Conversation 078-006

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

I know that every note of this energy is what we have in our office at the meeting, and so that way we're not taken in by a cup of coffee or a little smile and so on.

That is what we're talking about.

But in terms of suchness, the meeting that we had with him this year in our office and a year ago, pretty much this invitation, which was extended the last week, was just like every night and day.

And it also reflected itself in the conversations he had with other nations of the United Nations.

His comments about the United States were much different than he had a year ago or three years ago.

The second point I want to mention is that although you're talking about progress in the Middle East,

I think we have to keep in mind that as long as the ceasefire continues, in effect, that's progress in itself.

In 15 months, we haven't had any fighting there, and that has to be considered to be progress.

Secondly, I think this announcement that the President's going to visit Moscow in May will tend to dampen down any escalation.

in that part of the world.

We've been talking about that, well, Sadat was going to have a deadline 1st of January, now people are going to say, well, certainly nothing can happen until after the church of Moscow.

That'll give us a little more time, I think, to ceasefire.

I think we'll stay as quick

for a long period of time, all of which is very, very important.

The third thing I want to mention is that in the United Nations, I cannot speak to 75 foreign ministers, private, long private meetings with them.

Everything else aside, the most important thing to them is the relations between the United States and Soviet Union.

I mean, that's what they look at.

They all raise it.

That's what's important.

I made some comments in my statement up there, and they all, most of the foreigners just came over and said, we really appreciate the fact that the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States is very good.

And I think this will tend to reassure them that the prospects for peace are quite good, and they'll be less jittery about the future because of this.

And I think this will be received throughout the world with the...

Henry, what is your feeling on that?

Nobody knows.

But they weren't wrong.

Mr. President, you had said in tone about attitude.

will tend to dampen down any escalation in that part of the world.

I mean, we've been talking about that, well, Sadat is going to have a deadline 1st of January.

Now people are going to say, well, certainly nothing can happen until after the Church of Moscow.

That'll give us a little more time, I think, to cease fire.

I think we'll stay in place for a longer period of time, all of which is very, very important.

The third thing I want to mention is that in the United Nations, I have not seen 75 foreign ministers, private, long, grand meetings with them.

Everything else aside, the most important thing to them is the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.

I mean, that's what they look at.

They all raise it.

That's what's important.

I made some comments in my statement up there, and most of the reporters just came over and said, we really appreciate the fact that the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States is very good.

And I think this will tend to reassure them that the prospects for peace are quite good, and they'll be less jittery about the future because of this.

And I think this will be received throughout the world with the...

It was very enthusiastic.

Henry, what is your feeling on that now?

Nobody knows about three years.

But they work well.

Mr. President, you have set the tone for our attitude by saying we're protecting our policies for each of these

in terms of improving our relationship with each other, contributing to good peace.

We are not colluding with one against the other.

We are not interested in the two major quarrels they have with each other.

One is ideology and the other one is really border question.

Neither of those we are going to get involved in.

We have been just in this room with Texas about keeping each side in general informed about what we were doing with China.

The Chinese have had advance warning that this announcement could be made, but the notification would probably be forthcoming.

That's why the Soviet were involved before.

they were informed that he was going there because he didn't want to have any excuse for blowing anything.

So we had a difficult, delicate road to

to hold them, but as long as they have dissent, as long as each of these countries has dissent, that we are not playing with the other against it, and are pursuing primarily our own fine line of government in each of these countries.

And we can bring it off, and so far we have managed it without strain on either side.

Above all, by being completely honest with each side as to what our general plans were.

We can point out that there's always a possibility that forests in the near north might take you.

Yeah, we're on.

There'll be talk.

I would not be surprised to see you here.

Paul's philosophy is correct to stick good relations for both rather than playing one against the other.

See, that was the command decision that I had to make.

I came to the office and there we were again, and we were going to the first embassy meeting.

I said, now, this idea of the condominium with the Soviet, that we were strongly pushed to do that.

Let's make a condominium with the Soviet in order to do it in Chinese.

Well, that didn't make sense for a lot of reasons.

not the least of which is if you have two national policies, you don't join them.

It's stronger to join them.

