Conversation 504-013

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

What are you supposed to do?

Well, it's nice to meet you, sir.

I can't sit here.

Come on.

It's not too late.

Those good ones are going to be great.

You should have no luncheon, sir.

I'm going to tell you I'm leaving.

All right, Dave.

Well, once I have a chance, here we go.

Sir, how's it going?

Before we get into the China thing, I do want to talk about the future of Europe.

Well, I have no problem in terms of, I don't have a problem anyway, but I just wanted to ask you about your son.

I don't communicate with April meeting itself because I'm free.

Tell me, where are you going to be?

Is there going to be an event next year?

No, just me.

There, we're not going to mention the problem.

about how we do it and whether we have a connection to the European Security Conference, and we'll end up making it here, and she's been very fluid.

But what I thought was interesting was your own view about whether you would like to try to get some negotiations going fairly soon, you know, have the thing really held in advance to try to have some

say, in the next six months or nine months, try to work out something so we could have a percentage reduction or some kind of reduction of a minor nature.

I don't get it, but this is something that I'm trying to do.

Or it would be like this sort of stonewall that you can pretend we're doing something, but we're not.

I think you start with a proposition, and you have to appear superhuman regardless of what results you get.

The Germans may push that a little bit, because they're the European security campus.

They, we have tied down two satisfactory solutions for Berlin.

I know that Graham said yesterday that he, uh, you know, we ought to go forward with a little field.

Otherwise, it'll be, uh, I don't think that you ought to, that you ought, you've got to start, uh, so you've got to discuss what this, uh, position should be.

Uh, this is a very delicate thing with regard to the monetary, you know, how to get, uh, we ought to, uh, I think we ought to get, uh, good pasture with immense people.

I don't know, at least I don't think it's strategically the same, but on the other hand, I think we ought to sit down, we ought to, we ought to do this.

I don't have any problem with what you've said.

I think that this part is standard.

On the last point, there will be a lot of interest in having some preliminary discussions with the Russians to find out what they're talking about.

I'm sorry, I understand.

So, not negotiations, but I don't think we can prevent them from talking about having some preliminary discussions on a bilateral basis to find out what the Russians are doing.

My question is more...

I was talking to a military counselor and I don't think $30,000 or whatever, $10,000, $20,000 or whatever makes that much difference.

He doesn't think that would...

I don't really care about the particulars so much.

How would you like to set the posture in such a way

and should we position ourselves in such a way that we could if we wanted to get that kind of a limited reduction in the next six months or seven months, eight months, or would you prefer to get a third?

I think what we want to do, we want to come up with some sort of reduction.

That's right.

So we've got to come up with one, at least a public proposal, and...

We made all this argument here against the resolution on the ground that we were prepared to discuss this.

Now we just can't go over and stonewall everything.

Well, no, I don't think we should stonewall it.

I think we should have a proposal that really does something.

And I know they had recommended a $30,000 cut on studies to call it.

It's judgment.

uh, nothing that's usual.

It, it might, it could be.

The kids aren't given on that.

This is $30,000 for us, which means $50,000 for them.

Sure, we can do it.

On a mutual basis, it's different.

On a unilateral basis, everybody says it's to be mutual.

But on a mutual basis, one of the things that one is okay with, for example, is where the piece of the grade, for example, is out of 100 feet of evidence, which we have more than we can possibly use.

for some of their times, but we couldn't include any of their possessions.

I don't think we ought to think about this in terms of, I think it's going to be a little light and slow.

I think thinking about it in terms of the final thing is helpful and we should get to the answer to that.

I don't think it'll work that way.

It would be a first step into something else.

And what I think about it, the pay to eat, obviously, often, and the answer to you, that people think that way, to help unbalance the table, reach an unbalanced concept if we can get it.

and to appear that we're anxious to try to work something out.

I don't think it would be wise to move in this direction.

or something considerably shorter of a final.

But you can't, you can't, I agree that you cannot think in terms of a final agreement with like, this is fine, this is what's going to happen.

But then it's very important in terms of price along the first line, as distinguished from what they were opposed to.

Well, I thought there was a spiel about the proposition, but I find out that we are, we would, but I'm just thinking about, if we could, in the next six months or eight months, we would have a 10% reduction.

So in addition to, well, they used their troops by 50,000.

And it would be, I think, quite a victory for you in this country.

It would prove everything we said in the issue.

A whole final agreement.

In terms of what people think of, they're more interested in manpower than they are in gangs.

That's true, that's true.

But what I mean is in terms of the symbolism, in terms of the symbolism.

Well, I think that he has studied this down into this, which we ought to look at.

I want to have it up to you now.

I think back to his hand, isn't it?

I think we've seen so far that that might be good initiative, so I don't know.

As a matter of fact, everyone will be so eager to run anyway.

I think we are going to be the ones that won't go on trains.

That's what I think we're doing.

Our position must be one which is very, first, I think you can go there with the assurance that we will have the congressional support that we've won that final second, that your agency told that second,

Whatever we do, as far as what we should propose, that we have some ideas.

I'm specific.

What I really want to know is whether it seems like a good idea to you to try to work it out.

To me, it seems like a good idea.

And it seems to me a wrong idea for us to be in a position to appear to drag our feet.

Now, the journalists will want to drag their feet.

It seems to me that we ought to first give the appearance of wanting to move ahead, not too fast, but move ahead.

Secondly, we ought to be thinking of very limited terms to begin with, not in terms of the total, final, mutual balance towards position.

We spent two or three weeks discussing with the Europeans, and then...

This doesn't preclude getting treatment in six to nine months.

But what do you propose when you make a 10% report?

What is it that has to be moved out?

Does the equipment have to be moved out?

How do you prevent them from coming back?

stuff like that, and since we are the only ones in the Alliance who have really seen the series work, uh, that, that is, uh, that's the only thing that's involved here.

There's no issue about, uh, about, uh, we can't work out the whole long-term scheme.

