This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1351

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 6:50 P.M. China Time

FEBRUARY 22, 1972

TUESDAY

Peking, Peoples Republic of China

MR. ZIEGLER: I will give you tomorrow's schedule and then give you the length of times of the meetings today.

At 10:00 tomorrow, Mrs. Nixon will visit the Evergreen People's Commune. Jerry Warren will be notifying those who are on the pool. However, I should mention to you that we can take, in addition to that, 15 to 20 reporters who would like to visit the commune with Mrs. Nixon. You may sign-up with somebody in the Press Office and we will make arrangements with the Ministry of Information to provide transportation for you.

Q Do you mean President and Mrs. Nixon?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I do not. Only Mrs. Nixon will go to the Evergreen Peoples Commune tomorrow.

Q Where is it?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have the exact location, Helen. I am sorry. It is on the outskirts of town, west of here.

Over 40,000 people live in the commune. I am told there are some 9,000 households. It is located in the northwest suburbs of Peking, about 15 minutes from the guest house. It is known chiefly for the vegetables they grow, over 100 varieties and also pork and other livestock.

Then at 2:30 tomorrow, Mrs. Nixon will visit the Peking Glass Factory. The glass factory was built in 1956 and employs 530 workers. I am sure the Ministry of Information will have additional information on both of these particular visits for you.

Then tomorrow afternoon, the meetings between the President and Premier will take place again, at about 2:00.

After the meetings, tomorrow evening, the President and Mrs. Nixon will attend a Gymnastic presentation at the Capital Stadium. That is tomorrow evening at 8:00.

In terms of today, you are familiar with what Mrs. Nixon did. There have been pool reports on her activities today.

The President met for four hours with Premier Chou En-lai. Participating in the meetings from the American side were Dr. Kissinger, Mr. Holdridge, on Dr. Kissinger's staff, and Mr. Lord, also on Dr. Kissinger's staff.

MORE

#1351

- 3 -

#1351

Q Where?

MR. ZIEGLER: Right back here by the Press Office.

Q Will the President have dinner at the guest house?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. He plans to have dinner this evening before departing for the cultural program with Secretary of State Rogers and Assistant Secretary Marshall Green and Dr. Kissinger. Incidentally, tonight at the cultural show, I am told that Premier and Madam Chou En-lai will be there and also Madam Mao Tse-tung will be there at the cultural show tonight.

That is really all I have to give you at this time.

Q Was Yen Chien Ying there?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have that information, but I will check that for you.

Q Did the Premier and the President settle an agenda for their talks at the meetings today?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not, as you know, prepared to provide you any information at all regarding the talks.

Q What did the President do this morning and what will he do tomorrow morning?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President, this morning, spent all of the time prior to departure to the Great Hall of the People for the meeting with the Premier in the guest house. He spent most of the time in the sitting room, meeting with members of his staff and also doing some reading. He spent some time with Rose Mary Woods, doing some dictating and spent some time with Bob Haldeman reviewing other White House business. He will follow the same working procedure tomorrow.

Q Was he primarily studying the events in China or domestic matters?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is spending some time in the morning on regular White House business he has to attend to and the other time is spent meeting with his staff talking about the visit here and other work related with the visit to the Peoples Republic of China.

Q There is a report that a plane has been sky-jacked carrying Robert Kennedy's son and that the British Government is acting on behalf of the United States on that matter. Has anything been orchestrated out of here or is it being handled out of Washington?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is nothing being orchestrated. We are concerned about it and we are being kept informed here. That is all I have.

Q Will you meet with us again tomorrow?

MR. ZIEGLER: I sure will.

Q What will the President do tomorrow?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have given you the schedule for tomorrow.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Press Secretary.

END

(AT 7:00 P.M. ChinaTime)

#1351

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 578

PAGE 01 USUN N 00710 280908Z

21

ACTION 10-13

INFO OCT-01 NEA-09 CIAE-00 DODE-00 NSAE-00 NSQE-00 SSO-00
USIE-00 INRE-00 CCO-00 AF-08 ARA-08 EA-11 EUR-20
RSC-01 PM-06 H-02 INR-06 L-03 NEL-10 P-03 PRS-01
SS-14 SA-03 ACDA-19 GAC-01 RSR-01 140 W 064822

O R 280755Z FEB 72

FM USMISSION USUN NY

TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 675

INFO AMEMBASSY AMMAN

AMEMBASSY BEIRUT IMMEDIATE

AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS USUN 7/10

LEBANON/ISRAEL IN SC

PM FEB 27 AMB BUSH MADE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN SC

QUOTE

THE USG VIEWS WITH DEEP CONCERN THE RECURRENCE OF INCIDENTS ALONG THE LEBANESE BORDER AND THE CONTINUING INCURSIONS WITHIN LEBANON BY ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES.

YESTERDAY, WE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT THE MILITARY ACTION HAD ENDED. WE ARE DISTRESSED AND VERY CONCERNED TO FIND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NEW INCIDENTS ALONG THE FRONTIER AND EVEN MORE EXTENSIVE MEASURES BY ISRAEL.

WE MUST, MR PRESIDENT, EXPRESS DEEP REGRET AND CONCERN THAT ISRAEL HAS PROLONGED AND INTENSIFIED ITS ATTACKS ON THE TERRITORY OF LEBANON. WE CANNOT CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS. AS WE HAVE REPEATEDLY MADE CLEAR, THE US FULLY SUPPORTS THE TERRITORYAL INTEGRITY AND POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE OF LEBANON. WE THEREFORE BELIEVE

THE SC SHOULD CALL UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO WITHDRAW ITS FORCES

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 USUN N 00710 280908Z

IMMEDIATELY FROM LEBANESE TERRITORY.

THE US DEEPLY REGRETS THE LOSS OF LIFE THAT HAS OCCURRED ON BOTH SIDES. WE ALSO SYMPATHIZE FULLY WITH ISRAEL'S DISTRESS AT THE LOSS OF LIFE AT THE HANDS OF GUERRILLA INFILTRATORS WHICH APPRENTLY PRECIPITATED THIS LATEST ROUND. THE CONTINUATION OF SUCH ACTS OF TERRORISM IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF ANY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY DELAY THE ACHIEVEMENT OF A JUST AND LASTING PEACE THAT ALL OF US WERE SUPPORTED IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND IN THE UNITED NATIONS.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE KNOW THAT THE GOVT OF LEBANON HAS MADE STRENUOUS EFFORTS OVER PAST MONTHS TO MAINTAIN QUIET ALONG THE BORDER. WE RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTY OF SEALING THE BORDER COMPLETELY, BUT UNLESS MORE EFFECTIVE MEASURES CAN BE TAKEN TO DO SO, A SITUATION IS PERPETUATED IN WHICH ISRAEL IS EXPOSED TO TERRORIST ATTACKS AND FEELS COMPELLED IN SELF-DEFENSE TO RETALIATE.

HOWEVER, THE US BELIEVES THE WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM LIES NOT IN HORTATORY DECLARATIONS NOR IN FURTHER RECOURSE TO ARMED FORCE. IT LIES, RATHER, THROUGH DIRECT LIAISON AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO PROVIDE THE MOST RELIABLE ASSURANCE POSSIBLE REGARDING THE SECURITY OF EACH. IT IS THE PARTIES WHO MUST REDOUBLE THEIR EFFORTS TO AVOID A REPETITION OF THE CYCLE OF ATTACKS AND COUNTER-ATTACKS.

THE US, THEREFORE, URGES THAT BOTH ISRAEL AND LEBANON HAVE MORE FREQUENT RECOURSE TO THE INTERNATIONAL FACILITIES THAT EXIST FOR THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION ON BORDER MATTERS. ABOVE ALL, WE ASK FOR AN END TO CROSS-BORDER ATTACKS AND TERRORISM, WITHOUT WHICH THE CYCLE OF ACTION AND REACTION CANNOT BE BROKEN.

THESE EVENTS SERVE TO UNDERLINE THE URGENCY OF MOVING AHEAD ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT, FOR UNTIL PEACE IS ACHIEVED, FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FUNDAMENTAL AND LEGITIMATE CONCERNS OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA WILL PERPETUATE TENSIONS.

AS TO THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US, IN OUR STATEMENT WE HAVE EXPRESSED

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 USUN N 00710 280908Z

OUR CONCERN OVER THE LOSS OF LIFE ON BOTH SIDES. OTHERS HERE HAVE
ADDRESSED THEMSELVES TO THE EVENTS WHICH LED TO THE SITUATION AS
IT STANDS TODAY. AS I LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION. IT IS BRIEF AND TO
THE POINT, BUT IT WOULD BETTER REFLECT THE GENUINE CONCERN THAT WE FEEL

FOR THE LOSS OF LIFE--THE LOSS OF INNOCENT CIVILIAN LIFE--IF THE
RESOLUTION WERE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE WORDS "ON BOTH SIDES" AFTER THE
WORD "LIVES". THE PREAMBULAR SENTENCE WOULD THEN READ: "DEPLORING

ALL ACTIONS WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIVES
ON BOTH SIDES. IT CAN BE STATED THAT AS WRITTEN THE SENTENCE IMPLIES
THAT WE DEPLORE ACTIONS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT IT WOULD BE CLEARER INDEED

IF THE COUNCIL WOULD ACCEPT THIS ONE AMENDMENT. THIS AMENDMENT IS IN
KEEPING WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE BY SEVERAL COUNTRIES.

I STRONGLY HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL ACCEPT OUR AMENDMENT. AS THE CO-
SPONSORS STATED, THE PRESENT TEXT IS NOT ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. FOR OUR PART, WE STRONGLY
BELIEVE THAT THE THOUGHT IMPLICIT IN THE PREAMBULAR SHOULD BE
MADE EXPLICIT. I AM MOST SYMPATHETIC WITH THE PLEA BY OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM ITALY BUT THE ADDITION OF THESE THREE
WORDS SEEMS TO US TO EXPRESS MORE FAIRLY THE HUMANITARIAN CONCERN

WE ALL FEEL. MY GOVERNOR FEELS SO STRONGLY ON THIS POINT THAT I FEEL
I MUST SUBMIT THIS AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT BEFORE US. END QUOTE

2. FOLLOWING THE DEFEAT OF THE PREAMBULAR PARAGRAPH 18(US.1:4=3) AND BUSH MADE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

QUOTE: WE FIND IT INCOMPRENSIBLE THAT PEOPLE AROUND THIS TABLE COULD

HAVE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE INCLUSION OF THE STATEMENT
WHICH READ "DEPLORING ALL ACTIONS WHICH HAVE RESULTED
IN THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIVES". HOW THIS COUNCIL COULD OBJECT
TO SUCH FAIR, HUMANE LANGUAGE LEAVES US COMPLETELY BAFFLED. YES, WE
VOTED

FOR THE RESOLUTION WITHOUT THE PREAMBULAR
PARAGRAPH FOR AS WE SAID IN OUR STATEMENT, "THE SC SHOULD CALL UPON
THE GOVT OF ISRAEL TO WITHDRAW ITS FORCES IMMEDIATELY FROM

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 04 USUN N 00710 280908Z

LEBANESE TERRITORY". THAT WE HAVE DONE, BUT IT IS OUR STRONGLY HELD VIEW

THAT THE COUNCIL EVEN AT THIS STAGE KNOWS ENOUGH AND SHOULD HAVE
CARED ENOUGH TO DEPLOR AMONG OTHER THINGS THE ACTIONS

WHICH RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIVES. LET ME BE CLEAR, OUR
VOTE

ON THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THIS RESOLUTION WAS IN NO WAY A CONDONATION OF
EVENTS THAT LED UP TO ISRAEL'S ACTIONS. END QUOTE
BUSH

UNCLASSIFIED

FEBRUARY 27, 1972

JOINT COMMUNIQUE

February 28, 1972
Shanghai, People's Republic
of China

President Richard Nixon of the United States of America visited the People's Republic of China at the invitation of Premier Chou En-lai of the People's Republic of China from February 21 to February 28, 1972. Accompanying the President were Mrs. Nixon, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers, Assistant to the President Dr. Henry Kissinger, and other American officials.

President Nixon met with Chairman Mao Tsetung of the Communist Party of China on February 21. The two leaders had a serious and frank exchange of views on Sino-U.S. relations and world affairs.

During the visit, extensive, earnest and frank discussions were held between President Nixon and Premier Chou En-lai on the normalization of relations between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, as well as on other matters of interest to both sides. In addition, Secretary of State William Rogers and Foreign Minister Chi Peng-fei held talks in the same spirit.

President Nixon and his party visited Peking and viewed cultural, industrial and agricultural sites, and they also toured Hangchow and Shanghai where, continuing discussions with Chinese leaders, they viewed similar places of interest.

The leaders of the People's Republic of China and the United States of America found it beneficial to have this opportunity, after so many years without contact, to present candidly to one another their views on a variety of issues. They reviewed the international situation in which important changes and great upheavals are taking place and expounded their respective positions and attitudes.

The U.S. side stated: Peace in Asia and peace in the world requires efforts both to reduce immediate tensions and to eliminate the basic causes of conflict. The United States will work for a just and secure peace: just, because it fulfills the aspirations of peoples and nations for freedom and progress; secure, because it removes the danger of foreign aggression. The United States supports individual freedom and social progress for all the peoples of the world, free of outside pressure or intervention. The United States believes that the effort to reduce tensions is served by improving communication between countries that have different ideologies so as to lessen the risks of confrontation through accident, miscalculation or misunderstanding. Countries should treat each other with mutual respect and be willing to compete peacefully, letting performance be the ultimate judge. No country should claim infallibility and each country should be prepared to re-examine its own attitudes for the common good. The United States stressed that the peoples of Indochina should be allowed to determine their destiny without outside intervention; its constant primary objective has been a negotiated solution; the eight-point proposal put forward by the Republic of Vietnam and the United States on January 27, 1972 represents a basis for the attainment of that objective; in the absence of a negotiated settlement the United States

more

(OVER)

2

envisages the ultimate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the region consistent with the aim of self-determination for each country of Indochina. The United States will maintain its close ties with and support for the Republic of Korea; the United States will support efforts of the Republic of Korea to seek a relaxation of tension and increased communication in the Korean peninsula. The United States places the highest value on its friendly relations with Japan; it will continue to develop the existing close bonds. Consistent with the United Nations Security Council Resolution of December 21, 1971, the United States favors the continuation of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and the withdrawal of all military forces to within their own territories and to their own sides of the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir; the United States supports the right of the peoples of South Asia to shape their own future in peace, free of military threat, and without having the area become the subject of great power rivalry.

The Chinese side stated: Wherever there is oppression, there is resistance. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution -- this has become the irresistible trend of history. All nations, big or small, should be equal; big nations should not bully the small and strong nations should not bully the weak. China will never be a superpower and it opposes hegemony and power politics of any kind. The Chinese side stated that it firmly supports the struggles of all the oppressed people and nations for freedom and liberation and that the people of all countries have the right to choose their social systems according to their own wishes and the right to safeguard the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of their own countries and oppose foreign aggression, interference, control and subversion. All foreign troops should be withdrawn to their own countries.

The Chinese side expressed its firm support to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in their efforts for the attainment of their goal and its firm support to the seven-point proposal of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam and the elaboration of February this year on the two key problems in the proposal, and to the Joint Declaration of the Summit Conference of the Indochinese Peoples. It firmly supports the eight-point program for the peaceful unification of Korea put forward by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on April 12, 1971, and the stand for the abolition of the "U.N. Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea." It firmly opposes the revival and outward expansion of Japanese militarism and firmly supports the Japanese people's desire to build an independent, democratic, peaceful and neutral Japan. It firmly maintains that India and Pakistan should, in accordance with the United Nations resolutions on the India-Pakistan question, immediately withdraw all their forces to their respective territories and to their own sides of the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir and firmly supports the Pakistan Government and people in their struggle to preserve their independence and sovereignty and the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their struggle for the right of self-determination.

There are essential differences between China and the United States in their social systems and foreign policies. However, the two sides agreed that countries, regardless of their social systems, should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, non-aggression against other states, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. International disputes should be settled on this basis, without resorting to the use or threat of force. The United States and the People's Republic of China are prepared to apply these principles to their mutual relations.

more

3

With these principles of international relations in mind the two sides stated that:

- progress toward the normalization of relations between China and the United States is in the interests of all countries;

- both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict;

- neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and

- neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.

Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest.

The two sides reviewed the long-standing serious disputes between China and the United States. The Chinese side reaffirmed its position: The Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China's internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all U.S. forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of "one China, one Taiwan," "one China, two governments," "two Chinas," and "independent Taiwan" or advocate that "the status of Taiwan remains to be determined."

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges.

Both sides view bilateral trade as another area from which mutual benefit can be derived, and agreed that economic relations based on equality and mutual benefit are in the interest of the peoples of the two countries. They agree to facilitate the progressive development of trade between their two countries.

The two sides agreed that they will stay in contact through various channels, including the sending of a senior U.S. representative to Peking from time to time for concrete consultations to further the normalization of relations between the two countries and continue to exchange views on issues of common interest.

more

(OVER)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FEBRUARY 27, 1972

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Shanghai, People's Republic of China)

THE WHITE HOUSE

PRESS CONFERENCE

OF

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

AND

MARSHALL GREEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS

INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION CENTER BANQUET HALL

AT 5:50 P.M. China Time

MR. ZIEGLER: You have had a chance to read over the communique. Dr. Kissinger is here to discuss it with you and take your questions. What Dr. Kissinger says is on the record. Together with Dr. Kissinger is Assistant Secretary of State, Marshall Green, who, as you know, participated in all the meetings with Secretary of State Rogers when he met with the Foreign Minister, and he is here also to discuss the communique with you and to take your questions, together with Dr. Kissinger.

We will begin with Dr. Kissinger.

DR. KISSINGER: Let me make a few preliminary observations before we go to your questions. Let me do it in two parts. The process, and there is obviously the communique produced, and secondly, what does it mean in general terms. Then I believe that I will be prepared to answer questions.

First, how was the communique produced? From the beginning of our contacts with the People's Republic of China, there were some obvious general considerations of what the outcome of a meeting between the President and the leaders of the People's Republic might be.

During the interim visit there were some exploratory conversations of an outcome in the conventional sense in which both sides tend to state general positions which they afterwards choose to interpret, each in their own way.

It was, therefore, decided early in the meetings in communication between the President and Prime Minister that such an approach would make no sense. It would not be worthy of the purposes that were attempted to be served.

It was therefore decided that each side would state its position on issues in a meeting which it would produce more or less independent of the other. It would not pretend to an agreement that did not exist and which would have to be interpreted away in the subsequent implementation. Therefore, the beginning part of the communique represents, in effect, a statement by each side of some of its general principles.

On our side, they were deliberately not phrased in a pretentious way. While in discussions now or then the arguments MADE by the Chinese side were, of course, rebutted, we did not

- 2 -

feel that this was the appropriate vehicle to do so, but rather
to state what our positive view was.

