Conversation 016-048

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Hello.

Ambassador Bushman's president.

Hi, George.

How are you, sir?

Well, I thought that was a fine vote that you were able to get out there last night.

How do you feel about it?

You're nice to call about it.

We felt very, very good about it.

And given the editorial attacks on our policy, I think we can use this, which I'm trying to do at a noon briefing, to point out that we're not, that indeed it's not us who's isolated from world opinion on this.

No.

Well, the thing that I think, George, is very important, and I hope we can get some of our tigers, if we have any in the House and Senate, particularly the Senate, to speak up on this.

We're not anti-Indian or we're not anti-Pakistan.

We're just anti-aggression.

Isn't that correct?

Yes, sir.

And basically, or if you want to put it, we're not pro-Pakistan or pro-Indian, but we are pro-peace and peace.

And in this instance, it would seem to me you wouldn't have gotten this kind of vote.

Both the Indians and the Russians were lobbying the other way, weren't they?

Oh, strongly.

And all they got was their Iron Curtain.

That's right.

And they've lost Romania on that.

They've lost Romania.

But what do you attribute the big vote, George?

Well, I attributed, Mr. President, to the fact that there was...

total agreement on the principle of ceasefire and withdrawal, which, you know, we had, you made fundamental.

And the fact also that India, in spite of its sanctimony, was really the aggressor.

and everybody you mean most do most people in in the u.n realize that george they totally realize it and that point is the point maybe i could be helpful by talking to any senators or those that you want would like to publicly carry the ball to counteract some of the criticism because i can give them personal assurances or i could give them a statement they could put in a record coming from us or anything that would be helpful for me because on the un end

We got strong support through Africa and through the Arab country.

Of course, it hooks in on their view to the Middle East, you see.

I mean, they're saying ceasefire and withdrawal.

I hadn't thought of that, yeah.

strong groundswell.

The minute we made our resolution in the first resolution, the U.S. resolution that got beat 11 to 2, many ambassadors not on the Security Council that have never voted with Zambia, Tanzania, Morocco came up and said, we ought to go with the General Assembly.

This is an excellent position.

We don't sometimes vote with the U.S., but you're absolutely right.

Well, doesn't it sort of indicate that India's support, apart from Russia's, but India's support in the UN isn't all that great then?

Because, God, you know the Indians put on this sanctimonious peace, Gandhi-like, Christ-like attitude, and they're the greatest, the world's biggest democracy, and Pakistan is one of the most horrible dictatorships.

I wonder why that... Yeah, I noticed that, for example, I mean, really, it shows you how the decline of morality among the intellectuals, where they say, well,

The United States has really taken the wrong position here because there are 600 million Indian and only 60 million Paks.

Now, what the hell?

Does that determine what your position should be?

I don't know.

The thing that they're overlooking, the intellectuals, and they want to overlook it, is the fact that in...

They asked me the question up here.

I said, look, we're talking about war and peace.

We're talking about invasion.

We're talking about 150,000 troops in the other guy's country.

And that's the point where the United States is right.

We're trying to stop that.

We're not whitewashing Yaya.

And I don't think they're being unfair on us.

We can simply say this now.

We have used our influence, and we have had considerable success in getting Yaya to welcome U.N. observers, which the Indians, before this all occurred, for the refugee problem and getting him to agree to a civilian thing and agreeing even to contact with the Mujib deal and all that jazz.

But that's one thing, and we have used all of our influence that we can there

Also, we have tried to use our influence with India in this respect.

But whatever this is, whatever the criticism of the West Pakistan or of Yahya's government may be, and a lot of that criticism is justified, it does not...

justify, resort to invasion of another country.

If we ever allow the internal problems of one country to be justification for the right of another country, bigger, more powerful, to invade it, then international order is finished in the world.

That's really the principle, isn't it?

Yes, sir, and I'm going to emphasize that.

But that's it.

That's the fundamental.

And that's why those people vote.

And I think all the editorial opinion and so forth, a lot of it you have to understand, George, is not just pro-Indian.

They just want to get a chance to take a little shot at us.

Don't you think so?

I think so.

I asked a columnist, Charlie Bartlett, about this.

Well, George, you've got to understand, he said, back in Kennedy's days,

that Kennedy spent more time on India and the mystique, and they know they didn't like us, but it was a kind of a liberal mystique.

And this thing, so I think we're fighting some of that.

that's right we got it thrown up to us in the security council that quoting uh that this anthony lewis editorial by the indian one of them he mentioned you by name and i climbed on him he said the nixon administration and i asked for a right to reply and i told him look we i realize there are great tensions in the world and and i certainly could excuse the ambassador for being under great pressure but i consider this an attack on uh the president and i said it just isn't fair and he then he kind of backed off and the next day quotes another editorial you know

some damn New York Times editorial, kind of hiding behind that to attack us.

It's an old trick.

Well, the idea, too, they've done such ridiculous things.

One of them...

was saying, well, Nixon is really anti-Indian because the Indians were not courteous to him when he was out of office.

Well, bullshit.

Hell, they couldn't have been more courteous.

I mean, you know how the Indians are.

They play up everybody.

When I was down there, Christ, they had me stay as a guest to the government when I was out of office.

I met Mrs. Gandhi.

Of course, I'd never before.

But all this is just ridiculous.

What really is the case is that India is

India's hands are not clean.

They're caught in a bloody bit of aggression.

Now, it's true, it is true that as far as Yahya's are concerned, there's no clean hands there either.

I mean, they handled us very clumsily, very badly.

But India knew that efforts were being made to conciliate it.

And in spite of that, in spite of assurance that we were working and we'd made some progress,

in spite of even an offer on the part of Yahya to withdraw from the border unilaterally in East Pakistan.

they proceeded to go in.

Now, that is a pretty damn lousy record.

That's what Henry's backgrounder was designed to prove.

Yeah, I've got it in front of me.

Well, anyway, you're doing great.

And the main thing, as I say, I think if you can constantly emphasize that world opinion, world opinion, it isn't a question of being pro-democracy or anti-democracy.

It's not a question of being

for 600 million as against 60 million.

Aggression is wrong, and the size and the difference in size between countries does not justify it.

The difference in systems of governments does not justify it.

Aggression on the part of a democracy, if it is not justified, is just as wrong as aggression on the part of a dictatorship.

I'd put it as coldly as that.

It is aggression that is wrong.

That's what the U.N. is built upon, after all.

Those goddamn communist countries are all, if they engage in it, it's wrong on their part.

But if a democracy engages in aggression, it's wrong.

Well, anyway, you'll do well.

You'll knock them dead.

All right.