This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1554

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:41 A.M. EDT

SEPTEMBER 14, 1972

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: Dr. Kissinger arrived in London this morning at about 7:20 a.m. Eastern Daylight time. He will be meeting, as we announced several days ago, with British officials and will have dinner tonight with Prime Minister Heath. He will travel to Paris tomorrow for the meeting with President Pompidou and will then return directly to Washington from Paris. I don't have specifics on his schedule in terms of time that he will return, but he will probably arrive back in Washington sometime Friday evening.

We have a joint U.S.-USSR statement to provide you which relates to the meetings between Dr. Kissinger and the leaders of the Soviet Union. This particular statement is embargoed until 12 noon Eastern Daylight time, but I want to give it to you at this time so that you have it and can be prepared to move it and report it by 12 noon.

Q Are you going to record this later, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: I will be prepared to record it later.

Q Could you do it now and save a lot of time and difficulty?

MR. ZIEGLER: Excuse me?

Q Could you just go ahead and record it now and save a lot of time and difficulty?

MR. ZIEGLER: Let me get it handed out and then we will work on that in a minute. We will hand the statement out to you in a few moments. Let me read it over quickly. We are just running it off because we just received it by cable from Dr. Kissinger.

"As previously agreed, Dr. Kissinger, Assistant for National Securities Affairs to the President of the United States of America, visited the Soviet Union from September 10 to September 14. During this visit to Moscow he had discussions with Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Foreign Minister Gromyko.

"There was a general review of the course of Soviet-American relations since the summit meeting and of international problems of interest to the Soviet Union and the United States. The exchange of views was frank and constructive.

MORE

#1554

- 2 -

#1554

"In the course of the discussion of major international issues, prominent attention was given to the problems relating to European security, and progress was made regarding the next steps to be taken.

"There was also a discussion of issues connected with the resumption at an early date of negotiations on the limitation of strategic arms.

"Implementation of the bilateral agreements reached at the summit meeting was reviewed. It was agreed that there already had been substantial accomplishments and that further accomplishments can be anticipated.

"Special attention was given to the status of commercial relations. Both sides reaffirmed the importance of these ties in strengthening mutual relations. Significant progress was made on several issues of principle in commercial relations between the two countries. It was agreed that in view of this progress, negotiations on a lend-lease settlement and on concluding a trade agreement would be continued in Washington in September with the aim of completing them in the near future. It was also agreed to conclude promptly the negotiations of the maritime agreement between the United States and the USSR.

"Both sides reaffirmed the importance of continuing the practice of exchanging views on questions of mutual interest in various forms and at various levels, including the highest level."

I hope that is about ready to hand out to you.

Now, I would just like to add to this that in exchanging cables with Dr. Kissinger, he has agreed -- we have received, of course, from him during the course of his talks and as you know, he is meeting in London and in Paris with our NATO Allies -- but he has agreed that following the briefing he will provide to the President and to, of course, the Secretary of State when he returns that he would be prepared to meet with members of the press on Saturday -- we will have to work out that time -- to be responsive to your questions on his meetings in Moscow.

So, I am not prepared to get into a great deal of detail on his talks this morning. He will be available on Saturday. But we did want to provide you this U.S.-USSR Joint Statement this morning.

Q Can you at least answer this? Has the pgoress on lend-lease reached a point now where there is an agreement on a figure?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is something that I think I would leave for Dr. Kissinger to respond to. I would simply refer you to the communique in which it refers to progress being made in this area.

Q Ron, when will these other negotiations in Washington on lend-lease and a trade agreement take place? Is there a specific date and who will be involved?

MORE

#1554

- 3 -

#1554

MR. ZIEGLER: Very soon. There is no specific date set that I am aware of. Perhaps Henry did work something out along that line. But, as you know, Pete Peterson, who has been involved in the trade discussions, who is the Chairman of the U.S.-Soviet Union Joint Trade Commission, was in the Soviet Union a short time ago to discuss these matters. I would assume he would be involved.

Q Ron, it is pretty obvious a deal has been struck on the World War II lend-lease, the Soviets know about it. The Russians know about it, the British know about it. Why can't we know about it?

MR. ZIEGLER: Dan, I think that the information contained in the U.S.-USSR Joint Statement is reflective of what the two governments are saying on this matter. I think you are referring to some extent to speculative reports.

Dr. Kissinger, I noted on the wire this morning, referred to this as speculation. I think the communique is self-explanatory when it says that significant progress was made on these matters and the communique goes on to say it was agreed in view of this progress, negotiations on lend-lease settlement would continue in Washington.

That says to me that there is at least some further thing to talk about in light of the progress that has already been made.

Q Ron, do you hope to get a trade agreement wound up during these talks in September, or will this be a further effort to be continued later in Moscow?

MR. ZIEGLER: My impression from the communique and also from the cables I have seen from Dr. Kissinger is that things are moving along very well and we would be hopeful for an agreement to be reached on these matters in the near future, as the communique points out.

Q It says, prominent attention on European security. Has this gotten to a point where there is a date for a Warsaw-NATO Pact meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, Dr. Kissinger is meeting with the leaders of Britain and France. Mr. Sonnenfeld will be in Brussels tomorrow to brief Ambassador Kennedy on this matter. I think I will leave any discussion on the European Security Conference to Henry when he gets back.

Q Ron, can you comment at all on the reports of a U.S. Trade Center in Moscow with some 400 commercial companies?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, Secretary Peterson, when he returned from the Soviet Union some weeks ago in this room reviewed some of the matters that were under discussion between the United States and the Soviet Union. We have, as a result of the Moscow summit, made further reference to matters such as you referred to.

MORE

#1554

- 4 -

#1554

I think you can assume, as the communique points out, that progress has been made in areas that the United States and the Soviet Union are discussing, areas like lend-lease, progress in matters such as the text of the trade agreement, those types of things. I think you can conclude they have moved along even further now as a result of the talks that I am referring to. But when they are firm, we will announce them.

Q There is a specific report on the wire regarding that American Trade Center, quoting the head of Occidental Petroleum, I believe, as saying they have more or less an agreement on specific deals, a 400 room motel, I think it was and X millions. Can you address yourself to that?

MR. ZIEGLER: These are matters that have been under discussion with the Soviet Union, but I am not prepared to go beyond this Joint Statement. If the two governments were prepared to do that, we would have done so in the Joint Statement.

Q Ron, the European Security Conference was mentioned in your communique, but you didn't mention mutual balanced force reduction. Have we decoupled these two now?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think our position on European security and mutual balanced force reduction was thoroughly explained in the communique in the briefings that related to the communique in the Soviet Union.

In terms of any further specifics on that, I prefer you hold that question for Henry on Saturday.

Q Ron, Vietnam is not mentioned in the communique as yet. You said it would be discussed. I wonder what happened there?

MR. ZIEGLER: Vietnam was discussed.

Q Secretary Peterson told us at his briefing, I think or out in California, I guess, that he had instructions from the President to try to reach a trade agreement by the end of the year and he left the impression with us that this was the target date. Could we expect it before November?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not going to pin us down to a date, but I would say by the end of the year would be a reasonable expectation of what near future could mean, but I am not prepared to really pin that down yet.

Q Could you give us any indication of the scope of the agreement? How trade is going to be involved and how many years it would cover and this sort of thing.

MR. ZIEGLER: We are not prepared to do that yet because there is still additional discussion to take place here in Washington as the communique points out.

MORE

#1554

- 6 -

#1554

MR. ZIEGLER: We have given you the communique. I
would like to make one additional comment in relation to
Dan Rather's question earlier.

The Joint Statement which we have given you in
relation to Dr. Kissinger's meeting with the leaders of the
Soviet Union is a statement that, of course, was cabled to
us for release at this time as agreed between the United
States and the Soviet Union. So it reflects the views of
the two governments.

I call to your attention the portion of the communique
that points to "significant progress was made on several issues
of principle in commercial relations between the two countries."

Obviously that states that progress has been made in
matters of principle, but as the communique goes on to say,
there are still some details that have to be worked out during
September here in Washington on matters where the substantial
progress has been made in the discussions that took place
in the Soviet Union.

Now, perhaps Dr. Kissinger, on Saturday, after
he returns and reports to the President, will be able to
expand on this further. I simply am not in a position to
do that, because we have not received, as you would expect,
a complete report from Dr. Kissinger on his meetings there.
So that is why we are leaving and must leave it in this posture
at this time.

Q Ron, the communique speaks of the resumption
at an early date of negotiations on the SALT talks. Can you
be more specific on that, and can you say anything else
about the maritime agreement you mentioned?

MR. ZIEGLER: In relation to SALT, we will have a
joint announcement on the resumption of the SALT talks at
an appropriate time, but we expect the talks to start this
year. We have said that before.

In relation to the maritime agreement, the communique
refers to the fact that we feel these negotiations will move
ahead promptly. It means just that. I think we would anticipate
that the discussions on the maritime agreement would now
move forward very rapidly, hopefully before the end of
this month in terms of the maritime agreement.

Q That is apart from progress on principle on
trade? You are separating maritime from the trade?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am speaking of the maritime matter
not necessarily involved in a joint trade agreement which
could be announced and any reference to final agreement on
the lend-lease matter. The communique talks about significant
progress on issues of principle relating to the lend-lease
settlement and the trade agreement and I just want you
to have it in that perspective and we will let Dr.
Kissinger expand on that, if he can, on Saturday.

MORE

#1554

- 7 -

#1554

Q In the last line here you talk about, "The importance of considering the practice of exchanging views on questions of mutual interest," including at the highest level. Was there discussion made of a new summit in Washington perhaps, when you are talking about the highest level?

MR. ZIEGLER: When the President was in the Soviet Union an invitation was extended to the leaders of the Soviet Union to visit the United States. That is what that is in reference to. I have nothing for you in terms of timing of that.

Q What do you mean by a maritime agreement? Isn't this to do with the transportation or with trade?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it is. Maritime agreement relates to commercial vessels from the Soviet Union calling on ports in the United States and U.S. vessels calling on ports in the Soviet Union, the working out of those ports, what they are, and also the third country ships that could be involved in carrying trade between the two countries.

Q Ron, is the only hitch in an agreement on a date for resuming SALT the Senate action on the offensive agreement?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think you may have noted earlier, Pete, the Senate supported the cloture motion before it today, so we anticipate the Senate will move very quickly and we hope they will in giving approval to the interim agreement.

We had pointed to the fact that we sought that approval before, we would proceed with the second phase of SALT.

Q But that still doesn't answer my question.

MR. ZIEGLER: The fact that the Senate does seem to be moving toward immediate approval of that, doesn't indicate that that is, as you refer to it, a hitch in proceeding with SALT 2. As I said, we expect the talks to start this year.

Q But the President has said he expected the talks to be resumed in October. Do you expect they will be now in October, or before the elections?

MR. ZIEGLER: I just don't know at this point. That is one of the things that Dr. Kissinger was discussing with the leaders of the Soviet Union. Perhaps when he gets back, he can be more enlightening to you. I can tell you we expect them to begin this year. I can't give you the precise time.

Q At what level will the Washington phase of the trade talks take place?

MR. ZIEGLER: I just don't know at this point. It is my understanding they have some details still to discuss. This is something that I would assume that Pete Peterson would be involved in, as I said earlier.

MORE

#1554

#1554

Q Do you know who will be talking for the Russians here?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not know. This is something that Henry will have, I am sure, in his report when he returns.

We have a few releases which have been given to you.

The President today announced his intention to nominate Frederick Kappel of Bronxville, New York, and Robert Earl Holding of Cheyenne, Wyoming, to be Governors of the United States Postal Service for the remainder of unexpired terms.

The President also today accepted with special regret the resignation of Theodore W. Braun as a Governor of the Postal Service. Mr. Kappel, who is a Member of the Board of Governors, will be nominated for the remainder of Mr. Braun's term. Mr. Holding will be nominated for the remainder of the term currently held by Mr. Kappel.

The President today announced the reappointments of five persons as Members of the Postal Service Advisory Council. They are: Monroe C. Crable of Silver Spring, Maryland; Ruther Miller Gore of Greensboro, North Carolina; Chester W. Parrish of Falls Church, Virginia; F. Willard Powers of Mount Morris, Illinois; and Kent Rhodes of Chappaqua, New York.

The President today signed a proclamation designating the week beginning October 1, 1972, as National Employ the Handicapped Week, 1972.

As to the schedule tomorrow, the only things I have to give you at this time are:

At 10:00, the President will meet with Ambassador Walter McConaughy, who is the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of China. Ambassador McConaughy is a Foreign Service officer and has been our Ambassador to the Republic of China since June 16, 1966. He is back for routine consultation and home leave and will pay a call on the President.

