FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCTOBER 2, 1970

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Madrid, Spain)

THE WHITE HOUSE

STATEMENT OF RON ZIEGLER
PRESS SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT

PRESS CENTER, PALACIO DEL CONGRESO

AT 8:20 P.M. LOCAL

MR. ZIEGLER: President Nixon has very much enjoyed his arrival in Madrid. He expressed to me earlier, before the meetings began, that he was very pleased with the warm reception which he received from the people of Madrid. He said that it was a very exciting moment.

The President, I know, feels that the talks which were held today were very constructive and very helpful, and, as was pointed out in the meeting, I believe it can be clearly stated that the agreement that was reached in the discussions today, was, without question, that the close relations and cooperation that exist between the United States and Spain are important for peace and stability in this part of the world.

I think the subjects which were covered have been clearly outlined in the previous statement. I would only add that in the meetings, President Nixon expressed the importance of the continuing of good relations that we have now with Spain, and that we should continue to look into the future to enhance and maintain the good relations which we have with Spain. Of course, the United States respects the independence of Spain, and this was pointed out.

In relation to the Mediterranean and the importance of the Mediterranean to the United States, the President made it clear that the United States would continue to maintain a very strong presence in the Mediterranean, specifically in relation to the Sixth Fleet.

As you know, President Nixon visited the Sixth Fleet a few days ago and there have been suggestions, or some rumors, that the United States may be contemplating a reduction of our force in the Mediterranean.

This, of course, is not the case. And the President has pointed that out, I believe, here in Spain, as he has in other places on his trip.

The President feels that because of the size and the location of Spain, as the western anchor, or the mouth of the Mediterranean, that this is another very good reason to maintain good relations and friendship, and continuing friendship, with Spain.

MORE

Of course, in relation to the Middle East, the objective of the United States is, as you all know, to achieve stability and peace in the Middle East and we are proceeding with a course of action, which we hope will be successful in achieving stability and peace in the Middle East.

There was in the meeting today, substantial discussion on the new Agreement of Friendship and Cooperation, which has just been signed between the United States and Spain, and we feel that this has marked a new beginning in our relations with Spain, and, at the same time, expanded and broadened our ties in scientific and educational programs, and other non-military fields. And as was pointed out earlier, President Nixon has instructed the members of the United States Government to periodically visit Spain to implement these particular exchanges, in the field of education, in the field of scientific programs.

I finally would like to say that the President very much enjoyed and was very pleased to meet with His Royal Highness, and Her Royal Highness today, this afternoon, and also with the Spanish Vice President.

I would also like to say that the reception which the President received today, I think, is a very good indication of the very good relations and the friendship that exists between the United States and Spain.

Finally, I would like to add a personal note. I, of course, have never been to Madrid before. It is a very beautiful city. And I am very pleased to be here with you at this very beautiful press facility.

I have been in capitals throughout the world, traveling with the President, and I have yet to see a facility as beautiful and as complete as this one. It is just a very, very nice facility. I appreciate being here.

Thank you.

END

(8:28 P.M. LOCAL)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 29, 1970

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(S. S. Saratoga)

THE WHITE HOUSE

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
TO THE U.S. SIXTH FLEET
U.S.S. SARATOGA

AT 9:07 A.M. LOCAL

Officers and men of the Sixth Fleet:

I speak to you in two capacities, first as one who once
served in the United States Navy. And I am very proud in that
capacity to stand here on the deck of this great carrier and
salute the Navy.

I am very proud of those, that new generation of
Americans, who made the American Navy today the great and
powerful force which it is.

I speak also in another capacity, a capacity I had
no idea I might hold 25 years ago when I was a very junior
officer in the United States Navy, as President and Commander-
in-Chief of our Armed Forces. In this capacity I express
appreciation to all of the men and officers of this great
Fleet for your service to America; for your service over the
years, but particularly for your service in the past two
weeks which was in the highest tradition of the United States
Navy and of our Armed Forces and which also is a
demonstration of what the mission of our Navy in the Mediterranean
and around the world is at this time in our history.

I have often described our forces, our Navy, Army
and Air Force, as the peace forces of the world. The Sixth
Fleet was certainly in that great tradition during this
period of tension. The power and the mobility, the readiness
of the Sixth Fleet in this period was absolutely indispensable
in keeping the peace in the Mediterranean.

The fact that it was not necessary to engage
in war, something we all wanted to avoid, that fact came
into being for a number of reasons. But, again, the most
important, indispensable reason was the fact that we were
ready with the power exemplified by this mighty Fleet.

The nation, therefore, expresses appreciation to
you for making it possible for America to wage the kind
of peace diplomacy we always want to wage, based on power,
which is ready but which will be restrained, when it will
serve the cause of peace.

As I met a number of the officers and men last night
on arriving here on the deck of the Saratoga, I talked
to them about their background and their states. I was
reminded of another generation of men and officers of the Navy, the
Army and the Marine Corps, that I met in World War II. They had
came from many of the same states. In fact, it carried me
back to those days and I thought of what we had gone through
then and what you are going through now.

MORE

Page 2

I realized that in this whole Century, the
20th Century, that the United States has yet to enjoy
one full generation of peace. We fought World War I and
it was thought by many that that was the war that would end
wars. It was not the case.

Before a generation had elapsed we were in World
War II. At the end of World War II, with the United Nations,
it seemed that we were in a new era in which there would
not be another war. But that was not true.

Then came Korea. Korea was ended in 1953. We had
hopes that that might be the last war for that generation.
That was not true.

Now we are in the very difficult war in Vietnam,
a war that we are bringing to an end and finding a just and
honorable peace. But what we desire, all of us, is a
full generation of peace, and more, for the American
people and the world.

I believe we can have it. But if we can have
it, it means that we must have from hundreds of thousands
of young men in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force around
the world, sometimes in lonely outposts, sometimes on
difficult duty, have them ready, have them mobile, have
them strong.

The Sixth Fleet is that kind of power -- a power
for peace. I salute you, therefore, as members of the peace
forces of the United States, and the world, and because of
what you do today, what you have done, what you will do,
I believe that history will look back and say because of
what these men did, because of the way they served their
country, America and the world did have, finally, a
generation of peace.

Thank you very much.

END

(AT 9:15 A.M. LOCAL)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCTOBER 4, 1970

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Limerick, Ireland)

THE WHITE HOUSE
INFORMAL REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
DROMOLAND CASTLE, NEWMARKET-ON-FERGUS,
COUNTY CLARE, IRELAND

6:35 P.M. Local Time

Ladies and gentlemen, I first welcome you to this
reception, and I want to tell you that I hope you have enjoyed
the Irish hospitality and the Irish countryside as much as
I have.

I haven't had quite as much opportunity as I had
hoped to travel today because we have been catching up
on some of the work that accumulated during the week, and
also in the meeting this morning that I had with Ambassador
Bruce and Ambassador Habib.

But I did feel at this time, as we near the conclusion
of this trip, it might be useful for members of the press who
have been traveling with us, and, of course, some of our
guests from the Irish press who have joined us here, to have
some conclusions with regard to the trip and also an
indication of the general purpose.

I recognize that those who have traveled with us
have a rather difficult time in covering a trip like this.
It is difficult because the meetings that are held between
heads of Government or heads of State must necessarily be
kept off the record as far as the press is concerned. Otherwise,
they would lose their value.

On the other hand, that leaves the press only the
opportunity to cover motorcades or to speculate on a background
basis as to what is really happening and -- if I may paraphrase
what Governor Reagan once said -- if you have seen one motorcade
you have seen them all, it has been said.

That really isn't true because motorcades are quite
different, as you know, and we have had some very exciting
ones and very interesting ones, and they do provide at
least some opportunity to get the feel of the people, the
strength of a country, as you move, as we have, through
hours and hours of motorcading.

On the other hand, I realize that you who have
the responsibilities for covering a trip like this are
expected, quite properly, to go to the substance and
to indicate what the trip accomplished.

What a trip like this accomplishes is likely better
to be appraised in the weeks and months that follow rather than
immediately thereafter.

MORE

(OVER)

But I begin first with its purpose and then I
will tell you what I think we have accomplished as we look
at it, looking back over the past week.

The purpose of this trip, just as has been the
purpose of my other trips abroad, is to strengthen the
structure of peace throughout the world, and particularly
to strengthen the structure of peace in the Mediterranean
area which, because of recent events, has been an area
of very great concern for all those interested in peace.

Now, in analyzing what the threat to peace in
the Mediterranean is, we must realize that it is not
the conventional threat of one nation possibly engaging
in overt action against another. It is more difficult than
that. It is more difficult because it is the threat which
arises from irresponsible radical elements which might
take action which, in turn, would set in the course of events,
the train of events, set in motion -- I meant to say -- a
train of events that would escalate into a possible confrontation
between major powers in the area. That is what we saw in the
Jordanian crisis and that is the kind of threat to the peace
that we will have to be guarding against in the months and
possibly the years ahead in the Near East and the Mediterranean
generally.

Now, when you have that kind of a threat, in order to
meet the primary need is for elements of stability in the
area, economic and political stability, yes, but primarily,
where the threat is irresponsible and where it resorts to
violence, unexpected and unpredictable violence, without
reason, without cause -- sometimes -- there must be military
stability and military strength. That is why I first
visited the Sixth Fleet.

The Sixth Fleet is one element of military stability
in the Mediterranean. After visiting the Sixth Fleet and
being briefed by its commanders and our commanders there,
I became convinced that the Sixth Fleet is able to meet
its mission of deterring irresponsible elements in the
Mediterranean area.

After meeting with the Sixth Fleet commanders and
also having discussed this matter with our NATO allies
and with our Ambassadors from the Mediterranean countries,
I am convinced that it is essential that the Sixth Fleet
continue to have this capability in the event that other
powers, with other designs on the area, other than ours
and our friends who have no designs except the peace in the
area, and the right of each individual nation to maintain its
own integrity -- in the event that other forces, naval forces,
should threaten the position of strength which the Sixth
Fleet now enjoys, then the United States must be prepared
to take the action necessary to maintain that overall strength
of the Sixth Fleet.

So what I am saying here is the Sixth Fleet presently
can meet its mission and, second, we shall be prepared to
increase its strength in the event that its position of
overall strength is threatened by the actions of other
powers who take another position in the area than we do.

MORE

Another element of strength in the Mediterranean area is, of course, NATO, and particularly its Southern Command. Without going into the specific conversations that we had with the NATO Southern Commanders, I would emphasize here that this provided an opportunity for me to state very strongly and unequivocally these principles with regard to the United States' association with NATO.

Considerable concern, I fine, have arisen among many of the NATO nations, the major nations and the smaller NATO nations, as a result of some comments by political figures in the United States as well as some of those commenting upon the American role in the world, that the United States might not meet its NATO responsibilities and was on the verge of reducing its contribution to NATO. I stated categorically to the NATO Commanders, and I do here publicly again, that the United States will, under no circumstances, reduce, unilaterally, its commitment to NATO. Any reduction in NATO forces, if it occurs, will only take place on a multilateral basis and on the basis of what those who are lined up against the NATO forces -- what they might do. In other words, it would have to be on a mutual basis.

I know that the Nixon Doctrine has sometimes been inaccurately described as one that would allow the United States to reduce its responsibilities in the world. That is not the case. The purpose of the Nixon Doctrine is to provide a policy under which the United States can meet its responsibilities more effectively in the world by sharing those responsibilities with others. And in NATO that is our policy.

To summarize, with regard to NATO, we will maintain our present strength. We will not reduce it unilaterally. We will continue to talk with our NATO allies with regard to how, overally, we can meet our responsibilities together.

Moving from NATO now to the Mideast, I found in the conversations that I had with all of the leaders that I met -- and, as you know, they covered not only our allies and friends but also they covered President Tito of Yugoslavia, a nonaligned state -- I found general agreement on these propositions: strong support for the American cease fire initiative; and, second, I found that, as far as that cease fire initiative is concerned, there is not the pessimism that we sense in some quarters as a result of what happened in Jordan and as a result of the new instability that inevitably will follow the death of President Nasser, that the cease fire initiative days were numbered.

I do not suggest that the road ahead is not difficult. But I think we have to separate our peace initiative into two parts: one, the cease fire part of the initiative; and, second, that part of the initiative that has to do with negotiation.

With regard to negotiation, the prospect for immediate negotiation between the two or three or other parties involved on either side -- as far as those prospects are concerned -- they are, at this time, not bright because of the introduction of missiles into the 50 kilometer zone.

MORE

The reaction of the Israeli, of course, has been
not to participate in negotiation. However, we are going
to continue to attempt to get the negotiating process started
and, of course, in the process, to do what we can diplo-
matically to see that there are no further violations of
the standstill, and dealing, of course, diplomatically, with
the violations that have occurred.

On the cease fire side of it, however, I think I
can say quite unequivocally that neither party -- and by
neither party I say neither the Israeli on the one side
or the the other nations, the UAR and others involved in
the cease fire initiative-- will gain by breaking the cease
fire. That is why we believe that our acting and talking
strongly in behalf of an extension of the cease fire for
another 90 days is the proper course and that it has
considerable chance to succeed. Any party at this time that
would break the cease fire initiative would have very, very
little support in the world. It would be acting alone
against the whole weight of the world public opinion and
also against the public opinion, I should say, in the
United States.

Another comment with regard to the Mideast that I think should be made: We tend in the United States to see our role as being predominant and, of course, it is because of our strength. On the other hand, we must recognize, and this trip brought this home to me and underlined it again, that there are other powers in the Mediterranean area that can play, that are playing, and that must play, a significant role in the peace-keeping area.

The Italians, for example, have a very significant
interest in the Mediterranean and have contacts that we
do not have that are better than ours. The Spanish also
have very significant interests in the Mediterranean
and have been very helpful. And the British, in addition,
of course, have had a traditional, long time interest in the
Mediterranean area. My talks with the leaders of these
three countries were very helpful in that respect because it
is not a healthy situation in the world for the United
States to be alone, whether it is in the Far East, where
we welcome the fact that the British are maintaining
a presence there, or whether it is in the Mideast, or in
the Mediterranean.

That is why the Secretary of State and I have
worked, both before we arrived on this trip and during this
trip, on developing not only consultation but participation
on the part of other Mediterranean powers who share our
views about the area and participation in responsibility
for keeping the peace in that area.

I would like to move briefly now to three or
four specifics concerning the leaders that I met.

I had the best, most extensive conversation with
Pope Paul that I have had. It covered the whole range of
world affairs, particularly the Far East, the situation
in the Mideast, problems, of course, in the under developed
world, and specifically in the humanitarian area, his

MORE

great concern about our prisoners of war. We will continue
these contacts because it is extremely important that the
spiritual and moral leadership which Pope Paul has exer-
cised be leadership not that will follow our policy or
we follow his, but there must be understanding and should
be understanding with regard to what our aims and
goals are.

With regard to Spain, I believe that the year
1970 marks a period in which we can say now that Spain,
economically, is rapidly moving into the front ranks of
Europe and will be moving into the front ranks of the
world, and when economically and politically, Spain's
isolation from the rest of Europe will be drawing to
and end.

I think this is a healthy development. It is a
constructive development. The United States has close and
friendly relations with Spain. We will continue them,
as I indicated when I was in Spain. I was very impressed,
as was the Secretary of State, with the members of the
Spanish Cabinet and the Spanish Government that we met,
a group of young, vigorous, new leaders who are providing
for Spain leadership in the economic, political and
diplomatic field that will be extremely constructive in
the years ahead.

A word now about Yugoslavia. When we talk about
the structure of peace, we must realize that the most
indispensable element is maintaining with our allies and
our friends who choose to be aligned with us, like Spain,
the strength that will deter potential aggression.

That is the first and most indispensable element.

However, there is an important element that should
be added to this. We need to have, of course, negotiations,
if possible, with those who might be our potential opponnens,
and we need, of course, the best possible contact with
nonaligned nations. That is why the visit to Yugoslavia
I thought was particularly important and very helpful.

Let us understand, however, what that visit did
mean and what it did not mean. There are still, and will
remain as long as I can look to the future, very broad
differences between the United States and Yugoslavia.

For example, Yugoslavia is a country that has
moved, shall we say, more into a nonaligned role than
any of the other Communist states. They have a completely
different view about the kind of political and economic
system that they want. They have a different view,
for example, about our policy in the Far East than we
have. They have some differences with regard to our policy
in the Far East. But once we consider those differences,
we then must lay beside them those areas where we have
similarity and agreement. Here we find that we share
with them a desire to avoid any major power confrontation
because they know that if such confrontation and explosion
occurred they would be victims, even though they had
attempted to be nonaligned.

MORE

Page 6

No nation in the world will be nonaligned if the major powers do have a confrontation. They will become casualities, innocent casualities -- have it that way if we must put it that way, but that is what the case must be.

So, the nonaligned nations know that. So, they share with us our desire to avoid a major power confrontation.

Another point that a country like Yugoslavia particularly shares with us is our policy of non-intervention in their affairs. We respect their right to be nonaligned. We respect their right to have the kind of a system which they have chosen. And the fact that we do not interfere in their affairs, and that in working for economic cooperation, and in some cases, even diplomatic cooperation, there is no danger of interference or domination on our part.

This is a great asset that we have in talking to the nonaligned nations. On that score, I found, as I talked to our Ambassadors from all of the Mediterranean countries and the Mideastern countries, that they said that one of the greatest assets the United States has in its foreign policy today is the fact that despite the fact that some, of course, foreign leaders criticize us in this area or another, there is no foreign leader, when he speaks candidly, who really fears that the United States, with its power, has designs on dominating that country or interfering in their affairs. This cannot be said of some other powers. It can be said of the United States. This is an enormous asset in our dealing with nonaligned countries.

I should also say that my discussions with President Tito were useful in another respect. He has met many world leaders, or several, I should say, that I have not had the opportunity to meet. He shared with me his appraisal of those leaders, without, of course, indulging in confidences, which he did not do, and gave me, therefore, an opportunity to know men that I may not ever have a chance to know, but at least have not had the chance to meet up to this time.

I think I can sum up basically on the entire trip in this respect: As we moved in the period of six days through these four countries, we first found that among people generally, the United States has a great number of friends. It was, to me, very heartening to find very heart warming welcomes in Italy, in Yugoslavia, in Spain, and, of course, in Ireland and in the other areas that we have had a chance to visit.

MORE

Second, I found, and this is one encouraging
development, among all the leaders that I talked to,
a much better understanding of our policy in Vietnam
than I found when I was here in February a year ago. They
believe the United States is bringing its participation
in the war in Vietnam to an end. They believe that we
are working for a just peace, that we are making progress.

I did not find the questioning, the skepticism
about both our motives and about the possibility of the
success of our policies that I found in February a year ago.

Third, we found that in the Mideast
there was universal support for our peace initiative
and also recognition of the fact, again, that the United
States did not have, as I indicated a moment ago, any
expansionist, ulterior motives in playing a role in the
Mediterranean and in the Mideast area.

Now a word, finally, about the country we are
in. This was not scheduled as an official stop. I have
enjoyed the day, as I indicated a moment ago, that we
had off, to get to know the Irish countryside better.

Speaking of motorcades, incidentally, I thought
that I had shaken hands, as I indicated to some of you
this morning, with some people with pretty good hand grips,
but I can assure you that the Irish have the best grips of
anybody in the world.

Some of you have remarked about the fact that
I have lost cufflinks on occasions, including a pair
in New Orleans a few weeks ago. This is the first time
that anybody who has shaken hands with me has broken a cufflink
in the process. But they were friendly hand shakes and I
enjoyed it very, very much.

But with regard to the Irish Government, I am glad
that tomorrow I am scheduled to meet again President De Valera,
who is a giant of a man in every respect. I was particularly
appreciative of the fact that I had the opportunity to
meet Prime Minister Lynch. I had a good discussion with
him last night and will see him again in the morning.
He has a quiet competence which is very impressive, and
having now established this personal relationship with
him, I think the good relations between our two countries
can be even better in the years ahead.

With that I will conclude my remarks. I think
if Ron could arrange it, I have met those of the
press here, we could meet maybe the members of the Irish
press. I don't mind that hand-shake thing. I have gotten
mine worked up a little bit. I am a little stronger.

Thank you very much.

END 6:55 P.M. Local Time

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 27, 1970

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Rome, Italy)

THE WHITE HOUSE

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
UPON ARRIVAL AT
SALONE DELLE FESTE
QUIRINALE PALACE
ROME, ITALY

9:20 P.M. Local Time

Mr. President, Your Excellencies, ladies and
gentlemen:

It is a very great honor for me, Mr. President, personally, to be welcomed again to Rome, and you very appropriately have pointed out that to begin our trip to Europe in Rome is certainly a proper step to take because as we come to Rome on this occasion we have an opportunity to renew discussions with you and members of your Government, and to continue the cooperation and the friendship that has characterized the relations between our two countries for so many years.

I shall have the opportunity, too, to renew discussions with Pope Paul on international matters of common interest, and I shall have the opportunity to visit the American Sixth Fleet and our NATO Commanders as well, yours and ours, and to discuss there one of the primary indispensable principles of American foreign policy. And that principle is to maintain the necessary strength in the Mediterranean to preserve the peace against those who might threaten the peace.

The Mediterranean is the cradle of many great
civilizations of the past, and we are determined that it shall
not be the starting place of great wars in the future.

Italy, which has the longest coastline of any
nation in the Mediterranean, has, understandably, a tremendous
stake in peace in the Mediterranean.

The great Italian patriot, Garibaldi, in writing
to Abraham Lincoln in 1863, identified himself as among
the free children of Columbus. Mr. President, we in America
are proud to share that common heritage, and as we share
that common heritage of the past, we are proud to work
with you in seeing that that heritage of freedom for our
children will be preserved in the future.

Thank you.

END AT 9:26 P.M. Local Time

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 28, 1970

THE WHITE HOUSE

EXCHANGE OF TOASTS
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT
AND PRESIDENT GIUSEPPE SARAGAT
QUIRINALE TOWERS
QUIRINALE PALACE
ROME, ITALY

2:07 P.M.

PRESIDENT SARAGAT (Translated into English): Mr. President, I am particularly glad to greet you once again as Italy's welcome guest, as the supreme representative of a great country which is our friend and ally.

We have not forgotten how much was done by the United States of America to liberate Europe and help her rise again from the ruins of World War II. We are also aware of how much the United States is still doing by cooperating with us in a defense pact to guarantee security, detente and peace on our continent.

You have come to Rome at a time when the situation in the Middle East is causing grave concern. Your presence amongst us shows that the United States fully appreciates the importance of the Mediterranean and the seriousness of the present crisis.

In one of your speeches which made a strong impact throughout the world, you stated that our era should not be one of armed confrontation, but one of negotiation. We share that view and, therefore, welcomed, as an event of major political significance, the presentation of the Rogers peace plan by the United States and its acceptance by the parties concerned.

Of course, we have feared and still do fear that recent events may adversely affect the outcome of long and patient diplomatic preparations for a peaceful solution to the crisis.

You know, Mr. President, that Italy's actions are aimed to support and strengthen each and every effort made to arrive at a fair solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict as an indispensable prerequisite to achieving political stability in the Middle East.

We therefore welcome the initiatives taken by the United States to contain the crisis and channel it towards negotiations which would prevent it from degenerating into a broader and more dangerous conflict.

The main objectives to be attained in the Middle East today are beyond all doubt, on the one hand, the respect by all of clearly recognized frontiers and guarantees for the territorial inviolability and political independence of the countries in the region, and, on the other hand, a breakthrough towards a rapid, comprehensive and definitive solution of the problem of the Palestinian refugees.

MORE

One reason to hope, in a situation so fraught
with danger, lies in the fact that hostilities between
Arabs and Israelis have not been resumed as yet. This
positive factor should make it possible to reactivate
the interrupted negotiations and give a new impetus
to Ambassador Jarring's peace mission. We believe that
it is the right path to follow, though we are aware of the
obstacles and difficulties which lie ahead.

Mr. President, we are certain of your determination
to serve the cause of peace, and we are grateful to you for
it. We want to assure you that we on our own part will
spare no effort to promote, by our assiduous action, and
in every possible way, the achievement of those vital
objectives -- justice and peace.

It seems to us that it is necessary today to pick
up the threads of the patient work of diplomacy which has
already begun, in order that a serious and constructive
dialogue may begin at last for the implementation of the
Security Council resolution of the 22nd of November 1967.

As I have said, Italy is making its contribution
to this, and Europe will do likewise -- the Europe we are
building, of which we have spoken, and will speak again,
and which we trust will be united, outward looking
and instrumental to progress and peace.

Mr. President, we know that since European
integration began the movement towards unity among peoples
of our continent has been viewed with favor and with clear
political farsightedness by your great country. We believe
that this Europe of ours which is still in the making
counts today, as before, on the support of the United
States of America, and we are fully aware that our task
is to quicken our step so that before very long a new
political entity, equal to its economic potential, may be
better able to carry out its effective and friendly mission
as a steadying and peace-making element.

With these sentiments, Mr. President, I wish you
every success in your work of government and your
high mission. It is with wishes of peace that I raise
my glass and invite all to drink a toast to the friendship
between our two countries, to the good fortunes of the
United States of America, and to the happiness of Mrs. Nixon
as well as our own.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. President, and Your Excellencies:

It is a very great honor for Mrs. Nixon and me
to be received in this historic house, and also to have
the opportunity to visit Italy again.

As a respond to your remarks, Mr. President, I want
to say again what I said in our private meetings, both
with you yesterday and with the Prime Minister and members
of the Government today. I find that whether the issue
is European security, the problems of Europe, whether the
issue involved is the Mediterranean or the problems of
the Mideast, that in areas generally throughout the world
we find that our views in the United States are very close
to yours. It is very important that this be the case.

We appreciate your references to our Mideast peace initiative. However, it is important to point out that that initiative will not succeed unless we look at it in a broader context. We must remember that the issue in the Mideast is not simply one between the two or three countries immediately involved. The issue is much broader. It involves the Mediterranean. And when we speak of the Mediterranean, we naturally must speak also of Italy and primarily of Italy, the major country with the longest coastline on the Mediterranean. A sound, strong, independent Italy is essential to any long term peace in the Mediterranean -- peace with the freedom and justice to which you so eloquently referred.

As I stand here to respond to your remarks, I naturally think of the long time association of our countries, of those historical heritages that we share together.

I recall the words that electrified the world several years ago, in fact many years ago. Those words were "The Italian navigator has landed in the new world." When we hear that, we might think that the words that I have just quoted were spoken at the time that Christopher Columbus landed in the New World three and a half centuries ago. They could have been spoken then. But the words that I have just referred to were spoken three decades ago in a telephone call from Chicago to Boston, and they referred to another Italian navigator, Enrico Fermi, the man who headed the development of the first controlled use of nuclear power. A man also who had been born in Italy but whom we proudly claimed then as a resident and citizen of the United States.

As we think of those two events so far apart in time, we think of what we owe in the New World to Italy. We think of what we owe in the whole world to those great Italians, whether they be navigators, scientists, political leaders.

On this occasion, I particularly want to pay tribute to you, Mr. President, who have spoken for so many years, so eloquently, and, it seems to me, so correctly on the great issues which confront the world.

I have been impressed on this visit, as I have been on others, by the fact that when I have met Italian political leaders, whether it is you, Mr. President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, whenever I talk to them, their views are not parochial. They are not limited to Italy. They are not only involving those immediate problems that we may have between the United States and Italy. But they are European. In fact, they are international and cosmopolitan. That is one of the reasons why a visit to this country, a chance to talk to its leaders, is one which means so much to me with the responsibilities that I have not only to my own country but also in the whole international community.

MORE

Page 4

The first man who visited from the United States while he was President was Woodrow Wilson, and that visit occurred, some of you may remember, 51 years ago at the conclusion of World War I. On that occasion, when speaking from Rome, he referred eloquently to what he thought was a new international psychology. What had previously been thought to be theoretical and idealistic had then become practical and necessary. Woodrow Wilson, unfortunately, spoke before his time.

But now, 50 years later, we know that it does become necessary, and we must make it practical, that this New World which the Italian navigator of the 20th Century helped to bring into being will be a world which will be used for the progress of man rather than his destruction.

For that reason on this occasion we speak with more feeling than usual of the absolute necessity for the United States to work together with your government and with the governments of all free nations to see that we maintain the strength that will make possible the institution of an era of negotiation for one of confrontation, because with that strength negotiation will be possible; without that strength negotiation will not be considered to be necessary.

So with those sentiments, Mr. President, may I ask that all of your guests rise and, with me, raise their glasses to the President of Italy.

To the President of Italy.

END

2:30 P.M. Local Time

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 28, 1970

THE WHITE HOUSE

PARTIAL TEXT OF REMARKS
OF THE PRESIDENT AT
FIUMICIANO AIRPORT

AT 1:00 P.M. Local

THE PRESIDENT: Which state are you from?

MR. MORSE: Albuquerque, New Mexico.

SPEAKER: New York City.

THE PRESIDENT: We are having an international welcome
here today.

SPEAKER: Nice to see you. We were missing you for
three weeks. We didn't hear any news.

THE PRESIDENT: We were trying to help you without
hurting you. You are all so young. That is great.

SPEAKER: We are glad to be back.

THE PRESIDENT: How many were ladies, five?

SPEAKER: Five.

THE PRESIDENT: How many men?

SPEAKER: Twenty-seven men. We had separate rooms.

SPEAKER: I don't know if you got this.

THE PRESIDENT: Something you wrote to me.

MR. FREDA: On the sixth day, I got clearance from
the Popular Front ---

THE PRESIDENT: Is that your social security number?

MR. FREDA: Right, to write this for the passengers
and crew.

THE PRESIDENT: Great. I probably didn't get it. I
may have it.

MR. FREDA: It didn't go through.

THE PRESIDENT: It may be but isn't probably
recognized, but I will now have it. I appreciate it very much.

MORE

Page 2

MR. FREDA: We know you were in there bucking
for us.

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody was. As I said, it
is one of those things that all of the American people,
all of your colleagues at home, were frustrated about
and yet we wanted to do something without having
something happen to you.

SPEAKER: The shells were going right over us.
They came very close a couple of times.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course, they did.

SPEAKER: We are so sick of that Red Chinese
jam we had to eat.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that what it was? It is a
little better if you could mix some pineapple with it. That
was the only way you could eat it.

I am so glad to see your spirit is good, and
that you haven't allowed this experience to make you
feel, you know, frustrated and bitter and so forth. This
is, as we all know, not a part of life that you look for.
But let's say you will look back on it and say, "Well,
I don't want to do it again, but I wouldn't have missed it."
Right? Have you all signed up for speaking tours?

SPEAKER: We just want to go back. We just want
to go home.

SPEAKER: No comment.

THE PRESIDENT: We wish you well. I must go. We
are holding up Mr. Saragat, the President of Italy, for
dinner. But we all wanted you to know that we were behind
you and are so glad you are on your way home.

As you know, we now have guards on planes
that will be a deterrent. Secretary Volpe is traveling
to a number of airports on this trip to set up new
electronic devices. You never can be sure.

Let me say this, that as difficult as your
experience has been, what you have done may have crystalized
this issue so that the possibility of it happening in the
future will be reduced. When that happens, we will give you
the credit.

Now you don't mind the jam, do you?

SPEAKER: Thank you for coming. I have kept the
boarding card. That makes it even more historic. Thank you,
sir.

MR. ZIEGLER: Sir, what is your name?

MR. FREDA: My name is George Freda.

MORE

THE PRESIDENT: He sent this through. It was sent to the White House. Here is his copy of it. That is a message that I have not seen yet. But it probably came to the White House, but nobody recognized the importance of it.

THE PRESIDENT: Enjoy the flight.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much for coming.

THE PRESIDENT: Don't eat too much and don't drink too much.

SPEAKER: We did that last night.

THE PRESIDENT: Secretary Rogers' people worked on this.

SECRETARY ROGERS: Ten or 12 of them stayed up nights, every night and did a great job.

THE PRESIDENT: They worked through every diplomatic channel. We had a lot of things going that you didn't know about.

QUESTION: Mr. President, could you tell us what happened in there, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: We had a very moving meeting with the hostages. I say moving, because their spirit was so good. They have been through a very difficult experience, as we all know, because from day to day they didn't know whether the next day they would be alive.

I told them that we, of course, had somewhat of a difficult experience at home, because all of us, those of us with responsibility in government, wanted to do something. We were naturally terribly frustrated because we realized that if we did the wrong thing it would cost them their lives.

And so our problem was how could we help these people without hurting them.

We had to show power, and at the same time, we had to demonstrate restraint. They told me that that was exactly the right policy, because they said that every day they had the feeling that their captors might do something irrational in the event that we triggered it, or somebody else triggered it.

This, of course, bore out the wisdom of our policy, and I am glad that we did show the proper restraint during this period while, at the same time, being very firm in our diplomacy and firm in the demonstration of our military strength in the event that that became necessary in that part of the world.

MORE

Page 4

Another thing that impressed me was the fact that this group of Americans, like so many groups of Americans, when they come under duress, they show their best. Whether Americans -- we say this about our country, I am sure the Minister would say it about his country -- whether they are in a lifeboat at sea, whether they are lost on a mountain, or whether they are hostages in a situation like this, they tend to pull together, not to lose their nerve, to keep up their spirit.

And they obviously had to select someone to be somewhat of their spokesman. A young girl who had grown up in Sudan and who could speak Arabic -- she happened to be of the Jewish faith, but she could also speak Arabic -- became their intermediary and their spokesman. But they worked this all out in a very democratic way within their group.

And throughout they kept up their spirit and an indication of that was that as I started to leave, they all held their thumbs up and they said, "Thumbs up." That is the way we felt and that is the way we think the United States should feel at this time.

So, now, I think, as a result of what the hostages have done, we can say, "Thumbs up."

I would add one thing. I told them that I realized that they had been through a terribly difficult experience, that all of us sympathized with what they had been through, but that they would look back on this experience some day and say they would never want to go through it again, but that they wouldn't have missed it. And I said, too, that as a result of what they had been through, that I felt that the possibility of reducing hijackings in the future had been substantially increased, because the international community was outraged by these incidents.

Now we have mobilized not only guards on our planes, but we are developing facilities throughout the world -- I am sending Secretary Volpe on a tour of European airports on this trip -- better facilities for the purpose of seeing that people who might be potential hijackers do not get on planes with weapons or with explosive material.

So, all in all, I would say that while this experience was one that was very difficult for the hostages, it posed problems for us in the United States. It was one in which those few Americans came through it with flying colors. We are very proud of them.

END

(AT 1:25 P.M. Local)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 29, 1970

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Naples, Italy)

THE WHITE HOUSE

INFORMAL REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT THE VILLA ROSEBERRY

AT 6:25 P.M. LOCAL

QUESTION: Mr. President, it has been a long day, sir, but do you have a couple of words for us?

THE PRESIDENT: I was, of course, very moved by the visit to the Fleet and particularly by not the ships that I saw, the planes and the rest, but the men. They have magnificent morale. They are the finest young men that America produces. They are doing their duty. They are doing it without pining and without complaining about a world they didn't make and they realize that what they are doing there is to maintain the necessary forces that will keep the peace in the Mediterranean, give us a better chance to have peace for the balance of the century.

Of course, the rest of the afternoon I have had a very helpful, constructive meeting in depth on our general strategic posture in the Mediterranean and tomorrow, we will continue that on NATO.

QUESTION: You did stop in NATO on your way here, did you not?

THE PRESIDENT: No, not yet. We were on the Springfield this afternoon, the Flag ship, and we had the meeting of all of our commanders in this part of the world, the NATO commanders, the Mediterranean commanders as well; just going over general strategic problems.

QUESTION: And your trip is going on on schedule?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The questions have been asked, of course, about the possibility of some changes being made because of President Nasser's death. However, our visit to Yugoslavia will go on on schedule and the balance of the stops that will be made -- the balance will be made. I am sending representatives to the funeral. I think Robert Murphy, former Ambassador, is going to go, former Ambassador McCloy will be going and the third person will be either Robert Finch or possibly Elliot Richardson. We haven't found out we have to make the arrangements at a very fast pace, of course, because the news came so unexpectedly.

MORE

I think, as a matter of fact, I have shaken hands
with more people today than I have in any one base since I have
been in office, and it was a very great privilege to do so.
I think that is why I say what really impressed me -- I knew
about the power and of course I was glad to see it, glad to
see it demonstrated, and its readiness and mobility -- but
what really impressed me was the opportunity to meet the men.
It is like traveling all over the United States in the space
of one day. Most of the States were represented and once
they got past the awe of meeting the President of the United
States, they talked in a very, it seemed to me, frank and
open way, although I didn't have any extended discussions.

I found that the one thing they were all interested
in, and this is something that hasn't changed, is mail. I
told them we were having a little problem of getting mail.
The last enlisted man I talked to, he said, "If you can do
something about the mail, I would appreciate it." Another
one spoke up and said, "Yes, particularly mail from girls."
That hasn't changed either.

END 6:30 P.M. Local Time

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr. President, the Prime Minister of Ireland described his as a land of 100,000 welcomes when he greeted you there. As we watched you during your trip through the wonderful achievement of satellite photography, we found that those 100,000 welcomes were repeated many times as you visited those ancient European capitals and watched you receive the tumultuous accolades in Madrid and also in Belgrade.

I think that tonight we could safely say that America is the land of 200 million welcomes as we greet you and your gracious First Lady on your return from such a successful mission.

But, Mr. President, I don't think there was anything in your trip to give your fellow countrymen quite the same degree of pride and identity as your visit to the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, to the gallant officers and men who patrol the south-eastern flange of NATO. I think it was completely clear that the words you had to say there indicated that the United States intends to stand fast in its commitments to its allies. But I think the degree of restraint and forebearance and the statesmanship you displayed not only in your remarks that were delivered formally, but also in the person to person encounters you had as you went among the people of those great countries of Europe to which some of us owe our heritage, indicated that America truly has a sense of dedication and purpose in the world.

I believe that as a result of your trip, Mr. President, our relations in that critical and very touchy area have been vastly improved and I think that the Congress and the people of the United States join me in this assurance to you that, in no case, have we felt quite the same sense of confidence in the vast experience that brings to the Presidency and in your method of conducting the foreign affairs of our country.

I am very pleased to also state that we, your fellow countrymen, were immensely impressed with the demeanor and warmth of our gracious First Lady as she went about the important business that she had to conduct in those capitals.

So, Mr. President, we are awfully glad you are back -- many of us are very glad you are back -- and we hope that the profitable experience will improve the climate, not only in the Mediterranean, but restore a sense of peace and purpose in the entire globe.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Vice President, I wish to express my very grateful appreciation to you for your very warm words of welcome, and I particularly want to express my appreciation to the Members of the Cabinet,

MORE

the Members of the Congress, and the Members of the
Diplomatic Corps for taking the time and the trouble,
along with all of the rest of you, to come out to
Andrews Air Force Base to welcome us home.

As you may have noted, we were fortunate to be
received very warmly in many countries abroad, and we
will always remember those wonderful welcomes. But
there is nothing quite like being welcomed home again.
We thank you very much for that.

The purpose of this trip, like the other trips
I have taken abroad and like the trips that you, Mr.
Vice President, have taken abroad, and like the trips
that the Secretary of State has taken both by himself
and on this occasion with me, was to strengthen the
structure of peace all over the world, but particularly
now in the critical Mediterranean area.

I think that we made progress in strengthening
that structure. This is not the time to go into detail
with regard to observations about the trip, but some
conclusions, I think, are worth underlining at this
time.

First, the United States, through its Sixth
Fleet and along with its NATO allies through its NATO
strength, now maintains the kind of strength that is
needed to meet the role that is assigned to the Sixth
Fleet and to NATO. That is to deter potential aggres-
sion in the Mediterranean area and in Europe. It is
vitally important that we maintain that strength, the
strength of the Sixth Fleet and the strength of NATO.

I am convinced that these are peace forces in
the best sense of the word, and, therefore, must be
maintained and must not be unilaterally reduced.

Second, I was very encouraged to find that all
of the leaders that I talked to in every country strongly
approved our Mid-East peace initiative. They approved
the peace initiative and they would strongly disapprove
of any Breaking of the cease fire.

Third, I was encouraged to find on this trip,
as compared with my trip in February of last year, greater
understanding among the leaders that I met of our policy
in Vietnam. They believed that the United States is making
very significant progress in achieving our goal of a
just peace in Vietnam. They are correct. I believe that
events in the future will demonstrate that they are
correct in this appraisal.

There is one other observation I would like to
make that relates to something you, Mr. Vice President,
said. You remarked about the welcomes we received. They
we've most heartwarming -- the enormous turn-out in Spain,
for example, the welcome we had in Rome, and then on

MORE

It was not personal for the President as an
individual, but because the President represented the American
people and this country, and these people who were welcoming
us were indicating that they believed, the great majority of
them, that the United States is a land of opportunity, that
the United States is a land of freedom, and that the United
States is committed to peace.

I do not suggest that there are not differences of
opinion with regard to some U.S. policies abroad, but one
fundamental factor that I have found in all of my trips abroad,
that the Secretary of State also reports, that you, Mr. Vice
President report, is this: Whatever differences world leaders
may have about some of our policies, they recognize the fact
that the United States with its great power does not threaten
the independence of any nation in the world.

No nation in the world fears that the United States
will use its power to infringe upon its independence or to
interfere in its affairs. That cannot be said of some other
nations. We can proudly say it because it happens to be true.
The power of the United States of America if necessary will be
used to defend freedom, but never to destroy it.

I have one final thought: I see here today in this
great audience who are gathered here in this hangar, a number
of young people. As I saw the hundreds of thousands of people
in the motorcade routes in Italy and Spain and Yugoslavia and
again in Ireland, I saw also hundreds of thousands of young
people. I thought of the young generation in our own country.
I thought of the young people in other countries. I thought
of the young people in the countries of Asia and Africa and
Latin America.

What we all want for them -- what we want for them
is what this world has not had in this century, a full generation
of peace.

I believe that the policies of the United States of
America are working toward that end. We are dedicated to that
end. I believe and I hope that history will record that this is
the case, that this trip may have contributed substantially to
that goal -- a generation of peace for America and for all of
the people.

END

(AT 8:50 PM EDST)

Weekly Compilation of

PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

Week Ending Saturday, October 10, 1970

Written texts in Europe

Rome, Italy

Remarks of President Giuseppe Saragat Upon President Nixon's Arrival at the Quirinale Palace.

September 27, 1970

Mr. President, I am glad to express to you, to Mrs. Nixon, and to the members of your suite the warmest welcome on behalf of the Italian Government and people and on my own behalf.

We greet you today not only as the President of the United States of America—a great country which is intimately linked to us by ties of blood, of history, of common civilization, and of alliance—but also as a statesman engaged in the maintenance of peace and in its defense.

The fact that you have decided to start your journey in Europe from Rome and Italy is not without significance for us.

Because of her central position and her role in the Mediterranean, Italy is in fact vitally interested in seeing that stability, security, and peace prevail on the shores of this sea.

I am deeply convinced that the exchanges of views which you are about to have with us will contribute to render our collaboration even more harmonious and effective; and this in order to explore all the avenues leading to the attainment of the objectives which should guarantee the peaceful development of the Mediterranean peoples.

Your visit is also further evidence of the cordial friendship existing between our two countries and of the common will to strengthen and develop it.

During your all too brief stay in Italy we will certainly have the possibility to discuss a number of problems of common interest, and to continue a cooperation which has already brought and still brings concrete results. We are

certain that it will continue to be fruitful and more so in this difficult moment in which, however, we are even more committed to work for a just and lasting peace.

Thank you, President Nixon, for being today in Italy, in the Mediterranean on a mission of justice and peace.

NOTE: As printed above, this item follows a translation made available to the press.

For the text of President Nixon's remarks upon arrival at the Palace, see page 1292 of last week's issue.

Rome, Italy

Exchange of Toasts Between President Nixon and President Giuseppe Saragat at a Luncheon at the

Quirinale Palace. September 28, 1970

PRESIDENT SARAGAT. Mr. President, I am particularly glad to greet you once again as Italy's welcome guest, as the supreme representative of a great country which is our friend and ally.