For that matter, the Chinese side did not rebut
arguments which we made in our section that they did not parti-
cularly agree with.

In order to present these two views on an equal
basis, it has been decided that in the text issued by the
American Government, the U.S. position would be stated first, and
in the text to be issued by the Chinese government, the Chinese
version would be stated first.

I mention this only to point it out so that you will
not be surprised if the Chinese version follows a different
sequence from the American version. This is by agreement. Both
versions are official and are being put out on the basis of this
agreement.

The procedure that was followed here was that issues
of general principle were first discussed in the meetings between
the President and the Prime Minister. They were then, after
they had been explored for sometime, transferred to the meetings
chaired by the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of
the People's Republic of China. Then, if any additional issues
arose, they might be referred back to the meeting of the
President and the Prime Minister.

In drafting the communique, various sections were
produced by various elements of the American side. I played
the role of go-between on our side and the Vice Foreign Minister,
whose name I despair of ever learning to pronounce, on the
Chinese side.

In this manner, as we put together the various
paragraphs that were supplied to us on our side by various
individuals, if we reached a point at which agreement seemed
near or possible, we would then go back to our principals and
to the Secretary of State. Through this process, the communique was
finally achieved.

For example, some of the sections were quite prolonged.
The last few nights the sessions went on until the early hours of
the morning with the President. In Peking, the Chinese delegation had a house in the guest complex, and most of the sessions took place in that house. As a paragraph was finished, it would typically go back then to the President who was in the next house, and this went on Friday night until about 5:00 in the morning.

So much for the procedure. Let me say something about
the content. Obviously neither side would have written this
communique this way if it had been able to draft it entirely
by itself. Therefore, it represented an attempt by two countries
that had been out of contact for a long time to find a basis to
convey first some immediate understandings, but beyond that,
to start a process by which they could bring about a closer
relationship over a period of time and by which they could,
where interests converged, act in a more nearly parallel fashion
and where interests differed, to mitigate the consequences of
those disagreements.

- 3 -

So the communique ought to be seen in two aspects:
First, in terms of the specific principles and conclusions
it states, and secondly, in terms of the direction to which
it seeks to point. It is on that basis that we are presenting
it to the American people and on which the People's Republic
is presenting it as well.

Now, this is all that I want to say by way of
introduction. I wonder whether Marshall Green would like to
add a few words, and then we will be glad to answer questions.

MR. GREEN: I have just a few words. First of all,
with regard to the PRC authority with whom Dr. Kissinger was
maintaining the discussions, it was Chiao -- just to clarify
that point.

I don't think I really have much to add. Our talks
under Secretary Rogers on our side, and Foreign Minister Chi
Feng-fei for the People's Republic of China, extended over, I
believe, ten hours all together.

But it was not just the talks themselves. We had
frequent occasion, as you could imagine with all the fine food
you have eaten -- occasionally waiting to have that fine food,
to have extensive talks also, and a number of matters could be
discussed in that context.

Also, it was not just that, but the Secretary did
have a chance to meet on a number of occasions with the
Prime Minister. Most recently, coming down on the plane he
had an hour and a half from Peking to Hangchow. And then today
the Prime Minister called on him in his hotel room for about
40 minutes.

I would say that the talks and the counterpart
meetings were characterized by candor, friendliness and courtesy
and hospitality, as I am sure you have all seen on the part
of our Chinese hosts. There was no pulling of punches, not physi-
cally, of course. They were outspoken, no effort to cover
up or paper over differences, but to have it out. It is
good for the system. I think in so doing one has a much better
appreciation of the other person's point of view.

As far as the specifics were concerned, in the
talks, I really can't say much more than what already appears in
the communique itself, although some of the points may or may
not raise questions.

Q On Page 4, in stating that the United States
will progressively reduce its forces in military installations
on Taiwan, was that decision a result of the discussions here
in China?

DR. KISSINGER: No, this is a general statement of our
policy which we have enunciated on innumerable occasions in
innumerable forums. It says that we maintain the amount of
forces that is required by the general situation and not by
any abstract determination. It is our statement of our
general policy, but not a mutual decision.

Q Is there any sign now that the conditions would
lead to a reduction of the American military force in Taiwan
shortly?

NCR-1

DR. KISSINGER: I don't want to speculate on what will be done over a period of time, but if you speak about "shortly," I would not expect that.

Q Why did not the United States Government affirm its treaty commitment to Taiwan, as the President and you have done on numerous occasions?

DR. KISSINGER: Let me take this occasion to deal with that particular aspect, and let me deal with it once, and not answer it in innumerable elliptical forms in which, no __________ it will be presented.

The particular issue which Mr. Kraslow raised is, of course, an extraordinarily difficult one to discuss on the territory of a country with which we do not maintain formal diplomatic relations and for which this particular issue is a matter of profound principle.

Let me, therefore, state in response to this and any related question -- and let me do it once and not repeat it -- we stated our basic position with respect to this issue in the President's World Report in which we say that this treaty will be maintained. Nothing has changed on that position

But I would appreciate it if that would be all that I would be asked to say about it in these circumstances. But the position of the World Report stands and has been unaltered.

Q Dr. Kissinger, the possibility is mentioned of the United States sending a representative to Peking from time to time. Is there any likelihood that this process might be reversed and Peking might send a representative to Washington?

DR. KISSINGER: The situation of the two sides is not exactly equal in this respect because in Washington there is a Chinese representation different from that that would be sent under the hypothesis which you mention. However, when we envisage is the establishment of a contact point, to begin with, in which the discussions about the exchanges and trade that are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs will be formally conducted and as soon as this contact point has been established, it will be announced and the visit of a U. S. representative to Peking would take place as the need arises, and as particular issues of great importance need to be discussed. This, however, is not to the exclusion of any other possibility.

Q What do you mean by "a contact point"?

DR. KISSINGER: For example, there existed for a while, and formally still exists, a forum in Warsaw where U. S. and Chinese officials met -- something of this kind. As soon as that is established, which we expect will be in the reasonably near future, we will announce it.

Q Will that be established in the United States or Canada or some other country?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't expect it to be in the United States, but I don't want to speculate beyond that.

10/14

Q Can we assume that the President and Prime Minister discussed all these differences face-to-face, specifically their differences over Vietnam and the reduction of troops on Taiwan? Were these positions stated openly?

DR. KISSINGER: All differences were discussed by the President and the Prime Minister face to face, candidly and seriously, including those which you mentioned.

Q Can you point to anything in this document in which the Peoples Republic of China goes any significant step beyond its position at the time of the first ping pong exchanges?

DR. KISSINGER: Let me say two things: We are not approaching this from the point of view of a scoreboard of seeing who scored how many points on which issue. At the time of the first ping pong exchange, if I understand the position of the Peoples Republic of China, it was that some very low level people-to-people exchanges would occur.

The formalization of exchanges encouraged by the two governments, the opening of trade encouraged by the two governments, the establishment of a diplomatic mechanism for continued contact, the joint statement of some general principles of international relations, the joint statement of some basic approaches to the view of the world with respect to, for example, the section which includes the reference to hegemony -- these, I believe, are matters that most of us would have considered unthinkable at the time of the invitation to the ping pong team.

But I would put them on the basis of mutuality rather than of any unilateral movement on the part of the Peoples Republic of China.

Q Henry, is this the first time that a President of the United States has formally picked up the language of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence?

DR. KISSINGER: I have to say I am simply not sure. All I would reply, again, would be an answer in the same terms as I did to Mr. Frankel. The question is not who put forward the proposals. The question is: Does it contain principles that we can live by and since we have said we are prepared to apply these principles during the next one on the non-use of force, and since both sides have stated this, it does not really make a crucial difference who put it forward first.

Q How much progress was there made in advancing the ball? How much further did we go this time than in your original talks with Premier Chou?

DR. KISSINGER: The character of the discussions inevitably is entirely different when the President of the United States talks than when an assistant talks who cannot make any definitive statement. The basic objective of this trip was to set in motion a train of events and an evolution in the policy of our two countries which both sides recognized would be slow at first and present many difficulties and in which a great deal depended on the assessment by each side of the understanding by the other of what was involved in this process and of the assessment by each side of the reliability of the other in being able to pursue this for the amount of time necessary to see it prevail.

HOPE

- 6 -

In this sense it almost had to be conducted by the heads of the two governments and in this sense I would say that in the depth and seriousness of the discussions it went, obviously beyond what had been discussed in my visits and beyond our expectations.

Q Did Chairman Mao participate? Did his participation go to the detailed substance of this matter or was it largely philosophical and general?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to go into detail about the content of the conversation with Chairman Mao. I may say, however, that Chairman Mao and the President discussed each of the essential categories in a general way and we have every reason to believe that the Prime Minister checked with the Chairman at every step along the way. But it was not just a vague philosophical discussion.

Q The assertion of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, combined with the statement of respect for one China, could that be construed as meaning that the United States notes the claim of the Government of the People's Republic of China, its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan?

DR. KISSINGER: Our view with respect to Taiwan has been exhaustively stated in that paragraph you refer to and we add nothing to it.

Q Dr. Kissinger, can you tell us whether there is any timetable under which you are going to undertake to facilitate the contacts and exchanges in the cultural, sports and journalistic areas?

DR. KISSINGER: There is no precise timetable, Walter, but I think it is correct to say that both sides understand that this will be pursued with some dispatch.

Q Dr. Kissinger, in the light of the statement by the Government of China that the Chinese side said that the Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations, does this timetable depend on further progress in the solution of the Taiwan question?

DR. KISSINGER: No. That is independent of the other, though at what point the two would become interdependent again I cannot judge. But as this is written now, my answer to Walter Cronkite stands on its own feet.

Q Dr. Kissinger, where the communique states, "Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest," was that a result of your talks about Sino-Soviet tensions or was the Soviet Union involved in the talks? Does this refer to how the United States view the relationship between China and the U. S. and the Soviet Union?

MORE

- 7 -

DR. KISSINGER: We have said on many occasions, and I will say it again here, that as far as the United States is concerned, our relationship with the Peoples Republic of China is not directed against the Soviet Union and while the Peoples Republic is well able to speak for itself, and my megalomania has not reached the point where I believe that I can speak for it, I believe that it is clear to us that neither is the policy of the Peoples Republic of China in its relations with us directed against the Soviet Union.

We are pursuing our policy with the Peoples Republic of China on the ground that a stable peace in the world is difficult to envisage if 800 million people are excluded from a dialogue with the most powerful nation in the world and we are conducting our discussions with the Peoples Republic entirely on the merits of that relationship.

The paragraph on hegemony will arise only if any country should seek it, but we had no particular country in mind when it was being drafted.

Q In the paragraph referring to the reduction of forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes, is this an exclusive reference to Indo-China as the area?

DR. KISSINGER: No. It is a reference to the general area. It is not a reference to any particular part of Asia.

Q What conditions in that area would keep American troops on Taiwan? What tensions in the area of Taiwan now require the presence of American troops there?

DR. KISSINGER: We are talking about the general state of relationships in Asia and in the world. It is in reference to that, that our general decisions on deployments will be made.

Q Dr. Kissinger, the President said in a television interview the beginning of January that he would bring up the question of American prisoners of war in Vietnam when he came to China. Can you tell us if it came up and what the reaction was?

DR. KISSINGER: Obviously, as the communique makes clear, the issue of Vietnam was discussed and it is also clear that we would not discuss it without mentioning our concern with respect to the prisoners. The position of the Peoples Republic is as stated in the communique that it supports the seven-point proposal made by the PRC, and I think it is a fair characterization of the basic positions.

Q Dr. Kissinger, there is a paragraph that says "International disputes should be settled on this basis, without resorting to the use of threat or force." Since the Peoples Republic says the difficulty with us on Taiwan is an international issue, does this mean that they have agreed not to use force or the threat of force in settling or solving that?

DR. KISSINGER: The formal position of the Peoples Republic of China with respect to Taiwan is a matter, of course, of extreme delicacy for us to discuss here at all. Clearly, they do not, as they have stated in their part of the section on Taiwan, consider it an international problem in any normal sense. Clearly, the formal statements with respect to this issue have to be drafted with the various perspectives in mind.

3/6/72

Full text of statement by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Christopher Van Hollen, during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on recognition of Bangladesh, March 6, 1972:

"Insofar as the question of the recognition of Bangladesh is concerned, this matter is under active review but no decision has been taken.

President Nixon has made clear the context within which the issue of the recognition of Bangladesh is being considered. You will recall that in his February 10 press conference, the President said that a decision on recognition should not be expected before his return from China. He noted, however, that 'We have under study our whole relationship with the subcontinent' and that our relationship with 'the 70 million people in Bangladesh' is, of course, part of that review. At the same time in a different context the President went on to say that 'We are going to do everything we can to develop a new relationship with the countries of the subcontinent that will be pro-Indian, pro-Bangalese, pro-Pakistan, but mostly pro-peace.' That review is still in process and no decision has been made.

These statements by the President make clear both our awareness of current political realities in South Asia and our concerns for peace and stability in that area. As a general proposition, however, many factors including political considerations determine decisions on recognition and its precise timing. The case of Bangladesh is set against the tragic background of the recent hostilities between India and Pakistan and of the political and military situation in the wake of war which has yet to be fully clarified. Among other things we are especially concerned about the continued presence of Indian troops in Bangladesh, and we also will wish to weigh the impact of our decisions on other countries both within and outside the region. In this context we are following developments in South Asia carefully in light of our interests, current problems, and humanitarian needs.

The members of this Committee are well aware that there has been historically a warm and close relationship between the American people and the people of East Bengal. The Government and people of the United States have been in the forefront in contributing to development efforts in that area and they have been deeply conscious of and sympathetic with the tremendous problems that have beset the area. This Administration gave generously and

PAGE 2

promptly to the massive international effort that was launched
to deal with the tragedy that befell East Bengal in the cyclone
and tidal bore of 1970. We played a strong leadership role in
encouraging and supporting the U. N. relief work prior to the
December hostilities and our efforts contributed significantly
to the prevention of famine which threatened the area. Private
Americans have long been active in that area in education, in
public health and in joint efforts in development.

All of us can be proud of that record. As the people and the
Bangladesh authorities now again take up the tremendous tasks
of rehabilitation and development, they can count on the support
and help of the people and government of this country. As
President Nixon pointed out in his foreign policy report to Con-
gress for 1972:

'Our relief effort in East Bengal will continue. The authorities face the grim challenge of creating a viable political structure and economy in one of the most impoverished -- and now newly devastated -- areas of the world. We have never been hostile to Bengali aspirations. Our aid program in the 1960s increasingly concentrated on development in East Bengal. We provided two-thirds of the world's emergency aid to the province in 1971. We would expect other nations to bear a proportionate share of that responsibility in the future, but as the United States strengthens new relationships in Asia, we have no intention of ignoring these 70 million people.'

As tangible evidence of these remarks by the President, we have
already announced a contribution of 175,000 tons of food grain, worth
approximately $21 million, to the U. N. Secretary General's humani-
tarian relief appeal. We have also provided a total of $3.65 million
to two American voluntary agencies long active in humanitarian work
in East Bengal, CARE and Catholic Relief Services, to support the
housing demonstration and construction projects that they have
developed in coordination with the authorities of Bangladesh.

Additionally, we have provided $50,000 through the International
Rescue Committee to the support of the Cholera Research Labora-
tory in Dacca and $300,000 for operating expenses of the U. N.
Mission in Dacca.

PAGE 3

As the U. N. effort develops, we are prepared to contribute
our proportionate share of future assistance as requirements
are clarified. In this common endeavor, we also believe it
essential that other countries make substantial contributions
on their own so that this will be a truly cooperative inter-
national effort in relief and rehabilitation.

It is in this broad political and humanitarian context that this
Government is closely considering its future relationship with
Bangladesh, including the question of recognition which is under
active review."

agricultural exports. I noted with fascination a recent study of a German research institute which indicated that the annual cost of the European Community's subsidies for agricultural exports increased from DM 0.5 billion to DM 3.8 billion from 1963 to 1969, while net earnings from exports (that is, export receipts less subsidies) of the Community actually declined during the same period. In some cases these European Community exports to third markets were in competition with subsidized exports of other producers. One has to ask, What are the advantages of this trade as opposed to controlling the production which gives rise to surpluses that can be disposed of only with massive subsidies? -

This listing by no means exhausts the items that could usefully be on the agenda of a new international trade negotiating program. One could mention the possibility of standardizing preferences accorded in government-financed procurement, strengthening the institutional structure of international trade practices, and many other urgent trade subjects, not to mention the whole area of capital movements.

In recent months the United States and the Community have been discussing the agenda for international trade negotiations as well as other economic issues. These discussions have shown both the value of a transatlantic dialogue on economic issues and the need to strengthen it. Your government has taken a particular interest in the task of intensifying the U.S.-Community dialogue. There is sound basis for this in the broader role of the United States and Europe in world affairs. For a country and region with global interests, economic issues can assume greater political importance, both domestically and internationally, than their intrinsic commercial significance might indicate.

As partners and leaders in a world economy, the United States and the European Community have a full work schedule ahead. There is no basis for the United States and the European Community, which have

worked consistently together for the liberalization of trade, to rest on our record. The Kennedy Round, as fine an achievement as it was, cannot be our greatest. The challenge is still before us to increase through freer exchange the contribution of international trade and investment to our own and the world's prosperity.

THE CONGRESS

Department Gives Views on Issue of U.S. Recognition of Bangladesh

Statement by Christopher Van Hollen ¹

Mr. Chairman [Senator Frank Church]: It is a great pleasure for me to be here this morning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the question of Bangladesh, and with your permission, sir, I would like to read a brief introductory statement which sets forth the administration's views on this subject.

President Nixon has made clear the context within which the issue of the recognition of Bangladesh is being considered. You will recall that in his February 10 press conference, the President said that a decision on recognition should not be expected before his return from China.² He noted, however, that "we have under study our whole rela-

¹ Made before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Mar. 6. Mr. Van Hollen is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.

² For excerpts from President Nixon's news conference of Feb. 10, see BULLETIN of Mar. 6, 1972, p. 292.

488

Department of State Bulletin

tionship with the subcontinent" and that our relationship with "the 70 million people in Bangladesh" is, of course, part of that review. At the same time in a different context the President went on to say that "we are going to do everything that we can to develop a new relationship with the countries on the subcontinent that will be pro-Indian, pro-Bengalese, pro-Pakistan, but mostly pro-peace." That review is still in process, and no decision has been made.

These statements by the President make clear both our awareness of current political realities in South Asia and our concerns for peace and stability in that area. As a general proposition, however, many factors including political considerations determine decisions on recognition and its precise timing. The case of Bangladesh is set against the tragic background of the recent hostilities between India and Pakistan and of the political and military situation in the wake of the war which has yet to be fully clarified. Among other things, we are especially concerned about the continued presence of Indian troops in Bangladesh, and we also will wish to weigh the impact of our decisions on other countries both within and outside the region. In this context we are following developments in South Asia carefully in light of our interests, current problems, and humanitarian needs.

