Conversation 124-007

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Thank you.

You know, when I saw the list of people that were coming to this meeting, I was like, there's never been so many presidents and vice presidents in this room before.

It's a good one.

I was trying to let them shoot a picture for me.

Bill Rogers has just returned from Latin America.

I had asked him to...

I'd asked him to...

And, unfortunately, he has the responsibility of going down and testifying before the Congress.

In fact, in the first five or six months of any session, our cabinet members before the Congress so often, and then the test members, subcommittees, full committees, foreign relations, foreign affairs, interrogations, et cetera, et cetera, get a little time to

I'm sorry that I can't be here to get the comments of the group, but you know the President asked me to take it to Latin America, and I think it worked out very well.

The point of the visit was first to

will visit, but to be, obviously, a business lecture, to show a new interest, a lively interest in Latin America, to discuss with Latin America leaders presentations visited to Latin America, and to get their views on how we can, what we can do next year.

And so this year, well, of course, next year, sometime when I left, someone in touch with me.

To summarize quickly, I think the trip was a very successful one.

Generally speaking, the reporting in each country was very successful.

I was able to see all of the leaders of each of the countries I visited in those areas.

I saw the leaders of the countries that attended the inauguration, so with a couple of exceptions, I met with the representatives from every country.

I met with several of his new supporters.

And I think that the job that we played under the leadership of the President, and I had messages to each President, and personal recommendations of Biden, President of his interests in those countries, I think on the whole it was a very successful trip.

Just to summarize, originally in Mexico, I had a relationship with him as far as the question is concerned.

After Maria, the character has changed considerably during the last 30 centuries with the Soviet Union.

He was not very impressed with his visit to the Soviet Union.

He was quite impressed with his visit to China, but not the Soviet Union.

His approach to this discussion was quite different than his previous, his point that I got along very well, and I injected a much friendlier attitude on the part of the mix.

In the case of, well, of course, he's not from Central America, and I don't have to report on it there, but at least about the devastation beyond the 275 square miles, totally destroyed, all the buildings, everything.

in Venezuela.

They're very sensitive, as you gentlemen know, very sensitive.

campaign.

I think of the countries I went to, this possibly was the one that seemed most troublesome to me, because they, I think, are in the process of trying to equip themselves into a negotiating position.

These people in the United States are not quite sure how they're going to do it.

I think it's very important that we find just the right advantage for that country.

We're looking, it's got to be somebody who understands the business.

It's got to be someone who understands the business.

So it's an area where we believe that businesses in Mexico, we think might be...

Yes, the same thing is true of Mexico.

If we could get through both of those, there's other areas where, for example, career investors, but these are two areas, Venezuela and Mexico, where businesses and investors both would have to know the area.

Uh, the, you know, the call times and that's why you decided to expand in, in that connection.

I'm afraid that any suggestions that you, from this group, could give us on that, would pass along to Bill, or to General Schultz, or, uh, to Bill, or to Senator, but really, let's, let's take it.

Uh, our relations with Columbia are very good.

Uh, our A program has been successful.

We've had a good business standard since we got it there.

And I think our relations with Colombia are going to be very good.

Peru, I think, quite a successful city.

I think we've changed, at least the time being, we've changed to a considerable extent.

It's a military government, I promise you.

They're not communists, they're not capitalists or something in between.

It's sort of a nationalist feeling to all the military people.

The military people are fairly smart.

I don't have to say about Brazil, it's just a country.

We have never had better relations than Brazil.

There's nothing about our relationship that ejects us.

They don't have any complaints.

They're happy about it.

They're a good businessman.

They like America.

It's obviously a country of the future that's not America's plus or minus.

They're all in the middle of it as well.

The president himself is a great, impressive man, and his presence makes me want to go home.

Roger Nieders is a cold can of worms, and I had to take too long to summarize it.

I think we did about as well as we can.

At the beginning of it, I had one meeting with him for his conversation.

Finally, it's quite different.

But it's been well-meaning that he is trying to nullify his radical group who has his party both to the left and the right.

And he is using every technique of the book, including parotid subpoena and ego parotid.

He's more about the parotid.