We have not forgotten how much was done by the United States of America to liberate Europe and help her rise again from the ruins of World War II. We are also aware of how much the United States is still doing by cooperating with us in a defense pact to guarantee security, detente, and peace on our continent.

In one of your speeches which made a strong impact throughout the world, you stated that our era should not be one of armed confrontation but one of negotiation. We share that view and, therefore, welcomed, as an event of major political significance, the presentation of the Rogers peace plan by the United States and its acceptance by the parties concerned.

1320

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 12, 1970

1321

The main objectives to be attained in the Middle East today are beyond all doubt, on the one hand, the respect by all of clearly recognized frontiers and guarantees for the territorial inviolability and political independence of the countries in the region, and, on the other hand, a breakthrough towards a rapid, comprehensive, and definitive solution of the problem of the Palestinian refugees.

Mr. President, we are certain of your determination to serve the cause of peace, and we are grateful to you for it. We want to assure you that we on our own part will spare no effort to promote, by our assiduous action, and in every possible way, the achievement of those vital objectives—justice and peace.

It seems to us that it is necessary today to pick up the threads of the patient work of diplomacy which has already begun, in order that a serious and constructive dialogue may begin at last for the implementation of the Security Council resolution of the 22d of November 1967.

As I have said, Italy is making its contribution to this, and Europe will do likewise—the Europe we are building, of which we have spoken and will speak again, and which we trust will be united, outward looking, and instrumental to progress and peace.

Mr. President, we know that since European integration began the movement towards unity among peoples of our continent has been viewed with favor and with clear political farsightedness by your great country. We believe that this Europe of ours which is still in the making counts today, as before, on the support of the United States of America, and we are fully aware that our task is to quicken our step so that before very long a new political entity, equal to its economic potential, may be better able to carry out its effective and friendly mission as a steadying and peacemaking element.

PRESIDENT NIXON. *Mr. President, and Your Excel-lencies:*

As a response to your remarks, Mr. President, I want to say again what I said in our private meetings, both with you yesterday and with the Prime Minister and members of the Government today. I find that whether the issue is European security, the problems of Europe, whether the issue involved is the Mediterranean or the problems of the Mideast, that in areas generally throughout the world, we find that our views in the United States are very close to yours. It is very important that this be the case.

We appreciate your references to our Mideast peace initiative. However, it is important to point out that that initiative will not succeed unless we look at it in a broader context. We must remember that the issue in the Mideast is not simply one between the two or three countries immediately involved. The issue is much broader. It involves the Mediterranean. And when we speak of the Mediterranean, we naturally must speak also of Italy and primarily of Italy, the major country with the longest coastline on the Mediterranean. A sound, strong, independent Italy is essential to any long term peace in the Mediterranean—peace with the freedom and justice to which you so eloquently referred.

I recall the words that electrified the world several years ago, in fact many years ago. Those words were, "The Italian navigator has landed in the new world." When we hear that, we might think that the words that I have just quoted were spoken at the time that Christopher Columbus landed in the New World three and a half centuries ago. They could have been spoken then. But the words that I have just referred to were spoken three decades ago in a telephone call from Chicago to Boston, and they referred to another Italian navigator, Enrico Fermi, the man who headed the development of the first controlled use of nuclear power. A man also who had been born in Italy but whom we proudly claimed then as a resident and citizen of the United States.

On this occasion, I particularly want to pay tribute to you, Mr. President, who have spoken for so many years, so eloquently and, it seems to me, so correctly on the great issues which confront the world.

SECRET COMPARISON OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 12, 1970

I have been impressed on this visit, as I have been on others, by the fact that who have met Italian political leaders, whether it is you, Mr. President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, whenever I talk to them, their views are not parochial. They are not limited to Italy. They are not only involving those immediate problems that we may have between the United States and Italy. But they are European. In fact, they are international and cosmopolitan. That is one of the reasons why a visit to this country, a chance to talk to its leaders, is one which means so much to me with the responsibilities that I have not only to my own country but also in the whole international community.

But now, 50 years later, we know that it does become necessary, and we must make it practical, that this New World which the Italian navigator of the 20th century helped to bring into being will be a world which will be used for the progress of man rather than his destruction.

For that reason on this occasion we speak with more feeling than usual of the absolute necessity for the United States to work together with your Government and with the governments of all free nations to see that we maintain the strength that will make possible the institution of an era of negotiation for one of confrontation, because with that strength negotiation will be possible; without that strength negotiation will not be considered to be necessary.

To the President of Italy.

NOTE: The exchange of toasts took place at 2:07 p.m., local time, in the Quirinale Towers, Quirinale Palace, in Rome. President Saragat spoke in Italian. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

## The Vatican

*Remarks of Pope Paul VI Following a Meeting With the President. September 28, 1970*

POPE PAUL. Mr. President, on the occasion of this journey of yours to Europe, you have wished to pay us a further visit. We have welcomed the opportunity thus afforded us of having renewed personal contact with you and of expressing to you once again with even greater insistence our deeply felt paternal concern for the cause of peace— to you who are the leader of a nation on which weighs

such a heavy share of responsibility for the present and for the future of the world.

Recent happenings have shown what special need there is at this moment to work for peace. The suffering which war inflicts not only on the combatants but also on innocent persons and on children who have no understanding even of the meaning of the word, has been brought visibly before the eyes of all of us, who, however distant we may be, feel almost that we are in the midst of it.

Our heart has suffered with them, as it has always shared and continues to share in the sufferings of the victims of all the wars that disturb the life of mankind.

Our anxiety is now increased by the danger of such a conflict involving more and more countries and assuming the proportions of a vast and fearful conflagration. This special need demands from all a special effort without reservations by any party and without any other aim than a just and honorable peace.

That same God-given intelligence which enables man to destroy is capable also of finding a way of combatting the dangers and even of insuring insofar as is humanly possible that they will not come to pass.

This duty belongs in a particular way to those who have a greater power in the world. We are, therefore, happy to have been able to convey to you, Mr. President, our thoughts on the most suitable means of seeking to reestablish peace where it has been upset and to strengthen it where it exists, among other ways, by favoring friendly and fruitful relations between peoples and the progress of the developing nations as is demanded by justice and human solidarity.

We would like to encourage you, Mr. President, in undertaking this task which, though difficult, is truly worthy of being pursued with decisiveness and generosity.

May God guide you and all who have responsibility for peace among nations, that good will may overcome enmity.

In the meantime, we give expression to our personal good wishes, and we invoke upon you, your family, and all the people of the United States of America the favor and the blessings of the Almighty.

NOTE: Pope Paul spoke at 4:50 p.m., local time, in the Papal Library at the Vatican.

For the text of President Nixon's remarks following his meeting with Pope Paul, see page 1294 of last week's issue.

## Belgrade, Yugoslavia

*Text of President Tito's Toast at a State Dinner in Honor of President Nixon. September 30, 1970*

Mr. President, Madame Nixon, ladies and gentlemen, comrades:

It is my pleasure, Mr. President, to greet you, on behalf of the peoples and the Government of Yugoslavia, in the

1323

name of my wife and my own, as the first President of
the United States of America visiting our country. May
I take this opportunity to extend to you, to Madame
Nixon, and your associates our warm welcome.

In 1960, in New York, I had a cordial meeting with
President Eisenhower, and in 1963, during my visit to
your country, I had friendly and useful talks with Presi-
dent Kennedy. These talks contributed to the further
development of relations between our two countries. We
appreciate, Mr. President, your personal interest in, and
contribution to the promotion of cooperation between
Yugoslavia and the United States of America. Your visit
marks, no doubt, a very important date in the history of
these relations and will further encourage their continuous
progress.

The relations between Yugoslavia and the United
States of America are of long standing and rest on a posi-
tive, friendly tradition dating back to the establishment
of relations between the USA and Serbia and the signing
of a convention on consular and trade relations in 1881.
Our two countries were allied in World War I. In World
War II we fought together and each of us contributed
his share to the struggle against the most sinister forces
that threatened mankind. In those trying days of war,
our partisans saved hundreds of American pilots from
falling into the hands of the enemy. On our side, we have
not forgotten the substantial assistance and support ex-
tended to us by the American people during our People's
Liberation Struggle and after the war.

Your country, Mr. President, is a land of many nations. People from our country, too, by their work, talent, and thought have made a significant contribution to the development of America—from miners, fishermen, and farm laborers, at the time when the foundations of the progress of your country were being laid, to Nikola Tesla, Louis Adamic, Mihajlo Pupin, and many others who played an outstanding role in American scientific thought, culture, and public life. American citizens of Yugoslav origin have always been, and we wish them to remain, one of the bridges linking our two countries.

Your great country is about to celebrate the 200th
anniversary of its independence. The world has always
held in great esteem the deeds of the great sons and intel-
lects of your country, such as Washington, Jefferson,
Lincoln, and many others. Your Revolution and the Dec-
laration of Independence have become an integral part
of freedom-loving and democratic aspirations and of
progress in the world.

Mr. President, we live in a world of interdependence,
a world which is becoming ever smaller and which—as
the brave explorers of outer space saw it—reminds of a
small ship, the fate of which we all share. The achieve-
ments of every people are today property of, and source
of inspiration for the whole of mankind. By epoch-making
advances in the field of science and technology, to which
your country has also made a historic contribution, man-
kind has stepped into the 21st century.

Yet, the majority of the world population still lives in
misery, and many peoples are not free and truly inde-
pendent. In different parts of the world, wars are still
claiming precious human lives and destroying all that has
been so painfully built. The world of today is character-
ized, on the one hand, by the existence of boundless possi-
bilities for unparalleled progress and prosperity and, on
the other, by desperate needs, injustices, and problems, by
which international relations are so heavily and danger-
ously burdened.

Mr. President, it is only natural that mankind should
expect from so vast and developed country as the United
States of America a major contribution to the well-being
of peoples and peace in the world. We welcomed the sig-
nificant words pronounced by you in your Inaugural
Address that mankind should move from the era of con-
frontation into the era of negotiation. We have been
consistently devoting our efforts to this end. It was in 1961
that the Belgrade Conference of nonaligned countries
appealed to the big powers to start a dialogue in order to
avoid a general catastrophe.

Yugoslavia views positively the present orientation of
the big powers to negotiate. Having at their disposal
weapons which can destroy the world as well as enormous
potentials, the big powers bear a special responsibility for
the fate of the world. That is why they are expected to use
this immense might and strength for the benefit and the
well-being of mankind.

We all agree that the world is becoming ever smaller
and ever more closely interdependent and that whatever
happens in one of its parts—whether for the better or for
the worse—is bound to affect the rest as well. Any conflict,
any crisis has global repercussions. The whole experience
of the postwar period testifies to the fact that universal
peace and stability cannot be achieved by the big powers
alone. Therefore, all countries, irrespective of their size
and strength, must take an active part in the affairs of the
world community, not only because it is their right but
because it is also an indispensable precondition for the
maintenance of peace and the development of interna-
tional cooperation. In the same way as a "larger" peace
cannot rest for long on "smaller" wars, so international
cooperation cannot be promoted on the basis of anyone's
monopoly or on the negation of the legitimate interests of
other countries and peoples. In the absence of peace and
progress for the small and underdeveloped; there can be
no stable peace nor durable progress for the large and
developed either.

There is, we feel, a growing consensus in the world that
mere negotiations and the avoidance of confrontation
between the big powers are in themselves no longer
sufficient. If the basic world problems continue to remain
unsolved, if we do not undertake with full responsibility
the solution of the burning issues of development, disar-
mament, the elimination of the policy of force and inter-
ference in the internal affairs of others, the overcoming
of the division of the world into blocs—then we shall gain

only shorter or longer intervals of respite between periods of cold war and we shall continue to live under the permanent threat of the outbreak of a conflict with unforeseeable consequences. Actually, the postwar development has clearly shown that stable peace and cooperation cannot rest on the balance of strength and terror.

For all these reasons, Mr. President, we are striving for the negotiations and peaceful solution of controversial issues to become the generally accepted practice in international relations, in the relations among all states. Small and medium-sized countries, as well as all developing countries, are well aware of their obligations and responsibilities, both with respect to their own internal development and with regard to the solution of international problems.

Besides, what I have been saying so far reflects also the essence of the message of the recently held conference of nonaligned countries in Lusaka. The nonaligned countries were unanimous in their demand for the democratization of international relations, respect for and realization of the inalienable rights of peoples to independence and sovereignty, accelerated development of the developing countries, strengthening of the United Nations, achievement of its universality, etc. They also manifested their determination to exert utmost efforts and make their own contribution towards the fulfillment of these aims.

Mr. President, our views concerning the most dangerous hotbeds of conflict—such as, in the first place, the long-continued war in Vietnam, which has been expanded to new areas in Indochina, and the crisis in the Middle East, which is becoming ever more dangerously entangled—are known. The peoples of these areas are being subjected to dreadful ordeals and suffering and peace in the world as well as the security of all of us are being jeopardized. We have always endeavored, within the limits of our possibilities, to contribute to the search for just solutions and we shall continue to do so. Our position has always been, and still is, that the cessation of intervention by any foreign power and the securing of the legitimate rights of the peoples of these countries to full independence and free development, without any outside interference whatsoever, are preconditions for any equitable settlement.

As regards the Middle East, I wish to say that we received with profound grief and anxiety the news of the death of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, an outstanding statesman and a relentless fighter for peace. His loss, particularly in the present critical situation in the Middle East, makes it incumbent on all factors to exert maximum efforts to arrive at a peaceful and just political solution, for which President Nasser strove consistently and with dedication to his very end.

Mr. President, we are also urging the immediate eradication of colonialism which is still being maintained in vast areas of Africa. This is, indeed, the greatest shame for mankind, in this very century of general emancipation of peoples, generations, and races.

The positive processes underway in Europe, which have resulted in a certain relaxation of tension, are paving the way for the gradual overcoming of the division into blocs and the establishment of European security on new foundations. As an independent and nonaligned country, which has in actual practice opted for a policy of open frontiers and free flow of ideas and goods, Yugoslavia is vitally interested in the promotion of all-round cooperation among all European states. We cannot conceive a stable system of European security in a permanently divided Europe.

Likewise, as a European and Mediterranean country, we are fully aware of the close interdependence between the European continent and the entire Mediterranean region. It is, consequently, understandable that we are directly interested in the restoration of peace in the Middle East, which is so close to us, as well as in the transformation of the Mediterranean into a sea of peace and peaceful international cooperation, where the rights and interests of the peoples living on its shores will be fully respected.

Mr. President, I trust that I am sharing your opinion in saying that world peace and cooperation cannot be strengthened unless the principles of the United Nations are fully and consistently observed. The principles of independence, sovereignty, equality, noninterference, territorial integrity, and the like must be respected with no exception in the relations among all states, and the infringement of these principles cannot be justified by any political, ideological, or any other motives.

I am glad to say that the friendly relations between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the United States of America are developing precisely on the basis of these principles and in mutual respect. Mutually beneficial cooperation between our two countries is progressing satisfactorily. There have been problems from time to time. It is only natural that it should be so. However, thanks to a realistic approach and good will on both sides, we have succeeded in preserving continuity and ensuring constant progress.

There has been, indeed, manifest progress in the relations between our two countries in recent years. This can be partly ascribed to contacts and exchanges of views among high level representatives of the two countries and it is our wish that this useful practice be maintained. Particularly important are the results achieved in the field of economic cooperation and we believe that there exist very good possibilities for its further expansion, especially as regards industrial cooperation, joint ventures, etc. We also attach great importance to the furtherance of scientific and, particularly, technological cooperation.

We have always been striving, Mr. President, for good relations with all countries and it has always been our earnest desire that the promotion of relations with one country should not be to the detriment of relations with other countries. The promotion of friendly and stable relations with as many countries as possible in Europe

1325

and outside it, starting with our neighbours, is in our view
a prerequisite for our accelerated development and for
the strengthening of the security and the international
position of Yugoslavia. Within this context, we attach
great significance to the development of good relations in
all fields with your country, considering them as an im-
portant factor of stability and peace in this part of the
world and more widely, as well as an important factor of
our economic, scientific, and technological advance.

Let me stress that the status of Yugoslavia as an inde-
pendent, nonaligned, and socialist country is the unalter-
able basis of our entire policy and of our approach to
international relations and problems. We are determined
to maintain our independence, for which we paid such a
high price. This is guaranteed primarily by the unity of
our country and the readiness of our peoples to defend
their independence and free internal development against
any threat or attack.

Mr. President, the relations between the United States of America and Yugoslavia, between a large and a small country, with different social systems, testify to the viabil-
ity and realism of the policy of peaceful and active co-
existence. They make thereby a major contribution to
wider international cooperation.

True, there have been and still are differences in our
views and stands on different international issues. Such
differences exist in our relations with other countries as
well. But these differences have been no obstacle to the
development of friendly relations and cooperation
between our two countries.

Mr. President, I am looking forward to our talks which
will afford us the opportunity to exchange opinions on
the international situation and the furtherance of relations
between our two countries.

In the course of your visit, you will see some of our
achievements. We regret that your visit is too short to en-
able you to become better acquainted with the accom-
plishments of our people and the beauties of our country.

I hope your stay among us will be a pleasant one.

May I now propose this toast to your health, Mr. Presi-
dent, to the health of Madame Nixon and your associates,
to friendship and cooperation between the peoples of Yu-
goslavia and of the United States of America.

NOTE: As printed above, this item follows the text of a translation made available to the press.

For the text of President Nixon's toast at the dinner, see page 1299 of last week's issue.

Belgrade, Yugoslavia

The President's Remarks to Dragoslav Markovic,
President of the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, at
the Serbian Council Building. October 1, 1970

I would like to say to the President that I wish my visit
were long enough to visit all of the major States in Yugo-

slavia, but since I had to select two, naturally I wanted to
pay my respects to the President of Serbia, the largest
State, and then, of course, to Croatia, the second largest
State.

I was very interested to learn that your country, this
country, is somewhat like ours in that respect, that while
it is one country, Yugoslavia, that the States are very
competitive, what we call friendly competition, between
Serbia and Croatia for the businesses, the new businesses.
I think that is good. We have a lot of that in our country.
It exists in California.

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

Belgrade, Yugoslavia

Exchange of Toasts Between President Nixon and
President Tito at a Dinner Hosted by President Nixon.
October 1, 1970

PRESIDENT NIXON. Mr. President, Madame Broz, and
Your Excellencies, friends of Yugoslavia and the United
States:

As we complete this visit of 2 days to Yugoslavia, I
wish to express appreciation on behalf of Mrs. Nixon and
myself and all the members of our party for the very warm
reception we have received, both officially and from all
the people of Yugoslavia that we have had the privilege
to meet.

We shall always remember the welcome we received
in Belgrade, in Zagreb, and at the President's birthplace,
the third city we visited in Yugoslavia.

PRESIDENT TITO. I thought it was the second city.

PRESIDENT NIXON. After our visit, it will be the first
city in Yugoslavia.

Speaking now officially, I believe that this visit has con-
tributed significantly to a goal to which all of us are
dedicated—better relations in every way between Yugo-
slavia and the United States, friendship, economic coop-
eration, and working together in the cause of peace and
progress.

But it has also been, it seems to me, very helpful and
constructive on a much broader scale beyond the bilateral
interests of the United States and Yugoslavia. Over the
period of the last 25 years, it has been my privilege to
meet and to talk with over 70 chiefs of state around the
world. No chief of state or head of government that I
have met has had more experience all over the world
and has known more government leaders around the
world than President Tito.

It has been very helpful to me to get his appraisal of
the various trouble spots in the world and his best advice
as to what policies could be adopted which could lead to
peace and cooperation throughout the world.

It has been for us a very worthwhile visit, if only we had the opportunity to know the country, the beauty of the countryside, the warmth of its people. But the visit beyond that has had very great significance in contributing to our joint thinking about the problems of the world and how we can develop better approaches to them.

That is why I looked to a continuing discussion with President Tito on these problems in which he gives me his best judgment and I, in return, share with him my thoughts on problems that we have. Because after all, despite differences in systems of government, we have common goals, peace in the world and the right of each nation, each people, to choose its own system of government, without outside interference.

And now, to put this visit in perspective, President Tito, to all of us who knew him only by what we read and what we heard, has built a worldwide reputation as a leader of his nation in war. But I am convinced, after this visit, that his great legacy will be that he will be remembered in history as a man of peace.

That is why I would ask that you all join me in raising our glasses to peace and friendship between the United States and Yugoslavia, and to the world peace to which President Tito is dedicated and to which I am dedicated, working together, if possible, toward that great goal.

PRESIDENT TITO. Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon, ladies and gentlemen and guests:

First of all, I wish to thank you very much indeed for this sincere and warm toast on behalf of my wife, on behalf of my associates, and in my own name.

And now, at the same time, I have to say how sad we are—and this is not a very pleasant feeling to know— that your visit to our country has been, alas, too short and thus you have not had the possibility to see much of what our people have achieved since the Second World War, but that you could convince yourselves everywhere you went—your visit to Belgrade, Zagreb, and Kumrovec— the people of this country appreciate and love the American people and the United States, and how much they appreciate you personally, Mr. President.

Our people have very close contacts and roots, so to say, with people of your country. From Yugoslavia they went in large numbers in the days when poverty raged here—in Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia—they went to win their bread to the United States in order to have bread there. Many remained there. Some of them returned. And those who returned were actually those who were the bearers of sympathies towards the people of the United States, because there they saw something new, they saw a new democracy which made it possible for every man to live a life worthy of a human being.

Of course, they didn't say that milk and honey flowed in that country. They also spoke of very hard work, but

that the efforts that those people working there were making enabled them to lead a life, the same life, as the one I have just described.

And now a few words about your visit. I share your opinion that your visit has been very successful. We have had talks together, with other associates, and also talks on this problem of bilateral and on international issues.

And our talks were conducted in a spirit which permeates talks between leaders of countries having different social systems.

We talked about very acute, very difficult problems, which are now around the world and which are fraught with the danger of leading to a new tragedy for all mankind, and we agreed that all has to be done in order to preserve peace and all has to be done in order to insure that all questions under dispute and all conflicts are settled peacefully.

I think that the time has come when during their talks statesmen coming from countries having different social systems should try to find a way for solving all questions in the world in a peaceful way and also for eliminating all elements of escalation and aggravation and we have such elements in both the Middle East and in the Far East.

I agree with your view, Mr. President, that it is our duty to work together and to do our utmost in order to insure the peaceful solution of international problems in order to promote detente, and to prevent tragedies similar to those which came to mankind during the First World War.

As to bilateral questions, I think we are on the best way. I share your opinion and your wish that these bilateral relations should be expanded still further. There is still very much room for promoting our relations, both in the economic fields and in other fields, and also, in the field of political relations regarding the solution of international problems.

I think that sound economic cooperation in the interest of the two countries is also a very powerful factor in promoting better understanding with regard to remaining other issues.

And I think that I wish, Mr. President, that this visit of yours to our country, should yield fruitful results for our relations and I raise this glass to the health of the President of the United States of America, who, for the first time in history, visited this country as the representative of the friendly country of the United States, to the health of President Nixon, to the health of your associates, and the friendship and cooperation between the United States and Yugoslavia.

NOTE: President Nixon spoke at 9:47 p.m. local time in the Old Palace. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

1327

THE PRESIDENT'S VISIT TO YUGOSLAVIA

*Joint Statement Following Meetings Between President Nixon and President Josip Broz Tito of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. October 1, 1970*

At the invitation of the President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito, the President of the United States of America Richard M. Nixon, accompanied by Mrs. Nixon, and their party, paid an official visit to the SFR of Yugoslavia from 30 September to 2 October 1970. During his stay President Nixon visited, in addition to Belgrade, Zagreb and Kumrovec.

The meeting between the two Presidents, which took place in a cordial and frank atmosphere, provided an opportunity for frank talks on the most important contemporary international issues and on Yugoslav-American relations. These included the Middle East, South East Asia, East-West relations, European security, less developed countries, and bilateral problems. Each side presented its views in a candid manner.

Both sides agreed that negotiation rather than confrontation is indispensable for peaceful and just solutions of international problems.

It was also emphasized that co-operation on the basis of equality among independent and sovereign countries, is the sole basis on which relations and progress in today's world can be founded.

Presidents Tito and Nixon noted with satisfaction the growth of good and friendly relations between their two countries. They pointed out in particular that relations between the SFRY and the USA were fully based on the principles of independence and mutual respect which are also the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The two Presidents expressed the conviction that relations on such a basis were not only in the interest of the peoples of their two countries but constituted a significant factor for stability and peace in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

They resolved to continue to promote extensive bilateral relations. Concrete forms of cooperation were discussed, especially in the economic and scientific-technological fields.

The two sides agreed that it was useful and desirable to continue the practice of broad exchanges of views and contacts in their mutual relations.

NOTE: The joint statement was released at Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

1328

# Madrid, Spain

## Remarks of the President and General Francisco Franco Upon the President's Arrival at Barajas Airport.

October 2, 1970

### GENERAL FRANCO. Mr. President:

In the name of the Government and the people of Spain I wish to extend to you a most cordial and friendly welcome.

It was very kind of you to accept my invitation to come to Spain and it is a great honour to have you with us, in the company of your charming wife and the distinguished members of your party.

This is not the first time you have come to this country. You have had before the opportunity to see our cities, our regions—so filled with memories and evocations of the past for an American—and above all, you have met our people and you have been able to appreciate the affection and admiration they feel towards your people, your character, your history.

Today, when you arrive in our capital as President of the United States, for a visit of good will, friendship, and cooperation, which confirms and symbolizes the spirit of the Agreement recently concluded between our two nations, my colleagues in the Government and myself, as well as the people of Madrid that welcome you, will try to make your stay a pleasant one, and we trust it will prove as fruitful and successful as we wish and hope it to be.

Once again, Mr. President, a most sincere welcome to Spain.

### PRESIDENT NIXON. General Franco, Señora Franco, Your Excellencies, friends of Spain and the United States:

I am most honored to be the first American President to visit Spain since President Eisenhower was here in 1959.

I recall my previous visits to this country and the warm welcome that we have received. As I stand here I bring to all of the people of Spain the best wishes of all the people of the United States.

We Americans owe a great deal to Spain. We remember that it was Spanish explorers who played such a great role in the exploration and the development of the new world; and we in the United States, with diverse people and diverse culture, owe a great debt to the Spanish culture and people of Spanish background who have contributed so much to our Nation.

Since 1953, we have been partners together in defense in the Mediterranean area, and over this past period, particularly in the past 10 years, we have seen increasing economic cooperation between Spain and the United States.

I am confident that the talks we will have here, with you, General Franco, and with the members of your cabi-

net, will contribute to closer cooperation, both in defense for peace and economic cooperation which will mean progress for all of our people in Spain and in the United States.

In recent weeks, the eyes of the world have been on the Mediterranean area. If we do not have peace in the Mediterranean, world peace will be very seriously threatened. An indispensable pillar for peace in the Mediterranean is Spanish-American friendship and cooperation. For that reason, I say, as I begin my visit to Spain, *Viva la amistad Hispana-Americana*.

NOTE: President Nixon spoke at 12:15 p.m. local time. As printed above, his remarks follow the text of the White House press release and General Franco's remarks follow a translation made available to the press.

# Madrid, Spain

## Remarks of the President and Don Carlos Arias Navarro, Mayor of Madrid, Upon the Presentation to the

President of the Key to the City. October 2, 1970

### THE MAYOR. Today, Mr. President, will always be an outstanding one in the annals of Madrid, Capital of Spain. You can see in the cordial and jubilant reception offered to you by our people, a reconfirmation of their affection for the great Nation represented by you, joined to ours by bonds of friendship and common effort.

It is a great and unforgettable honour for me, as Mayor of Madrid, to offer you the keys to the city, as a symbol of gratitude for the honour bestowed by your visit, an expression of our satisfaction to have you here as our illustrious guest and a fervent wish for a pleasant and happy stay.

Mr. President of the United States of America: "Welcome to Madrid!"

### THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Mayor, Your Excellencies:

It is a very great honor for Mrs. Nixon and me to receive the Key to the City of Madrid.

This is not an ordinary key. An ordinary key can open the door of a house or of a room. But this key, as we have seen in the part of the road that we traveled, opens the hearts of the people of Madrid and the people of Spain to the people of the United States.

We are grateful for this wonderful welcome.

We have many pleasant memories of our visit here before and we look forward to our stay in this, one of the greatest cities in the world.

Thank you.

NOTE: The President spoke at 12:50 p.m. local time at the Plaza del Marques del Duero. As printed above, his remarks follow the text of the White House press release and the remarks by the Mayor follow a translation made available to the press.

1329

## Madrid, Spain

*Remarks to Spanish Reporters by Ronald L. Ziegler, Press Secretary to the President.*
October 2, 1970

The President, I know, feels that the talks which were held today were very constructive and very helpful, and, as was pointed out in the meeting, I believe it can be clearly stated that the agreement that was reached in the discussions today was, without question, that the close relations and cooperation that exist between the United States and Spain are important for peace and stability in this part of the world.

In relation to the Mediterranean and the importance of the Mediterranean to the United States, the President made it clear that the United States would continue to maintain a very strong presence in the Mediterranean, specifically in relation to the 6th Fleet.

As you know, President Nixon visited the 6th Fleet a few days ago and there have been suggestions, or some rumors, that the United States may be contemplating a reduction of our force in the Mediterranean.

Of course, in relation to the Middle East, the objective of the United States is, as you all know, to achieve stability and peace in the Middle East and we are proceeding with a course of action which we hope will be successful in achieving stability and peace in the Middle East.

There was in the meeting today, substantial discussion on the new Agreement of Friendship and Cooperation, which has just been signed between the United States and Spain, and we feel that this has marked a new beginning in our relations with Spain, and, at the same time, expanded and broadened our ties in scientific and educational programs, and other nonmilitary fields. And as

Thank you.

NOTE: Mr. Ziegler spoke at 8:20 p.m. local time at the press center, Palacio del Congreso.

## Madrid, Spain

*The President's Toast at a Dinner Given in His Honor by General Franco.*
October 2, 1970

*General Franco, Mrs. Franco, Your Excellencies, friends of Spain and the United States:*

When I visited President Eisenhower just a few weeks before he died, he was reminiscing about his great experiences as President and also as a military leader. I asked him to weigh the various receptions that he had had around the world. He thought a moment and then he said that one of the greatest and most friendly welcomes and the most memorable receptions he had as President of the United States was the reception in Spain in 1959, when he was a guest at this table and in this city of you, General Franco and Mrs. Franco.

I now know what he meant, because today we had the opportunity to feel the kind of reception that the Spanish people, under your leadership, gave to him and that you gave to us, as representatives of the American people. We think of this magnificent banquet, at the very table where he sat just 11 years ago, with many of the same people here present.

We think of the words of welcome which you have so generously spoken. We think also, of the tremendous crowds in the streets of Madrid as we drove together to the Palace where we are staying.

And as we heard and saw those crowds, they were saying many things. Among them were these: First, General Franco, they were expressing their respect and their affection for you. Second, they were expressing their friendship for the people of the United States.

Third, as I saw those crowds, I saw the past of Spain and the future of Spain, and it is truly a great future, because I saw a vigorous people—a proud people—a young people—a dynamic people—the people who have been responsible for Spain having the fastest growth rate of any country in Europe over these past 10 years; the people who will be responsible for Spain, in the last 30 years of this century, moving into a new period of economic progress and well-being for its people and a new period of contributions to progress for all peoples in the world.

This is what I felt as we drove through the streets of Madrid today.

And then in the talks that we have had this afternoon with you, with members of your staff, with Vice President Blanco, with Juan Carlos, with Secretary Bravo, I felt that we, in those talks, established a new firm base for increased understanding, increased cooperation in all fields between Spain and the United States in the years ahead.

We have been good friends, our two countries. We, I believe, in the years ahead can be even better friends.

The treaty to which you have referred can be the solid basis for areas of cooperation that have not yet been explored, and we want to participate with you in this great adventure in which the Spanish people, with a proud past, move forward to one of the great periods in its entire history in the last 30 years of this century.

I would say to you finally, that as I heard the crowds in the streets today, I realized that the United States has many friends in Spain.

I want to assure you, General Franco, the members of your Government, and all of this distinguished company here, and all those who may hear me on television or radio, that Spain has many friends in the United States. And I assure you, particularly, that Spain has two special friends, the present President of the United States and his wife, who have a feeling of affection and friendship for this country, for its people.

You will always have a friend in us and a good friend and a loyal friend in the years ahead.

So I ask this company to rise with me and raise your glasses to the health of General Franco and Mrs. Franco, to the economic progress and prosperity of the Spanish people, and to the cooperation of the United States and Spain in the cause of peace and progress for the whole world.

### General Franco.

NOTE: The President spoke at 10:49 p.m. local time at the Royal Palace. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

For General Franco's toast at the dinner, see p. 1359 of this issue.

## Madrid, Spain

### The President's Remarks Upon His Departure From Barajas Airport. October 3, 1970

Generalissimo Franco, Mrs. Franco, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen:

As we leave the soil of Spain, Mrs. Nixon and I and the members of our party will take with us unforgettable memories—memories of the official welcome that we received, of the talks that we have had which have contributed to our thinking on the major world problems, of better relations between our two countries, and of the outpouring of the sentiment and affection that we felt from the people of Spain when we passed through the streets of Madrid yesterday and this morning.

We feel, too, that as we leave this country that this visit, the culmination of a series of discussions which will make 1970 a year that we will look back on in both Spain and the United States as the beginning of a new era of increased cooperation, increased friendship in all areas between the United States and Spain.

I hope that the administration which I now head will be able to work toward that end so that this great country may have the complete cooperation of the United States as it moves forward in economic progress and in all areas of human life.

But finally, may I say in a personal sense that I appear here on this occasion as the President of the United States. I recall in 1963 when my wife and I, and our two daughters, were here as private citizens. I recall then that the friendly reception we received from the people of Spain was just as warm as when I held this high office.

And that tells us something about this country, about its people that we shall always remember. It is a great country of friendly people.

I look forward to returning either in an official capacity, and, if not that, always as one like the millions of other Americans who come here as tourists, to one of the most friendly countries we can visit in any part of the world.

Thank you very much.

NOTE: The President spoke at approximately 9:10 a.m. local time. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

For General Franco's remarks at the departure ceremony, see p. 1359 of this issue.

## Shannon, Ireland

### Remarks of the President and Prime Minister

**John M. Lynch Upon the President's Arrival at Shannon Airport. October 3, 1970**

PRIME MINISTER LYNCH. Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon:

On behalf of the people and Government of Ireland, I welcome you to our country.

1331

I offer you the traditional 100,000 welcomes. I would like to say in our own language: *Cuirim romhat, a Uachtaráin na Stát Aontaithe agus do chéile, Céad Míle Fáilte go hÉirinn.* (I give you, Mr. President, and your wife, 100,000 welcomes to Ireland.)

This is the language, Mr. President and Mrs. Nixon, that your forefathers would have welcomed their visitors in. When I say "your forefathers," it is indeed the land of your forefathers. You have both come here before, and then you were very welcome.

Now that you have come again, Mr. President, as President of the great democracy of the United States of America, and you, Mrs. Nixon, as its First Lady, you are more than welcome.

You, Mr. President, coming with all the great demands and pressures on your high office makes us feel doubly honored.

The ties between our two countries have been very, very close over very, very many years. Your coming on this occasion will make these ties even more close.

I hope that your short stay with us will be an enjoyable one for you and Mrs. Nixon. I know that our people will welcome you from their hearts, and I hope that when you leave our shores you will bring with you happy memories of your stay amongst us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. *Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Lynch, and all of the distinguished guests who are here, and our friends from Ireland:*

Mrs. Nixon and I want to express our very great appreciation for your very warm welcome as we set foot on Irish soil. As we come here, we have many thoughts in mind.

First, Mr. Prime Minister, this is a personal visit but also one that is official—official in the sense that our two Governments, as you have indicated, have such close and friendly relations, and I look forward to the opportunity of meeting with President De Valera, with you and members of your Government on Monday to discuss those matters in which we can have further cooperation in the interest of both countries.

And, second, personal in the sense that Mrs. Nixon and I have what is rather rare for us these days, a day off tomorrow. After a rather strenuous trip in which we have visited four countries in Europe we finally get to Ireland. I don't think of any country in the world I would rather have a day off in than Ireland. We are so glad we can have it here.

Now having said that, I have never had that experience before. My wife and our two daughters did have the very warm reception that they had when they came here 3 or 4 years ago. But I have never had the opportunity of driving through the Irish countryside, of going back to where they say my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents came from.

I know for sure, however, that in Mrs. Nixon's case the proof is much clearer. As a matter of fact, I can't find anybody in Ireland that will claim me, but I am sure that as far as Mrs. Nixon is concerned her grandfather, of course, came from Ireland, and if her credentials were open to any question I can tell you that when I married her, her name was Patricia Ryan and she celebrated her birthday on St. Patrick's Day. So that must prove something.

We will be traveling through the Irish countryside today and tomorrow, and having the opportunity that so many Americans have had, to come to this land, to feel the warmth of the reception of its wonderful people, and also to have the opportunity to see the sights that we shall be seeing.

I would say to you finally that in my travels over the world that have taken me to over 65 countries, I have had many very great and warm experiences. I can tell you that none is one that I looked forward to more than this one. I look forward to it because I do probably claim, as do almost all successful American politicians, an Irish background.

And, second, I look forward to it because I can assure you that we in the United States are very appreciative of the enormous contribution that has been made of those Irish backgrounds to all of American life, not just in the field of politics but in the field of business, in the field of the arts, in any area that you choose. The Irish have added a warmth to the American diverse personality, a sense of humor, a spirit, a courage, a character for which we will be eternally grateful.

I am glad to say those words and speak them here on Irish soil.

If I can complete my remarks with what I understand—and I wish I could say it in Gaelic but I am not sure what he said about me, so I wouldn't try to say anything about you—I understand that the traditional Irish salutation on this occasion, and if you will pardon me for using it I think it fits this occasion so well—joy be with you all.

Thank you very much.

NOTE: The exchange of remarks began at 5:35 p.m. local time. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

## Limerick, Ireland

### *Remarks of the President and J. D. Liddy, Right Worshipful Councillor, Upon the President's Arrival in Limerick. October 3, 1970*

MR. LIDDY. On behalf of the citizens of Limerick, as well as in my own behalf, I want to extend to His Excellency, President Richard Nixon, a very warm and a very cordial welcome to the City of Limerick.

1332

WEEKLY COMPIEATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 12, 1970

[lc]

I think he has, by dropping off here to say hello to us, paid a very great honor indeed above are certainly very indebted to him and we hope he will have a very happy stay in this country.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Mayor, I want to say that it is a very great privilege for me to visit, on my trip to Ireland, and come first to Limerick. This is the first city in Ireland I am visiting.

Having heard of Limerick all my life, and recalling in the 18th century when the famous Irish Brigade was fighting all over the world, the song was "Will You Come Up To Limerick?" and here I am. I am glad to be here, and I am glad I came.

Thank you very much.

## Dromoland Castle, Newmarket-on-Fergus, County Clare, Ireland

*The President's Informal Remarks to Reporters
Concerning His European Trip. October 4, 1970*

I recognize that those who have traveled with us have a rather difficult time in covering a trip like this. It is difficult because the meetings that are held between heads of government or heads of state must necessarily be kept off the record as far as the press is concerned. Otherwise, they would lose their value.

On the other hand, that leaves the press only the opportunity to cover motorcades or to speculate on a background basis as to what is really happening and—if I may paraphrase what Governor Reagan once said—if you have seen one motorcade you have seen them all, it has been said.

Now, in analyzing what the threat to peace in the Mediterranean is, we must realize that it is not the conventional threat of one nation possibly engaging in overt action against another. It is more difficult than that. It is more difficult because it is the threat which arises from irresponsible radical elements which might take action which, in turn, would set in the course of events, the train of events, set in motion—I meant to say—a train of events that would escalate into a possible confrontation between major powers in the area. That is what we saw in the Jordanian crisis and that is the kind of threat to the peace that we will have to be guarding against in the months and possibly the years ahead in the Near East and the Mediterranean generally.

Now, when you have that kind of a threat, in order to meet it the primary need is for elements of stability in the area, economic and political stability, yes, but primarily, where the threat is irresponsible and where it resorts to violence, unexpected and unpredictable violence, without reason, without cause—sometimes—there must be military stability and military strength. That is why I first visited the 6th Fleet.

The 6th Fleet is one element of military stability in the Mediterranean. After visiting the 6th Fleet and being briefed by its commanders and our commanders there, I became convinced that the 6th Fleet is able to meet its mission of deterring irresponsible elements in the Mediterranean area.

After meeting with the 6th Fleet commanders and also having discussed this matter with our NATO allies and with our Ambassadors from the Mediterranean countries, I am convinced that it is essential that the 6th Fleet continue to have this capability in the event that other powers, with other designs on the area, other than ours and our friends who have no designs except the peace in the area, and the right of each individual nation to maintain its own integrity—in the event that other forces,

1333

naval forces, should threaten the position of strength which the 6th Fleet now enjoys, then the United States must be prepared to take the action necessary to maintain that overall strength of the 6th Fleet.

So what I am saying here is the 6th Fleet presently can meet its mission and, second, we shall be prepared to increase its strength in the event that its position of overall strength is threatened by the actions of other powers who take another position in the area than we do.

Considerable concern, I find, has arisen among many of the NATO nations, the major nations and the smaller NATO nations, as a result of some comments by political figures in the United States as well as some of those commenting upon the American role in the world, that the United States might not meet its NATO responsibilities and was on the verge of reducing its contribution to NATO. I stated categorically to the NATO Commanders, and I do here publicly again, that the United States will, under no circumstances, reduce, unilaterally, its commitment to NATO. Any reduction in NATO forces, if it occurs, will only take place on a multilateral basis and on the basis of what those who are lined up against the NATO forces—what they might do. In other words, it would have to be on a mutual basis.

To summarize, with regard to NATO, we will maintain our present strength. We will not reduce it unilaterally. We will continue to talk with our NATO allies with regard to how, overall, we can meet our responsibilities together.

Moving from NATO now to the Mideast, I found in the conversations that I had with all of the leaders that I met—and, as you know, they covered not only our allies and friends but also they covered President Tito of Yugoslavia, a nonaligned state—I found general agreement on these propositions: strong support for the American cease-fire initiative; and, second, I found that, as far as that cease-fire initiative is concerned, there is not the pessimism that we sense in some quarters as a result of what happened in Jordan and as a result of the new instability that inevitably will follow the death of President Nasser, that the cease-fire initiative days were numbered.

But I think we have to separate our peace initiative into two parts: one, the cease-fire part of the initiative; and, second, that part of the initiative that has to do with negotiation.

With regard to negotiation, the prospect for immediate negotiation between the two or three or other parties involved on either side—as far as those prospects are concerned—they are, at this time, not bright because of the introduction of missiles into the 50-kilometer zone.

The reaction of the Israelis, of course, has been not to participate in negotiation. However, we are going to continue to attempt to get the negotiating process started and, of course, in the process, to do what we can diplomatically to see that there are no further violations of the standstill, and dealing, of course, diplomatically, with the violations that have occurred.

On the cease-fire side of it, however, I think I can say quite unequivocally that neither party—and by neither party I say neither the Israelis on the one side or the other nations, the U.A.R. and others involved in the cease-fire initiative—will gain by breaking the cease-fire. That is why we believe that our acting and talking strongly in behalf of an extension of the cease-fire for another 90 days is the proper course and that it has considerable chance to succeed. Any party at this time that would break the cease-fire initiative would have very, very little support in the world. It would be acting alone against the whole weight of the world public opinion and also against the public opinion, I should say, in the United States.

Another comment with regard to the Mideast that I think should be made: We tend in the United States to see our role as being predominant and, of course, it is because of our strength. On the other hand, we must recognize, and this trip brought this home to me and underlined it again, that there are other powers in the Mediterranean area that can play, that are playing, and that must play, a significant role in the peacekeeping area.

