Conversation 630-018

Transcript (AI-Generated)

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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

Thank you very much for coming.

I'll give you a little not quite as word.

What is it, an hour and a half?

All right.

Well, we have a usual drill here which we have to go through.

We have to have a picture and all that sort of thing.

Before we have one of these over here, there's a special crew from NBC.

And it gets bad to be here on a day when they are running a... when they are having a...

They're going to kill us tonight, too.

So, Canada will be our, we just have to, we had this schedule a long time ago, I think, years ago, so I'm not going to respond.

They had no right to veto it.

That's right.

No right to veto it.

Have you met that chief teacher?

He's coming up tomorrow.

He's a scientist.

I have met him.

In fact, this is the first time I've met him.

Mr. President, I think you'll have a good chance to meet my guest.

Thank you very much.

You know what that is.

You had a few listeners, though.

Yeah, we had a few.

Too many.

Yeah, yeah.

Of course, the one that made the TV, the arts, and the publicity, the resistance, you know, of course.

And, of course, the fact that you received an attorney's request.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

I believe it.

That's what I believe.

I believe it.

Okay, that's it.

I have a question.

What do you mean?

I don't know.

Oh, yeah, it's all right.

You're new, huh?

Oh, yeah, that's right.

Thank you.

Oh, you were here at the other visit.

When I look, Ron, I want to be sure that, so we don't discriminate, you know, because our neighbors are in the Army.

They all came frozen up to attend.

We just had these before.

But through any visiting press firm, they get a present.

But with it, they can write anything they want.

I'll show you.

Thank you.

It's a little, it's not.

How do you respond to that?

Oh, I know.

I've instructed worse.

Anyway, see, and we use it to give to senators and congressmen.

That would pass off.

And if you're going to get something, you need something.

The box is more expensive than that.

No, that's wrong.

That's everybody's choice.

You must have some foreclosure to get that many of them.

I appreciate it.

We're not like Jesus.

You have a majority.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be prime minister.

I don't have a majority.

That's a difference.

Oh, we have a different system.

There's a majority, so I don't have a majority.

No, no.

No, it's not there right now.

There it is.

No, it's not there right now.

I was glad that you called.

You're not moving.

It's a very good idea for us to have a talk before we meet, before I go to sleep.

I have seen all the Europeans, and I have seen some of them.

I have seen them.

I've seen them.

Well, actually, we should have thought about ourselves first.

When it came up, I told Henry, I said, well, I'm going to see the prime minister on our visit.

But it wouldn't have been the same thing because we

We have also seen the evidence, all of our official evidence.

We wanted to look upon this as one where we could have just basic consultation about our Christopher and, of course, any motion you want to bring out.

And that's, as you should know, the format of our meetings with the British, the French, and the Germans, and the Japanese will be solely on a working basis, all terms of working, primarily.

in their views, uh, the anniversary was also discussed, but something of a very great current interest, uh, to the agenda that still remains the same, a current interest, uh, on the international territory.

And a record war.

We all know that.

This week, but, you know, a very significant war.

A very important day.

No, bigger than that.

Just, uh, uh,

The Prime Minister is always lucky.

This has got to be Mr. in one way or the other.

Well, she's extremely interesting to write, and I'd recommend it to her.

Well, good afternoon.

Right now, actually, we have had two Mr. Presidents in any of the Presidents, and the Foreign Minister in any of the Foreign Ministers.

I'll begin with you, Chief O'Rourke, as I say, in any of the Presidents.

They were getting ready to attack Pakistan to try to build a gate.

And now we see who is attacking the rest of the country.

We should keep this a secret.

Well, I'm certainly very thankful that you wanted to see me on TV.

For quite a while I was convinced, as you, that it would be probably sufficient that we meet.

This very much your equal manner is, and it's sufficient for having a lot of meetings.

I've been searching for a meeting, a meeting, both bilateral and multilateral, and I should tell you that I've been resisting, I guess, since the beginning of August,

Why don't you go down to the President's and tell him what you're up to?

You know, communicating every day to the State Department.

Chair Sharpe.

Mr. President, me and Mr. Connolly, we have to know this.

When people are upset and anxious, they somehow feel, well, they give me hell every other day, and we somehow feel that only I can solve it by talking to you.

laying it down, and knowing each other, some of those between us were meeting all the time, and our officials were meeting all the time, the ministers were discussing the order, and so on and so on.

And I, quite frankly, think I might have been able to contend with that.

until we met in the early spring.

But when you did announce this series of financial meetings,

I just thought I couldn't push off any longer.

And I'm not saying I'm only coming down to see you by way of symbol.

I'm sure we can accomplish a lot by meeting.

But I really wouldn't have bothered you if I hadn't had to.

And I'm not only thinking of my internal posture, but I think it is pretty important for the American people, too, to feel that they have a friend around them that's coming on the North.

The fact that we are meeting, that we are talking, and that there are crimes and problems, I think it would be a great deal to bring this short, which has been lost.

I have so, so a lot of wisdom.

The fact that I have the secret, the secret that you told me, the fact that we, thank you very much, the fact that we have made some directions in the direction of de-king and so on.

Many people were saying that we deliberately alienated the Earth from friendship.

And others were saying that you were deliberating about alien jargons, for sure.

So, you know, I was seeing...

the fact that Henry and I were on the West Coast, we thought it was exactly that.

And when we came in, I missed it.

And you say, it's about the fascist thing.

I said, of course, why not?

I thought of it myself.

The point was, I think that we had the same view as you did.

We had this, you know, we sent a constant clearance trip to Asia.

That is fine.

Then also, all the way along, we had this American-Tibetan relationship.

We discussed all the problems and cases.

Because you get up in Parliament and they're going to ask you.

And you can say, well, I've heard from the

Secretary for External Affairs, this and that is one thing.

And you say, well, I talked to the president about it.

And those days, when I get out of the restaurant, they ask me, what about this?

And I say, well, I don't know.

And I just say, it doesn't make a difference.

That's one of the purposes of this job.

Yes, and then I would say your response is really best as possible if you were

And I'm concerned that we were also in this temptation to ask him for that too, but I'm very thankful of being able to have a meeting not only with himself, but with people I want to talk to.

In reality, it's so informal.

We'd have to go through the whole professional routine, you know, a few more weeks.

No press-through, no reception.

No, that's good.

And working in a much smaller area.

What would you like to start on?

One general area of concern I have has to do with a really long-range problem

I hadn't thought that we were going to talk in any detail about the things we should bargain back and forth.

I don't think I'm the best one.

to know how to discuss it, for example.

Connolly can discuss one thing and will, very frankly, with your invention, your man, and with total authority.

I mean, of course, I'm actually kind of happy to do both things.

But I think we can set the tone more.

I think that's what we can do, but I don't really, I'm frankly not familiar enough with it to be able to make decisions on it.

