On November 2, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, William McMahon, and Oliver F. ("Ollie") Atkins met in the Oval Office of the White House from 10:59 am to 12:24 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 611-005 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Well, how are you?
Good to see you.
Glad to walk with you here.
Thank you.
Thank you for talking to me.
Well, you have a top journey to Congress.
I've been a person of great interest in Congress.
I used to be quite a tourist, but now I'm going to shop for the money.
I don't know if you want this idea to become your guide.
I don't know.
It's a great answer.
I'll tell you which one I am.
You know that, the, you know, that thing that comes down hills and works, comes down trees.
That's right, guava, guava.
Why don't you come over here to practice, too, if you'd like to get a picture with everybody.
I'm going to test the game in about a week from the start of the trip.
The problem is you should have examined the plane, but you don't have it now.
No, sir, it's not one that will take you very far.
Oh, I accept.
Yes, sir.
I've been in general trouble, but today I'm going to be getting more than $15,000 in the house.
Because of that, it's going to be essential.
I've had it.
I didn't get to it.
I didn't get to it.
I didn't get it.
I didn't get it.
I didn't get it.
Thank you.
But I think you'll find that if you have a body that you've been there before, then you're pretty safe.
You're going to fall in the hands of the other.
You're blessed.
You're not blessed.
You're not blessed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, you may believe that, uh, sitting up at a city conference, you can't have a new account because it's read out, or you can't have a new account because it's read out, or you can't have a new account because it's read out, or you can't have a new account because it's read out, or you can't have a new account because it's read out, or you can't have a new account because it's read out, or you can't have a new account because it's read out, or you can't have a new account
I always remember that when I was in 53, when I was told so strongly that I was going to sit in the flight to Los Angeles, and I was told that I was going to fly to San Francisco, and I was told that I was going to sit in the flight to San Francisco.
And that city was supposedly a very bustling city when I was in St. Albert.
And even though, in terms of the ideal, I don't know, in terms of the etiologies, it's the other way around.
And there's a couple of those distinctions.
I saw a first race in St. Albert, so I don't think that we are close right now.
Jason, I don't know if this counts.
But, yeah.
We went through this thing, and it's...
I'm going to put a cap on the bottom of the seat, sir.
Oh, yeah.
Well, let's see if you can take it off.
You're right here on the far side of the street cabin.
You can only get close to it.
It's an activated box.
It's very good.
Keep that.
I have it with me.
Thank you very much.
Well, we've got to get a long hand here.
Yeah.
It's all in the press that we've already given to the people.
This is just a little demo.
This is the pen I used to sign bills with the Congress.
It was on people's accounts in Congress.
That's what I signed the bills with.
And there are a lot of people who are going to come to town.
So that's where everybody is.
Thank you.
Have a good night.
Have a good night.
Thank you very much.
I have to make up before I get to the Australian doctor.
when there's a big controversy, and I think he's right away from being part of Kyrgyzstan.
But the newspapers will be for them.
Is that right?
They've covered every newspaper.
What's he going to do in Pyongyang?
Is he going to make a sudden trip to Moscow or something?
Because they're going to, they're going to have to pick up something and glamorize it.
That's right.
Let me, let me keep in our conversation, Mr. Prime Minister, with something that is
I think very important in terms of our post-communication.
I realize that in our China announcements, it's not history, it's probably time we did it.
caused you some problems.
I mean, naturally, you were very considerate in recognizing that we had to do it on a confidential basis.
That I had to do not just for the Chinese, because I'm sure you know what the Russians and others
not yourselves, on the other hand, and also because we didn't know what was going to happen until Governor Kissinger returned from his trip.
This is the first one.
On the other hand, to have this happen at a time that you were frankly taking the line that we had taken, and I particularly had taken, with regard to the China-China aspersions to the Chinese documents, when one of your opposition leaders was rambling around in Peking, could not have helped you then.
and embarrassing.
The last thing that I want to do is to, I must be quite candid looking here, I'm sure people will appreciate me, is to have any, any stranger relations between
the United States and Australia, because we had no better friend in the world than the Australians.
I say this personally in my business there.
I like your people.
I like the gutsy way that your government has stood by us, and we trust we have stood by you.
World War I, World War II, but all the way up to the rate of Vietnam, which is a very tough experience for you.
Now, on this particular matter, we had this problem, which, as I said, could not have been avoided.
On the other hand,
I was so delighted that you could make this trip to Washington at this time.
Looking to the future, I want to set up a channel of communication directly to you
which will not go through our Foreign Office or through yours.
Now, this is not said interrogating the Foreign Office, and Secretary Rogers is totally aware of our policy and so forth, just as you said, Secretary, but there may be occasions when something of a confidential nature
uh, 50 cap two, kept out of the demo, off the diplomatic wire.
You have a victory metaphor in this trial.
If you defend us under the diplomatic wire, they may not.
They're sitting in counties that have openly worked for the police.
And what I would like to suggest in each of your approvals is to be able to talk directly on occasion.
For example, let us suppose prior to going to Key Cane, as an open secure, or prior to going to Moscow, maybe Sunday.
Am I talking directly to the ambassador here?
Then have him talk directly to you.
I understand that the ambassador is.
Communicate directly with the prime minister.
The prime minister had an occasion to send a message.
This is private.
Directly to you.
That's right.
And to be candid, indeed, to his candidature.
There are many free people who vote in the committee.
The prime minister will be announcing what we should do.
He's not going to get it.
I know we can use it.
I mean, for future purposes on matters of substance.
I want you to know we may use that.
quite often do.