The main point was, I looked at it more in terms of my view when I was talking about this, in terms of a long-range, kind of ending with the slogan of the great third-range politics, because after this long-range policy, this long-range attack is going to be an enormous force in the world.

I mean, it's an enormous fall, of course, in terms of numbers now.

Twenty-five years from now, it will be the most potent .

So I would be less than candid if I were not to say this is a very, it's a technical problem.

They're trying to be meticulous with both sides, warming each side.

And it's down against the principle of which our lives.

I think it's by the Soviet Union.

It is very respectful of the way you handle a Chinese question because it has been very mild indeed.

In the last month or two, they really supported it.

Said they understood it and they think you handled it very well.

Mr. President, I certainly approve of your move to anticipate a question.

I had my mind, because of the proximity of the dates involved, when you said that speaking was advised.

My only question is, what has been speaking's reaction in many

And if not, it is just an advisory here who knows enough.

Senator...

When I was there, we discussed in general terms what their attitude would be to such an entity in question of a specific invitation.

Well, if your conversation can interrupt,

And they were, frankly, very candid with you, and you were candid with them.

You said that with regard to this problem, we have to proceed.

And secondly, for their own reasons, they may not be

It's too unhappy because it takes away the charge that the Soviets were beginning to make earlier this year.

The state is colluding with the odds chancellor at the expense of fellow communists.

One other point I should make, Mike, I forgot to make, is that the Chinese visitors agree, well, the date is not been selected, that will be worded on this current visit.

will occur, of course, well before the social distancing.

They know that.

That is an important point that you made.

We have every reason to believe that violence, that they understand, and that it does not.

to build our relationship, and in fact, it may even help a bit.

So I'd like, frankly speaking, personally, I'd like nothing to interfere with the attempt to be gay, because if anything did, I'd think that that would be the message and the action would be against us.

What you've said is satisfactory.

Mr. President, will you, has it been said about the thing, or will it be said about the thing, that the King came visit here?

I said that, yeah.

I haven't come forward.

Because it's, you see, it's said that the King came visit here, so it could be by the first command.

And so now that we've tried it, we, in the Soviet, there's a phase

they actually wanted to teach law, because that's sort of the position, that's why you may remember that I went there as vice president.

But we wanted to move it into the training period, and that actually so that we'd get it before the conventions and the small things and all the rest.

And the PTN visit,

We don't know that it will be, let's just say, well before at least the dates that are presently here under consideration, that we've got the announcement of the United States.

It will be in May, it will be in the second half of May.

In Moscow?

In Moscow.

Let me say in the middle, if anybody should raise a question.

With regard to why Moscow, I mean, let us remember it's our turn.

You see, Khrushchev came here for a statement, and I said I was supposed to meet him at the Johnson classroom.

That really doesn't count, because that was just a one-day meeting.

Khrushchev came here for a statement, and the Russians actually feel that it's our turn to go there.

And I, of course, expected on that basis.

We could have, you know,

Well, actually, we didn't even raise the question.

They want them there, and I felt it was only the right thing that we could go there.

If it was in other countries, it was better to be there, because they've been here a lot.

They've been here twice, too.

They've had two conversations where there's been no president that's been there at all.

See, my visit, I don't even know.

Mr. President, I'm proud of the fact that you are all going to Moscow.

And I don't like to say these things, but ever since you've been in office, I've been asking you to get to Moscow.

The last time I had any time,

In fact, the last time, the last time I asked you to go to Henry, I saw Henry and I thought you'd be there too.

Now, I do hope that you give me the chance to at least talk to you a pretty good one time.

I think I have a lot of information.

There will be five of them.

And I want to say this now.

I'm not saying it's bullshit.

But I was instrumental, if you believe this or not, in having President Kennedy to lead the push-up.

That was one of the first stand-ups I did.

Yes, at the end.

And when Michaud came here, I of course met him and had such a good story demonstrating what happened.

Fulbright, he's not here today, Fulbright,

invited Khrushchev to, uh, to Dimitra, to, uh, luncheon.

To work, yeah.

No, no.

Yeah.

But he came out of the water.

After ten hours.

And, uh, Pope Rice invited me to, uh, talk, I mean, to go to this luncheon.

and Khrushchev on stage.