You may keep it.

It's over my head.

That would be my position, and I'm reassured that there are other interests that are being, like, no longer talked into.

There are.

And tonight, too, you will have a chance to...

If you make a comment, we'll be sure that John gets a chance.

I think he's a very important good man for most of the other people.

John's a good man.

He's tough.

So I think this would be a very good performance for us.

Well, let me address the premise of what you have said, Mr. President, that when the Minister announced that our first reaction was runoff.

I think with the understanding and perhaps with even a little bit of energy, I hadn't done anything that tough in that place.

And so our reaction was not only the initial one, but it was really felt as if you realized that you were taking measures which were extremely important, that a lot of decisions you had to take.

I think that they've gotten something out of it.

I think that they saw that it was really needed.

And on that basis, we didn't sort of say we shouldn't have done it.

I mean, the analogy and so on is that this is important for the world, and for us in particular, and against the nations.

That's the American economy being on the very south of any measures we can prevent, and for the world, and for us.

In our various meetings, we've sort of indicated that, well, I don't quite even go into the arguments we made, sort of get ourselves off the hook.

Our position has been mainly that you took a decision which affected many countries, and we didn't want to come to the begging of the country asking to be accepted from a rule which had to apply to all.

But that sort of defense caused Canadians to come sooner to a fundamental reassessment of our relationships than otherwise perhaps would have happened.

As you know, we're going through the throes of having to decide a policy on foreign investment, domestic control of the economic environment.

question of energy policy, which is very likely to our companies.

There's the question of trade.

There's the whole kind of problems we've had in NORAD and NATO, our actions in the Arctic.

And there's very many important aspects of our policies which affect you directly, just as there's

many aspects of your policy that affect us.

And I'll try and very briefly put the kind of question I think we should both be thinking about.

Your passion in our respects was

was taken because of the deficit in your commercial balance of the world, particularly with the fact that we had, in our trade balance in the United States, we've come into a surplus production position very recently.

On the other hand, from the point of view of the overall balance of payments,

current accounts, we've been in deficit not only with the world for a long while, but particularly with the United States, we've been in a deficit position.

Whether we bought and sold more or less, we still have this huge amount of invisible dividend payments and interest payments on the very, very large amounts of American capital.

It's somewhat like Mr. Bush.

United States, Europe, the European Union.

Very good.

We have a lot of trade.

We owe so much.

Some of the same.

Well, in those days, you were paying interest.

And now we're not only paying interest, we're also paying dividends.

I don't think we had too much equity in the European Union.

But the point is that we were satisfied to pay dividends and interest.

And the way in which we could do it was try to work towards a position where we would be living within our means.

In other words, where we would be not buying from you more than we were selling to you.

As we had been for generations, we were buying more from you

We were selling to you, therefore we had an adverse balance of trade.

But in the past two years, this has burst, and largely through the auto-pact and through large sales of natural resources.

This has been reversed, and we were reaching a position where we were selling to you more than we were buying.

In other words, for the first time in our history, we really looked as though we were going to be living within our means.

in terms of trade, and that whatever surplus of trade we had, we would use this to pay the interest in dividends, which were flowing out of sale in some net inflow of a billion and a half, a billion a year.

So this position, we didn't know if it was permanent or temporary or if it indicated trends, but it didn't seem all that distressing to us.

but suddenly we were selling a bit more and with the money we had left over, we were paying these interests.

Whereas previously, not only we were buying more from you than we were selling, not only we were sending interest and dividends across,

which made a huge deficit into current accounts.

But in order to pay, you were sending in long-term investment capital, and you were helping to develop our country and the mines and the industries and everything else.

I don't have to tell you the distance, but you know the degree to which

All of our industry is dominated by American capital.

I mean, all manufacturing is over 60%.

Petrochemical industry is 95%, and so on and so on.

The automobile industry is 95%, and so on.

And, you know, there's no beef.

Canadians have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

We realize that because of this, some of your capital coming in, but it's the technology which is coming in and just permitting us to.

And the capital comes with rich jobs, which is not bad.

Exactly.

And it brings in the technology which permits us to compete.

It's one of the great tragedies, and another stance, not to diverge from your point, but one of the great tragedies of life in America is that they deny themselves not only hours of European capital,

run by some of their stupid policies.

And that's what they're so desperate to keep.

They're just so much government to government aid.

But, of course, there's no government to government proposition here, too.

It means a great deal.

We just don't listen.

But there is the other side of it.

Well, there's also the control.

The other side is, if we're just going to go at it pragmatically, we're not worried.

I mean, some years we'll sell you more, and other years you'll sell us more.

But if the orientation of Secretary Conway's policy is that in a secular fashion, in the long-term, you think it's American, the American

should be in a position to export long-term capital to Canada, and that in order to do this, you must always have sort of a trade balance, then we'll begin to sort of ask ourselves questions and say, why?

Why does this have to be?

And why do the Americans want that?

use your capital much as you use the American, the European capital for the First World War, but if there is some point when we have enough of our own that we can begin to pick and choose the kind of foreign investment we want in Canada,

Is there something in your philosophy that will say, no, fans, you must accept this capital of ours, whether you like it or not?

And I'm not sort of lightly saying that we don't want your capital.

We want it.

I mean, I don't think we find a single, we don't find a single politician in Canada who will say that we've got to keep it up, not only the, not even the socialists or the communists.

And there are very few in the latter.

But...

It would really be important for us to, at some point, to understand her long-term, her aims.

Do you have any objection if we begin to pick and choose on the foreign capital investment in Canada?

And up to now, we've done it more or less pragmatically.

We've done it amongst friends.

Canada is one of the few countries in the world with the United States that has no mechanism for screening foreign capital.

And we did try and protect certain sectors like banking, like the last media and so on.

We did try to say, well, these must be run by Canadians for Canadians to welcome foreign capital and everything else.

And I can tell you that it's likely that we will continue to welcome foreign capital for everything else for a long while.

But it begins to worry us, if it appears to be in your philosophy, that we must always be in a deficit position towards you in order that you always be able to have learned long-term investments in Canada.

To use the crude phrase, if we're always in debt towards you, the only way in which we can pay our debts is by selling you parts of our country.

This, Mr. President, is a question which is causing concern in Canada.

We did discuss this when I saw you two and a half years ago, and I remember telling you then and I tell you now that I am not by philosophy or by

taste.

I am not a nationalist.

I am not a protectionist.

I don't believe in our word that a country can become more independent by becoming poor.

And that's what some of our nationalists or anti-Americans are.

They sort of say, well, damn it, you know, let's throw away Cuba for the

I mean that, but, you know, and it's very simple.

I said, you really, would you really be able to have your own, your own identity if you get that much support from Canadian people?

So it's, you know, the conversation isn't meant to announce any drastic change of Canadian policies.