And his inaugural address, he spent at least 10 minutes talking about her, and he got to a witness response.

Well, if he's got a drone as a body in his house, well, by the time he gets back, and where'd he come from?

You know, where'd he come from?

But they, I met several of the Cadmus people, it's interesting that the Cadmus people, there are quite a few of them, there are quite a few of them in the United States, as far as you can tell.

I'm an ex-kid of yours.

Before this, he went to the University of Pennsylvania, got his law degree at NYU.

His wife graduated school in the United States.

One of the top ministers for cancer, had a cancer operation here 15 years ago, says it saved his life, he'll never forget it.

And certainly in the private conversations,

They are reasonably friendly, but what they do is, I think, is still quite uncertain.

I think it's probably important for Americans who are there to try to get to know the ministers, because, again, I'm quite in a direct-time camp.

I stopped in Jamaica on the way back to be sure we showed our interest in the Caribbean, and that's of great importance.

And interestingly enough, there's a good deal of interest in the Caribbean area.

We're a greater press for the United States to take the place of the British, a feeling that they need us.

And whereas we think that there's opposition that leaders are talking about, can't we be a little closer to them?

Because they feel somewhat neglected now that the British are with them.

I had a very careful summary made of the press accounts in all of these countries, and a very careful summary made of what the officials have said to each other and to others and to our representatives and the whole thing.

It was very successful.

We had a lot of good, tough discussions about ex-appropriation.

and what we would do and why we felt the way we did, and I think they are better understanding.

I think it's only important for the American businessmen when they deal with the Indian countries to make it clear that what they propose is not going to work.

I mean, they have a feeling we're against it for political reasons.

And what I said to them was not against it for political reasons.

It's one of them.

It isn't going to work against it for practical reasons.

You can't afford to buy all this property.

You're not going to be able to attract American investment.

I mean, there's many good opportunities throughout the world.

But you can't do it that way.

So what we're talking about is a practical aspect.

Pragmatically, it's going to work.

And I met with the Andean group.

And I think if we have that kind of discussion with them, we can change their thinking.

They don't quite know how they're going to do it.

It's the way that they all want to get together, and they want to be naturalistic, but they don't really get that thought through.

So I think it's a very opportune time for America to be talking to, to talk to the Latin American countries just the way we talk to European countries, saying practical ways.

But anyway, I think that they're all looking forward to the President's visit.

I might just say, they're excited to do what

There's a question raised about the banner that's got so much focus being explicit.

Nobody raised it.

It didn't seem to be of any interest, even at press conferences.

I had a press conference in every country.

I don't believe I had more than three questions done on the president's reputation.

The state of England and Latin America is very high.

They're all anxious women to visit.

their countries, and I think your problem is going to be to select which ones do you want to see first.

So you've got to get down to the center of the houses instead of the corporations.

The feedback we've got from the business community is that this is an excellent business community.

The feedback was as of yesterday.

Thank you.

And the purpose of this meeting is that those of you who attended in 69 is here to do rather than us.

So I would like for you, Mr. Chairman, to take over.

So we'd like to hear your recommendations, concerns, and so forth.

Well, Mr. President, there are a lot of questions, and I think I interpret the feeling of all the trustees of the Council, and even

more the feeling of the 200 members in thanking you for having received us today.

We feel this is another proof of your interest in Latin America and your interest in the private sector.

As you know, you're sort of a diversified group with many

the ideas on how to approach problems in Latin America.

But we are convinced, number one, that Latin America is a very important part of our business and for problems to come increasingly soon.

The second is that we believe that we can and should contribute to the development of that part of the world.

We've just met a

yesterday with members of your administration and with both senators who discussed these problems and this is the fitting finale to our discussions here.

It's just wonderful.

And I'd like to express a feeling of we are delighted with what we see as a renewed interest of all the members of your administration towards Latin America.

For those of us who have been intimately

We see a lot of optimism of what we can do there.

We ourselves in the business community feel, I think, that Latin America is very important to us and will become increasingly so.

Raw materials, growing population.

a growing fund of human resources, which I think they have.

They're trying to have some leadership, which you started by indicating had leadership.

