WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 21, 1971

937

These new penalties allow judges more discretion, which we feel
will restore credibility to the drug control laws and eliminate some of
the difficulties prosecutors and judges have had in the past arising out
of minimum mandatory penalties for all violators.

The penalty structure in the 1970 Drug Act became effective on May 1 of this year. While it is too soon to assess its effect, I expect it to help enable us to deter or remove from our midst those who traffic in narcotics and other dangerous drugs.

To complement the new Federal drug law, a uniform State drug control law has been drafted and recommended to the States. Nineteen States have already adopted it and others have it under active consideration. Adoption of this uniform law will facilitate joint and effective action by all levels of government.

Although I do not presently anticipate a necessity for alteration of the purposes or principles of existing enforcement statutes, there is a clear need for some additional enforcement legislation.

To help expedite the prosecution of narcotic trafficking cases, we are asking the Congress to provide legislation which would permit the United States Government to utilize information obtained by foreign police, provided that such information was obtained in compliance with the laws of that country.

We are also asking that the Congress provide legislation which would permit a chemist to submit written findings of his analysis in drug cases. This would speed the process of criminal justice.

The problems of addict identification are equalled and surpassed by the problem of drug identification. To expedite work in this area of narcotics enforcement, I am asking the Congress to provide $2 million to be allotted to the research and development of equipment and techniques for the detection of illegal drugs and drug traffic.

I am asking the Congress to provide $2 million to the Department of Agriculture for research and development of herbicides which can be used to destroy growths of narcotics-producing plants without adverse ecological effects.

I am asking the Congress to authorize and fund 325 additional positions within the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to increase their capacity for apprehending those engaged in narcotics trafficking here and abroad and to investigate domestic industrial producers of drugs.

Finally, I am asking the Congress to provide a supplemental appropriation of $25.6 million for the Treasury Department. This will increase funds available to this Department for drug abuse control to nearly $45 million. Of this sum, $18.1 million would be used to enable the Bureau of Customs to develop the technical capacity to deal with smuggling by air and sea, to increase the investigative staff charged with pursuit and apprehension of smugglers, and to increase inspection personnel who search persons, baggage, and cargo entering the country. The remaining $7.5 million would permit the Internal Revenue Service to intensify investigation of persons involved in large-scale narcotics trafficking.

These steps would strengthen our efforts to root out the cancerous growth of narcotics addiction in America. It is impossible to say that the enforcement legislation I have asked for here will be conclusive—that we will not need further legislation. We cannot fully know at this time what

938

further steps will be necessary. As those steps define themselves, we will be prepared to seek further legislation to take any action and every action necessary to wipe out the menace of drug addiction in America. But domestic enforcement alone cannot do the job. If we are to stop the flow of narcotics into the lifeblood of this country, I believe we must stop it at the source.

INTERNATIONAL

There are several broad categories of drugs: those of the cannabis family—such as marihuana and hashish; those which are used as sedatives, such as the barbiturates and certain tranquilizers; those which elevate mood and suppress appetite, such as the amphetamines; and, drugs such as LSD and mescaline, which are commonly called hallucinogens. Finally, there are the narcotic analgesics, including opium and its derivatives—morphine and codeine. Heroin is made from morphine.

Heroin addiction is the most difficult to control and the most socially destructive form of addiction in America today. Heroin is a fact of life and a cause of death among an increasing number of citizens in America, and it is heroin addiction that must command priority in the struggle against drugs.

To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control of narcotics traffic, and I am proposing a number of new steps for this purpose.

First, on Monday, June 14, I recalled the United States Ambassadors to Turkey, France, Mexico, Luxembourg, Thailand, the Republic of Vietnam, and the United Nations for consultations on how we can better cooperate with other nations in the effort to regulate the present substantial world opium output and narcotics trafficking. I sought to make it equally clear that I consider the heroin addiction of American citizens an international problem of grave concern to this Nation, and I instructed our Ambassadors to make this clear to their host governments. We want good relations with other countries, but we cannot buy good relations at the expense of temporizing on this problem.

Second, United States Ambassadors to all East Asian governments will meet in Bangkok, Thailand, tomorrow, June 18, to review the increasing problem in that area, with particular concern for the effects of this problem on American servicemen in Southeast Asia.

Third, it is clear that the only really effective way to end heroin production is to end opium production and the growing of poppies. I will propose that as an international goal. It is essential to recognize that opium is, at present, a legitimate source of income to many of those nations which produce it. Morphine and codeine both have legitimate medical applications.

It is the production of morphine and codeine for medical purposes which justifies the maintenance of opium production, and it is this production which in turn contributes to the world's heroin supply. The development of effective substitutes for these derivatives would eliminate any valid reason for opium production. While modern medicine has developed effective and broadly used substitutes for morphine, it has yet to

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 1971

939

provide a fully acceptable substitute for codeine. Therefore, I am directing that Federal research efforts in the United States be intensified with the aim of developing at the earliest possible date synthetic substitutes for all opium derivatives. At the same time I am requesting the Director General of the World Health Organization to appoint a study panel of experts to make periodic technical assessments of any synthetics which might replace opiates with the aim of effecting substitutions as soon as possible.

Fourth, I am requesting $1 million to be used by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs for training of foreign narcotics enforcement officers. Additional personnel within the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs would permit the strengthening of the investigative capacities of BNDD offices in the U.S., as well as their ability to assist host governments in the hiring, training, and deployment of personnel and the procurement of necessary equipment for drug abuse control.

Fifth, I am asking the Congress to amend and approve the International Security Assistance Act of 1971 and the International Development and Humanitarian Assistance Act of 1971 to permit assistance to presently proscribed nations in their efforts to end drug trafficking. The drug problem crosses ideological boundaries and surmounts national differences. If we are barred in any way in our effort to deal with this matter, our efforts will be crippled, and our will subject to question. I intend to leave no room for other nations to question our commitment to this matter.

Sixth, we must recognize that cooperation in control of dangerous drugs works both ways. While the sources of our chief narcotics problem are foreign, the United States is a source of illegal psychotropic drugs which afflict other nations. If we expect other governments to help stop the flow of heroin to our shores, we must act with equal vigor to prevent equally dangerous substances from going into their nations from our own. Accordingly, I am submitting to the Senate for its advice and consent the Convention on Psychotropic Substances which was recently signed by the United States and 22 other nations. In addition, I will submit to the Congress any legislation made necessary by the Convention including the complete licensing, inspection, and control of the manufacture, distribution, and trade in dangerous synthetic drugs.

Seventh, the United States has already pledged $2 million to a Special Fund created on April 1 of this year by the Secretary General of the United Nations and aimed at planning and executing a concerted UN effort against the world drug problem. We will continue our strong backing of UN drug-control efforts by encouraging other countries to contribute and by requesting the Congress to make additional contributions to this fund as their need is demonstrated.

Finally, we have proposed, and we are strongly urging multilateral support for, amendments to the Single Convention on Narcotics which would enable the International Narcotics Control Board to:

- require from signatories details about opium poppy cultivation and opium production—thus permitting the Board access to essential information about narcotics raw materials from which illicit diversion occurs;

- base its decisions about the various nations' activities with narcotic drugs not only as at present on information officially submitted by the

940

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JULY 21, 1971

governments, but also on information which the Board obtains through public or private sources—thus enhancing data available to the Board in regard to illicit traffic;

—carry out, with the consent of the nation concerned, on-the-spot inquiries on drug related activities;

—modify signatories' annual estimates of intended poppy acreage and opium production with a view to reducing acreage or production; and

—in extreme cases, require signatories to embargo the export and/or import of drugs to or from a particular country that has failed to meet its obligations under the Convention.

I believe the foregoing proposals establish a new and needed dimension in the international effort to halt drug production, drug traffic, and drug abuse. These proposals put the problems and the search for solutions in proper perspective, and will give this Nation its best opportunity to end the flow of drugs, and most particularly heroin, into America, by literally cutting it off root and branch at the source.

## CONCLUSION

Narcotics addiction is a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America. It is a problem which baffles many Americans. In our history we have faced great difficulties again and again, wars and depressions and divisions among our people have tested our will as a people—and we have prevailed.

We have fought together in war, we have worked together in hard times, and we have reached out to each other in division—to close the gaps between our people and keep America whole.

The threat of narcotics among our people is one which properly frightens many Americans. It comes quietly into homes and destroys children, it moves into neighborhoods and breaks the fiber of community which makes neighbors. It is a problem which demands compassion, and not simply condemnation, for those who become the victims of narcotics and dangerous drugs. We must try to better understand the confusion and disillusion and despair that bring people, particularly young people, to the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs.

We are not without some understanding in this matter, however. And we are not without the will to deal with this matter. We have the moral resources to do the job. Now we need the authority and the funds to match our moral resources. I am confident that we will prevail in this struggle as we have in many others. But time is critical. Every day we lose compounds the tragedy which drugs inflict on individual Americans. The final issue is not whether we will conquer drug abuse, but how soon. Part of this answer lies with the Congress now and the speed with which it moves to support the struggle against drug abuse.

RICHARD NIXON

The White House

June 17, 1971

NOTE: For the President's remarks upon transmitting the message, see the preceding item.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 17, 1971

941

Special Consultant to the President for
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs

*Announcement of Appointment of Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe.*
June 17, 1971

The President today announced the appointment of Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe as Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Jaffe is presently Director, Drug Abuse Program, Department of Mental Health of the State of Illinois, as well as associate professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Chicago. For the past year he has been advising the Domestic Council on drug abuse matters. He has been a consultant to numerous State and local governments and private organizations, and has been a frequent contributor to many professional journals.

For the past 7 years, Dr. Jaffe has been involved in the development of treatment programs for heroin users. As Director of Illinois' Drug Abuse Program, he pioneered innovative techniques for the treatment of heroin addiction, including the use of new substances to reduce the use of heroin and comprehensive approaches in which methadone maintenance and therapeutic community approaches have been combined.

Jaffe, 37, was born in Philadelphia. He is a graduate of Temple University (A.B., 1954; M.A., 1956) and the Temple University School of Medicine (M.D., 1958). He completed his residency in psychiatry at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, Lexington, Ky., in 1960. From 1961 to 1966 he was the recipient of grants from the United States Public Health Service to pursue post-doctoral work and research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He served as an assistant professor at the College from 1964 to 1966, when he left to join the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago.

Jaffe is married to the former Faith Kessel of Philadelphia. They have three children and presently reside in Chicago.