It's just meant to help us reflect aloud, and I believe this was your intention, on

on the kind of relationship which we're going to exist between ourselves, because, I don't think I can take the monologue much longer, but if, supposing you were going to take a very protectionist trend, we obviously would start talking.

The whole economy is so importantly tied to yours.

We have to make a very fundamental decision.

We need to say, well, let's have a common market.

And if you're going to be protectionists, let's be in it together.

You know, there's these big blocs in the world.

There's the European bloc and the Soviet Union.

with China coming along, Canada's got a little market of 20 million, if we're out of time, all these laws will change.

So we need free trade, at least with you, and hopefully with the world.

70% of our foreign trade is with you.

So if you're going to tell us, sorry, but we've got to be protectionist in order to follow our own destiny.

We won't fight for all that, but we sort of have to think our way through, but what are we going to do if you become very protectionist and turn away from free world trade?

Will we ask you to have a common market with us?

Will we ask you to have a free trade area with us?

Will we ask you to have some form of a customs agreement with us?

But we ask for political integration.

Will we say, hell with the Americans if they want to fight this way?

We're going to turn away from them completely, and we won't try to go the way of Cuba, but we'll try and get into the European market, or we'll try and recreate something of the commonwealth.

These are, as I talk now, all very, very hypothetical and very seminar-type of questions.

We have to be begun to think of the answers to them.

If you were to go that way, if you were to answer my first question, yes, we want to consider Canada as a place where we will invest our foreign capital, whether Canadian capital or not.

Or alternatively, we could say, well, we're going to close up and then deport America and Canadians and send them themselves.

Please oblige us to make some very fundamental realignments of our policy, and I know you will probably say, well, there's nothing so brutal or so clear-cut, but... That's the way it appears to me.

Well, that's the way we will have to...

arraign our economy in the future so that in years to come we will be less susceptible to disorganization, as you say, as a result of stronger decisions, or in terms of making a choice of it's better to stick together even if this means losing a little bit of our political identity if we want to go along with the Americans.

And it's this basic kind of choice which

without which we'd have to be talking and thinking.

And we've already had a novel fact, which is a form of free trade area.

Should we be looking for others where we have more and more free trade areas?

Or should we be gearing our economies so that we don't depend that much on American markets and where we can't depend that much on Canadian

I don't know the answer, Mr. President, but they're being asked by Marxists to say, well, you see, this is the capitalist system.

It must export capital in order to increase its imperialistic domination.

Or others without any ideological background are just saying,

This is the theory of economic domination.

The bigger you are, the richer you are.

And the richer you are, the more profits you make.

The more profits you make, the more you have to invest.

The more you have to invest, the more you have to look for positive investments.

And it's a big order, but it's the kind of thing where we don't have to think about it.

It's not in our mind.

These are false-driven perspectives.

which you have settled, which I have.

We, uh... Of course, you raised a fundamental, uh...

what the relationship between the two countries can be on the side.

That relationship, the investment and so forth, can be a lot.

And it was an understandable, stunning desire to have an impulse to work for any company.

want to control something, let's face it.

I think that's part of the problem here.

Because I followed with the Canadian president.

I mean, the department insisted.

And I understand that.

The, looking back, the U.S. issue, the U.S. was not to think that the salt was big.

The country being old exploiters that have been told by other countries, even though, looking back on it,

and say thank God, and raise your branch and all the rest is, and make those big investments, and build the railroads and so forth, and lean on each other.

That's how it all happened.

Now it may be that Canada has reached a position where we're very far short of what you said just now.

And you're terribly important to us, and we're very important to you.

The question is,

can solve this by being engaged.

And we all realize that, you know, there's a lot of discussions on this.

I mean, they are going to determine your future.

You know, they will put you in a lot of trouble, which they do us, but they will determine your future.

But I realize that you're a lot of responsible politicians.

And I think it will be by taking the time to describe what you want to have, even if that's not what happened.

And in both parties, I understand.

It's been a good experience in the past, and I think it will now.

Now, I have a ten minute proposition that both the U.S. and Canada inevitably are going to pursue their own interests.

We have to do that.

And neither is going to do it because we love each other and all the rest.

We do have a very close relationship with our co-signers, and I think the Canadians and the Americans get along reasonably well, or very well, as a matter of fact.

We want to get along.

In fact, a lot of people raised hell about the new policy when they said, my god, why did Jim send the Canadian to the university and have his son join his son and say, why did Jim send the Latin American ones?

I mean, that's the same.

But Canada wasn't anybody else.

They can't even agree.

People said, well, then, why the hell do we do this to Canada?

Well, the problem, of course, is

But he doesn't make it.

Now, let us understand first that we both must do what is necessary to serve our national interests.

When I say we, I mean in the broadest sense.

Whoever needs your country for the entire country must do that.

The second point is that in terms of what Americans can

I am one of you who know from our first talk does not think the parole bill basically manages those terms.

I think the United States, not because we're exactly, but just because we're here and we happen to have power, as a result of the actions of World War II, a lot of Europe has no free nation.

A lot of Asia has no free nation.

We have a power, a role to play economically and militarily.

They call it the people, they call it the umbrella, call it what you will, and we're going to have to continue to play it for a while.

That I understand.

I don't believe that the United States should do it.

I'm not among those that believe that we should do treatment that's responsible.

I have not.

I have not suggested that Canada should take the same position toward NATO.

We think that we have a responsibility on the economic side.

I can assure you that what we had to do from an international standpoint on August 15th was not welcomed by me, but it had to be done.

That's right.

In fact, it was self-interest.

We had a problem.

However, it was a temporary action.

Many don't believe that we meant that, and I realize it's not no matter.

perhaps others have been explaining the thing, which has been causing more and more interest, and so many jump on the record and say, well, the reason Americans are doing this is because basically they're beginning to be selfish, inward-looking, anti-foreign, anti-internationalist, and so forth.

The way I would word it is this.

First, a strong, a weak United States would never be isolated.

I think a strong United States is essential if we're going to play an international role.

And I think the United States, for a while, has played an action role.

Maybe sometime, somebody else will come along in the free world.

And maybe what we needed in the future, I think it will soon.

But at the present time, the U.S. needs to be strong.

We need a strong economy.

I think a strong, healthy U.S. economy, as you've indicated, is very important to you.

It's very important to Europe.

As I said to a group of labor leaders the other day over here in here, talking about the cost-price thing.

And they were talking about the fact that some companies are making too much profit from this, and that makes them look as if any policy they want to do is a company that's losing money.

That's true.

It's very much in your interest.

Not because of what we sell to you, but because of what you sell to us, that the United States has a strong, healthy economy.

Now, what brought this about?

Why did we have to take this step?

Because we had many, many problems.

Much of what I think could be attributed to the transition from the Middle East to the

The economy had blown up and became inflated.