The members of this committee are well aware that there has been historically a warm and close relationship between the American people and the people of East Bengal. The government and people of the United States have been in the forefront in contributing to development efforts in that area, and they have been deeply conscious of and sympathetic with the tremendous problems that have beset that area. This administration gave generously and promptly to the massive international effort that was launched to deal with the tragedy that befell East Bengal in the cyclone and tidal bore of 1970. We played a strong leadership role in encouraging and supporting the U.N. relief

work prior to the December hostilities, and our efforts contributed significantly to the prevention of famine, which threatened the area. Private Americans have long been active in that area in education, in public health, and in joint efforts in development.

All of us can be proud of that record. As the people and the Bangladesh authorities now again take up the tremendous tasks of rehabilitation and development, they can count on the support and help of the people and government of this country. As President Nixon pointed out in his foreign policy report to Congress for 1972:³

> Our relief effort in East Bengal will continue. The authorities face the grim challenge of creating a viable political structure and economy in one of the most impoverished—and now newly devastated—areas of the world. We have never been hostile to Bengali aspirations. Our aid program in the 1960's increasingly concentrated on development in East Bengal. We provided two-thirds of the world's emergency aid to the province in 1971. We would expect other nations to bear a proportionate share of that responsibility in the future, but as the United States strengthens new relationships in Asia, we have no intention of ignoring these 70 million people.

As tangible evidence of these remarks by the President, we have already announced a contribution of 175,000 tons of food grain, worth approximately $21 million, to the U.N. Secretary General's humanitarian relief appeal. We have also provided a total of $3.65 million to two American voluntary agencies long active in humanitarian work in East Bengal, CARE and Catholic Relief Services, to support the housing demonstration and construction projects that they have developed in coordination with the authorities of Bangladesh.

Additionally, we have provided $50,000 through the International Rescue Committee to the support of the Cholera Research Laboratory in Dacca and $300,000 for operating expenses of the U.N. mission in Dacca.

³ The complete text of President Nixon's foreign policy report to the Congress on Feb. 9 appears in the BULLETIN of Mar. 13, 1972.

March 27, 1972

489

As the U.N. effort develops, we are pre-
pared to contribute our proportionate share
of future assistance as requirements are clar-
ified. In this common endeavor, we also be-
lieve it essential that other countries make
substantial contributions on their own so
that this will be a truly cooperative interna-
tional effort in relief and rehabilitation.

It is in this broad political and humani-
tarian context that this government is close-
ly considering its future relationship with
Bangladesh, including the question of recog-
nition, which is under active review.

THE UNITED NATIONS

United States Discusses Enforcement
of Sanctions Against Rhodesia

Following is a statement made in the U.N.
Security Council on February 28 by U.S.
Representative Christopher H. Phillips, to-
gether with the text of a resolution adopted
by the Council that day.

STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR PHILLIPS

USUN press release 14 dated February 28

The United States Government, both in-
side and outside of the U.N., has supported
the right of self-determination and has op-
posed the odious practice of racial discrim-
ination.

From the inception, the United States has
voted for Security Council decisions impos-
ing mandatory economic sanctions against
the rebel regime in Rhodesia. I submit that
the United States has been second to none
in the vigorous enforcement of these sanc-

tions. The effectiveness of the action of my
government is documented in the reports of
the Sanctions Committee.

Members of the Council are aware of a
special situation affecting the United States
enforcement of the sanctions on Rhodesia.
I refer, of course, to the so-called Byrd pro-
vision of the military procurement bill, the
provisions of which I am certain are well
known to all around this table.

The considerations leading to the enact-
ment into law of the Byrd provision emerged
clearly in the statements and testimony on
the legislation in our Congress. Among these
was the concern of Congressmen that while
the United States was becoming dependent
on a single high-priced source of chrome ore,
Rhodesian ore was being exported in quanti-
ty to other countries. Since the United States
was scrupulously observing the sanctions,
U.S. executive officials found it impossible
to offer any persuasive refutation of this
conclusion. The Congress felt that for com-
pelling reasons of national security the
United States should not be placed in a
distinctly disadvantageous position with re-
gard to the importation of strategic com-
modities.

It is an inescapable fact of life that this
legislation, having been duly enacted ac-
cording to our constitutional processes, is
now the law of the land. However, as Am-
bassador Bush made clear both at Addis and
in later statements in various African coun-
tries he was privileged to visit, the United
States remains interested in seeing that sanc-
tions work. I reaffirm that we stand ready
to assist the Sanctions Committee in its
efforts, and we pledge that we will continue
our full participation in its activities.

However, Mr. President, we also believe
that this Council should face squarely the
true nature of the problem confronting the
U.N. concerning the effectiveness of the
sanctions program.

The United States continues to be com-
mitted to the sanctions program voted in
Security Council Resolution 253 of 1968, but
we also believe that the enforcement of these

490

Department of State Bulletin

*what those who have been waiting so far in vain to get into China should do?*

A. Well, you notice that President Nixon in his remarks at Andrews made reference to this fact.² We are going to do what we can to facilitate exchanges, and that includes journalists. However, all these exchanges are going to be on a person-to-person basis; they will not be a government-to-government exchange. So I think that the best advice that I can give to anyone is to attempt to apply for whatever it is you want to apply for, and the government will attempt to facilitate the result that you seek.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you mention in your report, page VII of the introduction, that "the Soviet attitude must change quite profoundly if Europe is to achieve the more difficult objective of reconciling its nations." Do you think that the German Ostpolitik, which is aimed at this very reconciliation, can succeed if there is no profound change of Soviet politics and attitudes?

A. Well, I think you should read the next sentence.

Q. I did.

A. Do you want to read it out loud?

Q. "That reconciliation is not compatible with a doctrine which asserts that power, geography or ideological affinity gives any country an exclusive sphere of influence or a right of intervention in other states. Respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty is essential to world stability. We strongly oppose hegemony under any guise or pretense."

A. Well, I think that states it very well. [Laughter.]

Q. No. The question is, if you ask for a change in the Soviet attitude in order to make possible a reconciliation of the European nations, it would have to apply for the German Ostpolitik as well.

A. Well, as you know, we do not want to

make a comment on matters that involve the internal affairs in Germany at the moment.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your opening remarks you expressed a hope that in 1972 you will get an interim agreement on the Suez. Can we assume, sir, that you are ready to approach Cairo now?

A. As I said in my last press conference, we are going to be very careful about not disclosing the discussions that we are having in connection with the Middle East matter. We think it is essential that these discussions that we have from time to time are not made public. We still have hope that there is a possibility that we can get some negotiations started. But we don't have any idea about when that might occur.

### U.S.-China Summit Meetings

Q. Mr. Secretary, there has been some considerable comment, as you are probably aware, of your absence in the top-level meetings with the Chinese leaders. Could you comment on that for us?

A. Well, I will, for a moment. I don't want to go into it in great depth. Let me just say that this was the fifth summit meeting that I have attended recently. This is the first summit meeting where I have spent so much time with a head of government myself, by myself. I spent an hour and a half with him, with the Premier, on his airplane, and I spent almost an hour in my suite in Shanghai when he came to call on me. Also we took part in two plenary sessions to open the meeting, and we had a plenary session in Peking, before we left Peking, of some duration. Now, that is the way we have—in the past we have always had the heads at the summit meet and the foreign ministers meet, and we did the same thing here. The significant thing, from my standpoint, was that I had much more time with the head of government than I have ever had before. At my meetings with the French and the British and the Germans and the Japanese, I spent little or no time with the head of the government.

Now, the only meeting that I did not at-

² For President Nixon's remarks at Andrews Air Force Base on Feb. 28, see ibid., p. 434.

March 27, 1972

473

tend was the Mao meeting. That was called on short notice, and the President responded to the invitation. And although I realize it seems very significant—as far as all of us who were there are concerned, we understood it. So I didn't feel excluded at all. I am not dispirited. And I think that the meetings that we had were very successful. Not only that. Can I say—I don't think that the American people much care about things like this. What they care about is, is our foreign policy successful? And I think it is a very successful foreign policy. And I think the State Department plays an essential and important role in the formulation and the execution of that foreign policy. And if any of you have the patience to read this report—and I am not sure that many of you will; I'm sure a lot of others will—you will see that the State Department has played a very essential, vital role in the conduct of foreign policy, and I think the foreign policy of this country under President Nixon has been extremely successful by all standards.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your section on the comprehensive test ban, you speak about a markedly improved ability that you had discussed to discriminate between earthquakes and nuclear explosions. Does this report point toward a greater commitment by this government toward a comprehensive test ban than had been noted in earlier reports, including the "state of the world," and are we prepared to have a comprehensive test ban in the absence of France and China from the talks?

A. The answer to the first part of your question, Marilyn [Marilyn Berger, Washington Post], is, No, I don't think so. I think what I have said is consistent with what the President said in his foreign policy report. We always, of course, have the matter under consideration. But I have nothing to add to what we have said in this report on that subject.

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us yet when we can expect an announcement about the setting up of the third-country communications with China and what country that is?

A. That was the question that was asked before. And my answer was, No, we would expect it, we hope, within several weeks.

### Question of Recognition of Bangladesh

Q. Mr. Secretary, there is what appears to be a broad hint of the possibility of recognition of Bangladesh in this. Can you tell us what considerations are paramount in the administration's mind in making that decision and give us any even rough time frame for that period of consideration?

A. I think that your question accurately reflects the intent of the report. We have the matter under active consideration. We have referred to the country as Bangladesh. I don't want to indicate all of the criteria that we have under consideration in making this decision. But to a large extent, they are the criteria involved in making a decision in other cases. One important criterion is the presence of Indian troops on Bangladesh soil.

Q. Just to follow that up: This, then, is a requirement, that they be out of Bangladesh before we—

A. No, I didn't say it was a requirement. I say it is a factor that we take into consideration.

Q. Mr. Secretary, there is a low-level signal coming from the North Koreans now that they might be interested in improving their relations with the United States. Do you see any possibility of this happening, given the new international climate that exists now following the China trip?

A. Of course, the signal to which you refer comes, as I recall it, from a nongovernmental source. But there are other indications that the North Koreans are willing to attempt to improve their relations with both South Korea and possibly with the United States. We have indicated a general willingness to improve relations with all countries. And actually that would include North Korea. We would not want to take any affirmative action in that regard until we had talk-

474

Department of State Bulletin

we hope that there will be continuation of that trend. Whether it would result in diplomatic relations or not, of course, there's no way of being sure.

Q. Mr. Secretary, your report seems to indicate that one of the major items on the agenda in Moscow will be "joint action to limit arms shipments"—that's a quote from your report—to the Middle East. Can you tell us whether this will be a major effort on the part of the United States during the Moscow summit?

A. Well, it certainly will be an effort on the part of the United States: We proposed this from time to time in the past, and we think it's a very important proposal. If we could limit arms shipments to the Middle East, I think it would tend to reduce the tensions that exist there.

Q. May I follow that up? Would that affect arms that have already been pledged?

A. Well, we haven't refined our thinking to that extent. My offhand reaction to that is: No. I think the first thing we would try to do is see if it's possible to work out an arms limitation agreement as far as shipments to the Middle East are concerned.

## Relations With Asian Nations

Q. Mr. Secretary, on page IX of your introduction, with regard to Japan you say: "The United States has no intention of permitting any development to interfere with the closeness of that association." Would it be correct to infer from that that should U.S.-Chinese relations and U.S.-Japanese relations come into collision, the United States would opt for friendship with Japan rather than China?

A. No. I don't think that we expect that there will be that kind of a confrontation. We don't believe it's inconsistent to attempt to improve our relations with the People's Republic of China and to continue to have close and friendly relations with other countries.

Now, in the process, of course, you do create some apprehensions; and that's why As-

sistant Secretary of State Marshall Green is in the area now talking to the governments that are concerned. But we think it's manageable. We think we can convince those governments that we're going to continue to have good relations with them. We're going to continue to have relations that are important to both nations and still improve our relations with the People's Republic of China.

I might say, in that connection, that I think Marshall Green has done an outstanding job. All the reports that I get from the capitals where he's visited have been excellent. And I think that he is performing his task with great ability.

Q. Mr. Secretary, a followup on Marilyn's question regarding arms shipments. While in Moscow, would you be interested in discussing with the Russians the possibility of mutual limitation of Soviet and American naval forces in the eastern end of the Mediterranean?

A. I don't want to get into any further discussion about the specific matters that we'll talk about. President Nixon has said from time to time that he expects to have a far-ranging discussion with the Russians about a number of matters. Now, whether that particular one would be touched or not, I don't think I could predict at this time.

Q. Mr. Secretary, there have been reports in Japan that the United States offered China a hundred thousand tons of wheat. Is this correct?

A. Reports of what?

Q. That the United States offered China a hundred thousand tons of wheat during the recent talks. Is that correct?

A. I haven't seen any such reports.

Q. You're not aware of any such reports?

A. No, I'm not aware of anything of that kind.

Q. You haven't seen such reports, but did you make such an offer?

A. You mean in case there was such a report? [Laughter.]

March 27, 1972

477

bring the best of our science and technology to bear on the critical problems of development through our reorganized foreign assistance programs.

## A NEW SENSE OF PURPOSE AND A NEW SENSE OF PARTNERSHIP

The years ahead will require a new sense of purpose and a new sense of partnership in science and technology. We must define our goals clearly, so that we know where we are going. And then we must develop careful strategies for pursuing those goals, strategies which bring together the Federal Government, the private sector, the universities, and the States and local communities in a cooperative pursuit of progress. Only then can we be confident that our public and

private resources for science and technology will be spent as effectively as possible.

In all these efforts, it will be essential that the American people be better equipped to make wise judgments concerning public issues which involve science and technology. As our national life is increasingly permeated by science and technology, it is important that public understanding grow apace.

The investment we make today in science and technology and in the development of our future scientific and technical talent is an investment in tomorrow—an investment which can have a tremendous impact on the basic quality of our lives. We must be sure that we invest wisely and well.

RICHARD NIXON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 16, 1972.

## Department Discusses Role Played by 6th Fleet in Foreign Relations

Statement by Rodger P. Davies

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs¹

I welcome this opportunity to appear before your two subcommittees to discuss the proposal to homeport certain elements of the 6th Fleet in Greece. Witnesses from the Department of Defense have explained the homeporting concept and the technical reasons for selecting the Athens-Piraeus area for this arrangement rather than another Mediterranean port. I would like to add a political dimension to this picture by discussing the role the 6th Fleet plays in our foreign relations. A clearer understanding of this factor will help put the homeporting project in perspective as simply a means to

maintain our level of naval effectiveness in the Mediterranean in the face of budgetary constraints.

Aside from its purely military role in the NATO defense strategy and our own contingency planning, the 6th Fleet has played and now plays an essential part in supporting our political objectives in the Mediterranean Basin. Particularly in the area of the turbulent Near East, the fleet has been an important factor in the maintenance of peace in several potentially explosive situations over the past two decades. In this area, where threats of, or resort to, force or subversion to achieve political objectives at the expense of others has often been the pattern, the United States has been able to play a moderating role which has helped prevent or

¹ Made before the Subcommittees on Europe and the Near East of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Mar. 8.

April 10, 1972

549

contain conflict. The 6th Fleet and the U.S. military presence in Europe serve to give credibility to U.S. policy objectives of supporting the independence and integrity of states of the Near East and our interest in peaceful solutions to disputes in this critical area of the world. Happily, the mere presence of the kind of power the fleet represents has ordinarily rendered unnecessary any engagement of forces. During periods of extreme tension in the Mediterranean area, the existence of the fleet can be counted on to help stabilize situations that might otherwise get out of hand.

Although we all look to the day when interstate conflict will be a relic of the past and the power blocs can begin mutually to reduce the investment of resources in sterile armaments, that day is not yet here. Universal U.S. reduction of its military posture in effect would mean a reduced capability of the United States to play an effective role in support of friendly governments when threatened and would mean negotiating for lower levels of armaments from a position of weakness.

Our military posture in the eastern Mediterranean is relevant to our initiatives to bring about a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute which would take account of the central security requirements of both Arabs and Israelis. We see this objective as crucial to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Middle East and perhaps in the world. Aside from safeguarding the sovereignty of Israel, such a settlement would have numerous beneficial side effects such as alleviating much of the tension and hostility that now characterizes our dealings with some Arab countries and establishing an atmosphere conducive to rapid social and economic development of the entire area. A settlement would also remove from the international scene an issue which the Soviets have exploited to advance their own political and military objectives in the area.

The presence of the 6th Fleet in the eastern Mediterranean provides an element of stability that is essential if this difficult issue

is to be peaceably resolved. Conversely, a weakening of our overall defense posture in the area would represent a dangerous invitation to adventurism and threaten to weaken our ability to support a basis for a just and enduring peace.

The 6th Fleet stands ready to protect the lives of American citizens who might be endangered by an outbreak of violence in the area. During the Suez crisis of 1956, for example, the fleet was instrumental in evacuating United States citizens and other foreign nationals from Israel and Egypt. United States shipping and other interests in the Mediterranean also come under this protective mantle. In the 1970 evacuation of the international community from Jordan when Palestinian extremists sought to overthrow the Jordan Government, the fleet also played a role.

On a broader diplomatic front, the continued strength and health of the NATO alliance, to which the 6th Fleet makes a substantial contribution, is of paramount importance to the preservation of the western influence and position in Europe as well as in the Mediterranean. Reductions of United States ground forces in Europe sufficient to shake confidence in NATO would be felt southward, and a weakening of the 6th Fleet would have an impact in the north. In short, the strength of the 6th Fleet is highly relevant to the deterrent stance of NATO and the influence of the United States on the European Continent.

Considering this interaction between the 6th Fleet and our broad objectives, it would clearly be unwise to allow dwindling budgets and reduced ship and personnel levels to jeopardize the effectiveness of the fleet at a time when we can ill afford any weakening of our diplomatic posture. Thus, the Navy's proposal to improve the morale of its service-men, increase retention rates, and maintain its effectiveness by establishing a home port in the Mediterranean must be seen as a practical attempt to meet a real need from the diplomatic as well as the military standpoint. Homeporting brings about no change in the

550

Department of State Bulletin

strategic posture of the United States in the Mediterranean; its advantage lies in allowing a continued effective operation of the fleet within the present stringent budgetary limits.

The witnesses from the Department of Defense have explained the overriding practical reasons why the Athens-Piraeus area was chosen for the homeporting arrangement over alternative ports in the Mediterranean. From the diplomatic standpoint, any selection would have had both advantages and disadvantages. We must assume that there will be some problems attendant on homeporting in Athens, as would be true in similar cases in other areas.

Even though the Greek people are extremely hospitable and are well disposed toward Americans, there are bound to be somewhat more frequent intercommunity incidents as the number of American servicemen and dependents living in Athens increases. Frications of this kind have not, however, been a significant problem with the American community at its present level, and we do not anticipate any serious difficulties when homeporting is in effect. Taking into account the total population of the Athens-Piraeus area, which is now estimated at 2.53 million and growing at a rate of about 100,000 per year, the gradual addition of some 3,100 American dependents over an 18-month period would have a relatively small impact.

