Rotterdam: "Nixon Report Underlines Contradictions"

Independent liberal NRC Handelsblad of Rotterdam declared on Monday that
President Nixon's foreign policy report "underlines the problem the U.S. faces
in reconciling internal contradictions in its foreign policy."

It reasoned that "the more successful Nixon's approaches to the Soviet Union and
China, the more difficult it becomes to use the old anxieties and threats to
achieve Washington's other goals."

For this reason, the paper concluded, "and also in the light of Kissinger's recent
suggestions of a new Atlantic charter, it would be useful to examine the practical
benefits of good Atlantic cooperation in a changing world.

"It is on this basis that Nixon's forthcoming discussions in Europe
should be anchored.

"Good will on both sides will be needed, but at the moment there
is not much to be seen in the way of good will on either side...."

Vienna: Brezhnev Visit and Watergate

People's Party Volksblatt of Vienna observed yesterday that the Watergate affair
"approaches its climax just as Soviet Party chief Brezhnev is preparing for his
visit to Washington....

"Nixon will undoubtedly seize on foreign policy matters to save
what can be saved. There is reason to fear that he will resort
to any means to score foreign policy successes like those of his
first term visits to China and the USSR."

No. 54

12

5/9/73

Tokyo: "Nixon Critical, U.S. Side Conciliatory"

Japanese media, which have been critical of the language concerning the U.S. - Japan trade imbalance in President Nixon's foreign policy message (See WTCI Nos. 52 and 53, May 4 and 7, 1973), reported a somewhat improved atmosphere at the bilateral economic consultations in Washington this week.

Moderate Tokyo Shimbun commented editorially today:

"Although it would be a hasty conclusion to think that the strained U.S.-Japan relations have begun to improve, the U.S. side at the trade consultations in Washington recognized, for the first time, that the balance of Japan-U.S. trade is improving."

Asserting that "President Nixon hurled strong criticism against Japan and the European Community in his foreign policy report," the paper declared:

"The U.S. side at the trade consultations showed a somewhat conciliatory attitude because it decided that the maintenance of a rigid attitude toward Japan would stimulate nationalistic sentiment among the Japanese people and lead to further worsening of Japan-U.S. relations."

The paper added that "there are indications" the Japanese side for the same reason "did not criticize the anti-inflation and protectionist policies of the U.S. Administration."

"Confrontation With Congress Could Hamper Trade Bill"

Economic Nihon Keizai said today that the trade consultations had ended after "confirming that the trade imbalance had passed the peak and was headed toward correction." It declared:

"Although the U.S. side continues to make strong demands on liberalization of computers and agricultural imports, it is reported that at the Washington meeting there was a considerable relaxation of the tense and harsh atmosphere of the negotiations between the two countries for the past two years...

"The growing hope for settlement of the trade imbalance, which was the main cause of tension in U.S.-Japan economic relations, has opened the way for reconstruction of the international trade system on a global scale."

No. 54

13

5/9/73

However, the paper expressed concern that the "confrontation" between Presi-
dent Nixon and the Congress over the Watergate affair "could present difficulties
in the discussions of the new trade legislation which begin May 9."

Pakistani TV: "Realistic Nixon Report"

The President's foreign policy report continued to evoke mixed media reaction
in Pakistan.

Commentator H. K. Burki of Government-controlled television observed:

"In last year's report, references made about Pakistan were not clear-cut. This was inevitable due to the situation at the time in Pakistan. However, during the past year the situation has changed and Pakistan has stood on its own feet. Therefore, President Nixon's attitude towards Pakistan in the present report is realistic and meaningful..."

He added that "President Nixon has also paid tribute to President Bhutto, which should be an eye-opener for some cynics in Pakistan who say unpleasant things about President Bhutto...."

"What Kind of System for Subcontinent?"

Independent, usually anti-Bhutto *Hurriyet* of Karachi questioned President Nixon's plea for a strong regional system in South Asia. It said:

"As far as keeping the Subcontinent out of big-power politics goes, every rational person will support it. But it is not clear what he meant...."

"Even if he has no particular regional system in mind, the question remains how such a system can be shaped when one of its members claims superiority over others..."

A columnist in independent *Dawn* of Karachi linked the Nixon report with a recent *New York Times* interview with the Shah of Iran and viewed these developments as "the start of a new and possibly more intense cold war in Asia." He said, "Our corner of the world seems to be fated to become a nastier place to live in."

No. 54

14

5/9/73

New Delhi: "U.S. Wants Mature Ties"

The independent moderate **Statesman** of Calcutta and New Delhi considered on
Monday that "there is good reason to welcome what appears to be a very
necessary departure from the earlier U.S. policy of 'tilting' in favor of
Pakistan.

"Clearly, this is an invitation to regard Indo-U.S. relations
during the Bangladesh crisis as a closed chapter and to es-
tablish mature ties on the basis of prevailing realities...."

Independent **Amrita Bazar Patrika** of Calcutta expected on Monday that "President Nixon's new approach to Indo-U.S. relations" would be welcomed in India "as it appears to reflect a genuine desire on his part to revise the trend that began with the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971...