There was war and support.

And now we're on the top.

We've done a great thing on our year.

We've now been around 10.

And all this has caused some rich in-year economy.

We've got the fat figure in our employment.

And then it probably became too old to stand up to the efficiency.

And that's in 1868, 1869.

So where we are now is that we had to take some very drastic action.

It was an action that one with no friends in English

Now, having done it, we are now moving toward, we believe, we are now trying to get toward a position where we will be

a sound and responsible member of the international economic community, just like we hope we can be, continue to be a sound and responsible member of the international political community.

This brings us then to our relationship to the world.

And when I'm talking about all relationships to the world, maybe I can get Canada into better perspective that way.

We, while world trade to us is impenetrable compared to what it is to you in terms of the effect on your economy, I think it's true.

And it's true in Japan, if you're not out in the air.

But Andrew, much of Europe has a tremendous bottom line.

But now, also in terms of trade, I'm continuing with the fact that 36%, or more, 35, between 35 and 40, 36, depending on the ground here at the moment, 36%.

of what we sell in the world sold in Canada.

You're our biggest customer.

I meant to say that Japan is our biggest overseas customer.

I thought the word overseas and all hell broke loose.

Only the Navy says, my God, we are.

I didn't say that.

Anyway, Japan is our biggest overseas customer.

But Canada is by far, you know, our biggest customer.

That's important to us.

We also are a very big customer.

It's real.

And

What we really get down to then is this.

First, we have this intricate problem of the international monetary system.

We do not want to go back to a system of convertibility.

The whole system is for any certain or useful purpose for 20, 25 years.

You're no longer, as far as we are concerned, as one of the people in this bio.

We, on the other hand,

The relationship with you, here again, comes down to a matter of what your self-interest would dictate.

It was our understanding, at least up until the time that we have, that Canada preferred to be on a multinational basis on this problem.

There are multinational solutions.

How many have the impression after that meeting that Canada's preference is to deal outside of that, to make a separate deal?

We, frankly, I think, would be prepared to either.

Now, having opened that much, that much, let me say, don't get me in any deep water.

I don't know anything about what the rate ought to be or, you know, or any answer.

Now, coming to the other point, however, I consider making a satisfactory arrangement with Canada, preferably at the end.

Of course, we want to be saturated with the whole major pre-nation complex, but making it with Canada is essential.

It has to be veritable.

It has to be in the self-interest of both.

It cannot be one that will give people in your country an opportunity to say, ah, the Americans are exploiting us again, or more.

On the other hand, it must be one with which we can live.

Now, I would be less than candid if I were not to say that, looking at that narrow problem, because your trade is so big a part of our package,

Therefore, in talking about this whole exchange rate problem, it is not possible to have a solution without a very significant Canadian participation.

Now, coming to the other points,

I would like for, in finding this solution for the United States to be as forthcoming as possible, and we've already had, I understand, very forthcoming discussions on the other issues that are involved.

Well, when you raise the subject of U.S. ownership of Canadian industry and resources, that frankly is, if I were Canadian, I mean, and frankly if I were Canadian all day, that would be a global issue.

That again holds an issue.

I really don't have an answer on that.

I don't have an answer, except that any statute would take in that direction.

Naturally, you would have to consider

whether it would cost you more than it would gain, which you, of course, very practically realize.

I guess what I'm trying to say is

You couldn't have anybody who was more understanding of the problem, the political problem.

You could have anybody who is more anxious to have the Canadian side.

As a matter of fact, I remember a poor commentator who was here before me.

I said, get the Canadian team up there and see if we can't work a deal out with Canada.

Having in mind the fact that when he came back, we might possibly split it off Canada and the Western Hemisphere.

Correct.

Right.

And it didn't work.

But perhaps we could.

We could.

Go ahead, H-6.

Yeah.

Responsible driver.

And it was caught, but it was, it was, it was, I don't know how much you listened to my lead in the interest of hearing this.

But we could do it at two levels.

One, we, that was the lead driver.

Yeah.

And that, to answer also the more poetic questions that the drivers, with respect, uh,

to the median profit.

As we understand it, the situation in Canada is somewhat different from the situation in the other countries because Canada, as Secretary Conley understands it, might be good for the table to flow rather than to return to a system of fixed exchange rates.

So we really like the option with respect to Canada of either going to a system of more of a free flow or a flow of at least up to a percentage that we jointly agree to, or to have Canada participate in a trend that we have realized of current attractive or out of the view either method is incentive.

Our problem, with respect to the real life, is that, last week, I had a press conference which I gave in order to explain the China trip.

At the election of the president, I made a statement also about international economic policy, which I had read, which I feel is very, very highly grown, so I know that it is reflected there.

First, Europeans and others had asked for three years to put an economic outlaw.

As soon as we said it, they accused us of unilateral action.

Now, there was no way we could put an economic outlaw in order without taking such steps as would be painful to others, which was the point.

of the sections that we had to go through then, in which it was made absolutely plain that we meant that we didn't simply talk of the site obviously as the old system, but that in the common interest we needed a system less susceptible to tragedy, and less inevitable than the old one, and to come to a variety of things.

Thirdly, it was important to understand that this method of refueling

approach a new system was found to be different from the one in which we feel we're the underbrush.

And everybody in this administration recognizes that when you set up a new international monetary system, when it's completed now, it's every step along the way.

All of the key countries have to feel that it wasn't a common interest.

you cannot drive a sharp bargain, because if you do, then all the other countries will try to break it as soon as they can.

So that, with all due regard for our own interests, will be the attitude with which these negotiations are supposed to be discussed.

So then at the end of this drive,

Now, the participants can feel that, that what emerged was better than what we, we started out with.

Now, I take the liberty of, of going to state the detention of the prime minister because I think he over-answered some of his most theoretical questions.

I don't believe that Secretary Carvey can speak about this with much more clarity.

that it is the federal policy of the U.S., of the United States, that we must always have a failure to trace with us with any money.

To do this would be inherently, I think, to have raised the sort of question which you have put to us.

I have not ever been the question asked with respect to Canada, so I don't know what answer people give.

I have been asked with respect to Japan,

And every time it was put to us with respect to Japan, it was rejected.

Their question was, should we insist on being always in touch with Japan?

And we rejected it because we were thinking of a multilateral system in which surpluses and deficits exist.

So I would believe that the rest of the question wouldn't exist.

So that is extremely helpful.

I mean, we can get Senator Conley to say the same thing.

It's really just a host of notes and apprehensions.

of, you know, not the conscious kind, but that we should have the conscience to say a country is great.

Because it's the all-in-the-on-station major premise that worries, you know.

The concern is that the United States must have a favorable balance with China permanently.

Right.

As it always has, permanently, until the last couple of years.