Another issue that should be squarely faced is the relationship of the homeporting project to our policy of encouraging a prompt return to representative government in Greece. We have stated on many occasions, and I wish to repeat here, that our mutual security relationship with Greece has continued through many changes in regimes and administrations. It has not implied in the past and does not now imply our support for any particular government in Greece. It is a reflection of the mutuality of interests in the security area which is an important aspect of the multifaceted relationship between Greece and the United States. Homeporting is merely an extension of our normal work-

ing relationship with Greece in our common defense interests.

It is probably inevitable that homeporting will be seen by some, regardless of our actual motive, as an act of support for the Greek regime. Both the Government of Greece and the United States Government have publicly recognized the proposal for what it in fact is: an administrative measure to ameliorate a human problem, a measure that does not involve development of major new facilities or base rights but provides for more effective use of human and material resources in common security interests. As for the United States, our hope for a rapid return to a representative form of government in Greece is a matter of record and we continue to use our influence in this direction in the only way we consider effective—through quiet, friendly, and continuing exchanges.

While we cannot ignore the possibility of misinterpretation of our homeporting project, it would have been unwise to refrain from this worthwhile activity because of the fear that certain elements, including the Soviets, would misconstrue our motive for propaganda purposes. Our motive in establishing a home port in Greece is clear—to improve the living conditions and morale of American servicemen, thereby allowing the 6th Fleet to meet its commitments in the Mediterranean within stringent budgetary limits. In my opinion, the objectives of the homeporting project are important enough to warrant proceeding. With proper care, we believe such problems as do stem from homeporting can be kept within manageable and acceptable limits.

At present and for years to come, United States-Greek cooperation in the eastern Mediterranean will remain a crucial ingredient in NATO security requirements and in United States national interests. Consequently, homeporting as an administrative device to improve morale and provide for more effective use of U.S. resources within more restricted budgetary ceilings is clearly within the mutual security interests of the United States and its allies.

April 10, 1972

551

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1368

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

3:10 P.M. EST

MARCH 13, 1972

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We do not have a great deal of information to give you this afternoon.

The President's schedule for tomorrow:

At 11:45 the President will meet with the new Secretary General of the Central Treaty Organization, Mr. Nassir Assar.

The new Secretary General took office on February 1st and replaces Mr. Turgut Menemencioglu, of Turkey. Mr. Assar is from Iran and is now on his initial round of courtesy calls.

This is a traditional annual visit to Washington by the CENTO Secretary General.

At 12:15 the President will meet with Mr. Wes Bartlett.

Q Who is he?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is the President of Kiwanis International.

Q Where is he from?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is from Iowa.

An addition to the schedule today: At 3:15 the President will meet with Representative Otto Passman of Louisiana. They will talk about legislative matters and such things.

The President, in addition to that, I believe Jerry told you, today has been meeting with members of his staff, primarily relating to the matter of school busing.

Over the weekend, the President made his decision on the direction that his recommendations will take regarding the busing matter. Now, of course, the members of the White House staff and members of the Administration will have to take these decisions and develop them in the form of a statement which will be made available very soon. There is still a good deal of work to be done, now that the President has made the decision in terms of the course his recommendations will take, but that decision was made over the weekend, following an extensive review, that we have referred to here often, of the entire matter by the President. The review was based upon material that was provided to him, of course, in his consultations with the Cabinet Committee on Education, and consultations with other members of the Administration.

MORE

#1368

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1367

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:10 A.M. EST

MARCH 13, 1972

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: The schedule for the first part of the day has been posted.

As most of you know, I am sure, the President returned from Camp David a little after 7:00 yesterday evening and was in contact with staff members by telephone after his return to the White House, as he was while he was at Camp David.

The President was in the office this morning at about 8:00 o'clock, and has been meeting with staff members and will be meeting with staff members throughout the morning.

At Noon the President will participate in the swearing-in ceremony for Mrs. Marina von Neumann Whitman as the newest member of the Council of Economic Advisers. We will have a photo and pool coverage of that event.

At 12:15 the President will meet with Mr. Ronald S. Berman, who is the new Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Q What is that about, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: This is the first time the President has had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Berman since his nomination and confirmation. They will be discussing the hearings which are going on on the Hill at this time on the budget for the Humanities.

The President has asked for a $39 million budget in fiscal '73 as an endowment for the humanities. In fiscal 72, that budget was $28 million. To show you the growth in this particular area, in 1969 the endowment made grants totaling $6-1/4 million. The National Endowment, of course, makes grants for research, education and public activity in the humanities.

We have posted a biography on Mr. Berman. We have other copies for those of you who are interested in that.

Q Is Mr. Berman coming out after the meeting?

MR. WARREN: No, there is no plan for that. I understand he is testifying today, Carroll.

At 3:00 o'clock the President will meet with Congressman George Mahon of Texas, who will bring in Dr. Grover Murray, who is President of Texas Technological College at Lubbock, Texas, and also Dr. John Bradford, who is Dean of the School of Engineering at Texas Tech.

MORE

#1367

- 6 -

#1367

Q Has the President made a decision on the busing problem?

MR. WARREN: As Ron told you, the President was hopeful he would be able to do that while at Camp David over the weekend. He was in communication with key staff aides and others on this subject over the weekend and again last evening after he returned from Camp David. He is meeting with staff members such as Len Garment and John Ehrlichman and George Shultz and others this morning. So, I have every reason to believe that the President has reached his decision, however, Ron has not been able to discuss this thoroughly with the President as yet. He will be prepared at 3:00 o'clock to give you a full rundown on this whole matter.

Q Are you still sticking to the policy of not announcing it until sometime after the Florida Primary?

MR. WARREN: There is no change in what Ron said.

Q Do you have a date to announce it?

MR. WARREN: No. There is nothing changed on that from what Ron last said.

Q What is the rundown, when he might do it or the content?

MR. WARREN: Well, a full rundown on the President's deliberations on it. I don't want to commit him to announcing what the content will be or the date because I am not sure that will be feasible.

Q Jerry, your statement of "every reason to believe he did reach a decision" puzzles me. What reasons do you have for believing that, especially in view of the fact that he is still meeting with the very people who are supposed to help him reach the decision?

MR. WARREN: They also are the people who would be helpful to him in carrying out the decision, Bob. From the preliminary discussions that I have held with Ron and others on this I have every reason to believe that the President did reach a decision, however, I cannot state that flatly. Ron will be able to give you a full rundown on it at 3 o'clock.

Q Do you know why representatives of the general press were barred from the special briefings for the Jewish press?

MR. WARREN: I have no idea. You could address that to Herb Klein. It has been the practice in the briefings that have been held both here and throughout the country for representatives of the specialized journalistic endeavors that these briefings would be primarily for those representatives.

Q Will the President see that group?

MR. WARREN: I just don't know at this point. He has not decided if he will drop in, so I can't rule it in or out.

Q Would we be allowed to go if he went?

MORE

#1367

- 7 -

#1367

MR. WARREN: That would have to be decided once he makes a decision.

Q The White House Press has not been completely barred, has it? There are some correspondents covering it.

MR. WARREN: I would again have to refer you to Herb.

Q Herb is part of the White House, isn't he?

MR. WARREN: Of course he is, but his office has been arranging this briefing and I just don't know what the arrangements were.

Q Will there be transcripts available for those of us who cannot go?

MR. WARREN: I don't know. I am sure Herb could tell you.

Q On the busing thing, has the President met with any pro-busing people in his deliberations?

MR. WARREN: I don't have a rundown of exactly who the President has met with in his deliberations and I don't know the private views of all of those with whom he has met. However, the Cabinet Committee on Education and members of the staff have met with persons holding a wide variety of views and thoughts on this whole subject. So, I can't be responsive to the question as it relates to the President personally, but I do know that the members of the Cabinet Committee and staff members have met with a great number of people throughout the spectrum on this.

Q Has the President talked with Governor Askew?

MR. WARREN: I don't think so, but I will ask.

Q Is there any format decided on for how the President will present his busing statement?

MR. WARREN: There again, I am not in a position to answer that. I don't know that the format or time has been decided, Helen.

Q There could be a nationwide television address?

MR. WARREN: I don't believe the format and time have been decided.

Q Is that something that might possibly be released this afternoon at 3:00 o'clock?

MR. WARREN: I don't know. I can't answer that because I don't believe the decisions have been made.

Q Is there any travel alert for this weekend?

MR. WARREN: There is no travel planned that I am aware of outside the Washington area.

MORE

#1367

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 STATE 044834

THE NEED FOR NEGOTIATION AND PROGRESS TOWARD PEACE
THEREFORE HAS CLEARLY NOT DIMINISHED, AND IN FACT IT OFFERS
THE ONLY MEANS OF DISSIPATING THE PERSISTING THREAT OF
BROAD MILITARY CONFRONTATION IN THE AREA. FORTUNATELY,
THERE ARE SIGNS THAT THE AREA'S PRINCIPAL PROTAGONISTS ARE
STILL INTERESTED IN AVOIDING A RESUMPTION OF HOSTILITIES.
THE CEASEFIRE ALONG THE SUEZ CANAL, BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
INITIATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES, REMAINS IN FORCE.
AMBRASSADOR JARRING HAS RESUMED HIS CONSULTATIONS WITH
THE PARTIES UNDER THE MANDATE GIVEN HIM BY SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 242 TO PROMOTE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON
THE TERMS OF A JUST AND LASTING PEACE. WHILE EGYPT AND
JORDAN STRESS THE NEED TO MAKE PROGRESS IN THE JARRING
MISSION CONTEXT, ISRAEL HAS DECLARED ITS READINESS TO
ENGAGE WITHOUT PRIOR CONDITIONS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TALKS
WITH EGYPT FOR AN INTERIM SUEZ CANAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
UNITED STATES AS GO-BETWEEN. WE BELIEVE THIS COURSE --
WHICH IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE EFFORTS OF AMBRASSADOR
JARRING -- CONTINUES TO BE A WORTHWHILE DIPLOMATIC AVENUE
to explore, and we remain available to the parties. Thus
there is reason not to despair. AS CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT,
WE INTEND TO PURSUE OUR EFFORTS WITH BOTH SIDES TO SERVE
OUR PRINCIPAL INTERESTS IN THE AREA: TO AVOID WAR THROUGH
PRESERVATION OF THE CEASEFIRE, TO HELP ACHIEVE PEACE,
AND TO ASSURE FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH ALL THE NATIONS
AND PEOPLE IN THE AREA. ROGERS

UNCLASSIFIED

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1369

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:00 A.M. EST

MARCH 14, 1972

TUESDAY

MR. WARREN: I will read a simultaneous announcement first and let those of you who wish to file do that, and then hand this material out and we will brief again in about five or six minutes.

Q: Is this material on the announcement?

MR. WARREN: No, it is not.

This is being announced simultaneously by the
Canadian Government.

In response to the invitation extended by Prime
Minister Trudeau, President Nixon plans to visit
Canada April 13 through 15.

During his visit, the President will meet with
Prime Minister Trudeau to discuss current international
issues and matters of bilateral interest to the United
States and Canada.

That is the end of the simultaneous announcement.
As you know, the Prime Minister visited Washington December 6
and 7 of last year. Ron announced last summer in San
Clemente that the President planned to visit Canada this
spring.

The President last visited Canada in June of 1969
for the 10th Anniversary celebration of the St. Lawrence
Seaway. You will recall that he and the Prime Minister met
on the United States side of the seaway at Messina, New York,
and then flew by helicopter to Montreal, Quebec.

Q: Is Mrs. Nixon going?

MR. WARREN: Mrs. Nixon will be going.

Q: What cities will he be going to?

MR. WARREN: He will be going to Ottawa, but I do
not have the precise itinerary at this point.

Q: Ottawa only?

MR. WARREN: At this time, I can tell you he will be
going to Ottawa, but I do not have any other information.

Q: It will be a state visit?

MR. WARREN: It will be an official visit.

MORE

#1369

- 2 -

#1369

Q Rogers and Kissinger?

MR. WARREN: The rest of the party has not been determined. But Mrs. Nixon will be going.

Q Can you say what some of the bilateral issues are?

MR. WARREN: I really cannot get into any specifics on that at this point, but, of course, we have been good neighbors for many years and we have a number of topics to discuss in the international area. I would prefer not to be specific at this point.

Q Is that your statement or Canada's, about being good neighbors? (Laughter)

What I am asking is, will the President discuss those matters that have to do with trade and balance of payments that are of such interest now?

MR. WARREN: I am just not in a position to be specific on just what they will discuss at this point.

If you would like to file that, we will regroup in about seven minutes.

MR. WARREN: The President's schedule is the same as was posted yesterday, and I believe it is still on the board: The meeting with the Secretary General of CENTO at 11:45; and a meeting with the President of Kiwanis International at 12:15.

You have two releases which are similar. The President today is granting two committees of the House of Representatives authority, during the 92nd Congress, to examine income, estate and gift tax returns for varying years. I will take them one at a time, so they are not confusing.

The first one is the Government Operations Committee of the House. During the 92nd Congress, this committee will have authority to examine income, excess profits, estate and gift tax returns for the years 1947 to 1972. The action was taken pursuant to the request of Chairman Holifield, of California, to assist the committee in carrying out its studies of the operation of Government activities at all levels. Similar authority has been granted to this committee every two years since 1953.

The second release has to do with the Select Committee on Crime of the House of Representatives. This authorizes this committee to examine income, estate or gift tax returns for the years 1956 to 1972, inclusive. This was taken upon the request of Chairman Pepper of Florida. The committee was granted similar authority during the 91st Congress.

Then you have the President's message to the Congress which accompanies the Foreign Assistance Act of 1972. This spells out the President's view on the need for increased levels in the security aspects of foreign assistance.

MORE

#1369

- 3 -

#1369

We have a copy of the bill and a section-by-section
analysis of the bill, for those of you who are interested, in
the Press Office after this session.

The total request of this year for security aspects
is $2 billion 151 million. This compares with the request for
fiscal 1972 of $1 billion 977 million. The fiscal 1972 appropri-
ation was $1 billion 525 million.

There are some points in this bill which were not in
the budget, I do not believe, and these are in addition to the
$2 billion 151 million. That is the narcotics control program
of $42.5 million, and the humanitarian relief and refugee
relief assistance for South Asia of $100 million.

Secretary Rogers is testifying in the House Foreign
Affairs Committee this morning on our foreign assistance re-
quests, so many of your questions will be answered by the
Secretary in the testimony this morning.

Q This is already on the Hill, then?

MR. WARREN: The major figures, Helen, were in the
budget, so those are not new, and Congress is well aware of
those figures.

Q But you still want this held for noon, even
though Mr. Rogers is testifying today?

MR. WARREN: Yes, strictly because the full Senate
and House will not be in session until noon, and it is custo-
mary to hold this for release until delivery.

Q What about the economic aid? This deals only
with military aid and security assistance?

MR. WARREN: Right. As you recall, last year's
authorization bill includes authorization for both fiscal '72
and '73 in the development assistance. That included the AID
administration.

Q Jerry, I am sure all these things have been gone
over very much in detail, but did they check on whether or not
this money in here includes money for carrying on the operation
of the tiger cages in South Vietnam? There are some new tiger
cages that we were paying to have constructed over there.

MR. WARREN: I cannot be responsive to that particu-
lar question, Sarah, because I do not have any information on
it. AID may, over at the State Department.

Q Is Bangladesh included here?

MR. WARREN: That is one of the things the Secre-
tary will be testifying on; but the humanitarian and refugee
item would include all of South Asia.

Q Is that allocation for narcotics the first
time any allocation has been made under foreign aid for that?

MR. WARREN: I believe it is the first time it has
been a line item, Bob. There may have been money utilized

MORE

#1369

- 4 -

#1369

7

from other areas in the foreign aid realm for this aspect.
I just do not know.

Q Is there no comparable figure or any previous?

MR. WARREN: No comparable figure, because this is
the first time it has been a line item request.

Q Was that in the budget?

MR. WARREN: I believe this is new, and not in the
budget.

Q Is that money to pay off the ~~Turkish~~ opium growers?

MR. WARREN: That is a question I would hope you
would address to the State Department and Nelson Gross, who
handles the international drug aspects for Secretary Rogers.
The President spells out his views on this in the message.

Q Can I go back to Helen's question, since we do
not know what Mr. Rogers is saying this morning? This $100
million for South Asia, does it include India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh; all three areas?

MR. WARREN: It includes the broad area of South Asia,
which would involve all of those areas. As to the specifics of
this, I would refer you to the State Department.

Q Jerry, what was the authorization for development
assistance for the '73 fiscal year?

MR. WARREN: It was $934 million each year, both
fiscal '72 and '73.

Q Do you know if Vietnam is in this military
assistance?

MR. WARREN: Helen, I am sure it is, but I just cannot
be specific on the breakdown of it. The bill does not go down
country by country, and I do not believe it is customary for
the State Department, when they present this bill, to break it
down country by country.

Q Why shouldn't they?

MR. WARREN: That is a question you will have to
address to State. The purpose of this, this morning, again,
is to point out to the Congress the President's views on
foreign assistance, as he spells out in the message, and he
spelled out in his annual report to the Congress on foreign
policy.

This is a quote from the message: The President
feels that "security assistance is a cornerstone of our foreign
policy and of free world security." The President wanted to
take this opportunity to spell out his views to the Members
of Congress.

Q Jerry, you can't separate the President from
giving approval for each of these items in the program.

MORE

#1369

- 5 -

#1369

MR. WARREN: That is quite right, Sarah, and I do not.

Q Jerry, what is your understanding of the present status of his reorganization plan which he sent up on foreign aid?

MR. WARREN: I do not believe hearings have been held on that particular item. I believe the last word on that, at least from the House committee, was that they needed time. Last year they said that they needed time to consider it. I believe there is one aspect of the reform bill which has been enacted into law and was a part of last year's bill. That would be the Security Assistance Coordinator at State. I believe that is the only aspect of the bill which has been addressed by the Congress.

The rest of it, as the President says in his message, is there, and it is, of course, an operational reform. It has nothing to do with the money figures. The President's view on that is spelled out in his message.

Also today, the President is transmitting to the Congress the Annual Report of the Aeronautics and Space Activities of the Administration, the 1971 Annual Report. The President's letter of transmittal is included in the book. We have these available for those of you who are interested.

Ron will brief at 3:00 o'clock. Those are all the announcements we have.

MORE

#1369

- 6 -

#1369

Q Do you have any comment on the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between China and Britain?

MR. WARREN: We have no comment on that.

Q Do you know whether the President is going to see seven prominent civil rights leaders who wired him asking to discuss busing?

MR. WARREN: We have just received that telegram, Helen. It arrived at the White House this morning. So, I can't comment on the specific telegram, except to remind you of what Ron said yesterday; the Cabinet Committee has met with civil rights leaders representing many organizations in the civil rights movement. Those meetings have been conducted over a period of time. I think Ron spelled that out very clearly for you. So, whether or not there would be further meetings, I cannot say at this time. I don't believe the President's schedule would include any, though.