They are having that leadership.

That's part of the problem that we all raise in the newspaper.

And we figure that this new dynamic approach, the dynamic existence fact, which exists in Latin America,

I think it's very important for us to take an active role in this development, helping these constructive people.

As I certainly just said, he was impressed with the people he saw.

We are impressed with the people he saw.

We know there's a lot of emotions and a lot of silly things will be done, but in all, this part of the world is growing, and we feel quite optimistic, so we work with a great deal of

satisfaction with the statements you made in your declaration that Latin America is important.

We feel that personal commitment is very important to you, sir.

Latin America is a very personalized, like the deal of people.

That warmth that you are showing, we feel, is very good.

We feel that we have a very large investment in Latin America, over $16 billion.

so that we cannot contend you're not there.

We are there.

And this renewed interest that I saw among all the members of your administration, we feel is absolutely right, and we certainly hope and we know that you will follow through with that.

Analyzing what we've discussed this morning in these general political feelings, it's important and we're delighted with these new trends that we see of you under your leadership to indicate that we are with Latin American leaders on a matter of active and understanding cooperation.

A little detail that we discussed this morning and which is a great deal of discussion yesterday was the problem of the OAS, whether we should stay in or how we should stay in.

The unanimous opinion of our group is that we have to stay in the OAS.

We cannot, not fully.

We feel that maybe it needs some reorganization, but the United States has got to continue to play a strong role in the OAS.

The second point of our concern is, of course, investment.

We do have large investments.

We are ready to invest more.

I believe that the large companies in the United States are realistic.

that things change, and for one successful 10 years ago may not be successful today, but the environment is changing, and this year reflects a lot of change within the environment.

We are naturally concerned with expropriations.

All of us who have investments in Latin America, we are concerned with this.

How do you avoid this?

I think the general consensus of opinion, you avoid this by being wanted.

That's the first thing you've got to do.

But after that, of course, comes the so-called Hickenlooper or other amendments and what you do about this.

I think it was a general consensus of our group this morning when we polled it that trigger mechanisms and automatic responses may not be the best way of handling these very complex problems.

We feel that statements should be made, such as you made, sir, on your feeling about expropriations, but that you should have the authority and the bargaining clout

not to have your hands tied it is the automatic of the especially the gonzalez is not worked in our favor and it it makes it less it makes it less easy for your negotiations to respond in every case that is i think the strong strong point that was taken this morning

The third point which we were discussing was the provenance of trade.

We believe most of us are in full agreement with the opening up of world trade.

And those of us who are particularly interested in Latin America even more, because we believe that the future of Latin America depends on open trade.

Some development of Latin America can only be accomplished one way, by great increases in their exports, as Brazil has shown.

Brazil's development of 12% a year is only possible because their exports have increased by 15% a year.

And this applies to all Latin American countries, whether they be Marxist-oriented or whether they be dictatorships.

In all agreement, this future is in trade.

Thus, we are fully in agreement with your efforts to open up trade in the world, and we believe that this will really be of help to Latin America and will be received by the Latin Americans with a great deal of enthusiasm.

The fourth point.

of the and there were many others i'm just trying to summarize them as taxes we read all these discussions about changes in the tax laws our position as a group is that we would like to be on a competitive basis for the japanese and europeans we don't want anything more than the japanese the europeans want what we want to have as

as good and attractive for our business as those two of our competitors who are becoming increasingly active in Latin America have.

And we don't ask more of them than they do.

Summarizing all this, Mr. President, we have a suggestion to make.

We believe that

Most of the, there are really no political problems with Latin America, I don't think, very few political problems.

And most of the problems, they crystallize in economic problems, because we are more visible, because we have science all over the country, and we are visible there.

We believe that we must develop a policy, an overall policy in this country, be that be Latin America, a dynamic, an active policy.

We respectfully suggest that this group, this group of men here, would be offered such services as a council as a whole, and each of them personally, to perhaps form with whomever you may assign

form a study group to try and develop an economic, political, long-term program, not get into the daily problems of dealing with Latin America, but to develop a long-term program for the next 10 years.