And even then, although our secrets differ,

It's the trade balance which is the thing, because in the overall current accounts, we've had a huge deficit because of the flow of interest.

But as I say, so long as we know you're not deliberately trying to have that as a policy, and on the contrary, deliberately you're saying, it's not our policy, it'll happen one year, it won't happen the other.

Now that's fine, but it is something which

probably well worth stinking, I just put it to you at some point, because it is conceivable that Canada, to you, could be a supplier of

resources, it is conceivable that it would be for you a safe haven for your foreign capital, especially in the epoch of the multinational corporations.

This is the way you will pursue your policy.

Well, I wouldn't go any further than to say, if one can get a clear understanding of the personnel in the car, it certainly helps all the discussion, immeasurably, because then we're talking about what you can do to make the economy better, and what we can do, and how early it can improve, and that's fine.

I think that you have to be

I want to reference this way that it certainly isn't the permanent policy of the United States.

I mean, I'm going to say what it should be this year.

I'm not going to say it'll be next year.

I'm going to say that it's the permanent policy of the United States, and Canada's to be the capital conclusion of the United States, certainly, so to speak.

I don't know.

First, I don't think that's enough.

Just being a politician, you can't talk like that.

I mean, you can't tolerate that now.

I can't say when it will change, how it will change, and also what we have to do right now.

Right now, we have a problem.

It's very serious.

We need to be aware of how we would like your cooperation and assistance to work it out.

We do have to do it.

It's fair to say, too, I guess this is understandable, that Canada is ganging up with our European friends and the United Friends against us all.

some of these problems that we're considering.

At least that's where we stand at the moment.

When I say can't help, I mean, the idea of hurting us, again, because your self-interest may better be served by that kind of approach.

On the other hand, believe me, every time I say, oh, I emphasize again, I totally understand.

Looking after your self-interest, you have to do it.

You can't stop it.

But we, I think we would like to have, we would like to have, well, to put it this way, we feel we should have a continuation of quite a special relationship again.

Actually, that special relationship cannot exist on the basis of two for us, one for you, or the other, the ground.

I mean, either way, if we, and I'm not speaking, I'd rather, if you all understand, I'd rather not speak more of what we do when the crunch comes on some of these telemedic issues.

I would like to see

I see what our differences are, and then let me see what we can do to resolve them.

I think that's what we have to do.

So that's an idea that we get commonly.

How people are actually under the impression that the specific technical issues that are divided upon are undesirable.

What's not soluble is what's not soluble.

It's great if you're not soluble.

That's not what you're saying.

It's great if you're not great.

The difference is great.

That's right.

And it's made it a matter of being easier by what you were saying a few minutes ago, Mr. President, when you said that

As far as the monetary problem is concerned, you're quite relaxed.

Either you deal with it more bilaterally or you deal with it multilaterally, which again is a sign of very great confidence and friendship.

We need to determine which way we're going to feel.

In other words, I think, and I get that impression from our talk with John this morning, that he seemed to be somewhat, well, he said no, right?

Well, Mr. President, you can speak to Dr. Hayes, right?

Oh, Mr. President.

Please, we don't want to settle separately with Canada before we've had our discussions with the Europeans.

We don't believe that security is good in our country, because it will be purchased through value of peace as a power play.

Because, especially as we always have the option of going through flows, they're not really affected if we do that as a plan.

So we can go through the next round of discussions and then see where we are.

And this is our strategy, that with the 10 media of the 17th and 18th, we will see how close we will be to the re-alignment of currencies.

And I think that the Secretary of the Treasury will be prepared then to move either way with respect to Canada.

What do you want to do?

No, I think our approach is the same as yours, and that is why you're a little puzzling.

I always resisted pressure to come down and make a personal decision.

You know, these economic ventures supply to the whole community of nations.

Canada doesn't want to go in and have a bilateral solution.

We're going to negotiate in the can, and the IMS, and as far as our

In particular, if you're concerned, our officials have been meeting on all aspects.

We've been meeting long before in our August announcement.

So, on the number two of the three things, you know, on the total approach, then we agree with you that it's better to try and approach it multilaterally.

At this point.

Our preference is to

have a continual or clean flow for a while after there's been a taking of the currency.

Not because we want any favors, but because we are in such large matter dependent on what happens between us as a result of these things that we just don't know where to pay it.

But you know, it's a great assistance that we pay it.

There's no other way out.

The solution we'd make is if we don't go to the river, stay on it and not be knocked off in the rain.

And it's for that reason that we would prefer to insist on floating.

I mean, because we don't know where to stay.

Or where would the whole take it?

It just depends on whether the present phase that figures between us are temporary, whether they're permanent, whether they indicate a trend, whether they indicate just an aberration, which will change with your own internal way of telling the truth and so on.

But I think what you just suggested is the best solution of all.

Let's go to the next meeting of the 10.

Let's see what comes out of it.

And if there's an agreement on fixing and no objections to Canadian clothing, then we'll take that as a solution.

If there's great pressure on us to

We just can't guarantee because of the money.

So I think it's important that you get to know him.

You know what I mean?

So that you can get a little bit of talking with your vets and your men.

You see that we push together, and I can push.

If I can't, I'll try to do it.

But if I can't, push aside.

Put John where he knows you.

Yeah, well...

I read the reading paper.

I think what we were saying is this is the problem.

I thought it was valid that this is the direction of his policy, so he might get into a slightly more political manner.

Well, it's fine, because I feel it's our best, and then it's really, it's the difficulty of us of taking now.

It's not that we want any special treatment for savers.

It's that we just couldn't guarantee that we could take and protect at some rate, and if we don't protect it, that we could create a new civil aid for North Carolina.

My impression is that if you let it go, too,

Well, we have maintained that range now.

You know, we started before everyone else.

We started it a year and a half ago, and we were knocked off the track then, and the dollar sold it out, which is

is one of the great difficulties, political difficulties we have, is that now our export trade is having much more trouble selling to them because they did show up and this is what you want.

And we've reached 7% and I guess it's closer to 80% than it was before.

That has been our approach all along, and we did what you wanted other countries to do, except we did it a bit sooner.

And on this, on this ganging up, as you put it,

Well, my idea is that we... Well, I...

I...

Now, on the contrary, we saw there were defendants that you need for you to take these measures in order.

As you were saying yourself, the world itself would be more stable.

I don't think we do.

Yeah, you know, in the case of Japan, where they have all kinds of systems to prevent you from invading their markets and so on.

A reasonably free trade area between the two countries.

We've taken the Kennedy round in one year on Spain, over three.

We've lowered our tariffs.

And all our industry is present.

It's geared on the presumption that we will be able to buy and sell each other off freely.

If ever the United States becomes really protectionist, it will mean that a lot of industries, including American-owned industries, which are settling in Canada now because you see them closer to the resources, or because there's energy, or because of the ,, and so on.

