Q. Mr. Kissinger, we would like to know the reason for your visit to President Lopez Portillo.

A. Before I answer any questions, would you also identify what newspapers you are with for my own education.

Q. Antonio Magaña, Canal 11.

A. As some of you may know, the foreign country in which I have spent more time than any other is Mexico. I have rather sentimental feelings towards this country, and I come back at every opportunity and every excuse. I have known President Lopez Portillo since I was Secretary of State. I was here for his inauguration. And he has very courteously received me many times since I left office. I consider him one of the few philosopher-statesmen in the world today. He has made a great contribution to the development of Mexico, to relations between Mexico and the United States on the basis of mutual dignity, and to the North-South dialogue. And so I have no specific political purpose in calling on President Lopez Portillo but we generally review this kind of problem and I am always very honored by the opportunity and learn a great deal from it.

Q. I would like to ask a rather long question.

Since Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, the United States has faced a series of problems. The confidence of the people of the United States is not only in its military power, but in its economy and also in that it is the most powerful country in the world.

- 2 -

EYJ

To what extent has the Administration of President Reagan and President Reagan himself contributed to strengthening these goals of the American people. And secondly, to what extent will the position of President Reagan prejudice and harm the relationship of the United States to countries such as Mexico.

A. I agree with the part of the question that says the United States went through a very difficult period as a result of Vietnam, Watergate, the domestic division, and, to some extent, let us be frank, a certain loss of confidence in itself. As some of you may know I am a Republican. But I did not support President Reagan for the nomination. I say this only to point out that, therefore, If I now support President Reagan's foreign policy, you can trust that it comes from conviction.
I think that President Reagan has restored American self-confidence. He has given Americans a sense of what the principles and interests are that they should defend. He has strengthened our military capacity, and he has also indicated a willingness for negotiation on the basis of reciprocity.

Now, with respect to Mexico, I thought that relations between the United States and Mexico in the previous administration left a great deal to be desired. Because it seems to me we should not deal with Mexico primarily by presenting technical problems for approval or rejection. We have to deal with Mexico as a country that is between the developing countries, and which will soon be a fully developed country.

- 3 -

CYJ

Therefore, a relationship of mutual respect, a relationship in which we both recognize that we have to learn from each other; and in which we will not always agree, but we will handle our disagreements is healthier than 20 technical programs on specific issues.

I think the relationship between President Reagan and President Lopez Portillo is extremely good. Even though they differ on certain issues.

I think the meeting in Cancún can be of major significance. So I believe that we will have disagreements, but fundamentally the relationship is on a healthy base.

See, you can't ask a question longer than my answer.

Q. Why is it that the United States has not had a fair relationship with the Latin American countries? Why is it that the United States does not think of the Latin American countries as mature, adult countries? And what is your opinion of the policy of the United States vis-a-vis El Salvador.

A. Well, I believe that we should treat the countries of Latin America as mature countries. I don't completely agree with you, I don't agree with you when you say that we don't treat countries of Latin America as mature countries. But for Americans, dealing with 150 different nations in the world, with so many different nations in Latin America, to understand, and you remember that until thirty years ago the United States was really isolationist, it is not easy always to understand

CYJ

- 4 -

the particular historical, cultural and political background
of each country you are dealing with.

Now, about Salvador. I confess, speaking for myself, I have
no clear cut solution in my mind. For this reason -- it seems
to me there are about 10 thousand guerrillas. They are
supported from the outside. In the history of guerrilla wars,
it is almost impossible to bring them to a definitive conclusion.
And it is very difficult to have a reform program in the middle
of mutual assassination.

Intellectually, one can say there should be a political solution.
But if you, if I, look at the history of Spanish-speaking
countries I cannot think of a single civil war in any Spanish-
speaking country in history that has ever ended in a political
solution. Somebody has always won. And somebody has always
lost. Even in Mexico, before you created your present
institutions there were a million people killed. So I think
it is a very complicated problem with which I am glad that
I don't have to deal personally.

Q. Oscar Domínguez de 24 Horas. Televisión. Televisa.

Mr. Kissinger, I believe that if the presence of President
Reagan in Cancún is only a political tactic and strategy,
and that he will not have the will to contribute realistically
towards the solution that are being sought by that meeting,
this, in itself, will mean the failure for industrialized
countries, what do you suppose it will mean for developing
nations?

A. Before I answer the question, I would like to take the opportunity, if you permit me, to pay tribute to this interpreter who is seated at my right, who gives me one great advantage that she makes me sound more intelligent in Spanish than I am in English.

Of course, President Reagan is going to Cancún for political reasons. You don't expect the President of the United States to take a trip for altruistic reasons. I don't think the President of Mexico takes a trip for abstract philosophical reasons. So the question is, what are his political purposes? I believe that President Reagan is an intelligent leader who recognizes that the problem of war and peace in the world depend on the ability to create an international structure. You cannot have peace in the world unless the majority of the nations believe that what exists reflects their interests, or, at least, that they have an opportunity to build a better future.

So I am convinced, and I talk from time to time to President Reagan and to his associates, that he's going there with good will. And I think, in fact, his going there is a great tribute to your President, because he trusts his chairmanship.

Now, there will undoubtedly be differences between Mexico and the United States. And even more between the United States and other countries present, about their own or private capital and governmental capital. And there will be other differences.

- 6 -

And I do not believe, and I would be amazed if your President believed, that at Cancún the problems would be solved. If in Cancún, however, the problems can be defined, and if an agenda could be established for future discussion, then I think that Cancún could have made an historic contribution. I do not believe -- I would be astonished if our people went to Cancún in order to cause the conference to fail.

Q. Mr. Kissinger, according to what you just said regarding the Salvadoran conflict, I would like to ask you if this means that you think that this problem must have a solution through violent means, and I would also like to know your opinion on the right that a nation has to decide its own destiny without any foreign interference.

A. In principle, I am in favor of countries deciding their own destiny without intervention from the outside. The judgment of many Americans is that the intervention in Salvador began from Cuba and Nicaragua.

Of course, the best solution would be to find an institutional framework in which political conflicts could be settled by institutional means, and not by violence. I don't know whether elections would be a means to that end. My comments were addressed to historical situations.

Q. Víctor Avilés of UNOMASUNO.

President Reagan is trying to regain hegemony for his country as a world power at a time when power is not concentrated in only two large capitals of the world. The world has become

- 7 -

a great deal more complicated. Don't you agree that
President Reagan is seeking hegemony for his country, and
that this aggressive attitude on his part would mean a very
grave and serious risk for world peace?

A. Well, I don't believe that President Reagan is seeking to achieve hegemony for the United States. Hegemony means that the United States will dominate the whole world or a large part of the world. And I don't believe that that is his intention. President Reagan came into office at the end of the period in which there were Cuban troops in Angola, Cuban troops in Ethiopia, Lybian troops in Chad, Lybian troops in South Yemen, Soviet troops in Afghanistan, North Vietnamese troops in Cambodia, in other words, in which every issue was being settled by force, and he is attempting to indicate that that method is no longer acceptable to the United States. But he has no intention, if I understand his policy correctly, of imposing an American solution by military means on other nations in the world.

Q. Francisco Huerta of Radio ABC.

With your experience in international affairs and your
knowledge of Mexico and the United States, and of the two men
who rule these two countries, what would be the ultimate
formula to reduce the differences or to eliminate the
differences that the two countries have on El Salvador.