And we would be willing, this group, to spend as much time as necessary to meet with a group that you would assign to try to think up new ideas, to think up new approaches to the problems of a changing hemisphere.

And we would think that this might be the main

Many new ideas that came out this morning, which we're not ready to get to, but people are thinking that this might be a wonderful opportunity, sir, to have a relatively small group of men who feel like you, that we have to, the hemisphere is important, the trade is important, to come up with maybe some new approaches.

to our relationships with the Southern Council.

I think this is more or less what we discussed this morning.

Anybody else?

We all speak with one voice.

As he goes up to you, hear from this ear.

Your last suggestion, I think that's excellent.

And I think we can certainly start with the council.

You had in mind working with a group of, having a government group working together.

I'll continue with this.

All right.

It'll be done.

We'll accept the recommendation of all of your service on your part.

Every time we turn around, we try to think of what we can do.

How can we have a new policy for life?

I'm very sorry if you've got any ideas that are worth watching.

Well, you know, they talk about the referential sheriffs and that sort of thing, but so often in our meetings with our Latin friends, it's mostly rhetoric.

They know it.

I mean, they like the rhetoric.

They like the gestures.

In fact, they go all the way with that, much more than almost any people in the world.

On the other hand, when you see the revolutionary forces that are put on there, the rhetoric is going to be numb.

And I think, at the present time, we have to realize, too, that Latin America, more than any other place in the world,

uh, perhaps in the so-called monetary, its future really depends on what private enterprise does.

Not only ours, but theirs.

Uh, the, uh, rather than the government, the government relationship, we, we prop up governments all over the world through our aid programs.

And that's just the way it would work in Latin America, Latin America.

Would you mention that figure, fortunately?

Sixteen.

Sixteen figures.

And also, private investment is expensive, whereas government is not, because the second point was regarding it.

if you're concerned about taxes, if you're concerned about something like a bird heartbeat, then needless to say, I don't know if this administration will go to any nonsensical legislation of that sort.

Also, it would be fair to say that there is a responsible move in the present time among some of the Congress to, it cuts much deeper than simply a trade bill or a tax bill.

It's basically, unfortunately, a new isolationism.

And it is limited into that way to the Congress.

There are many in labor who used to be more international positions.

We're now turning into this direction.

And I would have to admit there's some in business.

that are turning to them.

They say, I love when you've been carrying this load for a long time, and the world wants to turn in there.

It's to that point that we must address ourselves.

It's to that point that you as an international, companies, et cetera, but at least with an international interest, that you have a real mission.

You've got to see toward the other end, as you possibly can.

And counteract this growing threat of isolation.

Because it will be reflected in taxes, it will be reflected in trade, legislation, everything is wrong.

And everything we're trying to fight for in a world that's more open and respectful right now, too, if we move retrogressively in those areas.

So there's no question about the agreement here.

I would say, too, that the need for, in terms of the expropriation of some flexibility on the part of the president, or the president or the administration, whoever it is, the donation is quite obvious.

Here again, we have a congressional problem because, well, let's be quite candid as to where you stand, if I understand.

perception there, and the fact that the leaders in Argentina, for example, talk quite a bit much differently than they talk publicly.

What we have to realize is that around the world, the so-called smaller countries, or the less developed countries, and this is not new, but it's a disease that has grown rather rampantly lately.

It is that there's an attitude that all the politicians playing for their other radical people on the left, particularly the younger people, some of their people and the rest, that the way to success is to kick the United States around publicly.

It imparses a dangerous policy.

I remember talking to one of my friends from the Philippines 15 years ago on a trip there, and he was a very successful politician.

I asked him what his secret for success was.

He said, he says, give the Americans hell, and don't drive them away.

That is what our line of friends are doing.

That's what really is involved here.

It's not only happening there, but it's happening in parts of Asia, in Asia and so forth.

They're giving Americans help, but don't run them away.

So they must do it.

That's why it's very important for them to understand, the leaders of those countries, that they can go just so far with this anti-Americans.

without crossing the line that would drive them away, if I drive them away, grabbing the tires, to react.