At noon, the President will meet with Patrick Carr of New Orleans, the new Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mr. Carr was elected National Commander of the VFW at the National Convention last month, August 21st to the 25th. This is the traditional courtesy call National Commanders of the veterans organizations pay to a President shortly after their election. You will remember on Monday Joseph Sanson, who is the new National Commander of Amvets, visited the President.

Those are all the announcements that we have.

Q Ron, why was Governor Rockefeller in?

MR. ZIEGLER: Governor Rockefeller is in town today and I think had been talking to John Ehrlichman and it was felt it would be worthwhile for the President to meet with him. They talked about legislative matters, revenue sharing, welfare reform, and also about the next eight weeks.

MORE

#1554

- 9 -

#1554

Q What did Governor Rockefeller ask on behalf of his interests on the Grumman negotiations with the Defense Department?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think that came up as far as I know.

Q How long did they meet, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: An hour.

Q It did come up.

MR. ZIEGLER: Oh, it did? I haven't received a complete read-out on the discussions.

Q What is going to happen in the next eight weeks?

MR. ZIEGLER: In eight weeks there is an election.

Q Ron, you don't look like Connie Stuart, but in connection with the Rogers Morton announcement of September 19th, might Mrs. Nixon be going other places to and from or is that just an out and back?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is something Connie would have to announce. Connie is having a briefing today at 2:00, so she will be providing Mrs. Nixon's schedule.

Q Back on the Joint Statement, a potential hold-up now to trade deals between the United States and Russia is the so-called Ribicoff Amendment pertaining to the emigration fee for Jews living in the Soviet Union. Did Dr. Kissinger discuss that with the Soviet leadership?

MR. ZIEGLER: Our views on that matter, as we have said before, are well known to the leaders of the Soviet Union and it would serve absolutely no purpose for me to comment on that further.

Q Did Dr. Kissinger discuss it with Brezhnev, was the question, Ron.

MR. ZIEGLER: I understand that and I will stand on my statement and also on the comment that it would serve no purpose for me to discuss it further.

Q The White House can't make a deal without Congressional approval, though.

MR. ZIEGLER: I am aware of that. But in response to your question, I have given you my response.

Q Ron, why was the topic of Vietnam left out of the communique when you say it was in fact discussed?

MR. ZIEGLER: Apparently in the discussions about the Joint Statement they decided not to include it, but we are not hesitant in mentioning to you the fact it was talked about. We said that before Henry left and I can confirm that for you now.

MORE

#1554

- 10 -

#1554

Q Can you tell us how important a part of the
discussions it was? I mean, for instance, it says special
attention was given to trade, prominent attention was given
to European security. Does this mean very little attention
was given to Vietnam?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would refer you to the second
paragraph of the communique where it says, "There was a
general review of the course of Soviet-American relations
since the summit meeting and of international problems of
interest in the Soviet Union and the United States. The
exchange of views was frank and constructive."

As we said, Bob, before Dr. Kissinger left on his
trip, Vietnam was not the purpose of his going there, but we
expected it would be discussed. It was and as I understand
it not just in passing.

Q Ron, Secretary Butz and Senator McGovern have
had sort of a running conversation going over the Russian
grain deal and Secretary Butz has accused the Senator of
trying to scuttle that arrangement. Is it possible with
this thing already signed and sealed, could anybody scuttle
it?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have signed an agreement with the
Soviet Union which totalled $750 million in wheat sales for
the next three years and as I recall, the agreement states
that $200 million of that total would be purchased during
the first year. That is the agreement that we have. I am
not going to comment on any other statements that have been
made on this line, particularly by the individuals you refer
to. Secretary Butz is responding to that.

Q Did the President and Governor Rockefeller
discuss Attica?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think so, but again, I have
not received the report on that meeting.

Q Has the President seen the Attica report yet?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, he has not.

Q Ron, what can you tell us about the meeting
at Camp David last night?

MR. ZIEGLER: The only thing I can tell you is
that the President returned from Camp David about ten o'clock
last night. You know who he met with. There were no additions
to that particular dinner and they talked about the next
eight weeks.

Q Is there anything we can infer from the fact
that Mr. Stans was neither at the breakfast Tuesday, nor
the Camp David meeting last night?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, not at all. He is head of the
Finance Committee and that was not a subject of the discussion
at either of those meetings, so there is nothing to infer
from that.

MORE

#1554

- 11 -

#1554

Q Can you comment at all on reports that the United
States and the People's Republic have entered into a wheat
agreement?

MR. ZIEGLER: We are informed, having seen that
report, by the Agriculture Department that the transaction
of a private nature has taken place involving purchase of
wheat by the People's Republic of China. The Department of
Agriculture mentioned to me this morning that they are prepared
to take questions in terms of the technical approach to
that from members of the press.

Q Does that mean that Commerce and Agriculture
confirmed the fact there has been a private deal concluded?

MR. ZIEGLER: They have already confirmed that.
If they haven't, I suppose I have.

Q Are we going to get any kind of briefing on
the nature and character of the meeting with Mayor Rizzo?

MR. ZIEGLER: There was a pool in there for sometime,
I was out here, so I wasn't there. But the purpose of the
meeting was for the students, which I mentioned yesterday,
to present the petitions to the President, the petitions
which I have already told you about. This was done last
year and in previous years. I think that is the nature and
character of the meeting.

Q It didn't have anything to do with the next
eight weeks?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know that it specifically
does. I think it has to do with presenting the petitions.

Q Ron, the Mayor of Philadelphia said, when he
was asked why he was coming down, that he was coming down
to find out what he could do to help re-elect the President.
I wonder if they may have had a private discussion afterwards?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President and Mayor Rizzo met
privately after the petition presentation and they are
still meeting. So the first part of the meeting related
to the presentation of the petitions and then Mayor Rizzo
has stayed behind to talk about what he said he would talk
about and that is the next eight weeks and what he could
do to help.

Q Can the pool reporter give us a report?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, there will be a pool report
following the briefing.

MORE

#1554

- 12 -

#1554

Q Ron, Senator Saxbe is quoted this morning as saying the President, in his view, is being less than honest in the remarks coming out of the White House with regard to plans on the tax program.

I am wondering if he is accurate in what he says or whether the White House has some clarification to make?

MR. ZIEGLER: Having seen the report that you refer to, of course, raised a little bit of interest here, and I understand that a careful review of the transcript does not support the particular story which you are referring to, and I further understand that Senator Saxbe is prepared to be responsive to questions along that line.

Q Have you talked to the Senator or has someone here?

MR. ZIEGLER: I didn't directly, but I think someone here has.

Q Someone here has talked to him?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is my understanding.

Q Was it conversation or an admonition?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sure it was nothing but a conversation.

Q Is he prepared to change "less than honest" to "more than honest"? (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said, I don't think that -- you dirty rat, Lisagor. (Laughter)

As I say, I don't think ---

Q Show that in the transcript.

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, leave that in, will you. Only change "rat" to "guy," okay. (Laughter)

Q What are you cleaning it up for? (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: State "said respectively." (Laughter)

Q You mean respectfully. (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: I mean respectfully. You caught me on that, too, didn't you? (Laughter)

The point I am making, Pete, is the transcript which was taken down yesterday of his remarks does not bear out the story, I am told. And it does not relate to the conversation we had.

Q I am not sure I understand yet the White House position on the Ribicoff Amendment. Are you for it or against it or neutral or how do you stand, aside from whether the subject was discussed in Moscow?

MORE

#1554

- 13 -

#1554

MR. ZIEGLER: My answer remains really as it was before, and that is that we have stated our view on this subject and the Soviet Union is aware of the United States position on these matters. I just am not going to comment further on it, because it would serve no useful purpose to do so.

Q Ron, but specifically are you in favor of upholding most favored nation treatment status to the Soviet Union until they eliminate this policy of an emigration tax? That is what the Ribicoff Amendment is and you haven't stated your position on that.

MR. ZIEGLER: My comment remains as it has been stated on this subject.

Q What have you said about it in the past? Could you give us a reference point? Where can we find out what your comment was or position was on it?

MR. ZIEGLER: Our point of view regarding freedom of emigration and freedom of movement, religious freedom and so forth, in terms of the United States view has been stated many times. Having said that, I will stand on my previous comment.

Q But Ron, that is not the question. The question is the Administration's view of the Ribicoff Amendment, which is of some import.

MR. ZIEGLER: Bob, I understand the question and I have given you my answer to that question.

Q Do you consider this an internal matter for the Soviet government?

MR. ZIEGLER: My answer remains the same on questions relating to this subject.

Q Are we correct in saying that your response to this is that the Administration favors religious freedom?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will post for you immediately the U.N. declaration on these matters. It refers to freedom of emigration, to right of religious freedom and so forth.

Q Ron, why are you so reluctant to speak to this?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said before, it is our view that there is no useful purpose to be served by a comment from me on this subject. That is our view and that is my answer.

Q But that doesn't answer Bonnie's question, which is, why are you afraid to give a straight answer?

MR. ZIEGLER: Because we feel no useful purpose would be served by doing so.

Q Does this mean the White House is not opposing the Ribicoff Amendment and those Senators who would like to have guidance are not going to get it from the White House?

MORE

#1554

- 14 -

#1554

MR. ZIEGLER: I have nothing else to say on the subject.

Q I mean, are you going to tell the Republican Senators who ask you, the same thing you are telling us, or will they get private guidance?

MR. ZIEGLER: Our position is that the Soviet Union is aware of the United States position on this matter and no useful purpose would be served--and I put emphasis on that -- from any standpoint, for me to be more responsive to your questions, no matter what form they take, and that is the position that I am taking and will hold to.

Q Let me ask this, Ron. Do you think the issue is a legitimate issue in terms of the trade negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have no further comment on the subject.

Q Did Dr. Kissinger discuss with the Soviet leaders the possible developments between Japan and China?

MR. ZIEGLER: I haven't seen anything in the cables I have received that refer to that, but I don't want to rule it out, because we have not received a full report from Dr. Kissinger. He can tell you about that Saturday.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

END

(AT 12:37 P.M. EDT.)

#1554

- 8 -

News Conf.

7/15

#1555

MR. ZIEGLER: We are talking about the coordinated effort in South Vietnam among the three governments involved. I do not think this is as confusing as many of you are trying to make it.

Q Leaving aside Vietnam, has the U.S. Government given any recent new commitment to South Korea to maintain U.S. troops?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not in relation to this problem, no.

Q But just in relation to U.S.-Korean relations?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not anything specific that I can bring to mind, no.

Q What is the U.S. Government policy toward retaining American troops in the Republic of Korea?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is no change in the policy that we have stated previously.

Q Which is what?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have reduced some force levels in Korea. There are no plans for further reductions at this time.

Q Are we talking to the Koreans about adjusting our level of military assistance to South Korea?

MR. ZIEGLER: Now you are getting involved in levels of discussions that I certainly have not reviewed in terms of assistance to Korea, so I cannot be responsive to that. I am aware of no discussions along that line.

Q You said we are talking about a coordinated effort in South Vietnam. If the South Koreans would pull out now, would it disrupt that coordination?

MR. ZIEGLER: I cannot make that judgment. I think you would assume that if South Korean forces have been in South Vietnam for a long time, U.S. forces have been in South Vietnam for a long time, we are in the process of withdrawing forces and we talk to other countries about our process of withdrawal and decisions along that line, that is what the South Korean Government is doing with us. That is what it is all about.

Q We have a report from Moscow that Dr. Kissinger advised the Russians that if they were to put the head tax on Jewish emigrants and others into effect, that this would make further trade discussions between the Soviet Union and the United States difficult. Can you confirm that?

MR. ZIEGLER: Who has that report -- Time?

Q Yes.

MR. ZIEGLER: Do you have a source of the report?

Q Yes. Our correspondent in Moscow.

MORE

#1555

- 9 -

#1555

MR. ZIEGLER: I said here yesterday I will stand on
the answer I gave yesterday on that subject.

Q I didn't ask you about that subject yesterday.
I asked you a question today based on a report we have out
of Moscow, and I would appreciate an answer.

MR. ZIEGLER: The response is the same as I gave
yesterday on that same subject.

Q How does the President feel about news media
descriptions of the campaign as it is being run by surrogates?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have a comment on those reports.

Q Ron, your response to that question yesterday
was to refer us to a 1948 document, I think. Does that con-
tinue to be your response?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is correct. That states our view-
point on that matter, which has been expressed to the Soviet
Union.

Q The President is reported to have advised actors'
organizations that if he deems necessary, he will step into
programming of television to decide how many re-runs shall or
shall not be seen. Do you know what form that legislation
will take?

MR. ZIEGLER: It does not refer to legislation. We
have a copy of Mr. Whitehead's speech, and also a copy of the
letter, if you want to refer to it. The President has asked
Mr. Whitehead, in the Office of Telecommunications, to look
into the problem, which has been called to his attention by the
Screen Actors' Guild, as it relates to employment in the film
industry in California, and specifically Hollywood.