I don't think any of us can.

Let us, let us leave this one in the chat.

I didn't hear your comments.

First, we recognize that we're not going to have any kind of instant solution.

Second, we recognize that there's some progress.

Third, we have to be the strong ones.

I think that as far as the timing is concerned, that sometime this, sometime next to nine months, just to give you time, to nine months, some progress in this area.

I think what we're going to do is sit down.

When we have this meeting, let's get the, let's get the past year look over the 10%.

Put it right down, and we'll have a proposition, and then make it.

Yeah, that part of it, I don't believe it's complicated.

It seems weird.

You know, we, I don't know, in these places, it's hard.

It's hard to do that.

Well, I don't believe us won't do it.

They probably won't do it on a 30-day basis.

I don't think they will either.

Yeah, do you think they will?

Well, I don't see how they can't refuse to make both.

They've said they don't want to make non-symmetrical ones.

They've said they don't want to make symmetrical ones, 10% or 5%.

They don't want .

You know, when you get very down to that, though, we've got to look at that, too, with all these propositions.

The Russian is very hard-pressed in the way that it's not harmful.

We all know, too, that when you look at this whole thing, I don't buy the proposition, but it's...

We had a chair.

I don't know.

I mean, it's in Russian or something.

It's not a good one, but it's not as hard as it can be made.

And it says, I don't know.

They start to compare it to a study that was made about a year's worth or something.

Well, there'd be a lot of studies that got a little longer studies than they are.

They didn't get a lot of study.

And he said, he indicated that, you know, you need to take the gender line and try to stand it up.

Uh, we will complete our study sometimes in June and that's when we go to the National Council.

You said exactly the same thing.

What's your goal then?

Yeah, in other words, we're making our study when we go to the National Council.

Now what does that mean, when we go to the National Council?

They meet every week.

So in other words, we completed our studies.

We did that in our time.

Good.

Well, I don't think there's a problem with that.

I think we want to indicate to our NATO allies that we're serious about it.

We want to move ahead.

We don't want to move ahead without full consultation with the Allies.

Well, I think I'm satisfied in my own mind what I want to recommend, and this is what

Our current position is so fast that we lose if we follow the present course.

Lose in the sense that the important question on your view means that the majority of people was born against the important question.

of the issue of the Albanian resolution, which .

The Albanian resolution requires admission of Congress and expulsion of Taiwan.

But I don't think there's any doubt about that.

I think you can say with certainty that if we maintain the present course, the county sign will be admitted and the time will expel.

However, as a policy, we're gonna have to fight for it.

We can't just do that to make our peers to be a nervous effort to help them with.

We want to be a problem-resistant security council because it's gonna be strange to tell them I want them to get out.

I have some advantages in that they're just trying to get something behind us.

We had a little tentacle.

We don't really decide we're doing it because science wants us to do it.

At one point, it is the easier course to follow.

But a lot of times, it's better for the, probably better for the world.

And it's taking these, it really, that's probably what our position on the planet is.

It's such a fallacious position to say that we represent all of China.

True.

We don't have this support among young people.

We have this bloody heavy, this old man.

They think it's going to be good for us.

So we get all of that behind us.

In the meantime, I have a feeling that you take quite a beating.

I think that...

Exactly right.

Well, plus the fact that...

Well, the fact that you were following through with the policy, which, honestly, was on the trail, and it could even be bad, because you're trying to get the argument smushed and everything.

The other side of that, of course, is that you have to act.

I can see that.

I think about other options, too.

You think about trying to start with us, too, on the other side of the fence.

The alternative, really, is to do our contention.

Assuming you don't want to follow the first question since I say this, but I'm going to interview the, if it's a problem for him, I can't go because it's a, it's a legal position, his legal position in the world is that he represents China.

He's kicked out by a vote of the membership.

He will, he will have some patience.

First thing we do now, he actively

discuss with our allies and friends and others what we can do to seek for Taiwan, how we do it, and so forth.

At least as a representation approach, but this video discussion we're going to have to see it.

This is as follows.

We will have a resolution which says China should be admitted.

And the question of Taiwan

position would be an important question.

Which would mean that on a question of expulsion, one would have to have two to explode.

There was admission that we had an important question in this resolution, but the condition would be that the majority would be compliant with one resolution.

If mid-term, if China didn't agree that it takes a two-fifth of a quarter to expel Taiwan, we think we could win that.

We think this would be quite acceptable to most of the nations.

If we were to do that, if we were to do it that simple, we wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Then the question arises, what happens to the security if we don't succeed?

I'd say that is this.

We'll add to the resolution that I just mentioned, seating in Congress Channel, that Congress Channel will get the Security Council seating in this room.

That's not my name.

That decision is up to the Security Council, not General Assembly.

But against that, I'm in.

on the ground that this is not within the jurisdiction of General Assembly.

And we would say, as far as the security of the seat is concerned, one or two next year, we think we probably should, we can.

It was a furry judgment, and it would sort of duck the issue.

Then Congress, China would have a

We have to decide whether to come to the United Nations under those conditions, not knowing whether we're going to get the seat.

And those circumstances, if they would not agree to this, fail to join the United Nations under these conditions, we wouldn't have to face the issue of the state of Kansas City.

We could hold that position for two, three years.

Probably in a flat analysis, if Congress refuses to, then the nationals will agree to make it clear that the Security Council seat belongs to, we can prevent that from happening to the reason I mentioned.

The Security Council can't decide that until somebody is there.

We can argue that the veto applies to the Security Council because

We can veto it.

But once they are a matter, then it's just like, we can't veto it.

No, we can still veto it.

Then it's a very close question whether veto applies to this kind of situation where the Security Council vetoed what I said.

If this

Of course, as he feels it, he might be in the ownership of the Security Council.

There could be landings to his credentials.

Yes, there would be.

Of course, there's got to be landings.

It would be perfect for being on the door on a credential issue.

They won't go to China at all.