Because the attitude in this country, you know, except among sophisticated, kind of among yourselves, the attitude in this country is that people who are tired of getting kicked around, say, look, we've been a character who's a great load in the world, we've completed the war, lost a man in World War I, World War II in Korea,

And Vietnam carried the whole load, and we passed on $100 million in aid and more, and all we get is a kick in the face.

I'm getting to the arguments that I hear sometimes around this typical mother system.

And so this poses a problem that is very difficult.

It's one of the reasons that we have to work constantly with the leaders of these other countries.

Well, let's take a career example.

He is a fundamental politician.

He will talk privately very, very publicly.

He runs around the hemisphere and so forth and gives Americans help.

Now, that isn't going to help much, understand?

I don't say that I'm not talking against him privately.

I'm simply saying that that aim

which they had played for so long and are playing more now, can bring terrible consequences because you state to the caucus, what are they going to do now about Mexican-Canadians?

What are they going to do about salinity?

What are they going to do about other things?

How are they going to react?

Because they're not going to take this kind of thing and say,

So I should point out that while they'll probably emphasize the fact that we have many clients in these areas and our relations are good and so forth, the danger is that

There's a growing tendency abroad for politicians to exploit anti-American feeling among their majority of the radical activists that get away with it.

That is the major concern we need to have in the foreign policy area.

So all of us must fight that to the extent that we can, and try to have as graceful a way as we can, rather than a proper way, to get our friends in this hemisphere to speak to us in government, in business, and the rest, to realize that that is a very dangerous game for them.

Let me put it another way.

We have 16 million dollars now in Korea.

And Kevin Blige, he was a veteran of the UN, he used to say that without the lack of countries, we couldn't stay in the UN.

That was true then, but it's not true now.

At the present time, we have to realize that they need us more than we need them.

Now, the point that I make is,

That is gradually going on.

A considerable number of people in our Congress expressed that we cannot, well, we want to be there.

We will be forthcoming.

We're a country.

We can take a few kicks in the face and so forth and so on.

And all of us in positions of leadership will sort of brush them off and say, ha ha, we understand.

But I can tell you that if you get down on the board of this Congress, it's rough.

It's rough as a cob.

expropriation and arrest.

Does anyone want to play that game?

In fact, the tendency of Congress is to be more rigid rather than less rigid.

That's our problem today.

Let me, let me try to put all the perspective in terms of the world's thing, how it is really done.

If you don't believe any impression into it, it is all that pessimistic as it is.

What we hear,

I was thinking how much has happened since we were here in November of 1969.

And I think sometimes we lose perspective because, you know, there are problems that we may have and so forth.

But in November 1969, the time that we were meeting, I mean, that meeting, there were 300,000 demonstrators, almost 500,000, I don't remember how many there were.

And, uh, we had, uh, we were losing approximately 300 people in action in Vietnam and 500,000 men.

Uh, they were stationed there.

We were in confrontation with the Russians.

We had no contact with the Chinese.

The situation in Latin America then was about as it was now.

Not much worse, perhaps it's a little better now, I don't know.

But when we think of how much the world has changed since then, it should give us no cause for euphoria, but a cause for hope.

We live, we live in a potentially very dangerous world.

The reason I mentioned, for example, how different the situation is now with regard to Latin American nations is that what it was in the time of World War II is the advent of the nuclear weapons.

We have to face it.

There's not going to be any conventional war between superpowers in heaven.

It will be done in 30 minutes.

So the world had to change that way.

The leadership here must move to deal with it.

So we looked at what the situation was then.

We looked at what it is now.

Most of the American people, of course, look only or primarily at what happened in Vietnam.

They're pleased that all of the Americans are out of Vietnam because there's a war we're trying to end.

There's no draft.

No draft for the first time in 25 years.

We're very pleased with all that.

But that misses the larger picture.

Far more important than the war in Vietnam was Maggie DiCocco.

So far more important than that was what we have done to change the whole world and not to eliminate the danger of war, but substantially reduce it, particularly between the major countries.

That's what the China duty was about.

It was a very important issue that many have read and still do.

It has been great when finally the Communists in China, the anti-communist president of the United States, finally got along and had a nice little handshake.

It does nothing to it.

Certainly, we are talking.

