't see any conflict between the President's statement and the State Department's statement.

Q I didn't ask whether there is any conflict. I am just saying that the State Department issued a statement saying that our policy had been to encourage negotiations between Israel and Jordan. The President, however, said between Israel and Jordan or the PLO. I am merely asking why it was that the President added these three words, or the PLO?

MR. NESSEN: I assume he added them because -- Jim, I am just going to have to say that the President's remarks represented no change in American policy.

MORE

#60

- 10 -

#60-11/5

Q Ron, to follow up, since the State Department has issued "just Jordan" and the State Department's policy has not been to recognize the PLO and Scali voted against the recognition or entertainment of the PLO, I am wondering how you can say this when it is an obvious contradiction. And I have a follow-up.

MR. NESSEN: Go ahead and ask your follow-up.

Q I am just wondering in this connection if the President ever discussed the possibility of urging the British Government or North Ireland to deal with the IRA and does he distinguish any basic, other than geographic, difference between the PLO and the IRA?

MR. NESSEN: I don't understand the question, Les.

Q I am asking, has the President, since he has mentioned the possibility of dealing with an organization like the PLO, I am wondering if the President has ever discussed the possibility that Northern Ireland should conduct its agreements with the IRA and does he see any basic difference between the IRA and the PLO other than geographic?

MR. NESSEN: I don't see the connection between the two issues, but if you would like me to get you an answer, I can try.

Q Ron, I wonder if I could possibly try to get at it this way. Since you say the President's statement at the press conference represented no change in American policy, since making that statement has the President been concerned about the possibility that this would be interpreted as a change or a shift or an addition or whatever you want to call it to American policy? Has he been concerned that this might be viewed this way, even if it isn't, and has he done or does he plan to do anything to -- if he is concerned -- to try to correct that impression beyond what you have said?

MR. NESSEN: Well, I am not aware of any concern on his part, Jim.

Q Ron, what is the United States' policy toward the PLO?

MR. NESSEN: Well, I believe that we have referred people to the State Department, and Jim indicates that the State Department has done what we said they would do, which is to put out a clear statement of American policy toward the Middle Eastern negotiations and the PLO.

MORE

#60

- 11 -

#60-11/5

Q It is not a statement of policy towards the PLO, that is what I was asking about, not towards the negotiations but towards the PLO.

MR. NESSEN: I am told they did. Did they not, Jim? That was certainly what they promised to do, and I have not heard from anybody that they didn't do it.

Q Jim said that they had issued a statement only mentioning dealing with Jordan, no mention of the PLO. So, our question is, since the President, who formulates foreign policy, has brought this up, what is the President's policy? What is the U.S. policy on the PLO?

MR. NESSEN: That is available at the State Department.

Q They didn't answer that, they don't even mention the PLO, Ron.

MR. NESSEN: You ought to ask them the specific question about what is the American policy toward the PLO.

Q They did, and the answer was Jordan and they referred it right back to the White House.

MR. NESSEN: I have been told by others that the State Department was forthcoming that day on policy toward the PLO.

Q On background, could you tell us what the State Department said then?

MR. NESSEN: I haven't gotten their policy statement, Bob. I could get it, but I still think it is better to refer these kinds of questions to them for the kind of detail that you are obviously interested in.

Q It is not exactly a detail. It is a fairly important point. The State Department has, as a matter of fact, not answered the question about what our policy is towards the PLO.

MR. NESSEN: Were they asked the specific question?

Q I don't know whether they were asked specifically that, but they were asked the question based on the President's statement and we would like an answer based on that.

MORE

#60

- 12 -

#60-11/5

MR. NESSEN: Why don't you do it this way. Refer your questions to the State Department and in the meanwhile, I will talk to Bob McCloskey and explain to him that I have referred these two questions to him and that it would be helpful to get clear answers to them.

Q Ron, I am not trying to make a comparison between the two issues at all, but when the President wanted to make his own personal view extremely clear on the subject of a gasoline tax, he said there will never be a gasoline tax as long as I am President.

I am wondering if you can say on behalf of the President whether or not he would make a similar statement that as long as he is President there will never be an American encouragement of or participation in negotiations with the PLO.

MR. NESSEN: That is a great leap. I am certainly not prepared to say that today.

Q There has been a good deal of confusion and concern about this, including -- or intensified by -- Secretary Kissinger's statement of yesterday or the day before that Israel and the Arab nations should bring their negotiating positions closer together.

Are there circumstances, speaking as the President's spokesman, are there circumstances and eventualities under which the United States believes that Israel should negotiate with the PLO?

MR. NESSEN: Again, Jim, I really think for detailed diplomatic questions the State Department is the best place to go. And I will do what I told Bob I would do, which is to call Bob McCloskey and see if we can get the process straightened out to the point where when I refer you to the State Department the State Department is responsive.

Q Ron, there is a rumor that the press plane may depart a day earlier than the President for Tokyo. Is that true?