Q Has there been a formal request for Mr. Flanigan to appear before the Senate Committee yet?

MR. WARREN: To my knowledge, there has not.

Q What is the purpose of the meeting with the CENTO Secretary-General this morning.

MR. WARREN: The CENTO Secretary-General is on a trip visiting CENTO nations. It is his initial round of courtesy calls to the nations represented by CENTO. He will see the President. He visited London last week. While he is in Washington, he will meet with the Secretary of State and others in the State Department and also, perhaps, Defense.

Q Jerry, has the President talked to Mr. Flanigan at all about the ITT matter?

MR. WARREN: I really can't advance that story for you from here. I will just leave it where Ron left it yesterday.

Q Has the President received a report on the Paris meeting between Ambassador Watson and his Chinese counterpart?

MR. WARREN: The President certainly would receive reports on these discussions, however, I cannot discuss these diplomatic contacts from here.

Q Didn't Mr. Watson say that the White House would be releasing news on these meetings?

MR. WARREN: I just cannot, from here this morning, discuss the contents of that meeting in Paris yesterday.

Q Will there be a photo opportunity for the CENTO Secretary-General?

MR. WARREN: Yes, we will have a picture of that session.

Q Was the President talking to Crosby Noyes on the phone yesterday about the pandas?

MR. WARREN: Yes, he was.

MORE

#1369

- 7 -

#1369

Q How come we didn't get a fill-in on all those details?

MR. WARREN: Sometimes that happens, Frances, but the phone call did take place. I can't vouch for everything that was reported, but I think the thrust of it was certainly accurate.

Q Do you mean he gave a scoop to the Star, with everybody else waiting to get it?

MR. WARREN: You were not here yesterday.

Q No, I was not, but I had somebody here representing me.

MR. WARREN: But we did try to get that to you, as your representatives will undoubtedly tell you, as quickly as we could yesterday morning -- and it was very quick.

Q I think it was a little less detailed than the President's personal report.

MR. WARREN: You are quite right. I was not aware of the sex of the animals.

Q What is the sex?

MR. WARREN: Male and female.

Q That is something we tried to find out from the White House for about a week.

MR. WARREN: Now we know. (Laughter)

Q Let's carry this a little further. Is the White House in direct contact with the Chinese Government on the pandas?

MR. WARREN: The extent and method of our contacts have been explained to you by the communique and by Ron Ziegler in his briefings. Those are our contacts.

Q There is no direct line to Peking?

MR. WARREN: We have channels of communication, as has been spelled out to you, and also the new channel of communication in Paris.

Q Were the pandas discussed in Paris yesterday?

MR. WARREN: I don't know. (Laughter)

Q Has the Administration received any word of an impending accord between Israel and Jordan?

MR. WARREN: First, I have to restate that it is not our policy to discuss communications between heads of State. Certainly we have noted the press reports concerning a Jordan-Israel settlement. But we have no information on any such agreement.

MORE

#1369

- 8 -

#1369

Q I am not clear on the meaning of your answer.
Does that mean a "no" to his question?

MR. WARREN: It means that we have no information
of such an agreement.

Q Specifically, some of the reports said that the
Jordanians had informed the Big Four Ambassadors. So you are
denying that?

MR. WARREN: I am telling you that we have no
information on any such agreement.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

END

(AT 11:40 A.M. EST)

#1369

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1371

This Copy For

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:05 A.M. EST

MARCH 15, 1972

WEDNESDAY

MR. WARREN: We have very little for you this morning.

As I believe you know, the President went up to Camp David last evening and is spending today completing work on the message which he will send to Congress on the busing situation. The President will be there throughout today, and will probably return tomorrow, so I am aware of no change in plans on that.

A working group from the White House and from the Administration went to Camp David to be available to assist the President in his work on the message. John Ehrlichman went up, Ray Price, and representatives of HEW and Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Domestic Council. George Shultz may join the group this afternoon.

Those are the President's activities for today.

Q No outside advisers up there?

MR. WARREN: No, no outside advisers.

We will not brief this afternoon. If there is anything to post -- and I am not sure there will be; I know of nothing at this time, anyway -- we will post that at 3:00 o'clock. We will brief tomorrow morning at 11:00.

Q Jerry, can you give us any idea of when the President may send the message?

MR. WARREN: As Ron said, it was possible that he would make that announcement this week; but we just do not know at this point. There is no indication of exactly when that will happen. There is nothing to add to what Ron said on the subject.

Q Will it be tomorrow?

MR. WARREN: There is just no indication at this time.

The President is transmitting to the Senate today the Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on July 24, 1971, and two related protocols. The purpose of the revision of this Convention is to help developing countries gain access to educational, scientific and technical works without weakening the protection for those works presently offered under the Convention.

MORE

#1371

- 6 -

#1371

Q How about on the busing referendum?

MR. WARREN: First, let me tell you that I am not going to give an analysis of the election in Florida. I think perhaps the people at the Committee might do that, or they might already have done that. However, on the busing issue, Ron has made very clear how the President is proceeding with his deliberations leading up to the message he will transmit to Congress. Ron has said that the President considers it a national problem and the President has a measure of the problem and proceeding in that respect. So there is really nothing more to say.

Q What is the White House reaction to the proposals by King Hussein?

MR. WARREN: Well, that announcement by the King is really something that it would not be appropriate for us to comment on, so we will not.

Q Why not comment on it, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: It is a Jordanian matter. It is a decision by the King of Jordan. He has made that decision and announced it.

Q Are you telling me that we had no part in it in the role we solicited and built as a so-called "Honest Broker" over there? You make this sound as if Hussein just came out of the air with this. Didn't we play a role in the thing?

MR. WARREN: Bill, I think that is a question you should address to the State Department. It is clearly a decision by the King of Jordan. Now, the Government of the United States was informed by the Foreign Ministry, but to read involvement into that. I think would be in error. But I suggest you take that to the State Department.

Q Didn't Joe Sisco have anything to do with this at all?

MR. WARREN: You should ask Mr. Sisco. I have given you our position.

Q Is it true that prior to the Kleindienst hearings Peter Flanigan was considered for a higher appointive job and if that is true, is he still being considered for the job?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Flanigan has a high appointive job.

Q Higher than the one he has now.

MR. WARREN: He is very satisfied with the one he has now. It is a very responsible job.

Q There was a "possible" story that he was considered for perhaps some other job.

MR. WARREN: I have no information that could confirm that "possible" story.

MORE

#1371

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1372

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

11:10 A.M. EST

MARCH 16, 1972

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have a couple of announcements I want to give you this morning. The first announcement which I will give to you is a simultaneous announcement being made here in Washington and also in the Soviet Union. It relates to the date of President Nixon's visit to the Soviet Union. I will read the text of the announcement to you.

On October 12, 1971, it was announced that agree-
ment had been reached on a meeting between President
Nixon and the leaders of the Soviet Union, to take
place in the second half of May.

It has now been agreed that President Nixon's offi-
cial visit to Moscow will start May 22, 1972. Mrs.
Nixon will accompany the President. As stated in October,
President Nixon and the Soviet leaders will review all
major issues, with a view toward further improving
bilateral relations and enhancing the prospects for
world peace.

Now, anticipating your questions, gentlemen, I am
aware of the fact that there was a speculative story that ran
several weeks ago referring to the date that we have announced
this morning. At that time, I told you that no agreement had
been reached on a date, and that those were speculative stories.
That is the case.

This date was agreed to, in the simultaneous announce-
ment we are making today, within the past five days or so.
So there is a coincidence here, but the statements made earlier
on this subject were accurate.

Q Ron, how long will the visit last, and can you
discuss the other portion of the story, that the President
would go to Bonn to attend a NATO meeting after the Moscow
visit?

MR. ZIEGLER: First of all, the exact number of days
the President and Mrs. Nixon will be in the Soviet Union has
not been determined. This is still being discussed with the
Soviet Union. At this stage, however, I think you can assume
that the visit will last about a week. Do not hold me to
that as a firm prediction, because this is a matter that is
still under discussion.

The visit could be less than a week, or perhaps more;
but I think at the present time you can assume that the visit
will last about a week.

MORE

#1372

- 2 -

#1372

Q How about the second part of the story, about the Bonn meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: Of course, Secretary Rogers will be going to the NATO ministerial meeting in Bonn.

Q The Foreign Ministers' meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, the NATO meeting scheduled for Bonn following the visit to the Soviet Union, which is the normal practice of our consultation.

There is no plan, at least at this time, for the President to do so.

Q Any other European stops, and do you know who is going, and also, will there be an advance trip by Dr. Kissinger?

MR. ZIEGLER: Taking your questions in the order asked, who is going, first of all, it will be a working delegation. The question of the size and make-up has not been decided yet. Of course, Secretary Rogers will be going and Dr. Kissinger will be going, as will various experts from the National Security Council and the State Department.

In terms of advances, we have not worked those details out yet with the Soviet Union. As you know, we do have, and have had for a long time, diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, so the advance people will be technical in nature and, therefore, it will not be necessary for Dr. Kissinger or the substantive people from the State Department to make an advance visit to the Soviet Union.

Q Do you know of any other stops in Europe on the way in or out, on the trip?

MR. ZIEGLER: Again, the President's itinerary has not been worked out. There is an 8-hour time difference, as you know, so perhaps there will be a rest stop enroute. As we firm up that information, we will give it to you. It has not been decided.

Q But other stops as to other countries was the thrust of the question. He is going to other countries?

MR. ZIEGLER: At this moment, nothing has been decided. There is no decision on that.

Q What about other cities within the Soviet Union other than Moscow?

MR. ZIEGLER: The itinerary, as I said before, is still being worked out. It is possible that the President will travel outside of Moscow. This has not been decided upon yet.

Q In the announcement you used the words "official visit to Moscow." Should we read that as the official visit to the Soviet Union?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is the wording of the communique.

MORE

#1372

- 3 -

#1372

Q But you meant his official visit to the
Soviet Union?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is right, and it will begin in
Moscow.

Q Will the size of the press be unlimited?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have not had discussions with the
Soviet Union yet on that subject. Our objective, of course,
will be to have the maximum feasible number, of course, go...
who can cover the President's activities there, including
representatives of newspapers, magazines, television and
radio. The numbers will depend on what the Soviet Union will
allow. Those matters will be discussed with them at a later
time. We have not talked about that subject with them yet.

Q Has an advance party gone there yet?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, they have not.

Q One other question: I may be in error, but it
is my recollection that you had not knocked down May 22nd, but
had knocked it out. Am I incorrect?

MR. ZIEGLER: Anticipating that question, I have the
transcript before me just so there is no confusion. The
question was asked, "Have you gone on record or have you been
asked what your reaction is to the stories that the Moscow trip
is going to be on May 22nd?"

My brief response was, "Let me say that the date for
the President's visit to the Soviet Union has not been deter-
mined yet. We have said it would be in May, but the date has
not been determined."

On another occasion, I was asked, "Has the date been
set yet with the Soviet Union for the Moscow trip, or has any-
thing been agreed upon?"

Answer: "No, nothing has been agreed upon yet.
I know a lot of rumors are flying, but nothing specific has been
agreed to at this point."

Q What were the dates of those?

MR. ZIEGLER: February and March.

Q You say no decision has been made regarding other
possible stops apart from rest stops. Can you say if Poland
is under consideration? I understand no decisions have been
made, but can you say that?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe, just so we do not stimulate
speculation on this --

Q There have been reports about Poland.

MR. ZIEGLER: I know there have been reports, but I
can tell you -- and I am not addressing myself to any par-
ticular country -- there is no decision at all for the Presi-
dent to make other stops in other countries in relation to the
visit to the Soviet Union.

MORE

#1372

- 4 -

#1372

If there is a change in the thinking as it exists at this time, then we will let you know.

Q The briefing books that customarily go to the President under such conditions, have they started coming to his attention yet?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not really at this point, no. We have a number of negotiations and contacts now underway with the Soviet Union on many matters, so it is a situation where the President is in a process of constant discussion and involvement with the Soviet Union.

Q Do you expect an arms limitation agreement to be signed at this meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks will get underway the 28th of March. They recessed February 4th.

Q Where?

MR. ZIEGLER: Helsinki. So I cannot comment today on whether there will be an agreement on this or any other subject while the President is in Moscow.

You may recall that in the President's foreign policy report, he referred to the fact, in the section on the Soviet Union, that various tasks were ahead in terms of our dealings with the Soviet Union. In that report, he does refer to the Strategic Arms Limitation matter. He refers to the Middle East, and that this is a matter that would be discussed, European security problems, and other matters.

But I want to focus you on the fact that that report says "tasks ahead," and this does not mean necessarily that all of the subjects will be discussed while he is there in the Soviet Union; nor that other subjects will not be included; nor does it mean that agreements are assured, because there is a lot of discussion that the President must have with the Soviet leaders, as he has said before, on many important issues before bilateral agreements will be reached.

So, Jack, I cannot predict for you what may be the outcome of the meeting.

Q Who will be meeting with, Brezhnev and Kosygin?

MR. ZIEGLER: He will be meeting with the leaders; Podgorny; the Secretary General of the Communist Party, Mr. Brezhnev; Mr. Kosygin. However, the exact format for the meetings has not been finalized at this point.

I would like to break for a moment and allow you to quickly file the text of this announcement, because it is a simultaneous announcement. We will regroup here in about five minutes for another announcement.

* * * * * * *

MORE

#1372

- 13 -

#1372

MR. ZIEGLER: We have not received the entire report of the Commission yet. They have said they will be submitting it in three parts. We will wait until we get the full report before we respond to that. I would say the purpose of a commission, the purpose of a study, is to provide to the Congress and to the Administration and the Government a point of view based on the study of a particular matter. Then that base of information is available to the Government for their consideration and understanding in approaching a problem. So, I don't have a response for you on that.

Q There is another section in here that the White House has not been very responsive on either, and that says they recommend that the Congress and States adopt equal rights for women. Does that mean the White House is going to come out clearly on this question?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would have to put the question in relation to the particular report in the context of the full report. I am not prepared to respond to an articulation of a part of a commission report, as you have presented it to me. So, my response is not in relation to the report. The President's view on equal rights for women has been stated for many years, when he was in the Congress and subsequently.

Q Would you restate that, because they don't understand that he has taken a clear view on that.

MR. ZIEGLER: He favors equal rights for women.

Q Does he favor the equal rights amendment?

MR. ZIEGLER: I will stand on the statement I just gave to you.

Q Do you have a comment on the Anderson column this morning which stated that Ambassador Watson was "gloriously drunk" on his flight to Washington? (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Is King Hussein coming to Washington at the invitation of the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: We can confirm that King Hussein plans a private visit to the United States in the near future. On that private visit to this country, he will meet with President Nixon. No precise date or time has been set?

Q You said this month?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q You said in the near future.

MR. ZIEGLER: Excuse me. I can't say what the precise date or time will be.

Q Can you tell us why the President refused to release to the Congress documents on Cambodian aid?

MORE

#1372

THE CONGRESS

Assistance to Near Eastern and South Asian Nations

Statement by Joseph J. Sisco

Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs ¹

In a statement I made to this committee almost a year ago, I said that the Near East and South Asian region was one "where the search for peace must be relentless. The goal is an elusive one, the obstacles to be overcome to reach it formidable. And yet there is no alternative to persevering, for to pause is to court the risk of recourse to force."

The events of the past year have demonstrated just how elusive the goal of peace is. But we continue to persevere, ever mindful of the dangers of failure.

There would be no more satisfying experience than being able to come before you to report that our sustained efforts to help bring about the peaceful resolution of regional disputes was completely successful. Unfortunately, that is not possible. War, despite our energetic attempts to avert it, did break out in South Asia. In the Middle East a peace settlement remains a hope rather than a reality although, on the plus side, the cease-fire, arranged on our initiative over a year and a half ago, persists.

The Middle East

Let me review briefly where we stand in some of the more important areas.

In describing the situation in the Middle East, we must be mindful of the dangers. Only recently President Nixon noted that "The greatest threat to peace and stability

in the Middle East remains the Arab-Israeli conflict." ² While remaining fully alert to the dangers, we cannot lose sight of the element of hope. Our policies have incorporated both factors.

Within the past few weeks, military activities by Israel inside Lebanon, sparked by attacks on Israel by Arab irregular forces, provided ample evidence of the dangers that must be reckoned with so long as the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbors remains unresolved—so long as ways are not found to reconcile Israel's search for security with the Arab search for recovery of territory occupied in 1967 and for a just settlement for the Palestinian refugees.

But what has given the Arab-Israeli dispute its most dangerous dimension has been the deepened direct involvement of the Soviet Union. It has continued to furnish large amounts of modern weapons to certain of the Arab countries. And in Egypt it has established a substantial physical presence, with large numbers of Soviet personnel in operational as well as advisory capacities.

Since the U.S.S.R. has been unreceptive to U.S. suggestions for the exercise of restraint in the supply of military weapons to this volatile area, we have taken steps to maintain the arms balance.

The arms balance may not be a guarantee of peace. It is not a substitute for negotiations or an end in itself. But it is a deterrent

¹ Made before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Mar. 20.

² The complete text of President Nixon's foreign policy report to the Congress on Feb. 9 appears in the BULLETIN of Mar. 13, 1972.

April 24, 1972

605

to war, to a war which has the potential for escalation.

So long as peace remains an aspiration rather than a reality, the United States has an interest in assisting those countries which accept peace as the objective to be attained. We are providing assistance to both Israel and certain Arab states. They must be able to defend themselves against forces which represent threats to their own stability and survival and ultimately to an Arab-Israeli peace settlement.

One has only to recall that a year and a half ago Jordan was the scene of a battle for survival. Civil war and invasion occurred simultaneously. This episode was instructive. It demonstrated that people with a will to survive can do so, but they need the wherewithal to do so. Today Jordan's security situation is much improved. But the traumatic events of September 1970 are a powerful reminder that it cannot afford to relax its vigilance or preparedness.

In addition to assuring that our friends in the area have the means for their legitimate self-defense, we have an interest in helping them remain economically strong and viable. In the case of Israel, recognizing the heavy defense burdens it bears and the additional strain on its resources resulting from the increased immigration of Soviet Jews, we have this year included in our fiscal year 73 budget presentation a request for $50 million in supporting assistance.

The Middle East is not without its hopeful signs. The cease-fire along the Suez Canal has held. Fragile though it has been, its existence has made it possible to save lives on both sides. Its continuation is in the interests of both sides, but it is not enough. A meaningful, viable, active diplomatic track is needed.

Ambassador Jarring [U.N. Special Representative Gunnar Jarring] has resumed his consultations with the parties under the mandate given him by Security Council Resolution 242 to promote agreement between the parties on the terms of a just and lasting

peace. He has our full support, and we continue to hope he will be able to give fresh impetus to a dialogue. Complementary to this effort, the United States remains available to the parties to pursue further the matter of an interim Suez Canal agreement.