And I can see all of us in the committee standing in the big, big room in the circle.

And with Khrushchev,

walked into the door, stopped, and looked at everyone there.

And he saw me, so help me God, he came up to me and helped me on both sides.

I felt as though I was dead on the surface.

There, there, that's right.

And I talked to that man of the minute, and I talked to Nick O'Neill, and many other men of that degree.

And I made these five dishes.

I took some wonderful pictures there that might be helpful, but I've been telling you that.

Of course, if you don't want to see them, it's all right with me.

And I'm not trying to, of course I don't.

But I really believe that it would do good for you to get something from someone who's been to every part of Russia and who has no axe in Russia.

Let me tell you something else.

I hope you keep the military out of this.

Well, let me say, I can't really advise against it, but it's not the end of the world.

It's not the end of the world.

And I want to say this to the leaders.

There will be an extensive consultation with the leaders, actually, for Soyuz.

depending on what's coming up.

Now, you say, what will we consult about?

Now, here's a very, very, very important point.

People say, what will we consult on?

Our instruction depends on what the situation is then.

We're going right ahead on the instruction now.

We'd like to get a deal before then.

Will it be about, it depends upon the situation then.

Will it be about trade?

That's the first thing you need to be sure of because trade is a major area that they're interested in and it's a major opportunity for us if it's on the right basis.

Would it be about the economy?

Depends upon what the situation is then.

But my point is that we will have consultation.

We also will have very, we will have extensive consultation with our allies as we say.

And I'm sure you all realize this, I can't emphasize it from the fact that when you do deem

with communist leaders, anti-communist leaders, they have a phobia, they're paranoid about privacy, which is that we want to keep anything from you.

They're paranoid about it, and we have to respect that, but we certainly want to have any input, we want to have consultation here.

Bill will, I will, myself, in proper time, because we're not there for the purpose of, well, let me say this,

As there is with the case of China, there were no understandings, whatever, prior to China's visit.

There will be none made at the time Henry's audience is going there to discuss the arrangements, the agenda, and so forth.

And there are absolutely no understandings regarding Sovietism.

In other words, it's carte blanche, impending, and we will discuss those subjects that are current at that time.

That's what he says.

Right.

Got it.

A comment comes about at this time.

View of what you said.

I had a long visit with Sitchlock.

Up to now, I've never heard him.

He's the tall one.

He's the fellow who picks up the stuff, the dietician.

He started right off on trade.

He said, our trade relations with you are worse than they are with any other major capitalist country, Britain, France, Japan.

He said, it's disrespectful that we have only as much trade with you as you have with Austria, little Austria.

I said, this is a matter of immense sensitivity.

I'm glad that you're going to discuss it because

That's almost the first thing that people like this don't want to hear about.

Mr. President, you know, I'm a candidate to join the Committee on Foreign Economic Policy.

We've had some very extensive hearings on the idea of West Virginia, and I would take a look at it, because I'm the leading economist on both sides in two directions.

Today's a very significant state and so forth.

I know we haven't been able to move a peg on legislation.

This could help.

Can I say one thing, Carl?

What are you doing?

East-West trade.

Go ahead.

Well, one thing, again, we talked about, another thing I'm very worried about is

that we publicly ever indicate that one thing depends on another, what they call language, on the other hand, failing everything.

We have to remember that with regard to trade, one of the major guarantees is the Southeast Asian.

And that is, that area just reduces the possibilities for trade mass increase.

All of you know that at the present time, that if you were to go in there and say we're gonna trade with countries that are putting stuff in the North Vietnam, you know, they have a problem.

So if you get that thing down, the possibilities for trade goes the same thing up.

I think this is something that we're quite aware of, too.

And Mr. President, maybe that's peripheral, but I was there three years ago.

And since then, the Russians have developed the finest precision workmanship in .23 jewels, with watches, and cameras with direct imitation of the Japanese canon.

In three years, they're ready to move into the market on us.

I'm wearing a Russian watch, a $150 watch that I paid $14.42 for.

I don't know what caused them to fall through, but there was all kinds of conversation about it.

Well, I mean, I say, don't overlook the fact, though, that we're moving on Conner River.

We're deliberately moving at our own pace.

But how much is in that already?

$411 million.