MR. NESSEN: Some of you have asked me about that and even expressed a desire for it in terms of getting a night's sleep before you arrive. I suggested it to the advance people that they take a look at the possibility and the answer is that we are all going to basically do that, that the President will arrive in Japan one afternoon and, aside from the ceremonial arrival, there will be no other events that day so that we will all get an afternoon and evening's sleep before the actual visit begins.

MORE

#60

-14-

#60-11/5

Q Ron, may I take advantage of a quiet day to bring up an old subject? Maybe this was asked while I was not here previously. It is the matter of the list of White House employees. Has that ever come forward, and if not, why, or where is it?

MR. NESSEN: I have asked Don Rumsfeld, or I have passed on to Don Rumsfeld the interest in both a White House staff list and a White House phone directory.

Q We had gotten the same answer from terHorst that one was not available. I don't see any problem on this, except the White House doesn't want us to have it because there is a payroll that goes up there, all you have to do is take the payroll and give us the names on there, unless there is just a matter of some kind of block somewhere.

MR. NESSEN: You are leaping ahead in thinking that we have rejected the idea. I am saying that the idea has gone to Rumsfeld. The White House staff is still in the process of being reorganized, and I think what Don has in mind is coming to grips with this once the White House staff is stabilized and we can put out an accurate staff list.

Q The White House staff never stabilizes, at least it hasn't in the past three years.

MR. NESSEN: I would think it would stabilize a little bit after the first of the year.

Q If we could just find out who was working for the White House last week, and we wouldn't have to be current. It would be extremely helpful for us to know who all is over here and what kind of position they hold.

MR. NESSEN: It is in the works, John, that's all I can say.

Dick.

Q Is the United States speeding up its arms shipments to Israel?

MR. NESSEN: Let me say this, Dick, just as a general point, that I think we really do have to make it a practice here not to comment on every individual columnist every day. I think that as a general practice we ought to do that. I know what you are saying is that you are asking the question and not referring it to a columnist.

MORE

#60

- 15 -

#60-11/5

It is a policy of the Government, and has been
for a long time, not to discuss the details of arms
shipments with other countries.

I do understand that the State Department
had a fairly extensive briefing yesterday on this subject.
And I would also remind you that when President Ford met
with Prime Minister Rabin of Israel on September 13 he
stated, and this is a quote, or they stated ---

Q What was the date?

MR. NESSEN: September 13, a statement following
the meeting between the President and Prime Minister Rabin.
It was stated, "The President and the Prime Minister
reviewed the ongoing US military supply relationship and
the President reaffirmed the continuity of that relation-
ship."

That, together with the briefing at the State
Department yesterday, and the fact that it is long-standing
policy not to discuss the details of arms supply relationships,
I think we are going to have to leave it at that, Dick.

Q For your information that subject was not
raised at the State Department yesterday.

MR. NESSEN: I understand there was a briefing
on the subject at the State Department yesterday.

Q Ron, one of the problems that keeps coming
up year after year in these briefings is, of course, that
we don't cover the State Department. It may be that this
briefing was reported in some morning newspaper that I
haven't seen or something. But the ones I have seen, I
didn't see it. Can you on a background basis tell us what
the highlights of that briefing were?

MR. NESSEN: I would rather not for the reason
I was not there, nor have I read a transcript. However,
I have seen a UPI story, Number 100 of yesterday moving
at 4:07 PM, which seems to be a report based on talks with
State Department officials, which leads me to believe that
the State Department did talk about this issue.

I, as a general policy -- let me say at this
point, since it has come up in several different ways
today, the coal situation and the State Department and
the question that Bob asked about on the PLO -- I really
think it is important that the White House Press Secretary
not be the fount of all wisdom in the Government. Maybe we

MORE

#60

- 16 -

#60-11/5

had too much of that over the last five years, and as a
policy I am going to refer out to the appropriate
departments and agencies detailed questions in their
particular areas. That is going to be my policy. I have
started it, and perhaps some of you who would like to get
all the news in one place will not be happy about that,
but I think in the interest of accurate and detailed
information it makes sense, and it also is in keeping
wht the President's policy of giving more authority to
the department and agency heads.

Q Ron, this is a question that only the
President knows, only the President can decide. This is
one of the biggest questions affecting the people of the
world today, whether the United States is going to step
up, or give heavy arms at this point over there, and it
comes from the White House, and I think for us not to be
given something on this -- it has nothing to do with the
column, it has to do with the greatest question before
the United States people today. And I think this has
been apparent in some of the news broadcasts for several
days. I think it is too bad that you have to go to the
UPI ticker to get your news.

MR. NESSEN: That is not the case at all,
Sarah. I mentioned that because some people thought the
State Department had not spoken on this issue.

Q I realize that, but I think we should not
have to go to the State Department, to some background
briefing, and something they have given obviously to some
few people over there. I think we should be able to come
to the White House and get it, or if we don't get it here,
it means the American people are being denied something that
vitally affects peace.

MR. NESSEN: I don't agree with you.