And it is not, it isn't, like I say, it isn't a question of individuals being trusted, it's just a question of the less people who are privy to something that is highly confidential or better.
So I look forward to that proposition that I'd like to do a little more deep and post-preparatory.
It could have been a little better if it was in May, but he's been extremely rude in that year at Whitman, the leader of the opposition.
extremely religious and saying, well, you'll be under compulsion to take the Chinese line, you'll get kicked out as well.
I couldn't let that go.
First of all, it was unkind.
Secondly, it meant that it was an insult to the leader of the free world.
And thirdly, for personal reasons, that he had to be put in his place.
Well, that may be quite correct in regards to what we expect out of the Chinese visit.
First, they know that we know
that our differences are enormous, and that many of them will never be resolved.
They go at us with the idea that we will discuss our bilateral relations, and neither has any illusions that
to win over these discussions that didn't place at the expense of the other parties or his own other alliances and friends and so on.
This is what we begin with.
Now, I would say that it really means that, in specific terms, that
Well, first of all, in general terms, it really means that we are beginning a process that would probably be that our relations with the Chinese could be a little faster there.
And they will have none here in this time.
Chinese are somewhat on the same order as they were with the Soviet 30 years ago.
Discussion, talk, et cetera.
There's some channel of communication.
But why gulf between us on very fundamental points?
Now, then a proposition comes up.
Well, if that is the case, why talk at all?
Well, the problem there is I should realize that when we sit here 750 million times, you are, of course, more sensitive to that even than we are.
But we're damn sensitive to it, too.
And you look at the Canadian nation.
You've got the Japanese, who produce 2 and 1 half times as much as the Chinese, but are, in other words, they're an economic giant in the military opinion.
On the other side, you've got the Russians,
Now, you have the Russians on one side, you have the Japanese on the other side, and here's the Chinese with all of their power.
Now, what this means is that looking to the future, that whether we like it or not, they will be a fairly formidable military force.
a very great threat to the peace of the world.
A threat because they're common, because they're not, and because, basically, they're communists.
Because we can say what we want about them.
Attacking each other by nature are not extensions.
This might be true.
Nevertheless, they can feel communist then.
And the goal has to be that extension.
Do you understand?
So it's saying to us that at this time,
at this time, that it would be useful to broaden the game.
Broaden the game.
Broaden the game vis-a-vis the Soviet, broaden the game vis-a-vis Japan, the rest of the world, and the rest of Southeast Asia, with the idea that we
we could start a dialogue in which we decide if there's any illusions that we're going to have Asia sit down and carve out the word and have a condominium about what happens to the rest of Asia and, in effect, concede to the Chinese total election over that part of the world.
That is not what we have in mind.
And on their part, they have in mind the fact that
that the United States, and I want to emphasize this to you, despite all the misinterpretation of the so-called Nixon doctrine, is not going to cease being a acidic power.
I think I want to assure you, and you should know, that the whole purpose of our foreign policy
The whole purpose is not to get out of the world, but to find a way, a viable way for the United States to stay in.
Now, how do we do that?
The United States, our people, will no longer support a massive American business presence abroad.
They will no longer support that.
On the other hand, the American people, the most important business,
which is significant combined with economic and military assistance for our friends and for our allies.
And it is on that basis that we're trying to develop the policy.
He said, whether it's in Japan, Korea, or in the Great Circle, or whether it's in Thailand, or the other end of the circle, or whether Jesus is saying something particularly looking around there, that the...
Needless to say, whether it's about Campo, Vietnam, or Austin, that no one can judge, in the first instance, the things the doctrines be, just a clever way for the United States to accept the inevitable and get out of that issue.
Or, no one can sue.
That's not what I'm trying to say.
And probably if you're friends with the opposition, it's to try to imply that our Chinese action is simply going to end up with our going to Peking and our agreeing well now that we recognize that this is the kind of sphere of influence we're getting out.
Now, that's a statement.
Now, Kissinger has been there.
He's had these long talks with Joe and I.
And so they've been longer than you read in the press.
His last talk, you can read 30 hours from him.
Now, all these talks, I think, I think I have properly reflected the temperament, and I'm not, I'm not, I'm not going to say the talks are not belligerent.
The Chinese, as a people, are very sophisticated people.
The Chinese are very civilized.
But, as far as
And this is a concern.
I think I have probably said it, and I haven't really said it, I mean, to the positions of both sides.
Correct.
Absolutely.
I think that the Chinese are dedicated, not in principle, to communism.
On the other hand, they are not dedicated to bureaucratic investments.
So that, as Joe and I have admitted, will take a very long view.
Now, we have made it absolutely clear to them that we are not pulling out of Asia.
We, especially in the confines of this room, have said that we have to distinguish very sharply between what they state as intangible and what they state as a realizable objective.
Intangible is that foreign troops will be withdrawn from all Asia.
But he said if we watched his statements carefully, he had never stated when they should be withdrawn, when he talked about the American forces.
And he said he needs the principle because there's foreign forces that really want him.
The 300,000 Russians sent out of Mongolia.
So I do not believe Birka could get under pressure from the Chinese.
to do anything specific with respect to those forces.
In fact, I don't believe it's going to happen.
But there's also something that he said.
Now, we think that all of us, the U.S. and the United States, that to indicate that the Chinese
is aimed at the Russians, or, the contrary, is aimed at the Chinese, with military as both objectives.
Now, as a matter of fact, however, anybody who looks at the map of a world who knows the historical animosity and the present, the irreconcilable differences between the two, has to conclude that the Chinese
As they look at their major danger, they've got to conclude that the Russians are number one.