Yeah, but go on and on, that's just fair.

My view is that China will not try to get in under those circumstances.

China is going to say, we're not going to go to the United Nations as long as Taiwan has a seat.

And if they say that, then the issue of the security consultancy doesn't arise, or we can say it doesn't arise.

Congress, not as a principle, trying to figure out a way to resolve that, but we don't think they can.

So if this course of action appeals to you, my recommendation would be that we start actively to discuss this with our allies.

Publication, from our point of view, until we make some sounding decisions if this will succeed.

In the speech, if you wanted to, it would be fine, thank you, but my own view is that it's when you can't win, everybody is going to be mad at you.

Well, I just want you to know that it's untrue.

I'm trying to manage it in the U.S.

I don't think anybody can deeper circle it out as a theory, you know.

You know, let me try a couple other things to see what the, I don't know, there's no, the best thing to do really is to get the goddamn thing over with.

We have to realize, we have to, looking at it,

Well, that's what I had to talk to a buddy there.

If we didn't have our problems, our commitments to China, that means something.

We didn't have to have a bunch of Taiwan.

We have to remember that it's all in China.

And say to Saudis and people like that, there are lots of people around the world, sorry, God, live us on this, who think in terms of friendships and so forth and alliances and say, well, now, what the hell is he going to do?

He's going to dump this guy and put it in the Chinese counties and do it.

Let's take our meeting there.

We also have to realize that we move that direction.

And the age to the extent that we're all waivers anyway.

I'm actually now taking the hard line, which I think we've got to consider.

I don't go out with the hard line.

If you lose it and get it over with, basically, as you say, it's the cleanest way to get it done.

Now, looking at the future of the world, the country and everything, I mean, really, if we look down the long-range future,

Frankly, China, the Communist China, to the United Nations is a large issue.

We have a relationship with the Communist China, a large issue.

And in terms of our very central role in this,

It's to our interest to make a situation that also you've got the Chinese and the Russians in there.

Because China and the UN will be a hell of a lot bigger problem for the Russians than it's going to be for us.

In other words, the Russians finally would have a rival to kick them in the ass.

You know, I mean, let's face this.

I think that's the way I see it.

Now, on the other hand, let it just happen.

uh let me say i'm speaking out i guess i'm supposed to hear hold on and uh even though we bought it even had a part of it against it nothing happened once it did happen and we did and we stayed in united nations of course we were i do it poses problems with companies turning over a frame it returns to this country

As you can see, not before our announcement, China initiated a lot of big blunders and small arrests.

But it is the fact that a majority of the people in the country do not favor the initiative of China and the United States.

So it presents a problem here.

On the other side of that coming,

In terms of our foreign policy changes, in other words, trying to keep a tenuous peace in the Mideast and expand it, and new Russia and the Soviet Union, and you could even prevent mutual violence forces, and in war, Vietnam and so forth, it's quite a record accomplishment for us, and it certainly was set off, and I think this is the part of the

They're concerned.

They said, Henry, I mean, you're trying to be more than it does me or you either.

Because he has to live with these people somehow.

Those people that presently are getting as high marks, they like what we're doing.

Most of them in the East, they like what we're doing.

And China, they like what we're doing.

So they think, oh, my God, maybe these guys aren't so crazy, so dumb as we thought.

Now, a lot of that, as you say, would be terror and dissolution.

Get to the United States.

If, if, if, if, if line number one, I mean, I probably, I'm sorry, I'm talking about line number two over here.

I think we took line number one, line number one.

I just need to be able to soon determine if we're doing it.

That's my guess.

If your analysis of the votes is correct, I don't know whether Henry's, uh,

You lose, but would you agree with me also that the sophisticated people would write?

They'd write two things, in my view.

And here, to be perfectly frank with you, I'm a, it's like a razor's edge thing.

It's a razor's edge.

I ask him, what the hell do you think?

He sort of leads to your position.

He says, but I just don't know.

He says, that's right.

You have to put it, lead to that position.

But you say, well, you can see that that thing, you, what does feeling to me make sense to take the line number one?

It is the difficult, the difficult line.

is that we might, just might, in that case, get an awful bag of rattle for having stupid and rigid foreign policy leadership in which he's lost.

I think we'd get a curious reduction.

who would say it's truly inconsistent with our other policy.

And it's safe or stupid to tell the minority, which however would be quite awful, that says it is a masterstroke exception.

Which, however, I doubt you'll note down, but perhaps you would say that this would be some of the liberal commentators who realize this is the way in which they train in the cynical, and they, to the extent that they're aggregator, how you again lose the benefits

I think we've got to realize that our pro-China people are going to see it all that quick, too.

Uh, I don't think, well, you know, I don't, I think that they don't feel as good as the rest of us.

Let me figure, uh, let me figure out how to explain this.

You want to hear the bloody plot?

Let me say what I think the bloody plot is going to be.

Uh, anyway, Slytherin, your friends, the pro-Chinese, the pro-Chinese, are going to, no matter what they're going to do, if, if you lose,

and they're thrown out of the county of Stuyvesant.

Uh, they're going to be unhappy as hell.

They're going to say, you're weak, you didn't fight hard enough, you're not strong, you didn't push your allies, you didn't do anything.

Yeah, that's a good point.

We'll agree to that almost again.

If they get thrown out, no matter how much principle you stood for, people don't.

People, if you lose, they desert you.

You have to start a coalition, we're going to lose.

I think we all agree with that.

If we take the fight, if we take line number one, it's going to be, no matter how hard we fight, we're going to lose.

So all the pro, the turn-the-locker group will say, you're weak, you didn't fight, we could have put pressure on this country, the shenanigans that there are, the Chiang Kai-shek will feel let down, and so forth.

Now, those who should give you credit for being plainly cynical will be the very ones that will call the hell out of you for being

For being said, I don't want to say this was terrible.

I showed no leadership.

I didn't stand on principle.

I lost both ways.

You don't have any principle.

and so forth, and so forth.