## Greece and Turkey

Greece and Turkey—these two countries, NATO members, form NATO's southeastern flank and occupy strategic positions in the eastern Mediterranean. As NATO members, both countries have responsibilities to contribute to the military strength of the alliance. Both have demonstrated loyal support to the alliance.

Burdensome as their military expenditures have been, Greece and Turkey have felt it necessary to make them. The United States provided substantial assistance to them so that the military burdens would not weigh excessively on their economies. Greece's progress was rapid enough to permit the termination of U.S. economic assistance several years ago, and in more recent years we have been able increasingly to replace grant military assistance with credit. In Turkey, devaluation of the currency and a brisk demand for Turkish workers in western Europe have measurably strengthened Turkey's economic position. As a consequence, we now believe it possible that Turkey will be able over a period of time to make a gradual transition from military grant assistance to credits.

The friendship we have had with these two countries has been a durable one; it has stood the test of time. Changes of administration in this country and of governments in Greece and Turkey have not altered that. Friendship has rested on a base of mutual respect, shared concerns, and common interests. We have not had a complete identity of views with either country; it would be unreasonable to expect it.

But friendship has bred close cooperation, and in no area has it been closer than in security matters. Cooperation over the years has been of mutual benefit.

606

Department of State Bulletin

Today the military forces of both countries need further modernization so that their contributions to NATO's overall strength will be more effective. Neither country has reached the point where it can achieve modernization without U.S. assistance. I believe it important that the Congress provide us with the funds essential to enable us to furnish that assistance.

In the highly dynamic world we live in, new problems are constantly arising. To the extent that they impinge on our relations with other countries, it is of great and obvious advantage if our relations with others are firmly rooted in friendship.

No problem in recent years has exceeded in its concern to the American people the growth of drug abuse. President Nixon has made it a foreign policy priority.

Turkey has been one of the world's most important suppliers of opium. For the Turkish farmer, this has for years been a prime source of income, since the poppy has had many uses other than as a base for opium and heroin. But as the Turkish Government became more keenly aware of the human ravages caused by opium and heroin, it acted decisively and boldly. It banned the planting of the opium poppy after the harvest in June of last year.

This was not an easy decision for the Turkish Government; it was a product of statesmanship and courage, and one that well merits the applause of the United States and the world community. We intend to provide $35.7 million in grant assistance over the next 3-4 years to offset legitimate foreign exchange losses and to help the Turkish Government to deal with problems they will confront in establishing alternative economic activities in the area affected by the poppy ban.

## Intercommunal Problems on Cyprus

The failure of the two communities—Greek and Turkish—to reconcile their differences has produced violent shock waves in the past which carried far beyond the

shores of the idyllic island of Cyprus. In 1968 a negotiating process was established through international diplomacy to try to promote peaceful reconciliation of views. Three years of intercommunal talks failed to produce agreement, and in 1971 the specter of a collapse in negotiations emerged. International diplomacy was set in motion to head off a dangerous impasse, and early this year there appeared the hope that negotiations would resume under a new formula prepared by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

More recently, new difficulties have arisen—this time the result of differences between the Governments of Greece and Cyprus. This has made it impossible to launch the new effort at negotiations suggested by the U.N. Secretary General.

We hope that these differences will be resolved by the governments concerned and that progress toward a satisfactory solution of the intercommunal problem on Cyprus will be made.

## The Persian Gulf Region

Nineteen seventy-one was a year of transition for many countries of the Persian Gulf region. The British protective mantle was withdrawn, and three new political entities emerged—Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The United States promptly recognized them.

These three small countries now confront the challenge of beginning to consolidate their newly acquired independence. The area in which they are located is of major strategic and economic interest to us. It is a major source of oil for Europe and Japan. American companies have sizable participation in the oil industry in the peninsula. And we are interested in orderly political and social evolution in the area. We believe that these states are capable of meeting the challenges of independence and that cooperation among themselves as well as with their larger neighbors will best insure that.

April 24, 1972

607

Our own direct and formal relations with these states begin with what we regard as a fund of good will on both sides. This augurs well for our future, and for our part, we hope to enlarge the area of our cooperation with these states. Friendship and cooperation have been the hallmarks of our policy in this area in the past. We intend that they should remain so in the future.

## Priority Task in South Asia

In his foreign policy report to the Congress, President Nixon has said:

> The 700 million people of the subcontinent deserve a better future than the tragedy of 1971 seemed to portend. It is for them to fashion their own vision of such a future. The world has an interest in the regional peace and stability which are the pre-conditions for their achieving it.

Constructing the foundation on which that better future may be built is the priority task which lies ahead.

The problems that must be dealt with are immense in scope and pressing in their urgency.

Pakistan recognizes that it must undertake major political and economic adjustments flowing from the effects of the war. An outline for political and constitutional reconstruction has recently been announced. Recognizing that these are matters of Pakistan's internal affairs, we nevertheless welcome any developments that increase Pakistan's stability and strengthen its capacity to meet the problems which have arisen from the recent crisis.

Bangladesh faces the formidable task of relieving the massive human suffering caused by the events of the past year at the same time as it begins to rebuild a shattered economy and to create a viable political structure. We have indicated to the authorities in Dacca that we are prepared to assist in a major multilateral relief effort under U.N. auspices.

Our relations with India were subjected to serious strain as a result of developments in South Asia in 1971. India has indicated a

desire to renew better relations with the United States, and on our part we reciprocate this desire and are ready for a dialogue with India on subjects of mutual concern. The pattern of our future relations will be shaped by the outcome of our discussions with India. We hope for fruitful results.

Thus the year ahead will be one of re-adjustment and reconstruction in which we seek to develop mutually beneficial relations between ourselves and the countries of South Asia. In addition, the President has indicated his intentions of seeking a more constructive approach to great-power relations in South Asia in his discussions in Moscow.

## Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign Policy

### 92d Congress, 1st Session

Congressmen Visit Israel and Egypt. Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Near East of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. May 20, 1971. 45 pp.

United States Relations With the People's Republic of China. Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on S.J. Res. 48, S. Res. 18, S. Res. 37, S. Res. 82, and S. Res. 139. June 24-July 20, 1971. 568 pp. [Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations.]

British Entry to the Common Market: Its Implications for U.S. Foreign Economic Policy. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. July 20-22, 1971. 154 pp. [Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.]

The International Implications of the New Economic Policy. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. September 16-21, 1971. 159 pp. [Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.]

United States Foreign Economic Policy Toward Japan. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. November 2-8, 1971. 160 pp. [Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.]

United States-Canadian Economic Relations. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. December 7, 1971. 45 pp. [Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.]

608

Department of State Bulletin

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1375

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

5:00 P.M. EST

MARCH 20, 1972

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The Cabinet Committee, which met for an hour and 15 minutes, as you know, was chaired by Secretary Rogers. Also in attendance, as the pool report indicated, were Secretary Laird, Secretary Connally, Director Helms of the CIA, and Ambassador Bush, who flew down from New York with the President today, our Ambassador to the United Nations.

The primary objective, as we have spelled out before, of the efforts of the Cabinet Committee is interdiction, at the U.S. border, of drug traffic, improvement of overseas law enforcement and intelligence, and then, finally, overseas treatment, rehabilitation, education and research, crop substitution and crop eradication.

So the President today received a report from the Cabinet Committee on their efforts to meet the objectives which I have just outlined to you.

There was discussion about the fact that Turkey has agreed to go out of poppy growing this year, starting with the fall crop.

France, in January, and then again in March, had major seizures, and the 937 pound seizure in Marseilles was the largest in history. The lab which has already been referred to was seized just recently by the Laotian Government.

So the international cooperation in the efforts to stop the trafficking of drugs into the United States is on its way.

Q May I ask a question? The Presidential remarks today seemed to indicate that he would like stronger penalties against pushers?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe, as a point of emphasis, the President said today that the drug trafficker or drug pusher who makes available the hard drugs to the young persons to destroy their lives should receive the stiffest penalty on the books. That is what he was referring to. I believe this was discussed in here.

Many times -- and this was the problem in New York with the court system as backed up as it was -- a major pusher would be arrested and be out on bail within 24 hours. Then he would increase his trafficking efforts in order to be able to hire the best lawyer to defend him in court.

MORE

#1375

- 2 -

#1375

The President was making a point of emphasis. He
said the major pusher and the trafficker of drugs who pro-
vides this narcotic to ruin people's lives should receive
the stiffest penalties on the books.

Q He didn't limit it to the books. He said at
least four times that no penalty is too great, or there should
be no limit on the penalties, which would certainly seem to
be an implication that the penalty should be increased.

Q Would he favor the death penalty for pushers?

MR. ZIEGLER: If he wanted to make that point, he
would have. His point of emphasis is that they should receive
the stiffest penalties.

Q In the fact sheet it talks about $300 million,
and in his remarks at the airport he talked of $600 million.

MR. ZIEGLER: There are two sides. First of all you
have the Special Action Office which is headed by Jerome
Jaffe, and the budget for that office is $365 million. Then
you have the efforts under Mr. Ambrose. That is, I believe,
some $230 million.

MR. EGIL KROGH: The total is $594.2 million for
both law enforcement and rehabilitation and treatment.

MR. ZIEGLER: That is where you get the $600 million
total effort on both sides. The treatment and rehabilitation
is one side of the program, and the efforts that fall under
Mr. Ambrose is the other.

Q Was there any discussion in the meeting of the
ABA committee report?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not believe the final ABA report
is in. I think that is a committee report. The ABA report
has not come out yet.

There was some discussion about heroin maintenance.
I believe Dr. Jaffe's point was that most medical people
in the field feel that heroin maintenance is not workable;
isn't that correct?

MR. KROGH: That is correct.

MR. ZIEGLER: The consensus among those who have
undertaken a good deal of research in this area is that heroin
maintenance is not the way to go. Methadone treatment and
other rehabilitation methods are considered to be far better.

Q Who said that?

MR. ZIEGLER: Dr. Jaffe. As you know, he has put a
good deal of study into this matter.

Q Why don't they destroy that $2 million worth of
heroin? It has been lying around for a year now.

MR. ZIEGLER: It is being held as evidence in a
legal proceeding. The trial has not taken place in this case
yet. It is to be used in court.

MORE

#1375

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MARCH 22, 1972

TEXT OF UNITED STATES-TURKEY JOINT STATEMENT
FOLLOWING MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT NIXON
AND PRIME MINISTER ERIM

President Nixon and Prime Minister Erim during their meeting on March 21, 1972, discussed the full range of Turkish-American bilateral relations as well as major international issues. The President stressed the importance that the United States attached to its relations with Turkey and to Turkey's role as an important NATO ally. In discussing the close and harmonious security relationship between the two countries, the President expressed the strong continuing support of the United States for the security, territorial integrity and independence of Turkey. Both leaders agreed to the principle of noninterference directly or indirectly in Turkey's internal affairs. Both leaders also agreed that continued close cooperation between their two nations is essential and that NATO is vital to their security as well as to the security of the other members of the Atlantic alliance.

The President and the Prime Minister also discussed the modernization of Turkey's armed forces. The Prime Minister explained the plans recently developed in the High Military Council of Turkey for the reorganization of the Turkish Armed Forces, for the strengthening of Turkey's defenses, and for the strengthening of the security of the southeastern flank of NATO. The President expressed the support of the United States for Turkey's efforts to modernize her armed forces, and said the United States would continue to assist the Turkish defense effort.

There was an exchange of views on the worldwide problem of drug abuse. The Prime Minister said the Turkish Government was proud to contribute to a humanitarian endeavor by its decision to stop opium poppy cultivation. He indicated that plans and programs had been devised to prevent loss of income to Turkish farmers, for which international participation was essential. The President expressed the appreciation of the American people for Turkey's courageous and humanitarian decision to ban opium production. He also indicated his special interest in efforts to improve the livelihood of Turkish farmers. The President said the United States attaches importance to bilateral and multilateral efforts to assist Turkish development in this field.

In addition, one of the main subjects dealt with by the President and the Prime Minister was the economic development of Turkey and the social advances made in that country. The Prime Minister expressed appreciation for past development aid and said Turkey would continue to pursue modernization within a democratic system. Both leaders agreed that the Consortium for Aid to Turkey has provided an efficient multilateral mechanism to this end. Both agreed that this and other endeavors in multilateral institutions should continue and be further enhanced. The President also said the U. S. would continue its financial support of Turkey in its efforts to reach its declared goal of vigorous, self-sustaining economic growth.

The President described his China trip and discussed his upcoming trip to the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister indicated that Turkey has followed with admiration the efforts of the President to strengthen the peace of the world. He emphasized his belief that the visits of President Nixon to Peking and Moscow will have a special bearing on the promotion of world peace. The Prime Minister said that Turkey, on her side, encourages and supports efforts for peace in her region and is constantly improving her good relations with her neighbors.

(MORE)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1382

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:19 A.M. EST

MARCH 27, 1972

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: The President's schedule for today:

The President returned last evening from Camp David and has been working in his EOB office this morning in discussions with staff members.

At 3:00 o'clock, as is posted, the President will receive diplomatic credentials from the Ambassadors from Czechoslovakia, Spain and Jordan.

At that same time, we will begin, in this room, a briefing on the Welfare Reform Message which the President is sending to Congress this afternoon. We will have Secretary Richardson and Secretary Hodgson here to brief on the Welfare Reform Message.

Q Is there anything new in that?

MR. WARREN: The legislation is the same. It has passed the House, as you know, and is in the Senate. So there is no change in the legislation in this message.

Q Why have a briefing on it, then?

MR. WARREN: The President said in his State of the Union Message that he would be sending a series of messages to the Hill on legislation which was before the Congress. He is, of course, vitally interested in H.R. 1 and its progress, and he will be calling attention to that and also calling attention to the various provisions in the bill.

Q Will that be available at 2:00?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Did the Children's March prompt the message?

MR. WARREN: No. This message has been in the works for some time.

Q When will Ron brief?

MR. WARREN: We will brief right after the 3:00 o'clock briefing on the message.

This afternoon at 5:00 p.m. the President and Mrs. Nixon will receive members of the Advertising Council and their wives in the East Room. There are approximately 250 members of the Advertising Council who are in town for the

MORE

#1382

- 2 -

#1382

28th Annual Washington Conference of the Council. This group, as you know, serves as a coordinating body for the programming of public interest advertising, and they have worked on such programs as savings bonds, forest fires, drug abuse, and that sort of thing.

Q Will the President speak at this reception?

MR. WARREN: He will greet them, but he will not have prepared remarks.

Q How about coverage?

MR. WARREN: I am quite sure there will be no coverage. The President will greet them, and he and Mrs. Nixon will give a reception for them at that time.

Q We would like to put in a bid for coverage.

MR. WARREN: There is no coverage planned.

Q If he says something, can we get a transcript of whatever he says?

MR. WARREN: He is just going to greet them, as he has done in the past, in the East Room during this conference here in Washington, so there will not be a transcript. There will just be greeting remarks.

We have a number of postings for you this morning which I will run through after I make this other announcement:

The President will meet with King Hussein tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. This meeting is at the request of King Hussein, who is in the United States on a private visit. The meeting will provide the President and the King an opportunity to review the Middle East situation and discuss other international and bilateral matters. Also, it will give the President an opportunity to discuss with the King the results of his recent trip to Peking and the plans for his trip to Moscow in May.

There will be a black tie working dinner tomorrow evening at 8:00 o'clock.

Q Jerry, do you have any indication of when the King will be arriving in the United States?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q How about any other American officials he will be meeting with?

MR. WARREN: No, I do not know at this moment. The State Department might be able to help you with that, Norman, but I do not have any information.

Q Will he be staying at Blair House?

MR. WARREN: It is a private visit. I just do not know. We can check that.

Q Has the White House taken a position on the King's plan for a semi-autonomous state for the West Bank?

MORE

#1382

- 3 -

#1382

MR. WARREN: The White House has not had a comment on that, Helen, and will not have. It was the King's decision, and it is strictly a Jordanian matter, so we have not commented on that.

Q There is just the one meeting tomorrow with the President?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q How many will be at the working dinner, and is it a stag dinner?

MR. WARREN: It is a stag dinner. I would imagine it would be rather small, but I do not have the total number of people.

Q Is Dr. Kissinger back in town?

MR. WARREN: I am not sure.

Q Any pictures of that dinner?

MR. WARREN: No. We will have the same format as normal on a working dinner.

The President today announced the appointment of two persons to be members of the Advisory Council For Historic Preservation for terms expiring in February of 1977. The first one is a reappointment of Sylvester Stevens of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. He is Chairman of the Advisory Council and will remain as Chairman.

The new member will be Eleanor Freeborn Bennett, of San Antonio. She will succeed Albert M. Rains, whose term has expired. We will post the details on that.

For your information, Mr. Stevens is one of the original appointees to the Advisory Council and has served continuously as Chairman and member since appointed by President Johnson in March of 1967.

The President is announcing his intention to nominate Dr. Jerome Jaffe, of Arlington, Virginia, to be Director of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, and his intention to nominate Paul Louis Perito, of Medford, Massachusetts, to be Deputy Director.

These positions are created by the law which the President signed last week in the East Room. They have been serving in these positions. The President has designated them as Director and Deputy Director since the office has been operating under the authority of an Executive Order. They will continue to serve, obviously, until the Senate has had a chance to consider their nominations.

Q What is the salary?

MR. WARREN: The salary for Dr. Jaffe will be $42,500, and for Mr. Perito, $38,000.

Q Are those the same salaries they are getting now?

MORE

#1382

This Copy For _______________

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1385

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

3:15 P.M. EST

MARCH 28, 1972

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President's schedule for today has been announced. He is working this afternoon in his EOB office.

The President will meet with Secretary Connally in his EOB office at about 3:15.

Q: Is that on the retail prices, by any chance?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President will be talking to him about a number of things. I am sure they will be discussing the Secretary's meeting tomorrow with the retailers.

The President met this morning, as Jerry probably told you, with King Hussein from about 11:10 until 12:30, about an hour and 20 minutes.

The President and King Hussein of Jordan reviewed all aspects of the present situation in the Middle East, and in particular the current status of efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

As you know, the President and King Hussein have met on a number of previous occasions, so they know each other well. Their talks were very cordial and to the point. The President and King Hussein met on April 8 and 9 of 1969, and again on December 8 and 9 of 1970.

The King described the political and economic situation in Jordan and explained his plan for eventual formation of a United Arab Kingdom, as was announced two weeks ago by King Hussein.

In addition to discussing the Middle East situation from the U.S. perspective, President Nixon described his purpose in the series of high level meetings he has held over the past four months, and spoke particularly to his trip to Peking and his upcoming trip to Moscow.

On the Middle East, the President restated the United States support for a just and durable peace in the Middle East, in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 242 as an important link in ordering a more peaceful world. The President reaffirmed that the United States is prepared to continue to help facilitate movement toward peace and to play a most active and constructive role to this end.

As you know, King Hussein is also meeting with Secretary of State Rogers while he is here. That meeting was held at lunch today. He will be in the United States for several days.