As a matter of fact, if they want to look to the future of that area of the world, potentially the Japanese might be number two, the Americans might be number three.
In terms of the danger to that, because our history is not one, I mean, whether it's Korean, I mean, Asian, or whether for that matter it's a Vietnam, it's an Indian nation.
We didn't start it from the beginning.
So if they let their neighbors, it would seem to me, and I don't think they could ever admit this, but it would seem to me that it would not be in Chinese interest to have the United States out of that area of the world, because there would be a vacuum, and it would have to be filled, either by them or by some of their neighbors.
But I know the same story.
It's not the Russians to have us out of that area of the world.
But the President was very anxious that I may clear them on both visits, what we will under no circumstances do, lest they develop into very unpleasant situations.
But they had been told on both occasions, but without any ambiguity on the second occasion.
exactly how the president ran the last night in the next election, that it is our way of staying in Asia, not our way of getting out of Asia, that they should not put their policy on the expectation that people withdraw from Japan, Korea, or any other part of Asia.
They have not, contrary to what the president has been given any assurance this month that withdraws from Vietnam
Other than what the president has already said, I don't know.
There's nothing in the deadline.
There's not been told that we would do anything dramatic before the president got through it.
Nor must there be anything after it.
And there are dramatic opportunities after it.
And the press says that they must have been assured that you would have ended the war before you got there.
Or they will not have received you.
It's absolutely incorrect.
And this is what the Chinese have been told.
In fact, the Chinese have been told that if their allies started an attack, they could do so at enormous risks.
and that the Chinese should understand that our contacts would not be detected against them.
And the Russians would do the same thing.
Exactly.
So it feels totally right.
It is not.
We have not made any.
We've literally told them nothing about our Vietnam plan that they cannot read in the newspapers.
And I think it's important for you to
I want you to make sure, because I don't want you to make sure that we're going to do something tricky or this or that sort of thing.
Because if we do, if we do have to do something like that, we just don't plan it.
Because if there's something else that they can beat down, if we have to, I think it's important that you recognize this.
As you know from my own record, I am somewhat the same as yours in your philosophy.
I have a very strong conviction about the importance of maintaining
and revelations around free agent.
I think it's terribly important to see that they grow, that they strengthen economically and have a necessary military presence to handle their internal affairs.
And actually, they could not handle a major nuclear power.
I also, I feel that there's a consensus of gut, philosophical reason.
I want to emphasize to you
If I had gone to Moscow, if I had gone to D.K., they would have been totally pragmatic.
Here's the thing.
You know these damn press people.
I don't know if you're a press, too.
They're running, too.
But so are ours.
But you know what they say.
They give the impression, well, now,
Here's the old co-lawyer finally discovering he was wrong.
And that the communists, the Russian communists, the Chinese communists, really were great, but marked us all wrong.
And they weren't all that bad.
And the armed forces, it's over-changing our policy toward them.
And, for example, even Europe is trying to give the impression, when we meet with the Russians, we're going to make a deal whereby, at a condemnation of the highest level, we will reduce our naval forces.
The Russian side, you should be aware, that one of the major problems that we have, of course, now at the present time is the occupation.
Because neither side is going to be able to get an advantage over the other at this point.
So therefore we're trying to negotiate the salt river.
And, I repeat, that's not provided that agreement has not been reached.
We, of course, that would be a major subject that we would be concerned.
But what I wish to emphasize is that there are those
There are those in this country, as I'm sure there are in the others, who are frankly, I'll use the word frankly, soft-headed.
You've got to say it.
More in sorrow than in anger.
But who have always thought, well, they're really, really, there's no danger from the Congress.
They aren't really, these Congress officials are really just seeking peace.
And the question is, do we threaten them rather than they threaten us?
I have no illusions, whatever, about that.
It is because, however, Soviet power and Chinese power is there because in either case it could be a major threat.
to the peace of the world, and particularly their neighbors, that I think that U.S. power, which is also there, it's here, must be used not simply to contain it with a program of basically building a wall, a diplomatic and alliance wall around it, but also a program, as I call it, of negotiation.
uh, with them, finding those areas of common interest wherever they are, but not at the expense of our friends.
Now, looking at it from their standpoint, the reason they are willing to talk to us is mixed, M.I.V.
Earth is, I think, each is willing to talk to us at this point because of their fear of the other.
I have second, because particularly the Russians, significant interim considerations, the Russians have had a flat of the economy for half a dozen years, and therefore they, we can do something.
They can, it's just, at their standpoint, this enormous burden of arms is something that they can afford.
But the reason I'm taking all this time is because I want you, as the prime minister of a country that we have a close alliance, we've fought together, incidentally, and I will always be grateful for the way you fought in that U.N. vote.
I want you to know the real thinking behind the policy.
They're believing there is no, on my part, perhaps the least naive man in the world today with regard to
the communist regimes in the world, I didn't need that man.
I've been through a lot.
I've been through on the domestic front here.
I've been through on the international front.
I don't think I'm smarter than anybody else, but I just mean that as a result of experience, my eyes are totally open, and I will go into the talks
in a forthcoming way, but I will be just as dedicated and strong and firm on our side as they will be on their side.
I think they realize that, too.
And I don't agree with those who believe that the way to get along with the Russians on the one hand or the Chinese on the other hand is to go ahead and prove old to any indication that you're weak.
that you can be had, and you need that more than they need you.
I think that they, that having a mind where they are going to be taught rules,
very bright bank and the way we should talk to them is exactly the same way.
Now that, would you say with that, with that CP test, that you would expect that they would, they expect you to bust you?
Yes, and actually, I have to say this about the Chinese, they have not placed many short-term states with us.