The step that he called for was for Mr. Whitehead's
office to examine the problem to see what the scope of it is,
but it does not relate to legislation.

Q It is not, as it was reported to be, a commitment
to appreciably cut down the amount of time given to re-run
programs; in other words, he is not suggesting that the FCC
step into programming matters in television?

MR. ZIEGLER: Television, as you know, is regulated
by the FCC. The point of contention which was raised is
whether or not the extensive re-run schedule which the networks
contemplate is going to have a dramatic effect on the employ-
ment in the film industry. That is what the President has
asked the Office of Telecommunications Policy to look into.

Q Would the Federal Government then select programs
to be seen on the time in question, or how do you go about
having the Government regulate programming?

MR. ZIEGLER: Of course not. The Federal Government
would not select programs to be shown.

Q They would only select those which will not be
shown? (Laughter)

It is a serious question, Ron.

MORE

#1555

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 16, 1972

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

THE BRIEFING ROOM

11:32 A.M. EDT

MR. ZIEGLER: I think you are all aware of the fact that Dr. Kissinger left Washington Saturday morning, September 9th, and flew to Munich, where on Sunday, September 10th, he met with Chancellor Willy Brandt and Foreign Minister of Germany Scheel, and also the opposition leaders.

He left Munich on Sunday and arrived in Moscow Sunday night, September 10th, where he conducted meetings with the Soviet leaders in Moscow. We have released a joint statement on those meetings this past Thursday.

Dr. Kissinger then went to London and to Paris to meet with the leaders there, and also, during the course of his visit, as we have already announced, held meetings with Special Advisor Le Duc Tho, and also Minister Xuan Thuy of North Vietnam.

So as we told you last week, Dr. Kissinger would be prepared to discuss his trip with you this morning, and that is why he is here. His comments, of course, are on the record, as has been the case in the past.

Q The recent past? (Laughter)

DR. KISSINGER: First I want to make a personal comment about a remark in a newspaper, whose enthusiasm for us is occasionally limited, which referred to my German accent. I wanted to say that when I was in Germany, I had occasion to make a brief statement on television, and I thought I might watch myself speak in one language correctly. Now I find I speak German with a Swedish accent. (Laughter)

Now I decided I might just as well proceed recklessly.
(Laugh ter)

MORE

I thought the best way to proceed would be to give you a brief summary of what we did on this trip and how it came about and then to take your questions.

The origin of the trip was during the summit meeting when, on the last day, General Secretary Brezhnev and the President agreed that when our bilateral discussions had reached a point where significant progress could be made by high level decisions, they would establish direct contact with each other, in addition to the regular exchanges that are going on all the time anyway.

That point was reached in the course of the commercial negotiations and the discussions on European security and mutual balanced force reductions, with respect to SALT and it was therefore decided that I should go to Moscow on behalf of the President to see whether these various matters could be brought to a further stage of negotiation.

The possibility was foreseen in the summit communique. In the weeks prior to my visit to Moscow, the President and the General Secretary exchanged communications, reactions to the ideas of both sides and primarily to propositions that the President made on how one might advance various of these issues, as I will explain in a minute, so that when the discussions actually took place in Moscow, they could proceed rather expeditiously; or at least one could focus on the issues. Nothing happens expeditiously in these discussions.

Let me now talk about my trip in two groups: One, my discussions in Moscow and, secondly, my discussions with the leaders of the Western Alliance, with the German, French and British leaders, and, thirdly, just a very brief word about my meeting with special advisor Le Duc Tho and Minister Xuan Thuy yesterday.

First, the discussions in Moscow: You have the list of the people of my staff who were accompanying me and present also was Under Secretary James Lynn. Most of the discussions took place between General Secretary Brezhnev, on the Soviet side, and myself. I spent about 21 hours with General Secretary Brezhnev and an additional maybe three hours with Foreign Minister Gromyko.

MORE

[L]

On the Soviet side, the General Secretary was always accompanied by Foreign Minister Gromyko, by the Ambassador to the United States Dobrynin and by his personal assistant Alexandrov. Then, as specific topics came up, such as trade, we would be jointed by appropriate Soviet experts.

On our side, the membership was rotating with the exception of my senior staff assistant Sonnenfeldt, who is handling the Soviet matters on my staff and who participated in practically all of the discussions.

Now, let me discuss in general terms what was done. First, I would like to say that we were treated really with extraordinary hospitality and were very well taken care of. All our comforts were attended to. The discussions took place in a very frank and open atmosphere, but with a very constructive attitude on both sides, with the attitude that we wanted to come to agreements or to make progress that was in the interest of both sides.

We covered essentially all of the topics that you can find in the communique that was issued at the time of the summit conference. We reviewed the progress, as our Joint Statement says, of those agreements that were then made in order to see whether they had fulfilled the expectations and what further accomplishments could be made. It was a sense that we were moving in the right direction and that we could continue and even accelerate the progress in those areas where agreements had been achieved.

Let me talk about those areas in which some new steps were either taken or were prepared. First, the area of lend lease, trade, and the general commercial relationship between our two countries. As you know, this was discussed at some length at the summit and some progress had been made then. There had been an agreement to create a U.S.-Soviet Economic Commission, the first meeting of which, chaired by Secretary Peterson, took place in July. When Secretary Peterson was in the Soviet Union there was a further advance in defining the issues.

Prior to my visit to the Soviet Union, the President communicated directly with the Soviet leaders with the approach that what we should do is, rather than deal with each of these topics separately, to see whether we could manage a global approach that would tie together the issues of lend lease, most favored nation, a trade agreement, a maritime agreement, into one overall negotiation in which we would set ourselves an objective of where we wanted to be and then work towards it.

These issues, as you all know, are technically extremely complex. I am not the best qualified person, to put it mildly, to get into all the technical subtleties or the legal issues that each of these issues raise. However, we made major progress on the lend lease issue in the sense of agreeing on a method by which the sums could be determined in the negotiations that are now starting and with relation to a whole host of issues like postponement and rate of payment that had been left unsettled. A Soviet group will come over here next week and we are confident that a satisfactory solution will be achieved.

MORE

- 4 -

Concurrently with this, we discussed the issues of
how to proceed on the trade front and the granting of most-
favored-nation status to the Soviet Union. Again, this
raises a whole host of questions, such as the definition; how
we would define most-favored-nation status; issues related
to market disruption, to arbitration, so that our businessmen
have assurances of some appeal mechanisms that are not depen-
dent entirely on national jurisdictions, business facilities, trade
centers, et cetera, and again, very major progress was made
in all of these categories, first in principle between General
Secretary Brezhnev and myself, and then in detail between
Under Secretary Lynn and his Soviet counterpart.

And again, a Soviet group will come over here next
week to conclude the arrangements.

The third area was to settle some of the remaining
issues with respect to the maritime agreement, and there,
too, many of the difficulties were ironed out. Again, a Soviet
group is coming here next week and we are confident that we can
conclude the arrangements.

Q Three groups are coming?

DR. KISSINGER: The essence of this arrangement is
that, on the basis of the President's approach, it is being
handled as one negotiation, but it is in the Soviet bureaucracy
split up among three different ministries. For that reason,
three different groups are coming, but we are working accord-
ing to an overall concept.

Then there were some discussions about the exten-
sion of credits in which I believe we achieved a satisfactory
meeting of the minds, and about the joint development of
certain natural resources in the Soviet Union, which is a matter
that has to be handled primarily by private capital, but in
which, as a first step, we are planning to set up mechanisms
to make a systematic review of the problem and to permit us
to make decisions on an overall basis, rather than on an ad
hoc approach. Those will be announced in due course.

So much for the trade issues, which was the first
issue discussed, I may say, because I always read accounts,
which was discussed without relationship to any other topic
and without its being made conditional on progress in any other
area. Indeed, it was essentially concluded before we turned
to any other area.

Now, with respect to the other issues that were dis-
cussed and that were covered in the communique, it was, first
of all, the problem of our mutual balanced force reductions
and the European Security Conference. You ladies and gentlemen
are all familiar with the Soviet position, which has been
that there should be a preparatory European Security Confer-
ence toward the end of this year. Indeed, the joint communique
that was issued at the Summit meeting made reference to prepara-
tions in that direction.

The United States position, which was also provided
for in the Summit communique, to which our NATO allies agreed,
was that there should be a relationship between that conference
and a conference on mutual balanced force reduction which
should take place in some related manner.

MORE

Now, this, of course, raises the theological problem of linkage which you ladies and gentlemen and we have discussed at enormous lengths, and which the Soviet Union has never accepted as a formal concept. Matters were at somewhat of a stalemate in this respect, but we had extensive discussions of this problem.

The President, again, prior to my arrival there, communicated again our general attitude on this issue to the General Secretary. As a result of it, of this and the discussions, the Soviet Union has now made a general proposal to us which we are discussing with our allies and other interested parties. The details I cannot go into until we have the reaction of other countries, but on the basis of preliminary discussions by myself with European leaders, and by Mr. Sonnenfeldt at the NATO Council, indications are that it is at least worthy of very serious consideration. So this is a matter that will now be pursued in diplomatic channels, and as soon as these consultations are completed, we will make announcements, but I think it is correct to say that we have made significant progress in this area, too.

The third area that was discussed concerned the resumption of the SALT negotiations, which was discussed on two levels: one, the procedural one of when these talks might resume; and the second in terms of a very general philosophical discussions of what the direction might be in which these talks could go in a very preliminary way, but still in order to lay the basis for working along parallel lines. Again, we have reason to believe that progress has been made, and as soon as the precise date is fixed, we will announce it, but we are on the approximate schedule that we have set for ourselves. We believe that the second round of SALT can make a major contribution to peace and stability of the world.

In addition to the topics that were covered in the communique specifically, there was the review of the international situation with the major areas being covered, but I will reserve that for the question period.

Now, a word about my meeting with European leaders. We have, of course, always considered our relationships with Europe a cardinal aspect of American policy, and the cornerstone of the whole structure of peace, which has been pointed out in each of the President's annual foreign policy reports. The President urged me to stress to all of the leaders, each of the leaders that I saw, that his conviction that whatever progress we were making in our dealings with other nations, similar and preferably greater progress has to be made in European-American relationships.

We are now at the end of the period in which military security alone could be the cement of Western relationships. Of course, Atlantic relationships have to be adapted to the circumstances of the emergence of a more united Europe and an economically much stronger Europe, and also to the tendency in the world in which negotiation is increasingly replacing confrontation. So I was asked on behalf of the President to point out to them that as soon as his schedule would be less pressed by domestic exigencies, he hoped to resume most intense consultations with our European friends on how to put relationships between Europe and the United States on a new, even more dynamic and constructive basis, consistent with the change in the international situation that had occurred.

MORE

Finally, I had, as you know, a meeting yesterday with
the North Vietnamese negotiators. But, as always, by mutual
agreement, we will not discuss the substance of these discussions
and therefore, I not only cannot be very specific, I cannot
say anything about the substance of those discussions at all.

Those were the highlights of the trip. Now, I will
be delighted to answer any questions on anything that I may
have said or anything that I should have said.

Q Henry, in simpler language, could you tell us
what you meant by the statement that the President asked you
to convey to European leaders?

DR. KISSINGER: At Harvard, as you know, complexity
is identified with profundity, or as Ron Ziegler says, in simpler
language, "This is as simple as I ever get."

What I meant was that the world in which Atlantic
relationships were formulated was essentially a bipolar world
which was based on and which grew out, at that time, of European
weakness, of common fears of aggression and of American
dominance in almost every field.

We now face a situation in which the European economic
community is becoming increasingly strong and in which the
accession of four more countries to the Common Market will
create an even larger grouping. We face a situation also in which
the domestic stability of European countries has been substantially
assured and in which the bipolar world in the 50's and even
60's is being replaced increasingly by a more complex set of
international relations.

Therefore, it becomes important that when we speak
about Atlantic partnership that we do not affirm it in the abstract
every six months but have nothing concrete to work on together,
but to find some common task and to define what is needed for
the solution of these issues that are arising and that will be one
of the principal tasks of our foreign policy in the next phase.

Q Do you see that the Viet Cong announcement this
past week, endorsed by Hanoi, offers any prospect at all for
a widening or a progress in the negotiations?

DR. KISSINGER: As you can appreciate, it is extremely
difficult for me to comment about any particular proposal
that may have been made publicly without getting into the
substance of the talks. Our position has been this: As you
know from our public statements, we are prepared to leave the
future political evolution of South Vietnam to the decision
of the South Vietnamese. We do not insist on any particular
political orientation, nor do we insist that the government in
South Vietnam inevitably be pro-American.

What we do reject, however, is that we, as a result
of the negotiations, impose a particular form of government
on the South Vietnamese or that we would accept proposals
whose practical consequence and clearly predictable consequence
is to bring this about. These are our principles in handling
this negotiation and we are pursuing them very earnestly and
with every intention of bringing about a rapid conclusion
of the war.