I had the best, most extensive conversation with Pope Paul that I have had. It covered the whole range of world affairs, particularly the Far East, the situation in the Mid-east, problems, of course, in the underdeveloped world, and specifically in the humanitarian area, his great concern about our prisoners of war. We will continue these contacts because it is extremely important that the spiritual and moral leadership which Pope Paul has exercised be leadership not that will follow our policy or we follow his, but there must be understanding and should be understanding with regard to what our aims and goals are.

With regard to Spain, I believe that the year 1970 marks a period in which we can say now that Spain, economically, is rapidly moving into the front ranks of Europe and will be moving into the front ranks of the world, and when economically and politically, Spain's isolation from the rest of Europe will be drawing to an end.

I think this is a healthy development. It is a constructive development. The United States has close and friendly relations with Spain. We will continue them, as I indicated when I was in Spain. I was very impressed, as was the Secretary of State, with the members of the Spanish Cabinet and the Spanish Government that we met, a group of young, vigorous, new leaders who are providing for Spain leadership in the economic, political, and diplomatic field that will be extremely constructive in the years ahead.

However, there is an important element that should be added to this. We need to have, of course, negotiations, if possible, with those who might be our potential opponents, and we need, of course, the best possible contact with nonaligned nations. That is why the visit to Yugoslavia I thought was particularly important and very helpful.

For example, Yugoslavia is a country that has moved, shall we say, more into a nonaligned role than any of the other Communist states. They have a completely different view about the kind of political and economic system that they want. They have a different view, for example, about our policy in the Far East than we have. They have some differences with regard to our policy in the Mideast. But once we consider those differences, we then must lay beside them those areas where we have similarity and agreement. Here we find that we share with them a desire to avoid any major power confrontation because they know that if such confrontation and explosion

No nation in the world will be nonaligned if the major powers do have a confrontation. They will become casualties, innocent casualties—have it that way if we must put it that way, but that is what the case must be.

Another point that a country like Yugoslavia particularly shares with us is our policy of nonintervention in their affairs. We respect their right to be nonaligned. We respect their right to have the kind of a system which they have chosen. And the fact that we do not interfere in their affairs, and that in working for economic cooperation, and in some cases, even diplomatic cooperation, there is no danger of interference or domination on our part.

I think I can sum up basically on the entire trip in this respect: As we moved in the period of 6 days through these four countries, we first found that among people generally, the United States has a great number of friends. It was, to me, very heartening to find very heart-warming welcomes in Italy, in Yugoslavia, in Spain, and, of course, in Ireland and in the other areas that we have had a chance to visit.

1335

Some of you have remarked about the fact that I have lost cufflinks on occasions, including a pair in New Orleans a few weeks ago. This is the first time that anybody who has shaken hands with me has broken a cufflink in the process. But they were friendly handshakes and I enjoyed it very, very much.

With that I will conclude my remarks. I think if Ron could arrange it, I have met those of the press here, we could meet maybe the members of the Irish press. I don't mind that handshake thing. I have gotten mine worked up a little bit. I am a little stronger.

Thank you very much.

NOTE: The President spoke at 6:35 p.m. local time. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

## Timahoe, County Kildare, Ireland

### Remarks of the President, Ambassador John D. J. Moore, and Mrs. Denis Goodbody. October 5, 1970

**AMBASSADOR MOORE.** Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon, it is a great honor to present Mr. and Mrs. Denis Goodbody. Mrs. Goodbody is the historian of the Society of Friends in Ireland and has a presentation to make to you, sir.

**MRS. GOODBODY.** Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon, we welcome you to Timahoe and to this quiet hillside where ancestors lie. We also welcome your cousin, Miss West, whose writings are known, Quaker writings, are known all over the world and appreciated.

It is my privilege to ask you to accept on behalf of the Historical Committee of the Society of Friends a small memento of your visit to this part. This takes the form of a replica of the documents concerning your ancestors, the Milhous family.

We have the will and the inventory of your sixth great-grandfather. We have the registers by which their names are known throughout the centuries, but not least we have the certificate given by Timahoe Friends to Friends in Pennsylvania in order to give your ancestor a welcome in Pennsylvania. This certificate went with him and we have the copy.

These documents are usually started by the words, "Loving Friends," and it is in that form I perhaps may address you now.

We hope that the courage, the faith, and the integrity of your ancestors will help you through the sorrow, the trials, the anxieties, and the sadness which come to every man in your great office.

Mr. President.

### THE PRESIDENT. Ambassador Moore, Mrs. Goodbody, Mr. Goodbody, and all of your friends from Timahoe and County Kildare:

I wish to express my appreciation for the documents that have been presented here which will remind us in the years ahead of our background in this, what has been very properly described, this peaceful Irish countryside.

And I am very proud that there is now this plaque here, which indicates that on this ground so many years ago, as a matter of fact, three centuries ago, my ancestors and Jessamyn West's ancestors once lived here before coming to the Pennsylvania colony in Philadelphia just before the war of the American Revolution.

I think, too, that on this occasion I would want to express my appreciation to all of you who have come out to welcome us.

As I went down the line, I met some of the children, a number of the older people. I asked if this was a school day. The children seemed to be delighted that they have the day off. So that is a good reason for our coming. At least you could come out.

But really what impressed us, as has impressed us every place we have been on our visit to Ireland, is the warmth and friendship of the Irish people. I have been to over 65 countries in my period of public service and in private life. I have had many friendly welcomes. I can assure you there is nothing that equals an Irish welcome, really nothing.

And I hope that I can convey in my own meetings with people around the world some of the warmth, the goodwill, the wit, the friendship that characterizes the Irish people and characterizes also, I trust, my own Irish background.

I, too, want to say that, as you know, I am a member of the Society of Friends and this cemetery is in a spot where once there was a church where the Society of

Friends in Timahoe worshiped. I think it is not insignificant to mention a historical fact that all people in Ireland would know, that many people outside of Ireland would not know, and that was that the Irish Quakers who lived in Timahoe and in County Kildare were always treated equally, with complete tolerance, by the Irish Catholics who were in the great majority.

I met recently with Cardinal Cooke in New York, and he was telling me about the fact that that was one of the great Irish traditions that while it was a predominantly Catholic country, that it was a country which had understanding and tolerance for people of differing religious views. This is something which, of course, the world should know.

It is a very great Irish tradition and I am very proud that I, being in what we might call from a religious standpoint, the minority of Irish Quakers, can, nevertheless, say that I am of a tradition in which whether we happen to be Protestants or Catholics or Quakers or some other faith, that in Ireland we always receive a welcome which is from the heart and which comes from all the people here, whatever their religion may be.

One final point I would make on this occasion, which I am sure you would think would be appropriate, appropriate whatever our religious background may be, but particularly appropriate because of the presentation that has been made on behalf of the Irish Quakers to me as one who happens to be of the Quaker faith, now holding the office of President of the United States.

As Jessamyn West, who has written so eloquently about the background of our family, has said, the Quakers have a passion for peace. My mother was a pacifist. My grandmother was a pacifist. Jessamyn's mother was, and her grandmother, her grandfather, going back as far as we know.

And I know that if they were here today that they would reflect the views that I am now going to express.

Their greatest desire for anyone in their family, who held an office, would be whether he could make a contribution to peace.

Needless to say, as the President of the United States, I have many responsibilities and many goals, not just personal goals, but primarily goals for our country. But I can assure you, the greatest purpose and the greatest goal I have and the greatest purpose and the greatest goal the American people have, is to play a role to bring peace, not only to America, but to all the world.

That is what we want. In our foreign policy after World War II, we have great power. We have great responsibilities that go with that power. If we do not meet those responsibilities, the chances for people who do not have power throughout the world to grow up in independence and freedom, will be completely wiped out on this earth.

And so the people of the United States will meet their responsibility, the responsibility they did not ask for, but that we have, to defend not only ourselves, but also when asked to do so and when it seems to be in their interests

and our interests, to come to the defense of others. But let us understand that: The armies and the navies and the air forces of the United States of America exist for the purpose of preventing war and building peace. They are peace forces and that is the purpose of our policy.

And I can say if there was one message in this quiet peaceful valley, in this place with all of the history that is here, that I would like to leave to the people here who have welcomed us so graciously and that I would like to convey to the people of Ireland and the people of America and the people of the world, it is very simply this: The United States of America, its President, want nothing more in this last third of the 20th century than to develop policies that will make it possible for the world to have what it has not had for all of this century, and that is a full generation of peace.

If we have that, we can build on from that, and, if we make that contribution, then I can truly say that I have lived up to what I think my ancestors, who worshiped in this place so many centuries ago, would have wanted one of theirs to be, if he ever got to the high office that I now hold.

And so, as I leave you, let me say that I came here with very great feeling. I deeply appreciated the welcome that we received, and I leave inspired by the thought that this was a peaceful community. It is a peaceful community. The people here want peace for themselves and peace for their nation and peace for the world.

And I can assure you that the President of the United States, whose roots go way back to this community, has that same purpose, that same goal, that same ideal, and will do everything that he can to end the wars which presently plague the world and to build a peace in which all people can grow up in friendship, in tolerance of the views of others, and particularly in the kind of a world that I see around here—good people, friendly people, meeting those who come from afar, with the friendly smile, a firm handshake.

Thank you very much.

And also, may I express my appreciation to the Artane Boys Band. weren't they great over there? Did you hear them play? Let's give them a hand.

NOTE: The exchange of remarks began at 10:35 a.m. local time. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

Dublin, Ireland

*Exchange of Toasts Between the President and Prime Minister John M. Lynch at a State Luncheon at Dublin Castle. October 5, 1970*

PRIME MINISTER LYNCH. I ask you to rise with me to honor this toast to the President of the United States of America, Mr. Nixon.

1337

THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to rise with me as I propose a toast to the President of Ireland.

To the President of Ireland.

PRIME MINISTER LYNCH. Mr. President and Mrs. Nixon, Your Grace, Your Eminence, Your Grace, Excelleniences, ladies and gentlemen:

We count it as a high honor to have here with us in Ireland you, Mr. President, the President of the United States of America, and you, Mrs. Nixon, the First Lady of that great land.

We are proud that you have come, as it were, to visit family. Mrs. Nixon's name proclaims her Irish ancestry. The name of Ryan goes back to the earliest period in our history and continued to be famous in later times.

Every Irish school child learns the 17th century poem in Irish which tells of the adventures and exploits of Eamonn Ó Riain, Eamonn of the Hill, or Eamonn on Chnuic. The poem begins: "Cé he sin amuigh a bhfuil faobhar ar a ghuth ag réabadh mo dhorais dúnta."

Translated it means, "Who is that outside beating on the door with anger in his voice?"

Mrs. Nixon does not need to beat on any doors because they are all open to her. We all know that there is no anger in her voice.

You, Mr. President, have today visited the place where some of your ancestors met to pray and were finally laid to rest.

In that quiet place in County Kildare, the Religious Society of Friends have for centuries played a distinguished if quiet role in our community. It was in my own city of Cork that William Penn wrote a famous letter calling for toleration and freedom of conscience.

It is probably not very well known, Mr.'President, but William Penn sailed from Cork before he established and founded Pennsylvania. But I am sure the President knows because it was to Pennsylvania that Thomas Milhous went when he settled in the United States. The Milhous family lived in many parts of our country from Antrim to Kildare before some of them emigrated, like so many other Irish people, to America.

In their new home, they did not forget Ireland, and now seven generations later a descendant, one of their descendants, being the highest official in America, remembers the land that they, his ancestors, came from.

We in Ireland remember the devotion of these same friends to Ireland in a time of great tribulation for this nation, the time of the great famine of the last century. Headed by Jacob Harvey, a citizen of New York, an Irishman and himself a Friend, they organized an appeal to which the United States replied with the generosity that is characteristic of that great land.

Not far from where the Milhouses lived in Timahoe was the homestead of another family, the Tones, from whence sprang Wolfe Tone who first dreamed of an Irish Republic and gave his life for the cause. When Tone was just 8 years old, just 200 years ago, Benjamin Franklin

was a guest in the Irish Parliament House, which is just down the street from where we are now.

"I found them," he said, "disposed to be friends of America in which I endeavored to confirm them with the expectation that our growing weight might in time be thrown into their scale."

The American war of independence in which there fought many Irishmen from north and south, and the establishment of the American Republic, kindled in many lands hopes for a democratic society.

Tone failed in his attempt to help set up such a society here. "Washington succeeded where Kosciusko failed," as he said to the tribunal that sentenced him to death.

But his dream lived and when an independent Irish State was achieved, its Constitution, like that of other European countries, drew inspiration from American example.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, cooperation between Ireland and the United States in many fields. There was one little feature of cooperation, one little exercise in cooperation, which yesterday failed and cast a certain gloom over our country. That is the failure of Nijinsky to win the Arc de Triomphe. It is an American-owned, Irish-trained horse.

Had he won yesterday, he would have had a 100 percent record in his particular field of horse racing. But not very long ago there was another great Irish horse named Arthur, and we were then and still are proud of his achievements.

There was one occasion when the despondency which might now pervade our country because of the defeat of Nijinsky was jubilant in that he defeated his great rival in England named Milhous.

However, Mr. President, something more serious. In your time, America and mankind have reached out into the stars but you, yourself, have reminded us in memorable phrase, and I quote, that "however far we reach into the cosmos, our destiny lies not in the stars but on earth itself, in our own hands, in our own hearts."

Like you, and like America, the people of Ireland too seek peace, again to use your words, Mr. President, "with compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the peoples of this earth to choose their own destiny."

Mr. President, we interpret your visit to Europe and to Ireland at this time, as being fully consistent with the import of those words that you spoke at your inauguration. We see your mission as one of peace. Your important and impressive statement today at Timahoe, where your forefathers came from, gives this emphasis. The opportunity you spoke of at your inauguration is also a right, the right of the small nations of the world, as well as of the great.

Ireland, like other small nations, has asserted this right. Many of them, like our country, have played their part in promoting peace and freedom and in the elimination

1338

of fear throughout the world. Though they have exercised an influence far beyond their material strength, far beyond what would appear to be justified by that strength, they look, as we do, to America, and the other world powers, to uphold their right to choose their own destiny, their right to freedom and peace.

Mr. President, we know that this is your commitment and America's purpose.

In welcoming you and Mrs. Nixon to Ireland, we are expressing once again the friendship of the spirit that unites the people of Ireland and the United States of America. May you come many, many times again amongst us.

THE PRESIDENT. *Mr. Taoiseach,¹ Your Eminence, Your Grace, Your Excellencies, friends of Ireland and friends of America:*

I wish to express on behalf of all of us from the United States today, our appreciation to the Prime Minister and Mrs. Lynch for their hospitality at this very gracious and splendid luncheon, and also to express our feeling as we complete our trip to Ireland and a trip to Europe on this occasion.

As I listened to the eloquent words of the Prime Minister, I thought, of course, of those bonds that keep our two countries so closely united in so many areas of the world. While sometimes the tendency of American politicians to try to trace their ancestry to Ireland is looked upon as being somewhat strained a bit, I can assure you that in these days we will do anything that will help us win, and I think that helps us win.

However, Mrs. Nixon is very proud of her Irish ancestry. Her father's father was born in this country. And I am very proud of my Irish ancestry, which goes back many centuries and which is attested to not only by the Irish Historical Society, but also by my really more famous cousin, more famous than I, Jessamyn West, who is here today and who wrote about the Irish Quakers.

But rather than simply speaking in terms of what we as individuals owe to this country, I would like to tell you what America owes to Ireland and its Irish heritage. I speak first in terms now of our official family in this administration, as distinguished from the personal family to which I have already referred.

We have on this trip with us one of the most distinguished members of our Cabinet, one of the most farsighted leaders in the social, economic, and political field that America has produced, Dr. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He doesn't have to search as hard as I have to to find how quickly he came from Ireland.

I also have as a member of my staff—and I think anyone who is in service would say an absolutely indispensable member of my staff—my personal executive secretary, Rose Mary Woods. Both her mother and father were Irish.

So, if there is any question about my straying from the path now and then, she brings me back.

¹ Gaelic term for Prime Minister.

I would like to point up, too, something that the Secretary of State reminds me of before we arrived in Ireland, about the special qualities that we like to find in government service, and particularly in the diplomatic service, and that sometimes we find in one who has an Irish background. The Secretary was attempting to find the ideal man to be the Assistant Secretary in charge of information for the State Department. He was looking for a man, he said, who was both warm and cool. That sounds like a contradiction, but we can work it out, I can assure you. A man that was both warm and cool, so that he would be warm in his relations with the members of the press and others that he met around the world, but also cool in any crisis that might come up.

So, for someone who was warm he had to find someone with an Irish background. And why not a Collins, a Michael Collins, in this instance, who was Irish on both sides of his family, with all of the warmth and the graciousness of the Irish personality? Then how do you take that warm, Irish Michael Collins and make him cool? You make him an astronaut and send him to the moon.

So, we have an Irish astronaut as the man with the top position in our Foreign Service for the purpose of being the warm, cool man that we need in a crisis.

You spoke, Mr. Prime Minister, of this being a small country. It is a small country, but it is a great people. We are a large country, but we are a large country made up of many great peoples. And when we think of the great peoples that make up America, we are very proud of what those who have come from Ireland and who are descended from those who came from Ireland, what they contributed in many, many areas—the areas of business are well known, men like John Mulcahy—the areas that represent the politics, where the Irish seem to have a particular capability.

All I can say, Mr. Prime Minister, is I think politics are hard in our country, but in Ireland, when you have to run against somebody who is Irish all the time, it must be impossible. I have had some experience that way myself.

We think, of course, of the individuals, we think of their work in various fields. But we think primarily, of course, of the spirit, the spirit that you referred to, the spirit that I sensed as I traveled through this land yesterday and today, and a spirit that is very much needed in the world today, and particularly needed in our country with its responsibilities of world leadership, warm, friendly, with that ability to have a sense of humor even when things are very, very difficult. And the Irish have all of these capacities. They have also stamina, character, a deep religious faith. These are qualities that make a great people. These are qualities that have contributed enormously to America. They are qualities that make this small country a great country.

We measure a nation today not in terms of simply the number of its people, or the size of its armaments, but in the quality of its spirit, the kind of people it produces, the quality of its leadership.

1339

I think of the Prime Minister. I studied a little bit about his background. It impressed me very much. It impressed me because when I was in school, I was very interested in sports. I went out for everything—football, basketball—and never made the team. He was the champion in Irish hurling, and I understand that is one of the most rugged sports that we can possibly invent.

So, that impressed me. But what impressed me even more, was that in the field of politics he had never lost an election. So, these qualities came to mind. But others, of course, that are even more important than these, which are basically somewhat superficial, the quality of that spirit that has seen this people and this land through centuries of what to most people perhaps would have been a hopeless situation, and in which despite the dis-appointments, the difficulties, wars, famines, and oppression, the spirit of the people stayed strong. The sense of humor stayed strong. The ability to stand proud, dignified in the world, regardless of what the wealth might be or what the power might be—these are the attributes that have earned for those of Irish background in America the highest respect and that earn for Ireland, this nation, the respect of the world.

I would refer also to Ireland, the new Ireland that we see today. I am delighted to see the progress that is developing.

I am delighted to see that the emigration which we, of course, have been beneficiaries of in America has now finally leveled off so that the nation will have its opportunity to grow again.

And I am delighted, too, to see that this nation is playing a very significant and helpful role in the world. We are aware of the fact that in the peacekeeping forces of the world, whether it is in very difficult areas, like the Congo, the Mideast, or Cyprus, that the Irish forces have been in the forefront.

We are most grateful, not only we in the United States but other nations in the United Nations, for the fact that the Irish, this nation, Ireland, have met their responsibility in such a forthcoming and effective manner.

So, consequently, as we complete our trip through Europe and finish it in Ireland, I would end on these notes:

First, a sense of very great pride that I can claim an Irish background and that my wife can.

Second, that sense of very great appreciation expressed on behalf of all of the American people for what those from Ireland have contributed to our country, a country that is made up of many, many people.

And, finally, a recognition of the fact that the Ireland of today, the Ireland that I see, is, though it is a small country, potentially a great country because it has a great people.

As I leave Ireland, I know that its future is assured, that it will move forward and progress, and we in the United States hope that in the years ahead, in our position of enormous world responsibility, we can develop those policies that will make it possible for that progress to

occur for Ireland and every other nation in the world in a period of peace.

The Prime Minister has very generously referred to the foreign policy of this country. I realize that our Nation is subject to very great criticism in the world because with our responsibilities naturally will come decisions that sometimes will not meet with approval by all peoples.

But I can assure you, as I said at Timahoe today, coming as I do from a background which is deeply dedicated, totally dedicated, to peace, there is nothing that I want, nothing that the American people want more, in this period in the world's history when the mantle of leadership is ours in the free world, not because we worked for it or asked for it, but because of what happened after World War II—there is nothing more that we want than to exercise our responsibilities in a way that will bring peace to the world, bring it not just for the next election, not just for the next 10 years.

It is easy to end wars; it is difficult to build a real peace. What we want to do is to build a real peace, a lasting peace, a peace that the people of Ireland, the people of America, all the people of the world, can truly enjoy.

Thank you.

NOTE: The exchange of toasts began at 3:25 p.m. local time. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

## Dublin, Ireland

### Remarks of the President and Prime Minister John M. Lynch Upon the President's Departure From Dublin Airport. October 5, 1970

#### PRIME MINISTER LYNCH. Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon:

The time has come far too quickly for you to leave Ireland and for Ireland to say goodby to you and to your gracious First Lady.

But then we appreciate the pressures of your office that allow you such little time, while we are indeed particularly happy to have had the opportunity of welcoming you to this country on this, your first visit as President of the United States of America.

It is with sincere regret that we now say farewell to you and I assure you that an Irish welcome will always await you should you return to this land which has had so many connections of blood and friendship with the people of the United States.

We have been honored by your presence here for the past 3 day as President of the country which has a proud record of democratic government which has contributed so much and so generously to the improvement of the condition of mankind throughout the world.

We are doubly proud of that achievement, Mr. President, because of the important part played by our countrymen for generations in all facets of American life.

1340

One of your ancestors, Mr. President, Thomas Mil-
hous, left this country as so many thousands of others did,
and found in the new world opportunities and fresh hori-
zons that were denied at the time to those who remained
at home.

You can appreciate, therefore, our special pride and
satisfaction at having had you with us in a sovereign
democratic Ireland in your capacity as leader of the
world's greatest democracy.

Your friendliness and good will towards the people of
Ireland has impressed us all deeply. We trust you have
enjoyed a relaxed stay amongst us and we assure you that
your visit, short though it has been, has improved still
further the already excellent relations that exist between
our two countries.

History has united us on many occasions and the
future, no less than the past, will prove, I am sure, that
our countries have very wide areas of common interest
over and above the natural sympathy that lies between
our people.

Our best wishes go to you in the demanding task that
faces you in leading the American people through a pe-
riod so fraught with so much danger to all mankind.

You have shown by your record in government and
in the Presidential office, that you are equal to that task
and we hope that you return to the United States with
spirit and vigor refreshed by your contact with the Irish
people.

We look forward to seeing you back in our country
soon again. The door is always open to you whenever you
wish to return and the Irish people will always have a
Céad Mile Fáilte in their hearts for you and your family.

On behalf of the people and Government of Ireland,
may I wish you a safe journey to your homeland and
success and good fortune in the future.

Slán Agus Beannacht. (Health and blessings, God-speed.)

THE PRESIDENT. *Mr. Prime Minister:*

I wish to express my very deep appreciation to you
and to all of those in Ireland who have given us such a
warm welcome during our stay here.

When I arrived just 3 days ago I remember saying that
if I had any time, a day off or a holiday, I could think
of no better place to stay than in Ireland.

After having had that time, not all of it off, but some
of it, I can recommend to all of my countrymen and any
others in the world if you have a day off or more, come
to Ireland. It is a wonderful place to come.

I also on this occasion want to express my appreciation
to you and members of your Government for the oppor-
tunity we have had for some very serious talks on bilateral
problems and other matters that concern us both as mem-
bers of the world community with a deep desire for peace.

Our relations have always been good. I am sure they
will be better in the years ahead and better because of the
understanding on a personal basis that we have been able
to develop on this trip.

Also I appreciated the fact that on this trip we had
the opportunity not only to meet with members of your
Government and with you personally, but also that I was
allowed the opportunity to meet with members of my
own staff on matters of great importance.

I would simply say that as I leave Ireland and when
we look back on this stay, I am sure that these meetings,
all of them, the ones that we have had with you and the
ones we have had with our own staff, will be recorded
as a period when we made a significant contribution not
only to better understanding between our two peoples,
but to the whole great ideal that we both desire, a peace-
ful world.

This is our purpose. It is your purpose. And I can
assure you and all the members of your Government that
in our meetings here we have worked toward that pur-
pose, and we believe most constructively.

And so finally, now that we leave, I can only say that
I appreciated your invitation to return. We shall return,
either for a holiday or perhaps on another visit.

And may I reciprocate by saying that we look forward
to the time when you and Mrs. Lynch will come to visit
us in the United States. We hope that we can give you a
really fine Irish welcome.

Thank you.

Andrews Air Force Base

Remarks of the President and the Vice President
Following the President's Return to Washington
From Europe. October 5, 1970

THE VICE PRESIDENT. Mr. President, the Prime Min-
ister of Ireland described his as a land of 100,000 wel-
comes when he greeted you there. As we watched you
during your trip through the wonderful achievement of
satellite photography, we found that those 100,000 wel-
comes were repeated many times as you visited those
ancient European capitals and watched you receive the
tumultuous accolades in Madrid and also in Belgrade.

But, Mr. President, I don't think there was anything
in your trip that gave your fellow countrymen quite the
same degree of pride and identity as your visit to the 6th
Fleet in the Mediterranean, to the gallant officers and
men who patrol the southern flank of NATO. I
think it was completely clear that the words you had to
say there indicated that the United States intends to
stand fast in its commitments to its allies. But I think

1341

the degree of restraint and forbearance and the statesmanship you displayed not only in your remarks that were delivered formally, but also in the person-to-person encounters you had as you went among the people of those great countries of Europe to which so many of us owe our heritage, indicated that America truly has a sense of dedication and purpose in the world.

I believe that as a result of your trip, Mr. President, our relations in that critical and very touchy area have been vastly improved and I think that the Congress and the people of the United States join me in this assurance to you that in no case have we felt quite the same sense of confidence in the vast experience that you bring to the Presidency and in your method of conducting the foreign affairs of our country.

I am very pleased to also state that we, your fellow countrymen, were immensely impressed with the de-meanor and warmth of our gracious First Lady as she went about the important business that she had to conduct in those capitals.

So, Mr. President, we are awfully glad you are back—many of us are very glad you are back—and we hope that the profitable experience will improve the climate not only in the Mediterranean but restore a sense of peace and purpose in the entire globe.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Vice President, I wish to express my very grateful appreciation to you for your very warm words of welcome, and I particularly want to express my appreciation to the Members of the Cabinet, the Members of the Congress, and the Members of the Diplomatic Corps for taking the time and the trouble, along with all of the rest of you, to come out to Andrews Air Force Base to welcome us home.

First, the United States, through its 6th Fleet and along with its NATO allies through its NATO strength, now maintains the kind of strength that is needed to meet the role that is assigned to the 6th Fleet and to NATO. That is to deter potential aggression in the Mediterranean area and in Europe. It is vitally important that we maintain that strength, the strength of the 6th Fleet and the strength of NATO.

I am convinced that these are peace forces in the best sense of the word and, therefore, must be maintained and must not be unilaterally reduced.

Second, I was very encouraged to find that all of the leaders that I talked to in every country strongly approved our Mideast peace initiative. They approved the peace initiative and they would strongly disapprove of any breaking of the cease-fire.

Third, I was encouraged to find on this trip, as compared with my trip in February of last year, much greater understanding among the leaders that I met of our policy in Vietnam. They believed that the United States is making very significant progress in achieving our goal of a just peace in Vietnam. They are correct. I believe that events in the future will demonstrate that they are correct in this appraisal.

There is one other observation I would like to make that relates to something you, Mr. Vice President, said. You remarked about the welcomes we received. They were most heartwarming—the enormous turnout in Spain, for example, the welcome we had in Rome, and then on Thursday at Zagreb, Yugoslavia, and again today, earlier today, in Ireland—hundreds of thousands of people in those two areas standing in the rain to welcome us.

As one world leader pointed out to me when I met him on this occasion, he said, "You can order the people out to give some visitor a welcome, but you can't make them smile in the rain."

This was very impressive. But I think it is important that I indicate to all of you who are listening, whether here in person or on television or radio, what that welcome meant, the welcome in every one of the countries that we had, was overwhelmingly friendly.

I do not suggest that there are not differences of opinion with regard to some U.S. policies abroad, but one fundamental factor that I have found in all of my trips abroad, that the Secretary of State also reports, that you, Mr. Vice President, report, is this: Whatever differences world leaders may have about some of our policies, they recognize the fact that the United States with its great power does not threaten the independence of any nation in the world.

No nation in the world fears that the United States will use its power to infringe upon its independence or to interfere in its affairs. That cannot be said of some other nations. We can proudly say it because it happens to be true. The power of the United States of America if necessary will be used to defend freedom but never to destroy it.

1342

of young people. As I saw the hundreds of thousands of people in the motorcade routes in Italy and Spain and Yugoslavia and again in Ireland, I saw also hundreds of thousands of young people. I thought of the young generation in our own country. I thought of the young people in other countries. I thought of the young people in the countries of Asia and Africa and Latin America that I visited—and what we all want for them.

What we want for them is what this world has not had in this century, a full generation of peace.

I believe that the policies of the United States of America are working toward that end. We are dedicated to that end. I believe and I hope that history will record that this is the case, that this trip may have contributed substantially to that goal—a generation of peace for America and for all of the people in the world.

Thank you.

NOTE: The exchange of remarks began at 8:30 p.m., at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland.

## The President's Statement on Southeast Asia

*The President's Remarks to Reporters Announcing His Plans for a Comprehensive Statement.*

October 6, 1970

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated, please.

First, I wanted to say to those who did not go on the trip that I hope you had as relaxed a week as we did. And second, I know that there has been, of course, a great deal of interest in the subject of any new proposal that might be made on the negotiating front in Southeast Asia, and particularly on Vietnam.

For the past several weeks within the administration, we have been having discussions of our negotiating position. You may recall that in California I met with Ambassador Bunker, and when we were in Ireland we had an extended discussion with Ambassador Bruce and Ambassador Habib, and got their assessment of the situation and their recommendations.

Based on the discussions that we have had and based also on the recommendations that we have received from those within the administration, who have considered this matter, I have decided to make a major statement on this subject at 9 o'clock Wednesday night. Those who may want to cover it on television and radio will be able to do so.

The statement is one that has been prepared only after very thorough consideration of all the issues that are involved in our negotiating position. It is a statement that has been discussed with the Government of Vietnam, the Government of Cambodia, and the Government of Laos, and has the approval of those governments as well, of course, as the approval of the Government of the United States.

I will brief the Cabinet at 5 o'clock on Wednesday; I will brief a bipartisan group of legislative leaders at 6 o'clock. Secretary Rogers will be briefing the foreign governments who expressed interest in this area or who have interest in the area, during the course of the day.

Ron Ziegler will work out a convenient time for members of the press—the writing press and the television press—for two briefings by Dr. Kissinger that will take place in plenty of time for your deadlines.

A word about what the statement will involve: Now, there has been speculation, and I understand that, as to what move should be made, will be made, by our Government at this time. I would suggest that your speculation, of course, can continue. I would expect it to. But I would simply give you these guidelines. I naturally will not indicate the substance of the statement until I make it.

First, it will be the most comprehensive statement ever made on this subject since the beginning of this very difficult war. Comprehensive geographically—it will not be limited to Vietnam. It will cover all of Southeast Asia. Also comprehensive in terms of subject matter. It will not be limited to any one of the particular subjects that you have mentioned in your speculation, but will cover all of the major issues that are involved in the Southeast Asian area.

Finally, I would like to indicate that we do not consider this to be a propaganda gimmick. We are not saying it simply for the record. An indication of our attitude in that respect is that I have instructed Ambassador Bruce to lay this proposal on the table at the Paris Conference on Thursday morning when he meets with the negotiators from North Vietnam and the Vietcong.

That completes my statement and I will now get back and see if I can get the statement ready so that you can make your deadlines.

Thank you.

NOTE: The President spoke shortly after 11:20 a.m. in the Briefing Room at the White House.

Prior to the President's remarks, Ronald L. Ziegler, Press Secretary to the President, announced that the President would meet with reporters to make an announcement but would not take questions from them.

For the text of the President's statement on the new initiative for peace in Southeast Asia, see p. 1349 of this issue.

## Emergency Community Facilities Act of 1970

*Statement by the President Upon Allowing the Bill To Become Law Without His Signature.*

October 6, 1970

Today H.R. 17795, which authorizes the expenditure of $1 billion for construction of sewer and water lines, becomes law without my signature. I have not signed this measure because I very deeply disapprove of it.

Thank you, President Nixon, for being today
in Italy, in the Mediterranean, on a mission of
justice and peace.

President Nixon

White House press release (Rome, Italy) dated September 27

Mr. President, Your Excellencies, ladies and
gentlemen: It is a very great honor for me, Mr.
President, personally to be welcomed again to
Rome, and you very appropriately have pointed
out that to begin our trip to Europe in Rome is
certainly a proper step to take, because as we
come to Rome on this occasion we have an oppor-
tunity to renew discussions with you and mem-
bers of your Government and to continue the
cooperation and the friendship that has char-
acterized the relations between our two countries
for so many years.

I shall have the opportunity, too, to renew
discussions with Pope Paul on international
matters of common interest, and I shall have the
opportunity to visit the American 6th Fleet
and our NATO commanders as well, yours and
ours, and to discuss there one of the primary
indispensable principles of American foreign
policy. And that principle is to maintain the
necessary strength in the Mediterranean to pre-
serve the peace against those who might
threaten the peace.

The Mediterranean is the cradle of many
great civilizations of the past, and we are deter-
mined that it shall not be the starting place of
great wars in the future.

Italy, which has the longest coastline of any
nation in the Mediterranean, has, understand-
ably, a tremendous stake in peace in the
Mediterranean.

The great Italian patriot Garibaldi, in writ-
ing to Abraham Lincoln in 1863, identified him-
self as among the free children of Columbus.
Mr. President, we in America are proud to
share that common heritage, and as we share
that common heritage of the past, we are proud
to work with you in seeing that that heritage of
freedom for our children will be preserved in
the future.

Thank you.

Partial Text of the President's Remarks,
Leonardo da Vinci Airport, September 28 2

White House press release (Rome, Italy) dated September 28

The President: Which State are you from?

Mr. Morse: Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Speaker: New York City.

The President: We are having an interna-
tional welcome here today.

Speaker: Nice to see you. We were missing
you for 3 weeks. We didn't hear any news.

The President: We were trying to help you
without hurting you. You are all so young. That
is great.

Speaker: We are glad to be back.

The President: How many were ladies, five?

Speaker: Five.

The President: How many men?

Speaker: Twenty-seven men. We had separate
rooms.

Speaker: I don't know if you got this.

The President: Something you wrote to me?

Mr. Freda: On the sixth day, I got clearance
from the Popular Front [for the Liberation of
Palestine]—

The President: Is that your social security
number?

Mr. Freda: Right—to write this for the pas-
sengers and crew.

The President: Great. I probably didn't get it.
I may have it.

Mr. Freda: It didn't go through.

The President: It may be but isn't probably

²The President greeted Americans from hijacked airliners who were en route to New York after having been held hostage in Jordan by Palestinian guerrillas, and afterwards spoke to reporters.

506

Department of State Bulletin

Mr. Freda: We know you were in there buck-
ing for us.

The President: Everybody was. As I said, it
is one of those things that all of the American
people, all of your colleagues at home, were
frustrated about, and yet we wanted to do some-
thing without having something happen to you.

Speaker: The shells were going right over us.
They came very close a couple of times.

The President: Yes, of course, they did.

Speaker: We are so sick of that Red Chinese
jam we had to eat.

The President: Is that what it was? It is a
little better if you could mix some pineapple
with it. That was the only way you could eat it.

I am so glad to see your spirit is good and
that you haven't allowed this experience to make
you feel, you know, frustrated and bitter and
so forth. This is, as we all know, not a part of
life that you look for. But let's say you will look
back on it and say, "Well, I don't want to do it
again, but I wouldn't have missed it." Right?
Have you all signed up for speaking tours?

Speaker: We just want to go back. We just
want to go home.

Speaker: No comment.

The President: We wish you well. I must go.
We are holding up Mr. Saragat, the President
of Italy, for dinner. But we all wanted you to
know that we were behind you and are so glad
you are on your way home.

As you know, we now have guards on planes;
that will be a deterrent. Secretary [of Trans-
portation John A.] Volpe is traveling to a num-
ber of airports on this trip to set up new elec-
tronic devices. You never can be sure.

Let me say this, that as difficult as your ex-
perience has been, what you have done may have
crystallized this issue so that the possibility of
it happening in the future will be reduced.
When that happens, we will give you the credit.

Speaker: Thank you for coming. I have kept
the boarding card. That makes it even more
historic. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Ziegler [Ronald L. Ziegler, Press Secre-
tary to President Nixon]: Sir, what is your
name?

Mr. Freda: My name is George Freda.

The President: He sent this through. It was
sent to the White House. Here is his copy of it.
That is a message that I have not seen yet. But
it probably came to the White House, but
nobody recognized the importance of it.

The President: Enjoy the flight.

Speaker: Thank you very much for coming.

The President: Don't eat too much and don't
drink too much.

Speaker: We did that last night.

The President: Secretary Rogers' people
worked on this.

Secretary Rogers: Ten or twelve of them
stayed up nights, every night, and did a great
job.

The President: They worked through every
diplomatic channel. We had a lot of things go-
ing that you didn't know about.

Reporter: Mr. President, could you tell us
what happened in there, sir?

The President: We had a very moving meet-
ing with the hostages. I say "moving" because
their spirit was so good. They have been through
a very difficult experience, as we all know, be-
cause from day to day they didn't know whether
the next day they would be alive.

I told them that we, of course, had somewhat
of a difficult experience at home, because all of
us, those of us with responsibility in Govern-
ment, wanted to do something. We were nat-
urally terribly frustrated because we realized
that if we did the wrong thing it would cost
them their lives.

November 2, 1970

507

We had to show power, and at the same time,
we had to demonstrate restraint. They told me
that that was exactly the right policy, because
they said that every day they had the feeling
that their captors might do something irra-
tional in the event that we triggered it or some-
body else triggered it.

This, of course, bore out the wisdom of our
policy, and I am glad that we did show the
proper restraint during this period while at the
same time being very firm in our diplomacy and
firm in the demonstration of our military
strength in the event that that became necessary
in that part of the world.

Another thing that impressed me was the fact
that this group of Americans, like so many
groups of Americans, when they come under
duress, they show their best. Whether Ameri-
cans—we say this about our country, I am sure
the Minister [Italian Prime Minister Emilio
Colombo] would say it about his country—
whether they are in a lifeboat at sea, whether
they are lost on a mountain, or whether they are
hostages in a situation like this, they tend to
pull together, not to lose their nerve, to keep up
their spirit.

And they obviously had to select someone to
be somewhat of their spokesman. A young girl
who had grown up in Sudan and who could
speak Arabic—she happened to be of the Jewish
faith, but she could also speak Arabic—became
their intermediary and their spokesman. But
they worked this all out in a very democratic
way within their group.

And throughout they kept up their spirit
and an indication of that was that as I started
to leave, they all held their thumbs up and they
said, "Thumbs up." That is the way we felt, and
that is the way we think the United States
should feel at this time. So, now, I think, as a
result of what the hostages have done, we can
say, "Thumbs up."

I would add one thing. I told them that I
realized that they had been through a terribly
difficult experience, that all of us sympathized
with what they had been through, but that they
would look back on this experience someday and
say they would never want to go through it

again but that they wouldn't have missed it.
And I said, too, that as a result of what they
had been through, I felt that the possibility of
reducing hijackings in the future had been sub-
stantially increased, because the international
community was outraged by these incidents.

Now we have mobilized not only guards on
our planes, but we are developing facilities
throughout the world—I am sending Secretary
Volpe on a tour of European airports on this
trip—better facilities for the purpose of seeing
that people who might be potential hijackers
do not get on planes with weapons or with ex-
plosive material.

So, all in all, I would say that while this ex-
perience was one that was very difficult for the
hostages, it posed problems for us in the United
States, it was one in which those few Americans
came through it with flying colors. We are very
proud of them.

Exchange of Toasts at State Luncheon,
Quirinale Palace, September 28

President Saragat

Mr. President: I am particularly glad to
greet you once again as Italy's welcome guest,
as the supreme representative of a great country
which is our friend and ally.

We have not forgotten how much was done
by the United States of America to liberate
Europe and help her rise again from the ruins
of World War II. We are also aware of how
much the United States is still doing by coop-
erating with us in a defense pact to guarantee
security, detente, and peace on our continent.

You have come to Rome at a time when the
situation in the Middle East is causing grave
concern. Your presence among us shows that
the United States fully appreciates the impor-
tance of the Mediterranean and the seriousness
of the present crisis.

In one of your speeches which made a strong
impact throughout the world, you stated that
our era should not be one of armed confronta-
tion, but one of negotiation. We share that view
and therefore welcomed as an event of major
political significance the presentation of the
Rogers peace plan by the United States and its

508

Department of State Bulletin

We therefore welcome the initiatives taken by the United States to contain the crisis and channel it toward negotiations which would prevent it from degenerating into a broader and more dangerous conflict.

The main objectives to be attained in the Middle East today are beyond all doubt, on the one hand, the respect by all of clearly recognized frontiers and guarantees for the territorial inviolability and political independence of the countries in the region and, on the other hand, a breakthrough toward a rapid, comprehensive, and definitive solution of the problem of the Palestinian refugees.

One reason to hope, in a situation so fraught with danger, lies in the fact that hostilities between Arabs and Israelis have not been resumed as yet. This positive factor should make it possible to reactivate the interrupted negotiations and give a new impetus to Ambassador Jarring's [U.N. Special Representative Gunnar Jarring] peace mission. We believe that it is the right path to follow, though we are aware of the obstacles and difficulties which lie ahead.

Mr. President, we are certain of your determination to serve the cause of peace, and we are grateful to you for it. We want to assure you that we on our own part will spare no effort to promote by our assiduous action, and in every possible way, the achievement of those vital objectives—justice and peace.

As I have said, Italy is making its contribu-

tion to this, and Europe will do likewise—the Europe we are building, of which we have spoken and will speak again, and which we trust will be united, outward-looking, and instrumental to progress and peace.

Mr. President, we know that since European integration began the movement toward unity among peoples of our continent has been viewed with favor and with clear political farsightedness by your great country. We believe that this Europe of ours which is still in the making counts today, as before, on the support of the United States of America, and we are fully aware that our task is to quicken our step so that before very long a new political entity, equal to its economic potential, may be better able to carry out its effective and friendly mission as a steadying and peacemaking element.

### President Nixon

Mr. President and Your Excellencies: It is a very great honor for Mrs. Nixon and me to be received in this historic house and also to have the opportunity to visit Italy again.

As a response to your remarks, Mr. President, I want to say again what I said in our private meetings, both with you yesterday and with the Prime Minister and members of the Government today. I find that whether the issue is European security, the problems of Europe, whether the issue involved is the Mediterranean or the problems of the Mideast, that in areas generally throughout the world we find that our views in the United States are very close to yours. It is very important that this be the case.

We appreciate your references to our Middle peace initiative. However, it is important to point out that that initiative will not succeed unless we look at it in a broader context. We must remember that the issue in the Mideast is not simply one between the two or three countries immediately involved. The issue is much

November 2, 1970

509

broader. It involves the Mediterranean. And when we speak of the Mediterranean, we naturally must speak also of Italy and primarily of Italy, the major country with the longest coastline on the Mediterranean. A sound, strong, independent Italy is essential to any long-term peace in the Mediterranean—peace with the freedom and justice to which you so eloquently referred.