$411 million in Conner River already.

It's potentially an $800 million.

You're aware of it, Jerry, because you're a human mind, right?

And trade is a lively subject, let me say, at all levels, and it is very disgusting.

Let me, I mean, I have one thing I think is terribly important.

I, I, I, oh, Carl, sorry, you started to say something.

No, I just...

I can't hear you.

Wait.

I just said I think President should make those trips tonight.

I'm certain he's not making good Moscow, I guess.

Oh, we've done that.

We've done it.

Jack didn't think Mike was concerned about it at all.

No, we've, uh, they're quite aware of that.

And, uh, and incidentally, it was very interesting to note that he spoke into Donald Jackson on that.

I mean, you see we, the May date, one of the most impressive when you put this date in May, late May, when you said you didn't want to, because it's a little closer to the political thing, well, you can all see, I had to put, I wanted to put it in May, but I deliberately did that from our standpoint, the Russians, on the little way, from our standpoint, it had to be a little after the Chinese thing so that you could move the Chinese state back some.

You got it?

Yeah, yes, John.

Well, just one question, Mr. President, but first, I'm very much impressed with what you've outlined here.

I'm very much pleased you're going to do this.

On the talk now, as I understand it,

This is clearly not a cessation of the stall call to stomach technique.

No, sir.

You're expecting this to drive, as a matter of fact, I think this announcement will get him to the stall.

Yes, sir.

due to the fact that I think that we, both governments, will want to have some progress on something.

And we're making progress.

Now, the one thing I should say, we've got to emphasize, I think, what you said about Stalin, and I say this knowing that there are some of them, some of them, many of them are your colleagues, and some of them really have different views about the events.

With the way the Soviet is moving on their building of offensive weapons, particularly with Seoul in its present state and with the summit coming up, I will have to fight for maintaining the American defense sector and maintaining the credible position, or otherwise we will not have a bargaining machine with them.

Do you know what I mean?

Now, I know that there are views to the contrary.

It was quite significant to note that there was absolutely no question on their part that they are moving forward on their offensive weapons very, very strongly.

And our purpose is not to get in an arms race with them, but in order to stop the arms race,

or to get some limitations in the arm trees.

We have to be in a position to stop them.

They are the ones that are moving here.

And they're moving all ahead of us.

And you all know John and Les better than I do on the offensive side.

Mr. Brennan, you have a good answer to the premise

He pointed out that he hoped that this would help the process and that we would have a chance to have an agreement worked out before that time and he said if that doesn't happen then we'll have a chance to discuss it when I'm there.

That's correct.

Which is very good.

And also the point is that let's assume that it gets off.

And we look at any other things to examine the arms control field.

So this is the end of everything.

We understand the present thing in salt.

And Henry, you've done this, you've studied the verification.

The present thing in salt is basically just a breeze and not, it doesn't get, it doesn't get, for example, Mike and MDFR and all the other things which we're trying to get at.

So there's a big, there's a big ball to discuss at this time.

Mr. President, I'd like to join the others in demanding a question.

The space here is so enormous, it's in part a conflict.

I was sitting just around when a couple of the men around this table, the president of the county fire, said the Russians would take the missiles out of Cuba.

And he said that maybe the Russian threat is no longer the great threat, probably the threat now is from China.

And I remember coming back here, and President Johnson told us that he said that I had a bomb.

And the potential of a delivery system.

So what she's doing is enormously important, and I know that she had a bomb.

Mr. President, I don't think you'll have much support from around this table, but I think the American people would be very enthusiastic.

Well, let me say this.

I want to say this to our good Democratic friends here.

We sort of respect them.

But, Jerry, you have come along.

But I really appreciated the fine support we've had from the House that I had knocked through.

And of course, your committees, and Carl, your trip was so good over there and came at the right time.

And it's important that Mike wants to give us these things.

As I say, we have our differences about how to get to the war, but our goal is essentially, we have our differences about ADM and things like that, but our goal is arms limitations.

And I think that all of us should agree

that the United States at this critical time must not miss the chance to exert its influence with the two, with the one superpower and the other only protective superpower for the rest of China.

play a great role, and that's really what we're doing.