But it has much far more to do with it.

that I, as the president of this country, looking down the road, could not allow the leaders of one court of all the people in the world, with the potential of becoming a massive economic and nuclear power, which they are not today, but being Chinese, not because of their conscience, they do anything.

We could not allow that situation at all.

So that 15 or 20 years from now, whatever is sitting in this house is not a communication room.

And so we moved, and we have a new relationship developing, a very important one.

It's rather curious that turning the PRC, at the present time, of all the major nations in the country, the United States, with whom we do not have diplomatic relations, except as long as we set up a Bruce Barry plan here, we are their best friend.

So, that's happening.

The other thing, of course, was to see Koro in a week, a couple weeks.

The meetings with the Soviet Union were, in Moscow, were very important.

A number of, a number of important agreements were signed with cooperation in space, science, technology, and environment, and

Any one of those agreements would appear to be quite important a few years ago.

But of course, overriding all of them is the first step in the implementation of your arms.

You've had to build your weapons, you've had to negotiate a treaty on that, and now we're voting on the offensive side.

One point that I wish to make is that what is far more important is the United States and the Soviet Union, each of which has the power to destroy the other, by just pushing one button.

The United States and the Soviet Union are now in a position where we are negotiating and where we are not agreeing on everything.

President Obama is a deeply-believing communist, and I am deeply-believing

On the other hand, we're both very pragmatic, and we recognize they need us for other reasons.

We don't need to go over those.

But we recognize that these two giants in the nuclear field have to find a way not to rub against each other in critical areas of the world and run the risk of an explosion.

And so we are finding that way.

All of this is happening.

We'll have a week to ten days of very intensive discussions here.

We will have some rather important announcements to make.

But far more important than the individual announcements will be the fact that there isn't at all.

The fact there is communication.

Because that means there is a substantial deduction of the chance that if they make a move, for example, he may just give them a chance to wait or something like that.

that we allow that to escalate into a nuclear crisis.

Just let me digress for a moment.

The reason is for these communications.

The Stoketons today being approximately equal to the United States in terms of nuclear capability, trying 15 years from now being equal to both in terms of nuclear capability if they want.

Which is often the position of whoever is president of the Soviet Union.

A man who calls himself a secretary of the party of the Soviet Union.

Or president of the United States.

And what your foreign policy is.

We haven't realized it in the present time.

And you could add a few millions of drachmas, but it doesn't make any difference.

Yes, because of the move of the committee and the rest, the President of the United States decided that, well, we will have to react.

He would have to react with the malice that his decision would result in the deaths of probably 70 million Russians, 70 million Americans.

If the Secretary-General of the Soviet Union, Mr. Krishna, should make such a decision, he would have to recognize exactly the same thing.

Now, it is that, that, that fact that hangs over the world, that makes it essential that whoever sits in this chair do everything possible to reduce the danger of any kind of conflict.

The Soviet now was a Chinese leader, and of course, balance each has the other.

I could go on for a moment, looking at other parts of the world.

But what we have to realize, too, at this time, is that the tendency in the Congress to move toward the new isolationist

And because we have had such success in reaching some accommodation in the Soviet Union, have had some success in opening the channel, have had great success in including Vietnam.

And people just say, isn't that great?

Now we've got peace and it's lovely and the world's changed.

So we'll cut $10 billion of other defense funds.

Let me say it.

That would be changing the game plan that's working, and it would be a disastrous mistake.

The defense budget today is one-third in real dollars of what it was four years ago.

We could cut it more, but we're going to be trying to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with the Soviets.

We're going to be trying to negotiate a mutual reduction of forces in Europe this fall.

I can assure you, though, that all these business members in the Congress

Prior to the time, he negotiated and said, regardless of what you do, we're going to content me that none of ours can get it.

You try to look across the table to Mr. Gresham and say, well, look, we've already cut this much.

Now, shouldn't you just say, well, why?

It's cold, I can assure you.

Nothing is done in this field because of love.

It's all done because of respect, sometimes fear.

Otherwise, if we are going to be able to play a role in reducing the burden of arms and reducing the danger of war, the United States must maintain strength until we get mutual reduction.