As I stand here to respond to your remarks, I naturally think of the longtime association of our countries, of those historical heritages that we share together.

I recall the words that electrified the world several years ago, in fact many years ago. Those words were: "The Italian navigator has landed in the New World." When we hear that, we might think that the words that I have just quoted were spoken at the time that Christopher Columbus landed in the New World three and a half centuries ago. They could have been spoken then. But the words that I have just referred to were spoken three decades ago in a telephone call from Chicago to Boston, and they referred to another Italian navigator, Enrico Fermi, the man who headed the development of the first controlled use of nuclear power—a man also who had been born in Italy but whom we proudly claimed then as a resident and citizen of the United States.

On this occasion, I particularly want to pay tribute to you, Mr. President, who have spoken for so many years so eloquently, and, it seems to me, so correctly on the great issues which confront the world.

I have been impressed on this visit, as I have been on others, by the fact that when I have met Italian political leaders—whether it is you, Mr. President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister—whenever I talk to them, their views are not parochial. They are not limited to Italy. They are not only involving those immediate problems that we may have between the United States and Italy. But they are European. In fact, they are international and cosmopolitan.

The first man who visited from the United States while he was President was Woodrow Wilson, and that visit occurred, some of you may remember, 51 years ago at the conclusion of World War I. On that occasion, when speaking from Rome, he referred eloquently to what he thought was a new international psychology: What had previously been thought to be theoretical and idealistic had then become practical and necessary. Woodrow Wilson, unfortunately, spoke before his time.

But now, 50 years later, we know that it does become necessary, and we must make it practical, that this new world which the Italian navigator of the 20th century helped to bring into being will be a world which will be used for the progress of man rather than his destruction.

For that reason on this occasion we speak with more feeling than usual of the absolute necessity for the United States to work together with your Government and with the governments of all free nations to see that we maintain the strength that will make possible the institution of an era of negotiation for one of confrontation—because with that strength negotiation will be possible; without that strength negotiation will not be considered to be necessary.

So with those sentiments, Mr. President, may I ask that all of your guests rise and, with me, raise their glasses to the President of Italy: To the President of Italy.

## EXCHANGE OF REMARKS WITH POPE PAUL VI, VATICAN CITY, SEPTEMBER 28

### Pope Paul VI

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated October 12

Mr. President: On the occasion of this journey of yours to Europe, you have wished to pay us a further visit. We have welcomed the opportunity thus afforded us of having a renewed personal contact with you and of expressing to

510

Department of State Bulletin

you once again with even greater insistence our deeply felt paternal concern for the cause of peace—to you who are the leader of a nation on which weighs such a heavy share of responsibility for the present and for the future of the world.

Recent happenings have shown what special need there is at this moment to work for peace. This suffering which war inflicts not only on the combatants but also on innocent persons and on children who have no understanding even of the meaning of the word has been brought visibly before the eyes of all of us, who, however distant we may be, feel almost that we are in the midst of it.

That same God-given intelligence which enables man to destroy is capable also of finding a way of combating the dangers and even of insuring insofar as is humanly possible that they will not come to pass.

This duty belongs in a particular way to those who have a greater power in the world. We are therefore happy to have been able to convey to you, Mr. President, our thoughts on the most suitable means of seeking to reestablish peace where it has been upset and to strengthen it where it exists, among other ways, by favoring friendly and fruitful relations between peoples and the progress of the developing nations as is demanded by justice and human solidarity.

We would like to encourage you, Mr. President, in undertaking this task which, although difficult, is truly worthy of being pursued with decisiveness and generosity.

In the meantime, we give expressions to our personal good wishes, and we invoke upon you,

your family, and all the people of the United States of America the favor and the blessing of the Almighty.

## President Nixon

Your Holiness: I want to express my deep personal appreciation and the appreciation also of the members of our party and of all of the American people for the words you have just spoken and for the very generous reception you have provided for us.

Tonight after I leave the Vatican, I will be flying to sea, and there I shall see the mightiest military force which exists in the world on any ocean.

Today, here in this room, we have had the opportunity to hear expressed a different kind of power—the spiritual power which moves nations and moves men.

I think it is only appropriate to say that the conversations we have had on several occasions—in 1963, 1967, 1969, and now today—have covered the whole range of world problems.

Your Holiness has expressed again your interest, which we also share, of working for peace among all nations, and we particularly appreciate the fact that you have noted the initiative that we have taken in the Mideast for peace in that troubled area.

You also have expressed your concern—a concern we also share—for the well-being of the hundreds of millions of people on this earth who are poor, who live in lands that have very little hope. We will continue our policies of being as generous as we can be in helping them, helping them so that they can help themselves.

We have appreciated also the fact that you have spoken out so eloquently for our prisoners of war, that this issue be separated from the other political issues that may be involved in the very difficult war in Viet-Nam.

But most important, I wish to emphasize that we appreciate the leadership that Your Holiness has given to the cause of good will between men of all races, of all religions, to the cause of peace among all men, even though those nations that they may live in may have different philosophies. We believe that such

November 2, 1970

511

peace is possible. We work toward that end. We appreciate the prayers and the good wishes that you have extended to us.

On this occasion, too, speaking for all of the American people, may I wish you well on your long journey to the Philippines. I know that you will get a very warm and great reception in that land so far away and yet so close to us in the United States because of our background and our history.

We remember your visit to the United States. As we sit here today, I can only say that we hope we shall have the privilege, if your arduous schedule will permit, of having another visit by you to the United States.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT NIXON'S REMARKS ON BOARD THE U.S.S. SARATOGA, SEPTEMBER 29³

White House press release (U.S.S. *Saratoga*) dated September 29

Officers and men of the 6th Fleet: I speak to you in two capacities, first as one who once served in the United States Navy. And I am very proud in that capacity to stand here on the deck of this great carrier and salute the Navy.

I speak also in another capacity, a capacity I had no idea I might hold 25 years ago when I was a very junior officer in the United States Navy, as President and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. In this capacity I express appreciation to all of the men and officers of this great fleet for your service to America—for your service over the years but particularly for your service in the past 2 weeks, which was in the highest tradition of the United States Navy and of our Armed Forces and which also is a demonstration of what the mission of our Navy in the Mediterranean and around the world is at this time in our history.

I have often described our forces, our Navy, Army, and Air Force, as the peace forces of the

world. The 6th Fleet was certainly in that great tradition during this period of tension. The power and the mobility, the readiness of the 6th Fleet in this period was absolutely indispensable in keeping the peace in the Mediterranean.

The fact that it was not necessary to engage in war, something we all wanted to avoid—that fact came into being for a number of reasons. But, again, the most important, indispensable reason was the fact that we were ready with the power exemplified by this mighty fleet.

The Nation therefore expresses appreciation to you for making it possible for America to wage the kind of peace diplomacy we always want to wage, based on power which is ready but which will be restrained when it will serve the cause of peace.

As I met a number of the officers and men last night on arriving here on the deck of the *Saratoga*, I talked to them about their background and their States. I was reminded of another generation of men and officers of the Navy, the Army, and the Marine Corps that I met in World War II. They had come from many of the same States. In fact, it carried me back to those days, and I thought of what we had gone through then and what you are going through now.

I realized that in this whole century, the 20th century, that the United States has yet to enjoy one full generation of peace. We fought World War I, and it was thought by many that that was the war that would end wars. It was not the case.

³ Broadcast to officers and men of the 6th Fleet.

512

Department of State Bulletin

The 6th Fleet is that kind of power—a power for peace. I salute you, therefore, as members of the peace forces of the United States and the world; and because of what you do today, what you have done, what you will do, I believe that history will look back and say because of what these men did, because of the way they served their country, America and the world did have, finally, a generation of peace.

Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT NIXON'S INFORMAL REMARKS, VILLA ROSEBERRY, NAPLES, SEPTEMBER 29

White House press release (Naples, Italy) dated September 29

*Q. Mr. President, it has been a long day, sir, but do you have a couple of words for us?*

*The President:* I was, of course, very moved by the visit to the fleet and particularly by not the ships that I saw, the planes and the rest, but the men. They have magnificent morale. They are the finest young men that America produces. They are doing their duty. They are doing it without pining and without complaining about a world they didn't make, and they realize that what they are doing there is to maintain the necessary forces that will keep the peace in the Mediterranean, give us a better chance to have peace for the balance of the century.

Of course, the rest of the afternoon I have had a very helpful, constructive meeting in depth on our general strategic posture in the Mediterranean, and tomorrow we will continue that on NATO.

*Q. You did stop in NATO on your way here, did you not?*

*The President:* No, not yet. We were on the *Springfield* this afternoon, the flagship, and we had the meeting of all of our commanders in this part of the world, the NATO commanders,

the Mediterranean commanders as well, just going over general strategic problems.

*Q. And your trip is going on on schedule?*

*The President:* Yes. The questions have been asked, of course, about the possibility of some changes being made because of President Nasser's death. However, our visit to Yugoslavia will go on on schedule and the balance of the stops that will be made—the balance will be made. I am sending representatives to the funeral. I think Robert Murphy, former Ambassador, is going to go, former Ambassador [John J.] McCloy will be going, and the third person will be either Robert Finch or possibly Elliot Richardson. We haven't found out. We have to make the arrangements at a very fast pace, of course, because the news came so unexpectedly.

*Q. Do you have any reaction to that that you could tell us about now?*

*The President:* The only reaction that I would give is one, of course, of sympathy for his wife and his family. We have had some very basic disagreements, as we know, in the last few years with President Nasser. I met him personally in 1963 and had a very good talk with him when I was a private citizen.

At that time his attitudes toward the United States were generally somewhat friendly. They, of course, became exacerbated after 1967.

But what will happen now in that country,

November 2, 1970

513

however, no one can really speculate about it
effectively.

I noted with interest that already some of the
experts are trying to say that this or that or the
other thing may happen in Egypt. Usually you
will find that when an event occurs of this type
that that type of speculation has some basis be-
cause it is somewhat expected. For example,
when Ho Chi Minh died, he had been very sick
for some time when he was a very old man.
Everybody is speculating what is going to hap-
pen when there is a change of leadership in
China. That doesn't mean the speculation is
always right, but at least people have had a
chance to think about it. But no one thought
that President Nasser's death would occur in
such an untimely way.

So I think that at this point it is speculation
as to what the leadership will be, whether its
attitude would be or would not be very construc-
tive. We are, of course, waiting to see. We want
good relations with all countries in this area.
We would like to have good relations with the
U.A.R.

We trust that they will continue; and we
believe that the new government, whoever it is,
will see that its interests will be served by con-
tinuing the cease-fire and, we trust, then going
on to talks.

Thank you.

ARRIVAL CEREMONY, HEADQUARTERS, NATO
SOUTHERN COMMAND, NAPLES, SEPTEMBER 30

White House press release (Naples, Italy) dated September 30

President Nixon

Admiral Rivero [Admiral Horacio Rivero,
USN, Commander, Allied Forces Southern
Europe], all of the officers, the distinguished
guests, and the others associated with the NATO
Southern Command: I am very honored to be
here on this occasion. And before I begin my
formal remarks, if I could be permitted to say
that I am very happy to see so many from the
United States, the dependents, the wives, the
children, and the rest, and I bring you the best

greetings from all your friends back home in
the United States.

I know that you must have been as impressed
as I was, and as moved as I was, by the pageant-
ry that we have just witnessed of the great
nations that were represented by the forces that
we saw pass in review.

I know, too, that you realize that that pag-
eantry has something behind it. NATO is 21
years of age. In fact, most of the people here in
this audience were born since NATO came into
being.

And when we consider NATO, we must real-
ize that because of its strength and its purpose,
Europe has enjoyed a generation of peace since
it came into being.

Now, at the present time, we live in a period
of change. A period of change can be welcome.
It can mean to this part of the world, to Europe,
that we move from a period of confrontation
to one of negotiation, that we move from a
period in which Europe seems to be perma-
nently divided by rigid blocs, to a period in
which the nations and the peoples of Europe
join together in cooperation and communica-
tion.

A period of change also can be one of very
great danger, because in a time of change there
is turmoil, there is also the lack of confidence
that comes when instability seems to be the
order of the day.

And the great question before us in NATO
and in the free world today is whether in this
period of change in Europe and in the world
we shall be masters of change and masters of
our fate or whether we shall be the victims of
change.

And that brings me back to this pageantry
that we just saw and what it represents—what
it represents not just to us from the United
States, but from our friends in Europe and to
our friends in Europe.

What we must realize is that in a period of
instability, of uncertainty, and of possible lack
of confidence, that what is needed is an insti-
tution that is stable, that men and women can
hang onto, and NATO is such an institution.

It is strong, it is united, it represents the best

514

Department of State Bulletin

of all of our people. It has power, but it is a
power that exists for the purpose of peace; and
because it exists for the purpose of peace, it
serves the very best ideals of all of the great
peoples that are proud to be members of the
NATO organization.

My trip as President of the United States to
this NATO Command underlines the American
commitment to a Mediterranean that will not be
our sea, speaking of an American sea, but a sea
that will belong to all people.

My trip, also, to this NATO Command rep-
resents a firm American commitment to this
great institution, to which the credit must be
given over these past 21 years for a period of
peace in this continent of Europe, which has
suffered so much from war in the past.

And I say particularly to all of you today—
but if I could direct my remarks especially to
the young people here today from America—in
our country we in America in this century have
not known a full generation of peace: World
War I, World War II, Korea, and now Viet-
Nam.

The great goal that we have is to develop the
policies that will provide the opportunity for
your generation to experience that full genera-
tion of peace. I think it is possible. But it will
be possible only if the United States remains
strong and firm in its commitments to its alli-
ances and particularly strong and firm in its
commitment to the great alliance of NATO,
perhaps the most successful in its purpose of
any alliance in the history of the world.

I am proud to be here standing with our
NATO allies and friends, and I say that this
trip and my presence here speaks for a United
States of America united behind a great prin-
ciple of strength, strength which exists for peace
in Europe and, as it exists for peace in Europe,
which can contribute to that peace in the whole
world that all of us want for ourselves and,
most of all, for our children.

Admiral Rivero

Mr. President, on behalf of the Allied Forces
Southern Europe, I would like to present you
a small memento of your visit here, sir.

President Nixon

Thank you very much, Admiral.

I would like to say that I wish that our sched-
ule permitted the time for meeting all of the
people that are here. It isn't possible, because
we have a meeting first with the NATO Com-
mand and then with all of our Ambassadors
from the Mediterranean area.

But I do want you to know how very good it
is to come to a country, a great, friendly country
like Italy, and see so many friendly Americans
right here abroad.

THE VISIT TO YUGOSLAVIA

Exchange of Toasts at State Dinner,
White Palace, Belgrade, September 30

President Tito

Mr. President, Madame Nixon, ladies and
gentlemen, comrades: It is my pleasure, Mr.
President, to greet you, on behalf of the peoples
and the Government of Yugoslavia, in the name
of my wife and my own, as the first President
of the United States of America visiting our
country. May I take this opportunity to extend
to you, to Madame Nixon, and your associates
our warm welcome.

In 1960, in New York, I had a cordial meet-
ing with President Eisenhower, and in 1963,
during my visit to your country, I had friendly
and useful talks with President Kennedy. These
talks contributed to the further development of
relations between our two countries. We ap-
preciate, Mr. President, your personal interest
in, and contribution to, the promotion of co-
operation between Yugoslavia and the United
States of America. Your visit marks, no doubt,
a very important date in the history of these
relations and will further encourage their con-
tinuous progress.

The relations between Yugoslavia and the
United States of America are of long standing
and rest on a positive, friendly tradition dating

⁴President Tito spoke in Serbo-Croatian on all occasions.

November 2, 1970

515

back to the establishment of relations between the U.S.A. and Serbia and the signing of a convention on consular and trade relations in 1881. Our two countries were allied in World War I. In World War II we fought together, and each of us contributed his share to the struggle against the most sinister forces that threatened mankind. In those trying days of war, our participants saved hundreds of American pilots from falling into the hands of the enemy. On our side, we have not forgotten the substantial assistance and support extended to us by the American people during our People's Liberation Struggle and after the war.

Your great country is about to celebrate the 200th anniversary of its independence. The world has always held in great esteem the deeds of the great sons and intellects of your country, such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and many others. Your Revolution and the Declaration of Independence have become an integral part of freedom-loving and democratic aspirations and of progress in the world.

Mr. President, we live in a world of interdependence, a world which is becoming ever smaller and which—as the brave explorers of outer space saw it—reminds of a small ship, the fate of which we all share. The achievements of every people are today property of, and source of inspiration for, the whole of mankind. By epoch-making advances in the field of science and technology, to which your country has also made a historic contribution, mankind has stepped into the 21st century.

Yet the majority of the world population still lives in misery, and many peoples are not free and truly independent. In different parts of the

world, wars are still claiming precious human lives and destroying all that has been so painfully built. The world of today is characterized, on the one hand, by the existence of boundless possibilities for unparalleled progress and prosperity and, on the other, by desperate needs, injustices, and problems, by which international relations are so heavily and dangerously burdened.

Mr. President, it is only natural that mankind should expect from so vast and developed country as the United States of America a major contribution to the well-being of peoples and peace in the world. We welcomed the significant words pronounced by you in your inaugural address that mankind should move from the era of confrontation into the era of negotiation. We have been consistently devoting our efforts to this end. It was in 1961 that the Belgrade conference of nonaligned countries appealed to the big powers to start a dialogue in order to avoid a general catastrophe.

Yugoslavia views positively the present orientation of the big powers to negotiate. Having at their disposal weapons which can destroy the world, as well as enormous potentials, the big powers bear a special responsibility for the fate of the world. That is why they are expected to use this immense might and strength for the benefit and the well-being of mankind.

We all agree that the world is becoming ever smaller and ever more closely interdependent and that whatever happens in one of its parts—whether for the better or for the worse—is bound to affect the rest as well. Any conflict, any crisis, has global repercussions. The whole experience of the postwar period testifies to the fact that universal peace and stability cannot be achieved by the big powers alone. Therefore, all countries, irrespective of their size and strength, must take an active part in the affairs of the world community, not only because it is their right, but because it is also an indispensable precondition for the maintenance of peace and the development of international cooperation. In the same way as a "larger" peace cannot rest for long on "smaller" wars, so international cooperation cannot be promoted on the basis of anyone's monopoly or on the negation of the legitimate interests of other countries and peoples.

516

Department of State Bulletin

ples. In the absence of peace and progress for
the small and underdeveloped, there can be no
stable peace nor durable progress for the large
and developed either.

There is, we feel, a growing consensus in the
world that mere negotiations and the avoidance
of confrontation between the big powers are in
themselves no longer sufficient. If the basic
world problems continue to remain unsolved, if
we do not undertake with full responsibility
the solution of the burning issues of develop-
ment, disarmament, the elimination of the
policy of force and interference in the internal
affairs of others, the overcoming of the division
of the world into blocs—then we shall gain only
shorter or longer intervals of respite between
periods of cold war and we shall continue to
live under the permanent threat of the outbreak
of a conflict with unforeseeable consequences.
Actually, the postwar development has clearly
shown that stable peace and cooperation can-
not rest on the balance of strength and terror.

For all these reasons, Mr. President, we are
striving for the negotiations and peaceful solu-
tion of controversial issues to become the gener-
ally accepted practice in international relations,
in the relations among all states. Small and
medium-sized countries, as well as all devel-
oping countries, are well aware of their obliga-
tions and responsibilities, both with respect to
their own internal development and with regard
to the solution of international problems.

Besides, what I have been saying so far re-
flects also the essence of the message of the
recently held conference of nonaligned coun-
tries in Lusaka. The nonaligned countries were
unanimous in their demand for the democrati-
zation of international relations, respect for and
realization of the inalienable rights of peoples to
independence and sovereignty, accelerated de-
velopment of the developing countries, strength-
ening of the United Nations, achievement of its
universality, et cetera. They also manifested
their determination to exert utmost efforts and
make their own contribution toward the fulfill-
ment of these aims.

Mr. President, our views concerning the most
dangerous hotbeds of conflict—such as, in the
first place, the long-continued war in Viet-Nam,
which has been expanded to new areas in Indo-

china, and the crisis in the Middle East, which
is becoming ever more dangerously entangled—
are known. The peoples of these areas are being
subjected to dreadful ordeals and suffering, and
peace in the world as well as the security of all
of us are being jeopardized. We have always
endeavored, within the limits of our possibili-
ties, to contribute to the search for just solutions,
and we shall continue to do so. Our position has
always been, and still is, that the cessation of
intervention by any foreign power and the se-
curing of the legitimate rights of the peoples
of these countries to full independence and free
development, without any outside interference
whatsoever, are preconditions for any equitable
settlement.

As regards the Middle East, I wish to say that
we received with profound grief and anxiety the
news of the death of President Gamal Abdel
Nasser, an outstanding statesman and a relent-
less fighter for peace. His loss, particularly in
the present critical situation in the Middle East,
makes it incumbent on all factors to exert maxi-
mum efforts to arrive at a peaceful and just po-
litical solution, for which President Nasser
strove consistently and with dedication to his
very end.

Mr. President, we are also urging the immedi-
ate eradication of colonialism which is still being
maintained in vast areas of Africa. This is, in-
deed, the greatest shame for mankind, in this
very century of general emancipation of peo-
ples, generations, and races.

Likewise, as a European and Mediterranean
country, we are fully aware of the close inter-
dependence between the European Continent
and the entire Mediterranean region. It is, con-

November 2, 1970

517

sequently, understandable that we are directly
interested in the restoration of peace in the
Middle East, which is so close to us, as well as
in the transformation of the Mediterranean into
a sea of peace and peaceful international co-
operation, where the rights and interests of
the peoples living on its shores will be fully
respected.

Mr. President, I trust that I am sharing your
opinion in saying that world peace and co-
operation cannot be strengthened unless the
principles of the United Nations are fully and
consistently observed. The principles of inde-
pendence, sovereignty, equality, noninterfer-
ence, territorial integrity, and the like must be
respected with no exception in the relations
among all states, and the infringement of these
principles cannot be justified by any political,
ideological, or any other motives.

I am glad to say that the friendly relations
between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugo-
slavia and the United States of America are
developing precisely on the basis of these princi-
ples and in mutual respect. Mutually beneficial
cooperation between our two countries is pro-
gressing satisfactorily. There have been prob-
lems from time to time. It is only natural that it
should be so. However, thanks to a realistic
approach and good will on both sides, we have
succeeded in preserving continuity and insuring
constant progress.

There has been, indeed, manifest progress in
the relations between our two countries in recent
years. This can be partly ascribed to contacts
and exchanges of views among high-level rep-
resentatives of the two countries, and it is our
wish that this useful practice be maintained.
Particularly important are the results achieved
in the field of economic cooperation, and we be-
lieve that there exist very good possibilities for
its further expansion, especially as regards in-
dustrial cooperation, joint ventures, et cetera.
We also attach great importance to the further-
ance of scientific and particularly technological
cooperation.

We have always been striving, Mr. President,
for good relations with all countries, and it has
always been our earnest desire that the promo-
tion of relations with one country should not be

to the detriment of relations with other coun-
tries. The promotion of friendly and stable
relations with as many countries as possible in
Europe and outside it, starting with our neigh-
bors, is in our view a prerequisite for our ac-
celerated development and for the strengthening
of the security and the international position of
Yugoslavia. Within this context, we attach great
significance to the development of good relations
in all fields with your country, considering them
as an important factor of stability and peace in
this part of the world and more widely, as well
as an important factor of our economic, scien-
tific, and technological advance.

Let me stress that the status of Yugoslavia as
an independent, nonaligned, and Socialist coun-
try is the unalterable basis of our entire policy
and of our approach to international relations
and problems. We are determined to maintain
our independence, for which we paid such a high
price. This is guaranteed primarily by the unity
of our country and the readiness of our peoples
to defend their independence and free internal
development against any threat or attack.

Mr. President, the relations between the
United States of America and Yugoslavia, be-
tween a large and a small country with different
social systems, testify to the viability and real-
ism of the policy of peaceful and active coexist-
ence. They make thereby a major contribution
to wider international cooperation.

True, there have been and still are differences
in our views and stands on different interna-
tional issues. Such differences exist in our rela-
tions with other countries as well. But these
differences have been no obstacle to the develop-
ment of friendly relations and cooperation
between our two countries.

Mr. President, I am looking forward to our
talks, which will afford us the opportunity to
exchange opinions on the international situa-
tion and the furtherance of relations between
our two countries.

In the course of your visit, you will see some
of our achievements. We regret that your visit
is too short to enable you to become better
acquainted with the accomplishments of our
people and the beauties of our country. I hope
your stay among us will be a pleasant one.

518

Department of State Bulletin

May I now propose this toast to your health, Mr. President, to the health of Madame Nixon and your associates, to friendship and cooperation between the peoples of Yugoslavia and of the United States of America.

### President Nixon

White House press release (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) dated September 30

Mr. President, Madame Broz, friends of Yugoslavia and the United States: I am honored to be the first American President to visit Yugoslavia; and on this occasion, before this very distinguished company at this beautiful banquet, I wish, Mr. President, to extend to you and to Madame Broz an invitation to visit our country again.

You have seen Washington and New York. But we would like for you to come again to Washington and then to see the Midwest and our State of California. Both areas are very proud to have many citizens of Yugoslavian background, who will give you a very warm welcome. We look forward to your visit to the United States.

Tonight, I think, after hearing you speak, Mr. President, of the many things our countries have in common—you have referred to some of them—I, of course, think first of the many Americans whose roots are here in Yugoslavia, personal friends that Mrs. Nixon and I have, for example, in California, and who have contributed so much to the life of our country.

Beyond this, both of our nations take pride in our diversity. Each of our societies is made up of people of diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Yet in each of our countries they have joined together to form one great, strong nation.

Both of our nations have worked to reconcile regional diversity and national harmony within our countries. Now we must be leaders in reconciling national diversity and international harmony elsewhere in the world.

I think, too, of the steadfast independence, the courage, the love of freedom, that are so much a part of the Yugoslav spirit and the Yugoslav strength, and of the times each of

our nations has fought to preserve its freedom and its independence.

I think of the efforts Yugoslavia is making to help other nations and of those places in the less developed parts of the world where our experts, your experts and ours, have worked side by side to assist with development programs.

I think of the exciting new industrial ventures that are being undertaken or planned here in Yugoslavia in which Americans and Yugoslavs are investing together in the future of Yugoslavia, working together, to develop new enterprises.

I think also on an occasion like this of the great importance of the changes that have taken place in the world in the past 25 years and of what those changes make possible in terms of a new structure of stability and mutual respect among nations.

A quarter of a century after World War II, we do live in a new world, a world of new nations, of altered relationships, of greater experience, and of new opportunities to strengthen that structure of orderly procedures, of mutual respect, that is the foundation of peace.

Even in this new world, we still confront many of the same old problems, but often in a new form.

The problem of European security is high on the world's agenda. Yugoslavia has tried to demonstrate to the rest of Europe the basic truth that true security must rest on a firm foundation of mutual respect for the independence and integrity of all European countries, and of noninterference in their internal affairs.

This same principle lies at the heart of our policies, and there can be no better example of it than the relationship that we have developed with each other and that you have sought to develop with your neighbors, far and near, on this continent.

Long ago Yugoslavia made a decision. It chose the path of nonalignment, and for more than two decades Yugoslavia and you, Mr. President, have personally played major roles in the nonaligned movement throughout the world. We in the United States respect that position.

But the great question today is not whether

November 2, 1970

519

a nation is aligned or nonaligned, but whether
it respects the rights of others to choose their
own paths; and Yugoslavia, by its example, has
given heart to those who would choose their
own paths.

The great goal that we share in this decade
is the building of a stable and a lasting peace.
This far transcends differences in ideology, in
geography, or in systems of internal order.

It is toward this end that we in the United
States are seeking to put an end to the crises
and confrontations that have plagued the post-
war world.

In our relations with the Soviet Union, we
are prepared to discuss the requirements of a
stable strategic relationship and a limit on the
deadly competition in nuclear arms.

In Europe, we are prepared to join with
others in helping overcome the division in this
continent, at reducing the military confronta-
tions, at developing a full range of economic,
cultural, and human contacts with each of the
nations in Europe.

We respect the legitimate interests of others,
including those interests that relate to their
security. But we do not accept doctrines by
which one power purports to abridge the right
of other countries to shape their own destinies
and to pursue their own legitimate interests.
Every nation, large or small, has the duty to
maintain its own security. But no nation has
the right to do so by infringing on the security
of others.

You can be our friend without being anyone
else's enemy.

The pursuit of "total security" by one na-
tion can only lead to the insecurity of others,
and therefore it will not bring order and peace.

Our sole objective in the Middle East, Viet-
Nam, and all other areas of the world is to help
insure that people and nations will live in peace
and be able to build their own lives in accordance
with their own aspirations, with due regard for
those of others.

We oppose policies by powers outside the
region that are designed to gain unilateral ad-
vantage or paramount influence.

Building a true peace requires more than
coping with wars and the threat of wars. We
recognize, as Yugoslavia does, that we cannot

have true peace if many of the world's nations
are frozen permanently into a "have-not"
status. That is why we shall continue to help
others who need help—and we welcome the
efforts of Yugoslavia toward that same end.

As we look to the remaining decades of this
century, as we attempt to plan for what Europe
has not had, and America has not had, thus far
in this century, a full generation of peace, it
is this pattern of mutual respect among na-
tions, of respect for their right to independence,
their right to choose their own way, their right
to live without interference from their neigh-
bors, whether large or small—it is these rights
that we must preserve, that we must protect.

In politics, in the arts, in the development of
its economy, and the life-styles of its people, in
its distribution of rights and responsibilities,
Yugoslavia has pursued its own national model.
And this is what national independence means:
the right of each nation, of each people, to pur-
sue its own chosen destiny in its own way,
limited only by its recognition of the fact that
every other nation has that same right.

And so I ask all of you to join me in a toast to
President Tito, whose courage, whose deter-
mination, whose independence, have been an ex-
ample to the world, and also to the principles
of mutual respect for which he stands, for which
Yugoslavia stands, and which embody the hope
of the world for a true and a lasting peace.

Zivili, Yugoslavia; zivili, President Tito.
Zivili, zivili.

Toasts at Dinner Hosted by President Nixon,
Old Palace, Belgrade, October 1

White House press release (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) dated
October 1

President Nixon

Mr. President, Madame Broz, and Your Ex-
cellencies, friends of Yugoslavia and the United
States: As we complete this visit of 2 days to
Yugoslavia, I wish to express appreciation on
behalf of Mrs. Nixon and myself and all the
members of our party for the very warm recep-
tion we have received, both officially and from
all the people of Yugoslavia that we have had
the privilege to meet.

520

Department of State Bulletin

### President Tito

### President Nixon

Speaking now officially, I believe that this
visit has contributed significantly to a goal to
which all of us are dedicated—better relations
in every way between Yugoslavia and the
United States, friendship, economic cooperation,
and working together in the cause of peace
and progress.

It has been for us a very worthwhile visit, if
only we had the opportunity to know this country,
the beauty of the countryside, the warmth
of its people. But the visit, beyond that, has had
very great significance in contributing to our
joint thinking about the problems of the world
and how we can develop better approaches to
them.

system of government without outside interference.

### President Tito

And now, at the same time, I have to say how
sad we are—and this is not a very pleasant
feeling to know—that your visit to our country
has been, alas, too short and thus you have not
had the possibility to see much of what our
people have achieved since the Second World
War, but that you could convince yourselves
everywhere you went—your visit to Belgrade,
Zagreb, and Kumrovec—the people of this country
appreciate and love the American people
and the United States and how much they appreciate
you personally, Mr. President.

Our people have very close contacts and roots,
so to say, with people of your country. From
Yugoslavia they went in large numbers in the
days when poverty raged here—in Slovenia,
Croatia, and Serbia—they went to win their
bread to the United States, in order to have
bread there. Many remained there. Some of them
returned. And those who returned were actually
those who were the bearers of sympathies toward
the people of the United States, because
there they saw something new, they saw a new
democracy which made it possible for every
man to live a life worthy of a human being.

Of course, they didn't say that milk and honey
flowed in that country. They also spoke of very
hard work but that the efforts that those people

November 2, 1970

407-130-70-3

521

working there were making, enabled them to
lead a life, the same life as the one I have just
described.

And our talks were conducted in a spirit
which permeates talks between leaders of coun-
tries having different social systems.

We talked about very acute, very difficult
problems, which are now around the world and
which are fraught with the danger of leading
to a new tragedy for all mankind, and we
agreed that all has to be done in order to pre-
serve peace and all has to be done in order to
insure that all questions under dispute and all
conflicts are settled peacefully.

I think that the time has come when during
their talks statesmen coming from countries
having different social systems should try to
find a way for solving all questions in the world
in a peaceful way and also for eliminating all
elements of escalation and aggravation, and we
have such elements in both the Middle East and
in the Far East.

I agree with your view, Mr. President, that
it is our duty to work together and to do our
utmost in order to insure the peaceful solution
of international problems in order to promote
detente and to prevent tragedies similar to those
which came to mankind during the First World
War.

As to bilateral questions, I think we are on
the best way. I share your opinion and your
wish that these bilateral relations should be ex-
panded still further. There is still very much
room for promoting our relations, both in the
economic fields and in other fields, and also in
the field of political relations regarding the
solution of international problems.

I think that sound economic cooperation in
the interest of the two countries is also a very
powerful factor in promoting better under-
standing with regard to remaining other issues.

fruitful results for our relations, and I raise
this glass to the health of the President of the
United States of America, who, for the first
time in history, visited this country as the rep-
resentative of the friendly country of the
United States, to the health of President Nixon,
to the health of your associates, and the friend-
ship and cooperation between the United States
and Yugoslavia.

Joint Communique, October 1

At the invitation of the President of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito, the
President of the United States of America Richard M.
Nixon, accompanied by Mrs. Nixon, and their party,
paid an official visit to the SFR of Yugoslavia from
30 September to 2 October 1970. During his stay Presi-
dent Nixon visited, in addition to Belgrade, Zagreb and
Kumrovec.

The meeting between the two Presidents, which took
place in a cordial and frank atmosphere, provided an
opportunity for frank talks on the most important con-
temporary international issues and on Yugoslav-Ameri-
can relations. These included the Middle East, South
East Asia, East-West relations, European security,
less developed countries, and bilateral problems. Each
side presented its views in a candid manner.

Both sides agreed that negotiation rather than con-
frontation is indispensable for peaceful and just solu-
tions of international problems.

They resolved to continue to promote extensive bi-
lateral relations. Concrete forms of cooperation were
discussed, especially in the economic and scientific-
technological fields.

522

Department of State Bulletin

THE VISIT TO MADRID

Arrival Ceremony, Barajas Airport,
October 2

Generalissimo Franco⁵

Mr. President: In the name of the Govern-
ment and the people of Spain I wish to extend
to you a most cordial and friendly welcome.

It was very kind of you to accept my invita-
tion to come to Spain, and it is a great honor
to have you with us, in the company of your
charming wife and the distinguished members
of your party.

This is not the first time you have come to
this country. You have had before the oppor-
tunity to see our cities, our regions—so filled
with memories and evocations of the past for an
American—and above all, you have met our
people and you have been able to appreciate the
affection and admiration they feel toward your
people, your character, your history.

Today, when you arrive in our Capital as
President of the United States for a visit of
good will, friendship, and cooperation, which
confirms and symbolizes the spirit of the agree-
ment recently concluded between our two
nations, my colleagues in the Government and
myself, as well as the people of Madrid that wel-
come you, will try to make your stay a pleasant
one, and we trust it will prove as fruitful and
successful as we wish and hope it to be.

President Nixon

White House press release (Madrid, Spain) dated October 2

General Franco, Señora Franco, Your Excel-
lencies, friends of Spain and the United States:
I am most honored to be the first American
President to visit Spain since President Eisen-
hower was here in 1959.

We Americans owe a great deal to Spain. We
remember that it was Spanish explorers who
played such a great role in the exploration and
the development of the New World; and we in
the United States, with diverse people and
diverse culture, owe a great debt to the Spanish
culture and people of Spanish background who
have contributed so much to our nation.

Since 1953 we have been partners together
in defense in the Mediterranean area, and over
this past period, particularly in the past 10
years, we have seen increasing economic co-
operation between Spain and the United States.

I am confident that the talks we will have
here, with you, General Franco, and with the
members of your Cabinet, will contribute to
closer cooperation, both in defense for peace and
economic cooperation which will mean prog-
ress for all of our people in Spain and in the
United States.

In recent weeks, the eyes of the world have
been on the Mediterranean area. If we do not
have peace in the Mediterranean, world peace
will be very seriously threatened. An indis-
pensable pillar for peace in the Mediterranean
is Spanish-American friendship and coopera-
tion. For that reason, I say, as I begin my visit
to Spain, Viva la amistad Hispana-Americana.

Exchange of Toasts at State Dinner,
Royal Palace, October 2

Generalissimo Franco

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: It is an
honor and a great satisfaction to have with us
today President Nixon, a statesman for whom
I have always felt the deepest admiration, whose
qualities of wisdom, realism, understanding,
and devotion to his responsibilities are an
example and a source of inspiration for any
public man in our times.

I wish particularly to express, in the name
of my wife and in my own, our pleasure in

⁵ Generalissimo Franco spoke in Spanish on all occasions.

November 2, 1970

523

having also with us Mrs. Nixon, a figure who
is well known, admired, and loved in Spain for
her qualities of distinction and personal charm.

In the short hours that his tight schedule
has allowed the President to dedicate to our
country, we have had the opportunity for a
broad exchange of views which, in my opinion,
has been of great interest.

The problems which, at this time, are of
common concern for the United States and
Spain, and which are also, most of them, of
common concern for the West as a whole, are
beyond doubt grave and urgent. I am glad,
therefore, to be able to state that in this moment,
in the presence of the dangers that confront us,
our views have been basically coincident. This
is all the more significant if we take into account
the fact that the international position of Spain
has very special and characteristic features. Our
kinship and our historical and cultural ties with
Latin America, the fact that we are, at the same
time, a part of Europe, the traditional friend-
ship with the Arab countries, our geographic
position at the crossroads of two seas and two
continents—all those are factors which deter-
mine and shape the international policy of our
country.

Notwithstanding such peculiarities, the
American and Spanish position regarding
the present problems in the areas of common
interest are practically coincident.

In this connection I cannot fail to recall the
visit in 1959 of your predecessor President
Eisenhower, a perennial example of civic and
military virtues. His stay among us was a cause
of the deepest personal satisfaction for myself
and of sincere joy for every Spaniard and con-
tributed positively to strengthening the ties of
friendship which already existed between our
two countries.

Recently, with the purpose of continuing the
fruitful cooperation of both Governments, our
plenipotentiaries have signed a new Agreement
of Friendship and Cooperation which goes
beyond the intention of merely heeding to
occasional considerations and contemplates the
widest collaboration in a varied range of activi-
ties. My Government is determined to use effec-
tively every opportunity of joint action which

that instrument offers and to engage without
reserve in the task of promoting jointly the
human values and defending the ways of life to
which we wish to remain faithful.

Our essential aim—and we know it is fully
shared by our American friends—is the preser-
vation of peace among all the nations. This is the
supreme value in the field of human relations
and the condition necessary for any other
accomplishment that we could envisage for the
future.

Mr. President, I raise my glass to the personal
welfare of yourself and your distinguished wife
and family, to the friendship of our two coun-
tries, to the prosperity and the greatness of the
American nation, which you so worthily
represent.

President Nixon

General Franco, Mrs. Franco, Your Excel-
lencies, friends of Spain and the United States:
When I visited President Eisenhower just a few
weeks before he died, he was reminiscing about
his great experiences as President and also as a
military leader. I asked him to weigh the var-
ious receptions that he had had around the
world. He thought a moment, and then he said
that one of the greatest and most friendly wel-
comes and the most memorable receptions he
had as President of the United States was the
reception in Spain in 1959, when he was a guest
at this table and in this city of you, General
Franco and Mrs. Franco.

I now know what he meant, because today we
had the opportunity to feel the kind of reception
that the Spanish people, under your leadership,
gave to him and that you gave to us, as repre-
sentatives of the American people. We think of
this magnificent banquet, at the very table where
he sat just 11 years ago, with many of the same
people here present.

524

Department of State Bulletin

Third, as I saw those crowds, I saw the past of Spain and the future of Spain, and it is truly a great future, because I saw a vigorous people, a proud people, a young people, a dynamic people—the people who have been responsible for Spain having the fastest growth rate of any country in Europe over these past 10 years, the people who will be responsible for Spain, in the last 30 years of this century, moving into a new period of economic progress and well-being for its people and a new period of contributions to progress for all peoples in the world.

So I ask this company to rise with me and raise your glasses to the health of General Franco and Mrs. Franco, to the economic progress and prosperity of the Spanish people, and to the cooperation of the United States and Spain in the cause of peace and progress for the whole world: General Franco.

Departure Ceremony, Barajas Airport, October 3

Generalissimo Franco

Mr. President: The time has come for us to say goodby, after the intense and crowded hours which you spent in Spain.

Your great responsibilities and duties urgently call you. The demands of the times are very great, and for this reason we understand perfectly that it has not been possible for you to prolong your stay in Madrid awhile longer as we would have liked you to do.

Your visit has proved a most fruitful one for both our Governments and nations. We have had an opportunity to examine together the principal world problems in which we have common interest, to appreciate the wide areas of conformity which exist and the favorable outlook for a coordination of our respective policies.

The agreement recently signed, and the periodic consultations provided in that document between the heads of our departments of foreign affairs and other representatives of our Governments, should benefit our two countries and will provide an opportunity to contribute together to the maintenance of peace among the nations of the world.

Mr. President, please remember that you leave behind you good friends in this country, who wish you and your distinguished wife, as well as the rest of your distinguished party, a happy continuation of your tour and a most happy return to your country and to your families.

November 2, 1970

525

## President Nixon

White House press release (Madrid, Spain) dated October 3

Generalissimo Franco, Mrs. Franco, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: As we leave the soil of Spain, Mrs. Nixon and I and the members of our party will take with us unforgettable memories—memories of the official welcome that we received—of the talks that we have had which have contributed to our thinking on the major world problems, of better relations between our two countries, and of the outpouring of the sentiment and affection that we felt from the people of Spain when we passed through the streets of Madrid yesterday and this morning.

We feel, too, that as we leave this country, that this visit, the culmination of a series of discussions which will make 1970 a year that we will look back on in both Spain and the United States as the beginning of a new era of increased cooperation, increased friendship, in all areas between the United States and Spain.

I hope that the administration which I now head will be able to work toward that end so that this great country may have the complete cooperation of this United States as it moves forward in economic progress and in all areas of human life.

But finally, may I say in a personal sense that I appeared here on this occasion as the President of the United States. I recall in 1963 when my wife and I and our two daughters were here as private citizens. I recall then that the friendly reception we received from the people of Spain was just as warm as when I held this high office.

I look forward to returning either in an official capacity and, if not that, always as one like the millions of other Americans who come here as tourists, to one of the most friendly countries we can visit in any part of the world.

Thank you very much.

## THE VISIT TO IRELAND

### Arrival Ceremony, Shannon Airport, October 3

White House press release (Shannon, Ireland) dated October 3

#### Prime Minister Lynch

Thank you, Mr. President.

#### President Nixon

Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Lynch, and all of the distinguished guests who are here and our friends from Ireland: Mrs. Nixon and I want to express our very great appreciation for your

526

Department of State Bulletin

Now, having said that, I have never had that experience before. My wife and our two daughters did have the very warm reception that they had when they came here 3 or 4 years ago. But I have never had the opportunity of driving through the Irish countryside, of going back to where they say my great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents came from.