Special Action Office for Drug Abuse
Prevention

*Executive Order 11599.*
June 17, 1971

ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL ACTION OFFICE FOR DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION

Drug abuse has assumed alarming proportions in recent times and its spread must be reversed forthwith. I have sent a special message to the Congress urging the prompt enactment of legislation creating a new Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention within the Executive Office of the President. This office will mobilize

and concentrate the comprehensive resources of the Federal Government in an all out campaign to meet this threat. However, immediate action must be taken to place the leadership of our drug abuse effort under a single official who will coordinate existing Federal drug abuse programs and activities, and develop plans for increasing our future efforts.

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, it is ordered as follows:

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE

SECTION 1. There is hereby established in the Executive Office of the President a Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. The Office shall be under the immediate supervision and direction of a Director, who shall be designated by the President.

FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR

SEC. 2(a) The Director shall be the special representative of the President with respect to all Federal drug abuse training, education, rehabilitation, research, treatment, and prevention programs and activities (exclusive of law enforcement activities and legal proceedings).

(b) The Director shall prescribe policies, guidelines, standards, and criteria for the maximum achievement of the goals and objectives for those programs and activities. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Federal officers and Federal departments and agencies shall cooperate with the Director in carrying out his functions under this Order and shall comply with the policies, guidelines, standards, and procedures prescribed by the Director pursuant to this subsection.

(c) In addition, the Director shall—

(1) develop comprehensive plans and programs to combat drug abuse including goals and objectives therefor;

(2) assure that all Federal drug abuse programs and activities are properly coordinated;

(3) evaluate all such programs;

(4) advise the heads of departments and agencies of his findings and recommendations, when appropriate;

(5) make recommendations to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concerning proposed funding of drug abuse programs;

(6) establish a clearing house for the prompt consideration of drug abuse problems brought to his attention by Federal departments and agencies and by other public and private entities, organizations, agencies, or individuals; and

(7) report to the President, from time to time, concerning the foregoing.

ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 3(a) Expenses of the Special Office for Drug Abuse Prevention shall be paid from the appropriation under the heading "Special Projects," in the Executive

942

[L0]

Office Appropriation Act, 1971, or any corresponding appropriations which may be made for subsequent fiscal years or from such other appropriated funds as may be available therefor.

(b) The General Services Administration shall provide, on a reimbursable basis, such administrative services and facilities for the Director and the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention as the Director may request.

RICHARD NIXON.

The White House

June 17, 1971

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 12:05 p.m., June 18, 1971]

NOTE: For the President's message to the Congress on drug abuse prevention and control, see page 931 of this issue. For the remarks of the President upon transmitting the message, see page 930.

## World Law Day, 1971

*Proclamation 4060. June 17, 1971*

*By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation*

From the time more than 25 centuries ago when a Hebrew prophet wrote, "The Lord is our judge . . . our lawgiver . . . our king; he will save us," Western civilization's sense of salvation has been intimately related to its vision of the universal rule of law in the affairs of men. We in the United States have special reason to cherish this vision, for the freedom, the order, and the abundance which we enjoy are fruits of its application. The great principle that the people are sovereign, and that the law they make is supreme, has operated with such signal success in our country's history that Americans are turning increasingly to the compelling logic of putting it to work in the world community as well. People of many other nations and cultures are doing likewise.

At the same time technology is shrinking the globe so that the sense of common destiny and common danger, the sense that "my country is the world; and my countrymen are mankind," is no longer fancy but compelling fact for the whole human race. More and more, it becomes a matter of prime importance that principle and not mere power should govern in this country called Earth.

We can see many heartening evidences that law is becoming stronger and more just around the world under the pressures which reason and necessity exert. Within the nations, human rights and ecological wisdom continue to gain stature in the law. Among the nations, security and cooperation—on every front from space to the seas-beds—are being enhanced through negotiations, treaties, and conventions. The United Nations is entering its second quarter of a century, and many other international organizations are working effectively through and for world law.

Also playing a constructive role are those organizations which are made up not of countries but of individual men and women, joined together in the interest of the law as citizens of their countries and of the world. One of the most important of these is the World Peace Through Law Center, founded in 1963, which this summer will hold its Fifth World Conference on World Peace Through Law at Belgrade, Yugoslavia. July 21, the date when thousands of lawyers and jurists from around the world will convene for this conference, will be observed in many nations as World Law Day—an observance in which I know the American people, a people who love the law, will want to join.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD NIXON, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 21, 1971, as World Law Day. I call on every American to reflect that day on the sacredness of the law in American tradition. And I urge each American to join with millions of his fellow men around the world in heightened recognition of the importance of the rule of law in international affairs to our goal of a stable peace.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-fifth.

RICHARD NIXON

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 1:38 p.m., June 17, 1971]

## Emergency Loans for Farmers Affected by Natural Disasters

*Announcement of Extension of Repayment Period for Certain Loans of the Farmers Home Administration, To Provide Relief to Drought-Stricken Farmers. June 17, 1971*

The President today announced that, effective immediately, certain emergency loans of the Farmers Home Administration for farmers hit or affected by natural disasters can now be paid over periods up to 5 years instead of the previous 1-year repayment policy. The extension of loan repayments will provide substantial relief to drought-stricken farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, and other States in the Southwest.

The emergency loans affected are those made to enable farmers to meet interest payments on real estate, chattel debts, and equipment debts. Under this new policy, when a farmer receives an emergency loan advance of $7,500 for these purposes, this amount can be paid over a period up to 5 years—or $1,500 per year—instead of from his next crop earnings.

This new emergency relief measure is in addition to earlier actions to help farmers, including the providing of $50 million in farm ownership funds and

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE #1075

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

4:15 P.M. EDT

JUNE 17, 1971

THURSDAY

MR. WARREN: You have a number of releases, I believe.

The Executive Order which was referred to this morn-
ing establishing a Special Office for Drug Abuse Prevention
is one of the releases. This action by the President is pend-
ing the enactment of legislation which the President submitted
to the Congress today.

You also have a release proclaiming July 21st as
World Law Day.

Then you will shortly have a release which will
announce that the President is making known today that effect-
ive immediately, the Farmers Home Administration emergency
loans for farmers affected by national disasters can now
be paid over periods of up to five years instead of the pre-
vious one-year repayment policy.

This is designed, of course, to provide relief to
the drought-stricken farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, and other
parts of the Southwest. That release will be up shortly. As
you recall, in the areas affected by the serious drought in
Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwest,
the farmers have been receiving assistance from the United
States Department of Agriculture in the way of farm ownership
loan programs, hay programs, and others.

On May 19th, the President ordered some of these
additional steps, followed by trips to the area by Director
Lincoln of the Office of Emergency Preparedness and Secretary
Hardin.

We have a number of postings which I will go through
now.

The President today transmitted to the Senate a
request for an amendment to the fiscal 1972 budget in the
amount of $3 million for the Health Services and Mental Health
Administration of the Department of HEW. These funds will be
used for providing for safe water and waste facilities for
Indian and Alaska native homes. You also have the President's
letter of transmittal, along with a letter to the President
from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget de-
tailing the request.

The President today has approved H.R. 6359, which
increases the amount authorized to be appropriated for admin-
istering the provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act,
and has other minor classifying changes in the Act. We will
post that information.

MORE

#1075

- 2 -

#1075

At 9:30 in the morning, the President will meet with the President of Senegal, Leopold Sedeer Senghor. He is in the United States on a private visit. I think he is receiving an honorary degree at one of the universities, and I am afraid I don't know which one at the moment, but I will get the information for you. This will be a meeting in the President's office, prior to the President's departure.

Finally, the President today is announcing that Vice President Agnew will head the United States Delegation and represent the United States at the inauguration on July 1, 1971, of Park Chung Hee, the President of the Republic of Korea.

Q. Didn't you already announce that?

MR. WARREN: I think we confirmed, in answer to a question, that the Vice President would be going to the inauguration, but this is the first official announcement of the Vice President's participation, and the rest of the delegation, which I will now read to you. We will have this in a posting for your further study.

The delegation will include: William J. Porter, American Ambassador to the Republic of Korea; Senator James B. Allen of Alabama; Senator James L. Buckley of New York; Congressman Samuel L. Devine of Ohio; Congressman G. Elliott Hagan of Georgia; Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., Commander-in-Chief, Pacific; Winthrop Rockefeller, former Governor of Arkansas; and Bryce N. Harlow, former Counsellor to the President.

Following the inauguration of President Park in Korea, the Vice President will visit several other countries. The purpose of the trip is to demonstrate the President's continuing personal interest in the countries to be visited and to develop a first-hand knowledge of the problems and the progress of those countries.

The Vice President will be seeking the views of Heads of State and Government and other officials with whom he meets on matters of mutual concern, so that he can give his first-hand impressions to the President.

In addition to Korea, the Vice President will make a stop in Singapore, and then go on to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Spain, Morocco, and Portugal.

Q. Do the rest of the delegation go along on that trip?

MR. WARREN: No. The official delegation to the inauguration will return directly to Washington from Korea. The dates of the trip are June 26th to July 28th.

Q. When is the inauguration?

MR. WARREN: July 1st.

Q. Doesn't he go to Vietnam?

MR. WARREN: This is his schedule, or the list of countries he will visit as I have it.

MORE

#1075

- 3 -

#1075

Q Who selected the rest of the delegation to the inauguration?

MR. WARREN: I think it was selected the way delegations are normally selected, through consultation with the State Department and other officials in the Government.

Q Do these people have any particular frame of reference relating to Korea, or are they personal friends of the Vice President, or what?

MR. WARREN: They are chosen to represent the United States because of their experience, because of their position in life. I would not draw anything beyond that.

Q Where does South Korea fit in this itinerary?

Q Is South Korea first on the itinerary?

MR. WARREN: It is the first stop, yes.

Q What were the factors in the selection of these particular countries?

MR. WARREN: I don't know that I can detail factors for each country, but these are areas which the President asked the Vice President to visit, to pay his personal respect and show his personal interest in these various countries.

Q Jerry, is that Congo stop Kinshasa or Brazzaville?

MR. WARREN: Kinshasa. The Democratic Republic of Congo.

Q Does Mr. Harlow have a special interest or expertise in the matter of South Korea?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Harlow is a trusted former member of the President's staff. He has assisted the Vice President in other areas. I don't know that expertise in the affairs or the history of the country really is a prerequisite to represent the United States of America in this ceremony.

Q Mr. Harlow is not going on?

MR. WARREN: I don't believe he will, no.

Q Any special rationale for inviting Senator Buckley?

MR. WARREN: I can't go down the list of the members of that delegation. It is a highly distinguished delegation that will be representing the United States of America at this inauguration.

Q Jerry, when you said one of the purposes is to demonstrate a continuing interest, does that mean that the Vice President has visited all these countries before?