"He probably sounds more unconvincing when he pleads for an
end to the 'arms race in the Subcontinent.' He certainly cannot
be unaware of who started this race and is continuing it still.
Neither does he appear to have realized the fact that resumption
of U.S. arms supplies to Rawalpindi has been serving as the
biggest stumbling block to 'reconciliation in this Subcontinent.'"

A Turkish View


A commentator in moderate-left **Cumhuriyet** of Istanbul said last week that in
his AP speech "Mr. Kissinger was telling us that in political affairs the Truman
Doctrine has been superseded by the Nixon Doctrine... in monetary affairs, the
Bretton Woods Agreement is just a piece of paper... and in military matters,
MBFR and SALT make it necessary to review NATO's functions...."

He suggested, however, that "Mr. Kissinger may be using this situation to bargain
with the Common Market partners" in an effort to improve the U.S. balance of
payments deficit. He concluded that "Washington would not wish to cast doubt
on NATO" and judged that NATO's southern flank could become more important
in view of Middle East tensions.

No. 54

15

5/9/73

Kinshasa: "Europeans Suspect Charter Idea"

Government-sponsored Elima of Kinshasa, commenting last week on the proposal for a new Atlantic charter, reported that "in Paris, the tone is not so optimistic" about Mr. Kissinger's idea. Other European capitals, the paper said, "suspect the Americans of trying to dominate Europe...and there is resistance to the danger of making important concessions.

"... Official circles speculate about the terms of the new charter, particularly if it includes Japan....

"It is a fact that in view of the proposal's importance, it would have been better if President Nixon himself had advanced it...."

Uganda Radio: "U.S. Indifferent to Africa"

The Voice of Uganda asserted today that Mr. Nixon's foreign policy report "more or less puts the U.S. President in the position of a world governor or some sort of god with powers over the entire world, a god who had no hand in Watergate, who makes no blunders and is therefore the supreme judge of men and the world."

"If it were not for Watergate and Nixon's known non-interest and indifference to Africa and blacks as such, perhaps his report would have some validity...."

Bogota: "Effort to Understand Latin America"

Liberal El Tiempo of Bogota commented Saturday that "President Nixon has evidently made a serious effort to understand Latin American problems..."

"If there is no reason for enthusiasm on the part of Latin America over Mr. Nixon's message, neither is there any reason to bitterly lament what he has written."

Sao Paulo: "U.S. Pragmatism Damaging to Latin America"

Conservative O Estado de Sao Paulo remarked yesterday that "paradoxically... the successive disasters of American foreign policy result from a kind of pragmatism... which believes that what is good for the U.S. is good for the world..."

No. 54

16

5/9/73

"The result of that criterion has been highly damaging to Latin America, an ideological crazy quilt where all types of political systems are represented. Yet its governments readily adopt unanimous positions against Washington on such matters as the Panama Canal Zone, the international coffee agreement, territorial sea limits...and the U.S. decision to sell its strategic reserves.

"A nation having the global responsibilities of the U.S. cannot subordinate the socio-economic equilibrium of this part of the world to balancing its own internal budget. Such a policy might have short-term ledger benefits but will prove politically disastrous in the end."

Liberal *O Jornal* of Rio de Janeiro observed Monday that while "President Nixon gave special emphasis to U.S. relations with the Hemisphere," it must be noted that he "avoided going further than repeating the same expressions of good will one finds in previous documents of the same nature."

### Quito: "Countries Which Do Not Count"

*El Tiempo* of Quito asserted on Monday that "the lack of U.S. attention toward this part of the world is not an optical illusion but a consequence of Nixon's policy of promoting closeness and equilibrium among the great powers. Under that policy, those regions of the world that do not represent a military or economic threat do not count...."

### Lima: "Nixon Right on Repealing Rigid Laws"

Independent conservative *El Comercio* of Lima, concerned over territorial sea claims, welcomed a review of U.S. legislation that it considers too rigid in its effect on Latin America and stated: "Approval should be given to President Nixon's view that such measures should be repealed in the name of good relations...among all countries of the Hemisphere."

No. 54

17

5/9/73

Santiago: "Return to Manifest Destiny"

Official *La Nacion* of Santiago de Chile declared Monday:

"He intends to maintain a blockade against Cuba and criticizes countries which, overcoming ideological frontiers, have opened relations with Havana, which he accuses of maintaining military ties with a non-Latin American country. In this regard, Nixon has surpassed all his previous statements. He not only regresses to the cold war but to the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny."

Moscow: Little Substantial Treatment

Aside from an initial TASS news account and a Moscow domestic radio panel discussion, both stressing positive prospects for the further development of U.S.-Soviet relations, Soviet media have not given substantial attention to the President's foreign policy report.

Peking: No Mention

Communist Chinese media have not mentioned the report.

No. 54

18

5/9/73

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL
6:00 P.M. EDT, MAY 3, 1973

MAY 3, 1973

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

10:40 A.M. EDT

MR. WARREN: Just a note that the information in this briefing is embargoed until 6:00 p.m., along with the report which you have now read and which Henry will discuss with you.