We will be traveling through the Irish countryside today and tomorrow and having the opportunity that so many Americans have had to come to this land, to feel the warmth of the reception of its wonderful people, and also to have the opportunity to see the sights that we shall be seeing.

And, second, I look forward to it because I can assure you that we in the United States are very appreciative of the enormous contribution that has been made of those of Irish backgrounds to all of American life, not just in the field of politics but in the field of business, in the field of the arts, in any area that you choose. The Irish have added a warmth to the American diverse personality, a sense of humor, a spirit, a courage, a character for which we will be eternally grateful.

If I can complete my remarks with what I understand—and I wish I could say it in Gaelic, but I am not sure what he said about me, so I wouldn't try to say anything about you—I understand that the traditional Irish salutation on this occasion, and if you will pardon me for using it I think it fits this occasion so well: Joy be with you all.

Thank you very much.

## Remarks by President Nixon at Dromoland Castle, Newmarket-on-Fergus, October 4

White House press release (Limerick, Ireland) dated October 4

Ladies and gentlemen: I first welcome you to this reception, and I want to tell you that I hope you have enjoyed the Irish hospitality and the Irish countryside as much as I have.

I haven't had quite as much opportunity as I had hoped to travel today, because we have been catching up on some of the work that accumulated during the week and also in the meeting this morning that I had with Ambassador [David K. E.] Bruce and Ambassador [Philip C.] Habib.

But I did feel at this time, as we near the conclusion of this trip, it might be useful for members of the press who have been traveling with us and, of course, some of our guests from the Irish press who have joined us here, to have

November 2, 1970

527

I recognize that those who have traveled with
us have a rather difficult time in covering a trip
like this. It is difficult because the meetings that
are held between heads of government or heads
of state must necessarily be kept off the record
as far as the press is concerned. Otherwise they
would lose their value.

On the other hand, that leaves the press only
the opportunity to cover motorcades or to spec-
ulate on a background basis as to what is really
happening and—if I may paraphrase what
Governor Reagan once said—if you have seen
one motorcade you have seen them all, it has
been said.

That really isn't true, because motorcades are
quite different, as you know, and we have had
some very exciting ones and very interesting
ones, and they do provide at least some oppor-
tunity to get the feel of the people, the strength
of a country, as you move, as we have, through
hours and hours of motorcading.

On the other hand, I realize that you who have
the responsibilities for covering a trip like this
are expected, quite properly, to go to the sub-
stance and to indicate what the trip accom-
plished.

The purpose of this trip, just as has been the
purpose of my other trips abroad, is to
strengthen the structure of peace throughout the
world, and particularly to strengthen the struc-
ture of peace in the Mediterranean area, which,
because of recent events, has been an area of
very great concern for all those interested in
peace.

Now, in analyzing what the threat to peace in
the Mediterranean is, we must realize that it is
not the conventional threat of one nation pos-
sibly engaging in overt action against another.
It is more difficult than that. It is more difficult
because it is the threat which arises from irre-
sponsible radical elements which might take ac-
tion which in turn would set in the course of

events, the train of events, set in motion—I
meant to say—a train of events that would esca-
late into a possible confrontation between
major powers in the area. That is what we saw
in the Jordanian crisis, and that is the kind of
threat to the peace that we will have to be
guarding against in the months and possibly
the years ahead in the Near East and the Medi-
terranean generally.

Now, when you have that kind of a threat, in
order to meet it the primary need is for ele-
ments of stability in the area—economic and
political stability, yes, but primarily, where the
threat is irresponsible and where it resorts to
violence, unexpected and unpredictable vio-
lence, without reason, without cause—some-
times—there must be military stability and
military strength. That is why I first visited the
6th Fleet.

The 6th Fleet is one element of military sta-
bility in the Mediterranean. After visiting the
6th Fleet and being briefed by its commanders
and our commanders there, I became convinced
that the 6th Fleet is able to meet its mission of
deterring irresponsible elements in the Medi-
terranean area.

After meeting with the 6th Fleet commanders
and also having discussed this matter with our
NATO allies and with our Ambassadors from
the Mediterranean countries, I am convinced
that it is essential that the 6th Fleet continue
to have this capability in the event that other
powers with other designs on the area, other
than ours and our friends, who have no designs
except the peace in the area and the right of
each individual nation to maintain its own in-
tegrity—in the event that other forces, naval
forces, should threaten the position of strength
which the 6th Fleet now enjoys, then the United
States must be prepared to take the action
necessary to maintain that overall strength of
the 6th Fleet.

Another element of strength in the Mediter-
ranean area is, of course, NATO, and particu-

528

Department of State Bulletin

larly its Southern Command. Without going into the specific conversations that we had with the NATO southern commanders, I would emphasize here that this provided an opportunity for me to state very strongly and unequivocally these principles with regard to the United States association with NATO.

Considerable concern, I find, has arisen among many of the NATO nations, the major nations and the smaller NATO nations, as a result of some comments by political figures in the United States as well as some of those commenting upon the American role in the world, that the United States might not meet its NATO responsibilities and was on the verge of reducing its contribution to NATO. I stated categorically to the NATO commanders, and I do here publicly again, that the United States will under no circumstances reduce unilaterally its commitment to NATO. Any reduction in NATO forces, if it occurs, will only take place on a multilateral basis and on the basis of what those who are lined up against the NATO forces'-what they might do. In other words, it would have to be on a mutual basis.

I know that the Nixon doctrine has sometimes been inaccurately described as one that would allow the United States to reduce its responsibilities in the world. That is not the case. The purpose of the Nixon doctrine is to provide a policy under which the United States can meet its responsibilities more effectively in the world by sharing those responsibilities with others. And in NATO that is our policy.

Moving from NATO now to the Mideast, I found in the conversations that I had with all of the leaders that I met—and as you know, they covered not only our allies and friends but also they covered President Tito of Yugoslavia, a nonaligned state—I found general agreement on these propositions: strong support for the American cease-fire initiative and, second, I found that, as far as that cease-fire initiative is concerned, there is not the pessimism that we sense in some quarters as a result of what hap-

pened in Jordan and as a result of the new instability that inevitably will follow the death of President Nasser, that the cease-fire initiative days were numbered.

I do not suggest that the road ahead is not difficult. But I think we have to separate our peace initiative into two parts: one, the cease-fire part of the initiative and, second, that part of the initiative that has to do with negotiation.

On the cease-fire side of it, however, I think I can say quite unequivocally that neither party—and by neither party, I say neither the Israelis on the one side or the other nations, the U.A.R. and others involved in the cease-fire initiative—will gain by breaking the cease-fire. That is why we believe that our acting and talking strongly in behalf of an extension of the cease-fire for another 90 days is the proper course and that it has considerable chance to succeed. Any party at this time that would break the cease-fire initiative would have very, very little support in the world. It would be acting alone against the whole weight of the world public opinion and also against the public opinion, I should say, in the United States.

Another comment with regard to the Mideast that I think should be made: We tend in the United States to see our role as being predominant, and of course, it is because of our strength. On the other hand, we must recognize—and this trip brought this home to me and underlined it again—that there are other powers in the Mediterranean area that can play, that are playing, and that must play, a significant role in the peacekeeping area.

The Italians, for example, have a very signifi-

November 2, 1970
407-130-70-4

529

cant interest in the Mediterranean and have contacts that we do not have that are better than ours. The Spanish also have very significant interests in the Mediterranean and have been very helpful. And the British, in addition, of course, have had a traditional, longtime interest in the Mediterranean area. My talks with the leaders of these three countries were very helpful in that respect because it is not a healthy situation in the world for the United States to be alone, whether it is in the Far East, where we welcome the fact that the British are maintaining a presence there, or whether it is in the Mideast or in the Mediterranean.

I had the best, most extensive conversation with Pope Paul that I have had. It covered the whole range of world affairs, particularly the Far East, the situation in the Mideast, problems, of course, in the underdeveloped world, and specifically in the humanitarian area, his great concern about our prisoners of war. We will continue these contacts because it is extremely important that the spiritual and moral leadership which Pope Paul has exercised be leadership not that will follow our policy or we follow his, but there must be understanding and should be understanding with regard to what our aims and goals are.

With regard to Spain, I believe that the year 1970 marks a period in which we can say now that Spain, economically, is rapidly moving into the front ranks of Europe and will be moving into the front ranks of the world and when, economically and politically, Spain's isolation from the rest of Europe will be drawing to an end.

However, there is an important element that should be added to this. We need to have, of course, negotiations, if possible, with those who might be our potential opponents; and we need, of course, the best possible contact with non-aligned nations. That is why the visit to Yugoslavia I thought was particularly important and very helpful.

For example, Yugoslavia is a country that has moved, shall we say, more into a nonaligned role than any of the other Communist states. They have a completely different view about the kind of political and economic system that they want. They have a different view, for example, about our policy in the Far East than we have. They have some differences with regard to our policy in the Mideast. But once we consider those differences, we then must lay beside them those areas where we have similarity and agreement. Here we find that we share with them a desire to avoid any major-power confrontation because they know that if such confrontation and explosion occurred they would be victims, even though they had attempted to be nonaligned.

530

Department of State Bulletin

So, the nonaligned nations know that. So, they share with us our desire to avoid a major-power confrontation.

Another point that a country like Yugoslavia particularly shares with us is our policy of non-intervention in their affairs. We respect their right to be nonaligned. We respect their right to have the kind of a system which they have chosen. And the fact that we do not interfere in their affairs and that in working for economic cooperation and, in some cases, even diplomatic cooperation, there is no danger of interference or domination on our part.

This is a great asset that we have in talking to the nonaligned nations. On that score, I found, as I talked to our Ambassadors from all of the Mediterranean countries and the Middle Eastern countries, that they said that one of the greatest assets the United States has in its foreign policy today is the fact that despite the fact that some, of course, foreign leaders criticize us in this area or another, there is no foreign leader, when he speaks candidly, who really fears that the United States, with its power, has designs on dominating that country or interfering in their affairs. This cannot be said of some other powers. It can be said of the United States. This is an enormous asset in our dealing with nonaligned countries.

I should also say that my discussions with President Tito were useful in another respect. He has met many world leaders, or several, I should say, that I have not had the opportunity to meet. He shared with me his appraisal of those leaders without, of course, indulging in confidences, which he did not do, and gave me, therefore, an opportunity to know men that I may not ever have a chance to know, but at least have not had the chance to meet up to this time.

I think I can sum up basically on the entire trip in this respect: As we moved in the period of 6 days through these four countries, we first found that among people generally, the United States has a great number of friends. It was, to me, very heartening to find very heartwarming welcomes in Italy, in Yugoslavia, in Spain, and, of course, in Ireland and in the other areas that we have had a chance to visit.

development, among all the leaders that I talked to, a much better understanding of our policy in Viet-Nam than I found when I was here in February a year ago. They believe the United States is bringing its participation in the war in Viet-Nam to an end. They believe that we are working for a just peace, that we are making progress. I did not find the questioning, the skepticism, about both our motives and about the possibility of the success of our policies that I found in February a year ago.

Now a word, finally, about the country we are in. This was not scheduled as an official stop. I have enjoyed the day, as I indicated a moment ago, that we had off to get to know the Irish countryside better.

Speaking of motorcades, incidentally, I thought that I had shaken hands, as I indicated to some of you this morning, with some people with pretty good handgrips, but I can assure you that the Irish have the best grips of anybody in the world.

Some of you have remarked about the fact that I have lost cufflinks on occasions, including a pair in New Orleans a few weeks ago. This is the first time that anybody who has shaken hands with me has broken a cufflink in the process. But they were friendly handshakes, and I enjoyed it very, very much.

November 2, 1970

531

if Ron [Ronald L. Ziegler, Press Secretary to
President Nixon] could arrange it, I have met
those of the press here, we could meet maybe
the members of the Irish press. I don't mind
that handshake thing. I have gotten mine
worked up a little bit. I am a little stronger.
Thank you very much.

## Remarks at Timahoe, County Kildare,
October 5

White House press release (Timahoe, Ireland) dated October 5

John D. J. Moore, U.S. Ambassador to Ireland

Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon: It is a great honor to present Mr. and Mrs. Denis Goodbody. Mrs. Goodbody is the historian of the Society of Friends in Ireland and has a presentation to make to you, sir.

### Mrs. Goodbody

Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon: We welcome you to Timahoe and to this quiet hillside where ancestors lie. We also welcome your cousin, Miss West, whose writings are known, Quaker writings, are known all over the world and appreciated.

We have the will and the inventory of your sixth great-grandfather. We have the registers by which their names are known throughout the centuries, but not least we have the certificate given by Timahoe Friends to Friends in Pennsylvania in order to give your ancestor a welcome in Pennsylvania. This certificate went with him, and we have the copy. These documents are usually started by the words "Loving Friends," and it is in that form I perhaps may address you now.

### President Nixon

Ambassador Moore, Mrs. Goodbody, Mr. Goodbody, and all of your friends from Timahoe and County Kildare: I wish to express my appreciation for the documents that have been presented here, which will remind us in the years ahead of our background in this, what has been very properly described, this peaceful Irish countryside.

And I am very proud that there is now this plaque here, which indicates that on this ground so many years ago, as a matter of fact three centuries ago, my ancestors and Jessamyn West's ancestors once lived here before coming to the Pennsylvania Colony in Philadelphia just before the War of the American Revolution.

As I went down the line, I met some of the children, a number of the older people. I asked if this was a schoolday. The children seemed to be delighted that they have the day off. So that is a good reason for our coming. At least you could come out.

But really what impressed us, as has impressed us everyplace we have been on our visit to Ireland, is the warmth and friendship of the Irish people. I have been to over 65 countries in my period of public service and in private life. I have had many friendly welcomes. I can assure you there is nothing that equals an Irish welcome, really nothing.

And I hope that I can convey in my own meetings with people around the world some of the warmth, the good will, the wit, the friendship, that characterizes the Irish people and characterizes also, I trust, my own Irish background.

532

Department of State Bulletin

with complete tolerance, by the Irish Catholics, who were in the great majority.

I met recently with Cardinal Cooke in New York, and he was telling me about the fact that that was one of the great Irish traditions—that while it was a predominantly Catholic country, it was a country which had understanding and tolerance for people of differing religious views. This is something which, of course, the world should know.

It is a very great Irish tradition; and I am very proud that I, being in what we might call from a religious standpoint the minority of Irish Quakers, can nevertheless say that I am of a tradition in which whether we happen to be Protestants or Catholics or Quakers or some other faith, that in Ireland we always receive a welcome which is from the heart and which comes from all the people here, whatever their religion may be.

One final point I would make on this occasion, which I am sure you would think would be appropriate—appropriate whatever our religious background may be but particularly appropriate because of the presentation that has been made on behalf of the Irish Quakers to me as one who happens to be of the Quaker faith, now holding the office of President of the United States.

Their greatest desire for anyone in their family who held an office would be whether he could make a contribution to peace.

Needless to say, as the President of the United States, I have many responsibilities and many goals, not just personal goals but primarily goals for our country. But I can assure you the greatest purpose and the greatest goal I have, and the greatest purpose and the greatest goal the American people have, is to play a role to

bring peace, not only to America but to all the world.

That is what we want. In our foreign policy after World War II, we have great power. We have great responsibilities that go with that power. If we do not meet those responsibilities, the chances for people who do not have power throughout the world to grow up in independence and freedom will be completely wiped out on this earth.

And so the people of the United States will meet their responsibility—the responsibility they did not ask for but that we have—to defend not only ourselves, but also when asked to do so and when it seems to be in their interests and our interests, to come to the defense of others. But let us understand one thing: The armies and the navies and the air forces of the United States of America exist for the purpose of preventing war and building peace. They are peace forces, and that is the purpose of our policy.

If we have that, we can build on from that; and if we make that contribution, then I can truly say that I have lived up to what I think my ancestors who worshiped in this place so many centuries ago would have wanted one of theirs to be if he ever got to the high office that I now hold.

November 2, 1970

533

And I can assure you that the President of the United States, whose roots go way back to this community, has that same purpose, that same goal, that same ideal, and will do everything that he can to end the wars which presently plague the world and to build a peace in which all people can grow up in friendship, in tolerance of the views of others, and particularly in the kind of a world that I see around here—good people, friendly people, meeting those who come from afar with the friendly smile, a firm handshake.

Thank you very much.

And also, may I express my appreciation to the Artane Boys Band. Weren't they great over there? Did you hear them play? Let's give them a hand.

## Exchange of Toasts at State Luncheon, Dublin Castle, Dublin, October 5

White House press release (Dublin, Ireland) dated October 5

### Prime Minister Lynch

I ask you to rise with me to honor this toast to the President of the United States of America: Mr. Nixon.

### President Nixon

Ladies and gentlemen: I ask you to rise with me as I propose a toast to the President of Ireland: To the President of Ireland.

### Prime Minister Lynch

Mr. President and Mrs. Nixon, Your Grace, Your Eminence, Your Grace, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: We count it as a high honor to have here with us in Ireland you, Mr. President, the President of the United States of America, and you, Mrs. Nixon, the First Lady of that great land.

Every Irish schoolchild learns the 17th-century poem in Irish which tells of the adventures and exploits of Eamonn Ó Ríain, Eamonn of the Hill, or Eamonn on Chnuic. The

poem begins, "Oé he sin amuigh a bhfuil faobhar ar a ghuth ag réabadh mo dhorais dúnta." Translated it means, "Who is that outside beating on the door with anger in his voice?"

Mrs. Nixon does not need to beat on any doors, because they are all open to her. We all know that there is no anger in her voice.

It is probably not very well known, Mr. President, but William Penn sailed from Cork before he established and founded Pennsylvania. But I am sure the President knows, because it was to Pennsylvania that Thomas Milhous went when he settled in the United States. The Milhous family lived in many parts of our country, from Antrim to Kildare, before some of them emigrated, like so many other Irish people, to America.

In their new home, they did not forget Ireland; and now seven generations later a descendant, one of their descendants, being the highest official in America, remembers the land that they, his ancestors, came from.

We in Ireland remember the devotion of these same Friends to Ireland in a time of great tribulation for this nation, the time of the great famine of the last century. Headed by Jacob Harvey, a citizen of New York, an Irishman and himself a Friend, they organized an appeal to which the United States replied with the generosity that is characteristic of that great land.

Not far from where the Milhouses lived in Timahoe was the homestead of another family, the Tones, from whence sprang Wolfe Tone, who first dreamed of an Irish Republic and gave his life for the cause. When Tone was just 8 years old, just 200 years ago, Benjamin Franklin was a guest in the Irish Parliament House, which is just down the street from where we are now. "I found them," he said, "disposed to be friends of America in which I endeavored to

534

Department of State Bulletin

The American War of Independence, in which
there fought many Irishmen from north and
south, and the establishment of the American
Republic kindled in many lands hopes for a
democratic society. Tone failed in his attempt
to help set up such a society here. "Washington
succeeded where Kosciusko failed," as he said
to the tribunal that sentenced him to death. But
his dream lived; and when an independent Irish
state was achieved, its Constitution, like that
of other European countries, drew inspiration
from American example.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, coopera-
tion between Ireland and the United States
in many fields. There was one little feature of
cooperation, one little exercise in cooperation,
which yesterday failed and cast a certain gloom
over our country. That is the failure of Nijinsky
to win the Arc de Triomphe. It is an American-
owned, Irish-trained horse. Had he won yester-
day, he would have had a 100-percent record in
his particular field of horseracing.

But not very long ago there was another great
Irish horse named Arthur, and we were then and
still are proud of his achievements. There was
one occasion when the despondency which might
now pervade our country because of the defeat
of Nijinsky was jubilant in that he defeated his
great rival in England named Millhouse.

However, Mr. President, something more
serious: In your time, America and mankind
have reached out into the stars, but you your-
self have reminded us in memorable phrase—
and I quote—that "... however far we reach
into the cosmos, our destiny lies not in the stars
but on earth itself, in our own hands, in our
own hearts."

Like you, and like America, the people of
Ireland, too, seek peace—again to use your
words, Mr. President—"with compassion for
those who have suffered, with understanding
for those who have opposed us, with the oppor-
tunity for all the peoples of this earth to choose
their own destiny."

Mr. President, we interpret your visit to Eu-
rope and to Ireland at this time as being fully

consistent with the import of those words that
you spoke at your inauguration. We see your
mission as one of peace. Your important and
impressive statement today at Timahoe, where
your forefathers came from, gives this empha-
sis. The opportunity you spoke of at your in-
auguration is also a right, the right of the small
nations of the world, as well as of the great.

Ireland, like other small nations, has asserted
this right. Many of them, like our country, have
played their part in promoting peace and free-
dom and in the elimination of fear throughout
the world. Though they have exercised an in-
fluence far beyond their material strength, far
beyond what would appear to be justified by
that strength, they look, as we do, to America
and the other world powers to uphold their
right to choose their own destiny, their right
to freedom and peace.

President Nixon

Mr. Taoiseach [Gaelic term for Prime Min-
ister], Your Eminence, Your Grace, Your Ex-
cellencies, friends of Ireland, and friends of
America: I wish to express on behalf of all of
us from the United States today our appreci-
ation to the Prime Minister and Mrs. Lynch for
their hospitality at this very gracious and
splendid luncheon and also to express our feel-
ing as we complete our trip to Ireland and a
trip to Europe on this occasion.

As I listened to the eloquent words of the
Prime Minister, I thought, of course, of those
bonds that keep our two countries so closely
united in so many areas of the world. While
sometimes the tendency of American politicians
to try to trace their ancestry to Ireland is looked
upon as being somewhat strained a bit, I can
assure you that in these days we will do any-
thing that will help us win, and I think that
helps us win.

November 2, 1970

535

Irish ancestry. Her father's father was born in this country. And I am very proud of my Irish ancestry, which goes back many centuries and which is attested to not only by the Irish Historical Society but also by my really more famous cousin, more famous than I, Jessamyn West, who is here today and who wrote about the Irish Quakers.

We have on this trip with us one of the most distinguished members of our cabinet, one of the most farsighted leaders in the social, economic, and political field that America has produced, Dr. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He doesn't have to search as hard as I have to to find how quickly he came from Ireland.

I also have as a member of my staff—and I think anyone who is in service would say an absolutely indispensable member of my staff—my personal executive secretary, Rose Mary Woods. Both her mother and father were Irish. So if there is any question about my straying from the path now and then, she brings me back.

I would like to point up, too, something that the Secretary of State reminded me of before we arrived in Ireland, about the special qualities that we like to find in Government service, and particularly in the diplomatic service, and that sometimes we find in one who has an Irish background. The Secretary was attempting to find the ideal man to be the Assistant Secretary in charge of information for the State Department. He was looking for a man, he said, who was both warm and cool. That sounds like a contradiction, but we can work it out, I can assure you. A man that was both warm and cool, so that he would be warm in his relations with the members of the press and others that he met around the world but also cool in any crisis that might come up.

not a Collins, a Michael Collins, in this instance, who was Irish on both sides of his family, with all of the warmth and the graciousness of the Irish personality? Then how do you take that warm, Irish Michael Collins and make him cool? You make him an astronaut and send him to the moon. So we have an Irish astronaut as the man with the top position in our Foreign Service for the purpose of being the warm, cool man that we need in a crisis.

We think, of course, of the individuals, we think of their work in various fields. But we think primarily, of course, of the spirit—the spirit that you referred to, the spirit that I sensed as I traveled through this land yesterday and today, and a spirit that is very much needed in the world today and particularly needed in our country with its responsibilities of world leadership—warm, friendly, with that ability to have a sense of humor even when things are very, very difficult. And the Irish have all of these capacities. They have also stamina, character, a deep religious faith. These are qualities that make a great people. These are qualities that have contributed enormously to America. They are qualities that make this small country a great country.

We measure a nation today not in terms of simply the number of its people or the size of its armaments, but in the quality of its spirit, the kind of people it produces, the quality of its leadership.

536

Department of State Bulletin

I think of the Prime Minister. I studied a
little bit about his background. It impressed
me very much. It impressed me because when I
was in school, I was very interested in sports.
I went out for everything—football, basket-
ball—and never made the team. He was the
champion in Irish hurling, and I understand
that is one of the most rugged sports that we
can possibly invent.

So that impressed me. But what impressed me
even more was that in the field of politics he had
never lost an election. So these qualities came to
mind—but others, of course, that are even more
important than these, which are basically some-
what superficial: the quality of that spirit that
has seen this people and this land through cen-
turies of what to most people perhaps would
have been a hopeless situation and in which
despite the disappointments, the difficulties,
Wars, famines, and oppression, the spirit of the
people stayed strong. The sense of humor stayed
strong. The ability to stand proud, dignified in
the world, regardless of what the wealth might
be or what the power might be—these are the
attributes that have earned for those of Irish
background in America the highest respect and
that earn for Ireland, this nation, the respect
of the world.

I am delighted to see that the emigration,
which we, of course, have been beneficiaries of
in America, has now finally leveled off so that
the nation will have its opportunity to grow
again.

And I am delighted, too, to see that this
nation is playing a very significant and helpful
role in the world. We are aware of the fact that
in the peacekeeping forces of the world,
whether it is in very difficult areas, like the
Congo, the Mideast, or Cyprus, the Irish forces
have been in the forefront.

Second, that sense of very great appreciation
expressed on behalf of all of the American peo-
ple for what those from Ireland have contrib-
uted to our country, a country that is made up
of many, many people.

The Prime Minister has very generously re-
ferred to the foreign policy of this country. I
realize that our nation is subject to very great
criticism in the world because with our responsi-
bilities naturally will come decisions that some-
times will not meet with approval by all
peoples.

But I can assure you, as I said at Timahoe
today, coming as I do from a background which
is deeply dedicated, totally dedicated, to peace,
there is nothing that I want, nothing that the
American people want more, in this period in
the world's history when the mantle of leader-
ship is ours in the free world, not because we
worked for it or asked for it, but because of
what happened after World War II—there is
nothing more that we want than to exercise our
responsibilities in a way that will bring peace
to the world, bring it not just for the next elec-
tion, not just for the next 10 years.

Thank you.

November 2, 1970

537

Departure Ceremony, Dublin Airport,
October 5

Prime Minister Lynch

It is with sincere regret that we now say farewell to you, and I assure you that an Irish welcome will always await you should you return to this land which has had so many connections of blood and friendship with the people of the United States.

We have been honored by your presence here for the past 3 days as President of the country which has a proud record of democratic government, which has contributed so much and so generously to the improvement of the condition of mankind throughout the world.

One of your ancestors, Mr. President, Thomas Milhous, left this country, as so many thousands of others did, and found in the New World opportunities and fresh horizons that were denied at the time to those who remained at home.

Your friendliness and good will toward the people of Ireland has impressed us all deeply. We trust you have enjoyed a relaxed stay amongst us and we assure you that your visit, short though it has been, has improved still further the already excellent relations that exist between our two countries.

Our best wishes go to you in the demanding task that faces you in leading the American people through a period so fraught with so much danger to all mankind.

You have shown by your record in Government and in the Presidential office that you are equal to that task, and we hope that you return to the United States with spirit and vigor refreshed by your contact with the Irish people.

We look forward to seeing you back in our country soon again. The door is always open to you whenever you wish to return, and the Irish people will always have a *Céad Míle Fáilte* in their hearts for you and your family.

*Slán Agus Beannacht.* (Health and blessings, Godspeed.)

President Nixon

Mr. Prime Minister: I wish to express my very deep appreciation to you and to all of those in Ireland who have given us such a warm welcome during our stay here.

After having had that time, not all of it off, but some of it, I can recommend to all of my countrymen and any others in the world, if you have a day off or more, come to Ireland. It is a wonderful place to come.

I also on this occasion want to express my appreciation to you and members of your Government for the opportunity we have had for some very serious talks on bilateral problems and other matters that concern us both as members of the world community with a deep desire for peace.

Our relations have always been good. I am sure they will be better in the years ahead and better because of the understanding on a per-

538

Department of State Bulletin

Also I appreciated the fact that on this trip we had the opportunity not only to meet with members of your Government and with you personally but also that I was allowed the opportunity to meet with members of my own staff on matters of great importance.

I would simply say that as I leave Ireland and when we look back on this stay, I am sure that these meetings, all of them, the ones that we have had with you and the ones we have had with our own staff, will be recorded as a period when we made a significant contribution not only to better understanding between our two peoples but to the whole great ideal that we both desire, a peaceful world.

This is our purpose. It is your purpose. And I can assure you and all the members of your Government that in our meetings here we have worked toward that purpose, and we believe most constructively.

And so finally, now that we leave, I can only say that I appreciate your invitation to return. We shall return, either for a holiday or perhaps on another visit.

## ARRIVAL CEREMONY, ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, OCTOBER 5

White House press release (Andrews Air Force Base) dated October 5

### Vice President Agnew

Mr. President: The Prime Minister of Ireland described his as a land of 100,000 welcomes when he greeted you there. As we watched you during your trip through the wonderful achievement of satellite photography, we found that those 100,000 welcomes were repeated many times as you visited those ancient European capitals and watched you receive the tumultuous accolades in Madrid and also in Belgrade.

But, Mr. President, I don't think there was anything in your trip that gave your fellow countrymen quite the same degree of pride and identity as your visit to the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, to the gallant officers and men who patrol the southern flank of NATO. I think it was completely clear that the words you had to say there indicated that the United States intends to stand fast in its commitments to its allies. But I think the degree of restraint and forbearance and the statesmanship you displayed, not only in your remarks that were delivered formally but also in the person-to-person encounters you had as you went among the people of those great countries of Europe to which so many of us owe our heritage, indicated that America truly has a sense of dedication and purpose in the world.

I believe that as a result of your trip, Mr. President, our relations in that critical and very touchy area have been vastly improved, and I think that the Congress and the people of the United States join me in this assurance to you that in no case have we felt quite the same sense of confidence in the vast experience that you bring to the Presidency and in your method of conducting the foreign affairs of our country.

So, Mr. President, we are awfully glad you are back—many of us are very glad you are back—and we hope that the profitable experience will improve the climate not only in the Mediterranean, but restore a sense of peace and purpose in the entire globe.

### President Nixon

Mr. Vice President: I wish to express my very grateful appreciation to you for your very warm words of welcome, and I particularly want to express my appreciation to the members of the Cabinet, the Members of the Congress, and the members of the diplomatic corps for taking the time and the trouble, along with all of the rest

November 2, 1970

539

The purpose of this trip, like the other trips I have taken abroad and like the trips that you, Mr. Vice President, have taken abroad and like the trips that the Secretary of State has taken both by himself and on this occasion with me, was to strengthen the structure of peace all over the world, but particularly now in the critical Mediterranean area.

First, the United States, through its 6th Fleet and along with its NATO allies through its NATO strength, now maintains the kind of strength that is needed to meet the role that is assigned to the 6th Fleet and to NATO. That is to deter potential aggression in the Mediterranean area and in Europe. It is vitally important that we maintain that strength—the strength of the 6th Fleet and the strength of NATO.

I am convinced that these are peace forces in the best sense of the word and therefore must be maintained and must not be unilaterally reduced.

Second, I was very encouraged to find that all of the leaders that I talked to in every country strongly approved our Mideast peace initiative. They approved the peace initiative, and they would strongly disapprove of any breaking of the cease-fire.

Third, I was encouraged to find on this trip, as compared with my trip in February of last year, much greater understanding among the leaders that I met of our policy in Viet-Nam. They believed that the United States is making very significant progress in achieving our goal of a just peace in Viet-Nam. They are correct. I believe that events in the future will demonstrate that they are correct in this appraisal.

This was very impressive. But I think it is important that I indicate to all of you who are listening, whether here in person or on television or radio, what that welcome meant—the welcome in every one of the countries that we had was overwhelmingly friendly.

It was not personal for the President as an individual, but because the President represented the American people and this country; and these people who were welcoming us were indicating that they believed, the great majority of them, that the United States is a land of opportunity, that the United States is a land of freedom, and that the United States is committed to peace.

I do not suggest that there are not differences of opinion with regard to some U.S. policies abroad; but one fundamental factor that I have found in all of my trips abroad, that the Secretary of State also reports, that you, Mr. Vice President report, is this: Whatever differences world leaders may have about some of our policies, they recognize the fact that the United States with its great power does not threaten the independence of any nation in the world.

540

Department of State Bulletin

this great audience who are gathered here in
this hangar, a number of young people. As I
saw the hundreds of thousands of people in
the motorcade routes in Italy and Spain and
Yugoslavia and again in Ireland, I saw also
hundreds of thousands of young people. I
thought of the young generation in our own
country. I thought of the young people in other
countries. I thought of the young people in
the countries of Asia and Africa and Latin
America that I visited—and what we all want
for them.

What we want for them is what this world
has not had in this century—a full generation
of peace.

I believe that the policies of the United
States of America are working toward that end.
We are dedicated to that end. I believe and I
hope that history will record that this is the
case, that this trip may have contributed sub-
stantially to that goal—a generation of peace
for America and for all of the people in the
world.

Thank you.

Reduction of U.S. Troop Ceiling
in Viet-Nam Accelerated

Statement by President Nixon ¹

On April 20 I announced that progress un-
der the Vietnamization program would permit
a reduction of 150,000 Americans in our au-
thorized troop ceiling between then and the
spring of 1971. The first 50,000 increment of
these withdrawals has already been completed
ahead of the October 15 date which I set on
June 3.

The continued progress of the Vietnamiza-
tion program has made possible an acceleration
rate of withdrawal within the overall schedule
announced previously.

Accordingly, I have instructed Secretary
Laird to reduce the authorized ceiling of our

forces in Viet-Nam by another 40,000 between
now and Christmas. As a result of this decision,
there will be authorized 205,500 fewer Ameri-
cans in Viet-Nam by Christmas of this year
than when I took office.

President Acts on ICAO Resolution
To Deter Aircraft Hijacking

Following is the text of a letter dated October 13 from President Nixon to Walter Binaghi, President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.

White House press release dated October 14

OCTOBER 13, 1970

DEAR MR. BINAGHI: It was deeply gratifying
for me to learn that the Council of the Inter-
national Civil Aviation Organization had
called upon states to take strong, concerted
measures to deter hijacking for international
blackmail purposes.¹ The Council's concern
with this threat to the safe and orderly
growth of international civil aviation, its recog-
nition of state responsibility for taking all ap-
propriate action against this menace, and its
acknowledgement of the need for joint action
to enforce state responsibility constitute a
significant advance in the effort to secure the
safety of the international air traveller.

In accordance with the Council's Resolution,
I have instructed my representatives to put be-
fore the Organization's Legal Committee a
draft convention which would implement these
principles. It is my hope that the participating
states will take rapid and affirmative action on
this proposal.

Sincerely,

RICHARD NIXON

Mr. WALTER BINAGHI
President of the Council

International Civil Aviation Organization
Montreal, Canada

¹Issued at Hartford, Conn., on Oct. 12 (White House press release).

¹For background, see BULLETIN of Oct. 19, 1970, p. 449.

November 2, 1970

541

January 26, 1970

TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT'S
MESSAGE TO THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY CONFERENCE ON
PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

January 25, 1970

I am aware of your deep concern that Israel may become increasingly isolated. This is not true as far as the United States is concerned.

The United States stands by its friends. Israel is one of its friends.

The United States is deeply engaged in trying to help the people of the Middle East find peace. In this effort, we are consulting fully with all those most concerned.

The United States believes that peace can be based only on agreement between the parties and that agreement can be achieved only through negotiations between them. We do not see any substitute for such negotiations if peace and security arrangements acceptable to the parties are to be worked out.

The United States does not intend to negotiate the terms of peace. It will not impose the terms of peace. We believe a durable peace agreement is one that is not one-sided and is one that all sides have a vested interest in maintaining. The United Nations resolution of November 1967, described the principles of such a peace.

We are convinced that the prospects for peace are enhanced as the governments in the area are confident that their borders and their people are secure.

The United States is prepared to supply military equipment necessary to support the efforts of friendly governments, like Israel's, to defend the safety of their people. We would prefer restraint in the shipment of arms to this area. But we are maintaining a careful watch on the relative strength of the forces there, and we will not hesitate to provide arms to friendly states as the need arises.

The United States has as its objective helping the people of the Middle East build a peaceful and productive future. I believe that all Americans can unite for that goal.

# # #

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 STATE 015423

AND THOSE RELATIONS IMPROVED WHEN I VISITED PRESIDENT
DE GAULLE IN FEBRUARY, IS THAT WE HAVE HAD BETTER
CONSULTATION AND DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO OUR DIFFERENCES,
AND THOSE DIFFERENCES EXIST PRIMARILY IN TWO AREAS, OUR
POLICIES TOWARD THE MIDEAST AND OUR POLICIES TOWARD NATO.

PRESIDENT POMPIDOU WILL BE HERE NEXT MONTH AND I WILL
BE DISCUSSING A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WITH HIM. I WOULD NOT
WANT TO SPECULATE NOW AS TO WHAT I WILL BE DISCUSSING WITH
HIM, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENCES, NATURALLY
WILL BE ON THE TABLE. AS FAR AS OUR OWN POLICY TOWARDS
THE MIDEAST IS CONCERNED, A QUESTION WHICH WAS THE LATTER
PART OF MISS THOMAS' QUESTION, LET ME PUT ONE THING IN
CONTEXT: I HAVE NOTICED SEVERAL RECENT STORIES STATING
THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ONE DAY PRO-ARAB AND THE NEXT
DAY PRO-ISRAEL. WE ARE NEITHER PRO-ARAB OR PRO-ISRAEL.
WE ARE PRO-PEACE. WE ARE FOR SECURITY FOR ALL THE NATIONS
IN THAT AREA. AS WE LOOK AT THIS SITUATION WE WILL CON-
SIDER THE ISRAELI ARMS REQUEST BASED ON THE THREATS TO
THEM FROM STATES IN THE AREA AND WE WILL HONOR THOSE
REQUESTS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE SEE -- THAT WE DETERMINE
THAT THEY NEED ADDITIONAL ARMS IN ORDER TO MEET THAT
THREAT. THAT DECISION WILL BE MADE WITHIN THE NEXT 30
DAYS. ROGERS

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 767

PAGE 01 STATE 015423

22
ORIGIN SS-20

INFO OCT-01 NEA-13 SSO-00 NSCE-00 USIE-00 P-03 PRS-01

NSC-10 RSC-01 /049 R

DRAFTED BY S/S-O:BRUCE A. FLATIN
1/31/70
APPROVED BY S/S-O:BRUCE A. FLATIN

O 311043Z JAN 70 ZFF4
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO USINT CAIRO IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS STATE 015423

REF: CAIRO 225

SUBJECT: MIDDLE EAST COMMENTS IN PRESIDENT'S PRESS CONFERENCE OF JANUARY 30

PURSUANT TO YOUR REQUEST IN REFTEL, THERE FOLLOWS THE FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE OF JANUARY 31:

QUESTION: MR. PRESIDENT, ON THE MIDDLE EAST, YOU RECENTLY SAID, "WE WILL NOT HESITATE TO SUPPLY ARMS TO FRIENDLY STATES AS THE NEED ARISES."

HAS THE SALE OF 100 JETS TO LIBYA BY THE FRENCH CAUSED AN IMBALANCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ENOUGH SO THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOW SELL JETS TO ISRAEL?

THE PRESIDENT: THE PROBLEM OF THE SALE OF ARMS TO LIBYA HAS BEEN ONE THAT CONCERNS US. AS YOU KNOW, THAT DOES INVOLVE OUR RELATIONS ALSO WITH THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT. ONE ENCOURAGING THING THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE WE CAME INTO OFFICE IS SOME IMPROVEMENT IN OUR RELATIONS WITH THE FRENCH.

ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THOSE RELATIONS HAVE IMPROVED,

UNCLASSIFIED

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FOR THE PRESS

FEBRUARY 10, 1970

NO. 38

TEXT OF SECRETARY ROGERS' ARRIVAL STATEMENT
AT RABAT AIRPORT, IN MOROCCO
FEBRUARY 7, 1970

I'm very pleased to be in Morocco. For Mrs. Rogers and myself, .
and for all of us in the party, let me say how grateful we are, to his
Majesty and the Foreign Minister and all of those who greeted us at
the airport.

Our arrival in Rabat is the beginning of the tour of Africa, of
10 nations. It's a tour to which President Nixon attaches great im-
portance, because of his interest in Africa. As you know, in 1957 and 1967
he toured Africa, and has a great interest in the people of Africa, and
the future of Africa. This is the first tour in Africa, ever made,
be a Secretary of State of the United States. And I am very privileged,
indeed, to be the first Secretary of State to make that tour.

I discussed my plans with President Nixon at breakfast, and he
asked me especially to convey his high personal regards to King Hassan
and to the people of Morocco. It is particularly fitting, I think,
that this tour should begin in Morocco, because of the long friendship
that has existed between our two peoples. In 1787, The United States
entered into a treaty with Morocco; a treaty of friendship and commerce.
In fact, it is the treaty in which the United States has had the
longest continuous part. It's the oldest treaty which is now in
existence in the United States.

And, in a way, my visit here will deal with the same subject:
friendship and commerce and the future growth of Morocco and of Africa.
Let me say that we are particularly pleased by the progress that has
been made in Morocco. We congratulate His Majesty King Hassan for the
leadership which he has taken in regional cooperation, in the leadership
that he has taken in attempting to bring about peace in the Middle East.

I might say that there has been some misunderstanding, I think,
about our position in the Middle East. The position that I announced
in my statement of December 9th is the policy of the United States. We
have one interest, and only one interest, and that is to bring about
peace in that area of the world. I look forward to the discussions that
I will have with the leaders of your country: His Majesty; the Prime
Minister, that I will be very pleased to meet with again; the Foreign
Minister; and other officials of the Government.

And I hope that as a result of the trip, my short visit here, that
the very warm relationship that has existed between the United States
and the Kingdom of Morocco since 1787, will continue to grow and be
enlarged for the mutual benefit of the people of Morocco, and

particularly

[tc]

NO. 38

- 2 -

particularly because of our interest in doing all we can to improve
the relations between our two countries.

Let me say in closing that I think it's unfortunate that no
Secretary of State has ever made a tour of Africa. I think that
this tour of mine does indicate a new interest in Africa, in the
future of Africa, and I am particularly pleased that the first stop
is in the Kingdom of Morocco. Thank you very much.

* * *

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

FEBRUARY 10, 1970

FOR THE PRESS

NO. 39

SECRETARY ROGERS' DEPARTURE STATEMENT
AT RABAT AIRPORT, MOROCCO,
FEBRUARY 9, 1970

In the last two days we have had not only a very delightful and in-
formative visit to Morocco but, I believe, an important one in the
relations between our two countries.

We came here at the outset of our African tour to listen and learn,
to talk about matters of common interest and to get acquainted personally
with the leaders and the people of Morocco, whose friendly relations with
the United States go back nearly two hundred years.

We have benefited by the wonderful hospitality of Morocco for which
we are all most grateful. I am particularly gratified to have had such
good and informative conversations, first with my colleague Foreign
Minister Boutaleb, then with Prime Minister Laraki, and finally today
with His Majesty King Hassan at the luncheon which he graciously gave
for us.

During these discussions we have been particularly interested in two
matters on which the United States places a high value, as does Morocco.
One is Morocco's constructive policy in supporting the cause of peace in
the Maghreb and with its neighbors. The growing closeness between these
countries is very impressive. The other is the economic and social progress
of Morocco itself, which is going forward at an encouraging pace under
the vigorous leadership of the King. During our discussions I assured the
leaders of Morocco that the United States will continue to cooperate with
other contributors in this important and constructive work of development.
We also discussed broader questions of common interest in Africa and the
Mediterranean.

I am also very glad to say that we have received the agreement of the
Moroccan Government to receive a new American Ambassador, Mr. Stuart Rockwell.
He has many years of experience in this part of the world, and is currently
serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South
Asian Affairs. His name will very shortly go to the Senate for confirmation.

As President Nixon indicated when we met with him just before our
flight from Washington, on my return from this African visit I shall
report to the nation and to the National Security Council, and the American
policy which we develop toward Africa in the years ahead will reflect the
findings and recommendations that result from this trip. Our discussions
during these two important days in Morocco will certainly be reflected in
our future policy.