MR. WARREN: I meant to say the President's continuing interest.

Q Is Mrs. Agnew going?

MORE

#1075

943

$65 million more in emergency loan funds. New procedures have been established so that farmers who cannot meet loan installments promptly because of drought losses will not be disqualified from Federal credit in future years, and further that their ability to obtain credit from other sources will not disqualify them for emergency loans.

The additional $115 million in loan funds will be used to meet the financial needs of the family farmers and ranchers in the United States with priority given to the use of the funds by hard-hit farmers in the Southwest drought area. Use of farm ownership funds may include the refinancing of debts.

In Texas and Oklahoma, two States hardest hit by the drought, the Farmers Home Administration has made more than $18.8 million in emergency loans, $35 million in farm operating loans and $29 million in farm ownership loans during the past 11 months.

## Rochester, New York

### The President's Remarks to Media Executives
Attending a Background Briefing on Domestic Policy Initiatives. June 18, 1971

Ladies and gentlemen:

I am very happy to participate in this media briefing. I was reminded by the elevator operator, who, incidentally, is the manager of the hotel—I don't think they can afford elevator operators at the present time—that the last time I came to Rochester we brought a blizzard. This time we did not bring a blizzard but I imagine after what have you have been exposed to, you imagine you have been exposed to a blizzard of words.

I am not going to try to cover you too much on what I am sure has been covered by the briefing team up to this point. What I would like to do is put in perspective some of these domestic problems and briefly to point out how I believe they affect also our situation with regard to foreign policy. To do that, I think it might be well to start with a comment that was made after a press conference I had on June 1st, just a couple of weeks ago, by a listener, a viewer, to the effect that the viewer was extremely interested in a number of domestic questions, and why was it that of the questions in the press conference, that out of 25 or so that were answered, 22 were on foreign policy or related to foreign policy.

So I went back over the press conferences of this year, except for one that I had in San Clemente where I limited it to domestic policy, and I found, of course, that that was exactly the case. Eighty-five percent of all questions asked at Presidential press conferences since I have become President, and also 85 percent of all the questions asked when I have appeared before editors'

groups, as I did before the ASNE in Washington, have been on foreign policy or national security-related issues.

Consequently, we thought that in these media briefings it might be important to bring to the attention of the opinion leaders in this part of the country, as we have tried to do and will be trying to do in other parts of the country as well, the very important domestic issues, issues which, because foreign policy at the moment seems to be so important that it obscures the others—we cannot have an effective foreign policy unless we are able effectively to deal with our problems at home.

I will return to that theme in my conclusion, but let me begin by touching on several of the issues that you have already heard discussed and give you, if I may, some predictions about what is going to happen in the Congress.

I will predict flatly that in this session of the Congress revenue sharing in some form will pass. I will predict flatly that in this session of the Congress welfare reform in some form will pass.

As far as the second is concerned, it may be that the problem in the Senate will become so difficult that it may slip over into the next session. But in this Congress both revenue sharing and welfare reform will pass.

And also, I will predict flatly that Government reorganization—and here Governor Connally is the real expert in this field because he was on the committee that recommended it—Government reorganization will begin; at least one of the reorganization plans will be passed.

Let me say in that respect that I have been very pleased, and I think Governor Connally has been pleased, by the bipartisan approach that the chairmen of the committees have taken on this. Chairman Holifield, for example, who very bluntly is opposed to the reorganization plans at first blush, and Chairman McClellan in the Senate, have both said that they wanted to have hearings and give the Congress an opportunity to decide.

If the Congress gets an opportunity to decide on Government reorganization, on welfare reform, on revenue sharing, the majority of the Congress will reflect the majority of the country.

The reason why I am confident that welfare reform and revenue sharing will pass is because a majority of the country want changes made. I use the term "in some form" deliberately. This administration is working with the Congress of the other party. Even if we had one of our own party, the Congress always needs to and must work its will on administration proposals. Sometimes the Congress improves them. Sometimes we think the action of the Congress does not improve them.

But be that as it may, it must be a joint enterprise, particularly when the Congress is in the hands of one party and the Presidency in the hands of another. But we believe that we have the cooperative framework worked out for these three areas.

Now let me go precisely, if I could, to the first: revenue sharing.

947

tripling—of the number in the South in the past year. There has been no change whatever in the North in this number over these past 3 years.

We could go on by dissecting the problem and pointing out how far we still have to go in the South, how far we have to go in the North. We could talk about other areas: job opportunity, housing, and so forth.

I would simply like to leave this thought with you with regard to this: It is the responsibility of the national administration to enforce the law. We will, and we are.

In the field of school desegregation, in the field of fair housing and all the rest, we shall enforce the law. But I recall in my first year in law school, the first day, the professor in contracts started the course before we opened the case books, and he said, "Gentlemen, before you study all these cases I want to say one thing. A contract is only as good as the will of the parties to keep it."

To paraphrase that, we must recognize that a law is only as good as the will of people to obey it. That will must come, and it will only come, through leadership, again from the media and the rest, all of us who have this responsibility, who will, one, not create among the minds of people that they must like a law in order to obey it, but to create at least among those who have the problem, whatever it may be in this difficult area, to create among them this attitude that once the courts have spoken, once the law has been laid down, then it is their responsibility to carry it out.

That is why when we worked on the problem of Southern school desegregation we could have gone the other way. We could have demagogued it a year ago, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision, and we would have had massive resistance. But we called in the white leaders and the black leaders—and we met with them hour after hour after hour—from all of the major States. I personally met with them at the White House. They left; and many of the white leaders particularly, and most of the blacks, most of the white leaders said, "We don't agree with the law, we don't like the law, but we don't want our part of the country to be a non-law-abiding area."

It is that type of an attitude that we need, of course, to inculcate all across this country.

Now if I could move finally to putting this in the perspective of our foreign policy, without going into great detail in that field, because that would take me another 25 minutes, and you, I know, are on a rather tight schedule.

At the present time, the eyes of the Nation primarily in the field of foreign policy are riveted on Vietnam. I understand that. My eyes are on Vietnam, and I have a responsibility to end the American involvement there in a way that will contribute to a lasting peace.

I will simply say to get that subject in perspective, if all of the great issues in foreign policy which come across my desk were as certain of solution as Vietnam, I would feel very sure about the future of peace in the world for the last third of this century. Because in Vietnam, either

through negotiation or through our process of withdrawal and the replacement of American forces by the South Vietnamese for their own defense, the American involvement is ending. American casualties are going down.

It is on that record that we expect to be judged. We are going to succeed. So what we have to do, then, since we have here a problem which, of course, blanks out virtually everything else in the field of foreign policy, is put it aside for the moment, recognizing that further down the road there are other problems that will be with us after Vietnam leaves, and it will most certainly leave.

Some of these problems you have, of course, covered very, very well in the media. I will touch upon them only briefly.

So that we don't have any false sense of euphoria—and in this area I think I would be the last to accept the charge of being euphoric about our relations with countries that have very different interests from ours—so we don't have any false sense of euphoria, let me set forth our relations first with the Soviet Union, then with Mainland China, and, finally, in terms of our foreign policy generally.

With the Soviet Union, the leaders of the two major countries are committed to work toward an offensive-defensive limitation of nuclear arms this year. That does not mean we have it. It doesn't mean we can be sure. It does mean that the chances are good that we will have some kind of an agreement, because the leaders at the top having made this public commitment have an interest in seeing that it be done.

This can, therefore, provide, and I believe will provide, a step toward moving in other directions because if the two super powers are able to agree in an area that affects their vital interests, as, of course, this whole matter of nuclear arms does so greatly, then the two super powers should be able to move into other areas that are primarily peripheral. I do not want to suggest, for example, that the Caribbean is peripheral as far as we are concerned. It may be as far as the Soviet Union is concerned.

I do not want to suggest, for example, that the Mideast is peripheral as far as the Soviet Union is concerned. It may be.

But whatever the case may be, whether it is the Mideast, whether it is the Caribbean, or where we got down to an area that affects more directly the vital interests of both major powers—and I mean Western Europe and Eastern Europe—a movement toward some kind of an agreement with regard to nuclear arms give us some hope of progress in the other areas.

What I am saying to you today is not that I predict a Mideastern settlement. I do say that it is in the interests of both major powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, not to allow that very explosive part of the world to drive them into a confrontation that neither of them wants, although our interests are very diametrically opposed in that part of the world—except our common interest in not becoming involved in a war.

948

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 31, 1971

I do suggest that in Europe, for example, that whether we talk about the Berlin Settlement or the MBFR settlement, whatever the case might be, there is a long, hard road of negotiation ahead. But what is important to note is that both nations, looking to their own interests as we have in the SALT talks to date, and as we both should, recognizing that our interests are different, recognizing that we are not going necessarily to like each other in terms of our foreign policy interests, both nations, because they know the danger of not agreeing, are moving at least through an era of negotiation.

Turning briefly to China, we should not overestimate what has happened. I do not refer, of course, to the visit of the table tennis team, but I am referring to the more significant fact. What has happened is that we have opened the door as far as trade and travel are concerned to Mainland China. That door now being opened, we shall see what comes through the door. The question, of course, which we must consider is why, what does it mean?

Let me put it in perspective this way: As far as Mainland China is concerned, it is at present not a major nuclear power. It at present is not a major economic power. Japan, with one-fifth of the population of Mainland China, has one and a half times as much GNP as Mainland China.

But looking down to the end of this century, to the kind of a world that we leave for our children, we will have a billion Chinese who, because they are Chinese—not because they have a Communist government—are among the most creative and dynamic people in the world—a billion Chinese.

If we have those billion Chinese people outside the world community, living in isolation, isolated, of course, by the Soviet Union, as is the present case, and isolated from the other major power, the United States, with Japan in the middle, you can see what the prospects for peace in the Pacific might be, how dim they might be, and you can also see what the dangers might be, regardless of what agreements the Soviet Union and the United States might make to reduce tensions that we might have regardless of what might happen in other parts of the world. Therefore, anyone in a position of responsibility at this time in the United States must look to that future and in a careful, measured way, as we are, move toward a normalization of relations—and it will not come quickly—and toward a time when Mainland China will not be isolated from the world community.

We are making progress. I think that the prospects are that more will be made, and I would suggest that it might well be—I do not know how history ever judges an administration; no man knows while he is in the job—it might well be that the most significant thing that happened during this administration has been that we took the first step of a journey that takes a thousand miles.