You're still talking about line number one?

That's not line number one.

So I don't...

Even on line number one, they'd say you didn't have principle.

Because you lost.

What?

Because they don't like it.

Oh, yeah, they are.

They would think you're not good.

They're liberals.

They're not going to give you any credit.

Well, I think the point is that if they saw, if they saw that we were going to lose, and you're still standing there just going through motions, and this is him or something, perhaps...

What would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your, what would your,

I don't know, but I quite agree with this, but you know, most of the, if you take a large group that had this long study, they recommended this course.

Most of the people do representation, not necessarily to China, which is, that goes to recognition, but just do representation, really.

In fact, we've voted for this.

Most of the so-called papers, so they'd have trouble turning away from it.

It does have the perfectly sound rationale.

It's nice to have both Chinese and the United Nations, the way it makes sense to have both Chinese and the United Nations.

So I don't think it's a, I agree with him if he looks at it,

But I think also, as far as our administration is concerned, it would be a great benefit to them, because they feel very uncomfortable with the present position.

I have a lot of friends in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Italy, and one of those chapters.

feel that our policy is pretty dumb.

What about, what about John's friend?

So he's got a few, you know.

What about that?

I'm not sure, but they don't think so.

What about the Koreans and the Russians?

Well, that we talked to them.

They all understand this.

In other words, they understand that the other course means that Chiang Kai-shek is going to bring it.

They hope that we can work out something which will... And the same thing is related to China.

Yes.

Australia, for example, is now.

On the resolution last year, although the majority of nations voted for it, there were almost an equal number of groups saying it.

And the reason they're saying it is because they don't want to, they want to come and try to get it.

They don't want to .

The prevailing view of the international community is we should have the both of them in that nation.

in the rest of the world is that Congress changed the head of the Security Council.

That was the reason for the abstain vote.

Of course it was.

See, I thought the reason for the abstain vote was that some of them just wanted to be with us.

I suppose that could be something else.

My answer is that the UK will vote for the L.A. Constitution.

I don't think they want to do a representation, but I may be wrong.

No, they're waiting for us.

All they want is...

more active relations with China.

And China told them that if they get rid of their representative in the five-day, British representative in the five-day in Manhattan, and if they vote with them in the United Nations, they'll then start having much more active relations with trade groups, especially trade.

So they're interested in this.

The main thing I would like to do is to vote, to change the vote on the important question, vote for the Albanian resolution.

If we take a stand, though, then they might, they might .

So that's why they keep saying to me what they should now, you know, what other countries would be, would tend to be influenced by what we do.

There's a lot of Latin countries around, a lot of other Latin countries.

There's some African countries.

People are starting out fresh.

But frankly, if we start out fresh, we would put, I mean, communist China in the U.N., right?

We wouldn't dream of letting communist China take over 15 million Taiwanese and mortgage that market.

We would celebrate it.

That's another, that's the report.

That's administrating all the rest.

This doesn't relate to our relationship.

I don't know if a successful representation would be humane.

Could I suggest, sir, why would you do it if you didn't want to screw me?

How, first and foremost, if we're talking now, this is Tom Sutter from Maine, how long will you be leaving her back?

You do her two weeks in prison.

Nothing.

Ten weeks.

Ten days.

For the course of time, that's not what I mean.

I think you should handle it pretty much yourself on a very close basis, indicating that we have reached a position where you can say that

that we have talked to, and we frankly are standing in that position.

We're standing in that position at this point, and you are trying to determine how.

I wonder if you can do that.

I guess perhaps when you saw them in the briefing before, they said you should put them all into that.

Well, I don't know what I meant.

Could you put it up in this terms?

I know you've got to have something to say.

Could you say, look here,

Because, you see, since you returned, you've had Murphy come back.

And Murphy said, John says, if you take to China, you're going to get a security council seat.

We can't do that at all.

You know what I mean?

You're going to get a security council seat.

Well, he didn't understand.

Anyway, that's done.

The point of it is, we now know China's position, which is very clear.

He says, either go out and fight, or I'll take to China, but you've got to get a security council seat.

But we can't do that.

But on the other hand,

Knowing how far our problem is there, could you give us the time

Because I think time is going to be extremely important in terms of, I have a hand on this one.

We made a move, the two gentlemen.

I have a move on the right wing myself.

I'm going to get a word with you on this issue.

I may be able to do something with it.

But I want to be able to move it now.

I think you could, if we could confirm something with you, discuss it.

with the various, you could discuss this matter for this period of time and come in.

I believe, as you probably already have, but there's still, it's further along, it's crystallized more than it was.

I think that would then allow me to have the chance

to sort of figure out how exactly to do it.

I wouldn't want to have, for example, on your trip, I wouldn't want to have the whole thing come out and see how the United States has changed the decision that's trying to develop the support for it.

I think it's premature to do that.

When we change the decision, I think that we ought to try to develop, I like to call it domestic.

I'm not concerned about it.

I mean, we'll take the heat with the International Center, even in the lab.

But I've got to handle these domestic people, the hardliners in the House and the Senate, some of the colonists, and people who aren't really a part of the channel army, which is still a considerable group.

I think that if you ever, in the next couple of weeks, ever come out that the U.S. has actually changed its position and is consulting with its allies to get support for a new position,

That would be very difficult.

If, on the other hand, you could discuss it in a way that you were trying to explore the position that they would take.

In other words, here are the options.

Where will you end up?

Having in mind, in fact, that in the final analysis, we will have to take a position one way or the other.

Could you do that?

Can you handle it that way?

Well, I don't know.

You see, the thing seeking out is what I'm concerned about.

I'm concerned about having to come out

I had a lot of dissent on the fact that I was a jackalist, and I had to say, and I'm a liar, and I told the liar at the press conference, and I don't know where I'm concerned.

At the end of the day, I think it's going to set a problem for those as far as some policy is concerned, because unless you're not with the delay, that no policy is going to succeed.