All these industries will sort of say, well, we can no longer sell to the Americans.

Let's move back to the United States.

And this is, it's really on this premise that our industrial and commercial relations have existed in the past two generations, that if an industry was settled in Canada, it could sell not only to the 20 million Canadian market as it is now, but it also could sell to the 200 million people in the United States.

And if in order to protect yourselves, you begin to say, well, you know, this day is past,

What we will see over the next few years is all these big industries disinvesting from Canada and investing in the United States in order to sell this market rather than do our own market.

And this, in a sense, is what you want.

You get a bid in order that they create jobs here for your workers, in order that they create economic activity in your country.

And once again, that you do take this defensive position

to reverse the economy and to correct your unemployment situation, we understand.

But if this is a long-term trend, as you are telling us henceforth, industries should not invest in Canada because they won't freely be able to sell to the United States.

And you are giving a very forceful answer to those who are Canadian nationalists and who are saying we don't want too much American capital.

We know that this is ambivalence.

We have workers who support the Socialist Party in Canada who say there's too much American capital here and we want to own our own country.

And the same people who I met on this morning were saying, well, you better tell the president we don't want him to take the capital home because we need it here for jobs.

You know, so there's this mixed-up approach.

All we have to do is know the general direction, and that's it.

A temporary thing, as you say, isn't less fun.

There will be some loss of jobs in Canada and some loss of industry.

But it won't be a long-term trend.

And we'll go back to the former relationship.

The first time in history approached

The point is that this historic deficit position in our merchandise account, in our current account, that you suddenly seem to be doing what it's supposed to be.

And as the Prime Minister says, these uncertainties have arisen in Canada.

Are you doing this to just?

Is it wrong?

What has happened in the past has somehow marveled at us, but it's now something that we're about to see coming our way to the next step.

I think it's only this year or last year, I don't know, that suddenly we've been able to come in a circle

with you and when you press the button and say, well, we don't want it anymore.

Until now, we were making a hell of a lot of money on him.

And therefore, we didn't announce it.

But now, for one year, you've suddenly got a better trade.

And we're crying that way.

This is the way it looks.

And I think we're reassured by everything you've said.

temporarily, but this is not a philosophical approach that we want to keep you in a state of domination.

This is just because we're trying to protect our art of science now, and then we go back to being more of a string of fate of that, which is theory.

The most important reassurance I can take on a long-term goal is to move to a freer trade route and more protected.

That's the policy.

There's no question about that.

The short-term problem is complicated, but the research is required.

Who is it that we need to be able to move to this next year?

I mean, with our growth of trade and knowledge,

But coming to the more fundamental problem, related to Canada, and this I can speak with great conviction, very partly.

There cannot be a viable relationship between two countries, particularly two countries that are neighbors, two countries that are basically the same people.

There cannot be a viable relationship where one is the exploiter, frankly, of the other, where one has the permanent advantage over the other, where that case can be made.

Would you agree, Henry, that that certainly represents, I don't think there's, I don't think anybody, not anybody else, has any better view than that.

I can see that.

And you can say, let me say this, that it's something that's hard enough for the so-called

It's totally unacceptable for a country

in the relationship you are in the U.S. That's what I always did.

And I don't want that as a healthy relationship.

I don't mean that that overnight is going to change.

I mean, you know, because that will change if you're involved in the period and so forth.

But it certainly is no desire on our part to have this great dark neighborhood of ours up there where we can suck the best out of it and have a permanent advantage over it.

We can't have this relationship.

We can't talk to it.

We can't share it.

I don't know, Mr. President, if you realize now how revolutionary that statement that you are making is.

I mean, it's contrary to my definition.

It's contrary to what Mr. Paul was saying two years ago.

It's contrary to the church.

Yeah, the church.

The implicit point is that, well, I can see that.

that Canada was going to be a necessary, I don't think you could word that so much, dependent on the United States to the point where it would inevitably come into the United States and lose its own identity.

But he was a great model builder.

Yes, but he had all these structures in which everybody...

Yeah, there was an Englishman, and I know there were some Canadians who were saying that, didn't they?

So I said, well, we were just one country, and that there was a free flow of capital men, ideas, technologies, that there was a normal Canadian identity.

Well, I have told myself that this is a waste of time.

I don't know what I'm hearing, and I've never discussed it.

Well, perhaps I should discuss it with the MC, but I've never discussed it with Henry.

Do you have any other views on that?

Mr. President, you see, I think this is what I've been talking about.

It seems to me to say, you know, and say what we call the introduction, that if you want to have a world in which we are not the one that has all the responsibility, other countries must have the sense that it is also their own, that they're sharing the burden, that they're equal to each other.

And one of the tendencies, if you haven't listened to it, and it's reversed, there was no need to experiment with it, actually, is precisely this term of the journalistic American attitude reflected in George Floyd's space.

So, the U.S. has a tendency to speak with all countries, but there will be particularly true in Russia.

We must have no illusions.

If I were sitting here talking to the President of Libya

You can't talk, you would have to talk, I'm a pragmatic strategist, I'm concerned about law and goals, but we're talking about canon, we're talking about reality, the reality of a country that has the capability, and we've got to, you know, if I were a Canadian, the Canadian destiny must be to seek to

First of all, we want to stop the process, we want to determine if a Canadian test team must be involved in its own bad behavior.

That's what I would say.

Just so we get a fair shake along with everybody else, it's over.

What was your treatment about the idea that when you really had one, you liked it?

I don't think that they are...

Some of our people, there's no lack of where they're at.

But I think all the people in Canada, I don't know if it bothers them too much because our labor leaders are so heavily trans, you know, transgendered.

They're not, you know, it's just a long time.

I don't know if they're in Canada.

I don't know if they're in the States.

But boy, does it raise hell in places like Mexico.

Well, it was very telling in Canada.

We felt that we had to come up with our own operations.

We felt that they weren't going to play the rules of the game.

They were going to export U.S. domestic law into Canada.

But they were more enlightened than you realize that they have to follow the particular rules of the game and see what happens in the end.

I also don't think there's so much question of liking or not.

I think that here in Australia it's true that technology is spreading.

It's true that many people think that we're going to solve the problem of developing countries.

I think we're going to have to aim for more than 4.8% to have one of those countries pull themselves up.

But it was your vision, and Steve, I got your point correct, that Ball's concept was of an ultra-national grid, a corporation, but it set the model up.

It set the model of corporate efficiency that couldn't be denied, and that it would continue to set out its tentacles.

Then we had greater rationalization of the true values of the world and Canada, as the Prime Minister has indicated a lot.

But that would be repetitive in Egypt because it would be more efficient.

Oh, so it was then.

He sent you to Canada or something?

I didn't know that.

Well, we don't understand where it is.

But we had that problem in Europe, too.