And I don't believe that there are, we've spent a lot of time with them in order to make sure that when the president got there, there wouldn't be any other, any other political misunderstandings.
And it turns out this reflects their attitude also.
And so whatever reasons people come to work and find those, people find those things, both sides are really prepared to be
And it's been a very unemotional, precise description of our position, and certainly of their position.
I do not believe they're doing it as a short-term offensive move.
I don't believe that history is on their side, but that's a good thing.
Although, can I say, just wrapping up, we would now expect an announcement at some time toward the end of this month.
Now, the date that we're talking about will be, it'll be after the first of the year,
at least two months before the Russians on it.
So that's the ballpark that we're in.
And we'll give you, of course, we'll pass on that date.
We're talking, see, March the 7th will be the last part of May, so this will be at least two months separating the two.
That's our view.
Could I take it that this is not what the Chinese
based upon the assumptions of their pattern work, equally shared with the Russians, but against the Russians, and the dangers of emergent military power in Japan.
They've got to get some of the balancing force to continue to be a balance there, not necessarily a friendly balance, but a balance against Russia.
That really is the purpose of the visit.
Let me put it this way.
We cannot judge.
I cannot judge what motivates them.
But as I put it myself, as you have just done now with what you have, I think, very perceptibly said, that must be a major consideration on their part.
Now, on the other hand, I would not say that they, that Joe Biden, would say that directly to you, although he expressed concern about the Russians currently.
I'm concerned about the Japanese.
Of course, their concern isn't necessarily our concern.
We don't necessarily have an interest in balancing it out with the conservative.
I think their dominant concern is
bring the other men to Allah, into the dark, because in their hierarchy they're probably in number three right now.
It's clear that Raja is the purest one, that you can find in the dark.
And I think they're more worried about the man than about us.
And they take the long way, always.
It certainly doesn't juggle with us, but if you put it well, there's nothing necessarily that can happen, so there's still one more factor.
That's right.
They've been very peculiar with us.
Yeah, how did they do it?
Well, they've tested us, first of all, to see if we'd approach them in Paris, and we didn't know when we wouldn't agree to make a mission immediately.
They were insulting and put us out.
We need our message to go to Bell Drive.
We went to Bell Drive and they'll be receiving an offer to be taken.
They then contacted us in Rangoon and said, please stop talking.
You're talking too much and talk doesn't assist in the commencement of our dialogue.
They then got in touch with us in, through the Czech Embassy, for long.
And then they invited us, quite unexpectedly, in Power Square, at Unilever.
They have done potentially there as the very kind looking in for the Senate committee.
And he was very affectionate and sent us into a separate salon.
We were treated in a very distinguished way.
And the Chinese Minister of Trade was there and we were left on our own for over an hour and a while with that knuckle.
Then they came up to close down the Keeble to see if we could get 25 of the biggest businessmen to go to Peking.
We've had them sitting on big EMs for about six to eight weeks.
and couldn't get any message from, you know, just quite a few people together.
The thing is then, men in Australia, just to be sitting around, only yesterday they told us the time wasn't right, and we didn't know that this was because of the United Nations decision or what it was.
I don't know, just to tell you that he is.
Now, the Russians, they must have seen, they've been sending us messages, they did buy 4 million,
and what they expected would happen.
and they wrote yesterday too, that she'd be going mainly to discuss Western Europe, Warsaw and Aleppo, probably Middle East, but, and what she said about China would be clearly, what Tlegraven said, would be many more times more important than what she said.
and that it was a nice thing to go with the old approach of the Americans too.
The USSR containment and rolling back their power around too big.
And I hope that any of you who played there were a couple of hours, but I suppose that means that no one was here, of course.
they uh just had to make that up sort of that's been adding you but i can't understand the approaches because we've gained from it but they have the interest in here yesterday the communication with chinese to make certain that this dialogue might have some significance
Well, they...
I would think too that they might be reacting to the humanity of the Jews.
Our experience has been that they never do anything to the Jews.
And our judgment is the same as it was to the fellow in Paris.
He said, I struck an ambassador.
So they wouldn't normally bring him into flight, unless they were serious.
They also are obviously less and domestic, his brother.
But it could be that after the U.N. thing, they are reassessing their position.
Perhaps playing with the idea of validation, going out to the small countries, against all the big ones, because I don't really expect it to end.
No, we're not sure, because we've got a wee bit out of the inquiry.
I mean, this is only coming through.
A CDC in Hong Kong, they didn't expect to admit that we had three of our slaves.
I don't think we did, so on the other hand, they are compelling.
Uh, well, that would be different between a certain place.
So that would be in a dance room, a CEC, and they're pretty high up, uh, getting the knowledge of what's happening and thinking.
And that's by the way in here.
I'm learning it from what you say.
If I could just say this to you, it all disappeared to me, that your grand design was, and I intend to say this tonight, that we're now at a watershed, that there's no real alignment of forces today that will get a balance of power in the world that will give some hope for permanent, or permanent at the time.
And, uh, you are writing me a more brief, probably in the engine of saying if that family thing could occur, this is the way I think it should have been.
I don't think that makes sense.
In terms of the...
In terms of that, of course, this provisional deterrent can occur.
Can occur, that's the thing.
But, uh...
What we have tried always to drive is to take our countries together and to see whether we can use their own internal governance to get a safe balance and let them balance each other off to some extent.
I think that would be our greatest desire.
But I took up the president's seat because he is the word of permanent possibility.
And I think he's right.
I think there was a permanent...
That's what we're trying to use.
Well, there's a few that he said a moment ago.