Other nations are making their way for us to help.

Well, now wait.

Let me ask you.

We talked about Malaya.

I'm not talking about Malaya for two months.

I'm talking about Malaya.

I can't really talk to them about it.

I don't know.

You know, I mean, there are all these other people.

The present course is agreed to by everybody is disastrous.

You can shake that shade.

So what we're talking about is suicide, as far as it is.

It's doomed to failure, and they know that, and everybody talks about it.

So I think that's what we're asking.

Do you want us to defeat it this way, or would you rather have to try something else?

What's your suggestion?

What you would like to do, or what you would recommend, is that we go race-riding.

What I'd like to do is just say, do that, and I'll get out.

Well, at any time, I don't have to.

I can't do it.

But what I think we ought to do is decide not what we want to do.

And I think all of whoever we want to talk to, all the judges and the others, put it on the line and say, look it, we're prepared.

Do you want us to get out of the pit this way?

We don't get this sort of thing for check, best check for us.

Now, they'll all have to come to that conclusion.

I think the way we ought to handle that is the best way to handle that.

Probably is the best way anyway.

You've got to have it.

Let's go ahead.

You do not feel a way of leaving out the water just the rest of the moment, don't you?

What I'm getting at is, what is going to come out between now and the next couple of weeks, what is going to come out is, this isn't even an announcement to China, it's a monumental decision.

I mean, it's a monumental decision, it's a hell of a news story.

Now, if that comes out in a way that, well, that the United States is privately or secretly discussing, it's trying to enlist the worker to China, it seems to me that that's,

I read it.

The proposition of doing it through a speech, she suggested at a later time, or probably accurately, which is probably better than doing it through consultation.

You see what I'm afraid of?

You talk to the British, you talk to the French, you talk to these other people.

That isn't the way to do it.

I think when it's done, it ought to be done in an orderly...

I don't like to do this.

kind of thing that he ought to have done.

Well, he could, I don't see, he could do the consultation and still give the speech at Shaddai.

Yeah.

I mean, he wouldn't, well, President Truman wouldn't be killed.

I'm not sure.

See, everybody knows we're talking about killing.

That's true.

All over the world.

Is it possible to do the consultation on the Vegas?

that we want to find out whether these countries, what so-called, the way I would do it is this, Mr. President, I would talk to countries that we have pretty good relations with, like Britain and some of the Asian nations, and say, look, we're leaning very, very much in this direction.

We think if we follow the rest of the course, it's disastrous as far as you're concerned.

It's your final decision.

The President's going to make the decision right now.

But I'm authorized to talk to you about it in these terms.

Here's what we're thinking about.

What is your reaction to that?

Your reaction will help us make our final judgment on it.

We hope you will.

We could make a speech.

We could.

Mary, you are certainly a good person to do it because it's sort of a legal matter in July, so...

On the other hand, if it started to leak out, we could do it quicker.

We don't have to wait that long.

Well, as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, if you could handle it in a way, in a way that you would emphasize that you've not made a decision,

You see, the moment we get to the point where the decision is made, you know, the ground is a family, built domestically, and it's just not that way to go about it.

But if you could say that this is a problem, and this is a problem that we're considering, and here's a position that you, that...

And if you were insulting various persons on the basis of regard to what their attitude toward this position would be, how does that sound to you?

You have to let go of what it says.

You will make the promise.

That gives a little bit of help to the president if we do operate.

I think I've got to put a little story to this, because I've done this work.

We've already said that.

The last three months, we're considering it here on the back of it.

But the history of what I've got to say is this.

Look, we're leaning in this direction today only for these reasons.

The way we decided that we were going to lose, we followed the present policy.

Mr. Exxon, the President has made a final decision.

Why don't you look at it this way, rather than say that we're leaning in his direction, why don't you say that you, you, as a, you know, in this situation, are, are, are in a position to move in this direction.

If I'm leaning in this direction, I think I've made the decision.

I don't know if there's any reason to not prepare it the other way around.

I would want to do that, but sometimes I'm not sure what I'm going to talk to you about.

I don't know.

No, it seems to be... Well, we're leaning.

That's the problem.

I said we are...

I mean, if you said we are considering this particular...

Well, I don't want to say anything.

I seriously didn't consider it.

You look at some of the words many times, they're more than just words.

That's right.

Well, that's true.

I need you to well say that.

I keep always knowing how these guys take every comment and interpret it.

I think he said, I said, here is the proposition that we can sign on a situation.

It appears that we are certain that we consider them first, of course.

So that reason, we are seriously considering this proposition.

What do you think of it?

That's good.

How's that sound?

That's good.

We're seriously considering that.

How's that sound to you?

And then you go down and then... No, then we can take a... We can sort of get a count of the number of books.

But in the meantime, I think you should start talking to your...

Yes, I have.

I felt my inclination with them.

Because they have pretty hard...

just before it's done, and just say, all right, my voice, here it is.

I think, too, the trouble is, you see, if you get them over a period of time, though, I know this is referred extremely well, what happens, they go home, they gestate, they talk about it for the rest of it, they gin up a lot of columns and grades out, letters and lots of things.

Once he decides, I like the idea of a decisive motion, a decisive motion.

And I know that we can all handle it.

We can say,

Here we go.

I mean, how do you know some of these people?

We're here to see you, too.

Yeah, it's hard to be the devil's advocate.

And it's threatened enough.

On this mind, I go back and forth.

But why?

It's really a very tough one.

What would we lose if we delayed another six weeks?

We lose a lot of votes.

We get a lot of people that are committed.

Why don't we get anybody?

Why don't we just sort of... Well, I don't know.

We've got six weeks on the public discussion.

Oh, no.

We need the public discussion.

Public discussion is a special one.

We'll have to get nations to support us.

Well, then, we need to break the public discussion.

Thank you.

Also, if I could interrupt, how does both Iman and D.J.

take the resort at this new position?

If you do what you're doing, you're going to die.