Q There will be a transcript, will there not?

MR. WARREN: There will be.

Q In Florida, too?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

DR. KISSINGER: Gentlemen, you presumably have read the report and I summarized its basic thrust yesterday. Perhaps one word about the process, which by now should be fairly familiar to you, by which this is produced.

We ask each of the departments and agencies that deal with international affairs to submit their recommendations as to what the report should say, and then the report is written by my staff, and the tortured parts by me. After we have discussed with the President what the major direction should be, it is then reviewed by the various departments and submitted to the Congress. So it is a joint effort that is gone over by all of the responsible agencies.

Let me now answer any questions that you may have about the report.

Q Dr. Kissinger, would you elaborate on the passage on page 8 in which you explicitly apply the Nixon Doctrine to the Atlantic Alliance?

DR. KISSINGER: The Nixon Doctrine has many aspects. One of the essential aspects of the Nixon Doctrine is that other countries should assume a greater responsibility politically, where appropriate militarily, and economically, and that we are trying to create a new, peaceful structure which is maintained by the commitment to it of all of the countries involved, rather than through unilateral actions and declarations by the United States.

In this sense, the Nixon Doctrine applies, as well, to the Atlantic Alliance. However, detailed views with respect to the Atlantic Alliance are stated in the chapter on the Atlantic Alliance and has been also stated in the speech that I gave at the President's direction on April 23rd to the AP newspaper publishers.

MORE

- 2 -

Our view with respect to the Atlantic Alliance is
that the relationship between the United States and its
European allies is as essential to the new phase of American
foreign policy as it was to the last phase of American foreign
policy.

The President has affirmed, and the Secretary of
State has repeated, that there will be no unilateral Ameri-
can cuts in the commitment of our forces to Europe, and,
therefore, the reference of the Nixon Docerine in this
paper cannot be interpreted in that sense.

Q Doctor, in the conclusion, is that --

DR. KISSINGER: When he calls me "Doctor", I know
I am going to get it. (Laughter)

Q Is the conclusion a step away from the concept
of five centers of power in the world that the President
and you have enunciated from time to time?

DR. KISSINGER: Let me first explain what this concept is. The President, in his speech in Kansas City in July of 1971, pointed out that in contrast to the immediate post-war period, when there were really only two major powers, there were now five centers of power in the world. This has been interpreted to mean that we were going to conduct a classical balance of power policy in which alliances were going to lose some of their significance.

What this last chapter attempts to do is to explain
how we interpret this five-power world, because there are many
aspects to the contemporary international environment that
are quite novel.

First, of course, is the familiar one of the enor-
mous destructiveness of modern weapons. In the past, it
would have been inconceivable to any statesman that he could
ever have too much power, and any increment of power was
politically useful. In the contemporary period, we are in
a situation in which the overwhelming fact for the nuclear
superpowers is the knowledge of their capacity to destroy
each other and where additional increments do not necessarily
have either military or political significance.

A second fact in the contemporary situation which
is quite different from any previous period is that there is
no necessary relationship between economic strength and mili-
tary strength.

MORE

- 3 -

Again, in the past, if you look at history, nations that were economically powerful were generally militarily powerful as well, and there was a direct relationship between the size of a nation, its economic potential and its military potential.

Today we live in a world in which in the military sense there are only two superpowers; that is to say, the United States and the Soviet Union alone possess the full panoply of modern armament.

On the other hand, in the economic field, you would certainly have to include Japan and Europe as superpowers, and in the political field, in the sense of having a major political impact in the world, even though they are not yet an economic or military superpower, you would have to count the People's Republic of China.

It really makes a great deal of difference of what area you are talking about or what area of activity you are talking about.

Secondly, this notion of the five centers of power was interpreted in many parts of the world as an American assertion that it make no difference any more between its friends and its opponents, that it was conducting foreign policy entirely on the basis of a temporary juggling of relationships. Indeed, this was equated with classical balance of power.

Of course, it wasn't even true in the old balance of power that alliances did not exist. Alliances existed throughout history, even in periods when the balance of power policy was pursued.

The difference between classical power politics and the contemporary period is enormous. They are the differences I have already mentioned in the destructiveness of weapons, in the disparity between economic and political and military factors and in the enormously increased role of ideology.

Therefore, we felt it important that in our last chapter of this report we emphasize just what we understand by the international environment today: that we continue to value our friends, that we do believe there must be a recognition of the emergence of other centers of power, but that power cannot be an end in itself in the contemporary period, and that power politics in its purest sense is the most difficult and the most treacherous form of international politics.

Q Doctor, how do you assess the prospects for a real peace in Southeast Asia?

DR. KISSINGER: I think the record should show that it took until the third question to reach Southeast Asia.

Q It is Topic "A".

DR. KISSINGER: First of all, one has to ask oneself what is meant by "real peace." If one means a consciousness of tranquility, if one means that the parties to the conflict

-MORE-