Let's look at the two brings, the comics, ours.
Follow, follow.
They say, well, let's find another country.
Well, that's no policy either.
I mean, it's no policy because in the kind of world we live in, any kind of war, that magnitude is great.
Correct.
Now, the other thing is that we feel at this point
again, I'm sorry to start at this point, with the nuclear cloud hanging over the world, that every country should be made, on a very other kind of basis, for dialogue where the nuclear powers are concerned.
Now, it happens.
It is the irony of history.
And here's the guy who will have a million people in the next 20 years.
Who will then be at 70 years of power, if they want to be.
If they want to be, they can be within 20 years.
And here they are.
And so if it happens that this is one
from the United States, where we could play a role, not bringing them back to Canada.
I mean, Russia and China together.
As a matter of fact, that isn't a realistic objective.
In terms of China and its neighbors, let's put it this way.
In terms of China and its neighbors,
in which all of us in this country in their future, because their future will be so heavily in their summers.
We believe the time has come where the influence of the United States, if it is used pragmatically, without any soft-headed idealism, that the influence of the United States can be more effective in
uh, say that that power is not spread throughout the announcements that we've held it down.
by communication.
It really has stopped at that.
Not because of a present threat, I have to say, but because of a potential threat in the future.
Because if they get stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger, you know, the result is that they're not going to be national.
I think this role is such a thing to have no illusions about.
It's very difficult.
It's very difficult.
It's much easier to say, well, it's never us.
And, you know, we line up on our side of the land.
And as a matter of fact, I think that was the right policy.
It has been the right policy up to this day.
And it's a substantial error.
I mean, look, if we didn't have NATO at the present time, there wouldn't be one to talk to any of them.
NATO was made impossible when they go to Egypt.
it made it possible they don't like to say that they didn't need to be there uh six feet is there we went out there at the time of the majority crisis and let us know
It kills the Russians.
They can't play around without the danger of an escalation.
And so it is, it seems to me, in the other part of the world.
So we, there are dangers.
There's a whole horror of being a student.
You can come up with all sorts of problems.
Changing leadership in one country or the other might pull them together.
I don't think so, but it might.
And so if they get together, then it's a different game.
There are dangers, too, in terms of, frankly, and this is the other one, this is the one I particularly want to reassure our friends on.
There's something, there are dangers that the American president will go to Moscow and be king, and be sold a load of goods.
Give a store away in order to catch something.
A nice community.
Well, that I'm sure you're going to have.
But due to these philosophical reasons, I'm afraid it will take some time.
I'm threatening to get out of this day because this is one of them, that is.
Sure.
We have been trying to, in our way, small as we are, trying to readjust our position in the way of the Soviet, the Soviet parties to the PRC in Japan.
But to us, Japan is a vital importance.
Sure.
And I think, of course, in time it will become the text-based production country of the world.
and consequently would have a big impact on Australian exports to Japan.
Japan, which is now only 50% of total exports, about 3,000 million a year, a little more.
But in the appearances at the moment of going to Beijing, and mainly because of the currency difficulty and the import surcharge, the Japanese gag is that they would be terribly isolated.
And the world is thinking it would be isolated too.
Could I just, you know, say this, they have been our president.
They will be a great balancing force for police in the future.
And even accepting that China regards them bigger than the non-humanities, I think they do.
Isn't it?
You must always keep in mind that your friends are the basis of your power.
And we'd like to do this, you know, or have something to say, but to recognize that you're taking this into as well, as a relationship to that.
I couldn't agree more with you that our plans are the basis of any viable policy.
You can also, the way to make it do for it to be made is not to reflect on your own plans, but coming to the Japanese problem specifically.
At the time that we talked to the Chi teams, it is essential, absolutely essential, that Japan's position be recognized, that in no way be impaired, no way.
That's why we're pushing the Okinawa version through as best as we can.
That's why you can do this also, we're going to be very, very generous in terms of negotiations
is probably in Japan now.
He's a very
serious talks with them on surcharge problems.
We hope to be able to at this time, at this point, because it's very European, France, but we want to talk to them too.
But we would hope to be able to make very significant progress in these talks so that we can
all the
of the so-called third world countries, the West Pole countries and the rest, where it goes as though they don't contribute to our balance of maintenance problems and are considered a problem here.
But Japan is being considered special in that one direction.
Also, with regard to Japan, they, like you, fought for our position on the Taiwan recognition problem, which has had repercussions, like, far beyond what you spelled Taiwan.
It has the idea that once the United States, once
a rural organization starts down the road and we sell that country.
Watch out, you may be next.
I don't mean Australia, but I mean South Africa, and maybe the Arabs again.
I'm not sure.
Maybe they won't succeed, but they might.
If you succeed, I mean, maybe throw the Greeks up, because they don't like the Greek government is not democratic enough.
Even though they're not in Japan, well, you can fly them, or you can make them.
It's always a double standard, of course.
We, on our side, want to do it that or the other way.
But anyway, with regard to the Japanese, you would be absolutely assured, I have said, when I was here, and I have repeated it since I went to Cluj here, that the keystone,
or the lynch cannon.
Peace in the Pacific is Captain Dean's American friendship.
I say that not in derogation of other countries in the Pacific, but because Japan is the major economic power in the Pacific, and because of its economic power, potentially the major military power in the Pacific.
That's always the background here.
I don't think that they, because of their experience of World War II and the atomic bomb and the rest of it, I don't mean to suggest that they're going to go through clear regrets.
But no one should have any illusions about the fact that if Japan ever reaches the conclusion that they are isolated, that they cannot, for example, depend upon the American commitment, the American defense commitment.