Do you think we should change our position?

How can you do that?

You recognize it.

Everybody knows what we're doing.

So how can anybody be unhappy that you say, well, should we try something else?

I think I'll explain it.

We have to come down to, is this, I think that, I think that would be best is to take it however that we should.

After you've completed that process, we'll get into the concern.

I'll do it.

I'll write you the rest.

But I think the idea, in memory of Bill, I think his idea, and I think that he makes the announcement there.

But then I also,

It also will give, the main thing about it is if you're just moving, not touching the crack, the crack in the door, I'm sorry, from this standpoint, that we can't evaluate the events so far.

I don't know.

I think your conservative friends will think that you were, it was a terrible defeat and followed a policy that was still defended.

Uh, the middle community, they all, they all, we've been about there right a long time.

So, uh, I think,

I think this is the argument that Henry's making on.

And also say, well, I have the United States head of principle, and we want to work with .

And I think that's delicious.

I don't think most thoughtful people accept it.

And he doesn't know.

Maybe it was a good policy the first 10 to 15 to 20 years, but now he just doesn't get some.

would I do that to a communist China if we continue to say, well, Chiang Kai-shek represents all the people of China?

It was such a joke to read it this way that people chewed it off.

People were disgusted with those terms.

It was kind of exciting to have her.

You know, let's say in July, when that's the end, the end of July, we've got to go out there and do that.

Well, you know, before that,

Well, by any chance, that's in terms, I would think, maybe, that you tend to try, basically, to sort of, we've got to, we have to kind of water down, so we've got a piece a week, two weeks, at that base, between both, and so on.

In addition to this, Javis has a resolution, you know, the same thing that, that, that Javis would govern,

Anybody else?

I've been having hearings studying about 10 days on the same subject.

We'll be back.

Be sure that it's coming back.

I know you'll be in the office.

Be sure that you will receive the clearance.

They'll be able to figure out what those kinds of things are.

Well, I don't want to say anything about it.

I don't want to say anything about it.

I'm going to send it to you so that we know the direction of what we get there.

Because I think this is one where I think this is what we must have.

I'm going to listen to you.

Oh, I can get a copy?

I can get a copy.

You don't want to do it?

Let me just rephrase the question.

I have a little fear that this is starting to get...

If I'm in Canada, it's probably a little...

I will proceed to have discussions with my counterparts, 50 of those we can trust, who are seriously considering this change.

That looks to us as if the other course would be due to failure.

No final decision has been made, and we won't make it for a little while longer.

And we'd like to get their reaction to this, the post-course of action.

We'll try to get as an accurate count as we can of the support we have, and have that ready for you early in July.

And then you can decide, based on how to play it.

It tended to be the idea of,

Thank you, and now we're going to move to July 19, so excuse me, good, but you'd like to have the opportunity to turn it off because it's nearly July.

As a matter of fact, we might have to make a speech.

It may only be that it would be something if you wanted to make the decision earlier you might want to do it before you sign.

You know what I mean?

There's one way to take something positive without having to sign it.

That's the best way to do it.

Move the time table up a little bit.

And another thing too is that when we think of the speech at the EPA, that's one thing.

You've got to come to think of it.

You're looking at it from a standpoint.

You have more attention to the Senate than the Senate.

Sure.

And I think on this, any decision made on this is going to have an enormous impact when it comes, which is a particular way to go with themselves.

Well, at least we have something to sell this morning.

Okay, well, I think that's right.

And I think, getting back to the Europeans, I think they're...

It goes without saying that we talk about our own domestic opposition to our own domestic support.

I think that we have a reductionist in this particular way.

We've got to move in an orderly way.

We want you to hold the line, not go off jackass-ing around for a second.

And it's very natural to be very hopeful at this time.

I said, look, if you're ready, we're going.

I'm still up to get it.

And, uh, when we, when we, uh, when we talk about an amulet, are we, excuse me, if you say anything, No, if you say something like that, if it sounds as if we're dragging a piece in the gun, the amulet, it means we're attempting to make one.

So what we have on there is, I have no difficulty in appearing to be positive, and I have no difficulty in dragging a piece in the air.

No, I see.

Well, that's good.

I think, I think what I'm trying to think about is, let's talk a little bit about David Bruce.

Some of the propositions that, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you, that you,

I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference.

I shudder at the thought of putting another DCF public official over there, quote unquote, because that will spin you into all kinds of discussions and you'll go, I'm not sad.

Not at this point.

What we're really talking about by the 1st of August is really about the man you're talking about as prisoners.

There's something that can happen.

And some of the other people in that, and it shouldn't be about a figure.

You can't control anybody and take them that far.

That's right.

I'll go with that.

You know, one of them all that I always liked that I think is a pretty solid kind of guy might be, because he's a straight arrow and a wild horse.

I don't see how they can move him on.

That's what I think about it.

What about, what do you think about the L-picture?

What do you...

of the chorus of this film.

The chorus is a pretty shrewd guy.

You know, he can't run, but he's supported the strength.

And he knows we get down on the chest.

You know what the chorus is?

He doesn't, really the point is to not have nobody to talk to.

If we're figuring out somebody to do the job, if we're figuring out somebody just to go over there and sit and do things.

You know, again, I'm wondering if you should maybe just take some younger guy.

What do you think?

I thought it would be good to do prison, so I figured I would get some of the money.

I like it.

I'm sorry.

He said, I'm going to go back to the columbarium and sign it.

And I didn't ever sign it.

He asked if I signed it.

Well, you know, we set another man up, and then George Bush, he wouldn't talk to him.

He was sure that he said positive, and he did.

And then he made another public announcement.

He said, I don't think you got any money.

Well, this Monday, I did.

He wasn't going to say he can't get it, though.

He wasn't going to.

But then, when I needed to go to, I think it was for him.

I know that I, like most, is not available, and I wouldn't go get it as a courier to Flores, Mexico.

Well done, great boss.