MORE

#1385

- 2 -

#1385

Q Did they discuss Jordan's request for more American arms?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have had, as you know, an ongoing military assistance program with Jordan now for many years, and have that ongoing program with them now. No doubt during the course of the conversation they discussed military and economic assistance.

Q Specifically, was the figure of $40 million in new military assistance discussed?

MR. ZIEGLER: Our economic aid to Jordan is $40 million to $45 million a year, in that range. The military assistance to Jordan is not a matter of public record, but for your BACKGROUND: The figure of about $40 million a year is close to what is being provided to Jordan at this time.

Q Who else was in the meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Rifai, a representative of the Government of Jordan.

Q Did the President and King Hussein have any private conversations out of earshot of anyone else?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe they had a period of time that they met alone before Dr. Kissinger and the Ambassador joined them, but not for any extended period.

Q When you say "No doubt during the course of the conversation they discussed military and economic assistance," are you talking about the possibility of increases in either or both categories?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sure the subject of the ongoing assistance program was discussed. Here, again, we indicated that we would be willing to assist to the degree we can; however, I cannot say to you that substantial dollars, additional dollars, were discussed, but we will do what we can in our ongoing assistance program.

Q Did the President express his views on the Hussein plan for a Federated Kingdom?

MR. ZIEGLER: This is essentially a plan for reorganization within Jordan itself, when a peace agreement makes that possible. I am not prepared to comment on the substance of the plan itself.

Q Would the plan fall within the concept of the U.N. resolution, which is seen as a basis for a settlement by the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said, this is essentially a plan for reorganization within Jordan after there is a peace settlement, and that is what was announced, so that is the context in which we are discussing it.

Q Ron, the West Bank of the Jordan is occupied by Israeli troops, as you know. How does that jibe with this idea that it is an internal matter?

MORE

#1385

- 3 -

#1385

MR. ZIEGLER: Let me go on BACKGROUND and I may be
able to talk a little more freely here.

The proposal for an autonomous Palestine under the
framework of a United Arab Kingdom of Jordan and Palestine
is a reorganization plan that was put forth by King Hussein
to go into place after a peace agreement would be reached in
the Middle East, or a peace agreement would be reached between
Jordan and Israel. So the reorganization plan that King
Hussein announced two weeks ago does not apply itself directly
to such a peace settlement except as it would assist in the
creating of the appropriate environment for a peace settlement
to be reached.

But the reorganization plan that was announced is
a plan to go into effect after a peace settlement. That is why
I say that it is a matter for those people in the area to deal
with, and it is an internal reorganization plan that the King
has announced.

Q Does that presuppose that the Israelis are going
to get out of the West Bank of the Jordan in a peace settlement?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not want to get into a discussion
as to what a peace settlement would be in the Middle East, or
between Jordan and Israel, but as you well know, some sort of
self-determination and some voice in their own government is
one of the things that has always been discussed in relation
to the Jordanian situation as it concerns the Palestinians.

The President, for example, has expressed on a num-
ber of occasions our recognition that if there is to be a
lasting peace in the Middle East, the legitimate aspirations
of the Palestinians will have to be met by whatever agreement
is reached, which would, of course, associate itself with the
West Bank.

Q I may be lost on this, but does all this mean
that the United States is expressing support for the West Bank
being given back to Jordan?

MR. ZIEGLER: Back on the record, we are not making
a statement or injecting ourselves into a settlement by publicly
suggesting what a settlement may be. We have often said that
the matter of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians
would have to be met in whatever agreement would be reached.

Q Ron, when the President reaffirmed the November
1967 U.N. resolution on withdrawal of Israeli troops, did he
also reaffirm the resolution on the internationalization of
Jerusalem?

MR. ZIEGLER: The internationalization of Jerusalem
is not part of Resolution 242.

Q I know, but did he also reaffirm that?

MR. ZIEGLER: That has not been our policy.

Q Ron, does the President feel that Hussein's
proposal contributes to the kind of environment we would like
to see for getting a peace settlement?

MORE

#1385

- 5 -

#1385

Q Did the President, in talking to King Hussein, reiterate the United States position which was outlined in December of 1969 on this subject by Secretary Rogers?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is my understanding that details along those lines did not enter into the discussions.

Q Can I ask whether the internationalization of Jerusalem was discussed at all?

MR. ZIEGLER: I cannot address myself to the elements of a possible settlement in the Middle East.

Q You mentioned the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. Is that in connection with the refugees on the West Bank?

MR. ZIEGLER: That refers to some sort of self-determination and some voice in their own government.

Q But not in the context of refugees and repatriation?

MR. ZIEGLER: I will stand on that explanation of what I am referring to.

Q Would it be fair to say that the President is welcoming King Hussein's initiative in trying to work out something to give them more voice in their own destiny, but we are not commenting on the particular proposals that were made?

MR. ZIEGLER: We are not commenting on the substance of the plan at all. As I said, we are not doing this because this is an internal reorganizational matter. I gave a general comment in response to a question that steps that would create an environment that would assist in a peaceful settlement are, of course, welcomed by us. However, I am not editorializing on this particular plan itself because it is a matter which is basically internal.

Q Are you willing to put his initiative into that category?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not prepared to do that either one way or another.

Q After tonight, is that the last meeting with the President or does he have another one scheduled?

MR. ZIEGLER: Tonight is the last meeting.

Q Do you have a guest list?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. It is in the bins.

Q On another subject, does the White House have a view on the forthcoming trial of war criminals in Bangladesh?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have no comment on that.

MORE

#1385

- 6 -

#1385

Q Seventeen thousand Lithuanians have petitioned the United Nations for some support on religious freedom in the Soviet Union. Does the United States have any comment on that?

MR. ZIEGLER: Our view on those matters has been stated frequently and there is no change in that.

Q Can you elaborate at all on what Secretary Connally has in mind in talking to the supermarket people? Does he have a proposal for them or a plan of action or exhortation?

MR. ZIEGLER: When I met with you yesterday I was not aware that the meeting had been set up. As far as I have been able to determine in my discussions with Secretary Connally, he has asked the people to come in simply to talk to them about the problem of higher prices and what can be done to bring them down again. I think he is going to make it very clear to those he meets with that we are going to be watching their margins; we are going to be watching their pricing policies, and if they move in a direction that does not contribute to lower prices, which we think benefits everyone in this country, all of the consumers, that we will have to consider what steps should be taken.

In other words, if this problem cannot be dealt with independently by the retailers, then we will have to consider what steps must be taken to deal with the problem and to bring the prices down.

Q Is he going to suggest any actions on their part?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think one thing he will suggest to them is to look very carefully at their profit margins.

Q What time is this meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know the exact time. The Treasury Department will be able to give you those details.

Q Is it here or over there?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is at Treasury. I am sure that following the meeting the Treasury Department will be willing to provide additional details about the discussions.

Q Do you have any comment on the trade deficit which is still $500 million out of balance, any forecast on when it is going to swing around?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have no forecast to make, but that is one of the things we are trying to do something about, too, in terms of policies we are proceeding with.

Q Any comment on the figures that are out today?

MR. ZIEGLER: No specific comment, other than the fact that it is a problem we are working to solve and we are going to continue that effort.

MORE

#1385

- 4 -

#1386

Q Can you say whether or not American F-104s given to Jordan were transferred to Pakistan, and if so, did we approve it?

MR. WARREN: I have no comment or information on that press report. You might address that to the State Department.

Q Do you have any report of what was said last night at the dinner for King Hussein, if there were any speeches?

MR. WARREN: No, I have no report.

Q Has the President been reading Sy Hersh's stories out of Hanoi?

MR. WARREN: The President has been reading the newspapers, as he always does, Helen, and keeping up on matters that are current, but I would have no comment on the stories you refer to.

Q I thought he got news summaries.

MR. WARREN: He does that also, but he reads newspapers.

Q Jerry, there is no significance to the presence of Mr. Zcok here this morning, is there?

MR. WARREN: I think he is just as eager as you are, but there is no significance.

Q What are the weekend plans?

MR. WARREN: The weekend plans are unchanged. They will be in the area.

Q Will there be an Easter service at the White House?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q Do you assume he will be in town next week?

MR. WARREN: I have no guidance for the following weekend.

Q I mean the following week, during the week.

MR. WARREN: I would assume he would be here, yes.

Q Does the White House plan to respond to the telegrams and pleas from the man in Florida who wishes to have that fellow buried in Arlington Cemetery?

MR. WARREN: The Department of Army has responded to those requests. That is the Department which appropriately would respond.

Q The White House does not plan to get involved in it?

MR. WARREN: No. That is the Department of Army.

MORE

#1386

Joe P. Scrimpton
This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1388

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:25 A.M. EST

MARCH 30, 1972

THURSDAY

MR. WARREN: Good morning. The first thing I should say is that we have not changed our new policy of briefing promptly at 11:00 o'clock and we will get back on track, I assure you.

The President's schedule is posted. We will have a picture of this meeting at 12:15 of the representatives of the American Cancer Society. We will have a release available in the Press Office for those of you who are interested, following this session, giving a little background on Mike Finamore, the 20-year-old boy from Glen Ridge, New Jersey, and his efforts in behalf of the American Cancer Society.

One change in the schedule: The scheduled meeting at 4:00 p.m. between the President, Secretary Laird and Senator Stennis will not take place today. The Senator and the President have agreed that they will not meet today, but will meet after the Easter recess.

The Senator's schedule offered a minor conflict, and the President agreed that they could hold this meeting after the Easter recess. This was to have been one in a series of meetings the President likes to hold with chairmen of important committees. It will be rescheduled.

You have one release this morning. The President today announced the appointment of five persons to be members of the Board of Directors of the Federal National Mortgage Association for terms ending on the date of the annual meeting in 1973.

The current president of the Association is Allen Oakley Hunter. The annual meeting this year will be held on May 18, 1972. Members of the Board receive $100 per meeting, plus expenses. The members of the Board select the president and the vice president of the Association.

Q Were these jobs filled before? Are these replacements?

MR. WARREN: Yes. They are filled annually. These are all reappointments.

The President has signed Senate Bill 18, which authorizes appropriations for grants of $36 million for fiscal year 1972 to Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. This authorization permits the use of a 1972 appropriate which was enacted last December but unavailable until authorization legislation was passed.

MORE

#1388

- 2 -

#1388

That is what is being done here. I believe you
are all acquainted with this bill. The President issued a
statement on March 11th of this year calling for action to
continue grants to Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty
through the remainder of this fiscal year. So the President
has signed that this morning.

Q Do you know how this grant compares with
past years? Is it the same?

MR. WARREN: The authorization is $36 million. The appropriations were in the amount of $32 million. That was enacted last December, but as I said, unavailable until authorizing legislation was passed.

I will have to get the history on the last year.
I do not have that, but we will get that for you.

The President today is transmitting to the Congress
proposed supplements to the appropriations for fiscal '73
in the amount of $1,721,000 for the Legislative Branch and
$1,000 for the Judiciary Branch. We will post the details
on this.

For the Legislative Branch, the larger portion of
the amount is for salaries and for hiring employees. The
Judiciary supplemental is for replacement of a passenger
motor vehicle.

As you know, the law requires that supplemental
appropriations requests for Legislative and Judiciary branches
are submitted by the President without change.

Q Where can you get a car for $1,000?

MR. WARREN: Ask the Judiciary. I do not know.

The President has accepted the resignation of
George Frank Mansur, Jr., as Deputy Director of the Office
of Telecommunications Policy effective April 1, 1972. Mr.
Mansur was appointed to this position on October 7, 1970.
We have no successor to announce. The salary for this posi-
tion is $38,000. Mr. Mansur offers no reason for his retire-
ment other than personal reasons.

The President has accepted with regret the resignation of Oliver L. Troxel as Ambassador to Zambia effective on a date to be determined. Ambassador Troxel has been in this post since May 27, 1969.

The President has accepted the resignation of Luther
I. Replogle as Ambassador to Iceland effective upon a date
to be determined. Ambassador Replogle was appointed on July
8, 1969. The Ambassador has cited personal reasons for his
resignation, and the President expresses his deep apprecia-
tion for his service.

Q No successors for either?

MR. WARREN: No. Ambassador Troxel, I should have
said, offers no reason for his resignation.

MORE

#1388

- 3 -

#1388

Q Are these career men, do you know?

MR. WARREN: I do not believe either are career
officers.

Those are all the announcements we have today. We
will brief at 3:00 o'clock.

Q Is the President going to Fort Campbell, Ken-
tucky, and Nashville, Tennessee, home of the Grand Old Opry,
next week, Thursday and Friday of next week?

MR. WARREN: What are the dates?

Q The 6th and 7th.

MR. WARREN: I have no announcement to make on
Presidential travel today, so I am not in a position to con-
firm that story.

Q Is the President going to appoint an Emergency
Board before the railroad strike deadline tomorrow night?

MR. WARREN: I have no comment on that matter. I
assume you are talking about Penn Central.

MORE

#1388

- 4 -

#1388

Q Yes?

MR. WARREN: The Labor Department is watching that very closely. Obviously, it goes without saying, that we are hopeful that the parties will resolve the differences through collective bargaining. But I have no action to announce from the White House or any prediction.

Q Is Ambassador Porter going to see the President today?

MR. WARREN: There are no plans fixed for the Ambassador to see the President. As you know, he is returning to Washington tonight or tomorrow to continue consultations. The length of his stay in Washington is not yet determined. As I said, there are no plans fixed for him to meet with the President at this time.

Q You say he is coming back to Washington today?

MR. WARREN: He is coming back either tonight or tomorrow for consultations.

Q Is he going to go back to Paris?

MR. WARREN: He is intending to go back to Paris, most assuredly.

Q For what?

Q He likes Paris in the Spring? (Laughter)

MR. WARREN: Did you have another question?

Q The reason I asked was that I thought the talks were suspended and I am a little puzzled as to why he is going back.

MR. WARREN: He made quite clear when he announced the action by the United States Government the readiness and willingness of the United States to resume negotiations. He will be back here for an undetermined period for consultations and we expect him to return to Paris.

Q Does that include consultations about third party arbitration that the other side suggested?

MR. WARREN: The consultations will include everything that has been presented at the Paris talks, I am sure.

Q Is the Ambassador coming back to discuss some sort of new strategy for the negotiations?

MR. WARREN: No, Helen, he is coming back for consultations.

Q Consultations with whom?

MR. WARREN: With the State Department and perhaps with the President, but there is no meeting with the President fixed at this time.

more

#1388

- 5 -

#1388

Q How about Dr. Kissinger?

MR. WARREN: There is no meeting set.

Q Is Dr. Kissinger carrying on any secret talks with the Hanoi leaders lately? (Laughter)

MR. WARREN: If he is, he has kept it a secret from me, and that is probably the best way to do it, if he is. (Laughter)

Q Who is he briefing today?

MR. WARREN: I have not seen his schedule today, Frank.

Q On or off the record?

MR. WARREN: I have not seen his on or off the record schedule today.

Q Has Dr. Kissinger or the White House received any communication from some labor leaders who recently were in Hanoi? I believe it was Harold Gibbons and a few others.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Dr. Kissinger has met with Mr. Gibbons.

Q When was that?

MR. WARREN: I believe it was Tuesday afternoon.

Q Was there anybody else in that group?

MR. WARREN: No, just Mr. Gibbons.

Q That is the Teamsters Union?

MR. WARREN: Yes. This is the man who made a private visit to North Vietnam.

Q From that meeting, is there any further indication or hope for return of the prisoners?

MR. WARREN: I have no details to provide on that meeting.

Q You are not ruling out the possibility of some movement?

MR. WARREN: I have no details to announce. Dr. Kissinger, as you know, meets with many people from different professions and different areas of interest. This was one of those meetings.

Q How long was the meeting?

MR. WARREN: I am sorry, I don't have any details. I don't know the length of the meeting.

Q Who solicited the meeting?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Gibbons asked for it.

MORE

#1388

- 6 -

#1388

Q What about the possible trip to Iran, Jerry? Is there anything on that?

MR. WARREN: Well, I have no details to give you on the itinerary of the President's trip to Moscow, either going in or coming out of Russia, so I cannot confirm that story today. However, I have seen reports, yesterday afternoon and this morning, about a stop in Teheran and I think those reports are basically accurate. I don't mean to confuse you or to play games, but it has been reported that such a stop is under serious consideration and that is correct.

Q How long is the stop; do you know?

MR. WARREN: Again, I have nothing to announce today or any details on the itinerary, so I would not be able to respond to that question.

Q Are other stops also under consideration?

MR. WARREN: No other stops are under consideration at this time.

Q Jerry, on the possibility of the Penn Central strike, you say that you are hoping it will be solved through collective bargaining, but railroad strikes never are, so is there a plan for announcing some sort of White House action tomorrow?

MR. WARREN: I think I answered that earlier, Norm. I will stand on that.

Q Have you been asked about travel plans for this weekend?

MR. WARREN: Often. (Laughter)

Q Have you answered?

MR. WARREN: Yes. It is the same as before. The President and his family will be in the Washington area over the weekend. I think Julie Eisenhower said yesterday, and correct me if I am wrong, Helen, but I think Julie said yesterday that the family would get together over the weekend at Camp David.

Q Is that correct, Helen? (Laughter)

MS. THOMAS: That is correct.

Q Jerry, do you know when the President will sign the bill raising the price of gold?

MR. WARREN: Soon. I don't have a date or time to give you.

Q When is the deadline for that, this week or next?

MR. WARREN: I think it is next week.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

END

(AT 11:40 A.M. EST)

and objectives of the United States Govern-
ment. If Congress imposes crippling cuts on
that Agency, the assets lost could not be re-
placed.

Certainly private American radio re-
sources are not equipped to enter the field of
international broadcasting.

Our commercial news agencies do not
carry full texts of policy statements abroad
and are not likely to provide radioteletype
links to all of our embassies overseas.

Our motion picture and television industries do not produce and distribute documentaries on the United States designed especially for foreign audiences.

American publishers do not in any major
way produce foreign-language periodicals.

Few libraries of American books would
exist overseas if USIA did not provide them.

All of these information activities contrib-
ute to indispensable understanding abroad of
the United States, its motives and concerns,
its policies and actions.

All major nations, and many smaller ones,
recognize the important role of information
programs in the conduct of their foreign
affairs, and they do not stint in giving them
the essential resources for effective opera-
tion. The Soviet Union and China, among
others, have devoted enormous amounts of
money and effort to advancing their policies
and philosophies in the world today through
information programs. Our major allies and
many of the countries of the so-called "third
world" also budget amounts comparable to,
or proportionately greater than, the re-
sources we have allocated to USIA in recent
years. The task of presenting our views and
the essential facts about us to the world—
always a difficult job under any circum-
stances—would be enormously increased if,
for example, the broadcast hours of the Voice
of America were to be cut by nearly 50 per-
cent and the strength of the Voice were to be
muted by the elimination of seven of its 15
worldwide transmitters. Yet this is what the
committee's proposed cut would entail.