Now finally, if I could say a word about our foreign policy as it relates to our domestic policy and express a

conviction which may not be widely supported among many of you who are, to your credit, honest critics of our foreign policy. Let me simply summarize in this way: The United States, needless to say, has done many things in the field of foreign policy in its long history that are subject to criticism. We all realize how controversial our role in the war in Southeast Asia has been. The United States, on the other hand, not because we asked for it but because of the accidents of history and the great traumatic results of World War II, is the only nation in the free world that can play a role in this next 25 years that will make the difference between war and peace.

In that respect, I believe the world is fortunate that the United States is in that position. We have our faults. Look at our record: We have been in four wars in this century. We didn't start any of them. The United States in each instance believed then, and we believe now, that we were fighting for freedom rather than to destroy it; that we were fighting for the forces that would bring peace rather than to destroy it.

That is something which I think reassures the world to an extent, and I can say that in the conversations that I have with foreign leaders, including the conversation I had before coming up here today with a very eloquent spokesman for the new Africa, the President of Senegal, the United States with all of its faults is not feared by any of the smaller nations of the world, that we would use our power to destroy their freedom.

The United States, on the other hand, has the responsibility to use its power and its economic strength, use it effectively in the cause of peace in this last third of a century. I think we will.

On the other hand, we cannot do it unless we have the strength at home—the strength at home economically and the strength at home militarily, of course, to carry out our commitments; and another kind of strength which comes from something other than wealth and military power.

I often refer to the fact that I marvel, and I think all historians marvel, at the young America of 190 years ago. It was weak in arms and poor in goods but rich in spirit, and caught the imagination of the world.

Today, America is strong in arms and rich in goods, and many think poor in spirit; doubts about our role in the world, doubts about what is going to happen at home.

I simply want to say in conclusion that the other day I was sitting by an Ambassador from a major European country at dinner. He had just returned from a month's trip around the United States. He had been to Portland, Seattle, Denver. He had been also to Cincinnati and Kentucky, to Louisville. He came back. He said, "I saw a very different America abroad in this land than I see in Washington." He said, "Here I get the impression"—and he was not being critical of his Washington colleagues or the Washington press or the Congressmen or the Senators, but it is just the fact that in Washington we are obsessed with the problems.

He said, "Out there in this country there is a vibrancy, there is a spirit. Even in the Seattle area where there is

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FOR THE PRESS

JUNE 24, 1971

NO. 144

(Corrected)

The Secretary of State announced today that the United States
Government would provide an additional $70 million to assist India to
meet the burden imposed upon it by the presence of very large numbers
of refugees from East Pakistan. The Indian Foreign Minister, Swaran Singh,
was informed of this during his visit here last week as was the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, Sadruddin Khan, today.

Details of the precise composition of this new assistance are still
being worked out. A portion of this contribution is additional to the
$20.5 million relief assistance which the US has already committed.
Another portion of the amount will be in the form of development loans.
This is in recognition of the need to preserve the momentum of Indian
development despite the economic strain imposed on the Indian economy
by the need to support refugee relief.

In announcing this assistance, the Secretary said: "We have taken
particular note of the effective manner in which the Government of India,
with international assistance, was meeting the humanitarian needs of
millions of refugees." He also noted "the very substantial economic
progress India has made over the past year and the satisfactory prospects
for next year, as indicated during last week's meeting of Indian aid
donors in Paris." He expressed the hope that "India would receive suf-
ficient refugee-related assistance so that these prospects could be
realized."

to protect the first amendment rights of the press and at the same time protect the orderly processes of government.

*Q. Mr. Secretary, are you designating a representative who can be consulted by newspapers who might have a question?*

A. Yes.

*Q. Who is that person, by name?*

A. Well, I'm not—we'll have several. But I think that in the first instance, if you will speak to Mr. McCloskey [Robert J. McCloskey, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Press Relations and Special Assistant to the Secretary], we'll arrange to have him talk with the appropriate official.

It depends a little bit on the question, I think.
Thank you very much.

The press: Thank you.

## U.S. To Assist India in Meeting Burden of East Pakistan Refugees

*Press release 112 (corrected) dated June 24*

Secretary Rogers announced on June 24 that the United States Government would provide an additional $70 million to assist India to meet the burden imposed upon it by the presence of very large numbers of refugees from East Pakistan. The Indian Foreign Minister, Sardar Swaran Singh, was informed of this during his visit here the week of June 14, as was the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, on June 24.

Details of the precise composition of this new assistance were still to be worked out. A portion of this contribution is additional to the $20.5 million relief assistance which the United States has already committed. Another portion of the amount will be in the form of development loans. This is in recognition of the need to preserve the momentum of Indian development despite the economic strain imposed on the Indian economy by the need to support refugee relief.

In announcing this assistance, the Secretary said: "We have taken particular note of the effective manner in which the Government of India, with international assistance, was meeting the humanitarian needs of millions of refugees." He also noted "the very substantial economic progress India has made over the past year and the satisfactory prospects for next year, as indicated during last week's meeting of Indian aid donors in Paris." He expressed the hope that "India would receive sufficient refugee-related assistance so that these prospects could be realized."

## U.S. Marks 10th Anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty

### DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

The Department of State announced on June 23 (press release 141) that Secretary Rogers and Postmaster General Winton M. Blount would lead the observance of the 10th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty at a ceremony in the Thomas Jefferson Room of the Department of State that day.

An 8-cent United States stamp commemorating the anniversary was issued that day, and Postmaster General Blount presented albums containing the stamp to the ambassadors or their representatives of the Antarctic Treaty nations (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom).

The Antarctic Treaty preserves the Antarctic for peaceful purposes, facilitates international scientific cooperation, and pledges its signatories to the preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica. The treaty is a pioneer arms control agreement which has served as a model and precedent for such other treaties as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty. It also established

82

Department of State Bulletin

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1082

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:25 A.M. EDT

JUNE 28, 1971

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: You have the President's schedule for today.

It was posted earlier. The President, I believe is still meeting with Mr. Vernon Jordan, the Executive Director of the National Urban League.

Then this evening, as the schedule indicates, the President will host a dinner in honor of members of the Chowder and Marching Club. That is a private dinner.

Earlier this morning, the President has had a series of staff meetings and will also continue those in the afternoon.

But the two items I referred to are those which are on the public schedule.

The President today is announcing his intention to nominate Maurice Sigler to be a member of the Board of Parole for the remainder of the six year term expiring in September of 1972. Sigler succeeds Walter Dunbar, who resigned as the release says, effective February of 1971. Compensation for this post is GS-17, which is $32,546 a year.

The Board consists of eight members appointed by the President for terms of six years.

Also the President today is transmitting to the Congress two annual reports. The first is a report of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ending in June of 1970. The second is a report for calendar year 1970 of the Agriculture Supporting Activities carried out under Public Law 83-480, the Agriculture Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954. Copies of the reports and the President's transmittal letters are available in the press office.

The President is also today announcing that he has accepted the resignation of Harold K. Wood as United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Wood was appointed U.S. District Judge in September of 1959. And he previously served as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Those are all the announcements that we have for this morning.

MORE

#1082

-4- #1082

Q Mr. McCracken himself in an interview last week or so expressed some disappointment in the failure of the economy to bounce back as fast. Was he not reflecting the Administration's view? Also, does the Cabinet meeting tomorrow, because you put it on the tail end, concern the economy?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will let you know tomorrow the subject of the Cabinet meeting and give you a report on that.

Q Ron, is what you are telling us that any decisions made this weekend are within the framework of an overall policy previously taken?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think I was quite clear in what I said to you.

Q Ron, last Friday, Robert Lee Grant, a black HUD official said there was a confidence gap between the Administration and the black, the poor and the young. Do you have any reaction to that?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I don't.

Q Has Dr. Kissinger returned from London?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, he has.

Q Has he reported to President Nixon?

MR. ZIEGLER: He met with the President this morning.

Q And can you tell us more about the staff meetings this morning and this afternoon, what they generally concern?

MR. ZIEGLER: He met with Henry Kissinger this morning. I assume they talked about Dr. Kissinger's trip to London and he has met with other staff members this morning. I don't have a report on those meetings to give you.

Q Do you have any reaction to any of the Supreme Court decisions?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q A little more specifically on that, will the decision regarding aid to parochial schools, banning it in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, require any review or adjustment in the President's policy regarding aid to parochial schools?

MR. ZIEGLER: That decision has just been handed down. I have no comment on the Supreme Court's decisions, obviously.

I have not seen the opinion. I assume HEW will review the opinion, which is now law of the land. I can't be responsive to your question, Ted, because I have not seen the opinion or reviewed it. I simply saw a three-line report on one of the wire services.

MORE #1082

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DPC 123

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS, RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS BRIEFING
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1971, 12:15 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

MR. BRAY: I would like to begin by welcoming the Editor-in-Chief of the News Service, Radio Chad, Mr. Andre N'Guissi, to our briefing today.

AID will have for you on our counters as well early this afternoon, a press release announcing the establishment by Dr. Hannah, of a Committee on Environment and Development.

That's all I have.

Q Charles, can you confirm that the --- any part of a report that the United States suggested to Egypt withdrawal of Israeli forces, and moving in Egyptian forces to 15 miles from the Suez Canal?

A I assume, Frank, that your question has reference to a column that appeared in *The Washington Post* over the week end.

- Q It does.

A To set the record straight, I want to make

A-2

7

it clear that Mr. Bergus presented no U.S. Government
or Israeli proposals on the substance of an interim
Canal agreement to the UAR.

There are a number of serious inaccuracies in
the story which render it misleading.

Now let me just add to that, that both sides
have asked us to play a diplomatic role in this
question and we see that role as one of seeking to help
the two sides to reconcile the differences between them
and to arrive at an agreement.

ON BACKGROUND: And as an example of the
inaccuracies to which I referred: At no time did Mr.
Bergus suggest, as this story would have one believe,
that Israel should withdraw from approximately one
half of the Sinai Peninsula.

That is in response to your question...

Q What did he suggest then?

Q Did Mr. Bergus present any kind of a
proposal?

A No, no, I said that Mr. Bergus presented
"no U.S. Government or Israeli proposal."

Q That means no kind of proposal. He
didn't present anything --

A-3

Q Orally or verbally?

A Orally or verbally.

Q No proposal at all?

A No. That's correct.

Q Are you saying, Charles, that there is
no U.S. position on how far Israel should withdraw
in order to have an interim settlement?

A Marilyn, I can't -- I'm afraid -- usefully
comment in response to that question.

Q Charles, may we --

Q Well, does the U.S. have an idea that
it has not presented?

A I have said here in the course of the
last week, that we are in the process of reflecting on
the situation, and I will have to leave it at that.