You won't buy it, why can't you get it?

The Russians have made it too fabulous.

The writers, and their writings use a hell of a lot of pieces.

Well, now they're wrong.

Oh, you know, we don't know.

I think, for a minute, I was going to kill a couple of them, actually.

I think it's the fact that he was offered to be very nice.

I don't know what these international meetings could have been.

I'm just going to tell you, Grossio's place, you know, that's all covered up.

But that happened again.

I'm wondering if we're going to get a close look at medical freedom, you know.

I want to represent somebody in Austria, that makes it so much more peaceful.

I'm an Austrian candidate, well-timed, who has been with the UN for a long time.

He's a fellow in his other country.

He's been with us for so long, I don't know about that.

Are you kidding me?

Are you thinking of the UN?

He's a good man.

Yeah, it's a story that's a little bit different.

So, I think that's a good question.

I think that's a nice thing to do, a very nice thing to do.

You might call me on the phone.

You were discussing that you, I mean, on a personal basis, you know, the way that the Mexican government has said, because they do it by nations, they have nations that they make announcements.

You get a little credit.

Yeah, I would just hang with them.

He also knows if it came out that we were supporting Mr. Kistler there.

So what you have to do is to pretend that you're not supporting him.

That's a good question.

Thank you very much.

I had a good time.

Thank you.

Do you need something?

No, I need something.

Oh.

You stay here.

I'm going to decide what to do about the belt now.

Okay.

Do you have any ideas?

I don't see the sense of urgency that tells me, because it's a purely tactical embarrassment for your suffering from not having a physician.

But this way, this is the best we can do.

It's my own, you know, it is a reverse overruling the Secretary of State on the action.

I think, tactically, that that would have been just to keep it fused up for another two months.

And he doesn't think he can do that.

I think it's pretty obvious.

There's so many people that may have an answer for it.

You know, because it is, well, we're seriously considering it, but I haven't had the mind to answer it.

I suspect they're going to sell the living to Jesus out of it.

What I find so interesting in the State Department is that they have no strategic sense.

All they worry about is their personal embarrassment

But his concern was that I've already told him that I don't have any position on Christ Almighty.

So if that opposition is to say so, God damn it, I do it every day in a press conference.

Well, he follows Green's advice.

He doesn't.

But it's... We can handle it.

As a matter of fact, we didn't handle that drawing.

There is a lot of discussion about the two-channel thing.

It's probably what we're going to end up with.

I...

I mean, I was, you know, I'm very tempted to stand for principle and get rolled and get them out.

I am concerned about one thing.

We've got to think very selfishly.

But another way of getting rolled, Mr. President, is to delay our position as long as possible.

Then, fairly late, go to a two-china position and then lose on that.

Then we've done everything.

It's really not important enough.

Will you go to China?

That's going to be awfully reasonable to a hell of a lot of people.

Oh, yeah.

Awfully reasonable.

Actually, the way he's formulated it now is better.

If he then gets off the universality one, which will drive everybody, will drive the Germans to push, he just says, Communist China in.

and that we can, I think.

I like that part of the idea of the expulsion by two-thirds rule.

I'm going to pull this.

I want to know what the LR column is in the domestic politics.

That's what we do it.

I also will have to determine whether or not I am announcing myself.

I think there is much to be said for letting him do the analysis.

It's just a technical matter where there's a hell of a lot of people who can sit and get the credit for it.

You put your finger on it at the end.

The thing that worries me on the mutual forcing, if he could,

we're all out for reductions, then if he says 10%, the Italians will say 30%.

It doesn't matter if the Italian's background, that he's dragging his feet, so what?

No one takes the Italian seriously anyway.

And one of the advantages that the Russians promised themselves with all of this is to disintegrate NATO and to create

And that's why he became like a rock.

And that's why he became a great man.

He stood there and cried to him like Jeremiah.

He walked out of the 17th National Development Conference.

He said, that's nonsense.

As a matter of fact, to any extent to which I am

respect from the intellectuals in this country.

It's not because I've given in, because I haven't.

It's because they totally disagree with the position I've taken, and they've gotten that well, that I feel whether they can give or take another one.

Well, Dylan said to me at the Brookings dinner, he said, you know what I thought about the president, but I've got to admire his guts on Vietnam.

On the soft line, my own view is, my interest in it is purely cynical.

I know that's to exploit the soft-mindedness of the intellectuals.

I don't kid myself for 50 seconds that there are going to be four of us in 72.

But on the other hand, they do influence a lot of people between

for the senators to yell at us.

And they keep things quiet on other fronts for a few months.

And if we can get some momentum... That's the same, that's also the reason why we've got to get some big offer in Italy, a big offer in India.

Whatever you call it.

The reason for that...

But we've got to be very serious about reinforcements and all that sort of stuff.

Not because it's so crucial, but because if we are not serious towards the alliance, they're all going to run for the exit.

That is my worry.

Oh, you didn't point...

I think what happens is that Bill doesn't have any advisors over there who ever talk to him in terms of technical terms.

And he likes to move anyway.

Bill is a charger.

And he likes to be popular.

That's why we want to use him.

We've got something to charge him.

It's fatherly to give it to him.

He'll do a great job.

He won't do a little worth of damage.

Particularly if it's something that's popular.

You'd have to stand up.

Why?

You've got to stand up for an unpopular cause in the other community.

He knows that it's all right.

But he seems to be in.

Oh, he's in good shape.

Now, I'm in China, and we're buying exactly where I was telling you to be.

That's right.

Because the Chinese won't come back.

They should be back by...

They'll be back within ten days to two weeks.

I think so.

Because you know I got to deliver the message.

He delivered the message on May 19th.

It took five days.

I've now got a good channel.

But I told his ambassador to send it by pouch.

Didn't want it on a Pakistan wire.

I've now set up a wire to Karachi for our ambassador, which goes only through Mora.

Nobody knows it, and it's got a special code which only Haig knows, so even Mora can't read it.