Finally, I have an announcement which gives us much pleasure. I have

extended

- 2 -

NO. 39

extended His Majesty King Hassan the invitation of President Nixon to visit the United States next July 23 and 24 and His Majesty has accepted. King Hassan is the able leader of the Moroccan nation and a major statesman in this part of the world. His visit to us will be an important event in our already excellent and friendly relations.

We leave Morocco with gratitude to the King, His Ministers and the Moroccan people for their warm and gracious hospitality, and with cordial good wishes for the continued peace and progress of this beautiful country.

Following Secretary Rogers' Departure Statement, the Secretary answered several questions from newsmen as follows:

Q. - During your talks with the Foreign Minister of Morocco, did you discuss the situation in Libya, or foreign infiltration into that country?

A. - Well, the Foreign Minister and I discussed the general situation in this area of the world, specially the Mediterranean area, plus the general developments in each of the countries in the area, including Libya. We did not have any discussions about foreign intervention as you suggest.

Q. - Could we ask the Minister, Mr. Boutaleb, from his standpoint, how he would characterize the value or the advantages of the discussions with Mr. Rogers?

A. - I fully concur with the conclusions of the Secretary of State; we have found in him a very receptive, a very warm partner for our conversations, and the conclusions that he has just expressed orally are fully shared by us.

Q. - Mr. Secretary, aren't you planning to meet with President Tito in Addis Ababa?

A. - We have no present plans. I know that President Tito plans to be there when we are there, but at the present time, we have no plans.

Q. - Could the Foreign Minister clarify for us the discussions concerning Libya. Was there discussion, sir, of additional personnel who have come into Libya from other countries?

A. - If I may, we agreed that we would not talk about precisely what the discussions were, but I can say that we talked about general developments in the area, not necessarily in relation to Libya, but in regards to the countries in the area. So, we don't want to get into any precise discussions we had. We did not talk about foreign intervention in Libya.

Q. - What do you think of His Majesty's stand on the settlement of the Middle-Eastern problem that the solution must necessarily go through

the

- 3. -

NO. 39

the Palestinians?

A. - I do not think this is an appropriate place to talk about His Majesty's stand. I want to say I had a particularly useful and constructive and comprehensive talk with His Majesty, and I appreciated very much.

I want to say in conclusion that I have extended an invitation to the Foreign Minister and his wife, any time they can, to come to Washington. We have enjoyed our stay here very much.

*

*

*

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

FOR THE PRESS

[ic]

FEBRUARY 11, 1970

NO. 42

SECRETARY OF STATE WILLIAM P. ROGERS' STATEMENT
UPON ARRIVAL IN TUNIS, TUNISIA

FEBRUARY 9, 1970

I have come to Tunis to meet with my distinguished Tunisian colleague and friend, Habib Bourguiba, Jr., and with Prime Minister Bahi Ladgham, to exchange views with them on matters affecting our own relations and the peace and progress of this part of the world. This visit also gives me the opportunity to express our countrys' admiration for President Bourguiba and for the Tunisian people, with whom we have been able to work so closely in the years since Tunisia became independent. I also bring President Nixon's personal greetings and good wishes to President Bourguiba.

We Americans admire very much Tunisia's achievements, particularly the way you have gone about building a new nation--progressive, dynamic, and youthful in spirit. In international affairs, we appreciate Tunisia's wisdom, forthrightness, and dedication to the cause of world peace.

Particularly we applaud Tunisia's constructive role in the search for peace in the Middle East. In this connection, I should like to reaffirm United States adherence to the position on a Middle East settlement which I outlined in my speech in Washington last December 9, and to the proposals which the United States has submitted during its talks with the other major powers.

It is particularly appropriate that I visit Tunisia during the first official tour of Africa by an American Secretary of State. We have had continuous and peaceful relations with your country since the earliest years of our independence.

It was in 1795 that one of my predecessors sent the first American diplomatic officer to reside in Tunis.

As I stand here within sight of the Mediterranean, I realize that I am standing at a point which has served for thousands of years as a crossroads between the great cultures of Islam, the Arab world, Europe and Africa. Indeed, the name of this entire continent, Africa, is derived from the Roman name for Tunisia.

I look forward to talking with the leaders of your nation in the spirit of absolute frankness as well as friendship, qualities which have always characterized exchanges between us.

* * *

[L]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

FOR THE PRESS

FEBRUARY 12, 1970

NO. 46

TEXT OF SECRETARY OF STATE ROGERS DEPARTURE STATEMENT

FROM TUNIS, TUNISIA, FEBRUARY 11, 1970

I wish to express my personal pleasure and that of my wife with our rewarding visit to Tunisia. We both wish it could have lasted longer.

During my extensive talks with Prime Minister Ladgham and with members of the government, we had an opportunity to exchange views and opinions on a wide variety of subjects of mutual interest. I regret only that President Bourguiba could not be here, and, on the occasion of my departure, send him my most sincere wishes that he may return completely rested to resume his all-important role in Tunisia's life. I had the privilege of bringing with me a personal message of greetings from President Nixon to President Bourguiba, and through him to the entire people of Tunisia.

I want to express the admiration of my government for Tunisia's vigorous and progressive policy of national development. The recent floods brought great sorrow to this country. But the response to this disaster has been very reassuring. Tunisia is working with an admirable spirit to repair the damage. Aid has come from at least 15 countries, which testifies to the many friends Tunisia has in the world.

I visited yesterday afternoon the site at Oued Tessa, where bridges destroyed by the floods are being rebuilt by Tunisians and Americans working side by side. And I was glad that we were able to announce yesterday an additional United States gift of 2.9 millions of dollars for this work of reconstruction.

In our discussions on the international scene I expressed my country's admiration for Tunisia's policy of growing cooperation with her neighbors in the Maghreb.

We also talked at some length about the continuing difficult search for peace in the Middle East. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister made clear to me the views of Tunisia on this question. In return, I reaffirmed to them the adherence of the United States to the policy I outlined in my speech in Washington last December 9, and to the proposals which the United States has made in the discussions on this subject with the other major powers.

Now, at our departure, I leave with satisfaction in the steadfastness of the friendship of Tunisia and the United States. That friendship is of very long standing. Foreign Minister Bourguiba yesterday quoted from the treaty of 1799 between our two countries -- one of the oldest treaties to which the United States is a party. That treaty proclaimed perpetual and constant peace between the United States and Tunisia -- and this peace has already endured for 171 years.

Tunisia

- 2 -

NO. 46

Tunisia was thus a friend of the United States in our earliest beginnings as an independent state. When Tunisia gained her own independence in 1956 under the leadership of President Bourguiba, the United States was pleased in its turn to extend the hand of friendship and cooperation which I have had the pleasure of witnessing here in Tunisia is thus in a long and fine tradition.

I leave with great thanks to our generous hosts and with appreciation for the character and progressive policy of this beautiful country.

* * *

STATEMENT BY ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE ELLIOT RICHARDSON

The United States continues to be deeply concerned over the continuation and level of violence taking place between Israel and certain Arab states. We have seen reports of an Israeli air attack on the steel factory at Abu Zabal. We deplor this attack which apparently has resulted in considerable loss of life and injuries.

We cannot disregard either the tragic loss of life and injury to civilians resulting from renewed attacks by terrorists against civilian passengers travelling on international air transport far from the area of conflict.

The United States has repeatedly counselled restraint on both sides in order to discourage the continuing cycle of attack and counterattack by both regular and irregular forces involved. We appeal to both sides to adhere scrupulously to the ceasefire resolutions of the UN Security Council and urge they take every possible step to assure that all concerned cooperate fully in restoration of the ceasefire. We urge others to join us in this appeal, and we have today taken the initiative to this end in the Four Power talks at the UN.

WHITE HOUSE
SITUATION ROOM

70 FEB 12 PM 1:01

February 12, 1970

Except from the President's foreign policy
message to Congress, "United States Foreign
Policy for the 1970s" - - February 1970

THE MIDDLE EAST

"...a peace which speaks not only about the integrity of nations, but also for the integrity of individuals."

Letter to the President of
American Near East Refugee
Aid, October 21, 1969

"...the peace that is not simply one of words but one which both parties will have a vested interest in maintaining."

Welcoming remarks to Prime
Minister of Israel,
September 25, 1969

These statements reflect some of my thoughts on the nature of the peace which must come to the Middle East. At the same time, this is an area with great resources and prospects for economic progress. It is the first region of developing nations that is near to meeting its capital needs from its own resources.

Yet this area presents one of the sternest tests of our quest for peace through partnership and accommodation of interests. It combines intense local conflict with great power involvement. This combination is all the more dangerous because the outside powers' interests are greater than their control.

Beyond the area of conflict and beyond this era of conflict, the United States is challenged to find new relationships in helping all the people of the area marshal their resources to share in this progress.

The most important of the area's conflicts, between Arabs and Israel, is still far from settlement. It has serious elements of intractability, but its importance requires all concerned to devote their energies to helping to resolve it or make it less dangerous.

Local passions in the Middle East run so deep that the parties in conflict are seldom amenable to outside advice or influence. Each side is convinced that vital interests are at stake which cannot be compromised.

- 59 -

[lc]

-- Israel, having lived so long before on a thin margin of security, sees territories occupied in 1967 as providing physical security more tangible than Arab commitments to live at peace -- commitments whose nature would be tested only after Israel had relinquished the buffer of the territories.

-- For the Arabs, a settlement negotiated directly with the Israelis would require recognition of Israel as a sovereign state even while Israeli troops still occupy territory taken in 1967 and while Arab refugees remain homeless.

-- For both sides and for the international community, Jerusalem is a special problem involving not only the civil and political concerns of two states but the interests of three great world religions.

A powerful legacy of fear and mistrust must be overcome if the parties are to be willing to subject their interests and grievances to the procedure of compromise. Until then, no formula acceptable to both sides, and no neutral definition of "a fair and reasonable settlement," can get very far.

However, a settlement should still be sought.

This Administration continues to believe that the United Nations cease-fire resolutions define the minimal conditions that must prevail on the ground if a settlement is to be achieved. We have persistently urged the parties in the area as well as the other major powers to do all possible to restore observance of the cease-fire.

Once those minimal conditions exist, we believe a settlement can only be achieved through the give and take of negotiation by those involved, in an atmosphere of mutual willingness to compromise. That is why this Administration has pressed this view in a series of consultations with leaders from the Middle East both in Washington and in their capitals, in bilateral discussions with the outside powers most concerned, and in formal talks with the Soviet Union and in the Four Power forum at the United Nations. In the course of these discussions, we have advanced specific proposals -- outlined by Secretary Rogers in his speech of December 9 -- for creating a framework for negotiation in accordance with the United Nations resolution of November 22, 1967. These have been written with the legitimate

- 60 -

concerns of all parties firmly in mind. They were made in
an effort to try to help begin the process of negotiation
under UN Ambassador Jarring's auspices. Observing that
the United States maintained friendly ties with both Arabs
and Israelis, the Secretary of State said that to call for
Israeli withdrawal as envisaged in the UN resolution
without achieving agreement on peace would be partisan
toward the Arabs, while calling on the Arabs to accept
peace without Israeli withdrawal would be partisan toward
Israel.

But the United States cannot be expected to assume
responsibility alone for developing the terms of peace or
for guaranteeing them. Others -- in the Middle East and
among the great powers -- must participate in the search
for compromise. Each nation concerned must be prepared
to subordinate its special interests to the general interest
in peace. In the Middle East, especially, everyone must
participate in making the peace so all will have an interest
in maintaining it.

We have not achieved as much as we had hoped twelve
months ago through the discussions with the Soviet Union
or the Four Power talks. We have gone as far as we believe
useful in making new proposals until there is a response
from other parties. But we shall continue to participate
in the dialogue so long as we can make a contribution.

If the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be finally resolved,
at least its scope must be contained and the direct engage-
ment of the major powers limited. For this is a second
dimension of the conflict in the Middle East -- the rival-
ries and interests of the major powers themselves.

The interests of the great powers are involved in the
contests between local forces, but we also have a common
interest in avoiding a direct confrontation. One of the
lessons of 1967 was that the local events and forces have
a momentum of their own, and that conscious and serious
effort is required for the major powers to resist being
caught up in them.

In its communications to the Soviet Union and others,
this Administration has made clear its opposition to steps
which could have the effect of drawing the major powers

- 61 -

[L.C.]

more deeply into the Arab-Israeli conflict -- steps that could only increase the dangers without advancing the prospects for peace.

The activity of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and the Mediterranean has increased in recent years. This has consequences that reach far beyond the Arab-Israeli question. The United States has long-standing obligations and relationships with a number of nations in the Middle East and its policy is to help them enhance their own integrity and freedom. This Administration has shown its readiness to work with the Soviet Union for peace and to work alongside the Soviet Union in cooperation with nations in the area in the pursuit of peace. But the United States would view any effort by the Soviet Union to seek predominance in the Middle East as a matter of grave concern.

I believe that the time has passed in which powerful nations can or should dictate the future to less powerful nations. The policy of this Administration is to help strengthen the freedom of other nations to determine their own futures. Any effort by an outside power to exploit local conflict for its own advantage or to seek a special position of its own would be contrary to that goal.

For these reasons, this Administration has not only pressed efforts to restore observance of the cease-fire and to help begin the process of negotiating a genuine peace. It has also urged an agreement to limit the shipment of arms to the Middle East as a step which could help stabilize the situation in the absence of a settlement. In the meantime, however, I now reaffirm our stated intention to maintain careful watch on the balance of military forces and to provide arms to friendly states as the need arises.

This Administration clearly recognizes that the problem of the Middle East, rooted in a long history of local developments, will be solved only when the parties to the conflict -- by reason or resignation -- come to accommodate each other's basic, long-run interests. They must recognize that to do less will increasingly endanger everyone's basic goals.

## Issues for the Future

We shall continue to seek to work together with all the region's nations, respecting their legitimate national

- 62 -

interests and expecting that they will have the same regard
for ours. But the emphasis must be on the word "together."
The day is past when the large powers can or should be
expected either to determine their course or to solve their
problems for them. As the Secretary of State said on
December 9:

"[Peace] is...a matter of the attitudes
and intentions of the parties. Are they
ready to coexist with one another? Can
a live-and-let-live attitude replace
suspicion, mistrust and hate? A peace
agreement between the parties must be
based on clear and stated intentions and
a willingness to bring about basic changes
in the attitudes and conditions which are
characteristic of the Middle East today."

The Middle East poses many challenges for the United
States. First, of course, is the problem of resolving or
containing major causes of conflict. No one should believe
that a settlement even of the Arab-Israeli conflict would
lead to the complete relaxation of tensions in the area.
Other local rivalries and the turmoil accompanying social
and economic change will continue to produce possibilities
for conflict.

Yet, beyond that, a new problem faces us -- the charac-
ter of a constructive American relationship with an area
with large capital resources of its own.

A number of nations in the area are well-launched
toward economic modernization. Some of them have substan-
tial revenues to finance this effort, and those that do not
will increasingly rely on the efforts of nearby nations
to help through regional funds. Large numbers of skilled
technicians have been trained, and many of them have
crossed borders to help neighbors.

This means that -- while the United States will continue
to help where it can -- the need will decline for capital
assistance and for the type of economic assistance which
AID and its forerunners have provided. Of course, American
technology, investment, education, managerial skills are
still much in demand and can offer much in helping break
bottlenecks that remain.

- 63 -

The challenge to the United States, therefore, is
to find new tools -- new programs, new legislation, new
policies -- that will permit our government and our citi-
zens to relate productively to the first major area of
the developing world to be close to meeting most of its
capital needs from its own resources. We want to continue
to work together. We must therefore -- while persisting
in the quest for peace -- develop new relationships to
meet the circumstances and demands of the 1970's.

Beyond the dangerous conflict of today, our vision
of the Middle East is of a common effort by all those --
the people of the area and friends outside -- whose high
purpose is to erase the scars of the past and to build
a future consistent with their great heritage and abundant
resources.

This Copy For __________

BACKGROUND BRIEFING
(United States Foreign Policy for the 1970s)

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS; ELLIOT LEE RICHARDSON, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE; DAVID PACKARD, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; AND RON ZIEGLER, PRESS SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT

5:13 P.M. EST

FEBRUARY 16, 1970

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: Let me restate the groundrules.

The President's remarks you can quote directly. What he said will remain under the same embargo as the content of the briefing today. What Dr. Kissinger and Undersecretary Richardson and Deputy Secretary Packard say today can be attributed to Administration officials. You can quote them directly, direct quotations, but it should be attributed to Administration officials -- Administration officials said, quote.

I think the advanced message which you have clearly states the embargo groundrules. It is embargoed for wire transmission until midnight Tuesday. It is embargoed for use until 12:00 noon on Wednesday.

The material discussed this afternoon falls into those same groundrules.

Dr. Kissinger.

DR. KISSINGER: Why don't we go immediately to questions?

Q Dr. Kissinger, on page 93 of the Defense section, at the top of the page, there is a statement about reaching agreement within the Government on four specific criteria for strategic sufficiency. Can you give us any more than what is there on that?

DR. KISSINGER: No, We thought that to list the actual criteria would be revealing security information that would help any potential opponent to plan with excessive precision. But we have established that four criteria which we believe define our notion of adequacy, and we are planning our forces accordingly and we are reviewing them as technology changes.

Q Dr. Kissinger, on page 91, are those figures, the statistics on the ballistic missiles and the submarine missiles, are those new, the projections for '70?

MORE

- 2 -

DR. KISSINGER: They are accurate. I have seen them
in many unclassified versions.

Q What I am trying to get at is, is this the
first time the Government has backed up these figures?

DR. KISSINGER: Dave, you would know better than I do.

MR. PACKARD: I don't know whether these particular
figures have been given before. They represent the latest report
we have from the intelligence community. This is updated as of the
end of the year. I can't assure you that we have given these figures
out anywhere. They have probably gotten out. As you know, some of
these figures get out without having given them out. But these are
the latest figures.

Q How many of the 1,054 Soviet ICBMs are projected
as SS-9s?

DR. KISSINGER: We don't want to get into that
much detail. But I think Secretary Laird in his testimony
last year indicated that they would be moving towards the
300 figure.

Q Dr. Kissinger, on page 55, in the Vietnam
section, on negotiations, the statement is made that "One task
is to persuade the North Vietnamese Government to join us in
genuine negotiations leading toward a compromise settlement which
would assure the self-determination of the South Vietnamese
people and would also ensure the continued neutrality of Laos.
I don't ever remember the two being linked. Are they linked?

DR. KISSINGER: A settlement in Vietnam that does
not at the same time also lead to an observance of the 1962
Accords would have serious problems. We have always believed
that there was a relationship between these two. This is not
a new pronouncement. We have always held this view.

MR. RICHARDSON: I was going to say I think the record
will show that Ambassador Lodge and Ambassador Habib in Paris
have made this clear.

Q Dr. Kissinger, on that same page, the middle of
the page, there is a reference to Hanoi facing serious and
complicated issues, one of them being uncertainties in its
international support. What country is that a reference to?

DR. KISSINGER: The situation where Hanoi could with
confidence count for an unlimited period of time on a monolithic
degree of Communist support is cast into doubt, at least
to the extent that Sino-Soviet disputes might effect Hanoi's
confidence about the future. And what is meant by that statement
is not that Peking or Moscow are not supporting Hanoi now, but
as Hanoi looks into the future it does not have an unlimited
expectation of tranquility on the part of the countries that
are giving supporting aid.

Q Dr. Kissinger, on page 61 there is a statement,
"But the United States would view any effort by the Soviet Union
to seek predominance in the Middle East as a matter of grave
concern." Has a statement comparable to this in gravity been
issued by the President before first, or, secondly, by other members
of the Government?

MORE

DR. KISSINGER: A statement to that effect has not been made in these words by the President, but it has always been an element of American policy. What we attempted to do here was to distinguish between those elements in the Middle East that relate to the Arab-Israeli dispute and those that may involve issues that go beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict. And we wanted to make clear that the United States does have interests in this region going beyond that.

Elliot, would you like to say something on that?

MR. RICHARDSON: No, I think you have covered it very well.

Q Doctor, could we call this a warning to the Soviets? Would that be too strong a word?

DR. KISSINGER: It is a statement of policy and it is a statement of fact. We don't make warnings.

Q Dr. Kissinger, the President used the word "watershed" in introducing this briefing this afternoon. If I understand watershed correctly, it means a separation, division, going in a new direction. I have not had a chance to read this. What are the watershed points in this foreign policy statement?

DR. KISSINGER: What the President meant is the fact that there now exists a comprehensive, philosophical statement of American foreign policy. It makes it clear that for better or worse our policies are not simply tactical responses to immediate situations, but that there exists a coherent picture of the world; that we are taking our action in relation to this picture; and that this document outlines his experience in foreign policy, national security policy and his expectations for the future.

So whatever debate is generated by this would have to be in terms of a general concept of foreign policy and not simply in terms of tactical responses to immediate situations.

Secondly, it is his belief and it is the Administration's belief that we are reaching the end of the post-war era, the end of the post-war era in the sense that in the immediate period after World War II the United States, among the non-Communist countries, was the only one that had emerged from the war with its society and its economy relatively intact. Therefore, it was natural that the United States would assume a predominant role anyplace where it felt that security of the non-Communist world was threatened.

This, in turn, imposed on us the requirement that we were trying to remedy immediate crisis situations rather than deal with the overall structure of peace, or, rather, we identified the overall structure of peace with the solution of immediate crisis.

This is ending now for a number of reasons. It is ending, according to this document and our convictions, because many other parts of the world have now regained a degree of cohesion, have grown into independence, which was, of course, not the case at the end of World War II, and are capable of assuming a greater responsibility, both for their security and for their problems.

MORE

DR. KISSINGER: We have had a special sub-panel of the verification panel dealing only with MIRVs and tangentially with the relationship of MIRVs to ABM. I think we have a rather clear idea of what is verifiable, what collateral measures would have to be taken, what the difficulties are. And without going into the details that would take us too far, I think there is a large area of agreement within the Government as to what would be required in terms of collateral steps and how one would have to go about it and the degree of uncertainty that exists, which is fairly large. It is an extremely complicated problem. It is one of the most complicated problems that we examined in the verification panel and the one which simply raises a lot of collateral issues.

But we can put before the President and we have put before the President exactly what is involved. And before the Vienna meeting, we will, of course, have a position.

Q Dr. Kissinger, on page 103, you say that we see evidence that the Soviet Union seeks a position in the Middle East which would make a great power rivalry more likely. Can you tell us what that evidence is, what the Soviets are doing now and what the danger is there?

DR. KISSINGER: This is really the same point about which I believe Saville Davis asked earlier. It has to do with the impression that some Soviet acts create, that beyond its inevitable involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict it seeks to use this for a more permanent foothold in the Middle East.

We believe that the best way to achieve peace in that area is through the self-restraint of the major powers. And we attempted to convey in this document that we were hoping that the Soviet Union would follow us.

Let me get somebody who hasn't asked a question yet.

Q Is the Administration satisfied with the relative strength in strategic missiles that you project will prevail at the end of 1970 between the United States and the Soviet Union?

DR. KISSINGER: Is the United States satisfied with this?

Q Is the Administration satisfied with the strength that you project will exist in 1970?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, because if we weren't, we would make an attempt to change it.

As the Deputy Secretary of Defense has pointed out, we believe that at this rate of Soviet buildup we can live with the force decisions we have made.

On the hand, we also raised a number of questions which we would have to address if either SALT failed and/or the Soviet buildup continued unchecked at its recent rate.

MORE

- 14 -

Q Could I ask you another question, please, on
Vietnam?

On page 56 and 57, you have a series of posing
questions which at least make the question or judgment on
pacification tentative. But on page 52, or thereabouts, you
make the flat assertion that Vietnamization or pacification
is succeeding. How do you square these two?

DR. KISSINGER: On page 52 we are doing what? We
state that it is succeeding.

Q You haven't gotten the answers, I take it,
to the questions on 56 and 57?

DR. KISSINGER: No. Let me explain.

Our judgment is that Vietnamization, as of now,
is succeeding for the reasons which we indicate. On the
other hand, we realize that it requires a constant review
and that conditions could at least theoretically change and
that there are some uncertainties in this situation which
we constantly have to look at. We are not claiming that we
are over the hump. We are claiming that we have made progress,
that it has been succeeding and that these questions are
being kept under constant review, that we are confident that
we can solve them because, as we point out at some other point,
we can't fool Hanoi. They have shown a high degree of ability
to understand the situation in Vietnam.

And this was put in to indicate that obviously there
are problems that worry us that we are working on and that
create some elements of uncertainty. But we believe, we are
confident that we could solve them.

Q Dr. Kissinger, how do you view the present
arms balance in the Middle East?

DR. KISSINGER: With dismay. It is under review
at this moment and is part of the President's decision on
the Israeli arms package. Nice try. (Laughter.)

Q Doctor, on page 60, the statement is made,
we have gone on the Middle East as far as we believe useful in
making new proposals, et cetera. Does this fall in the same
pattern as the President's statement at Saigon regarding
Vietnam and the Paris negotiations? Can you give us any
amplification on that relationship?

MORE

-16-

That threat in turn has been studied in a number of forums by the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by the Defense Program Review Committee and obviously from the figures we have given the Soviet threat is more imminent than the Chinese threat and this would be reflected in our budgetary recommendations.

Q To make another stab on the arms balance in the Middle East, what was the thinking behind the President's announcement that he had to make this decision within 30 days or he would make it within 30 days on the Israel arms request?

DR. KISSINGER: This decision had been before the President for several months. He had, of course, been fully briefed on the state of the discussions that are now going on within the NSC system in which a full review is being made of the relative capabilities and arms balance, and he therefore knew that the consideration within the NSC system had reached the point where the various choices could be put before him within the time period he gave.

It had no profound significance in terms of a diplomatic ploy, it was not intended as a warning, it was not intended as a self-inflicted deadline, it simply reflected his appreciation of where our internal considerations stood.

He knew when this would be moved before him and the National Security Council, and therefore, he expected to make a decision within the time frame that the bureaucratic process had set for it. There was no profound diplomatic significance to it.

Q Dr. Kissinger, can you expand on that time frame?

Q Dr. Kissinger, do you expect this will be an annual event, a report of this kind, or is it with respect particularly to 1970 and to the studies you have been reviewing?

DR. KISSINGER: On the first page, it says, "This First Annual Report on U.S. Foreign Policy."

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END

(AT 6:05 P.M. EST)

This Copy For

BACKGROUND BRIEFING

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER,
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS;
AND JERRY WARREN, DEPUTY PRESS
SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT

7:15 P.M. EST

FEBRUARY 16, 1970

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: Dr. Kissinger will be speaking on a
BACKGROUND basis, but you will be quoted directly. Right,
Dr. Kissinger?

DR. KISSINGER: At this meeting, I don't expect so.

MR. WARREN: Same embargo as the message.

Q No quotes?

DR. KISSINGER: No.

MR. WARREN: No quotations.

Q I will probably live to regret this meeting.

Q On the section on Europe, is there a shift of
tone or emphasis when you talk about the disadvantages we are
willing to take, economic, for promoting unity in Europe? This
is the bottom of page 20, and the top of 21.

DR. KISSINGER: Shift of emphasis from where?

Q We have always said we are willing to make these
economic sacrifices, back in other Administrations, but yet,
there is coming out of the Administration at least more of a
sense of possible concern that this thing is going to become
a happy trade club, at our expense and maybe not go much
farther than that.

But that feeling is not reflected in this. I assume
that is deliberate.

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, this was deliberately pointed
out. We are less interested in European economic unity for
its own sake than we are in the European economic unity leading
to political unity.

In any event, this makes it clear. While we
subsequently favor European political unity, we don't think it
is our task to bring it about, and also, we believe that an
attempt by us to bring it about would be counter-productive,
that previous Administrations in an effort to become the principal
advocate, have harmed rather than helped progress.

MORE

-2-

So, I am really paraphrasing what they say.

Q Henry, while we are on 21, on the troops in Europe, can you give us a little guidance after this precipice called mid-1970? You have left it here sort of in the air pending study of our strategy for the defense of Western Europe and everybody, I presume -- part of the tactic is to make the Europeans get off their dead ends a little bit, and you want to leave it vague, but on the other hand, the President has been trying to say that we are not going to run away from Europe and so on, as he says in here.

What is really your thinking about this?

DR. KISSINGER: You all recognize that the European problem is a delicate one for a number of reasons, because the record doesn't really show that the Europeans increased their effort as we increased ours. Usually as we decrease our efforts, they decrease theirs, because it is domestically the easier thing to do because they can justify it on the grounds that our assessment of the international situation is permitting us to reduce forces and they must be permitted to reduce forces.

So, the equation doesn't work exactly that way. This is why we believe, we don't mean to suggest that we will reduce forces by the middle of 1971.

What we do want to suggest is that over the next year and a half, we ought to face some of these questions and come jointly to some understanding of what we are about so that the forces that are there, so we can disentangle the symbolic and the substantive functions of these forces and to develop some conception that we can maintain over an indefinite period of time, or in an interim period of time. I don't want to put a time limit on it.

Rather than put it in terms of force levels, I think we are eager to get a common appreciation with our European allies of what we are trying to achieve rather than tie ourselves to one particular magic number which becomes a symbol of our commitment.

Everyone knows how accidentally some of these force levels were originally determined.

Q But then that plunges you into where are you going on SALT, where is Brandt going with us.

DR. KISSINGER: That leaves it all to be faced. We will have to have serious discussions with the Europeans before and after April 16 about the future of SALT. We have always said, and I think we are repeating it in here, that SALT must have an impact on European defense, not really in the sense of creating a new position, condition, but of formalizing a condition which is coming about even without SALT.

MORE

-3-

There is no way we can get around these issues and
there is no way we can avoid rocking this particular boat because
events are rocking that particular boat.

So, before June, we are going to have to discuss the
SALT implications very seriously with the Europeans. There is
just no way simply around that because of SALT.

As you go into SALT, as you discuss the new strategic
situation that exists with or without SALT, namely, the one
in which a first nuclear strike is simply a completey different
problem today than it was in 1960. There is no amount of formal
declaration that is going to change that fact.

The figures that we are printing in here make that
self-evident.

As we do that, all the other issues which you have
mentioned are bound to come to be put on the table. It is our
common problem. It is not a problem that we face alone. It is
a problem that we face with them and which we want to discuss
with them.

Q So, nothing really can -- the Brandt visit or
the Pompidou visit won't really resolve it? They are just
interims.

DR. KISSINGER: The Brandt or the Pompidou visit,
the very first stages -- obviously, we will have to begin talking
about some of these things. But they won't resolve them.

Of course, obviously, there are different views in
every government on this.

Q I got the impression from the section on SALT
and the verification problem that the only proposal which
the United States itself might care to make in April or
some other stage of the talks was one for the limitation of
various types of nuclear missiles by number, because everything
else requires verification beyond a unilateral capacity.

DR. KISSINGER: That isn't true. It isn't true.
Number of missiles by number? In other words, we are not prepared
to make proposals about MIRV?

Q That is right.

DR. KISSINGER: I mean that is the only thing you would
exclude by that, because everything else you can do by number.

Q Can you tell an ABM by number?

DR. KISSINGER: Can you tell an ABM by number?

Q By outside?

DR. KISSINGER: Or can you tell whether something is
an ABM or something else? That is one of the interesting
verification problems. But I think essentially you can, yes.

MORE

-4-

Let me give you an example of how this verification
thing works. These figures aren't correct. We said,
for example, in the case of your wanting to put a limit on
land based ICBM's, supposing the limit were 3,000 -- no one
has 3,000 -- then they could hide, let me invent a figure, 400
and after they have 3,400, we begin picking them up.

Then we said, "Well, at what stage do we know? Does
it have to be 3,400 or can we tell already at the level of
3,290?"

Well, so, we then got a spectrum at which you could
begin picking them up. Then we asked, "What is the significance
of that?" If it is significant, what can we do about it? If
it isn't significant, can we live with it for a time interval?
Or, what do we have to do to our intelligence capabilities so
that we will get up at the ban.. at which we can live with it?

Suppose we can live with it at 2,300. Don't draw any
conclusions from these figures. They are deliberately misleading.

And this is the sort of inventory we made. It really
helped to resolve a lot of disputes, because quite candidly
in some areas, it turned out everyone was talking about the same
thing. When one group in the government said, "You are diminishing
security", they were talking about exactly the same number
that the other group was saying, "You must run a risk for
peace."

Then when you asked, "What is the strategic significance
of it?" Sometimes it turns out there is no great strategic
significance to it, to a particular evasion.

With respect to MIRV, this raises special problems.
It raises special problems because it is harder to tell by
unilateral inspection. In fact, deployment is impossible to
tell by unilateral inspection.

With respect to MIRV testing, the issue is that there
are a lot of collateral activities you have to ban in order
to be sure that there is no MIRV testing that can be strategically
significant, such as testing one warhead at a time, such as
testing the release mechanisms by other methods.

And what happened with respect to MIRV is that we
actually had a very comprehensive study, and that we have to
relate it to other measures. We cannot take MIRV by itself.
It has to be related to ABM before one can make a reliable judgment.
But we are not saying that they are only limitations as to
numbers. You will make a mistake if you read it that way.

What judgment we will have to come to, probably during
the Vienna discussions, we probably will not make that final
judgment, is to relate comprehensiveness to speed. If we want a
quick agreement or a relatively quick agreement. It cannot be
too comprehensive. If we are willing to go and sacrifice time,
then we can go for a larger order of comprehensiveness. But
we will be prepared to go either way.

MORE

- 5 -

Q Now, if I could just pursue this a fraction further. In the paragraph introducing the three categories on page 108, you speak about this position and the three general categories. "This will enable us to respond to a broad range of Soviet proposals."

The first question which occurred to me there was whether as a tactical matter the United States ---

DR. KISSINGER: We will have a proposal. We are not going in there and telling the Soviets, "Make a proposal and we will tell you what we think of it." We will have probably more than one position, depending on the range of comprehensiveness we are talking about.

Q Can you explain the third category down there, which I don't understand. What is the difference between offensive forces and missiles qualitatively?

DR. KISSINGER: The second category would be, say, a ban on MIRV. The third category would be a reduction of the forces with or without a ban on MIRV.

Q Forces meaning what?

DR. KISSINGER: Say, ICBMs and Polarisates, and, of course, probably we should have stated defensive forces, too.

Q It seems to me there is not much difference between that and category 1.

DR. KISSINGER: It depends on how you read it. Category 1 is meant to say that you put a ceiling on forces but not necessarily reduce them; that is, you stop where you are or you go to another level and stop there.

Category 3 means you agree to a level of forces lower than the forces that now exist. There is a school of thought that believes that this is the best way of getting at the MIRV problem, because it may be that when you reduce your forces out of an existing inventory that depends now whether you can put in new missiles, you will be less ready to put in new and relatively untried warheads.

This is the significance of Category 3. And each of those has some options. There are various combinations in each of these that are possible. What we are trying to avoid is to get SALT into the same kind of position as in the Middle East where you have one position and the other side puts down one position and then you haggle over the clauses of your positions before you know exactly where you are trying to go. This is no criticism of the Middle East thing where you don't have that choice. You can't say we have ten different attitudes towards the borders. In some areas, it is unavoidable.

But with respect to SALT, it is our belief that we are better off having a certain flexibility within broad categories.

Q I would like to clear up one thing I think you said in response to John. You said MIRV has to be related to ABM. I was trying to define what you meant.

MORE

- 6 -

DR. KISSINGER: If you have very high ABM levels on both sides, then MIRVs are absolutely unavoidable; that is, if you have very large ABM levels it would be very difficult. The MIRVs were originally conceived on our side, not necessarily on the Soviet side, as a counter to ABM.

Q Would you consider Safeguard a very high level in that terminology?

DR. KISSINGER: It depends what level at Safeguard you are talking about. I think the existing Safeguard program is at the limit of what you could do. You couldn't go beyond it.

Q Including what is going up this year?

DR. KISSINGER: What is going up this year is a very low ABM level.

Q How do you define a low level of ABM? Indeed, how do you prevent a kind of escalating ambiguity in this area?

DR. KISSINGER: You can make an analysis -- we are talking about the relationship between Soviet and American forces, and we have made that analysis -- of what level of ABM would not represent a threat to a second strike capability and could not plausibly represent a threat to a second strike capability. Anything that reduces a first strike capability is of course an asset. I am talking strategic theory now. Anything that reduces either side's first strike capability without reducing its second strike capability reduces the probability of strategic nuclear war.

Q Let me take it back a little bit. I am really confused now. I think you said in this last statement that Safeguard, as programmed now, is at a low level. Would you say their ABM is at a high level?

DR. KISSINGER: No.

Q But it justifies our going ahead with MIRV?

DR. KISSINGER: Our MIRV, when it was developed under McNamara, was designed -- the MIRV program we have pursued is the program of the previous Administration. It was designed in the previous Administration as a counter to the then estimated Soviet ABM deployment.

And the argument I am making is that if the ABMs don't increase substantially, if there is no very high ABM level, then the MIRVs, as they are now conceived, do not effect the strategic equation fundamentally.

Q Do you think the McNamara response was a wise response? You have continued with that program.

DR. KISSINGER: I tried to explain what it was. I don't want to get into the business of criticizing or commenting on the previous Administration. I am just saying that the problem we now face is this: that if you want to limit MIRVs, you have to do it in relation to an ABM program, to an ABM limitation, because if ABMs are on first strike and MIRVs are eliminated, then this can give a significant problem.

MORE

- 7 -

At the present ABM levels in the Soviet Union, we are not saying that we require MIRV to penetrate existing ABM levels in the Soviet Union. This is why the President has indicated in a press conference that he is prepared to discuss these issues in relationship to each other.

The difficulty with ABM -- our verification studies have shown this is not an argument against it. Every time I say "difficult," people say I am just telling you what our studies show. It isn't so much to launch this, because there we have a fair amount of confidence that we can tell the number of launches. The difficulty about ABMs has to do with radar and whether you can enforce limitations on radars and how you prevent existing radars from being used for ABM purposes after which ABM missiles could be introduced fairly rapidly.

Q Is that a reference to converting SAMs to ABMs?

DR. KISSINGER: No, that is a separate problem. It is a reference to converting radar associated with SAMs. I am just telling you the difficulties. We are prepared to look at this problem and the newspaper accounts which have us taking a dogmatic position on this are simply inaccurate. It is simply not true that we have precluded this.

Q Henry, on page 40, the statement says, "The responsibilities once borne by the United States at such great cost can now be shared." What degree of confidence do you have that they will effectively be shared? And if they are not effectively shared, do we run the risk of basing a very important policy on great uncertainty?

DR. KISSINGER: Every policy has to be based on a degree of uncertainty and on an assessment which you can't prove when you make it. Our belief is that over a historical period, which is what we are attempting to define here, five to ten years, it isn't possible for the United States either politically, fiscally, or psychologically to put itself into the frontline of defense of every conceivable local crisis. And the attempt to do so would be the surest way of exhausting ourselves and of tearing ourselves to pieces.

We cannot continue to take the position that the defense of every country is more in our interest than in the interest of that country and, therefore, we will have to consider the painful prospects that are involved and that would flow from it.

Of course, if there are countries that in our belief are vital to our security, we may be forced to draw consequences even if they don't make provisions for their defense. Britain had to continue fighting in 1940 even though it turned out that France's efforts to defend itself proved inadequate.

But we are talking here about the automatic assumption that any attack from any Communist or aggressive country against any country whatever that was so characteristic of some of the period in the '50s and other periods.

MORE

- 8 -

It is a fact that the conditions have changed and that
the President is trying to take account of the changed conditions.

Q But isn't the really important change in conditions
the change in the attitudes within this country?

DR. KISSINGER: No.

Q And the support that he feels he can have in
this country?

DR. KISSINGER: No. I believe if you look at the
President's views over a period of time, they have been quite
consistent on this. And, in any event, we would approach this
problem essentially the same way, even if American domestic
opinion were temporarily more favorable because, obviously,
our assessment would have to be that any attempt by the
United States to be the principal organizer of programs all
over the world and the principal defender of every part of
the world simultaneously would in time erode -- not the domestic
position of this Administration, but the possibility of any con-
structive leadership.

In this sense, any Administration has to look at the
issues of priorities. In the long term, we cannot make
what was a crisis situation in the late '40s a permanent
feature of our foreign policy.

So from this point of view one is affected by it,
but it wouldn't be a good policy, even if one could count
on an indefinite continuation of domestic support for it, because
over a period of time it breaks the sense of responsibility
of every other country.

Q Does the Administration actually believe that
our European allies now play a greater role commensurate with
their growing strength now? Or is that a hope?

DR. KISSINGER: To some extent, it is a hope. It is
the purpose of our policy. They are playing a greater role
than they did some time ago in such organizations as the
Nuclear Planning Group. They are having a greater influence
on nuclear planning than was the case, say, ten years ago.

It is one of the problems, though, that has to be
faced in NATO, a different proportioning of burdens and
responsibilities.

Q Henry, what is this based on? Did the
President have this idea when he came into office for a report
like this, or did it grow out of what evolved?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes. This I can speak to with some
great assurance because in Key Biscayne -- in fact, I have it
enshrined in a document, a record of that meeting -- there was
an NSC meeting -- it couldn't have been an NSC meeting. The
membership of what was to become the NSC met in Key Biscayne
at the end of December, I think, 1968. It was memorable to
me. It was my first encounter with the President. And there
the President stated that he was going to publish an annual
report which would have these major features. This has been
part of his idea of the NSC structure since it was set up.

MORE

- 9 -

Q Is there any feeling that this report is rooted
in a year that has been rather abnormal as far as world
crisis roles, Henry, in that ---

DR. KISSINGER: It has been quiet, you mean?

Q Yes, unusually so. And perhaps it reflects
some unreality because of that.

DR. KISSINGER: We will have to see as the years
go on. We will have to see whether it is an unusual year
in this Administration or not. But it was part of our
program. I would have thought that whether there is a year of
turmoil or a year of relative calm, analysis of what one
attempted to do during the year was important both for the
public and for the Governmental structure so that they understand
in a coherent detail what the President is about.

Usually when we deal with the Governmental structure,
we give them individual written instructions. But we have
not had the opportunity to put together the whole conception
of foreign policy.

I don't believe that if this had been a year of
turmoil it would be any the less necessary. What the year
of relative calm engaged us to do, of course, was to make the
changes in philosophical emphasis more explicit than we would
have been able to if there had been, say, a Berlin crisis in the
first year and we would have had to put all of our energies
on that crisis. Although I must say it is not that Vietnam
did not take some attention.

Q How do you characterize this year?

DR. KISSINGER: Of course, who knows the cause and
effect in foreign policy? We would believe, of course, that
what we did contributed somewhat to the fact that it was a
relatively calm year.

Let me answer that last question. How would I
characterize the year?

Q Yes.

DR. KISSINGER: It was a transitional year, maybe
between crisis, certainly between conceptions of foreign policy;
a year that could easily have led to very profound disturbances
that did not happen.

We don't claim that this year proved any final
accomplishment. It gave us a point of departure. It enabled
us to set a new orientation. I think it is too early to say
what the final meaning of it was.

But in a number of fields we did things that I
think it is probably safe to say it would have been politically
harder to do for a previous Administration.

I think, strangely enough, in the comprehensiveness
of the approach to SALT, certainly the sort of thing one did
towards China, biological weapons and toxins, and so forth, were
easier to do for an Administration which is less assailed from the
right than would have been the case, undeservedly perhaps, for
another one.

MORE

Q Do you envision this being the first of an annual series? Do you envision in the future Nixon years that these documents will be of this proportion?

DR. KISSINGER: I hope not. I think it will age a number of us, really. I don't think so. We don't propose to write a new philosophy of foreign policy every year. And this is a deliberately conceptual, philosophical document.

In future years, if what we did here has any validity, hopefully we can sum up what the basic approach was and perhaps put more emphasis on what was actually done. But I think it will be a substantial document, nevertheless, every year, yes.