Now it is, I want to emphasize, I can't say for sure it isn't going to fall, because we're playing, not because of us, but because of that.

But there is a good chance now that we can negotiate with both.

But it's very important by the Democratic Army, all of you are going to be asked, we're not playing one against the other.

That's totally the answer, Senator.

If we just had the Chinese game going, then if it was that we're playing them against Russia, and if we just played the Russian game, we'd be playing them against China.

But we are very meticulously talking to the Chinese and talking to the Russians, either at the expense of the other.

This is a very important point to bear in mind.

Mr. President, I

I think if you look at these talks that are coming up, it would be well for the Congress to swallow the defense budget, whether it be authorized, without a lot of faith.

There's a lot of stupid things in the Defense Department, you and I.

They didn't report it on the C5.

They didn't tell us about it for nine days.

A lot of stupid things.

But I think

that if we would give them as much as we can for defense at this time,

Even though we may have reservations, it will put you in better shape in both PK and especially in Moscow.

And I would hope that any drastic changes in the fence could be postponed until next year rather than now.

I'd like to have your comment on that.

It's the wrong signal.

Let me say that.

I say this in reluctance because God knows we'd like to have the money.

We'd like to come back on it.

The rest, that is our goal.

But at this point,

They are not cutting back.

They're going up.

Now, they're watching us.

If we do cut back, you can put yourself in just an undercutting part of our location.

That's our problem.

And it's a preventative notion to answer a different question.

I think it's because of the

Well, I tell you what, I hesitate to speculate, John, because there's nothing that would irritate them more than the thing that we're speculating about what they're doing.

I think I have reasons.

I think I think there are very good reasons for it.

That's the way you should read it.

But what I think is the reason is their self-interest.

It isn't their self-interest now.

Frankly, let's look at where they are.

Well, let's start it on the track.

First, at a time when the Soviet Union was way behind the United States in arms, what do they got to do?

They got to catch up.

They were inferior.

Now there's a rough balance.

Now that rough balance creates a situation where they now have to make a command decision.

Are they gonna continue to go up and try to get ahead?

Now they know very well that for a while they could get away with that, but in the end the United States would have to react and we'd have to build up.

And who's gonna win that way?

All we do is gonna cost each of us a great deal of money and run the risk of a confrontation later.

The other thing is,

I think that their relevance with their natives motivates them to an extent.

Their concern about the possibility of the Mid-East concerns them.

in terms of all these things I could say about ourselves.

And I think too, the point that Hugh made a moment ago, look at the Soviet Union.

Their economy has been flat for about six or seven years.

Despite all the talk about computers and the other things too, if you look down around Moscow there, I was there in 67, I mean, the average

Russia isn't doing a lot better than it was five years ago when I was there in 1966.

Not quite as good.

Trade.

Trade is an enormous thing.

Here it is all set.

They no longer have the delusion of superiority.

They are Mr. Big in their part of the world.

As vis-a-vis us.

And so they look at the future.

They still want to expand.

They still prefer a communist world.

They still are going to try to keep the Eastern European countries well on a leash.

But on the other hand, in terms of their future, their future will not be served by getting in a runaway race with the United States on the arms front, now that they have caused it.

Their future will not be served by having any areas where they might have a confrontation with the United States.

Because they know, as well as we do, once you get these things under control, you realize, as I said a moment ago, there's not going to be any winners in the next couple of years.

I believe that if you'd take one minute for a picture, Mr. President, Senator Elker raised a question about Senator Fulbright.

He has a good reputation.

He's in bed to Arkansas for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the university of which he was president.

Yeah, so I was hoping to get him to Texas.

He's there for another purpose.

We've also almost looked at the window.

I'll call Senator Fulbright.

How's Arkansas going to do?

Who is Arkansas's picture this year?

What was what?

What was Arkansas's picture?

I'm asking you about an Arkansas picture.

Does anybody want to speak to that soldier about that picture?

It's supposed to be Arkansas?

Yeah, it's supposed to be Arkansas.

It was one game.

Did Tulsa do?

Tulsa did.

Of course, Tulsa did.

They were wrong years ago.

I saw a couple of weeks ago, they put a score of 150 points on this.

What is it?

Passing or running?

I don't know.

I haven't seen one in a year.