And so now they can deliver messages in 24 hours.

It took five days.

So they've only had it for seven days.

And my guess is that they'll reply the first week of June.

Do you think they'll reply?

Almost certainly, yes.

We offered them a presidential visit.

We told them it might be authorized to arrange the visit of a public ambassador.

If it was not useful, it's hedged a little bit.

And in addition to a presidential visit,

In addition to presidential decisions.

But then, Mr. President, after all, they are revolutionaries, but who would think of this peasant, former peasant Mao, the Great March, and then the President of the United States comes to Peking at the end of his life.

That's... Well, that's why this former president, president, has got Mao, got to decide whether he wants to come or not.

I think we, to bring him again this morning, talked about that trade deal, that $500 million trade deal.

Yeah.

We just don't have enough information to act on it.

Well, he did it, but he doesn't raise a sum.

He never raises it, does he?

No.

Well, he must have a reason.

Well, no, they are very cute.

They figure you're very eager.

So they figure they're first going to make you pay on business, then they're going to make you pay on trade, and after that they give you the summons.

What the hell are we going to talk about there?

Well, I think, well, we can have... We need the summit for a number of reasons.

It's a discipline in doing so.

Yeah.

Well, we've got to, we need the summit for a reason, getting a deal on the summit.

That's what I mean.

Exactly, so then we've got to have it.

And we can...

The radio said he let us, Mr. Minkoff, know that he's not going to screw around in that by and large.

That's right.

I always try a little deal.

He said, can't we talk the first two weeks about ABM only?

I said, if we want an agreement, you need some face-saving thing, you want to talk about ABM for a week.

That's one thing.

But essentially it has to be concurrent.

And if you read the letter, it has to be discussed before so we know what we have.

And I have

of conversation.

So what I think we should do is, it's playing dangerously, it's living dangerously, but that's how you got where you are in foreign policy and other things, too.

The thing to do is to tell, in my view, is to tell the brain early, too.

We reviewed the state of relations.

Things are now moving on a number of fronts.

Either you

won't have one this year.

That's less eager than just sitting there waiting for them.

And then if they turn us down, Mr. President, then I will drag our feet on trade, on Berlin.

Or at least, yeah, certainly on trade, drag our feet.

They don't need to sign it anymore.

We're going to drag Craig down.

I've never signed another goddamn thing for him.

My feeling, Mr. President, has been that I get them an ultimatum on that exchange of letters.

Thompson would have been a heart attack.

And is that what we're going to be?

Can we still drag him further?

Yeah.

I'm just capable to rush for Trifecta and settle it quickly.

Do you know this?

You're sure you understand, sir?

Probably.

For all these reasons, we should not let them control the pace of events.

If you're willing to forego the summit in September.

Sure.

But I think we should wait through the next week to see.

But you don't have a summit on Russians, do you?

You've got to deal with the Chinese who go to China earlier.

then we know where they stand.

You notice the hard line the Chinese are taking on Taiwan?

The 19th province and all that sort of crap.

Yeah.

I've said that, of course, every time.

No, what they have asked from us up to now is to remove our military forces from Taiwan.

If they would help us make peace in Vietnam, we could do it early in your new term.

Just put it in terms.

Yes, we will do it.

We make a private contract to do so.

Taiwan, except for the sentimental thing, is really the least significant American.

I'm sorry.

It's a heartbreaking thing.

They're a lovely people.

I hate to do it.

I hate to do it at all.

And they've been my friends.

Also, I still can't believe they did it right when he says the Koreans don't care.

Kishi doesn't care.

I don't care about Taiwan.

Totally wrong.

Somebody is telling him a bunch of shit.

Totally wrong.

Your instinct is absolutely right.

I think these are just solid.

Solid is a great thing.

But according to me, I'm deeply shocked by your character.

Of course, it is.

Thank you.

What's the matter?

What happened?

What did he say?

uh, hell, he's telling us things I already knew when he was still wearing California suits, which is, uh, uh, and, uh, they quoted Atchison as saying, when the pictures came, when the photographer, when you wanted to have photographers, and they quoted Atchison as saying, uh, no photographers, Mr. President, we are here to talk, which is, of course, also nonsense.

No, he said, let's finish that one sentence.

And,

You know, who was it that put that out?

Oh, it could be somebody like Vance.

It could be somebody like Vance.

There were so many partisan Democrats.

Somebody told me that Vance has been promised the Secretary of State position as much as he wants.

Is that right?

He's got a bad horse there.

Yeah.

There's another reason to be against musketeers.

Oh, you know, Vance has got a bad horse.

And Vance has a bad horse.

That's what I mean.

You know, Vance is... Vance is going to go and catch a musketeer.

The musketeers are going to make it.

And that kind of crap coming out of him immediately.

He's a president, I think, as far as, as far as, you know, the, the, that was a damn good discussion.

That's what I said it was.

That they should have more understanding of me than it was.

When you, Scott, walked around at a meeting of liberal artists and intellectuals of the Arts Council, bragging about the great leadership of the president, saying there were 30 votes against, we were 30 votes towards,

The president made that same firm.

I didn't believe in it at first, but the president's leadership, the president this and that, that's what you, Scott, I have never heard of, and yet defend you when there was any risk involved.

I was referring to one of the comments that they approved to go back just in advance.

Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President,

It was a terrific meeting.

They all thanked me.

Well, one problem we are having now is we got too many SAF guys bragging around, but this wouldn't be a typical SAF thing.

This was a deliberate traffic.

I'll tell you who might do it, North SAF.

He's one of these smart alecks.

Vance is confident enough to do it.

Yeah, but it doesn't sound like Vance being that mean.

No, he's not that mean.

Clifford would be.

Vance would not be.

No.

Norstedt could be, I agree.

Norstedt is a sort of a, I mean, a bright, smart aleck.

Every, in every round of the day, after the day of the meeting, he was a bright-eyed, pushy child.

Thanks be to God.