MORE

- 7 -

Q Do you think the Viet Cong's latest proposals do that?

DR. KISSINGER: The latest Viet Cong proposal leaves something to be desired in that respect.

Q Dr. Kissinger, did you discuss with General Secretary Brezhnev or with any of the other Heads of State or their assistants the matters of air piracy and other forms of terrorism and if it were possible for any of them to use their influence not to accept and honor terrorists or air pirates?

DR. KISSINGER: As you know, the issues which you have just mentioned are being pursued very actively in diplomatic channels. They require, really, for an effective control, a global cooperation of at least a majority of countries. I know that the State Department is pursuing it extremely actively and the Secretary of State has made approaches to many leaders of the world.

So, I have confined myself on this trip to underlining the importance that the President attaches to the solution of this problem, without going into the details of a negotiation which is being conducted in diplomatic channels, but we did under-line the importance of the subject.

Q Do you think that after your talks in Moscow the Helsinki Tea Party, as an opener for the European Security Conference, can take place on the 22nd of November, and, secondly, in a parallel set of timing, the MBFR discussion can also be initiated?

DR. KISSINGER: The question, which was very objectively stated, was, whether the Helsinki Tea Party could take place on November 22nd, which for the benefit of the Washington Post means whether the European Security preparatory conference can take place then and whether the MBFR conference will take place at a roughly parallel period.

The exact date of these conferences will have to be established through the consultations that are now taking place in response to the Soviet proposal that has been made.

Our position is that unless these two conferences take place in some related time frame, it will be very difficult for us to agree to what you call the Helsinki Tea Party. We think a framework for the solution of this problem now exists and that progress can be made without tying ourselves to any one particular date. We think that this is approaching a solution.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you said in San Clemente that you had some reason to believe that...

DR. KISSINGER: Did I talk to the press in San Clemente?

Q Yes, you did. You said you had some reason to believe that North Vietnam would negotiate seriously. Has that belief been realized? Are they negotiating seriously?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, I remember, that was in July. Isn't there a statute of limitations on my statements? (Laughter) I said that we were entering these discussions and on the basis of the preparatory exchanges that had taken place we had made clear our view that we expected some serious negotiation. All I can say is that the fact that these talks are going on would indicate a certain seriousness.

MORE

- 8 -

Q Dr. Kissinger, what is your latest information regarding the possibility that North Vietnam will launch another offensive this fall, either major or minor?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, you know, the affected parties always have a high incentive to predict constant offenses because that way they can never be accused of intelligence lags, so one would not be surprised if there were other high points and even some offensives. We do not anticipate that they will reach the scale, the intensity or the duration of the military activities earlier this year, or that they will not be able to be essentially contained without precluding a setback here and there.

The major point, though, now about military action is that it is essential to understand that there is no purely military solution to this problem. We have recognized that there is no purely military solution to this problem. We hope that North Vietnam will also realize that there is no military solution to this problem.

When there is no military solution to this problem, then the only alternative is to negotiate on a basis that is just to both sides and that both sides will have an interest in maintaining.

Q Dr. Kissinger, what, then, would you say has been the impact of the bombing and the mining and the possibility that if they have not done something so far, that they would in the future?

DR. KISSINGER: I just don't want to discuss where we stand in the negotiations. It is always very dangerous to take isolated intelligence reports or isolated excerpts from intelligence reports and build profound conclusions on them. Every report is based on a set of assumptions. It depends very much on what question it is supposed to answer. Therefore, I really don't want to discuss what may or may not have happened in these negotiations, to what degree what is happening now may or may not be affected by military actions. I do not think it is helpful, and, frankly, I don't think that isolated reports without very careful analysis can be used for definitive conclusions.

Q Dr. Kissinger, going back to the latest Viet Cong proposal, do you see any difference in this proposal? Is there anything different from the earlier position?

DR. KISSINGER: Again, I don't want to conduct the negotiations that are going on now publicly. As I have said, our basic principle is that we will not, as a result of a negotiation, impose a particular form of government that guarantees predominance to one side. I will stick to what was said at the plenary sessions by Ambassador Porter, and I will not go beyond that.

Q They said that their proposal was domination by no side.

DR. KISSINGER: The question is not what was said, but what the actual consequence of it is.

MORE

Q You characterized your meetings in the Soviet Union with words such as "major progress," "significant progress"? Could you use the same adjective to describe your meetings with Le Duc Tho?

DR. KISSINGER: I just wouldn't comment on the substance. I would like to, but we have an understanding that neither side will comment on the substance of the meetings, and I must maintain that.

Q Why is it that you didn't see Kosygin and he didn't take part in these discussions?

DR. KISSINGER: I think when General Secretary Brezhnev holds his next press conference, that will be a very good question to put to him. (Laughter)

Q Dr. Kissinger, in your discussions in Moscow, did you take up the question of the Russian ransom on Jewish would-be emigrants?

DR. KISSINGER: We raised this question in a number of ways, yes.

Q At this meeting?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, at this meeting.

Q In your opening remarks, you suggested you might be willing to say something about your discussions on Vietnam in the Soviet Union; that is, were they productive or can you say anything about them? Before you left, there were some reports that some people in the Administration, notably Secretary Rogers, held out hope for a settlement before or just after the election. Do you share this?

DR. KISSINGER: First, about the discussions on Vietnam in the Soviet Union, as Ron Ziegler has already said at his briefing, Vietnam was discussed and obviously it was discussed at some length. Again, it is clear that the Soviet Union stands for certain principles in its international affairs and that they have a different perspective on Vietnam than we do. But we had a full discussion, and that is really all I want to say about it.

Secondly, however, it has always been understood, we have always understood, that the issue of Vietnam will be settled finally in negotiations between us and our allies and the North Vietnamese and their allies, so that the ultimate solution of the Vietnam problem is not being sought by us in Moscow or Peking, or any other capital, but in the negotiations that are now going on in Paris.

Now, as for speculating when the war might end, as I understood the Secretary of State, he listed all the factors that might lead reasonable people to conclude that this was an opportune moment to end the war. All I can say, and I can only speak for us, we have always wanted to end the war by negotiation. We would like to end it as rapidly as possible through negotiations. I think it is better to let results speak for themselves, rather than to set arbitrary deadlines.

MORE

- 10 -

Q In light of your remarks about what the President asked you to convey to European leaders about more intensive consultations about the changed relations in the world, does that indicate to us that maybe the President is planning a trip to Europe soon after the election? If so, how soon?

DR. KISSINGER: This did not refer to any particular trips that the President might take. Let me say two things:

First of all, he was not speaking only about consultation; he was talking about content. One cannot always substitute consultation for policy. Our intention is to develop a program for an Atlantic partnership in close cooperation with our European friends, but it is reasonable to assume that one way or another they will expect to be in close touch with each other. I must say that the feeling that I conveyed on behalf of the President was strongly reciprocated by European leaders.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you said that you raised the question of ransom or exit fees for Soviet Jews. Can you tell us whether the Soviet Union indicated how seriously they are going to pursue this imposition?

And a related question: How does the Administration view the concern being expressed in Congress on this question of most-favored-nation for the Soviet Union so long as they maintain these exit fees?

DR. KISSINGER: We take Congressional expressions of respected Senators extremely seriously. When and if we conclude an agreement, we will submit it to the Congress for its approval. Then there can be a full debate on this particular issue. As for what may or may not happen in the Soviet Union with respect to this issue, I think I would rather not comment.

Q Dr. Kissinger, can you amplify on the SALT discussions that you had? Since the Summit meeting, there has been extensive debate about the Summit, with contentions made that the United States may be put in an inferior position. As you know, the Jackson resolution insists that there must be equality in the further discussions. Can you tell us whether the prospect for the second round of SALT has been impaired in any way by this debate?

DR. KISSINGER: No. We think that the prospects for the second round of SALT are good. I think both sides have now gained valuable experience in talking to each other about issues that great nations have never in the past talked to each other about. I have every hope that the next round of SALT may move even faster than the first round of SALT.

On the other hand, the conceptual problem with respect to the next round of SALT is much greater than it was with the last one for the following reasons: We have no difficulty whatever, indeed we agree with the proposition, that any agreement that may be made in the field of strategic arms limitation must be based on the principle of equality, and, indeed, I believe that we will have no difficulty getting Soviet agreement to this as an abstract proposition. The difficulty with respect to such a proposition is to define equality. How do you relate various weapons systems to each other when the weapons on both sides have been developed, at least to some extent, according to different objectives and with different technical criteria and with a different mix? So this is a problem that will have to be carefully and thoughtfully addressed. Secondly, the first round of SALT concentrated primarily on quantitative limitations. It may well be that in some of the early phases of SALT II this will be the case.

MORE

- 11 -

Yet, as one looks ahead in the more distant future,
one has to recognize that the strategic balance now can be
upset perhaps more decisively by qualitative changes than by
quantitative changes.

If you look at the problem of verification, you will
recognize that qualitative changes are infinitely harder to
verify and control than quantitative changes.

So I would say that we have a major intellectual
problem ahead of us, first, within our government to come up
with definitions to the problems which you raise.

Therefore, it is probable that the first stage of
these negotiations will concern principles, approaches, rather
than very precise negotiating positions, as indeed SALT I
did also.

But, on the other side of the ledger is that one
cannot help but be struck by the fact that one can now talk
to Soviet leaders about weapons on which the survival of
both sides depends, in a way that would have been inconceivable
in traditional diplomacy and would have been quite difficult
to imagine even in the first phase of the SALT negotiations.

But we have not developed our own thinking to a
point where we can be concrete and my impression was that the
Soviet leaders have the same intellectual problems that we
have, but it was interesting that both sides found it possible
to talk even about those.

Q Do you expect to have this trade treaty
ready to submit to Congress this session?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I don't want to predict when
this treaty will be finished. The Soviet delegations are
coming over here. We certainly hope to have it completed
before the end of this year. To have it ready by the end
of this Congressional session would be pushing it a little
hard, but we expect to iron out many of the remaining
difficulties; most of the remaining differences in the next
few weeks. How this will relate to the Congressional session
we cannot be sure. But this is our approximate schedule.

Q Do you consider the Jackson Amendment to be
a useful bargaining tool?

DR. KISSINGER: I think we have pretty well exhausted
the Jackson Amendment. It has now been passed by the Senate
and we stand by what we previously said with respect to it.

Q Was there any discussion with Soviet leaders
on the possible development of the Japan-China relationship?

DR. KISSINGER: As I pointed out, there was a general
review of the international situation, and this is not
one of its least significant aspects, but most of us recognize
this is a matter to be decided by the Government of Japan
and by the Government of the People's Republic of China, in
which, either separately or jointly, it would not be proper for
us to take a position.

MORE

- 12 -

Q At the time General Lavelle was carrying out unauthorized bombing raids over North Vietnam you were having private conversations with the North Vietnamese. Can you assess the impact of those unauthorized bombing raids on the conversations?

DR. KISSINGER: Of course, the North Vietnamese would not know which raids were authorized and which were unauthorized. (Laughter)

Secondly, as it happens, there were no private talks going on at the time between our side and the North Vietnamese. There were efforts to set them up, which foundered for a variety of reasons, including the presumed illness of Special Adviser Le Duc Tho. This particular issue has never figured in them, but there were no actual discussions; which, however, is not to defend unauthorized raids.

Q Dr. Kissinger, in relation to the ransom issue and what you remarked about this morning, are you saying, in effect, that the White House is opposed to something like the Ribicoff Amendment that would tie the ransom to the trade agreement?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't want to get into the particular legislative proposal that has been made in relation to this issue. When we have concluded a trade agreement, it will be put before the Congress and then there will be sufficient opportunity for Congressional leaders to express their opinion. That will be the appropriate time for us to express our opinion.

Q Henry, when do you anticipate the second round of SALT will begin?

DR. KISSINGER: We have not set a precise date for it yet, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will be this calendar year.

Q When do you expect the Soviet leaders to come over to the United States in reply to the invitation?

DR. KISSINGER: Again, no precise date for that has been set, but there were some general discussions. We expect it in the not indefinite future.

Q Dr. Kissinger, did the Soviet leaders ask you to explain the Administration's support of the Jackson Amendment and if they did, how did you explain it?

DR. KISSINGER: We discussed, in a general way, the conditions in which our relationships can be developed on a basis of mutual confidence. I believe that when I left there was a mutual feeling that we had made considerable progress in that direction and that events that had happened in the interval, whether or not they were liked in every detail by both sides, had not stood in the way of a further development of Soviet American relations.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.

END

(AT 12:25 P.M. EDT)

Dr. Kissinger Discusses His Visit to Moscow and Western Europe

Following is the transcript of a news conference held at the White House on September 16 by Henry A. Kissinger, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, together with the text of a U.S.-U.S.S.R. joint statement issued at Moscow and Washington September 14 at the conclusion of Dr. Kissinger's visit to Moscow.

TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE

White House press release dated September 16

Mr. Ziegler [Ronald L. Ziegler, Press Secretary to President Nixon]: I think you are all aware of the fact that Dr. Kissinger left Washington Saturday morning, September 9, and flew to Munich, where on Sunday, September 10, he met with Chancellor Willy Brandt and Foreign Minister of Germany [Walter] Scheel and also the opposition leaders.

He left Munich on Sunday and arrived in Moscow Sunday night, September 10, where he conducted meetings with the Soviet leaders in Moscow. We have released a joint statement on those meetings this past Thursday.

Dr. Kissinger then went to London and to Paris to meet with the leaders there and also during the course of his visit, as we have already announced, held meetings with Special Adviser Le Duc Tho and also Minister Xuan Thuy of North Viet-Nam.

Q. The recent past? [Laughter.]

Dr. Kissinger: First I want to make a personal comment about a remark in a newspaper whose enthusiasm for us is occasionally limited, which referred to my German accent. I wanted to say that when I was in Germany I had occasion to make a brief statement on television and I thought I might watch myself speak in one language correctly. Now I find I speak German with a Swedish accent. [Laughter.]

Now, I decided I might just as well proceed recklessly. [Laughter.]

The origin of the trip was during the summit meeting when, on the last day, General Secretary [of the Soviet Communist Party Leonid I.] Brezhnev and the President agreed that when our bilateral discussions had reached a point where significant progress could be made by high-level decisions they would establish direct contact with each other, in addition to the regular exchanges that are going on all the time anyway.

That point was reached in the course of the commercial negotiations and the discussions on European security and mutual balanced force reductions (MBFR), with respect to SALT [Strategic Arms Limitation Talks], and it was therefore decided that I should go to Moscow on behalf of the President to see whether these various matters could be brought to a further stage of negotiation.

The possibility was foreseen in the summit communique.¹ In the weeks prior to my visit

¹ For text of a joint communique issued at Moscow on May 29, see BULLETIN of June 26, 1972, p. 899.

October 9, 1972

389

Q. Dr. Kissinger, you said that you raised the question of ransom or exit fees for Soviet Jews. Can you tell us whether the Soviet Union indicated how seriously they are going to pursue this imposition? And a related question: How does the administration view the concern being expressed in Congress on this question of most-favored-nation for the Soviet Union so long as they maintain these exit fees?

Dr. Kissinger: We take congressional expressions of respected Senators extremely seriously. When and if we conclude an agreement, we will submit it to the Congress for its approval. Then there can be a full debate on this particular issue. As for what may or may not happen in the Soviet Union with respect to this issue, I think I would rather not comment.

Q. Dr. Kissinger, can you amplify on the SALT discussions that you had? Since the summit meeting, there has been extensive debate about the summit, with contentions made that the United States may be put in an inferior position. As you know, the Jackson resolution insists that there must be equality in the further discussions. Can you tell us whether the prospect for the second round of SALT has been impaired in any way by this debate?

Dr. Kissinger: No. We think that the prospects for the second round of SALT are good. I think both sides have now gained valuable experience in talking to each other about issues that great nations have never in the past talked to each other about. I have every hope that the next round of SALT may move even faster than the first round of SALT.

with respect to the next round of SALT is much greater than it was with the last one for the following reasons. We have no difficulty whatever, indeed, we agree with the proposition that any agreement that may be made in the field of strategic arms limitation must be based on the principle of equality, and indeed, I believe that we will have no difficulty getting Soviet agreement to this as an abstract proposition. The difficulty with respect to such a proposition is to define equality. How do you relate various weapons systems to each other when the weapons on both sides have been developed, at least to some extent, according to different objectives and with different technical criteria and with a different mix? So this is a problem that will have to be carefully and thoughtfully addressed. Secondly, the first round of SALT concentrated primarily on quantitative limitations. It may well be that in some of the early phases of SALT II this will be the case.

But on the other side of the ledger is that one cannot help but be struck by the fact that one can now talk to Soviet leaders about weapons on which the survival of both sides depends in a way that would have been inconceivable in traditional diplomacy and would have been quite difficult to imagine even in the first phase of the SALT negotiations.

But we have not developed our own think-

396

Department of State Bulletin

ing to a point where we will be concrete, and
my impression was that the Soviet leaders
have the same intellectual problems that we
have; but it was interesting that both sides
found it possible to talk even about those.

*Q. Do you expect to have this trade treaty ready to submit to Congress this session?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* Well, I don't want to predict when this treaty will be finished. The Soviet delegations are coming over here. We certainly hope to have it completed before the end of this year. To have it ready by the end of this congressional session would be pushing it a little hard, but we expect to iron out many of the remaining difficulties, most of the remaining differences, in the next few weeks. How this will relate to the congressional session we cannot be sure. But this is our approximate schedule.

*Q. Do you consider the Jackson amendment to be a useful bargaining tool?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* I think we have pretty well exhausted the Jackson amendment. It has now been passed by the Senate, and we stand by what we previously said with respect to it.

*Q. Was there any discussion with Soviet leaders on the possible development of the Japan-China relationship?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* As I pointed out, there was a general review of the international situation, and this is not one of its least significant aspects; but most of us recognize this is a matter to be decided by the Government of Japan and by the Government of the People's Republic of China in which, either separately or jointly, it would not be proper for us to take a position.

*Q. At the time General [John D.] Lavelle was carrying out unauthorized bombing raids over North Viet-Nam you were having private conversations with the North Vietnamese. Can you assess the impact of those unauthorized bombing raids on the conversations?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* Of course, the North Viet-

namese would not know which raids were authorized and which were unauthorized. [Laughter.]

Secondly, as it happens, there were no private talks going on at the time between our side and the North Vietnamese. There were efforts to set them up, which foundered for a variety of reasons, including the presumed illness of Special Adviser Le Duc Tho. This particular issue has never figured in them, but there were no actual discussions, which, however, is not to defend unauthorized raids.

*Q. Dr. Kissinger, in relation to the ransom issue and what you remarked about this morning, are you saying in effect that the White House is opposed to something like the Ribicoff amendment that would tie the ransom to the trade agreement?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* I don't want to get into the particular legislative proposal that has been made in relation to this issue. When we have concluded a trade agreement, it will be put before the Congress and then there will be sufficient opportunity for congressional leaders to express their opinion. That will be the appropriate time for us to express our opinion.

*Q. Henry, when do you anticipate the second round of SALT will begin?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* We have not set a precise date for it yet, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will be this calendar year.

*Q. When do you expect the Soviet leaders to come over to the United States in reply to the invitation?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* Again, no precise date for that has been set, but there were some general discussions. We expect it in the not indefinite future.

*Q. Dr. Kissinger, did the Soviet leaders ask you to explain the administration's support of the Jackson amendment, and if they did, how did you explain it?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* We discussed, in a general way, the conditions in which our relationships can be developed on a basis of mutual

October 9, 1972

397

confidence. I believe that when I left there
was a mutual feeling that we had made con-
siderable progress in that direction and that
events that had happened in the interval,
whether or not they were liked in every detail
by both sides, had not stood in the way of a
further development of Soviet-American
relations.

The press: Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.

U.S.-U.S.S.R. JOINT STATEMENT

White House press release da'ed September 14

As previously agreed, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
Assistant for National Security Affairs to the Presi-
dent of the United States of America, visited the
Soviet Union from September 10 to September 14.
During his visit to Moscow he had discussions with
Leonid I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the CPSU, and Andrei A. Gromyko,
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.

There was a general review of the course of Soviet-
American relations since the Summit meeting and
of international problems of interest to the Soviet
Union and the United States. The exchange of views
was frank and constructive.

In the course of the discussion of major interna-
tional issues, prominent attention was given to the
problems relating to European security, and prog-
ress was made regarding the next steps to be taken.

There also was a discussion of issues connected
with the resumption at an early date of negotiations
on the limitation of strategic arms.

Implementation of the bilateral agreements
reached at the Summit meeting was reviewed. It
was agreed that there already have been substantial
accomplishments and that further accomplishments
can be anticipated.

Special attention was given to the status of com-
mercial relations. Both sides reaffirmed the impor-
tance of these ties in strengthening mutual relations.
Significant progress was made on several issues of
principle in commercial relations between the two
countries. It was agreed that in view of this prog-
ress, negotiations on a lend-lease settlement and on
concluding a trade agreement would be continued
in Washington in September with the aim of com-
pleting them in the near future. It was also agreed
to conclude promptly the negotiations of the mari-
time agreement between the USSR and the USA.

160th Plenary Session on Viet-Nam
Held at Paris

Following are remarks made by Ambas-
sador William J. Porter, head of the U.S.
delegation, at the 160th plenary session of
the meetings on Viet-Nam at Paris on Sep-
tember 21.

OPENING REMARKS

Press release 233 dated September 21

Ladies and gentlemen: Some interesting
conclusions have arisen in the course of our
analysis of your side's presentations at the
plenary session last week and of the Sep-
tember 11 Viet Cong statement from which
you quoted extensively. My purpose today
is to acquaint you with these findings and
to invite you to comment upon them, in
whole or in part, as you deem appropriate.

Your own analysis of the situation, with-
in the comprehensive solution you propose,
classifies the problems to be resolved into
the conventional division of military ques-
tions and political questions. In each field
you have provided detailed prescriptions of
actions to be undertaken so that you may
obtain an overall settlement of the respec-
tive problems which you would consider
satisfactory. After careful assessment of the
factors you have listed as components of this
plan for settlement, one is justified in mak-
ing the following synthesis of it.

You envision settlement of the military
aspect of the Viet-Nam conflict as wholly
contingent upon observance of certain al-
leged responsibilities by the United States,
and by us alone. You envision settlement of
the political aspect of the conflict, on the
other hand, as wholly contingent upon your
unlimited acquisition and exercise of gov-
ernmental authority.

This curious disparity between unshared
responsibilities and unhampered preroga-
tives is clearly evidenced by the Viet Cong
statement.

First, in the military field, the United

398

Department of State Bulletin

- 13 -

#1559

The President said he feels there should be further reforms in the system. Reforms do not necessarily equate themselves with tax increases. That is a matter that has been fuzzed up, particularly during this period of an election year. These studies that the President has called for have not all been submitted to him. As to when they will be, I don't know. But he does feel, and this is the thing that he will do in his second term, that we should move toward instituting tax reform.

As to whether he will announce them before November, I don't know. The reason is that I don't know that he will conclude on what reform procedures he would recommend. But he has already said he didn't feel it would be worthwhile to recommend it to an election-year Congress.

Q No, I think he said he didn't think it would be worthwhile to have it deliberated during an election period. I don't think he went to the point of making proposals themselves.

MR. ZIEGLER: Before you make proposals you have to decide what they will be.

Q Are you saying there will be reform or it is being studied?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is being studied because the President feels there should be further reform in our tax system.

Q But you are not saying that he is actually going to propose them?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think in a second term you could expect the President would move in proposing tax reforms, sure.

Q Do you think it is a legitimate concern of the voters to know what the position of the candidate is on tax reform?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think it is certainly a legitimate concern to the voters as to what the President's attitude is about the tax system. I don't think voters want someone to put something forth if they have not concluded what they feel is in the voters best interest, and then change their mind later.

Q Is the President concerned with Soviet arms dealings with guerrilla groups in the Arab world?

MR. ZIEGLER: There has been a source story on that. I would not have any comment on that story.

Q He didn't ask for a comment on the story. He asked if the President was concerned with Soviet arms dealings with guerrilla groups.

MR. ZIEGLER: The thrust of his question was based on a source story which I will not comment on.

Q Changing the subject again, what ever became of those intelligence briefings for Mr. Warnke, Senator McGovern's representative?

MORE

#1559

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1562

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

6:48 P.M. EDT

SEPTEMBER 26, 1972

TUESDAY

(New York, N.Y.)

MR. ZIEGLER: As we mentioned to you earlier, the President has been involved in a series of meetings this afternoon. He met with Jewish leaders from around the country who are supporting his re-election this year. He met with them at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel for about 45 minutes.

Following that, the President met with leaders of the Re-Elect the President Committee in the State of New York. He met with them for about 20 minutes this afternoon.

When I left the hotel, the President was meeting with the leadership of the Democrats for Nixon Committee in the State of New York. I assume he will spend about a half hour with the leaders of the Democrats For Nixon Committee.

We will have for you this evening in this room, following the President's remarks at the Americana tonight at the Victory '72 dinner, several items that will be of interest to you. We will have the transcript of the President's remarks. We will have the schedule for San Francisco and Los Angeles, and we may have -- we are working on this now -- a statement which would be embargoed until 10:00 a.m. in the morning, but we would give this to you tonight so that you can file it before departure for San Francisco in the morning.

Q On what, Ron, please?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will let you know when we give it to you.