That's why Japan is interested in maintaining some presence in Korea.
That's why they're interested in maintaining their treaty, et cetera.
But once they determine that, well, that the United States is out of the study,
But because they had much to hand, what do they got to do?
Well, they got to make other arrangements.
They either got to make an arrangement for Chinese, or for the Russians, or, and this would probably, this would well be more likely right now, they have to, as a major economic power, they've got to build up their military strength.
And then you have a much more dangerous situation in Greece.
But our commitment to Japan is complete, and I couldn't agree more that they do have a feeling of isolation.
This third charge then has been a problem because of our domestic paper we're working about, and I watch our ex-convicts negotiate as hard as he can to see what we can do at this point.
But I think to be in complaint, and probably to think of what I didn't say to you, that Sarah has been lying to me, or to him, or to me, and that they are very suspicious.
Very suspicious.
And only two days before I came, they sent us messages that perhaps there's been a divergence of the way between Japan and ourselves, in terms of cooperation, that now the PRC has the representation of the United Nations, but they don't get where we go our way.
But quite a bit better to get on in and be proper today.
And he said, he said quite a bit, he said, well, there are a lot of cats and dogs.
There's many diversions that weren't big.
See, there'd be this place association and almost an identity with interest and a friendship.
And look at them now, this is the parting of the ways.
And, therefore, that could be background to a issue.
He miraculously survived.
He's an endless domain.
He could survive.
But he miraculously survived because he's got no identity to him.
But nonetheless, there is that strong residual feeling that he may die.
Over to you, Ed.
Well, I think probably because of your second visit, I think there's nothing wrong with that.
I just heard that there's a small in New York that people are telling you about in that nation.
And he's parted up with these two students.
That's what they did, yes.
But they are there to start to compete with them, going to China.
Their opinions are because they don't know why.
And if they don't know, they can speculate.
They're like us.
Their speculation doesn't seem quite as accurate as ours, as ours has been.
But everybody's suspicious about the provisions for it.
And coming on top of the failure of the and the surcharges, and the problems they're having with the manufacturers back home, I think it's made them a lot more suspicious than they ever would like to be.
I think that we can make a very, very positive step forward with the economics front, because economics is their major concern at the moment.
And we can reassure, we'll reassure on the Chinese.
We have tried to, but we are not comparable.
I've authorized him to talk to him very frankly about what we have in mind.
They must be assured, too, on another point.
They put yourself in the position of Japanese Prime Minister.
Here they sit up there.
They are this economic power.
These persons that I lost in World War II 25 years ago.
And here...
their reliance for their securities on the Americans.
So if they think the Americans may bug out of Asia, that's why Japan, even though they don't speak publicly, has had an enormous stake in our ending the war in Vietnam in an honorable way.
Because if we get out of there, and we're driven out of a run-out, and they realize that the United States may have a tendency to say, well,
I'm looking at these foreign commitments, and they're dead right.
One of the reasons that I've insisted that we've had to stay true to Vietnam, and not only because of Vietnam, what happened to 17 million people, but also because it would have an enormous effect on our friends and allies, the balance of the world, for that matter, and a devastating effect on the United States at home.
It's going to be hard enough, because it is.
But we're sitting true.
We just succeeded.
And coming back to the Japanese problem, I can tell you that I agree with what you just said here.
And we will, as a matter of fact, I'm trying to keep the business context back.
We'll try to be in touch with self-correcting ourselves on the broader aspects, not just the economic aspects.
But he's prepared to talk to you and write to me on that.
Because that's it.
That's all I can give her, that's all.
Another compliment to the Japanese, too, that I can see, is that they helped to lead the fight, as you did, on the UN representation issue.
And they don't like to lose it, Peter, as you did, or as we did.
And inevitably, of course, on their representation issue, it was an error that eventually would be lost.
As we all know, I think it's possible and others, most of them wouldn't exist except for what we've done with others.
But it's really unbelievable.
But in terms of this situation, .
Looking down the road, we look right, and see you have the British, the French, the Italians, the Canadians, all across the bridge.
That's the problem.
And it was dead hard for them to turn around.
Even the Belgians, you know, they were, we thought we had wrecked the last four Belgians, the Sherbrockians.
I don't know if the Belgians would be with us.
The Belgians would not because they had a significant relationship with the Chinese.
Well, we would have loved to do the game.
Yes, sir.
I was thinking immediately after the way he represented his kind of life.
They came and they told us all their troubles about dialogue and from that moment we were suspicious we were going to go against this.
What business was this?
When did you come, did you leave?
We left this year and we were suspicious of you from February up to the last day.
You said Brown and somebody else's name, I can't remember.
I can send all our papers on to you later.
No, I didn't say that either.
I didn't quite know what the question was.
I could only make one of the points.
This is only a statement.
And my own belief is that you'll find that Japanese would very easily go to a valuation upwards of eleven percent if you people could move, say, two and a half dollars against gold.
And I think you find that, we'll get back to you later if you want to, you know, it's what working party trade and OECD sort of feel.
And that would be a term that would be about a thousand minutes of policy in your favour.
I mean, you're meant to be a minister, you know.
Well, that's a matter which, as I say, I've asked Tom to explore the situation and see what is doable.
And then when he gets back, we have to put that person back.
the Americans, the rest of the world, and of course, the European problems.
The French are a terrible, terrible topic.
And of course, the British, now that they are moving to the market, this is a, they've got, I mean, they've gained the terms of the D'Arsenault trade with the French.
It's quite a game over there.
Let me say, looking at the Japanese problem separately, we feel it's that important, if necessary.