Q Charles, has the United States Government
expressed to the Government of Israel what you have
said here this morning?

A ON BACKGROUND: I think you can assume
that there is no misunderstanding as between the parties
and ourselves on this subject.

A-4

Q No misunderstanding between the United
States and the UAR on the subject?

A On the substance of this story to which
I am responding.

Q Charles, could we possibly have the first
part of that that you put ON BACKGROUND, on the record
since it is aimed at clearing up a discrepancy in a
published report?

This rather puts us in a position of challeng-
ing our colleagues without citing any basis for the
challenge. We're doing it on our own.

A You can attribute that to a senior
Department official.

Q Charles, I'm --

Q The only BACKGROUND I have is where you
say you can assume there is no misunderstanding.

A No, Spencer. I began ON BACKGROUND when
I said that as an example of one of the misleading
aspects of the story, Mr. Bergus at no time suggested
that Israel should withdraw from approximately one-half
of the Sinai Peninsula.

Q Background begins there?

[10]

A-5

A That's right.

Q Charles, Bergus did go to Paris rather unexpectedly, I assume, or reasonably unexpectedly, to meet Mr. Rogers. Can you tell us why did he go?

A He went, as I have said here previously and you'll find it in the transcript, André, he went to report to the Secretary on the substance of conversations he had had in the days immediately preceding his trip with high Egyptian officials.

Q Charles, you said that -- if I have it down correctly -- that Mr. Bergus presented no U.S. Government or Israeli proposal. Did he --

A -- On the substance of an interim canal agreement.

Q Did he present a memorandum or proposal which Kraft refers to as this so-called "phantom memo?" Did he provide a piece of paper to the Egyptians, which is a basis for this dispute?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q So it's a total fabrication, then? The memo is a total phony, as far as you are concerned?

A-6

A That's my understanding.

Q Can we go back a little further? Did Mr Bergus go to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry on May 23rd?

A Marilyn, I have no idea.

Q Well, can we check the dates here at least?
Because he is very specific, he says: May 23rd --
then he says on June 3rd Bergus went to Alexandria to
see Heykal, and he suggested there be a reply.
On June 4th there was a reply; and on June 6th, he went
to see Mr. Rogers.

Now is it possible at least to check these
specifics?

A I'll try to.

Q Can we get that this afternoon? Thank you.

Q There is a basic conflict here that I would

like to resolve:

You said that you can assume that there is no
misunderstanding between the parties and ourselves; and
I wonder if you can give me some basis --

A -- with respect to what may be misleading
in that story.

Q Well, all right, can you give us some
basis for that -- given the fact that there have been
reliable reports that the Israelis, indeed, are quite

A-7

concerned about it and only read about it in the
newspapers?

A I'm afraid I'll just have to leave it as
I have left it. We are in continuous touch with both
parties, Frank.

Q Could you say, Charles, were you in touch
before the story appeared on this particular point?

A No, I didn't say, Dick. I would have
to check that.

Q Charlie?

A I will take a look into it. I don't know
that I will necessarily have an answer for you.

Q In your statement, Charles, you said
that Bergus did not present any U.S. Government or
Israeli proposal on the substance of an interim canal
agreement.

Did he permit, or present any proposals on
other subjects? On the subject of an overall agree-
ment, for instance?

A No.

Q Have you any suggestion as to how this

A-8

whole thing arises?

A I haven't a clue.

Q Well, it seems to be an attempt to, in some way, discredit the United States in terms of the negotiations in the interim settlement -- would you accept that?

A No, I don't think I would accept that.

Q Would you say there had been an attempt to sow dissension between the United States and Israel?

A I am just going to have to say, Marilyn, that we have been engaged in quiet and continuous dialog with both parties on the subject of an interim settlement, for a number of months now, and we are satisfied that when there are misleading reports they are not misleading to the parties concerned.

Q Can we say whether anyone called Ambassador Rabin yesterday, or today?

A I'm sorry?

Q Did Ambassador Rabin call Mr. Sisco, or did Mr. Sisco call Ambassador Rabin?

A I undertook to check that, Marilyn.

[LC]

A-9

Q Thank you.

Q Charles, Mr. Bergus is in the country, isn't he?

A I believe he is.

Q Do you think you could endeavor to make him available to some such gathering as this?

A I have my doubts that it would be possible, Dick, but I'll note your interest.

Q May I change the subject?

A Welcome it.

Q President Yahya Khan, of Pakistan, said today that in about 40 days he would hope that they could turn the civilian government back to the civilian authorities in East Pakistan. Can you comment on this, and can you also tell us what the status of the relief effort is now?

A With respect to the President's speech Spencer, we have only had an opportunity to see some relatively brief ticker accounts of what he said and I would like to reserve any comment until we have had an opportunity to have had a report from our Embassy in Islamabad.

[L0]

A-10

The second part of your question had to do with
relief within East Pakistan, did it?

Q Right.

A I don't know that I can add very much
to the record I have already made on this subject here
in recent weeks.

The last action we took, I announced to you
here that under it, we provided one million dollars
for the charter of coastal vessels, which would assist
in the distributions of food grains and other commodities
in the cyclone disaster area.

ON BACKGROUND, I understand that the Govern-
ment of Pakistan has appointed a senior civil servant, Bengali,
I believe, to the poisition of Coordinator for Food
Distribution in East Pakistan and that he has a
relatively high powered committee working on this
subject.

There are -- let's see, I have said here on
a number of occasions that there are 170,000 metric
tons of wheat (perhaps I had better say "food grains.")
ready to sail from this country when the distribution

[LC]

A-11

network permits and that we are prepared to sign
an agreement for an additional 150,000 tons when
it's possible to make distribution of those grains.

I believe that there were also something over
100,000 metric tons of food grains that were diverted
from Chittagong to West Pakistan in recent months
which is now beginning to flow back into Chittagong.
Harbor.

And that exhausts my knowledge.

B-1

Q Is it correct that the United States has joined with other aid-giving countries known as the "Aid Pakistan Club," in withholding economic assistance for the time being until the situation is clarified?

A I have a rather complete answer to that question, Spencer, which goes as follows:

At an informal meeting following the formal meeting by the Consortium on Aid to India held in Paris last week to discuss the question of assistance to Pakistan, World Bank and IMF representatives provided preliminary reports on their recent mission to Pakistan. Formal aid commitments to Pakistan were neither invited nor considered. And, contrary to press reports, no agreement was reached to postpone indefinitely new economic development assistance to Pakistan.

Q What was that -- "new" what?

A New economic development assistance to Pakistan.

The Consortium agreed to consider meeting formally

B-2

in September or October, with participation by the Govern-
ment of Pakistan --

Q Those months again were --

A September-October -- with participation
by the Government of Pakistan to review Pakistan's aid
requirements.

By that time, it is expected that a revised
national development plan will have been formulated
on the basis of which the Consortium members can then
make their decisions regarding assistance to Pakistan.

Now, I think it's useful to draw a distinction
for your benefit between new development aid and new
relief aid, including food. The Consortium strongly
supported the extension of the latter to East Pakistan
within the framework of the program being coordinated
by the United Nations.

Q Are you finished, Charles?

A Here is a tidbit of which I was
unaware in answering your second question, Spencer.
As I said a minute ago, we have already signed a one
million dollar grant agreement for charter of coastal vessels,

[L.C.]

B-3

and we have authorized another such grant for the
same purpose.

I'm finished, Marilyn.

Q Charlie, there seems to be a greater
reluctance on the part of the United States than I
have sensed in reports from other countries to with-
hold aid from Pakistan until it gets -- to use a phrase
-- gets its house in order.

Can you define the differences between the
United States and, say, Great Britain on the extension
of aid to Pakistan at this point?

A I'll have to leave it, Marilyn, that
neither the United States nor the Consortium has taken
a decision to withhold development aid pending a
political solution.

Q Can you help me out on this: Have other
governments taken --

A Let me just finish.

Q Oh, I'm sorry --

A Meanwhile, current programs previously agreed
upon are continuing where possible. And I think you will

B-4

find that this is also true of ongoing aid programs
from other Consortium members.

Q But have other Consortium members decided at this point not to give new aid whereas the United States continues to take the position that the question is under review?

A Marilyn, I see no way in which I can improve on what I've just said about neither the United States nor the Consortium having taken such a decision.

Q No, but I'm talking about other members of that Consortium -- all other members.

A I just can't improve on it. You'll have to put your question to the other governments involved

Q Charles, what do you have for us out of the shippers export declarations?

Q Mumbling again!

Q I couldn't even hear it here.

Q Speak up!

Q What do you have on the shippers export declarations?

A I have a mass of paper -- a mountain, several

[L]

B-5

mountains of paper.

We had hoped that it would be possible to
complete the analysis of the SED's -- shippers
export declarations -- over the weekend. It turns
out that there is so much paper involved that that
process is not yet complete.

Q Charlie, was what was promised us an
analysis or the lists?

A Oh, Lord! I don't know whether it's
physically possible to produce a list. I had
pretty well committed myself to a fairly detailed analysis
of what was aboard.

Q I misunderstood.

A Now, one item I did make clear here
to some of you on Friday afternoon: As a matter of priority,
we checked the category of ammunition; and we find that
the only ammunition aboard the _Padma_ were 2,000 rounds
of Caliber 22 ammunition -- which, I understand, was
destined for inclusion in airman survival kits. Pilots
are routinely issued a small caliber pistol -- which
they use, basically, to feed themselves, if necessary -- if

B-6

forced down. And I gather that the pistols in the
Pakistan Air Force inventory are Caliber 22.

Q When will those ships arrive in Pakistan?

A I have no idea, Jack.

Let me take that back. I believe the *Sunderbans* has arrived. I just have no itinerary on the *Padma*.

Q Wasn't it headed for Montreal?

A Beyond Montreal. We assume that it's going to clear for South Asian ports, but I just don't have an itinerary.

Q Do you know more about the *third ship* today?

A I said here on Friday afternoon, Endre, that it had cleared New York on April 2nd.

Q Oh, I'm sorry -- yes.

Q Charlie, may we get those lists --

A I'm --

Q -- without the analysis -- just the raw lists?

A -- sorry. I just don't know the answer to that. I don't know whether they are public documents

B-7

or not. I'll have to check that for you.

Q Charlie, on the Middle East for just one more moment, you said that Mr. Bergus presented no U. S. Government or Israeli proposals. I'm wondering if there is any possibility that Bergus submitted some of his own suggestions and that this is the basis for the story in The Post?

A I can't confirm that.

Q Do you think that's possible?

A I'd like to know the facts before I respond to that, Marilyn. I don't know.