Q Henry, you sound on page 2 as though the shattering of international Communist unity is more or less attributable to the natural growth of national unity. To what extent do you give credit to the policies of previous Administrations in bringing this about?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't think there is an Administration view on that. My own personal view is that it is much more the result of a natural evolution than of anything previous Administrations did or didn't do. I would say that also if it continues under our Administration.

I think if the United States had tried to promote a split between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, it wouldn't have known how to do it. We could take account of it once it had happened and we could integrate it into a wise foreign policy. But I don't think we could produce it. I believe that the tensions between the Soviet Union and Communist China derive from two factors: One, ideological; that is, in the Communist world with its belief in infallibility of Communist leadership, it is very difficult to accept the notion that there are two interpreters of Communist doctrine. If you will remember in 1957, the initial dispute between the Chinese and the Russians arose over a question which to us seemed hopelessly theological. The Chinese claimed they were going from feudalism directly to Communism, skipping the state of socialism, while the Russians had claimed they hadn't even reached Communism yet, that they were still going through the stage of socialism. This occupied a party congress and produced an open attack by the Soviets on the Chinese. Because to them it was not just a question of an abstruse theology, but the relationship of leadership to other Communist parties in the world depended importantly on whether Peking or Moscow were the true interpreters of Communism.

The second is a geopolitical fact which I believe any Russian and Chinese Government would face, which is a 5,000 mile frontier which has 800 million people on one side and 30 million on the other side. Even without ideological dispute, if Canada had a population of 500 million and was building nuclear weapons, even if it didn't contest our frontiers we would think about it differently.

Q You are not suggesting things like the Greek-Turkey policy, the resistance in Berlin or Korea or the Cuban missile showdown had no effective toll?

MORE

- 11 -

DR. KISSINGER: Certainly, if Communism had spread across Europe and if it had seemed the inevitable wave of the future, if Yugoslavia had not had some support from the outside and then maybe Tito in 1948 would have decided that it was foolhardy to defy Stalin. After all, Stalin thought even under the conditions of 1948 that Tito couldn't possibly last in opposition with the Soviet Union.

With respect to the relationship of Communist China to the Soviet Union, I cannot really think of anything we did that was more than peripherally related to it. And I think there the internal dynamism of the system produced the split and whatever foreign policy problem it now poses for us.

Q Henry, the urge to read this as a guide to action is irresistible. You have to excuse the desire to see it that way. Large hunks of this philosophy have surely been in fact applied. Indonesia, East Berlin, all kinds of things have happened where we just followed our hands and let things happen.

The question inevitably arises, how much farther does this take, beyond the ways in which you so well defined the Guam doctrine, and this part of it applied to Asia, that the tone and rhetoric itself may have important consequences.

Let me ask you something very specific. Would a Dominican intervention be unthinkable in the terms of this kind of a document?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't want to go into the previous Administration.

Q No, Asian intervention, anything?

DR. KISSINGER: Jamaica? (Laughter.)

Nothing in this document excludes an American intervention where we believe our vital interests are threatened. Therefore, a lot depends on how we define our vital interests. Therefore, if we agreed with President Johnson's judgment that what was happening in the Dominican Republic was a threat to the American national security, we might act this way. Where the difference might arise is that we would be unlikely to act on the basis of some of the fragmentary information that some of the reports at the time indicated formed the basis of action. We would be much more likely to ask explicitly in a very systematic way what the threat to the vital interest was, where the evolution might go, and ask the sort of middle term question that we asked with relation to the verification work.

Whether that would then lead you to the conclusion that your national interests were threatened, I don't know. But I would have to answer the question in those terms.

But certainly intervention by the United States would be considered in relation to a rather clear idea of where one would be a year or two later.

MORE

-13-

Q If I could follow on that with the statement on page 61 about the Middle East, which was raised in the East Room, "...the United States would view any effort by the Soviet Union to seek predominance in the Middle East as a matter of grave concern." That on the basis of what Max has been asking you, is the statement that the Administration considers there is such a national interest in the Middle East at this point in time.

DR. KISSINGER: Yes. There is an important interest in the Middle East. Of course, we would also have to define for ourselves as we are doing, what we mean by predominance. We do not mean that the Soviet Union should not play any role in the Middle East. We are not trying to expel the Soviet Union from the Middle East.

But if the Soviet Union were to attempt to get into a position where its unilateral decision could cut off the oil supplies to Europe, for example, this would be a matter that we would have to take very seriously.

Q Excuse me.

Q Can I follow that up a minute?

Q Sure.

Q The impression I get here, here you pin something on the Soviet Union in the Vietnam section that they have not put their weight on Hanoi.

DR. KISSINGER: Not in the Vietnam section. It is in the Soviet Union.

Q There is a reference of not putting their weight on Hanoi.

DR. KISSINGER: I don't think it is in the Vietnam section.

Q Wherever it is, there is that reference. There is also reference to the Russians in the East-West thing in Europe. What I am getting at is this: You have tried to construct an orderly view of what the United States could do in the 70's, but you have one great "if" through the whole thing.

That is, if the other big boy will play the same game. Right?

DR. KISSINGER: Let me say two things: In the section on the Soviet Union, we attempted to make a fair account, as fair an account as we could get, of the pluses and minuses of our present relationship, of the things that we think have gone well and of the things that we think have not gone well.

MORE

We listed among the things that had gone well the
arms talks ---

Q 102.

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, I have got it. -- and the fact
of the negotiations on the Middle East, the ratification of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the beginning of talks on Europe.
We listed among the things that had not gone well the fact that
the Soviet Union is continuing to be the principal supplier of arms
and equipment to Hanoi.

We are not stating that pejoratively We are
simply stating the facts of life, and the fact that the Soviet
Union has pulled back from the negotiations on the Middle East.

So, the intention here was not to pin anything particularly
on the Soviet Union, but to give an accounting of the pluses and
minuses of the relationship, and I think this is a fair account.

Now, your question depends a lot on whether the other
fellow takes the same view. Well, I run against this very often
in these discussions. And I know I am always expected to say we
conduct our policy regardless of what anyone else does. It just
isn't true. Of course, it depends to some extent on what the other
big boy is doing.

If the Soviet Union were to adopt a Hitlerian foreign
policy, which we are not saying, there is not the slightest evidence
of this, but obviously, if the Soviet Union were to adopt an
obstructive foreign policy that went back to the policy of the
late 40's, if you interpret it this way, of challenging us at
every turn, of threatening the security of every country, or
relying a great deal on military supremacy, of course, it would
affect our action.

We are hopeful and we are trying to bring about a
situation in which we do not threaten Soviet vital interests and
they don't threaten our vital interests and we would like to work
out an accommodation on a really comprehensive basis. But we
would like to do it from a realistic assessment of the pluses
and minuses of where we are.

To some extent, peace in the world depends both on our
restraint and on their restraint and there is no way of getting
around it. We would recognize it depends on our restraint. If
we challenged vital Soviet interests every place, that would
compound tensions. One thing you can certainly read in this
document is that we will not deliberately challenge Soviet
vital interests.

Q Aren't they challenging in your view our vital interests in the Middle East today?

DR. KISSINGER: In the Middle East, we have attempted to point out in this document that we are getting into a gray area.

Q Henry, it seemed to me at the start of this Administration there was at least kind of an underground optimism about relations between Nixon and the Soviets, that the talk of visits to Moscow and that ---

DR. KISSINGER: Never by Nixon.

Q What?

DR. KISSINGER: Never by the President.

Q No, but certainly there were discussions.

DR. KISSINGER: Excuse me.

Q I was saying at least that was my understanding, that at various times he had expressed some hope, at least, even before the inauguration, of some kind of rapport.

DR. KISSINGER: Of going? No, the President has always believed long before he came into office that he knew how to deal with the Soviet leaders. He has never said that he believed that he could do so on the basis of personal diplomacy. In fact, I think from the earliest press conference on he has made clear that he believes that progress could be made only with very concrete, very patient negotiations, and that the personal element would enter only after a certain amount of progress had been made, and not as a condition for this progress.

And on the whole, he continues to hold his view. While, of course, it is always tempting to take credit for things that may have had many other reasons, certainly nothing that has happened in the first year of the Administration -- we have not had any major crises with the Soviet Union. We have kept our relations with the Soviet leaders free of Cold War rhetoric on our side. The Soviet leaders have been reasonably restrained towards us.

The SALT talks have gone about the way we hoped they would go.

And this maxim of not challenging each other has on the whole been observed except in areas where previous involvements may make it very difficult.

So, I would think that the Soviet policy has gone about as we were hoping it would go.

Again, the final test will be apparent over the next year or two.

MORE

-16-

Q As this is read by an outsider coming to it for
the first time without the benefit of all of this discussion,
the impression one gets is that there is really basic
dissatisfaction with Soviet policy and behavior. It runs
through at several points.

For instance, one says, "The Soviet present build-ups
of strategic forces" and so on, "raises serious questions about
whether we have any potential threat."

There is criticism on their failure to help the
peace and their supplying arms to Vietnam, to criticism on
their role in the Middle East and the danger that they may
move into a dominant position. There is a statement that the
Vietnam behavior of theirs clouds all our relations with them.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am just
pointing out how it reads to an outsider looking at the
thing cold.

DR. KISSINGER: If it reads that way, that was not the
intention. The intention was to present a balanced account of
the pluses and minuses in our relationship. The point which
you mentioned is true. It is true that the Soviet build-up
of strategic weapons raises questions, if it is continued
for an indefinite period of time.

On the other hand, I just haven't marked it up this
way. But we also say that our fundamental national interest
is to be sought in an enduring structure of peace. We are
making very clear that we don't look at security entirely
through arms. I haven't marked up the passages that list the
pros and cons. But I am sure you can make a collection of state-
ments that cast questions on Soviet intentions.

The issue is, are those fair statements. We think
they are fair statements. I have not made a collection of
statements that indicated we are most eager for negotiations.
I think if you read at the beginning of this document, quoting
the Secretary of State, I think if you read the section on
willingness to negotiate in the Era of Negotiations, you can
find many positive assertions. We did not deliberately intend
to load it.

Incidentally, the point I made at the
is a document that was worked on by all the departments. This
is not a unilateral document.

Q You mean Defense or the White House?

DR. KISSINGER: Or State.

Q I get the impression from this passage on Vietnam
that even with the qualifications it is probably the most
optimistic.

On the bottom of page 52 and 53, where you go through
the military point. Was that meant to be, or is it the right
impression?

MORE

-17-

DR. KISSINGER: We made very careful studies over a period of months. Of course, all of us who have suffered through Vietnam know that nothing is more elusive than an accurate appraisal of where you are. It is more difficult to know where the trend line is going. This is our best judgment for better or worse, these conclusions represent our best internal judgments.

All the indications we have of where this situation is today, within South Vietnam, are in fact probably more optimistic than we have stated here.

Now, we have also stated the uncertainty because the problem is not where it is today, but where it will be six to nine months from now. This is the problem that is giving us the greatest concern, the one we are studying most carefully, and the one that is going to make or break that policy.

Q My point is that I think this seems to be more optimistic than six months ago.

DR. KISSINGER: Yes. Our best judgment is we have made an excruciatingly detailed study of 12 provinces throwing away all the previous criteria. We selected them carefully so that they are representative of various types of situations. We have sent people out there to look at them, people who change their itinerary every night so that they wouldn't be met with canned briefings.

For all I know, there may be something inherently elusive about the situation and six months from now you will all quote this at me like many other optimistic statements. In fact, we are saying this claim of progress has been frequent. It has to be our nightmare, because the last thing we can want is that in addition to the inherent problems that the war in Vietnam creates, it is that we undermine confidence in the credibility of government as such, because if successive Administrations should be believed to have deliberately misled the public in order to secure short-range tactical ends, I think the blow to our politics would be more serious than anything that is relevant to the issue.

So, we may or may not be wrong. In any case, those of us will have to take the responsibility for making wrong judgments.

The President would be perfectly entitled to hold us to account. But this is our best judgment and, you know, one finds it hard to believe that progress could have been possible after all we have seen there. But this is the evidence we now have. Even if it collapses, I would say this is the evidence.

Q To get back to John Hightower's point a minute, you say you don't mean that this was not prepared with any intention to load it as highly critical of the Russians as the focal point of the document.

MORE

-18-

DR. KISSINGER: That is not the focal point of the document.

Q But John is attempting to make the point that this document, as it circulates around the world, will not have the benefit of your kind of explanations, and there are an awful lot of people who are going to read this, selectively.

When the Administration was putting this together, were you unaware of this possibility that the focal point of a great many people was going to be criticism of the Russians, particularly on the Middle East and strategic arms?

DR. KISSINGER: No. These are in our judgment correct statements. It is equally correct, and equally supportable by this document that there are positive elements and that our intentions are to bridge these differences despite these obstacles.

But these statements were put in to indicate what we considered to be the debit side of the relationship. If they give an impression that there is only a debit side to the relationship, then we have misjudged the balance of the report and we and all the other experts who have looked at it, that eluded us.

Of course, if you take sentences out of context and list only those, it may give it a sordid impression. But in those three areas, those that we believe to be the areas, the debit areas of the relationship, we have never made a secret of it.

Q Henry, going back to a question Hugh asked earlier, if Mr. Nixon came up with this idea back in Key Biscayne or prior to that, do you have any understanding of what he hoped to gain by this? Why is he going through this exercise, other than what is the intention of it?

DR. KISSINGER: Of this document?

Q Yes.

DR. KISSINGER: The intention of the document is, first, to give an account to the American people of what is done during the first year. It used to be that the Defense Department put out a posture statement on the whole range of our policy. But actually, since the key issues cut across Defense, foreign policy, it was approriate that it be done as part of the NSC system.

Secondly, almost all the impact of Presidential decisions, both with respect to the public, and with respect to the bureaucracies, in terms of individual decisions that have to be made and that have to be justified, if at all, in terms of the individual condition that gave rise to it, what this document attempts to do, for better or for worse, is to lay out how the President sees the inter-relationship of events and where America is intending to go.

MORE

-19-

So, it is a means of informing the public, and of putting before the government the total pattern of policy, and to put across to foreign countries how we view the world at this, what seems to us -- as the President said this afternoon, watershed -- of conditions in the world.

This was the general intention, and it was so stated, in fact, last year.

Q A lot of it seems to be so general and broad in its terminology that you can practically get anything out of it, depending on how you interpret the sentence. As you pointed out before, it is a matter of interpretation.

Was there ever any thought of making it more specific? Did you have to cut back on what you were able to say when you realized the sentences would be read so widely?

DR. KISSINGER: No. Actually, this particular document -- there was a thought at one point to put out separate documents by the various departments in order to take care of this point. But then it turned out that there would be such a large degree of overlap, and so many inevitable comparisons, that it was decided, indeed on the recommendations of the departments, that they should be consolidated.

There was no deliberate attempt to cut this, or to shade it.

Q What does this document do to the posture statement that Secretary Rogers was going to put out in lieu of the Defense Department's policy statement?

DR. KISSINGER: It was not in lieu thereof. What this posture statement does, the Defense Department posture statement, as you will see, has been cut back so that it deals with primarily technical programs and budgets of the Defense Department. The part of the Defense posture statement that deals with foreign policy really deals with it by reference to this document, so that the Defense Department does not propose to make national policy any more, but its statement, which isn't going to be called a posture statement, I forget what they call it, Defense Review or something, what it attempts to do is to explain from the assumptions of this foreign policy what Defense policy and programs would support it.

The Secretary of State's posture statement was not intended to replace the Defense statement. There were going to be two concurrent ones. So the Defense one has been cut back to a technical program and the State Department one, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, actually was combined with this.

Q You mean there won't be a separate statement by the Secretary of State?

MORE

-20-

DR. KISSINGER: There will be testimony by the Secretary of State before the appropriate committee. And there won't be a separate statement as such, no.

Q Did you have the thought, Hrney, that this report might produce hearings on your report by the appropriate committee, the way the economic report is handled?

DR. KISSINGER: Since this hasn't been done before, yes, we expect that the Secretary of State and where appropriate, the Secretary of Defense, will testify with respect to this. When the Secretary of State testifies, we did not include in this report accounts of policy towards individual countries, because this would have made it unmanageably long, and a lot of work on this has been done and will undoubtedly be incorporated.

Q Would you relate the report somewhat to the desire of the Congress to have a closer association with the Executive in the development of foreign policy?

DR. KISSINGER: Certainly it is responsive to this desire, but in all candor, I have to tell you that the decision to put out this report was made before we deliberately addressed it. It grew out of the view that if there was a need for a posture statement, it should not come from one military department, but it should come -- this was the original intention.

Secondly, that it was a good way of bringing together the various elements of the bureaucracy in working together on one general conceptual statement as indeed has happened. It was enormously useful.

Thirdly, it was a good way of informing the American public about the general thrust of our foreign policy.

Those were our original intentions. I would like to take credit for the other intentions. I have to tell you candidly it is a pleasant result, but it was not the original intention.

Q Could you expand on one point of the mechanics of policy-making, namely, the cross-over to the domestic budgetary considerations?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes.

Q You come up to that point several times, but you don't really explain it. Is it more than what the budget message told us about how they figured out a five-year projection of overall resources and, you know, the cupboard is bare except for the $20 billion left to play with in 1975?

That is, were specific programs balanced?

DR. KISSINGER: Can I tell you off the record that I never read the budget message.

MORE

-21-

Q But the budget message and economic report contain projections to 1975 of the country's capacity overall.

DR. KISSINGER: Let me tell you what we did in the area in which I have something to do and what we are going to do in the future. Since this is the first time it was done it wasn't refined. We got into the budget process at the White House level or at the NSC level later last year than we will this year, closer to the traditional time then will be the case this year.

What we did in the domestic side is we developed five packages of priority programs at various levels of expenditure. It turned out to be five. So, it was relatively easy to match it.

When we had our basic Defense review, we had five levels, five different types of strategy, and five different levels of Defense expenditure. And we then gave this to the domestic part, and we in turn took the projections of domestic staff and on this basis we worked out which of the domestic packages could be carried out at various Defense package levels. And by extension, what domestic programs would have to be given up as you went up the ladder of various strategy.

In a way, of course, this was arbitrary. So what you had initially was an analysis. I did not get involved. The NSC didn't get involved with establishing the domestic priorities. We treated those as given.

In turn, the domestic staff didn't get into the establishment of military priorities. They had to take those as given.

But anyway, we had a consolidated document which enabled us to see what domestic priorities would have been considered at various levels.

There is this problem in connection with this. You can't just trade freely between these two, because there is some irreducible level of Defense expenditures beyond which, by any judgment, you are not running risks, but jeopardizing your security. At that level, you are obviously not free to trade between domestic priorities, if your judgment is correct, and security priorities.

But in the area of where you have a measure of flexibility, and you can take a calculated risk, this turns out to be very helpful. In fact, we rejected two levels of expenditures largely on those grounds.

Q But it was never a case of Bob Finch arguing with Mel Laird? There was no back and forth?

DR. KISSINGER: Is housing more important than new missile sites or something like that?

Q Right.

MORE

-22-

DR. KISSINGER: No. But now what we are doing in the Defense Program Review Committee, in the five-year projection, we will have a forum for doing that.

Q What you were talking about a minute ago was --

DR. KISSINGER: That was the 1971 program. The 1972 and beyond program will provide for this. The 1971 attempt was the first rough try at it.

Q When did you do that, approximately?

DR. KISSINGER: We did that in San Clemente last summer. We did that in August. We did the staff work in June and July, but the meetings took place in August.

But I will have to say this: At the time we had the meetings of allocations between the various levels of expenditures, there were concurrent meetings going on on the domestic priorities, so that while there was not a direct confrontation -- we have MacCracken, for example, as an organic member of the Defense Review Committee.

Q Can you foresee the day -- I am talking about in this five-year period -- where this debate can be sufficiently opened for Congress and the public to participate. That is, is it humanly possible to take three carriers and five city slums and put them on the scale and have the Congress really participate.

DR. KISSINGER: It is a bad way of putting the issue because the first thing you have to decide is do you need the carriers or the security. Or are they useful or not essential.

MORE

- 23 -

Once you have made the determination that you would like to have them, but you don't have to have them, then you can usefully debate the three carriers against city slums. But if it should turn out that you conclude there is an irreducible number of carriers, then can you have a public debate on it? I will tell you, my experience in this Administration has been that if we can stay three days ahead of Beecher, we are doing pretty well.

Q This is a slightly different problem. The real issue is that Congress and elements of the public are clammering for a piece of the action, of what is absolutely essential and what is not.

DR. KISSINGER: Let me put it this way: I don't really think the public can decide whether you should have 13 or 15 carriers. But in the gross categories, of where the country is going, what relative emphasis to give, how threatened it feels, and from what, I think, a national debate is helpful and desirable.

Q Can I ask you one final question, if we are all exhausted? Somewhere in here you say we are trying to avoid the cold war rhetoric or some such phrase. This question came up in the other briefing. You are talking about a transition here. You are still talking about the Soviet Union as a potential enemy. You have listed plusses and minuses.

What do you call this period, if it isn't cold war?

DR. KISSINGER: The cold war was based on the assumption of an irreconcilable hostility between the Communists and us, a hostility that would end either with our defeat or their transformation.

Q That is the Leninist view.

DR. KISSINGER: No. You read George Kennan's containment article and you will find that his conclusion is that the Soviet Union will have to be contained, that the fact of the containment will bring about fundamental transformations within the Soviet system, which will then make it possible to have fruitful negotiations or you take statements of Acheson in the late 40's in which he said "You must have a situation of strength. From that situation of strength will then flow"-- well, it was just a restatement of the Kennan position.

Our view would be that, of course, it is possible that there will be a change in the Soviet position, and this will make a more general arrangement conceivably easier. But even if the Communist system should continue, as is after all probable, it is imperative in our time to work out modes of co-existence other than pure positions of strength.

I would have thought that the arms control talks would have been utterly inconceivable before 1960 as a theoretical statement of an objective.

MORE

- 24 -

[L.C]

So it is a period that is somewhere between the
cold war and between an era in which there is consciousness
of no irreconciable differences and I think one of the
problems is that both sides will have to break, as we are attempting
to break, with some of the patterns of the past.

Q: Kennedy said in the American University speech,
which really I think began this period you are talking about,
that we had to reexamine our view of the cold war and our
own attitudes toward the Soviet Union and stated in here
the facts of nuclear life which impel a certain ---

DR. KISSINGER: We are not saying that everything
in this document -- while the document is probably
unprecedented -- is totally unprecedented. Some of
the things that are in this document are quite consistent with
that particular declaration.

Another thing we are doing here, which had not
been done that explicitely before, is stating a
philosophy towards dealing with Communist China,
which is maybe a somewhat new departure. But I think
it is a mistake to say in foreign policy, and I think it would
be wrong to pretend, that everything we are saying here of the
state of the world is blown, fullblown, from our brains.

There is an evolution here that has gone on. It
is a conjunction of conditions, convictions and when
Kennedy spoke, it was a year after the confrontation, and, yet,
four years before this tremendous Soviet missile buildup,
so it was set in a slightly different context.

But the intention was not widely different. It
was maybe stated in more apoplectic terms than this
Administration would express itself, less to specifics
and concreteness, but this is a question of style.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END

(AT 8:34 P.M. EST)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MARCH 21, 1970

THE WHITE HOUSE

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT A
PRESS CONFERENCE IN THE
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE

AT 11:55 A.M. EST.

THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry to delay you, ladies and gentlemen, but we had to revise the statement on the postal workers a bit, because of late developments. It is a very brief statement.

Prior to going to any questions that you may have this morning, I thought that in talking about this particular issue, I could also elaborate on three other announcements that will be made next week.

With regard to the postal strike, in addition to the statement, I would simply add that I recognize and appreciate the fact that postal workers in many areas, have legitimate grievances. We are prepared to negotiate those issues, to discuss those issues, but under no circumstances will any grievances be discussed with any Government employees when they are out on an illegal strike. Any strike involving essential services by Federal employees is illegal.

We have made some progress due to the leadership of the Secretary of Labor and the Postmaster General yesterday in working with the leaders of the postal unions.

The great majority of the postal workers in the country are still at work and we believe will meet their commitment to stay at work and then have their grievances negotiated in an orderly way, which we have agreed to do with the leaders.

However, as indicated, as you know, by the postal union in New York, at least in that case, and there may be in other cases, local unions which may reach other decisions.

On Monday I will meet my Constitutional obligation to see to it that the mails will go through. Further than that, I will make no statement on the postal strike today because these are very sensitive negotiations. We want to give the responsible leadership of the unions an opportunity to work with the Secretary of Labor and the Postmaster General for an orderly procedure.

I believe that there is still a chance that they may be able to work out a settlement.

MORE

Page 2

On Monday the Secretary of State, as you have already been informed, will make a statement on the Administration's Mideast policy, with particular reference to two requests by the Israeli government, one for economic assistance, and the other for military assistance.

The Secretary of State will have a press conference at that time in which he will answer any of the questions you may have on the specifics of that decision.

I would like to, at this point, indicate the basic factor that led to that decision, and also the factors that will guide us as we make decisions in this area in the future.

As far as the military portion of the decision is concerned, I would describe it as essentially an interim decision. Our goal in the Mideast, or goals, I should say, in broad terms, are four.

First, to have a cease fire; second, to reduce the flow of arms into the area; third, to achieve a political settlement; and fourth, to accomplish to the greatest extent possible, a balance between the forces in that area which will contribute to peace from a military standpoint and not to disturb that balance.

The decision that the Secretary will announce on Monday is one based on our present appraisal of the balance of power in the Mideast.

In recent days there have been disturbing reports that the Soviet Union, by deliveries of new missiles, SA-3's, through the UAR and through the insertion of military personnel, may be taking actions which could change that balance. It is too early to say whether that is the case. We are watching the situation closely.

If the USSR, by its military assistance programs to Israel's neighbors, does essentially change the balance, then the United States would take action to deal with that situation.

The Secretary of State will cover this matter in greater detail in his statement.

It is our hope that in our negotiations with the Soviet Union, bilaterally, and in the Four-Power talks, we can convince all the major powers to stop escalating the arms race in the Mideast, to work together for a cease fire, and to achieve, of course, a political settlement.

Apart from the recent reports, there have been some developments in the Mideast in our bilateral discussions with the Soviet Union that have been, I would say, modestly encouraging, and we trust that that trend rather than this latest trend, will be the one that will prevail.

But the Secretary of State's statement on both the economic and military assistance program, as I have indicated, is based on the decision which was made on our analysis of the present balance in the Mideast, which we believe should be maintained in the interest of peace and of a settlement.

On Tuesday I will make the statement on school
desegregation which we have been in the progress of preparing
over the past several weeks.

It will be a very lengthy statement. I say lengthy
in terms of the number of words, and it will be a statement
made for distribution to the press throughout the country
rather than a statement which can be delivered on radio or
television because of its length.

The reason for the length is that I determined that
it was time to have a comprehensive study and discussion of
all of the relevant legal decisions in this field, not only
the decisions of the Supreme Court, but the decisions of
the Circuit Courts and the District Courts which apply to the
very difficult problems that we have in both the North and
the South.

MORE

Page 4

[lc]

I am in the process of completing my final editing of the statement and will do so over this weekend.

I would say, based on its present progress, that I consider this the most comprehensive analysis of the legal situation and also of the problems of segregation and education that has been made since the historic case of Brown versus the Board of Education in 1954. I am hopeful that it will contribute to a better understanding of, first, what the law is; and, second, that it will provide the direction to all of the agencies of the Administration, of the Government, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and to others who may be interested, the direction that they need to carry out the law of the land. Beyond that I will have no statement on that subject today.

Then on Wednesday, the statement that was referred to after the Leadership Meeting on Tuesday will be made in which I will ask the Congress to provide additional legislation where the Federal Government can assist local authorities to deal with the increasing use of terrorism through indiscriminate bombing attacks.

This is an area where it is, from a legal standpoint, necessary to find a Federal interest. The Federal Government, of course, has no right or responsibility unless a Federal interest is involved. But I find that, based on my discussions with the Attorney General, there are several areas where we can strengthen existing laws, and that statement will be made on Wednesday.

I regret that this opening statement has taken so long, but I felt that it did cover some points that you would be interested in.

Now we will go to questions.

**QUESTION:** Mr. President, if I could raise one more question. As you know it has been discovered that several hundred letters or postcards have been sent to Senators opposing your nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Carswell, most of them charging him with being a racist or a bigot. Some of these have been sent from California in bulk, mailed to states throughout the Union and then to be transmailed to the Senators in order to deceive the Senators into thinking these letters came from their own constituents. I wonder what you think of this type of procedure and whether you think this will prevent the confirmation of Carswell?

**THE PRESIDENT:** I always used to tell young Senators when they first came to Washington that in making the decision, they should do it not by weighing the mail but by weighing the evidence.

I am convinced that the Members of the Senate who are considering this very important nomination to the Supreme Court will not be affected by such tactics. These tactics, as you know, have been used over the years in other matters, as well as in the Carswell case. I think the Members of the Senate will not be affected by it.

MORE

QUESTION: You have said you might use the Army Monday in the postal strike. Is this the only step you could take or could you outline some of the steps you could take to get the mails through?

THE PRESIDENT: I will answer that question only by saying that we have the means to deliver the mail. We will use those means. But I do not want to indicate what they would be because I think that might put a disturbing element into the very delicate situation of negotiations going on in local unions through the country.

I am not threatening. I am simply stating, as a matter of fact that the President of the United States, among his many responsibilities, has a responsibility to see that the mail is delivered. And I shall meet that responsibility and meet it effectively beginning Monday in the event that the postal workers in any area decide that they are not going to meet their Constitutional responsibilities to deliver mail.

QUESTION: Mr. President, will you entertain a question on Southeast Asia?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am not limiting this to the four subjects. I will take all of your questions.

QUESTION: I am wondering how you feel about the recent developments in Cambodia, and how it relates to our activities in Vietnam.

THE PRESIDENT: These developments in Cambodia are quite difficult to appraise. As you know from having been out there yourself on different occasions, the Cambodian political situation, to put it conservatively, is quite unpredictable and quite fluid.

However, we have, as you note, established relations on a temporary basis with the Government which has been selected by the Parliament and will continue to deal with that Government as long as it appears to be the Government of the nation. I think any speculation with regard to which way this Government is going to turn, what will happen to Prince Sihanouk when he returns, would both be premature and not helpful.

I will simply say that we respect Cambodia's neutrality. We would hope that North Vietnam would take that same position in respecting its neutrality. And we hope that whatever Government eventually prevails there, that it would recognize that the United States' interest is the protection of its neutrality.

QUESTION: Could I follow that up with another question about Southeast Asia?

The Thais have apparently introduced troops into Laos, either with or without the help of the United States. I first wondered whether you could tell us whether we actually helped them by flying them in in our aircraft; and, secondly, what you think about the Thais fighting in Laos? Does that complicate our problem out there?

MORE

Page 7

[lc]

QUESTION: You made a very successful trip to Paris when DeGaulle was there, and I see by the Gallup Poll that the visit here of Mr. Pompidou was a success. Would you consider going back to Europe at any moment?

THE PRESIDENT: I would certainly consider it. Certainly I would enjoy the opportunity to return to Europe. And I think that the chance to have face-to-face discussions with European leaders would be quite constructive in our development of a common foreign policy where our interests were common.

However, I do not have any present plans to go to Europe, none over the next few months. But I would hope to plan a trip to Europe sometime before the end of my term of office.

Incidentally, President Pompidou invited me to return again while he was President, and I told him I would sometime. After all, he will be in for seven years and I will have plenty of time.

QUESTION: Why is your Civil Rights Message, from what you say, going to be emphasizing the legal aspects of the problem? What is there that you want to clear up?

THE PRESIDENT: No, the message will speak for itself. It goes into great detail, because the law at all levels is confused. The various Circuit Courts have come down on both sides of various questions that have come before it. The Supreme Court has left several gray areas. And wherever the Supreme Court has not spoken, it is the responsibility of the Administration, then, to interpret the law and carry it out in a way that it believes is appropriate.

So what I am doing is to map out those areas where the law is clear, and then indicate how I interpret the law; and also indicate how I believe the Administration should move in those areas where the Court has not spoken.

To give you one example -- and I don't want, of course, to indicate in advance what I am saying in the statement -- is that the Supreme Court, while it has spoken out very clearly on de jure segregation, has not spoken out on de facto segregation. Now the question is, what should the policy under those circumstances of the Federal Government be in cases of de facto segregation in northern states? I will address myself directly to that question and try to indicate what the best position should be, not only from a legal standpoint, but here primarily from the standpoint of education and the goal of desegregated education that we want to achieve. This is an area that I think probably answers your question.

MORE

Page 8

[LC]

**QUESTION:** Mr. President, as I understand it, you are to make another decision in the near future on further troop withdrawals from South Vietnam. Can you tell us if the events in Laos have had any effect on your judgment that will affect your decisions?

**THE PRESIDENT:** No, they have not. They have had no effect up to this point, and I do not expect the events in Laos to affect that decision.

The Vietnamization program is going on as scheduled, and when our decision is made, it will take into account, of course, the factors at that time.

But what has happened in Laos to date has not changed the situation as far as the decision is concerned.

**QUESTION:** Mr. President, in what you had to say about the Middle East and the decisions to be announced by the Secretary of State Monday, there seemed to be the clear implication that the decision is against sending the additional arms to Israel.

Could you go so far as to say whether or not that interpretation is on the right track?

**THE PRESIDENT:** Well, Mr. Horner, I am not going to preempt what the Secretary of State is going to say. But let me also indicate that the Secretary of State's statement will cover the whole area of a major economic request that was made by the government of Israel, and also the area of military requests that are made by the government of Israel.

I would think that it would be unwise to anticipate or speculate in advance what the Secretary of State is going to say on these various things.

What I am simply saying is this: That insofar as the military portion of the decision is concerned, that portion is based upon the fact situation as we see it at this time, and that will be constantly reappraised as the fact situation changes.

That is why I refer to it as essentially an interim decision rather than one that looks forward over a period of say two, or three, or four years, because the fact situation does change.

**QUESTION:** Mr. President, as a California voter, how do you feel about the disclosure that Senator Murphy remains on the Technicolor payroll and the entry of Mr. Simon into the race there?

**THE PRESIDENT:** Well, as a California voter, I intend to vote for Senator Murphy if he wins the nomination, and I expect him to win it.

**QUESTION:** On a domestic side, one of the key issues in the country seems to be still inflation. In light of the last report on the cost of living rise, and some of the indications that the Government policy is being eased on the money supply, do you still hold the optimism about the control of inflation that you previously indicated, or what is your analysis of it now?

Page 9

THE PRESIDENT: The problem of inflation, when you refer to monetary policy, of course, indicates the irony which only the sophisticated economists seem to understand.

As Dr. Burns indicated in his testimony -- or let me be perhaps a bit more precise in that, as some who interpreted his testimony indicated, there has been some easing of monetary policy, and the question there naturally arises, as you have put it, why do you ease monetary policy when the rate of inflation is still at the high level?

Of course the answer is that because of the long lead time, the lag, in the effect of monetary policy on the economy, it is necessary to change your monetary policy before prices start to come down. I don't mean that, I should say not before prices start to come down, because that is not going to happen -- before the rate of increase of prices starts to come down.

The reason that decision must be made in that rather complex way is that if in monetary policy you wait until you see the consumer price index moving on a downward curve, if you wait that long, then the danger is that you will have waited so long that you trigger recession, and what we are trying to do here is to have a policy in which we avoid both recession on the one side and still control inflation, stop the rate of increase on the other side.

Incidentally, in this kind of a conference I think my answers should be a little more extended, because I think it is a question that requires a longer answer. When we speak of the question of recession, I have noted some statements to the effect, "Well, aren't we in a recession now?"

Well, the answer to that question is, of course, that if one man is out of work, he is in a recession. That is recession for him.

The rate of unemployment at the present time is 4.2 percent. I have noted that some of our critics have suggested that this, therefore, is a recession.

Well, I was looking over the figures this morning and if 4.2 percent rate of unemployment is a recession -- and as far as I am concerned, I don't like to see any man out of work -- but if that 4.2 percent is a recession, then the 6.7 percent unemployment that we had in 1961 was a recession; the 5.5 percent in 1962, we were in a recession; 5.7 percent in 1963 was a recession; and 5.2 percent unemployment in 1964 was a recession.

I think, however, that any fair-minded appraiser of the economic trends of that time would have not said that that period from 1961 to 1965 was a period of recession for the United States, even though the unemployment rate was over 5 percent.

I am not suggesting that this Administration expects an unemployment rate of over 5 percent, and that we are not going to take action to keep the rate below that. I am only suggesting simply these conclusions:

MORE

One, this country is not in a recession at the present time.

Second, this is an activist Administration. We are going to take action to avoid a recession at the same time that we are taking action to cool the fires of inflation.

Three, 1970 is going to be a good year from an economic standpoint. From a political standpoint, I really cannot judge.

QUESTION: Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday voted out unanimously and sent to the Floor a "sense of the Senate" resolution concerning the U. S. position at SALT. Could you make a remark about that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Senate resolution, I understand, simply says that the United States and Soviet Union should try to negotiate a freeze on offensive and defensive missiles.

Of course, that is what SALT is all about, so I think the resolution really is irrelevant to what we are going to do. That is our goal. It takes two, however, to make the deal.

If the Soviet Union will come along with that, as we hope they will, then perhaps we can make some arrangements. I can certainly say in this respect, though, that it is somewhat more intricate than the resolution would imply.

We found in our preliminary discussions that the Soviet Union did not come in with generalized language which had been previously their tactic in arms negotiations, but they came in with very precise weapon systems, by weapon systems analyses.

Now whether we eventually have a comprehensive agreement, or a system-by-system agreement, remains to be seen. We are prepared for either.

But our goal certainly is to limit both offensive and defensive missiles, and if the Soviet Union has the same goal, we will make a bargain.

QUESTION: Mr. President, a clarifying on the Mideast: You said earlier, I think, that Secretary Rogers' decision on the military side would be based in large part on the best present assessment of the balance of power in the Middle East?

THE PRESIDENT: That is right.

QUESTION: Have you included in that calculation the recent reports of additional weapons and personnel from the Soviet Union?

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Semple, those reports came in during this last week, after we had made our decisions. We, however, have evaluated those reports.

MORE

Page 11

Those reports, as of the present time, and considering
our present evaluation, do not indicate a significant shift
in the balance.

What I am saying here basically, is that the United
States intends to continue to watch the Mideast situation
to see whether further shipments of arms or personnel to the
Mideast does tip the balance in a way that it would be
necessary for us to provide some assistance, additional
assistance to Israel, so that they would not be in an inferior
position.

What we must understand here is that once that balance
shifts perceptibly to one side or the other, then the danger
of war greatly increases, until you have a political settlement.
We have to realize that we have in the Mideast peoples whose
enmities go back over centuries. We have to realize that
when one gets an enormous advantage over another, or
a significant advantage, the danger of war coming escalates.

That is why our policy has to be to try to maintain
a balance, so that neither is encouraged to embark on an
aggressive course.

QUESTION: Mr. President, one more question on economic
policy, sir: Is your Administration no longer concerned about
the inflationary expectations on the part of business or union
leaders at the bargaining table?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, we are concerned. I think
your question really relates to inflationary psychology,
as I understand it.

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: We are concerned about that. That
is why our budget policy is not changing. We have, as you
know, made one change in the construction area, because
construction, as you know, is the area where monetary policy is
strict -- it is hit first, and hit hardest -- and that is why
we have eased up on our construction freeze where Federal
and State projects are concerned.

But except for that particular area, our budgetary
policy remains one of restraint, and that, of course, will
tend to cool off any inflationary psychology.

We also believe that business and labor leaders
cannot help but be impressed by the fact that over the past
four months the economy has been, in terms of its growth,
on a flat projection rather than on an upward projection.
We are going to continue to do everything that we can to
see that the inflationary psychology doesn't get another
jolt just at the time that we had it cooled, which we think
had occurred in January and February and early March.

MORE

Page 12

[1c]

But I want to be quite candid. I wish that our economic friends could, with great precision, tell us that, well, if you do this, that, or the other thing, at a single month in the future the unemployment rate will be this, and your interest rate will be this, and the inflation will have been checked to this extent. But no honest economist will tell you that. We aren't that sure.

But I will say this: I am confident that the policies that we are following, first, have taken the fire out of the inflation. I am confident that the Consumer Price Index will begin to reflect that as we go on through the balance of the year.

I am also confident that this economy is not going to be plunged into a recession, because I believe that the steps that are being taken now in the monetary field and in other areas will keep the economy from becoming depressed and will keep it on a moderately upward trend. That is what we are trying to accomplish.

THE PRESS: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

END

AT 12:30 P.M. EST

Secretary Rogers' News Conference of March 23

Press release 100 dated March 23

OPENING STATEMENT

Ladies and gentlemen: My statement will deal with the Israeli requests both for military and economic assistance from the United States. The decisions I am announcing today are based on our present appraisal of the balance of power in the Middle East.

Last year, the Government of Israel asked the United States to sell it 25 additional Phantoms and 100 more Skyhawks. The Israeli request has been carefully and sympathetically considered in the light of the military situation in the area and of our policy of doing everything possible to achieve peace in the Middle East in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution of November 22, 1967.¹

In our judgment, Israel's air capacity is sufficient to meet its needs for the time being. Consequently, the President has decided to hold in abeyance for now a decision with respect to Israel's request for additional aircraft. In doing so, he has instructed that close watch be kept on the military balance in the area. The United States will be in a position to provide additional as well as replacement aircraft promptly if the situation requires it. To this end the United States will remain in close consultation with those concerned.

In this connection, we have evidence that the U.S.S.R. has been taking recent steps to strengthen the air defense of the U.A.R. by introduction of SA-3 missiles and additional Soviet personnel. As the President indicated on Saturday, the situation bears and will receive close and careful scrutiny by us as well as continuous review and evaluation.²

On the economic side, the United States will

respond affirmatively to certain of Israel's short-term financial requests while studying further its longer range needs. There will be an expanded P.L. 480 program for purchase of surplus food, principally wheat and feed-grains, under favorable credit arrangements. We will also extend credits to help cover the balance due on past military contracts.

These decisions are taken with the strong conviction that ultimate security for all concerned lies in peace. They are taken in the belief that the current trend of events must be reversed if the situation is to be stabilized and if progress toward peace is to begin. Restraint will be required on the part of other major suppliers to the Middle East. No nation can pursue a policy of seeking unilateral advantage in the area if peace is to be achieved.

In making this interim decision on aircraft, we have no intention of jeopardizing the security of Israel. If steps are taken which might upset the current balance or if in our judgment political developments warrant, the President will not hesitate to reconsider this matter.

We believe that our restraint will afford fresh opportunities for all concerned—in and outside the area—to diminish hostilities and enhance the prospects for peace. To this end, the United States will make renewed efforts in diplomatic channels to:

(1) encourage both sides to adhere fully to the U.N. cease-fire resolutions;

(2) call upon the parties to the conflict to reappraise positions which have become road-blocks to peace;

¹ For text of the resolution, see BULLETIN of Dec. 18, 1967, p. 843.

² For excerpts from President Nixon's news conference on Mar. 21, see BULLETIN of Apr. 6, 1970, p. 437.

April 13, 1970

477

(3) urge all concerned to support proposals which would help Ambassador Jarring [Gunnar Jarring, U.N. Special Representative] launch a process of negotiation among the parties under his auspices; and

(4) engage the other major suppliers to the Middle East in early arms limitation talks.

These will be serious initiatives. We urge all concerned to respond to them with the sense of urgency which the present situation demands of all responsible governments.

I'll take any questions, ladies and gentlemen.

## QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

**Q. Mr. Secretary, was the Soviet Union, as the other principal supplier of arms, informed of this decision which you have now made; and do you have some hope that even if you can't get an agreement on arms limitation, you may get responsive actions, on a theory of mutual example?**

A. Mr. Hightower [John M. Hightower, Associated Press], the Soviet Union was not advised of this decision. However, I do plan to talk to Ambassador Dobrynin about the decision in the near future. I do plan to discuss with him the proposals that I have outlined at the end of my statement.