If necessary.
In other words, if we can move on it, if we can move on it separately, not that we want to move on it separately from the others, or I think yes, but if we can move on it, we can find a way to do so.
We will do so because we consider it so important to reaffirm the Japanese.
Thank you.
One of the matters I could raise with you in this era, and that should be enough in my own political purposes, if I could get you to say something nice about him at the end of the tree, you know, as a positive evidence, not only about philosophical and ideological,
I think more or less identical.
I think practically how it is.
There is clearly in Australia, because of course I'm rather un-Mexican and not very practical, press given to misunderstanding, given criticism, unequivocism, if you could somehow rather make it clear that we have discussed answers.
And they can, I think you have assurance that the commitment reminds you that it's unconditional as well.
Would that be a big shot?
Absolutely.
We both have to tell Senators, and Senators should say that as a matter, and it's a, it's a pressing, and I'll reiterate that the first opportunity that I had was that we had to close.
Yeah, I covered that way too.
No, I had to get it through the line so they could have it sent in to me.
Well, don't take that to your...
I think you are...
Perhaps they do critical of your press, in a sense, not critical of them, but let me say that it isn't because they are less knowledgeable.
The press never relates to them.
They do find that their theories are all wrong.
At least, there's many times they know better.
in your country and ours, too, I think.
That's part of their game.
Their goal, stop and pray, is to controversy what's wrong and what's right and all that sort of thing.
This is part of it.
Let me say one thing I feel very strongly about.
As you know, we have a political year coming up.
You have one coming up.
Without getting a curse into your politics, but I want you to know that any minute that we can do, I can move from this place.
on any matter to be helpful, I will do.
We don't want your friendship or the United States to hurt you politically.
I hate it's in the interests of the free world, in the interests of creation, or your point of view to prevail.
That's what I feel.
Now, I don't know whether it's a, there may be a problem on what happens to the beef that didn't come in because of the stop strike or the rest.
But anyway, I want you to, I told you, I want, wherever we can do anything, symbolic or otherwise, that could be helpful to the Prime Minister, I want it done.
You know, people will get to do enough of that.
People will get to do enough of that.
Now, oh, no, no, no.
I know that some of your press says that you're supportive of the American position, and I hope to.
that you're going to have more of that.
I know, for example, you were stating about Vietnam has not been helpful to people in Iran.
But I don't like to see our friends hurt for doing what is right, what we believe is right.
And I encourage you that we will do everything we can to be helpful.
And whenever we've got any kind of announcement that we get, I mean, for example, something like that, I don't think that it's done there.
You know, I mean, I don't know if it's going to do it or not, but it would let me know.
Yeah, I mean, you know, I don't think that it's like this, but I think we can do it.
I understand that because some of the ships were delayed this year, they would like to carry over last year or something like that.
You know, that line itself is so hard.
We want to be as open as we can.
On the gay part, let me show you the plot of the gay part.
That's a little bit.
But look, so far, we've been served as a government leading event.
We're a propriety.
We can't influence the public.
I think one other thing I want to tell you in total confidence
And this I would appreciate if you're not discussing it with anybody, because we will know.
As you know, I have indicated that I will make another announcement on Vietnam troops sometime in the middle of this month.
I want to tell you that that announcement will, in many much of our stresses, actually, at that time, I'm going to announce the total withdrawal on air by a date certain.
For your information, I'm not going to do that.
However, what I am going to do is to announce a stepped-up withdrawal, but covering only a period of two months.
And then I plan to say that in January, I will make another announcement.
now purposes of that virtually can't get a step out of control uh due to the fact that uh the administration has succeeded our intentions this week were only four uh
We have to be concerned about, we are to be concerned about, is that we have this terrible problem, a humanitarian problem, a very tragic problem, to be honest with you, of our people, communists.
uh for me to get up at this point and make an announcement that has reason that is that simply removes one strength in the world they have not to understand that there is the possibility that
We have some other option than just getting out.
And we've been hoping for a couple of months.
And we didn't go to any track.
I can say while it is not hopeful, it is still very much hopeful to channels that are not known.
But I want you to know on the announcement, we will tell your ambassador before the number
As a matter of fact, it will be a setup to just more come up.
We're not 14,000.
to five or six thousand more per month after there were a witty reaction from the board.
But the key to the announcement, I have already been decided to release a low key announcement made by the president of the church, which will say as a result of the success of the organization, we're increasing our control by so many per month.
And the president will make another announcement
in January, at that time, then we'll take a look at what the situation is on negotiation.
You'll go using the rest of what our bargaining principle is then.
Not at this point.
At this point.
In January, probably the 3rd.
When we come to the point, when we come to the point of thinking that you have to abandon the final announcement,
We have to fight up the fact that we will have some kind of culprits, if you will, of course, for that matter.
How would you say that we can do the final stage in the negotiations after 2016?
We will be in touch with people, of course.
Well, I have to say this.
If the negotiations do not succeed,
you would be very sure that we will not have total American control, even until, unless, until we have POWs back.
You see, that's, we've got to keep people there for that reason.
We've got to continue our air structure for that purpose, and we will.
Also, in terms of the city, of course, we have a team program for South Vietnam running at magnitude of 500.
needed per year, so we will have to have a considerable number of Americans there for the purpose of administering that program.
And that includes military people because, for example, helicopters and everything else.
South Vietnam's going to be able to make it.
Our, I don't know what your reports are, but our reports are very hopeful after all the wagging around about the collection of, the wagging around about the
uh, you know, when she was elected, you could, we both, we were like, we were like, she would go down in a moment, so, but, uh, it's only about one-fourth of the world that, in which those leaders are elected, and there's a bunch, none of the times where most of the free world is now, you can't find a half of the country whose leaders are elected, and,
And that's not because they like it, but it's because they do.