Q So would we.

(Laughter.)

Q I'm sorry -- you're not ruling out that Bergus, on his own, presented an unofficial memo of his own views?

A I simply don't know what the content of any conversations or the form in which they took place -- if they took place, as alleged in the column -- might be, Bob; and I would prefer to reserve on that question until I have a chance to find out.

B-8

Q Well, will you get an answer this afternoon?

A I certainly will try to.

Q Charles, could I just get a question ON THE RECORD for this too?

Does it boil down to this: that there is no U. S. Government position -- he presented no Israeli Government position? You're not ruling out that he may have presented his own, or this thing could be of whole cloth and it is an attempt to do as Bob proposed -- suggested -- to create certain problems within the negotiations.

Is that what it boils down to? Are there any other alternatives?

A I haven't had a chance to reflect on that, Marilyn. I just can't take this any further at the moment.

Q Well, Charles, on this question, you said you would check whether Bergus submitted any ideas of his own. Could you try to get a quick check for us? This will influence the tenor of the story which we've got to put on the wire.

A Sure.

[L.C.]

B-9

Q And I'd appreciate it if you'd make an effort for us.

A You'll understand when I say I can't commit myself to being helpful in response to that question, but I will check very quickly.

Q Yes.

Q Well, Charles, if Mr. Bergus presents his own ideas and they don't represent the views of the United States Government, are you disowning them?

A Bob, look, for Pete's sake, I've just said that I can't take this any further until I've had a chance to do some more checking. I cannot respond to any more questions here.

Q With respect to the fact that the story appeared Sunday morning --

A And you'll have to put it down to the fact that I've had a number of things going this morning and didn't have a chance to get to the bottom of any of them.

B-10

ON BACKGROUND --

Q What's ON BACKGROUND? Who are we quoting?

(Laughter.)

A You can say, "an anonymous senior Department official."

(Laughter.)

Mr. Bergus did leave an informal piece of paper in his meeting. And that is as much as you may attribute to a senior Department official.

Q At his meeting with whom?

Q He had several. What meeting?

A It doesn't say.

Q Should we assume it's with Sadat?

A Let me just cut off further questions on this and try to get you some more.

Now, any other subjects?

Q May I just point out, FOR THE RECORD, in

B-11

your search for answers, that there is one other
conflict that remains -- apart from the conflict about
whether he did or did not present a proposal and
what kind of a proposal it was. There's another one
about whether or not there is a misunderstanding
with the Israeli Government, because we've got firm
reports that there is.

A I have that question taken.

Q Charles, as a matter of procedure,
does Mr. Bergus carry messages from the Israeli
Government to the Egyptian Government?

A I can't take it any further, Dick.

Q May I put another question in for
your search?

Could we find out if this informal piece
of paper, which a "senior Department official" now
says was left, contained suggestions for questions?
In other words, if this happened --

A I don't know whether you can find
that out.

Q Charles, can I ask a factual question?

B-12

Is Mr. Bergus a very experienced and well-respected diplomat?

A Yes, he is.

Q Charles, what is an "informal piece of paper"?

A I can't take --

Q All right --

A -- or permit any more questions.

Q I don't want you to answer it --

(Laughter.)

-- but if you'll check it further on, we should know whether it's an informal piece of paper.

I'm going back to an earlier question: Was it his personal suggestion or whatever, or was it a Government idea which he presented there in this "informal piece of paper"?

A I will attempt to dig out of this as soon as I can, Endre.

Q Thank you very much, Charles.

Q Thanks, Charles.

Q Thank you.

(Continuation in Mr. Bray's office)

C-1

ON BACKGROUND:

MR. BRAY: In the course of a conversation
with Egyptian officials prior to departure for Paris,
Mr. Bergus did offer some personal suggestions as to
the manner in which the Egyptian Government might
present its position. This process did include leaving
with some Egyptian officials an informal piece of paper.
The paper was, I emphasize, personal in nature, did not
reflect the position of the United States Government or
the Government of Israel.

With respect to another question, I understand
that Ambassador Rabin was in touch with Mr. Sisco
yesterday, and the background of this as I have outlined
it for you was outlined to the Ambassador.

Q You have nothing on whether the paper he
left included such a proposal as was carried in the
press?

A I won't comment any further. It was not
the position of the United States Government.

Q By saying this, are you disowning it?

A ON BACKGROUND, I am saying this paper had
no standing, and still has no standing, as a reflection

C-2

[L]

of this Government's position. You can infer from that
what you will,

Q Is he not going on U.S. Government
instructions?

A No, he is not, ALL ON BACKGROUND.

Q Is he returning to Cairo?

A I assume he will be. I seriously doubt
that the senior U.S. representative there would not
return.

Q Did the Egyptian Government know that
this paper had no standing and that his proposal had
no U.S. Government backing?

A The answer, ON BACKGROUND, is that they do.

Q Now or then? They know now; or did they
know when it was presented?

A I know that they know now. I don't know
the answer to your other question.

MR. ERAY (Addressing newsmen who had just entered):
You better get from your competitors what has been said.
I won't repeat it.

Q Is this action -- I mean a diplomat making
a personal suggestion -- considered relatively common
procedure, American diplomatic practice?

C-3

Q On matters of this sensitivity?

A You are just going to have to infer from what I have said what our views are on this. It should not be too hard to do.

Q Does that include setting down a personal suggestion on a paper and handing it over to a Government?

A Yes. I want it understood everything I am saying here is ON BACKGROUND.

Q Charlie, senior U.S. officials have made a point in these negotiations of saying that what is told to one side is alag told to the other side in the same way. Was the Israeli Government made aware of the fact that Mr. Bergus set down some ideas on paper informally and gave them to the Egyptian Government at the time?

A The BACKGROUND answer is no.

Q Did they first read about it in the Kraft column?

A I don't know.

Q Thank you, Charles. Thank you for your effort to get a quick reply.

[The briefing terminated at 1:05 P.M.]

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE #1084

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:30 A.M. EDT

TUESDAY

JUNE 29, 1971

MR. ZIEGLER: You have the message that the President is sending to Congress today, in which he indicates he is returning to Congress Senate Bill 575. In the message he also expresses hope that the Senate and the House will soon vote final passage of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971.

I believe the message you have is self-explanatory and should answer most of your questions.

But if you do have any, let's take those at the outset.

Q How do you distinguish between the act here and the one he disapproved of last year? What is the difference between the two, essentially?

MR. ZIEGLER: As he points out in the message, the particular bill that has come out of conference, the Emergency Employment Act, or Senate Bill 31, provides for jobs that are not dead-end public service jobs.

The legislation is so constructed that it provides public service jobs for a two-year period with Federal assistance, when the employment level reaches 4.5 percent.

It is felt that this particular legislation will have an immediate effect in assisting those who are unemployed and it focuses to a good extent on returning veterans.

The particular legislation from last year was so written that it did not provide for the job training and so forth that would allow those who accept these jobs to move on to private enterprise and to assume regular public jobs.

So the fact that it is transitory in nature and not dead-end is why the President supports this legislation versus last year.

Q Was not the 4.5 trigger mark in the bill last year also?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe it was. However, last year's legislation was dead-end in nature; in other words, individuals had very little opportunity to move off of the public service jobs because of training and other aspects of the legislation.

This particular legislation provides them an opportunity to move out of the public service jobs into the private sector.

MORE

#1084

-9-

#1084

[Lc]

Q. May I go on for a moment?

Last week, when a Congressman approached your White House legislative man, you were out of town and the President was out of town, asked him to go talk to Mr. Ford about this, he refused. This is your White House legislative liaison.

It seems to me he at least would represent the policy as stated by the President. Why did he refuse?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not familiar with that particular set of circumstances.

Q. Ron, is the United States near an agreement with Turkey about their poppy, opium poppy, planting?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have been in discussions, as you know, with the Government of Turkey regarding the planting of the poppy crop.

We will continue to address ourselves to this. I have no announcement to make about it today. But I would say progress is being made in these discussions.

Q. Ron, has the White House responded yet on the Algerian natural gas situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q. How is the President going to approach the Senate, since it is up to them now on the ILO?

MR. ZIEGLER: With enthusiasm about his position regarding the ILO.

Q. Will he send a special message?

MR. ZIEGLER: None is contemplated.

Q. Will he send it to the minority leader?

MR. ZIEGLER: He will be aware of our view.

Q. How will they be made aware?

MR. ZIEGLER: Through your writing down what I am saying.

Q. No, I did that last week. (Laughter).

Q. Maybe it is because you mumbled or something -- I got every word down. It was of no avail. What guarantee do you have that the President will do something now?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have no guarantee as to how the Congress will act.

Q. As to how the President will act.

MR. ZIEGLER: We do intend to make our view known.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

END

(AT 11:50 A.M. EDT)

United States Hails Turkish Decision To Ban
Opium Poppy Production

Following is a statement by President Nixon
issued on June 30, together with his remarks
made in the White House press briefing room
and the transcript of a news conference held
there that day by Secretary Rogers and Melih
Esenbel, Ambassador of Turkey to the United
States.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT NIXON

White House press release dated June 30

In today's world, declarations of statesman-
like intent are not difficult. But instances of
courageous statesmanlike action are few. Prime
Minister Nihat Erim of Turkey has just com-
bined the two. Today he declared that the Re-
public of Turkey, our friend and staunch ally
within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
would abandon a traditional agricultural prac-
tice in order to make a significant contribution
to the well-being of the world. In the decree of
his Government, he announced that within 1
year, in accordance with the law of his nation,
the opium poppy will no longer be planted. This
farsighted step will provide an example which
we trust will soon be followed by other nations.

For hundreds of years, tens of thousands of
Turkish families have raised the opium poppy
as a legitimate cash crop and for its edible oil
and seed. Under a United Nations convention,
Turkey is one of those few nations permitted
legally to grow poppy for export; yet Turkey
is one of the few opium-cultivating countries
in which the use of opium or heroin as an ad-
dictive drug is virtually unknown. Since the
opium farmer has little if any knowledge of his
part in the spread of a frightening international
epidemic, a ban on opium production is a par-
ticularly difficult decision. These circumstances
accentuate the vision and wisdom of this very

important step. We know well the importance
of the agricultural sector of Turkey's economy,
and we are prepared to put at the disposal of the
Turkish Government our best technical brains
to assist Turkey's program to bring about a
better life for the Turkish farmer. We are proud
to assist in a program from which we all will
benefit.