I believe you already know this, but just to run down the schedule a little bit before I give you a brief report on the meetings, baggage call is 6:45 in the morning. The press buses will leave the Commodore Hotel at 7:45 in the morning to go to Newark International Airport. The press plane will arrive in Oakland, California, at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.

The President is scheduled to depart the hotel tomorrow at about 9:30, or shortly before 9:30. He will arrive at Oakland International Airport at about 12:00 o'clock tomorrow. The luncheon tomorrow will be at 1:15 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel. The President's remarks will be at about 1:30.

Before the President leaves the Waldorf in the morning, he will meet with Peter Brennan, the president of the Building and Construction Trades Council. He is heading up a

MORE

#1562

- 2 -

#1562

committee of key labor leaders in New York State supporting the President's re-election. The President will meet with Mr. Brennan and the labor leaders, some 200 of them, who personally endorse the President for re-election. That meeting will take place at the Waldorf-Astoria.

Now, for the broadcast representatives here, there will be a picture of that session. Jerry Warren will have the details to give you on how that will work when he is here after the President's remarks tonight, to provide you with the materials I mentioned earlier.

Also, I believe Jerry has already told you, but just to restate it, the President signed a series of bills today before he departed the White House, some seven bills. Some of these have been routinely announced in Washington, but we will make those available to you just for your records, here in this room, following this briefing.

As I mentioned to you earlier, President Nixon met with Jewish leaders from around the country for about 45 minutes. We will have a list of those leaders available to you as soon as I am finished.

In the course of the discussion the President had with the leaders from the Jewish community, the President reiterated several points about the position that his Administration holds and the position the United States Government holds in relation to matters that, of course, are of interest to the Jewish community and to the Jewish leaders that the President met with.

First of all, the President reiterated the fact that the United States has been, is, and will continue to be committed to the survival of the State of Israel, and as a part of meeting this objective, the commitment to the survival of the State of Israel, the United States, the President said, is also committed to maintaining the strength of Israel, which, of course, contributes to stability in the Middle East, and that the United States would provide, as it has in the past, and will make available, the assistance to Israel to enable them to maintain their strength.

As a part of this, and a part of the discussion on this matter, the President also pointed out that the United States, under the Nixon Administration policy, is committed to a strong U.S. presence in the Mediterranean, and intends to maintain a strong presence in the Mediterranean because, as the President pointed out, he feels this assists in contributing to the stability of that part of the world.

The President also pointed out in his discussion that it has been our policy and will continue to be our policy that the United States will, under no circumstances, impose a settlement on Israel or impose a settlement on that part of the world. He made the point that the United States would do what it can, as we have in the past, to assist in arriving at further stability and settlement in the area, but in the final analysis, a settlement in the Middle East can only be reached by the parties in the area; in other words, by those states in the Middle East area.

MORE

#1562

- 3 -

#1562

There was some discussion, again, in regard to the matter relating to exit of individuals from the Soviet Union. The President pointed out that he understood the deep feelings about this matter and, indeed, shared the human concern involved in relation to people moving freely, and as they choose. He pointed out that it was his view that this problem cannot be solved by entering into harsh confrontation with the Soviet Union, because this type of approach would only serve to be counter-productive and would, the President said it was his view, end up hurting instead of helping the various individuals who are posed with this particular problem.

The President went on to point out that he does not intend to politicize the matter of the exit of Jews from the Soviet Union, and does not feel that the appropriate approach to the problem, as I said earlier, is through public confrontation. He went on to state that the Soviet Union is well aware of the views of the United States in relation to this matter, and the appropriate way to deal with this matter is through diplomatic channels, and that it would serve no purpose to politicize or demagogue about this matter.

The concern is there, obviously; the interest is there, particularly as it relates to the human element of this problem. The President's point was, as we have made before, that nothing would be served by discussing this particular matter in extensive public debate and in extensive public confrontation.

The President expressed his appreciation to the leaders of the Jewish community who were there for the efforts that they are putting forth on his behalf, and the meeting concluded after about, as I said, 45 minutes of discussion.

The meeting with the leaders of the Re-Elect Committee, there were some 20 there, was held in the Jansen Suite of the Waldorf, and the meeting with the Jewish leaders was held in the Carpenter Suite.

In the meeting with the leaders of the Re-Elect Committee, the President expressed his appreciation for their efforts and pointed to the fact that he considers New York State to be, of course, a key State, one in which he feels it is important to win, and he said he appreciated their efforts to assist him in doing so.

I did not stay for the meeting with the leaders of the Democrats for Nixon, so I cannot give you a detailed report on that, except I think I can tell you, again, that the President expressed his appreciation to those in attendance for their support and help.

Ron, in your account of the President's meeting with the American Jewish leaders, you said he advised them that this matter should be dealt with through diplomatic channels. Are you, in fact, using diplomatic channels to try to persuade the Soviet Government to try to change its policy in regard to exit of the Jews from the Soviet Union?

MR. ZIEGLER: My answer to that would have to be simply that, as we have said before, the Soviet Union is aware of the United States' view in relation to this matter. I do not want to go beyond that, except I have already, not only today but in the past, expressed the President's deep concern about

MORE

#1562

- 4 -

#1562

the matter, his interest in the matter, and have given you also
this afternoon, again, an expression of how he feels this
problem should be appropriately dealt with.

Q When was the Soviet Union first made aware
of the U.S. position?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think you well know the Soviet Union
has been aware of our views for quite some time. I think you
will recall Dr. Kissinger's remarks in Austria before we went
to the Soviet Union.

Q Ron, was the Ribicoff amendment discussed at
all?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, it was not.

Q Can you tell us whether the President favors
the Ribicoff amendment or not?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, Gene, I have expressed our posi-
tion on this and expressed our view. I really do not think
anything would be served by making any further comment on the
matter.

Q Is the problem with the Soviet Jews and the
exit via something that might affect Soviet trade with the
United States?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said earlier in my remarks, and I
will re-emphasize at this time, nothing will be served by
commenting on this matter beyond what we have said.

Q What did the President mean when he said he
did not want to politicize this matter?

MR. ZIEGLER: His point was, and my way of expanding
on that comment, perhaps, somewhat, is that it is obvious that
there is concern about this particular problem, but the way
to deal with it, the productive way, the way to deal with it
in a way that is not counter-productive, is not to engage in
extensive public debate about the matter, particularly at the
highest level of the United States Government, and also not to
inject the matter into the period of the next two months, the
debate of the next two months; that that would only serve to be
counter-productive to the President.

Q What did the President meet with them for?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President met with the Jewish leaders
to thank them for their support. All of those who were in
attendance are working hard in support of the President and
working extensively for his re-election.

Q I believe your words were that it served no
purpose to politicize or demagogue. Were you suggesting, or
was the President suggesting, that Senator McGovern or any of
his people were politicizing or demagoguing on this matter?

MR. ZIEGLER: My remarks were intended to give you a
general view as to what the President's view is in relation to
this matter.

MORE

#1562

- 5 -

#1562

Q Does the President want a moratorium on discussion of this issue during the campaign?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have expressed the views of the President as he stated them to the leaders, and really have nothing to add to them.

Q Does the President think that if there is public debate during the campaign, it will be counter-productive to free immigration or counter-productive to his campaign for re-election?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think if you listen to my remarks, you will find that your question is moot. I obviously was referring to the question I was discussing.

Q How does the White House determine who is a Jewish leader?

MR. ZIEGLER: We don't determine that. I think that is determined, as it is in any achievement of any individual within a given society, and that is the accomplishments of those individuals within their own community and their own country. I think when we release this list, you will find that the individuals on that list, in their own right, are leaders of the Jewish community.

Q Who invited them, then?

MR. ZIEGLER: We did.

Q How did you determine that they were Jewish leaders?

MR. ZIEGLER: They are leaders within the Jewish community who support the re-election of the President. They were invited for the purpose of the President expressing his thanks for their support.

Q Is this an ad hoc move?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't believe this group is formally constituted. It is a group of national leaders who are supportive of the President's re-election.

Q Was there any discussion on whether or not the Soviet Union should be granted most-favored-nation treatment under any trade agreement as long as they are charging an exit tax on Jews leaving the Soviet Union?

MR. ZIEGLER: Gene, the President's views in relation to dealing with this matter I have already expressed to you. I am not prepared to make any further comment.

Q Did any of the Jewish leaders ask the President to do more than what he had offered to do through diplomatic channels?

MR. ZIEGLER: The leaders there, of course, support the President and his policies. They expressed their appreciation in relation to the course that he is taking, the policies he has followed in the last four years.

MORE

#1562

- 7 -

#1562

Q Can you give a simple yes or no answer as to ---

MR. ZIEGLER: Maybe.

Q --- as to whether the President considers the
Ribicoff Amendment an effort to politicize this issue?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I told you at the White House in a
briefing, I have stated our general view on this, the President's
general view, and nothing would be served by getting into a
further discussion on this matter because indeed that would do the
very thing that the President feels should not be done.

Q Did the Jewish leaders raise the question of the
Ribicoff Amendment?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, they did not.

Q What we are trying to find out is whether this was
a one-sided dialogue, a monologue by the President, or was there
a discussion?

MR. ZIEGLER: I should have made that clearer. The
President made remarks in which he emphasized and reiterated
the policies that he has followed and the policies of his
Administration, therefore the United States Government, as I said
at the outset, on matters that he knew were of interest to the
leaders who were there. There was a brief period where leaders who
were present made comments; several did. Those comments were
supportive of the President's efforts.

Q But none of them brought up this issue?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think I made the point earlier that
several leaders expressed their concern about the problem and
also expressed confidence in the President's dealing with matters
in the appropriate way.

Q Ron, in dealing with his Middle East policy, did
the President say or does he in effect feel that his Administration
would be stronger for Israel than that of McGovern?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not going to get into a response to
that type of question. The President's record is clear on his
approach to this matter. I will not make the judgment. That
is up to you.

Q Did he not mention McGovern at all in his discussions
with the leaders?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Will the President be made available to any of us
on this trip?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think so.

Q There are a number of questions.

MR. ZIEGLER: We will let you know when a press
conference is scheduled.

MORE

#1562

- 8 -

#1562

Q I am confused on the original answer to Gene Righer's question. For those of us who might have missed that briefing, can you state for us the President's attitude on the Ribicoff Amendment and similar efforts?

MR. ZIEGLER: In the briefing at the White House that I am referring to I said that it was our position and feeling that nothing would be served by addressing that matter beyond the specific remarks I made.

Q How many were there?

MR. ZIEGLER: About 30. We will give you a list.

Q Why was the meeting held in New York?

MR. ZIEGLER: I suppose because the President was going to be here on this occasion.

Q But they came from all over the country?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q When you say discussions during the next two months could only serve to be counter-productive, are you leaving it open to a conclusion that the Administration had some discussions or understanding underway with the Soviet Union which would lead to the removal of the ransom or whatever?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. I think you have to put that response into context. That was in response to a question as to what I meant by "The President was determined not to politicize the issue." The question you are asking me, what I meant by that, so that you don't draw any broad, sweeping conclusions, as you have, my response was that I suppose what you could say what I mean by that would be to inject it into a public debate in the coming two months. I should have said six weeks.

Q Has the President any comment or has Dr. Kissinger raised the question of taking these three prisoners of war who were released to Peking and Moscow before they bring them to the United States?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, I don't think I should have a comment today beyond what I said in the White House, Saul. The important thing is that the men are on their way home. From the very outset we have been concerned about the well-being of not only these three men, but also of the many prisoners of war still held by the North Vietnamese. We are also concerned about the accounting for the missing in action.

These men are on their way home. Our interest, of course, is, as I am sure everyone's is, to see them return safely home and to be reunited with their families.

Q During the next six weeks, at any time before the election, do you expect there will be a Presidential news conference?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will let you know when one is set.

MORE

#1562

BRAY BRIEFING AT STATE

9/29/72

B-8

Q Charles, what is the status of the lend-lease talks?

A They continue.

Q Does it look like they will continue much longer?

A I can't offer you a projection here, Nick, as both a factual and a policy matter.

Q Can you confirm, as a matter of foreign affairs, the Soviet Minister of Merchant Marine is in Washington?

A That is really an Immigration matter, Tad.

Q Maybe he is asking for asylum. [Laughter.]

A I couldn't honestly guide you away from the conclusion that he might be, however.

Q He came here with a special skill. [Laughter.]

A Yes, Joe. Joe, I wish you'd leap right in, please.

Q Would you comment on the report this morning that the President had indicated the day before yesterday in New York to a group of Jewish leaders that the Rogers Plan is dead?

A No.

[10]

B-9

Q. Well, can you tell us whether or not the Rogers Plan of December 1969 regarding the Middle East settlement is still the Government's policy?