Yes, I'm sure the Europeans are asking the same kind of problem.

They like American technology and capital, but all of them have some advice for making sure that they don't lose their own identity.

That's the other side of the coin.

When you came down, they spoke in three motions.

One side, George, on the other side.

You don't have the Americans.

There's no disagreement.

Now we've got to find ways to let that approach be reflected in some very difficult temporary problems.

No more easy because they're temporary.

No, and these temporary columns existed before your office announcement, and they will exist even when we've, okay, all the 10% is the kind of thing, which two countries which are so closely related will have to be seconded on and on and on.

What makes the center in there?

You have a list of... of... of... of... of... of... of... of... of... of... of...

No problem at all.

And that is also why we have not taken a bilateral approach in here.

And we haven't said we're going to go down to meet the president, as suggested as early as last August, that I should come down and talk to you.

No, we're talking all the time and all these things.

Ten percent of the time, it's... No, the first time, I'm speaking of.

all the models.

One wonders whether you and Mr. White are not in that far in the future.

I know that myself.

I've always been.

I know a little about it.

I recall when he, who you know, first came to the venue, was the man who was waiting to come to the market.

It was great.

a great thing for me and as a parent I would want to be a very good, a very solitary development to the fact that we need rhythm inside your strength, your frankness, your determination, your... that rhythm is something that has to be there to give you confidence to be very strong and strong

You can lay down a very good case for the fact, from the standpoint of U.S. self-reliance, that it's not a good idea for the United States to support the jurisprudence, et cetera, et cetera.

Why do you think you're out of your mind in that case, Donald?

Because it is tightening the economy, I guess.

Because what it does is it inevitably, not inevitably, but more often than not,

I believe that the British, the group we had a special conversation with, that the British now, they have to, they've got to play with the Germans, they've got to play with the French, and the rest, and as a matter of fact, the British should be more involved with the French, but in the moment.

Is that an overstatement?

I still think it was the right thing.

I mean, I think, I've always felt that a, that there's a strong, I didn't do it in the middle of the, in the middle of a strong third force, so to speak, or three, I don't know.

And the rest is there too.

I mean, we had this terrible agony of the subcontinent.

It is an agony that people were being killed.

Probably in the end, we would be slaughtered.

So in terms of its effect on the world, the effect really is more of a

There's a lot of power to it that's involved in Russia and China.

And that is why it should be all the same.

That's a great question.

We can keep them up.

There's many things involved.

That's the question.

Are we doing security counseling?

Whereas China and Russia, at the present time, are working on their side.

They are the same.

They're the same with what happens here.

As far as the Russians are concerned, they are dividing the Navy.

China is being punished, and that their Chinese friends can't do anything about it.

That may be part of the Russian, the also Russian, the Russian Beehive, as I'm aware.

The others, I've heard the Russians talking to the future, you know, they've been doing a lot in the South, and the notion that these are the people

The other side of the coin, the Chinese, they are naturally narrowly two-taped with the Indians.

They have stood with Pakistan.

But the point is, when you say to me, say, I guess it's

either for different reasons.

Again, the Russians, to a part, were the first.

As far as Russia is concerned, it's too far away.

In fact, they don't need to.

They're all India's, India's got the horses, and they have Russian aid, and they also have an arms capability, which the Russians, the Paks, the Paks have neither.

They have no aid, to speak of, militarily.

They have no arms capacity or whatever, so they're destined to lose or lose.

As far as the counties are concerned, it's less significant.

but it's the wrong kind of gear and the right experience for them.

And they may not want to risk moving there and possibly having something happen near the border.

But we deal with the only responsible position that our position is responsible for.

You know, we have a very active and practicing assistance program.

We talked with Ray Kendrick, Mr. Kendrick.

He was here all day.

We had a few conversations with him, and we got a little bit of a problem with that.

But though she was aware of the burden, we were able to get her approval, and she understood that.

Her office and his office initiated some sort of discussions

It is quite clear, when I say quite clear, I say there is no doubt about regardless of whether a fault can be attributed to HACS, whether it comes to the handling of these vaccines and the changes in that regard, there is no doubt as far as the

That's what he's my guest.

.

. .

When you've got a 5 or 6 to 1 advantage against an alarmist, that's what we're going to do.

We'll start a war.

Yahya is a military man, but he's not the, you know, in a military sense, politically, perhaps in a military sense.

But, you know, that part where we're coaches,

It's a very, it's a very generally probably different case, but it's sadly so much longer than it used to be.

There are occasions that are reconciled with the matter of their own well-being.

They go back over a long period of time from a religious standpoint.

They go back over 25 years, 20 years from the standpoint of the partition of the country.

Anybody who's visited there, I would say, has been free to come back there again.

or have sex.

And you talk to the leader, either in or past.

And there'd be very important things to talk about, and there's even nothing about being preferable.

And birth control, have what you will.

And there'd be three courses you could try and talk about.

The Indians talk about the past.

I talk about the Indians.

So there it is.

So they fought once before in 75, and now they're going again.

This time, the firepower is, there's repercussions.

There's potential repercussions that are more and more serious due to the fact that there's all these different things.

And it's ironic, isn't it, that right after

PRC is the head of the UN.

They immediately get them to shout them back to the Russians.

That's an indication for two to come together.

You haven't hit the head on that, have you?

I've overstated the case in regard to who's at fault.

No, I think you might be right.

That's the point you make.

Because we are not taking the position that India does not have serious reasons in the sense of refugee houses.

That's why they turned it off, of course.

We are taking the position that the problem could have been solved without war.

We did give them $250 million per FGA and added $250 million more to the budget, which is supposed to be $500 million over a period of a year and a half.

And that has given really three forums change because they make their own resources available.

Secondly, we did get the Pakistanis to engage in a number of measures, such as replacing the military governor.

of East Pakistan Militia Building, starting about its personal living rooms, getting them to agree to cooperate with Bangladesh representatives.

Then inevitably, it would affect the political economy towards Pakistan.

Also, this is not generally known as president's instruction.

I offered to be in the event that it would be out of the complete time taken by which this political process might work.

when the Pakistan Foreign Secretary, he refused to go, he told us that on December 28, they were going to turn over the government to civilians, and that those civilians were in much better positions than they were not.

They did not have the ties to the past to ask for the release of Moucheh, and to negotiate the fact that they were taken away by the government of the Pakistan.

We used to follow these people.

It is our impression that the Indians were the ecclesiasticals.

They didn't want to let others be the native ecclesiasticals moving towards war.

And this was different from 65 in the sense that this one was a religious man of the land.

of a sovereign country, with the revolution in Brazil, with you, and even now, from the people, from the international arena.

This is why we're taking a stand in the U.S. as we do, of using the U.N. as a cover of which the status of all the chief platforms has been sanctioned.