Mutual reduction.

Otherwise, there will be no reduction.

Otherwise, what will happen?

There will be no reduction on their part because it's difficult.

You have a situation where the United States reduces

say, its forces in Europe, reduces its military capabilities.

And the Soviet Union remains here and weak from there.

You can see that that balance having changed.

Our negotiating position, our ability to play a great role in the world is infinitely weak.

Our allies will lose confidence in us.

The Soviet will lose respect for us.

The Chinese will consider us no longer important to them.

And our whole policy will come crashing down.

So that's why we have to be cursory on defense among any other means.

Not to mention the state of defense, but defense so that the United States, which is the only nation in the world that can play the role of a peacemaker, can play the role.

I just simply add there that

that others should play.

And we think they could.

But let's look around the world.

Before World War II, we could sit back and speak before the war and say, well, we've got the French and the British, and they were great nations, and they could play a role.

Before World War I, it was the same.

And the U.S. could come in later, no longer.

Because in the present time, we face the stark fact that in the free world, we're the only nation that matters from a security standpoint.

I don't mean to downgrade our British friends or our French friends with their many new capabilities, but they know that.

The Germans, of course, cannot have it, never can develop new capabilities.

even though they are, of course, potentially very effective.

And the Japanese, the only other economic power with that capability, with the economic power to develop a military capability, cannot be allowed to happen because they could be as dangerous as anybody else.

That we all know.

So here we sit at this time with Europe, the New York, an economic giant,

and military and political people.

And because they're all scattered around here, and we've got to work with them, and we've got to work out our economic problems, and develop new policies for the Earth to strengthen the alliance and give it a sense of direction.

But in terms of the security of that alliance, it's all right here.

That's over.

It's two of them.

And they know that.

And you look at Japan, the same.

The Japanese, of course, they make their move toward the Soviet.

They make their move toward the Chinese and the rest.

They are keenly aware of the fact that without the American alliance and the American nuclear deterrent, the Japanese would have to do one of two things.

They either have to make a deal with the Soviet or they have to go nuclear.

And you see what that would do for the world.

So, we now try to look at all of the perspectives of Latin America.

There's been a tendency for many, I think, to think that we were playing the big power game.

You know, we talked to Tanaka, we talked to Breshtown, we talked to Jeremiah, and even to Pompidou and Eve and Brown and Barrett.

But we don't really care much about our closest friends and neighbors.

That isn't the case at all.

Because they have

our friends from the South, any non-state, the things I'm talking about here.

Because if the world should develop, should have been allowed to develop along down the tracks it was going in 1969 and the night before, if that should happen, it would become a very, very dangerous world.

And so what I am sent to say today is that we've got to look at the whole picture.

The United States first must maintain its military strength so that we can play a peacemaking role in the world between superpowers and keep our commitments so that the Europeans don't feel that they all have to go on a race to Moscow, and so that the Japanese don't feel that they have to do something and look at other options.

That's why our position is so important.

The United States, in addition to that,

You must think positively in terms of what we call the smaller, or shall we say, less prosperous countries, less rich countries.

And here, Latin America comes into play, and so forth.

Here, Africa, and so forth.

Latin America is the most important because they are our closest friends, they are our closest neighbors.

And it's vitally important that we, that we not allow that friendship to deteriorate.

And here, of course, the economic game is at stake, as well as the political, the economic game.

That we do everything we can to reinforce our, first, our interest in Latin America, but also to find new ways to have them know that

That it's best for them to work with us rather than somebody else.

Because, you know, Europeans are working in here, the Japanese are working in here, the French are working in here, and so forth and so on.

And that's all right up to a point.

But America must play, the United States must play the lead role without, of course, impinging on the sensitivities of the lack of something.

There it is.

I would simply finish this dissertation by saying, I'll make one comment about the major dangers of our communities.

We have no answers to that, but we're working.

We're keenly aware of them, and usually we're aware of the fact that all the places in the world today that could risk a conflict between major powers, this is the most likely candidate.

You see, Vietnam, as many of the people who wrote columns and the rest all said, you know, we have probably necessarily, you know, bombed and bombed and bombed.