I mean, democracy takes a long time to develop, you are aware of that.
And so, without getting into that, I have one question.
The South Vietnamese, they have economic problems.
They actually have an internal problem.
They have a problem due to war and arrest.
But at the present time, what militaries can't fight, we believe.
First,
As long as the P.O.W.
problem remains, there will be everything.
There will be sun-ground forces, and there will be a naval component.
Well, not so much a naval.
We don't need that at this point, except the naval air.
And there'll be an air force component.
After that, after that period, I don't know, lacking a...
Lacking a settlement, a negotiated settlement, we would withdraw our ground forces, so to speak, and lack a negotiated settlement.
That's sort of the problem.
If you have a negotiated, you don't have a negotiated settlement.
You can't imprison a settlement.
I think that's a good question, is what would you have then?
And the answer is, we will still have a significant air presence in Thailand.
And we would have, but we will assume that it's already in the knees.
I don't know if you can hear me.
I don't know if you can hear me.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Despite all the talk in the press was certainly a personal issue by itself.
That's correct.
The press likes to be the impression that these negotiations are like a detective story which they throw our way through.
That's right.
And we have to admit that we have that.
But they have made it absolutely clear that
that a settlement has to involve the political structure of the Republic of the Canadian military, a gratitude to the government of that we obviously cannot do.
so that either the settlement of the whole continent, which would then have to take, involve the ceasefire, or that the interstitial force, which is the Air Force, that's our opponent, and the Air Force would be used, I'm sure, very effectively, because I already know who they are.
The negotiating track closes, as it may, over the next two or three months.
We are not going to be left with the option of just sitting here and saying, well, thank you very much.
Now, we just told Ray we'll return our prisonership.
We're going to withdraw regardless of what happens.
It's not going to be that way.
And they have never made a straight proposition on prisoners.
Yeah, you read it.
I'm sure you read it.
Well, that's nonsense.
They won't do anything.
I mean, you know, MacGyver and others go over there.
But every time you throw a whole load, you withdraw your forces, and cut you in half to the government of South Vietnam, and set up a new political system, process,
or it doesn't have to be incognito, but the other has a little process with our human.
Well, that's what I see.
Yes, I know the statement you made immediately after the, you know, dramatic announcement that appeared as though they were going to come to the conference table to restate some of those objectives in a number of words.
Yeah.
And it appeared at that time to be crazy, but when analysed, it's nothing.
Yes, I do know quite well.
Better than any other man that I would raise, and I know your problems, but naturally if you could come to Australia, I think you'd be surprised, delighted to be surprised.
I don't know if you've heard of that term, I believe they have, but the last line was by the University of Australia.
Let me ask you this.
I have been wanting to go there, of course.
because I'd like to go see our friends the way they did this.
I got these trips.
You know I have a metaphor for this.
I do.
I do it reasonably well.
I mean, with our potential opponents.
Because, as I said, I talked to Tito.
You do know him.
He's a delightful guy.
But he's got this tub.
I said, no, Mr. President, I believe we were, I was trying to let him know what our actions were going to be with regard to the backgrounds.
And I said, you're not a soft man.
I said, keep your mind, and you must not confuse these .
But I think this is very important, because I must say that one of the things that have disturbed me about our press here
is that many in our press of our liberal persuasion praise the Peking and Moscow initiatives for the wrong reasons.
They say, ah, isn't it wonderful?
Now the world's safe again, and all this art.
None has changed.
Nothing has changed.
It's meant to be that we're recognized.
And I would say, Henry, that if we don't want to prove this about, that on that possibility,
Maybe we'll make one of our trips.
We can go out there and stop by.
Australia's a great country to go to.
I love it.
You've never been there?
No, just one of my visits.
Well, I've been to Melbourne.
I've been to the airport.
Where do you go?
Are you leaving?
No.
No?
Del Nardo.
The airport in Del Nardo.
And, of course, I've been to Canberra.
And the Austrians, I always say, they're a lot like Californians.
We would.
First of all, I haven't been in 40 years.
Well, it might hurt you, though, if I came back to take it with me.
No.
No.
Well, I'll tell you one thing about the New York Times, about the New York Times, about the New York Times,
And it was a full board with the exception of South Berkshire.
And I mean to say to you, please forgive me, but I did say that I now realize that we're approaching on you.
I don't know if you'll lie to me.
It's delirious.
Who?
The old times?
Yeah.
I don't know.
Just because I was, uh, this was, uh, did I say, oh, try.
Why don't they want to reproach me?
All right.
All right.
I hope you get along better with it.
My relations with the press are, I could put it this way, very, very prominent.
But I don't believe in giving up anything unless
But what I mean, given everything in terms of philosophy, which is really what I didn't care about, I can't always do this.
You know, I came under very much of the circumstances, and I had sometimes that I could have started more than I wanted later, and it's not true, but what I did.
is that I think with the press, that you don't win by always giving in to them.
You know, I do that.
If they're out to get you, they're going to get you.
Well, that's just a nice decision.
You look at that, buddy.
It's all you get for it.
It's just a nice way to end it.
Good.
Yeah, you want to see him, but you want to see this as a matter of fact.
He's our actor on Beautiful Women.
I mean, I told him I was going to be playing with him today.
I just had him.
Today's show, today's show, my wife's name.
Ah, since we've never seen each other.
Well, I'll be interested, too.
I'll be interested, too.
Oh, my God.