Secretary of State Rogers told me about his
discussions in April with Prime Minister Erim
and senior Turkish officials. Secretary Rogers
understood fully the range of problems con-
fronting the Turkish Government and its peo-
ple, and he was impressed by the efforts being
made to solve them. We in the United States
are obligated to a friend and ally whose firm
military and political commitment to the wel-
tare and defense of the Atlantic community is
well known. My administration is committed to
aid nations and peoples prepared to help elimi-
nate the narcotics menace. I pledge continued
cooperation with Turkey in its efforts to in-
crease the well-being of its people and to main-
tain its independence and security.

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT NIXON

Mr. Secretary, Mr. Ambassador, ladies and
gentlemen: The joint announcement that is
being made at this time in Washington and
Ankara represents by far the most significant
breakthrough that has been achieved in stop-
ping the source of supply of heroin in our world-
wide offensive against dangerous drugs.

Sixty percent of all opium poppy, which is,
of course, the raw material from which heroin
is made, is grown in Turkey. As a result of nego-
tiations that have been taking place between
the United States Government and the Turkish

74

Department of State Bulletin

Government, the Turkish Government has made a decision that it is announcing today which means that the cultivation of opium poppy in Turkey will completely cease within 1 year, by June of 1972.

This very courageous and statesmanlike action deserves the appreciation of all the people of the world and the people of the United States. The credit goes, of course, to the Turkish Prime Minister and his Government, and a great deal of credit in our Government goes to the Secretary of State, who has taken personal leadership in achieving this objective on our part and, of course, Ambassador [William J.] Handley, who represents us so well in Ankara.

The Secretary of State will brief you on the details of the announcement. I want to say, Mr. Ambassador, we are very proud at this particular time to see that one of our best friends in the world, a staunch ally, has moved so effectively against one of the most dangerous threats to our young people and other people by stopping the source of supply of the opium poppies.

## NEWS CONFERENCE OF SECRETARY ROGERS AND AMBASSADOR ESENBEL

*White House press release dated June 30*

Secretary Rogers: Ladies and gentlemen, let me say, to continue on with the remarks that the President made, that although only a minor part of the world's opium is grown in Turkey, about 10 percent, more than half, as the President said, 60 percent—and some estimates run as high as 80 percent—of the heroin that enters the United States originates from Turkey and Turkish poppyfields.

Opium is the base from which heroin is obtained, and in order to stamp out the supply of heroin it is essential to eliminate the production of opium. As you know—you have been informed—the Prime Minister of Turkey has announced that within a year there will be a total eradication of the growth of poppies in Turkey. The reason for the year is that under Turkish law, Turkey is required to give a year's notice to the farmers before there can be any curtailment of the production of the poppy growth.

So the Prime Minister of Turkey has announced today that beginning with the 1972

crop there will be total eradication of the growth of poppies in Turkey. In the meantime, Turkey is undertaking a very extensive program to license and control the growth of poppies during the 1971 season, between 1971 and 1972. That act, that legislative act, has passed the Assembly. It is now in the Senate. It has to be acted on by the Senate in Turkey before the end of July. But, apparently, the Government of Turkey does believe that that act will be passed.

So the essential facts are that in the 1972 crop—and I refer to 1972 as the period from this fall until the poppies are fully grown—there will be strict licensing and control of the poppy and after that there will be total eradication of the growth of poppies in Turkey.

As the President indicated, this is a very significant act on the part of the Turkish Government. It is a milestone in international cooperation, because for 400 years the farmers in Turkey have grown poppies. They use the seeds and the oil and other products of the poppy for many domestic reasons. They do provide a good deal of the opium that is necessary for medical purposes, and the people in Turkey do not use heroin at all.

So the Prime Minister of Turkey has taken this action, which obviously will present him with serious domestic problems because it is eliminating a culture that has been part of Turkey's history, for the good of the international community. I think it is an act of great statesmanship, as the President indicated. It is a milestone in international cooperation, and we salute the Government of Turkey for the cooperation it has extended to the United Nations and to all members of the international community.

I will try to answer some questions now.

*Q. Mr. Secretary, is there any likelihood now of this business being shifted elsewhere as a source; and secondly, do you have any sort of negotiations underway with other countries to control the growth?*

Secretary Rogers: Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], the answer to that question is yes. Of course, there is this possibility because this is a very lucrative kind of illegal business. Under the President's program, we are

July 19, 1971

75

actively consulting with other governments to
encourage them to take the same courageous ac-
tion that Turkey has taken.

This is not a problem that involves just the
United States. This is a problem that involves
the world community; and we are actively dis-
cussing these problems with other governments,
with the United Nations, and in every forum
that we can find, because there is no evil that
needs to be eliminated more quickly and more
finally than this one.

Q. What other governments, and what are they going to grow in place of the poppies?

Secretary Rogers: Well, in the case of Tur-
key, the Prime Minister of Turkey, I believe,
has indicated in his statement today, which was
issued a couple of hours ago, that he hopes to
provide other crops for the farmers to grow. He
hopes to provide agro-industrial enterprises in
those areas that have been eliminated from the
growth of poppy to provide incentives for them
and monetary compensation during this transi-
tional period so that they can make the
adjustment.

In the case of other governments, under the
international convention on narcotics which was
signed in 1961, there are about six other govern-
ments besides Turkey who are authorized to
grow poppy for legitimate uses.

In addition, there are other governments that
have considerable production of poppies illegit-
imately, illegally. For example, in the case of
Burma, it is illegal to grow the poppy, this
kind of poppy, and still there are areas in
Burma where there is considerable production.

There are other governments in Southeast
Asia as well as those listed in the international
convention.

Q. Mr. Secretary, how much in financial
and technical assistance is the United States
Government willing to offer Turkey for this
cooperation?

Secretary Rogers: We haven't made any
commitments yet as such. We have indicated to
the Government of Turkey that we want to
work with them to see what we can do to be help-
ful in this transitional period. We have not
made any decision on amounts and so forth, but

we do want to be helpful and we are continuing
these discussions with the Government of Tur-
key to that end.

Q. Mr. Secretary, what is the value of this
as a cash crop, the opium poppy, in Turkey?

Secretary Rogers: I think it is a little difficult
to say, because part of it is in legal traffic and
part illegal traffic. But a rough estimate an-
nually would be in the neighborhood of $3 mil-
lion to $4 million or $5 million, something in
that nature.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you indicated discussions
aimed at this accomplishment are going for-
ward presently with other governments. Would
you indicate which governments?

Secretary Rogers: We have indicated we are
talking about all the governments, either di-
rectly or indirectly, or through the United
Nations, all the governments involved in this
process. As you know, I just mentioned the Gov-
ernment of Burma is involved. We have talked
to the Government of Laos, the Government of
Thailand.

A lot of the poppy that is grown is grown
in areas where the government doesn't have
much control over the population. But we find
that there is a good deal of spirit in the inter-
national community to the effect that the growth
of poppies should be eliminated. Certainly, the
illegal use of the gum poppy should be
eliminated.

Q. What will be the effect of Turkey's action
on the availability of heroin in the world?

Secretary Rogers: Well, of course, as far as
the United States is concerned, it is very signifi-
cant because, as President Nixon indicated, it is
the major source of supply for heroin in this
country. Estimates run as high as 80 percent. If
we can have total eradication, that would be
most significant.

We would not expect there would be total
eradication during this year—between now and
next year—because it is going to be difficult to
control the gangs that are well organized that
traffic in this drug. Prime Minister Erim pointed
out that these gangs have exploited their posi-
tion. They have harmed the prestige of Turkey.

76

Department of State Bulletin

Of course, probably they will have some success
during this next year.

But the Government of Turkey is very aware
of the problem and is going to do everything
it can to control it. They are going to buy up the
supply of gum poppy that results from this
year's crop, and they are going to do it at a
premium price, hopefully to get all they can.

So I would think that the net result of this
action will be as follows: There will be a con-
siderable reduction in the supply of heroin in
this country during this year; and we hope
that as far as Turkey is concerned, there will
be total eradication of the supplies in Turkey
beginning the middle of next year.

*Q. May we ask the Ambassador to comment on the problems the Turkish Government faces in phasing out the poppy growth?*

*Secretary Rogers:* If the Ambassador would
like to

*Ambassador Esenbel:* I think, as the Secretary indicated, poppy was grown in Turkey for many, many centuries, and there is even a province which has the name of Afyon, “Afyon” meaning opium. That is to indicate to you the history of poppy-growing in Turkey for many, many centuries, as the Secretary indicated.

So when you go about eradicating such a
culture, of course, that causes internal problems,
and objections may be heard, and so forth.

Also, you might expect some economic dis-
location. But the Prime Minister has taken
rather courageous steps, as was indicated also by
the President and the Secretary of State, and we
hope that in time, in a short time even, we may
be able to provide the village people, the
peasants, with some other economic livelihood.

*Q. Why don't the Turkish people take heroin or opium? Is it a religious thing?*

*Ambassador Esenbel:* I don't know. I don't think so. It is not because of that. It is not in their habit nor in the tradition. But that doesn't mean that in the coming years maybe—this is spreading all over the world, you know. They would contact tourists, I mean young people. So this is a worrisome problem for Turkey also.

*Secretary Rogers:* I think I should point out that Turkey is entitled to grow poppy under the Single Convention of 1961. So this action on their part is because they have had difficulty in the control of the poppy, the opium after it is grown. They have decided on total eradication. So this is an act taken solely on their own initiative, in the sense that they were entitled to grow it under international law, for the good of the international community.

It particularly benefits the United States be-
cause we do use so much of the heroin that comes
originally from poppy grown in Turkey.

*Q. Mr. Secretary, in relation to this problem, how much in assistance are we now sending to Turkey?*

*Secretary Rogers:* I don't have the exact fig-
ures. We can provide that for you. It is $2.5
million.

*Mr. Saunders* [*Harold H. Saunders, National Security Council staff*]: The economic assistance this year is around $40 million, through the consortium.

*Secretary Rogers:* He is asking about this
problem.

*Mr. Saunders:* There has only been one $3
million project in the past on this subject.

*Secretary Rogers:* That is what it was, about
$3 million.

*The press:* Thank you, Mr. Secretary and
Mr. Ambassador.

July 19, 1971

429-877-71-2

77

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUNE 30, 1971

Office of the White House Press Secretary

THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

In today's world, declarations of statesmanlike intent are not difficult. But instances of courageous statesmanlike action are few. Prime Minister Nihat Erim of Turkey has just combined the two. Today he declared that the Republic of Turkey, our friend and staunch ally within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, would abandon a traditional agricultural practice in order to make a significant contribution to the well-being of the world. In the decree of his government, he announced that within one year, in accordance with the law of his nation, the opium poppy will no longer be planted. This farsighted step will provide an example which we trust will soon be followed by other nations.