**Q. Mr. Secretary, have the Israelis been told of this decision, and if so, what was the reaction?**

A. Yes, they have. Our Ambassador in Israel, Ambassador Barbour, notified Prime Minister Meir. I had a discussion with Ambassador Rabin this morning. I think it would be probably better to permit them to give their reaction to this decision.

I might say that they were disappointed, but we will continue to have discussions consistent with the policy that I have enunciated here this morning, and I would hope that they will understand what we think is the wise decision.

**Q. Mr. Secretary, how do you answer the Israeli argument that a decision to delay on

the planes really jeopardizes their security because of the long leadtime needed to get these planes later on?

A. Well, we want to make it clear—and I have tried to make it clear in this statement—we do not think that this decision jeopardizes their security. We have made a very careful analysis of the balance of arms in the Middle East. We have used the same techniques that we use in appraising our own military position—the same experts and the same techniques. Now, we are quite satisfied that Israel has the superiority in armaments at the present time, which will continue.

As far as the leadtime is concerned, as I have said in the statement, if the situation should change—if the military situation or the political situation should change—and the President has to modify or amend his decision, he can do that promptly.

**Q. Mr. Secretary, two questions: How much money is involved in economic credits being extended, and where does it come from? And secondly, the President said on Saturday he was "modestly encouraged," to use his words, by the bilateral discussions going on with the Russians. Can you elaborate on that?**

A. Well, as to your first question, we're going to have additional discussions with Israel about the credits. P.L. 480 can be food and can be provided under present legislation, and we think that credits can be provided under present legislation.

Insofar as the—what was the second question you asked?

**Q. About being "modestly encouraged."**

A. I think the President was referring to discussions that we had had in the bilateral context previously. If you will read the answer to that question, he said that in early discussions we had with the Soviet Union, there were developments that were reasonably promising; and he said he hoped that any subsequent discussions we might have would proceed along those lines.

**Q. Mr. Secretary, in light of what you said**

478

Department of State Bulletin

about the introduction of Soviet missiles and men into Egypt, what do you believe is the purpose for this movement of new Soviet arms into the area? And have you any reason to believe, on the diplomatic side, that the Russian attitude toward settlement in the Middle East has in any way changed?

A. Well, the SA-3 missiles, as you know, are defensive weapons, and all we can do is assume that they are there for defensive purposes.

As far as the personnel are concerned, I think a fair assumption might be that they are there to assist the Egyptians in deploying those defensive weapons.

We'll have to wait and see what happens in Egypt. We'll have to wait and see what the contention appears to be. As the President said, if we think that the activity of the Soviet Union in Egypt does affect the military balance, then he will have to reconsider his decision.

Q. Mr. Secretary, may I switch to Southeast Asia for a moment? The developments in Cambodia and the intensification of the Communist military and diplomatic offensive in Laos appear to have sort of broadened the perspective of the conflict there. Would you care to assess for us, or would you assess for us, the possible impact of these events on the actions in Vietnam, particularly the Vietnamization program, and so forth?

A. Well, in Cambodia we recognize the neutrality, sovereignty, and in dependence of Cambodia. We had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with the events that transpired in Cambodia. We would hope that the events that transpired in Cambodia will not cause the war to be widened in any way.

Insofar as our program in South Viet-Nam is concerned, the President has made it clear that it's going to continue according to schedule and will not be affected by the events in Cambodia.

Q. Mr. Secretary, regarding the neutrality of Cambodia, I believe the policy of the United States still is to sanction American troops going across the border if they are threatened.

Does this in any way compromise U.S. respect for the neutrality and sovereignty of Cambodia?

A. Not at all; and I don't believe that any troops, since the change of government, have gone into Cambodia. But we respect fully the neutrality of Cambodia and its territorial independence.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in connection with Laos, what is your assessment of the military situation there; and would a continued Communist advance there affect the Vietnamization program for Viet-Nam?

A. No, we don't think events in Laos will affect the Vietnamization program. The President said in his news conference on Saturday that he plans to continue that program. We support consultations under the Geneva accords pursuant to paragraph 4. President Nixon has dispatched another letter to Premier Kosygin urging that the Soviet Union exercise its responsibilities under the accords of 1962 to consult with the signatory powers. So far, as you know, the Soviet Union has been unresponsive. We would hope that they would respond affirmatively and seek consultations among the signatories for the purpose of carrying out the agreement that was reached in 1962, which is to provide for the neutrality of Laos.

Q. Mr. Secretary, under what circumstances would the United States be able to provide military assistance to Cambodia if requested to do so, as Laos has done?

A. Well, Cambo lia has not made any request for military assistance. Cambodia has said that it is going to continue a policy of neutrality and independence and sovereignty. No request has been made, and we don't anticipate that any request will be made.

Q. Mr. Secretary, reports from Israel indicate that henceforth Israel will seek to keep arms agreements with the U.S. secret. If the United States at some future date decides to sell Phantoms to Israel, can we have your assurance that that decision will be announced publicly?

April 13, 1970

479

A. Well, I don't think that the United States has made any agreement about secrecy. I'm not sure where that story came from; but as you know, in our system of government, secrecy is not a very productive policy to follow! [Laughter.]

Q. Mr. Secretary, a two-part question on Southeast Asia: On Laos, I believe you said the Soviet Union has been unresponsive to the U.S. request. We understood that the Soviet Union had rejected the request. But the wider question I'd also like to ask is: With the ferment in all three areas showing the overlapping of the Vietnamese war, do you see any opportunity or any need for the United States to undertake a wider approach to the problem of Southeast Asia than its immediate Vietnamization program?

A. Well, I don't want to answer that question precisely because of its general nature. As you know, we are discussing now in Paris the possibility of a negotiated peace in South Vietnam. We would hope that the cochairmen of the Geneva accords of '62 would bring the parties, the signatory powers, together for consultations on Laos. I noticed in the paper this morning that Cambodia has requested that the International Control Commission be returned to Cambodia for the purpose of supervising the agreement of '54.

So we think these are all desirable initiatives. Whether some broader concept in the future might be desirable or not, I think would depend on events. Certainly, we don't have any present plan to make any such proposal.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your Brussels speech last December, you urged the Communist countries to give what you called a "constructive response to German initiatives." Do these talks that Mr. Brandt and his aides had in the various capitals represent such a constructive response?

A. Well, I think that would, of course, be more appropriate to address to Chancellor Brandt. We have supported these discussions,

and we are somewhat encouraged by the report that Chancellor Brandt made about them.

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the same subject, would the United States approve of membership in the U.N. for West Germany and East Germany if the two of them should ask for it by agreement?

A. Well, I wouldn't want to answer that question. It's pretty hypothetical. I think they're a long way from that position.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your efforts through diplomatic channels to induce both the Arabs and Israelis to reappraise positions which have stood in the way of peace, would you say that further decisions by the President on both military and economic requests would be directly dependent on an Israeli reappraisal of its position toward peace?

A. No. We don't want to make the reappraisal that the President is talking about conditional on anything. We want to consider all of the factors that might enter into that decision.

Q. Mr. Secretary, sir, on this expanded 480 for Israel, do you plan to sell them wheat and feedgrains and buy from them with this home currency of theirs the necessary prefabricated housing for the United States—for the Philippines and Japan and the United States?

A. No. We haven't worked out the details of that P.L. 480 program yet.

Q. Mr. Secretary, this afternoon the House is going to vote on a measure that would lend Taiwan its first three submarines. What is your view of this, sir, particularly in light of your attempts to diminish the tensions with mainland China?

A. Well, we don't think that providing arms to Taiwan is necessarily increasing the tensions. I don't want to get involved in this particular vote. But, as you know, we have been giving military assistance to Taiwan for some time, and we have made our position clear in the requests that we've made to Congress in the past.

Q. Mr. Secretary, will you please clarify an

* BULLETIN of Dec. 29, 1969, p. 622.

480

Department of State Bulletin

Q. earlier answer? How much money in figures was involved in the economic aid to Israel, and where is the money coming from?

A. Well, it's coming from military assistance programs in the legislation that is now on the books. We haven't decided exactly the amounts. We're going to have some discussions with the Israelis about that in the days ahead.

Q. Mr. Secretary, may I clarify one point on that? In the story which broke on the Hill just before this news conference, Senator Scott, I believe it was, used the figure of about $100 million. Since that figure is in the public domain, can you say whether it's wrong or approximately correct?

A. No. I think it's approximately correct.

Q. Mr. Secretary, do you attach any significance to the small Thai military units that were flown into Laos last week, and have you consulted with the Thai Government with respect to the defense of Thailand in case the forces of the Viet-Nam should come down the Mekong?

A. We're in constant conversation with the Thai Government through our Ambassador there. Insofar as the first part of your question is concerned, the President in his conference on Saturday referred to that. I have nothing to add to what he said on that.

Q. Mr. Secretary, Souvanna Phouma made a speech today in which he said another 13,000 North Vietnamese have come into his country. Does this mean that there are 13,000 more than the 17,000 reinforcements that we were told about and that the number is now 70,000?

A. I don't believe so, Mr. Scali [John Scali, ABC News]. I believe that the figure that the President used of approximately 67,000 is about right. We're not sure, you know, of a few thousand either way; but I think he was talking about the fact there's been a considerable increase in North Vietnamese troops in Laos in recent months.

Q. Mr. Secretary, former Ambassador Bowles [Chester Bowles, former Ambassador to India] had an article the other day in which he said that the United States was maybe about to sell 100 tanks to Pakistan. Do you have any comment on that?

A. No. No decision has been made of that kind. We've had a review that's been underway for some time about our arms policy both vis-à-vis Pakistan and India. No decisions have been made on that.

Q. Is that part of that overall review also?

A. Well, that's one of the things that's being considered, yes.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you said that the United States favors a negotiated settlement in Viet-Nam, and certain administration officials have welcomed the Pathet Lao initiatives. Can you give us your views on their precondition that the United States stop the bombing of Laos before they can find a negotiated settlement?

A. Well, we made it quite clear that if the troops of North Viet-Nam were withdrawn from Laos, we'd have no hesitation in stopping the bombing of Laos. On the other hand, if North Viet-Nam continues to use the Ho Chi Minh Trail as a principal supply route to South Viet-Nam, obviously we would not be in a position to stop. We'd have to protect the safety and the lives of our soldiers in South Viet-Nam. We would have no problem stopping the bombing in Laos if the North Vietnamese were to withdraw from Laos.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in assessing the balance of power in the Middle East, did you include in the equation the Mirage jet airplanes that the French are selling to Libya?

A. Yes.

Q. What effect do they have on the balance of power there?

A. They don't have any effect at the moment. As you know, the delivery date is far in the future. There again, the President pointed out that he had considerable discussion with Presi-

⁴For President Nixon's statement of Mar. 6, see BULLETIN of Mar. 30, 1970, p. 405.

April 13, 1970

481

dent Pompidou on this subject. And if it ap-
peared at some subsequent date that those
planes were in fact being used or sent to Egypt,
that would be a factor of major importance.
But in any event, it doesn't change the military
balance at the present time at all, because the
planes won't be delivered for some time.

Q. Mr. Secretary, have you replied to Mr. Adlai Stevenson's inquiry about American jets to Libya?

A. No, I haven't, but I will be glad to.

Q. Will you give us the substance?

A. Well, there was a contract between Libya
and the United States for eight planes. It was
made well over a year ago, before a change of
government. The matter is now under consid-
eration. In any event, I think they are F-5's,
and we haven't decided—no decision has been
made on it. The only other planes that were
sent to Libya were some time back, by the
previous administration.

Q. Mr. Secretary, what do you expect the three Western allies to propose to the Russians during the forthcoming four-power talks on Berlin?

A. Well, we have had consultations with the
allies about what we will say, and we are pre-
pared to meet on Thursday and discuss reduc-
tion of tensions around Berlin.

Q. Mr. Secretary, the President has been
quite precise in giving us the strength of the
Communist forces in Laos. The estimates of
how much the Communist strength is in Cam-
bodia have ranged all the way from 40,000 to
100,000. Could you give us something accurate
on that?

A. No. I think that it would be better not to
get into any precise figures. There are a good
many troops there. There is no doubt about
that. They vary from time to time, depending
upon how many troops are sent down from
North Viet-Nam. But I think there probably
will be some figures come out; and if the ICC
does return to Cambodia, as requested by the

Cambodian Government, then there will be a
way of finding out more accurately how many
North Vietnamese troops are in Cambodia.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your fourth point on
the Middle East earlier, you talked about arms
limitation talks, and you were going to urge
all concerned to respond. Do you plan to con-
vene a formal conference, or call for a formal
conference, or how do you—

A. No, we wouldn't convene a formal con-
ference. We plan to discuss this matter particu-
larly with the Soviet Union in the near future
to see if there is any possibility of having a
limitation agreement on arms shipments to
the Middle East.

If all parties keep sending in more military
equipment, then obviously the confrontation
that could possibly arise becomes more danger-
ous. We would hope that discussions with the
Soviet Union might be productive.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you have discussed this
question with the Soviet Union all of last year,
the question of an arms limitation agreement.

A. That's right.

Q. And to get back to an earlier question, do
you have anything to indicate that the Soviet
Union at this time is any more responsive on
this issue?

A. No, not at the moment, but there is al-
ways hope. There has not been peace, as you
know, in the Middle East for 20 years. And all
we can do is to work at it diligently, hope-
fully, in getting some break.

Q. Mr. Secretary, we are hoping for a con-
tinued neutrality in Cambodia and the restora-
tion of a coalition government in Laos. How
would we feel about a neutralist-coalition gov-
ernment in South Viet-Nam?

A. Well, we have made our position on South
Viet-Nam pretty clear. We are prepared to
accept any kind of government that results
from a decision by the people of South
Viet-Nam.

482

Department of State Bulletin

Q. Mr. Secretary, two questions on the SALT [strategic arms limitation] talks: What is your feeling about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution last week? And secondly, do you yourself think it is too late to get any kind of agreement on MIRV [multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle], given the deployment and development decision?

A. Well, on the Senate resolution, it is largely a paraphrase of what is in the NPT. We are bound by the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty to engage seriously in discussions about limitation of both offensive and defensive weapons. Certainly the objective that is cited in the resolution is a good one. That's what the arms limitation talks are all about. How those talks should be conducted, how we negotiate, should be left to the negotiators. I think the negotiating team is exceptionally able, and we are just as anxious to be successful in those talks as the Senate is.

Referring to the second part of your question, I don't think it is too late to have any kind of an agreement. The purpose of the SALT talks is to see if we can find an agreement that is mutually acceptable to both the Soviet Union and the United States.

The Soviet Union has not stopped any of its deployment. It has had very impressive deployments of its strategic missiles lately. It has increased its submarine capacity substantially. If the Soviet Union wants an agreement and we can work one out that is not to our disadvantage, then I don't think it is impossible at all that we could stop deployment of any strategic weapons systems.

Q. The President in his "state of the world" message said, with a slight tone of pique or annoyance, that we were through making proposals in the Middle East unless we got some indication that there was a responsiveness on the other side.⁵ Are you suggesting, in your statement this morning, that either there is some sign of responsiveness or that we were a little too

quick and that we would like to make some more proposals?

A. No. I didn't notice any sort of pique in his statement.

Q. He did say that we were—

A. He was talking about the proposals we made in connection with the four-power talks and the bilateral talks. He was not talking about arms limitation to the Middle East; and if we could work out something along those lines, it would be very helpful. He was talking about the proposals we have made in the four-power context.

Q. Mr. Secretary, there is an American merchant ship in the port of Sihanoukville that appears to be under some restraint. Is there any progress in getting that released?

A. No progress at the moment. We know that their captain is safe and the men on the ship are safe. We have had some communication with them. I think the Government officials have probably been so busy these days they haven't had any time to devote to this, but we have every reason to think the ship will be returned and that the captain and the crew are safe and healthy.

Q. Mr. Secretary, do I gather from what you said earlier that you endorse the idea of having the ICC return to Cambodia to check on what is happening?

A. Well, we can't endorse it, because this is a proposal made by Cambodia without any discussion with us or any activity on our part at all. As I say, this is a problem that primarily concerns Cambodia.

We do think it is a very sensible idea. But we didn't suggest it, and we didn't initiate it; and I would just as soon not say we support it. We think it is a good idea.

Q. Mr. Secretary, when you were asked earlier about the possibility of military aid to Cambodia you replied that we respected their neutrality. They were neutral when aid was already being given to them in 1963. Is military aid inconsistent with neutrality?

⁵The complete text of President Nixon's foreign policy report to the Congress on Feb. 18 appears in the BULLETIN of Mar. 9, 1970.

April 13, 1970

483

A. No, I didn't say that neutrality and aid were inconsistent. I said that I don't want to make any proposal along that line, and I don't want to respond to a hypothetical question. I said that Cambodia has not requested any such aid and we don't anticipate they will. If they do, we will have to consider it on its merits.

Q. Mr. Secretary, may I ask you to clarify for me where your major effort is going to be made with regard to easing tensions in the Middle East: Is it going to be in your talks with Do-brynin and an American approach on a bilateral basis, through the four-party talks, or both?

A. Well, both. And, also, there is a possibility that we would be able to initiate bilateral discussions again. We are going to engage in a very vigorous and active diplomatic campaign to see if there is any prospect of bringing about a peaceful settlement in the area. We are going to do it in every way that we think might be productive.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you have suggested that the United States does not favor a wide international approach to settling problems in Indochina. I would like to follow the question pretty much that was put here. Where are you concentrating your efforts in finding a solution to the whole Indochina problem? Has there been an approach made to the Russians since the President's letter to Premier Karygin?

A. No, there has not been. I didn't say we were opposed to the concept. I just said I think it is premature. I think any kind of proposal of that kind has to be considered when it is made, who makes it, what the purposes are, and so forth.

But I think that we have enough discussions underway at the moment, so that if North Vietnam is interested in a peaceful settlement in that area there are lots of ways to achieve it. You have to keep in mind that it is quite clear now, from the facts that have developed in recent months, where the trouble lies.

There was a long time when North Vietnam denied that they had troops in South Vietnam. And there was a long time that they denied that they had troops in Laos. And they have

never admitted having troops in Cambodia. Well, I don't think there is any question about it now—that there are troops in all of those countries; I don't think anybody disputes it.

All of those countries seek neutrality; Laos and Cambodia certainly do. So that if North Vietnam is interested in a peaceful settlement, one of the things they can do is withdraw their troops from some of the neutral countries.

The press: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

## 60th Plenary Session on Viet-Nam Held at Paris

Following are texts of the opening statement and remarks made by Ambassador Philip C. Habib, acting head of the U.S. delegation, at the 60th plenary session of the meetings on Viet-Nam at Paris on March 26.

### OPENING STATEMENT

Press release 103 dated March 26

Ladies and gentlemen: As we have pointed out in recent sessions, the prisoner of war question is a matter of fundamental interest and importance which requires the urgent attention of both sides. We have sought on this, as on other issues, to find ways by which each side could take measures that would contribute to progress toward a peaceful settlement.

Today the representative of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam has announced a significant decision by his Government to repatriate 343 sick and wounded prisoners of war. We associate ourselves fully with this decision.

This important humanitarian action is a gesture of good will which will be welcomed by all people everywhere who are concerned with the plight of prisoners of war and their families. It is dramatic proof that practical steps can be taken to carry out a humanitarian policy toward prisoners, consistent with the 1949 Geneva convention.

We hope this decision to release unconditional

484

Department of State Bulletin

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

MARCH 27, 1970

FOR THE PRESS

CAUTION - FUTURE RELEASE

FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M., E.S.T., SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1970.
NOT TO BE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED, QUOTED FROM OR USED IN ANY WAY.

NO. 105

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON AND SECRETARY OF STATE WILLIAM P. ROGERS AND STATEMENT BY SECRETARY ROGERS CONCERNING U.S. AND AFRICA IN THE 1970's.

March 26, 1970

Dear Mr. President:

We have prepared and are submitting for your approval the attached statement on our policies in Africa. This is the first full statement of this kind by the United States Government in recent years. It represents, as you know, the results of numerous discussions with African leaders, a reflection of your own observations and interests regarding the continent, and conclusions arising from my own recent tour of Africa. It reflects with greater detail the principles of our African policy set forth in the Report on Foreign Policy in the 1970's.

The report emphasizes elements of our relationship to Africa both economic and political which will be of special importance in the coming months.

We believe the actions and objectives set forth in this paper represent a positive program within current budgetary and legislative guidelines. We have not suggested precise levels for the economic programs in view of the current studies of the worldwide foreign assistance policy. We feel it important, however, that our programs be certainly not less than the present level. We intend, within that level, to demonstrate herein how our current capabilities can respond more fully to Africa's stated needs.

In the ensuing weeks we shall be discussing aspects of the program with members of the Congress. We shall

The President
The White House

- 2 -

be developing other aspects in direct consultation
with African governments, governments of other
countries participating in African development and
significant regional and international institutions.

As time goes on, we shall be building on this
foundation, expanding where we can to increase the
total effectiveness of our relationship with this
significant continent. I believe you will find in
our approach the basis for the positive expression
of U.S. interest in Africa which you have so strongly
encouraged.

Respectfully yours,

Enclosure:

African Policy Statement

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

March 26, 1970

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Your thoughtfully prepared policy statement on Africa
is wholeheartedly approved.

You know of my keen personal interest in relations
with the African countries. We have both felt the spirit
and dynamism of this continent and its people. I believe
we now have a special opportunity to maintain and to
expand our present relationships and am pleased that
you and your staff have made so complete and positive
an examination of the paths that are available to us.

You may count on my full support in the fulfillment of
this program. It establishes a good foundation upon
which we can respond to African needs and build that
relationship of cooperation and understanding which we
desire.

The Honorable William P. Rogers
The Secretary of State
Washington, D. C. 20520

- 4 -

U. S. AND AFRICA IN THE 70'S

A. Africa and the U.S.

Africa, for many reasons, deserves the active attention
and support of the United States. It is in our national
interest to cooperate with African countries in their endeavors
to improve conditions of life and to help in their efforts to
build an equitable political and economic order in which all
can effectively share.

The energy and talent of the peoples of Africa represent
a significant force in world development and world trade. It
is a continent of impressive opportunities for future growth
and development--one destined to play an increasingly important
role in the world. Africans have taken much of their political
inspiration from the United States. Their thousands of students
in the United States today--and the many Americans studying
and teaching in Africa--continue the tradition of this exchange.
More than a few Africans who studied in America became leaders
of independence of their countries.

Many of our ties to Africa have been longstanding. The
Sultan of Morocco recognized our own independence at an early
date and exchanged diplomatic correspondence with George
Washington. The oldest American treaty which has been
continuously in force was signed with Morocco in 1787. We

- 5 -

signed a similar treaty with Tunisia in 1797. Close U.S.
ties to Liberia date from 1816 and with Ethiopia from 1903.
And Americans have long identified themselves with the pursuit
of independence and freedom in Africa, as elsewhere.

Africa is growing closer to the United States. Communications with Africa are rapidly developing, and communication links with other continents through Intelsat are now in operation and more African earth stations are being constructed. Two major American airlines serve the continent. Overflight rights are important to our commerce and to our scientific efforts. We have important communications facilities in both West and East Africa. Our space and scientific programs rely on the cooperation of the peoples and governments of Africa.

The resources of Africa are products which we purchase
substantially in international trade: rubber, petroleum,
bauxite, timber, coffee, cocoa, minerals and precious stones,
to name a few. They are important to the Africans as a primary
source of their wealth.

America's links with the peoples of Africa have been
extensive. Missionaries have established schools and hospitals
throughout the continent and have lived and worked in Africa
many years before official relations were established. We have

- 6 -

demonstrated humanitarian concern for the people of the
continent in our provision of help and relief in countless
ways.

And, finally, we are linked by the cultural fact that one
out of every ten Americans has his origins in Africa.

## B. What We Seek

We seek a relationship of constructive cooperation with
the nations of Africa--a cooperative and equal relationship
with all who wish it. We are prepared to have diplomatic
relations under conditions of mutual respect with all the
nations of the continent. We want no military allies, no
spheres of influence, no big power competition in Africa.
Our policy is a policy related to African countries and not
a policy based upon our relations with non-African countries.

As early as 1957, when he returned from a mission to
Africa on behalf of President Eisenhower, the then Vice President
Nixon recommended that the U.S. assign a higher priority to
our relations with an Africa, which he recognized to be of
growing importance to the United States. Specifically he
said:

"The United States must come to know these leaders better,
to understand their hopes and aspirations, and to support them
in their plans and programs for strengthening their own nations

- 7 -

and contributing to world peace and stability. To this end,
we must encourage the greatest possible interchange of persons
and ideas with the leaders and peoples of these countries.
We must assure the strongest possible diplomatic and consular
representation to those countries and stand ready to consult
these countries on all matters affecting their interests and
ours."

Personal relationships between members of the Administration
and African leaders have been widely expanded. President
Nixon met leaders from 10 African countries during the past
year. I met a number of African leaders during 1969 and in
the fall met and discussed common issues with 26 African
Foreign Ministers at the United Nations General Assembly. The
meetings included and contributed to closer understanding even
with states with which we have no current diplomatic relations;
in the case of Mauritania the discussion with the Foreign
Minister in New York was the first step toward a resumption of
relations which has now taken place. In February I became the
first Secretary of State to tour Africa. I visited 10 African
countries. I also spoke with leaders of the Organization of
African Unity, the UN Economic Commission for Africa and other
regional bodies. I met in Kinshasa with the American chiefs

- 8 -

of mission and principal officers from the African countries
in which we are represented.

It is through open and honest exchanges such as these
that we can better understand the needs and aspirations of
the peoples and governments of Africa and they can learn of
the objectives and problems we Americans face at this time
and place in history.

Some of my countrymen used to long for the luxury of
isolation behind the protection of two great oceans. But
the time for that has passed. The continental size of the
United States, its vast productive power, its technological
capabilities, its interdependence with other parts of this
planet impel us into active participation in world affairs.

But in this participation we do not seek any kind of
domination. We seek with all nations the closest relationship
which is mutually acceptable and beneficial, but seek it with
full respect for diversity among nations.

### C. What Africans Seek

An effective relationship with Africa depends on an understanding of Africa and its needs. We have sought in our discussions and visits with African leaders and African peoples to determine how they define these needs.

- 9 -

They have spoken to us first of their strong desire to satisfy the aspirations of their people for a better life. They want to do this through economic cooperation. They want economic assistance now to make themselves less dependent later on foreign resources. They look to trade as a more equitable relationship than aid. They want investment in which they are partners.

After decades of being governed from afar, they want respect for human dignity. They want to abolish discrimination. They want equality throughout the continent.

They want self-determination throughout the continent. They want respect for the independence of the new nations and for their sovereignty. They welcome cooperation with other nations but they do not want intervention.

They want to build political and social institutions based on their own cultural patterns. They want to adapt ideas from abroad to their own psychology and spirit.

They want respect for the boundaries of Africa and security for each nation within these boundaries. They want recognition that, within its infinite diversity, Africa has a cohesion and a unity of its own, such as represented by the Organization of African Unity.

- 10 -

[cc]

## D. The U.S. Response

The United States desires to be responsive to Africa, even though there are limitations on our capacities and our resources.

We desire economic relations on a basis of mutual benefit and respect. Recognizing the need for capital and technical assistance, the United States directly and in cooperation with others will continue to help. The U.S. will pursue more active programs of trade and private investment, with full recognition of African sovereignty.

We will continue to support wider cooperation on a regional and continental basis among African countries.

The United States will continue to stand for racial equality and self-determination looking for peaceful and evolutionary solutions to advance these goals. We will help to provide economic alternatives for the small independent states in southern Africa.

We will avoid supplying arms in southern Africa, and we will persist in our support for self-determination.

We will respect the institutions which the African themselves create. While we in this country have a preference for democratic procedures, we recognize that the forces for change and nation-building which operate in Africa may create

- 11 -

[LC]

governmental patterns not necessarily consistent with such procedures.

We are impressed with the growing force of youth in Africa. In country after country, governments are headed by young leaders--each with constituencies made up overwhelmingly of people even younger than themselves. Leaders and led, they are to an impressive degree post-World War II men, all shaped by the forces of this era of rapid, unprecedented change.

The opportunities for progress, and the prospects for difficulties, are immense: More educated, more aware, more confident, more competent than any African generation before, the youth of that continent cannot help but exert a restless pressure for change, for greater opportunity to improve their lives.

Their percentage of the population is enormous and growing. Today, 45 percent of Africa's population is 15 years old or younger. But it is not through strength of numbers alone that these youths will change the face of the continent. All of us are conscious of the vastly changing nature of our times, but for Africa perhaps even more than for the rest of the world, one era ended and another began while this generation was growing up. The city attracts the villager; school and university challenge ancient customs and ritual; the transistor radio

- 12 -

brings the farthest points of the world instantly to the
smallest village. Better trained in modern techniques and
modern concepts than previous generations, today's young
African will be the key to progress.

United States policies and programs in Africa will be
affected by the force of youth and its potential for the
future of the continent. As we review and try to strengthen
our educational exchange, our technical training and
assistance programs, and our Peace Corps support, we shall
give special attention to programs to cooperate with these
youths in preparation for their present and future responsibilities.

E. Economic Assistance Policy

An American economic assistance program in Africa is in
United States national interests. We wish to see African
countries develop and take their rightful place in cooperative
international efforts to resolve worldwide problems. The drive
and determination to develop must come from the African
countries themselves. But at this point in their development,
when per capita annual incomes average about $135, most of
these countries need substantial external assistance to achieve
rates of progress responsive to the minimum aspirations of
their more than 300 million people for a better life. Our
principal concern, therefore, is how most effectively to make
capital assistance and technical knowledge from the developed

- 13 -

[lc]

nations available to these developing nations.

Ever since the wave of independence swept through Africa in the late '50's and early '60's, Western European nations and multidonor organizations have provided 60 to 70 percent of economic assistance to Africa. Because of their strong traditional and historic links to Africa, we hope the European nations will continue to provide the bulk of foreign assistance to Africa. But the United States also has deep and special ties to Africa. We should do our fair share in support of the independence and growth of African nations.

## F. U.S. Assistance

The total U.S. share has, in fact, averaged about $350 million a year for the past several years. This is about 20 percent of all external assistance to Africa. We intend to maintain a substantial contribution, hopefully with a larger share in economic development programs.

Our bilateral assistance program has included resources from A.I.D., PL-480, the Export-Import Bank and the Peace Corps. In the form of loans, grants and personnel, it has reached some thirty-five African countries. It has assisted national development programs, as well as regional projects. We have worked through regional organizations, and jointly with other donors. The United States will continue to provide assistance to those nations which have been given emphasis in

- 14 -

[L.C.]

the past. At the same time, mindful of needs throughout the continent, we have decided to make our approach to African assistance more flexible than it has recently been:

- We will to the extent permitted by legislation also provide limited assistance in other African countries to projects which contribute significantly to increased production and revenues.

- We will continue to emphasize aid to regional programs and projects, giving special attention to innovative ways to make our efforts effective.

- We wish to do more to strengthen African economic institutions including the UN Economic Commission for Africa, the African Development Bank, the OAU's Scientific Technical and Research Commission and sub-regional organizations.

- We will utilize food aid to advance economic development objectives and to help tide nations over emergency food shortages.

- We will more and more orient the program of the Peace Corps to meet the technical, educational and social development needs of African nations.

- We will concentrate our economic assistance in the coming years in the fields of agriculture, education, health including demographic and family planning, transportation and communications.

- 15 -

--We are actively studying the requirement that U.S. loans to Africa be used almost exclusively for the purchase of American goods and services.

We intend to provide more assistance to Africa through
international institutions and multidonor arrangements. We
contribute 40 percent of the budget of the UN Development
Program; 40 percent of its program is now being directed to
Africa. We also contribute 40 percent of the budget

of the International Development Association; in the
past year its loans to Africa have risen substantially to twenty
percent of all its loans, and the prospect is that this proportion
will continue to rise.

We are seeking a substantial increase in the absolute amount
of United States contributions to these institutions. The United
States is now engaged in discussions with other members of IDA,
under the leadership of the World Bank, which we hope will lead
to larger contributions by all donor members of IDA. We have
proposed to Congress an increased contribution to UNDP.

In addition to our participation in international organiza-
tions, we are working more closely with other donors in World
Bank and IMF sponsored consultative groups for several African
countries, and in projects involving several donors. With
limited total aid resources, we believe these mechanisms greatly

- 16 -

increase the effectiveness of foreign aid.

We also look forward to joining with other non-African
donors in support of the African Development Bank. This young
institution, which has the financial backing of thirty-one
African governments, has prospects for promoting significant
pan-African cooperation in economic progress. It has already
raised $67 million from its members in fully convertible
currencies. It needs, however, a source of funds that could
be loaned to its members on concessional terms. We are
participating in discussions with other non-African donors
which we hope will lead to the creation of special funds for
this purpose. In the meantime, we are assisting the Bank
directly in its efforts to develop and carry out urgently
needed projects in its member countries.

An important portion of our assistance to Africa supports
regional projects and regional institutions. In Addis Ababa,
in the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, one sees
one of the most successful forms of international economic
cooperation. Any serious appraisal of the development prospects
in Africa makes clear the need for much greater regional cooperation.
Many African nations are small; their national boundaries

- 17 -

frequently split natural economic regions. Most national markets are too small to support industry using modern technology. Africans have already demonstrated their recognition of the need for regional cooperation by establishing regional educational, technical and research institutes, economic communities, common markets, common financial arrangements and even common currencies. We hope to remain in the forefront of cooperative efforts to foster regional cooperation in Africa.

Our Food for Peace programs have been a major means of economic assistance in many African countries, through credit sales, food-for-work, donations and emergency relief efforts. In the past few years, forty percent of our aid to Africa has taken these forms. We will maintain this assistance wherever food aid can make an important contribution to economic development or help meet serious emergencies.

The Peace Corps conducts programs in twenty-three African countries. This, too, will be continued as long as African governments find the Peace Corps' efforts useful

- 18 -

[L.C.]

to them. The Peace Corps is seeking to intensify its
recruitment of experienced and highly qualified personnel
in order to emphasize technically oriented positions needed
in development efforts. The Peace Corps is also moving
ahead to make qualified volunteers available to international
organizations working in the development field.

In our programs for youth, we shall intensify our efforts
to establish personal relationships between African and
American young political leaders, technicians, students and
businessmen.

We shall expand inter-African scholarships and third-country training programs for youth within Africa, while maintaining traditional exchanges with the United States.

We shall encourage more of our own country's diverse
public and private groups to learn about and from Africans.

### G. Joint Public-Private Technical Cooperation

We shall encourage the greater utilization of American
citizens from the private sector to meet development needs
in Africa. The International Executive Service Corps,

19 -

an American private organization which recruits American businessmen for short-term service in developing nations has pointed the way. This technique has already proven its usefulness in a number of countries as a means of offering American management experience to budding private industry and to government in African countries. We desire to see what can be done further to encourage this approach.

I have also called for a study of how the United States Government can establish a clearing house for requests from the more advanced developing nations for the provision of technical and professional services to meet scientific, technological and industrial requirements. Such a clearing house should be able to draw on both public and private personnel, and should have sufficient funds available where necessary to "top-off" salaries offered by these developing nations to foreign experts, so that the total earnings of the American specialists would continue to match their current value in the United States.

In these and other fashions we should like to share some of the positive aspects of our science, technology and management experience, as well as some of the lessons we have been learning from our own development. I have in mind not only our achievements in communications, industry and science,

- 20 -

but some of the grave by-products of these accomplishments,
such as over-urbanization and pollution.

The U.S. Government recognizes the great potential of
African labor to play a constructive role in the sound
economic development of free and independent African nations.
We have, therefore, consistently sought friendly understanding
of the labor movements of African countries. We hope we can
continue to make some significant contributions.

It is our policy to continue to support and encourage
African governments in the development and execution of
comprehensive labor manpower programs. And while recognizing
African preferences for a distinctive African approach to
trade union matters, we encourage close fraternal relations
between the leaders and members of the African trade unions
and Western national and international labor organizations.

## H. Private Investment

There has been a steady growth in U.S. private investment
in Africa since most of the African nations achieved their
independence. By the end of 1968 the value of U.S. private
investment in OAU member states was almost $2 billion.
Between 1963 and 1968, U.S. private investment in Africa grew
at an average annual rate of about fourteen percent.

We believe that private investment can and should play
a growing role, above and beyond public assistance, in African

- 21 -

[LC]

development. Africans themselves desire to participate
in such investment. In many countries, in the face of
limited capital resources, it is the government rather
than the private sector which has the financial wherewithal
to join with foreign private investors. Thus, "joint ventures"
frequently involve a combination of foreign private and African
governmental capital. We are prepared to encourage American
investors to cooperate in such endeavors under adequate
investment protection.

Our investment policy should be creative and flexible.
It should be deeply concerned with the social environment
in which it operates. When investing abroad, modern American
businessmen offer training, profit-sharing and other opportunities.
At the same time, as businessmen, they expect stability for the
enterprises in which they join and a reasonable return on their
investments. While the United States Government has guaranty
programs available to many American investors, these are
insurance and not the basis on which businessmen make investment.
Thus, they pay great heed to African government programs to
foster a favorable investment climate. Therefore, an investment
code, assurances from the African government and reasonable
entry, work and tax arrangements, can make the difference
between an American's willingness or unwillingness to work
out an investment.

- 22 -

Mineral and petroleum development account for nearly three-fourths of current U.S. private investment in Africa. The industry is exceptionally able to seek out new sources and new opportunities to meet growing demands.

The same is not the case, however, for investments in manufacturing, agro-business and commerce. Thus, we are already conducting certain programs to stimulate American private efforts in these fields.

--We have an increasingly successful, albeit modest, effort at getting American investors to look at integrated, large-unit agricultural schemes in Africa. In the past three years, American companies have made 27 preliminary studies, leading to ten in-depth studies and four investment commitments. Several more are currently being negotiated.

--We are also seeking to interest medium size American investors to look at opportunities to help contribute to African markets, i.e., flour milling, bus transportation; and for meeting specialized markets which Africa could fill, such as plywood, shrimp fishing and food processing.

Success in these and other programs depends on the already-mentioned favorable investment climate, on enterprises tailored to realistic market size, and ultimately on getting the prospective American investor to go to Africa to see for

- 23 -

himself what the conditions are and what his opportunity
costs are.

The new Overseas Private Investment Corporation is
authorized to provide guaranties, some equity, local
currency loans and sound investment project advice to form
the basis for a more efficient, flexible and aggressive
approach to the promotion of U.S. investment in developing
nations. It will be an important element in stimulating
further American private investment in Africa.

I. Increased and Improved Trade Relations

I was deeply impressed on my recent trip by the great
dependence of so many African countries on exports of one
or two agricultural or mineral commodities. Sudden changes
in world market prices for these commodities can cause
violent fluctuations in export earnings and can disrupt
development programs. In recognition of this instability
the United States over the years has participated in
international efforts to stabilize prices and incomes of
primary products. We were one of the initial signatories
of the International Coffee Agreement. The President is
now recommending to the Congress renewal of the legislative
authority for our continued adherence to this agreement.
By the same token, we are continuing to participate in the

- 24 -

discussions within UNCTAD working toward an international
agreement on cocoa.

But the problem of prices affects other commodities
as well. We have joined international efforts, such as
those recently conducted at African initiative in the
World Bank and IMF, to see whether new and additional
measures can be taken to stabilize prices and incomes.

Several months ago the President set forth proposals
for generalized tariff preferences for all developing
nations, so that they could more readily find markets for
their manufactured and semi-manufactured products in the
developed nations, including the United States. To this
end, we are actively seeking agreement with other developed
nations on some generalized preference scheme.

We are mindful of the special relationship which
exists between some African and some European countries.
Our purpose, however, is to give all developing nations
much improved access for exports of their manufactures to
the markets of all developed nations on an equal basis.

We are also urging the elimination of discriminatory tariffs --
sometimes called "reverse preferences" -- which put our goods
at a competitive disadvantage in many African markets. We
hope that European nations see no linkage between eliminating
the preferences they currently receive in some twenty African
nations and their levels of aid to those countries.

- 25 -

[L.C.]

In the meantime, we have been most encouraged to learn of the important first step taken by the member nations of the Central African Customs and Economic Union (UDEAC), to reduce their general tariffs on most imported goods by fifty percent. They thus move closer to a non-discriminatory tariff position.

This measure offers the prospect of greater American trade with these countries.

## J. The Problem of Southern Africa

One of the most critical political problems of continental concern relates to southern Africa. The problems of southern Africa are extremely stubborn. Passions are strong on both sides. We see no easy solutions.

Yet the modern world demands a community of nations based on respect for fundamental human rights. These are not only moral and legal principles; they are powerful and ultimately irresistible political and historical forces. We take our stand on the side of those forces of fundamental human rights in southern Africa as we do at home and elsewhere.

In Southern Rhodesia, we have closed our consulate. Our representatives in Salisbury were accredited to the Queen of England. When the Queen's authority was no longer recognized by the regime we withdrew our consulate. We

- 26 -

[lc]

have also determined not to recognize the white-minority regime in Salisbury and will continue to support UN economic sanctions.

To alleviate the difficulties of certain refugees in the United States, particularly of those from southern Africa, with respect to travel abroad, the United States expects in the near future to issue travel documentation as provided under the Protocol to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees.

In the matter of Namibia (South West Africa), the United States has respected the international status of that territory since 1920. It has sought in the United Nations, before the International Court of Justice and in direct exchanges with South Africa, to defend that status. We have sought equally to defend the rights of the inhabitants, which that status was established to protect. We are now participating in UN deliberations on this matter. Any further actions which the U.S. may take, in the UN or elsewhere, will continue to be consistent with our historic support of the law.

Our relations with the Republic of South Africa have been a matter of particular attention. We do not believe cutting our ties with this rich, troubled land would advance the cause we pursue or help the majority of the people of that country.

We continue to make known to them and the world our strong views on apartheid. We are maintaining our arms

- 27 -

[lc]

embargo. We oppose their continued administration of Namibia (South West Africa) and their implementation of apartheid and other repressive legislation there. We will continue to make clear that our limited governmental activities in South Africa do not represent any acceptance or condoning of its discriminatory system.

As for the Portuguese Territories, we shall continue to believe that their peoples should have the right of self-determination. We will encourage peaceful progress toward that goal. The declared Portuguese policy of racial toleration is an important factor in this equation. We think this holds genuine hope for the future. Believing that resort to force and violence is in no one's interest, we imposed an embargo in 1961 against the shipment of arms for use in the Portuguese territories. We have maintained this embargo and will continue to do so.

The smaller independent states south of the Zambesi also deserve attention. They are seeking to create multi-racial societies free of the predominant influence of the minority-dominated states adjoining and surrounding them. They cannot exist without a realistic relationship with their neighbors. At the same time it is in the interest of all those who wish to see these states develop and prosper

- 28 -

[LC]

to provide alternative sources of assistance and means of access to these states. This the United States, in cooperation with other donors, will seek to do. At the same time, the United States will seek to be responsive to requests from these states for a higher level of U.S. diplomatic representation.

In all these ways, as well as in positions taken in the United Nations and through diplomatic channels, we shall work to bring about a change of direction in parts of Africa where racial oppression and residual colonialism still prevail.

At the same time, we cannot accept the fatalistic view that only violence can ultimately resolve these issues. Rather we believe that solution lies in the constructive interplay of political, economic and social forces which will inevitably lead to changes.

## Conclusion

As the President said in his Report to the Congress on Foreign Policy: "We want the Africans to build a better life for themselves and their children. We want to see an Africa free of poverty and disease, and free too of economic or political dependence on any outside power. And we want Africans to build this future as they think best, because in that way both our help and their efforts will be most relevant to their needs."