So at least the Chinese would come down to Russia.

They were going to come down.

Vietnam was not that important to either China or Russia.

But the Mideast is that important to Russia.

And we know it, and they know it.

So that's why, in addition to avoiding

The U.S. is slowly up there, not to mention the enormous problem of what's going to happen to these energy resources in Europe.

Japan gets 90% of its oil from the Middle East, and Europe 80%.

If you close it off, you can see what could happen.

I'm not trying to build fears here in advance because we may be able to, we hope we're going to be able to work it from the mountain over a period of time.

I can assure you that that's the highest priority.

So, in conclusion, I raise these other parts of the world

not for the purpose of downgrading black art, but for the purpose of all of us saying that we've got to play the whole world canvas.

No nation would be an idol no more.

The United States cannot be a partner in America.

It could have been what Bob Kaplan suggested, but no one.

And under these circumstances, we must play a role.

And that is worldwide.

It sees the whole world, not part of it.

And that means getting along with people and governments that we didn't feel we could before with the Chinese, with the Russians.

finding a way that the new Europe does not have economic confrontation with us in a way that destroys our political alliance, political and military alliance.

And with Latin America, of course, finding some new approaches that will constantly reassure that if we fight our moves on the world scene, in fact because of them, that they are still

very important, even more important to us than they were before.

And if we convey that kind of sense to them, I find, for example, in my meetings with left-wing leaders after going through the bilateral problems with the electors, the president mentioned those sort of things, that they are very interested in what's happening in Coral II.

They do not want to be provoked.

No one really wants to be.

So I want you to know that your concerns on this subject will be certainly to be in consideration.

And I hope that you, on your part, will give us the support we need.

on the defense team and the other foreign policy area because we can have the finest relations in the world when America isn't going to make any difference if the United States becomes the second strongest nation in the world.

That's Nicole.

Can I say just one word, Mr. President?

I'm sure all of us were tremendously surprised by the very brilliant and comprehensive analysis of the real situation.

And to me, that's the case behind myself.

And, boom, I bring the reflection, sending out all the points.

There are just two things in relation to our Latin American problem that might be the same.

One, the very fact that these days we are identifying five major power centers of the world, namely the United States, Europe, China, Japan, and the Soviet Union.

And there's no question this is a fact.

But this is also recognized by Latin America.

And therefore, I think they're saying to themselves, well, where are we?

We used to be in a much more prominent position.

And therefore, it seems to me that one of the problems we need to do is to find a new role for them in relation to us so that they will feel that they are of

of importance drops in a different way, but nevertheless of importance in our esteem.

It seems to me this is one of the things that ought to be looked at.

And if our group can be helpful, we'd like to.

The second thing is that, to a considerable extent, the U.S. involvement in Latin America is an economic one, and it is private economic.

In other words, these $16 billion probably are the biggest U.S. state involvement.

But the very companies that have that state

are under very heavy fire at the present time, not only in Latin America and other parts of the world, but at home too, in our own counties, and among many other places.

And therefore, we are fighting to some extent a defensive battle of our own.

All the more, it seems to me, we need to find a role for ourselves, both with our own government and the Latin American governments, which is constructive and positive and acceptable, which I'm afraid at the present time it isn't.

But here again, I think that we

need the guidance of people in government and need close cooperation.

And all I'm saying is I think this is another reason why Hefner's proposal could be commercially constructive to us as representatives of multinational corporations, but also

in relation to our role in Landmark, and why I think that this doesn't make sense.

And it's true that in the past, there have been times when groups similar to these had a more organized relationship with them.

We're naturally terribly pleased that you responded as better as you did, and I think it could be helpful.

Well, I want to be sure I haven't left you on a downbeat note.

What I was really trying to point out is that in the world today, I mean, there are many major spots.

There will always be.

because it's not the nature of man.

Unfortunately, it's not.

I would simply say that the world in terms of the long view is sacred.

The chances for a peaceful world, an open world, are much greater than it was four years ago.

And the greatest goal that I have in these four years is to make enforcing or help or contribute to making myself.

Your cooperation in this area will be extremely important.

I've always felt that we have really been able to get any...