A. No. I won't have any comment on that at all. I will run the risk of reminding you that the Secretary has twice this week addressed questions on the Middle East, once before the General Assembly and once before the Council, but that is all I will say today on the subject.

Q. You did see the text?

A. Yes.

Q. We didn't.

Q. Charles, on another subject, if I may.

I'd like to ask what the Department of State's policy is in respect to officials of the Department participating in Congressional elections. I am referring directly to letter which runs in the New York Times this morning from an Assistant Secretary of State which seems to support Congressman Rooney in his staunch support -- to paraphrase the letter -- for the Department of State in the past. Is that in keeping with the Department policy?

A. I am not entirely familiar with it, Jim.

- 6 -

Q Can we go to a new subject?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. I have to get to a meeting. I will pick this up later. I'll take one more question.

Q The question is whether or not the Rogers formula which the Secretary of State pronounced on December 1969 is still U.S. government policy.

MR. ZIEGLER: I stated in New York yesterday our view in relation to the Middle East and have nothing further to say on that.

Q That doesn't answer the question, though, because the paper this morning says the Rogers formula is dead. Is it dead or is it not?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said, I would refer you to the briefing we held in New York the other day.

Q There was no mention in the briefing of the Rogers formula.

MR. ZIEGLER: I understand, but I think we have outlined our position on the Middle East quite clearly. We have consistently said, and I reiterated in New York the other day, that the United States Government had no intention to impose a settlement on the Middle East. Ultimately, the situation there will have to be solved by the parties involved. We will do what we can to assist in the discussions that can lead to a settlement in the area and bring stability to the Middle East. That is our position and I can't be more clear.

Q You are not, then, challenging the statement that the Rogers formula is dead?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not going to comment on Rollie Evans and Bob Novak's column this morning. I am here to state what our position is. I did that in New York and I am doing it today.

Q Can we say that the position of insubstantial changes in the boundaries that existed prior to 1967 are no longer part of the U. S. formula?

MR. ZIEGLER: You can say what I just stated to you.

Q The Washington Post this morning said that former Attorney General Mitchell was in charge of the so-called secret fund which was used for intelligence purposes against the Democrats. Is that true or isn't it true, and if so, what was former Attorney General Mitchell's role in it?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think that has already been answered by the Committee. They have already denied that story.

Q With reference to your meeting in New York, the question was about no hard confrontation of the Soviet refugee issue. The question I have is whether or not you consider the Jackson proposal a confrontation that is harsh, in your view.

MORE

#1563

- 7 -

MR. ZIEGLER: You were not in New York, obviously, for the briefing.

Q I was not, but I read the transcript here. I assume that is accurate.

MR. ZIELGER: Yes, it is. I said at that time that I had nothing further to say on the subject, so I will just refer your questions to the transcript.

Q Do you have any comment on the joint communique between China and Japan last night?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I do not.

Q Does the United States view with favor the re-establishment of relations between Japan and China?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have a comment on the subject, which I have said before is essentially a matter between the two countries involved.

END

(AT 11:26 A.M. EDT)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1565

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:10 A.M. EDT

OCTOBER 2, 1972

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President, as you know, is meeting this morning with Foreign Minister Gromyko. Dr. Kissinger and Secretary Rogers are sitting in that meeting, together with Ambassador Dobrynin. The meeting is still going on, so I don't have a report on that meeting for you.

The President held a similar meeting with Foreign Minister Gromyko, who is in the United States to attend the U.N. General Assembly, last September 29th. The meeting will give the President and the Foreign Minister an opportunity to review the progress of the United States-Soviet relations since the summit, and to discuss continuing bilateral and international issues of mutual interest.

There will be a small working dinner tonight. The President mentioned this, while the pool was in his office. The dinner will be at seven o'clock at Camp David. We will have a guest list available for this dinner shortly, but those you would expect will be there, Secretary Rogers, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Dobrynin, and a few others. We will provide you that later. Very likely Secretary Peterson will be there, and others who have been involved in the Soviet negotiations.

The President will remain overnight at Camp David, as will Foreign Minister Gromyko and Ambassador Dobrynin and Dr. Kissinger and Secretary Rogers.

The President and Foreign Minister Gromyko will return to the White House tomorrow morning for a ten o'clock ceremony for the formal exchange of Instruments of Ratification between the U.S. and USSR to bring into force the ABM treaty which was ratified by the United States Senate on August 3rd and by the USSR Supreme Soviet on September 29th.

The President will, at the ceremony, sign a Proclamation of the treaty. There will also be an exchange of letters between the President and Mr. Podgorny, Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, notifying each other of the acceptance of the interim agreement. This will bring the agreement into force for five years. This agreement would enter into force, as you know, only when the ABM treaty is entered into force through the Instruments of Ratification.

MORE

#1565

- 2 -

#1565

Attending the ceremony will be Foreign Minister Gromyko, Ambassador Dobrynin, members of the Cabinet and members of the SALT Delegation and associated agencies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the appropriate Members of Congress will also be present for that ceremony tomorrow at ten o'clock in the East Room of the White House.

Q: Will there be pictures tonight?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, there will be no pictures tonight.

The President will depart for Camp David at about one or 1:30 this afternoon, and as I said, will return in the morning.

Q: Are they going up together, the President and Foreign Minister Gromyko?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I don't believe so. The President is going up at one or 1:30 and the rest of the party is scheduled to go up later in the afternoon.

We have provided you a rundown of the announcements that we have to make today.

The President announced today the appointment of Douglas R. Leisz, Regional Forester for the California Region of the U.S. Forest Service as the nonvoting federal representative to the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. He succeeds John W. Deinema, the former Regional Forester, whose resignation the President is accepting today.

The President has signed six bills.

S. 3442 -- Communicable Disease Control Amendments Act of 1972.

H.R. 6204 -- A private relief bill.

H.R. 7616 -- National Guard Claims.

H.R. 9135 -- Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden.

H.R. 12207 -- Central, Western, and South Pacific Fisheries Development Act.

H.R. 14173 -- A private relief bill.

Those are all the announcements that we have. We will post here this afternoon at three o'clock.

Q: Ron, just a technical question. You said acceptance of the agreement for five years. The ABM agreement is not for five years. That is the interim agreement, isn't it?

MR. ZIEGLER: The interim agreement is for five years.

Q: You had it confused.

MR. ZIEGLER: I did misstate myself because the material that has been given to me mixes that up in it. I did say five years. That is incorrect. The interim agreement is for five years.

Thank you, Pete.

MORE

#1565

- 3 -

#1565

Q On the same subject, I understand the
President is going to sign the Joint Congressional
Resolution on Saturday, which contains the Jackson Amendment.
Does this mean that the Jackson Amendment now becomes a
part of the interim agreement?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, the President signed the interim agreement which runs for five years this past Saturday. No, it does not mean that the Jackson Amendment becomes a part of the interim agreement. The formal obligations of the interim agreement are those contained in the document signed by General Secretary Brezhnev and President Nixon in the Soviet Union. That is what the understanding of the agreement is.

The Jackson Amendment, as you know, and as we have discussed here before, is advisory in nature and will be, of course, taken into account seriously in the U.S. preparation of the SALT 2 phase, but it does not become a part of the interim agreement which was signed by the President.

Q What is the opening date of Phase 2 of SALT?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have said before the end of the year. I can't be more specific than that.

Q Is that one of the things that might be decided in the discussions at the meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sure the subject of SALT 2 will come up. I don't want to say this will be the forum for deciding the precise date.

Q Did you say the five years for the interim agreement starts tomorrow?

MR. ZIEGLER: The five year interim agreement comes into force at the time of the signing of the ABM treaty, which is what I garbled out earlier and Pete corrected me on.

Q But that hasn't been signed?

MR. ZIEGLER: The interim agreement was signed in the Soviet Union. When we returned we asked the Congress to pass a supporting resolution. That is what the President signed Saturday, the supporting resolution. But the interim agreement goes into effect at the time of the formal exchange of papers relating to the ABM treaty.

Q When is that?

MR. ZIEGLER: It will be signed tomorrow at ten o'clock. The ABM treaty will be signed tomorrow at ten o'clock.

Q In other words, because of the way it was set up in Moscow, everything goes into effect when it is signed tomorrow?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, when the ABM treaty is signed.

MORE

#1565

- 8 -

#1565

MR. ZIEGLER: I really don't want to set percentages on a matter of Presidential communication, but we will let you know when there is one.

There is none set at this time, and I don't want to get into percentages, obviously, but I am not going to rule out the possibility. I fully expect there will be a press conference between now and November.

Q Ron, this is sort of an historical question. Is this the first time a Foreign Minister has spent the night at Camp David?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, it is not.

Q Clark MacGregor was quoted as saying that beginning in the middle of the month, I believe, the last three weeks before Election Day, that plans are being laid for more intensive campaigning by the President. Can you add anything to that?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think he qualified that and was not outlining the President's schedule. In his remarks he pointed out that he was not doing so. A lot of this depends, as I think my earlier answer pointed out, on the Congress and their actions and their activity.

Q Did the President and Mr. Gromyko discuss the problem of the Soviet Jews?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have told members of the press what our view is on that subject. I had an extensive briefing in New York last week on that subject, and I have nothing to add to that.

Incidentally, the meeting lasted an hour and ten minutes, and apparently has just ended.

Q Will you be coming back to give us a fill on the meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't believe today that I would have anything further to add to what I have said. I don't think there is much I can add. All of you are familiar with the ABM Treaty and I have announced that will be signed tomorrow. I think most of you in the room are sufficiently familiar with the on-going matters that we have to discuss with the Soviet Union based upon Henry Kissinger's very extensive briefing here when he returned from the Soviet Union. So I think you should conclude that the Foreign Minister and the President will be talking about all of those things.

Q Ron, President Thieu says the North Vietnamese negotiators are being more uncooperative than ever, and yet the President says the chance for peace is better than ever. I am wondering who is right?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have a comment to offer you on the state of the negotiations.

MORE

#1565

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1566

AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH RON ZIEGLER
AT 11:07 A.M. EDT

OCTOBER 3, 1972

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: In addition to the signing ceremony this morning, the President today at noon will meet with Joe L. Matthews. He is the newly elected National Commander of the American Legion. He was elected to that position shortly after the President spoke to the Legion Convention in Chicago on August 24th. As has been the case in the past with other recent visits by National Commanders of veterans' organizations, this will be a courtesy call traditionally made by the newly elected National Commanders and this will give the President an opportunity to congratulate Mr. Matthews on his election as National Commander of the nation's largest veterans' organization.

Then at 12:15 this afternoon, the President will meet with John F. Leyden, the new President of the Professional Traffic Controllers organization, here in Washington. This meeting will give the President an opportunity to congratulate Mr. Leyden on his election.

Those are all the schedule announcements we have. I think we have the fact sheet that we put together on the signing ceremony this morning, including the details of the conference table which was used for the signing and the other details on that.

We have given you several announcements which I think you have. They indicate that the President is issuing the annual Columbus Day Proclamation designating Monday, October 9th, as Columbus Day.

The President today is transmitting to the Congress the OEO Annual Report on Grantee Salaries of $10,000 or more, as required by law. We have a computer print-out copy of this report and the list includes those persons who receive more than $10,000 per year from any agency which is partially or fully funded by OEO whether or not those persons receive any OEO funds. A copy of this report is available here.

I think most of you have already been told or are aware of the fact that the dinner last night at Camp David lasted for about two hours. The breakfast this morning was attended by Secretary Rogers, Dr. Kissinger, Foreign Minister Gromyko and Ambassador Dobrynin, the Soviet Ambassador to the United States. After that breakfast, the party just mentioned returned to the White House with the President for the ceremony that has already taken place.

Those are all the announcements that we have this morning. We will post this afternoon at three o'clock. There is no schedule for tomorrow that I have to give you. The President will be following the Wednesday pattern of staff meetings and intensive review of legislation which is being considered by the Congress and which he has before him.

MORE

#1566

- 2 -

#1566

Q What can you say about the substance of the meeting at Camp David? Did he complete the lend lease agreement and the maritime agreement?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said yesterday, the purpose of the discussions between the President and the Foreign Minister was not to negotiate the details on matters such as trade which would include, of course, lend lease. As Dr. Kissinger, I think, pointed out to you in the press conference he held after he returned from the Soviet Union, the major issues of principle have been resolved between the United States and the Soviet Union and there are on-going talks taking place at other levels by officials in both governments.

The President and the Foreign Minister, of course, discussed matters of trade between the two countries. They talked about other bilateral matters and talked about European matters, the European Security Conference, of course, the mutual balanced force reduction. They talked about Vietnam. They talked about the Middle East. They talked about other areas of the world, but the discussions that the President and the Foreign Minister held were not negotiations, as such. Much of that has already taken place.

Q Did the President indicate that the United States is prepared to begin MBFR talks sometime at the end of January or at the European Security Conference talks in Helsinki on the 22nd of November?