Q I concur with that. The President does
make foreign policy, and we have to have explanations here.
We are not able to run over to the State Department every
time the President makes a statement, and I think you ought
to be able to clarify it.

MR. NESSEN: I have given you as much clarification
as I can give you in keeping with the policy of not discussing
details of arms agreements.

MORE

#60

- 18 -

#60-11/5

Q Ron, I would just like to say that your policy as enunciated is remarkable more for its similarity to the past five years than its contrast. That is precisely the way questions of very heavy import were handled. They were parceled out and you didn't get the answer.

MR. NESSEN: I hope our policies are not identical to those of the former Press Secretary. Perhaps the difference is that the agency and department information officers and officials are aware of the President's desire and he said this publicly and privately that they follow his example, and my example, of being open and candid and forthcoming.

Q Ron, you took a question before and that was the question, did King Faisal know about the pardon of Mr. Nixon two days in advance, having been asked for a special conference with our ambassador to Saudi Arabia. You took the question, and I never got the answer to it.

MR. NESSEN: As far as I can determine the answer is no.

Q Did not?

MR. NESSEN: As far as I can determine.

Q Ron, after associating myself completely with Mr. McManus' point, because your policy is precisely the same Catch-22 that Mr. Ziegler gave us for five solid years, let me put the following question to you and let me ask you first, do you think under any circumstance the State or Defense Departments could answer this question, has the President of the United States authorized a substantial and major arms shipment increase to the state of Israel?

MR. NESSEN: Do I think the State or Defense Departments could answer that question?

Q Yes, and in the second half I put the question itself to you.

MR. NESSEN: I am going to have to say, Jim, that it is a longstanding policy not to discuss the details of arms shipments.

Q It is not a detailed arms shipment. I am not asking you what weapons are going. I am asking you whether a policy decision has been made, Ron, by the President of the United States to authorize and to direct a major increase in the shipment of arms to the state of Israel. That is not a matter of details of an arms shipment; that is a matter of a policy decision.

MORE

#60

Ron, I want to ask a question related to the answering of questions.

Yesterday I asked you what the U.S. policy was toward the PLO and you suggested that I should talk to Bob McCloskey. I found that he is in Spain and it is hard to get him on the phone.

MR. NESSEN: Yes, I found that out.

Q I then went to some of his deputies and there was no answer available at the State Department. Is there a U.S. policy toward the PLO and, if so, what is it?

MR. NESSEN: Bob, because of the kind of feeling that I got here yesterday, I did take the chance last evening to look up the record of what this Administration has said since the summit meeting in Rabat and I did find that there is on the record a fairly complete statement of American policy. And I do think I want to emphasize today that what the President said at his news conference was no change in American policy. I do think that the statement since the Rabat summit is there and you should look at it.

The question of the future of the Palestinian people is an important aspect of the Middle East problem. The United States recognizes that full consideration must be given to the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people if there is to be a just and durable settlement in the Middle East.

The only question has been how to best proceed in order to reach this objective, given the positions of those involved in the negotiations.

The United States will continue to seek the answer and to use our best efforts to assist the parties to get negotiations started.

And this is exactly what Secretary Kissinger is undertaking during his present Middle East trip. I think, because he is involved in these negotiations on this point, I don't think I should go beyond that.

Q Ron, a clarification question, please.

In efforts to assist the parties in getting negotiations started -- does the parties include the PLO?

MR. NESSEN: Did I say "parties"? Where is "parties"?

MORE

#64

- 20 -

#64-11/6

Q The last sentence.

MR. NESSEN: "To assist the parties to get negotiations started!"

I am not going to go beyond this, Peter. I think we need to be precise in handling this matter and I don't want to go beyond this answer.

Q May I ask, you do stand by the President's press conference statement, don't you?

MR. NESSEN: Absolutely.

Q Ron, another question on availability. When I came down here last night, because I understood we were going to have staff available to us, and it sounded like the first time a President has ever made such an offer on election night and it sounded like a very good deal. As soon as I got here -- which was early -- I asked to speak to Mr. Timmons. I was told I had to say what I wanted to speak to Mr. Timmons about and I said, "I'm not going to do it."

Anyway, I never got Mr. Timmons and I stayed here until midnight. And I have tried to get Mr. Timmons this morning. That is one reason I was late here today, I am still trying to get him.

MR. NESSEN: How early did you try to get him this morning?

Q At about 8:30.

MR. NESSEN: I had my little talk with him after that, and with Dean, Bill Baroody, and Marsh.

Q I left my name at his office.

MR. NESSEN: You will be getting a call back, Sarah.

Q I would like to pin down, if I could, though, the figures on where the President helped on the campaign. By my list, those that you list off where he helped them get elected, there were ten.

MR. NESSEN: Wait a minute. That wasn't the way the question was posed.

Q You gave us ten races where I thought you indicated the President helped get them elected.

MR. NESSEN: I indicated that was where he campaigned and those people won, people won in those areas.

MORE

#64-11/6