For hundreds of years, tens of thousands of Turkish families have raised the opium poppy as a legitimate cash crop and for its edible oil and seed. Under a United Nations' convention, Turkey is one of those few nations permitted legally to grow poppy for export, yet Turkey is one of the few opium-cultivating countries in which the use of opium or heroin as an addictive drug is virtually unknown. Since the opium farmer has little if any knowledge of his part in the spread of a frightening international epidemic, a ban on opium production is a particularly difficult decision. These circumstances accentuate the vision and wisdom of this very important step. We know well the importance of the agricultural sector of Turkey's economy and we are prepared to put at the disposal of the Turkish government our best technical brains to assist Turkey's program to bring about a better life for the Turkish farmer. We are proud to assist in a program from which we all will benefit.

Secretary of State Rogers told me about his discussions in April with Prime Minister Erim and senior Turkish officials. Secretary Rogers understood fully the range of problems confronting the Turkish government and its people, and he was impressed by the efforts being made to solve them. We in the United States are obligated to a friend and ally whose firm military and political commitment to the welfare and defense of the Atlantic community is well known. My Administration is committed to aid nations and peoples prepared to help eliminate the narcotics menace. I pledge continued cooperation with Turkey in its efforts to increase the well-being of its people and to maintain its independence and security.

#      #      #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUNE 30, 1971

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
CONCERNING THE DECREE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
TURKEY BANNING THE GROWTH OF OPIUM POPPIES
AFTER JUNE 30, 1972

THE BRIEFING ROOM

AT 9:06 A.M. EDT

The joint announcement that is being made at this time in Washington and Ankara represents, by far, the most significant breakthrough that has been achieved in stopping the source of supply of heroin in our world-wide offensive against dangerous drugs.

Sixty percent of all opium poppy, which is, of course, the raw material from which heroin is made, is grown in Turkey. As a result of negotiations that have been taking place between the United States Government and the Turkish Government, the Turkish Government has made a decision that it is announcing today, which means that the cultivation of opium poppy in Turkey will completely cease within one year, by June of 1972.

This very courageous and statesmanlike action deserves the appreciation of all the people of the world, and the people of the United States. The credit goes, of course, to the Turkish Prime Minister and his government, and a great deal of credit in our Government goes to the Secretary of State, who has taken personal leadership in achieving this objective on our part and, of course, Ambassador Handley, who represents us so well in Ankara.

END

(AT 9:10 A.M. EDT)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1086

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:45 A.M. EDT

JUNE 30, 1971

WEDNESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: You have the message from President Nixon to Chairman Podgorny of the Soviet Union in which the President expresses his sympathy on the tragic death of the three Soviet cosmonauts.

Also this morning, for those of you who arrived late, we had a major announcement regarding the decision on the part of the Turkish Government to discontinue the growing of poppy in that country. The President's remarks, together with Secretary Rogers' remarks regarding that announcement, I believe are in the bins, or they will be very shortly.

Also, the President's remarks at the Federal Bureau of Investigation graduation ceremony this morning should be available very soon.

The schedule for today has been posted. The presentation of the Gold Medal commemorating the 150th anniversary of Greek Independence will take place at 12 noon. I believe that is on the schedule.

Then at three o'clock, the President will have a meeting of the National Security Council.

We have several other announcements for you today. Much of this is confirmation, but I will officially make these announcements.

President Nixon has asked Dr. Henry Kissinger, who is Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, as you know, to visit South Vietnam from July 3 to 5 on a general fact-finding mission. Upon completion of Dr. Kissinger's mission in South Vietnam, he will return by way of Paris where he will consult with Ambassador Bruce. En route, Dr. Kissinger will also visit Thailand, India and Pakistan.

In these countries, Dr. Kissinger will meet with United States representatives and with officials of all the countries I mentioned. When Dr. Kissinger returns he will report to President Nixon and Secretary Rogers his firsthand observations and impressions gained in the course of his trip.

Dr. Kissinger is scheduled to leave tomorrow, July 1, and return to the United States around the 10th of July. You may recall that President Nixon visited the countries on Dr. Kissinger's itinerary in July and August 1969, and President Nixon maintains a deep personal interest in the countries of this area.

MORE

#1086

- 2 -

#1086

Q The countries you said he would visit are Pakistan, India and Thailand?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, sir.

Dr. Kissinger will report to the President when he returns, in California. President Nixon will go to the Western White House on July 6 and return -- and this is still tentative -- around the 18th. On his way to the Western White House in San Clemente, California, on Tuesday, July 6, the President will attend a Midwestern media briefing for editors, publishers and broadcast executives from 13 States in the Midwestern United States. The subject of the briefing will center around the President's domestic program.

Q Where?

MR. ZIEGLER: In Kansas City, Missouri. Briefing the media executives will be Don Rumsfeld on drugs and government reorganization, Elliot Richardson on domestic health programs, and John Ehrlichman will also be involved in the presentations.

The President will arrive in Kansas City in the early afternoon to attend the media briefing and then continue on to the Western White House, arriving in California on the 6th, in the late afternoon.

While the President is in California, he will be working on and reviewing the Federal budget. He will be reviewing the fiscal year '72 budget, and also developing plans for the fiscal year 1973 budget.

You may recall that the President used this period last year in California for similar planning sessions relating to the fiscal '72 budget which we are entering into tomorrow, July 1.

You can expect while the President is in California, that he will be spending a good deal of time on budget planning and various members of the President's staff relating to the budget and domestic planning will be coming to San Clemente -- George Shultz, included; John Ehrlichman, and others.

Q And Secretary Connally?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q Will they be staying there all the time, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, they won't, not necessarily.

Also, as I mentioned, Secretary Rogers will be spending some time at the Western White House. His visit out there will coincide with Dr. Kissinger's return from his trip.

MORE

#1086

- 4 - #1086

Q 'Will it be a prepared speech?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. The President does not plan to speak from a prepared text. He will prepare his address and will deliver it without text.

We have several other announcements.

The President today is announcing his intention
to nominate Richard Stockwell Bodman to be Assistant Secretary
of the Interior for Management and Budget. I believe you have
a release on that. The salary is $38,000, Level 4.

Also, the President has signed an Executive Order
to implement the provisions of Section 306 of the Clean Air
Act. You have copies of that Executive Order. It provides
for the administration of the Clean Air Act with respect
to Federal contracts, grants and loans, as required by
the Clean Air Act. Under the Order, new contracts, grants
or loans will not be made for activities that would be per-
formed in a facility if that facility were the subject of a
conviction resulting from federal enforcement of the Clean
Air Act.

It also requires Federal agencies to amend their
regulations to assure that contract, guarantee and loan
recipients comply with air quality standards issued under
the Act.

The President today is transmitting to the Congress
two proposed amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year 1972.
We will post the information on this. The proposed amend-
ments call for $36 million for the Atomic Energy Commission
to meet the objectives announced in the President's Energy
Message to Congress on June 4, to complete the successful
demonstration of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor,
and also $1,228,000 for the Commission on Marijuana and
Drug Abuse for staff and related expenses.

Those are all the announcements.

Q Ron, can you give us the date for the
stops in Paris, Pakistan, and so on?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I cannot. I don't have those to
give you at this time.

Q Does he go first to Paris or later to Paris?

MR. ZIEGLER: Paris will be his last stop. En route
he will stop in Thailand, India and Pakistan.

Q Is General Haig going with him?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Is he going to be looking into the India-Pakistan border problem?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, the Foreign Minister of
India has just been here. He will discuss with the various
governments all aspects of our relations with the two
countries. He is not going to address himself to any specific

MORE #1086

- 5 - #1086

[L]

situation.

Q Ron, is this trip prompted by the recent disclosures in this country about Vietnam?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is not.

Q Does it suggest that the President is seeking new developments and new policy in connection with Vietnam because of the pressure of public opinion?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I wouldn't draw that conclusion from it. As I said in the announcement, the President has asked Dr. Kissinger to go to South Vietnam on a fact-finding mission, to get first-hand impressions. He will do that and then report back to the President.

Q How long will he be in South Vietnam?

MR. ZIEGLER: From the 3rd to the 5th.

Q Is this the first such trip for Dr. Kissinger?

MR. ZIEGLER: Since he has been in this capacity, yes. It is the first time he has made a trip to South Vietnam alone since he has been in this capacity.

Q Why is he making it now?

MR. ZIEGLER: Because the President asked him to.

Q I mean, is it preliminary to any specific decisions that are contemplated?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't want to suggest that to you. I think I will just stand on the words of the announcement, which I think state to you clearly that the President has asked Dr. Kissinger to go on a fact-finding trip and to report back to him on his first-hand impressions.

Q Is Mainland China involved in any way in this trip?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, it is not indicated here on the schedule.

Q Ron, is Mr. Helms in Israel at the President's request?

MR. ZIEGLER: It has been confirmed that Mr. Helms is in Israel. I have nothing to add to that.

Q Confirmed by the U. S., or who has confirmed it?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have now. And the Israeli Foreign Office.

Q Has the President indicated why he feels a first-hand fact-finding assignment with Kissinger is needed now?

MORE #1086

- 6 - #1086

MR. ZIEGLER: Herb, I don't have any additional thinking to give you in terms of why Dr. Kissinger is taking this trip other than what I have stated to you.

Q When did they begin talking or thinking about this particular trip by Dr. Kissinger?

MR. ZIEGLER: At what point?

Q Yes. How many days or weeks ago?

MR. ZIEGLER: This trip has been under discussion for some weeks now.

Q Did his London trip have anything to do with it?

MR. ZIEGLER: It did not, no.

Q Why is Helms in Israel, and is he there at the President's request?

MR. ZIEGLER: It wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss his presence there beyond the fact that I can confirm that he is in Israel.

Q Does Helms often make such foreign trips?

MR. ZIEGLER: You would have to address that to his agency.

Q Who is attending the NSC meeting today without Helms?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know who will represent the CIA in today's meeting.

Q Is the Kissinger fact-finding in South Vietnam across the board? Is he going to be discussing anything to do with the election coming up as well as the military?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have an agenda of his discussions to provide you, I am sorry, but he will be meeting with President Thieu, I am sure, and other officials in the South Vietnamese Government.

Q All officials and not any of the other political leaders?

MR. ZIEGLER: He will be meeting with U. S. representatives and other officials. Beyond that I don't know who else he will meet with.

Q Will he have any staff with him?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is taking about three staff members along, yes.

Q In what capacity is he travelling? As a Presidential envoy?

MR. ZIEGLER: As a representative of the President.

MORE #1086