MR. ZIEGLER: Here again, I think as Dr. Kissinger pointed out in his press conference, the issues of principle have been worked out and we are in the process now of consulting with our allies, so there is nothing new to add to that.

Q Ron, can you tell us what the other bilateral matters were that were discussed?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe everyone here is sufficiently familiar with the matters we have under discussion with the Soviet Union relating to a great extent to trade, of course relating to Phase 2 of SALT. The Maritime Agreement which relates to trade, those types of things.

Q Not on the head tax, was that discussed?

MR. ZIEGLER: This was a matter which we have said frequently, and I referred to this again in New York, the Soviet Union is well aware of our position on that matter; this was discussed, yes.

Q It was discussed?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q What was the reaction of the Soviets?

MR. ZIEGLER: It would not serve any purpose for me to go beyond that statement.

Q Can you tell us what the President said about it in this connection?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am only prepared to indicate to you that the Soviets are aware of our position.

MORE

#1566

- 3 -

#1566

Q When is the second phase of SALT beginning, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have a specific date to give you, Nick. I have seen a date speculated on. We have said we anticipated the second phase to begin before the end of the year.

Q Is the President having another formal conference today with Mr. Gromyko as opposed to their exchanges this morning?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q No further formal meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Is Mr. Rogers going to have further discussions?

MR. ZIEGLER: The Foreign Minister returns to New York later this afternoon. We will have to check that. The Secretary has been involved in all of the meetings up to this point. I don't know if they have anything further to discuss or not. We will check that for you, Bob.

Q Was there any discussion of a possible date when Mr. Brezhnev might come here?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have anything new to give you on that.

Q Ron, when Dr. Kissinger came back from Moscow, he said he was confident that these trade agreements, et cetera, would be wrapped up in two weeks. We are entering the third week. You say after the meeting between Gromyko and Nixon that you are confident still that they are imminent?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't recall Henry pinning himself down to a matter of specifically two weeks. I think he said in about two weeks, not in two weeks. There is a difference.

Q Can you give us some statement of optimism or confidence?

MR. ZIEGLER: I will do that, but I just wanted to put Henry's remarks in context. The discussions that are occurring and that Dr. Kissinger referred to, are moving along quite well and I think what he reflected in his press conference, the details on these matters would be worked out very soon, stands.

#1566

- 6 -

#1566

Q Ron, was the President aware of the meeting the three Jewish leaders had with the Secretary of State last night before he discussed the issue of head tax with Mr. Gromyko?

MR. ZIEGLER: I really have nothing more to say on that subject.

Q But this is a simple question.

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, if you are asking me whether or not the President was aware that the Secretary met with three Jewish leaders yesterday, that was a matter of public record, and the President was aware of that.

I will confirm the fact that the President was aware of the fact that the Secretary met with three Jewish leaders, but I will not go beyond that. I have made a comment on this matter, and it would serve no purpose to say anything further.

END

(AT 11:20 A.M. EDT.)

#1566

Assistant Secretary Sisco Discloses
Middle East Policy for Israeli Television,
Monday, October 9, 1972

QUESTION:

Mr. Sisco, terrorism is on the agenda of the United Nations, indeed on the agenda of the world, what has the United States done so far to fight international terrorism?

MR. SISCO:

We've launched a very broad program internationally. The core of it was made public in Secretary Rogers' speech before the General Assembly a few days ago; we are trying to move on as many fronts as possible simply because of the fact that we feel that, as you've indicated, it is a worldwide problem, though, of course, many of the more recent manifestations emanate from the Middle East. It's a problem that concerns every country in the world and that's the reason why we're in the forefront of trying to get the United Nations - the international community - to come to grips with this problem.

QUESTION:

Would you specify what has been done, especially in Europe to start with.

MR. SISCO:

We feel there are a number of very important conventions which are already in existence on the hijacking problem. We have been discussing this matter with countries not only in Europe but all over the world in hopes that international law can be strengthened in this field by creating obligations on states - the kind of obligations and climate which would encourage countries to take actions against states who harbor or fail to punish hijackers as they should; that is if they do not discharge their obligations, they do not make hijackers available, and generally do not cooperate in coping with the problem. So what it really amounts to is that we are trying to strengthen the law and

to give it teeth and to include sanctions wherever it's
necessary. We think, obviously, Europe is an important
area but it's worldwide; and you really need cooperation
from all over the world because nobody knows where the
next target will be.

QUESTION:

What kind of response have you got so far from European
countries:

MR. SISCO:

Well, I think on the whole the response has been
very good. In the Legal Committee of the General Assembly
there is a current discussion in train intended to give
added strength to the conventions on the protection of
diplomats and government officials. Secondly, we have
inscribed on the agenda of the UN General Assembly an item
on terrorism and the United States has already submitted
an initial draft convention which is designed to deal with
the problem of the export of terrorism. This draft, for
example, covers the kind of senseless attacks that took place
at the Lod Airport. It covers the kind of despicable attack
that occurred at Munich. Our hope is that the Assembly will
discuss terrorism in great detail and, as far as we're
concerned, the sooner action is taken by the international
community the better.

QUESTION:

But action surely is the business of governments and
my question referred to governments in Europe. Do they do
something practical about this matter right now?

MR. SISCO:

Yes, I think that a number of governments have done
something practical, let me give you a good example. Any
number of governments in Europe and elsewhere have looked,
for example, at their control measures. There's need for
greater coordination between countries. There's need for
greater exchange of information. There's need for more
careful scrutiny of visa procedures, passport procedures.

INTERPOL, which met in Frankfort recently has adopted unanimously an American resolution. INTERPOL has decided to utilize its existing machinery to maximize the exchange of information because this is most helpful in identifying prospective perpetrators of terrorism. We are under no illusions, it is a very difficult problem because terrorism can strike in many different ways; for example, the recent mail bombings. In this connection we welcome the fact that INTERPOL in recent weeks has been concentrating on this particular problem and is helping to cope with it. We in the United States, for example, have reviewed and tightened all kinds of procedures relating to people moving in and out of the country.

### QUESTION:

On the whole, are you happy with whatever has been done so far?

MR. SISCO: Well, I'd say it's a good beginning, but again we do not underestimate the difficulties in achieving maximum cooperation. While this problem is worldwide, it really depends on the attitude and the will of states. This problem is being dealt with in a highly delicate political context; whether we are talking about the Middle East primarily or whether we are talking about other areas of the world. As far as we're concerned, we're going to stay at this problem, we are going to work at it not only within diplomatic channels but in all possible international forums because we feel no individual is immune from terrorist attacks.

### QUESTION:

Mr. Sisco, are you happy with the results so far?

MR. SISCO:

I believe we have made a reasonably good beginning. We are under no illusions; this is something which will require determination and persistence. It is a difficult problem with which to cope largely because it is difficult to ascertain where the next terrorist act will take place. But we will persevere; we will pursue this matter within diplomatic channels, we will pursue the matter in all possible international forums. The achievement, if I can

- 4 -

use the word achievement, to date is that we have a good
many countries interested and world opinion is being
focussed on it. Obviously, strengthening the law and
getting teeth behind the law is not the only way. Obviously,
one has also to get at problems that give rise to these
things, but that's another part of the problem.

QUESTION:

What about the Arab countries that support and harbor terrorists? Can you do anything, do you see any move on the side of the Arab countries so far on that problem?

MR. SISCO:

We are trying to get across the idea to all countries
and that includes the Arab countries, that all countries
have a responsibility, and particularly in the context of
the Middle East, no one can disclaim a responsibility.
We have made it very clear in numerous speeches in the UN
that we are against violence from whatever quarter. Our
recent veto, for example, was based on the assumption and
on the belief that the past one-sided results in the
Security Council do not contribute to an alleviation of
the situation in the area; that to try to condemn one aspect
of violence while disregarding the other contributes to the
tension rather than to reduce it.

QUESTION:

Does the United States agree with Israel that inter-
national terrorism is the first obstacle to be removed before
any negotiations in the Middle East can take place.

MR. SISCO:

I would put it this way. Certainly dealing with
terrorism is a central concern insofar as the United States
is concerned; it has a very significant priority and it's
the first step on the agenda, if I can put it that way.
I believe this helps to explain why we have made the recent
moves in the UN General Assembly, in INTERPOL and in the
International Civil Aviation Organization. At the same time,
however, there is no doubt in our mind that what is needed
is the beginning of a negotiating process - a negotiating
process between the parties. We feel and continue to feel

that the most feasible approach is an interim Suez Canal agreement. We have indicated a willingness to play a role if this is the desire of the parties concerned. Basically, we feel that the chasm on the question of an overall settlement is a very broad one and that the most feasible approach is the step-by-step approach; for this reason we believe the doors of diplomacy are and should remain open. We are struck with the fact that regardless of all of the difficulties in the area, the ceasefire continues after 26 months. I believe there is less risk of direct confrontation in the Middle East today than there was some months ago. The doors of diplomacy are open in the sense that the principal parties are still committed to the November 1967 Security Council Resolution even though the two sides have different interpretations of that resolution. What this amounts to is this: if we can begin the process of dealing with terrorism, if we can regain the kind of climate which we believe was evolving in the period prior to Munich, then it ought to be possible to achieve a negotiating process looking towards a partial agreement.

### QUESTION:

Mr. Sisco, you had a meeting on Wednesday with Foreign Minister Zayyat, do you see any sign on the Egyptian side that the Egyptians would be willing in the near future to get to the proximity talks?

### MR. SISCO:

There was no new ground broken in that meeting between Secretary Rogers and the Foreign Minister of Egypt. We continue to believe that both sides are keeping the doors of diplomacy open, and while no new ground has been broken, there's no reason to believe that any doors to diplomacy have been closed.

### QUESTION:

Would you elaborate a little on this?

### MR. SISCO:

No, I do not think I can go beyond that. I believe the positions of both Israel and Egypt with respect to the interim agreement and an overall settlement are very well known. Basically, what I'm saying is that at the moment, for the time being, there is no change in the position on either side.

QUESTION:

Which means that the Egyptians will not for the foreseeable future get to the proximity talks?

MR. SISCO:

What I'm saying is that the Egyptian position is what it has been. In so far as the proximity talks are concerned, Israel informed the United States last February of its willingness to engage in proximity talks without pre-conditions under the aegis of the United States. The Egyptian position has been that before it is willing to engage in such proximity talks it wants a prior Israeli commitment to the Jarring memorandum of February 1971. Israel has not accepted that position. Egypt has not changed its position in this regard and therefore the likelihood, as long as these two positions remain the same, the likelihood of proximity talks in the next week or two I think are not very great

QUESTION:

And beyond that?

MR. SISCO:

Well, I used the words "a week or two", I could have said a month or two, or three; I'm using this very loosely; I don't want to put any time limit on all of these things. What is key is that negotiations are the root to a partial agreement. We believe there are opportunities. Regardless of all the difficulties in the area, the minimal conditions are prevalent for diplomacy to take hold. We are going to continue to work to this end.

QUESTION:

You do not foresee a danger of war in the near future in the Middle East?

MR. SISCO:

The likelihood of war in the Middle East in the immediate future has diminished. It is significant that, as uneasy as it is, the cease-fire is being maintained. I would like to take this opportunity to say to my Israeli

audience that I remain convinced that President Sadat needs
and wants a political solution. I believe it is not
insignificant that Egypt remains committed to Security
Council Resolution 242 even though its interpretation is
different from the Israeli interpretation. In other words, the
framework is still there for further efforts towards a
negotiated peace called for by SC 242.

QUESTION:

Mr. Sisco, Premier Sidky will be going to Moscow on the
15th, in a week or so, do you foresee a return, a massive
return, a possibility of a massive return of Russians to
the Middle East to Syria, Egypt, perhaps?

MR. SISCO:

Well, I don't think I ought to speculate on that, I
believe what is a fact is that there has been a reduction of
the Soviet presence in Egypt, but obviously the Soviet
Union continues to be a significant factor in the Middle
East. You will recall that when President Sadat announced
his decision some months ago, one of the points made was that
consultations between Egypt and the Soviet Union would take
place on the question of future USSR-Egyptian relationships.
I don't want to speculate; the decision taken by President
Sadat was an internal decision, it was one taken by the
Egyptian Government, and I would prefer to wait and see.

QUESTION:

But is the Soviet presence in the Middle East still a
serious presence, do you regard it as serious?

MR. SISCO:

The Soviet presence continues to be a substantial
one in the Middle East. I believe the need for a political
settlement which results in a durable peace continues to be
of major importance. As long as the no-war, no-peace situation
continues in the Middle East, we will have instability and
there will be risks and dangers in the situation. The answer,
of course, is a political answer - a peace agreement. We
have always felt that it is important for there to be a strong
American presence in the Mediterranean, not only because this
is important in maintaining the balance in the area, but
because if American diplomacy is to have any real significance
in the area it has to be bulwarked by American strength.