In addition, the Agency's program direc-

tion and policy planning resources, on which
we are also dependent, both in Washington
and overseas, would be cut 30 percent. Any
such drastic cuts would seriously damage our
overall capabilities to influence the informa-
tional and cultural environment of our for-
eign relations.

Experience has given ample evidence of the
value of our international information and
cultural programs in supporting and promot-
ing our foreign policy. I strongly oppose
these proposed cuts.

U.S. Makes Further Contribution
to U.N. Bangladesh Relief

Following is the text of a letter dated
April 3 from George Bush, U.S. Representa-
tive to the United Nations, to U.N. Secretary
General Kurt Waldheim.

USUN press release 33 dated April 3

APRIL 3, 1972.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY GENERAL: I have the
honor to present to you a check for $31
million for the United Nations' Relief Pro-
gram in Bangladesh. This check forms part
of the total grant of $35 million which my
Government announced recently in further
response to your appeals of February 15 and
February 25. The $4 million balance will be
used, according to understandings reached
between our respective staffs, to procure
trucks from the United States for shipment
to Bangladesh.

The total U.S. Government contribution
to the United Nations Relief Operation, Dac-
ca since your recent appeals now amounts to
about $100 million and includes some 500,000
tons of food, a part of which is underway. I
am pleased to be able to inform you that my
Government is looking into the possibility
of diverting food shipments destined for
other points in an effort to speed up de-
 liveries.

It is my Government's sincere hope that

May 15, 1972

697

these contributions will be of material assist-
ance to the United Nations in carrying out
their important humanitarian mission in
Bangladesh.

Accept, Mr. Secretary General, the assur-
ances of my highest consideration.

GEORGE BUSH.

## President Nixon Welcomes Chinese Table Tennis Team

Following is an exchange of remarks be-
tween President Nixon and Chuang Tse-
tung, head of the table tennis team from the
People's Republic of China, in the Rose
Garden of the White House on April 18.

White House press release dated April 18

### REMARKS BY PRESIDENT NIXON

Ladies and gentlemen, and members of the
Chinese table tennis team: I am delighted
to have the opportunity to welcome this team
to the United States.

It is hard to realize that it was just a year
ago that the American table tennis team,
with Mr. [Graham B.] Steenhoven and his
group, were welcomed in the People's Re-
public of China.

Premier Chou En-lai welcomed our Amer-
ican players, and as the President of the
United States, on behalf of all the American
people, I welcome the representatives of the
Chinese team.

We know that in the course of your tour
of the United States you will receive a good
welcome. We know, too, that in the course
of your contest there will be winners and
losers. But there is one big winner, and that
is more important than who wins a match
in table tennis. The big winner, because of
this people-to-people contact that you are
initiating between our two peoples, will be

friendship between the people of the United
States and the people of the People's Re-
public of China. Friendship between our two
great peoples will mean a better chance for
peace for all the world.

And now we thank you for making this
long journey. We hope that you continue to
have great success and receive a warm wel-
come, and at the conclusion of our remarks,
we want you to have a special tour of the
White House.

### REMARKS BY MR. CHUANG ¹

Mr. President: After our arrival in the
United States, the Chinese table tennis dele-
gation visited the industrial city of Detroit
and also Williamsburg, an old, historical
town which played a progressive role in the
War of Independence; and on the 16th we
have arrived here in Washington, the U.S.
Capital.

During our visit we have had friendly
contacts with students, players, workers, fac-
ulty members, and schoolteachers and were
accorded a warm welcome by them all. We
have personally felt the friendly sentiments
of the American people toward the Chinese
people.

This time last year the U.S. table tennis
team, headed by Mr. Steenhoven, made a
friendly visit to China; and today in the
warm spring season, when flowers are in full
bloom, the Chinese table tennis delegation
is here on a reciprocal visit.

The exchange of visits between the Chi-
nese and American table tennis delegations
is conducive to the furthering of the friend-
ship and the mutual understanding between
the peoples of our two countries, and this
is in conformity with the desire of our two
peoples.

In conclusion, I wish to extend our thanks
to you, Mr. President, for receiving us, in
the name of our delegation.

¹ Mr. Chuang spoke in Chinese.

698

Department of State Bulletin

- 7 -

#1391

Q Did he talk with Admiral Moorer by phone?

MR. WARREN: No. Admiral Moorer was here.

Q The discussions with Rogers and Laird were by phone?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Can you give us any guidance on travel this week?

MR. WARREN: I cannot. I have no guidance at all on travel.

Q Are you ruling it out?

MR. WARREN: I am not ruling anything out, but I just can't give you any guidance.

Q Do you mean the picture is changing?

MR. WARREN: Let me just say that I am not going to give you any guidance on travel this week.

Q Do you have any comments on reports that the President intends to recognize Bangladesh this week?

MR. WARREN: I have seen the reports over the weekend. I am not in a position to deny them. However, I don't have any details for you. You should expect a formal announcement from the Administration soon.

Q You said Admiral Moorer was here at the White House. Was he here for the WSAG meeting?

MR. WARREN: I think he was.

Q Does the White House any any comment on the story over the weekend that there is an employee of Boeing in Wisconsin buying ads for Henry Jackson on a Boeing credit card?

MR. WARREN: No.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

END (AT 12:10 P.M. EST)

April 4, 1972

UNITED STATES RECOGNITION OF BANGLADESH

The following statement was issued in the name of Secretary Rogers
on April 4, 1972:

"As you know, the question of recognition of Bangladesh has been under active review for some time. This review has now been completed, and I am pleased to announce this morning that the United States Government is extending recognition to Bangladesh. Our Principal Officer in Dacca, Mr. Herbert D. Spivack, is now on his way back to Dacca following consultations here. He is carrying a message from the President to the Prime Minister, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, informing him of our recognition and of our desire to establish diplomatic relations at the Embassy level.

We look forward to good relations with this new country. The United
States has had an official mission in Dacca since 1949 and many Amer-
icans, both in official and private capacities, have been associated
over the years with the development efforts of the people of Bangladesh.
President Nixon emphasized in his foreign policy report to Congress
that as we strengthen new relationships in Asia this concern for the
welfare of the people of Bangladesh will continue.

As we now enter into an official relationship with the Government and
people of Bangladesh, I want to express on behalf of all the American
people our good wishes for the future. I also want to reaffirm our
intention to develop friendly bilateral relations and be helpful as
Bangladesh faces its immense task of relief and reconstruction."

State Department Spokesman McCloskey added: "I might add a point or
two. We look forward to good relations with the new state. Many Amer-
icans over the years have worked closely with the people of that area.
There is a warm feeling of friendship in this country for the Bengali
people and a deep humanitarian concern for the many problems they
face. We have no doubt that our two Governments share a common
concern for peace and stability in that part of the world. On assistance,
to date, the United States has contributed over $115 million in response
to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and that is
in the period since the fighting in December."

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1399

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

12:05 P.M. EST

APRIL 10, 1972

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: We delayed the briefing this morning until the President had returned from the State Deaprtment, where he witnessed the signing of the Convention of Biological Weapons. We will have a transcript of the President's remarks which he delivered at the State Department shortly.

The schedule has been posted. The President is meeting now with Ambassador William Porter.

This evening at 5:00 o'clock the President will receive approximately 250 members of the National Alliance of Businessmen. As you know, this is a voluntary organization of business executives who cooperate with the Department of Labor and OEO in finding jobs for the disadvantaged. They are meeting in town today, I believe, to elect officers, so the President has chosen this opportunity to meet with them at a reception. There will be no coverage of that.

Q Why?

MR. WARREN: It is a reception, Frances. He chooses to receive these people, welcome them to Washington, and thank them for their efforts.

Q Could we make a request to the President to cover some of these events. He is having many meetings with people in groups.

MR. WARREN: You must understand it is not a meeting. It is a reception. They are being greeted at the White House.

Q Since they volunteer their time, and so forth, it seems to me they would like some publicity on their efforts.

MR. WARREN: I believe they do their work, as you say, on a voluntary basis. Obviously they like publicity in their efforts to find jobs for the disadvantaged, but I don't think they seek publicity for themselves.

Q Maybe the President would like some.

MR. WARREN: I don't think they seek publicity for themselves.

Q The JOBS program isn't voluntary, is it?

MR. WARREN: This is different than the JOBS program. This is the National Alliance of Businessmen.

MORE

#1399

- 7 -

#1399

Q Did Mr. Ziegler hold a briefing or something here this morning on this Canadian trip? I see him quoted on both wires.

MR. WARREN: There was no briefing as such. He responded to the questions and discussed it with people who were here this morning, yes.

Q I was here all morning from 9:30 on and I heard nothing about it and nothing about any posting.

MR. WARREN: If you heard nothing about the posting, then it is because I didn't say over the loudspeaker that it had been posted. But it was posted rather early.

Q I would suggest that it would be worthwhile when something is posted, in all fairness, that it would be a good idea if it would be announced.

MR. WARREN: I think that is a very good suggestion.

Q Could telephone calls be made at home early in the morning, also?

MR. WARREN: Certainly.

Q Is there going to be any briefing on the Canadian trip?

MR. WARREN: I know of no briefing devoted entirely to the Canadian trip, but there will be more details forthcoming.

Q What time are we leaving on Thursday?

MR. WARREN: I just don't have that information for you yet.

Q I am still baffled about this communication to the allies. Have you ruled out a Presidential communication on this subject in saying there was a State Department communication? Have you ruled this out?

MR. WARREN: I am saying there were normal diplomatic communications with our allies.

Q And no other?

MR. WARREN: Normal diplomatic communications with our allies.

Q Has the President made any statement, normal or abnormal?

MR. WARREN: I think it is pretty clear what I meant.

Q There is a story that the President cabled Makarios of Cyprus urging him not to resign. Can you confirm that?

MR. WARREN: I am going to say it again with trepidation, Helen. As you know, it is our practice not to discuss communications between heads of state. However, the United States has not been involved in the current problems on Cyprus. We feel this is a matter for the parties involved, and the United States is not intervening in this problem.

MORE

#1399

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1402

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

3:15 P.M. EST

APRIL 11, 1972

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President is meeting this afternoon in his Oval Office with Secretary of Commerce Pete Peterson. Jerry announced that earlier, I believe.

Later the President will meet with Secretary Connally. That will be about 4:00 o'clock.

The schedule has been posted on today's activities. We have one addition. At 5:00 o'clock this afternoon, the President will meet with Senator Mansfield and Senator Scott to talk to them before they leave for their visit to the People's Republic of China.

As you know, President Nixon brought back the invitation to Senator Scott and Senator Mansfield when he returned from the People's Republic. They will be talking about the President's experiences in the PRC. As you know, the President is pleased that the two Senate leaders are going to visit the People's Republic of China. He will want to talk to them about their impressions and their visit when they return to the United States following their trip.

Senator Mansfield and Senator Scott have announced that the period they will be gone on their trip to the People's Republic will be about three weeks. I believe they announced that in the release they put out. I understand that they will be visiting Peking, Shanghai, Hangchow, and perhaps Canton. The final details have not been worked out at this point, but they are expected to visit those cities.

They are due to arrive in Shanghai on the 18th of April. As you know, they will be flying to the People's Republic of China in an aircraft provided by the United States Government. They will fly to the People's Republic of China by way of Hawaii and then Guam, the same route that President Nixon took enroute to the People's Republic.

The China initiative, as you know, has been referred to as a bipartisan effort, and is a bipartisan matter. That is why the President is pleased that the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Party will be making this visit to the People's Republic of China.

Q. Will they be carrying a message from the President to Chou or Mao?

MR. ZIEGLER: They have not met with the President at this point, so I do not know what the President will talk to them about. Primarily, it will be to discuss the President's experiences there and to talk about the developing communications between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

MORE

#1402

- 3 -

#1402

assure effective coordination of our security assistance effort, with State also to administer supporting economic assistance.

Mr. Tarr, in this position, will supervise both
grant military assistance programs and foreign military sales,
both of which have their operational authority in DOD, as well
as economic supporting assistance which is administered by AID.
So Mr. Tarr will coordinate with the Department of Defense
to insure that military support assistance is integrated with
the foreign policy of the United States, and he will also con-
centrate on long-range planning for these programs and inter-
agency review efforts.

This is a new position at the State Department that
Mr. Tarr will assume. The compensation is at Level 3, $40,000.

Q Do you have a replacement for him?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not to announce at this point, Bob.

Also, the President today is announcing his inten-
tion to nominate Joseph S. Farland to be United States Ambas-
sador to Iran. He succeeds Douglas MacArthur, II, who has
retired. Ambassador Farland has served since October 1969 as
Ambassador to Pakistan, as you all know.

Q Is there a replacement for Ambassador Farland
in Pakistan?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not to announce at this point.

Q Where is Farland now?

MR. ZIEGLER: Ambassador Farland is now enroute to
Pakistan. He has been in Washington for consultations. He
will return there before assuming his new post.

Q I assume the Ambassador will take over in
Tehran before the President arrives.

MR. ZIEGLER: We would hope that he would be con-
firmed and there by the time of the President's visit.

Q Is it the intention to announce quickly a new
Ambassador to Pakistan at this rather delicate time in our
relations?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe we will have an announce-
ment on that fairly soon.

Q When did Douglas MacArthur, II, retire? Do
you know?

MR. ZIEGLER: February 29, 1972.

The President today is announcing his intention to
nominate Lee Henkel, Jr., of Columbus, Georgia, to be Assis-
tant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury. I
think that is self-explanatory.

MORE

#1402

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1406

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

12:57 P.M. EST

APRIL 14, 1972

FRIDAY

(Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

MR. ZIEGLER: We are handing out the text of the President's remarks before Parliament this afternoon. The remarks are embargoed until 3:00 p.m. I know it says 3:15, but it should say 3:00, because he enters Parliament at 3:00 o'clock. He will begin speaking at about 10 minutes after 3:00, so we will embargo it until 3:00 p.m. You can begin moving it on the wires at your discretion following the briefing.

The President and the Prime Minister met together in the Prime Minister's office for about an hour and 45 minutes. Dr. Kissinger and Ivan Head, of the Prime Minister's office, sat in the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister.

Following the meeting in the Prime Minister's office, the President and the Prime Minister joined the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mitchell Sharp, in the Cabinet Room in the Parliament building, and met for about half an hour with the counterparts from both the United States and Canadian Governments. The meetings concluded at approximately 12:00 Noon, and following that the President met with the Opposition Leader, Robert Stanfield, for 25 minutes.

The President has now returned to the Governor's House, where he is staying.

During the conversations this morning, the President and the Prime Minister spent considerable time reviewing United States-Canadian relations. They continued the discussions which they held last December when the Prime Minister visited Washington. The discussions included not only a review of the fundamentally excellent relations between the United States and Canada, but also a review of the current differences in those relations.

The discussions, of course, also covered international matters, as the President mentioned yesterday in his arrival remarks, and also, I believe, in his toast last night.

This visit to Canada comes midway between the President's visit to the People's Republic of China and his upcoming visit to the Soviet Union. The President gave the Prime Minister his views and impressions of his visit to the People's Republic of China, and also discussed with him

MORE

#1406

- 2 -

#1406

the current status of U.S.-Soviet relations, and what he
hopes to accomplish on his upcoming visit to the Soviet
Union.

They also talked about the Middle East, they talked
about NATO matters, discussed, in that context, the European
Security Conference, mutual balanced force reductions, and
those types of subjects.

In the bilateral area, there was discussion about
narcotics control, and an expression of appreciation from
the President and from the United States Government to the
Canadian Government for its cooperation in narcotics con-
trol.

There was also some discussion about parks. As some
of you may know, the Secretary of the Interior, in March,
set aside some nine million acres in Alaska which
borders on Canadian territory in the Yukon, so there was
some talk about the possibility of a coordinated effort in
setting aside lands in Alaska in the United States, in the
Kluane National Park, as I believe it is referred to, in the
Yukon, along the Alaskan border. There was some general
discussion as to how the efforts to set aside this parkland,
recreational land, could be perhaps coordinated.

In addition to that, of course, the subject of
environment was covered in both the meetings. As you know,
tomorrow morning the Prime Minister and the President will
sign the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. There was
talk about the matter of environmental pollution not only on
the Great Lakes, but also on both coasts, and some talk about
the possible role of the International Joint Commission,
which is now involved in the pollution control efforts on
the Great Lakes, applying also to the coastal waters. As you
know, both governments have an interest and concern about the
problems of tanker spillage as the process of the transport
of oil occurs on the coasts of both countries, so there was
some general discussion about that problem.

This, of course, is a complex subject, perhaps more
so than I have indicated to you, because, as you know, the
United States Government at this time is considering the
Alaska pipeline matter, and this all interrelates with some
of Canada's concerns about the environment and pollution,
together with ours.

The question of marine science was also talked
about, particularly the matter of the Man in the Sea Project,
but overall areas of cooperation in marine science. The
manned undersea exploration refers to, of course, placing
man within the environment to work and observe, and to deter-
mine the implications for all marine science, including
fishery resources and pollution problems.
Medical research would be part of the Man in the Sea efforts,
and also the exchange of data and further discussion about
ongoing, cooperative programs we have in this area.

The President and the Prime Minister, in terms of
talking about the relations between the United States and
Canada, the friendly relations we have, but also not ignoring
the differences we have, talked really in terms of long-range

JUN

#1406

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

January 27, 1972

23 (Corrected)

REMARKS BY
SECRETARY OF STATE WILLIAM P. ROGERS
BEFORE THE FOREIGN POLICY CONFERENCE
FOR EDITORS AND BROADCASTERS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 27, 1972

INTRODUCTION: It is my privilege to present to you the Secretary of State, who will make a short opening statement and then answer your questions on the record.

SECRETARY ROGERS: Let me begin by saying that I very much welcome this opportunity to talk with you this morning in an informal way, to summarize some of the foreign policies of this Administration and more importantly, to answer questions that you may have on the record.

Now as I understand it, you represent editors, newscasters, from forty states in the United States; and, in a very real sense, you are an important element in the foreign policy of the United States, because no foreign policy is successful in this country unless it represents the views of the American people, and what you convey through the media, to people in your states and other states, is very important to us who have the responsibility in the foreign policy field.

I would like, in order to provide some backdrop for questions, to make some preliminary comments about foreign policy:

For further information contact:

-2-

PR 23

First, let me say that there are three conditions in the world today which are quite different from those that existed twenty years ago, or fifteen years ago, or even in the years when I was in President Eisenhower's Administration from 1953 to 1960.

First, the world is no longer a bipolar world, the Communist world and the free world. The direction is quite different. It is a multipolar world today, and there are five major power centers in the world. Not necessarily equal, but all important, and they will become more important in the years ahead:

The United States

The Soviet Union

The European Community

Japan

The People's Republic of China

Secondly, the ideologies that existed are different to some extent. The ideologies are more proliferated than they were before. Whereas we used to think of the Communist world as monolithic, we now recognize that there are serious differences in the Communist world just as there are in the non-Communist world.