I'm also looking at

I don't think it's possible for an Indian leader to be rational on this subject.

The only one that I've ever known who was rational on this subject was Rajiv Palachar.

He was probably dead now.

Or 95, which is pretty close to being dead.

So anyway, looking at it from their standpoint, I think with all the problems they have with West End now, or that now they have problems with East End now, there's going to be one hell of a limit.

No, you know, that's really just the sad part.

But it also shows that East Bengal, that while East Bengal suffers from the attack, that West Pakistan is likely to suffer something worse under its new regime, because it has a vested interest in maintaining the furniture.

And East Bengal is the best in the whole of the situation.

Now, unfortunately, what we have in the past and future is as it goes along,

The war was not needed to accomplish the objective that they now have.

Just as sure as it was in the

was destined for our economies one way or another.

They lived in some loose confederate or maybe separate.

We all did that.

And we filtered that.

We filtered that.

Yeah, that's right.

We filtered that.

And we also, knowing that, knowing that it was never going to fall in a peaceful way,

And in spite of the fact that we had been screaming out for as much as we could to turn the $50,000 to the line, and they put in the budget drawings and the travel money, and it's, uh, and, quack, they go in there and, uh, you know, I really, as a translator, I say, anybody who's ever concerned, they're so dang poor.

and pretend to be fighting yesterday, Tuesday, Saturday.

I mean, the only, uh, it's, uh...

I don't know.

I don't know what you're saying.

I am concerned that these, when the Pakistan army, these Pakistanis disarm, as we expect them to happen, the enemy waits, and they choose, that there isn't a massacre of this million and a half Uru speakers, because they've already combined massacres under perfect conditions of this kind.

And, so that it leads to a massive attention to focus,

just so that we can all get it on.

Well, that's the time to do it.

We have to explain to you that it doesn't report the time to see the physicals in the eye.

We'll have to do that at the end of the day.

The question we were seeing is about the fact that there was a school where they first put up little staff, and after they had 3D packaged up, and then, after 6-5, the latest event was in June, so you can't remember.

You know, it was at the time of the Central Diocese of Daigle.

One of the teams had packaged up Daigle before Daigle was 3-6-5, and then 6-5.

I'm trying to tell you that your success was about two weeks ago in the UK, and I think it's true.

I was sitting in a room calling you for the best day of your tenure, and I don't want to be selling any of your creations to the audience, but you're impressed, aren't you?

I'm impressed.

You know, they're buying themselves 10 years of company.

Once they have the financial resources, let them out of here, drive them by, and the rest of them get by.

You see, they're stupid already.

But, uh, how can they possibly resist?

And how can they afford their problems to, like, die if they really want to?

Take that off their plate, too, but, uh, manage it that way.

They can rather safely do this because of the Chinese and all the other people.

But looking down the road, would you like to have a living order in the Imperial Command to do that?

That's what you can tell them to do.

They're trying to find you.

You can.

But they've got to find us out of it.

They've got to.

Because China and Harvard have to make sure that they won't try to get back what they tried to get back to the dead.

And this was, of course, a constant application of that.

They really introduced a lot of politics into that area of the world.

And it was drawn from that.

R.A.M.

Lewis, of course, is the icon of his own in some way.

See, we have no dreams, you know, in any way of thinking.

They don't have one.

You do.

All we've done for India is provide 10 billion dollars annually in the last 20 years.

That means nothing.

With regard to Pakistan being working, I must say the influence we've had has been extremely effective.

I mean, Pakistan built for a long time.

We built a lot of them out of aid.

I'm not going to recept you to our suggestions.

But the irony of it all is that the action that was so broadly supported here at the time of election march is already cut off already.

In fact, we only have $5 million in the spare part of the case.

I think the reason we're doing that is because we're after an army.

Back in the 50s, when we supported the Americans, you know, they bought America.

So he got off the ship, and I just thanked God, and I went to war.

The irony is, by leaving Afghanistan that way, it made the Indian problem, in terms of launching the jet, could have been made a little easier.

The Chinese need to balance the power.

The idea of just cutting off arms and so forth doesn't always bleed.

The piece, it's the taking the mace, and you, the mace, our policy there is one which I support completely.

We're right on top of it, but we were trying to maintain the balance there.

And as we lose friends on both sides, we've got to be .

Of course, the issue with regard to our intention to maintain the balance, it has not yet been upset, but there have been very significant questions that have worked for the great widest capacity and quality

personnel, particularly the pilots, the Israelis would have a problem if they don't hang out in the future.

Now, I'm hanging in the balance from her side here, and that irritates the synopsis crowd in this group.

I said, well, we are doing this for two million Israelis, for eight million Arabs,

If you make no progress, you know she's going to ruin the world, and she's going to squeeze into this river, and sort of get the power.

Let's hear that scenario while we're here.

While we're here, okay, let's hear you.

The United States is involved in Israel, and the Russians are involved in Israel.

The end of the United States.

Even though we're in a political situation, we should be getting that out into the light of the findings of certain cases of our self-interest, our security.

And we have to get the United States where to adopt the line of saying, well, in order to do that, we don't want the Israelis to start making trouble there.

So what we will do is not to maintain the balance.

We say, no, we're not going to provide you with any arms.

Now, if we were to say that now, he's ready to put himself in a position.

He's ready to give it to the Russians to continue sending him arms and sit down with him.

It's an invitation for the Israelis to strike now, while they're still ahead.

So, actually, by providing arms with more commands for Israel, we are maintaining their balance, and it's an omen that he can never attack again.

We have to do, we have to do that, and yet at the same time try to talk to the Egyptians.

We're not going to go so far as to provide so much that we're able to encourage this kind of engagement.

But

It's a tight section.

And yet, I must say, a lot of brave and well-intentioned people, both great, South Asian, and other places, have said, well, the D.C. is the answer to all these problems.

You just have to go out in the arms of the people.

And where there are, where you have these, where you have these historical hatreds and conflicts of interest that are totally your right to hate,

Where people are not quite as human, the thing to do is to maintain a balance so that neither has the chance to start something with a hopeful mind.

That's at least, it sounds like the old-time politics of Europe.

I mean, I'm afraid that it's the way the world is.

I wish we could take it to the moon, but we can't do that.

I don't think we should sound, I don't think we should sound too, too arrogant in our actual prospects, whether it was put in somewhat of a hold for life or something.

You are real enough to know that it's meant to be changed and so on and so on and so on.

I'm not getting to know you.

It's just not at all.

that we cannot do that, or if it does, we want to involve some, perhaps more, in our operations.

We will involve discussions with our group to make the differences we have.

Regarding the air roll, for instance, we're not only, we're not only unexpensive, but are going to be very, here's an area where it's very important for us to be issuing campaigns that will really

with regard to the Soviet Union, except for the South East Asia problem, which is now .

I think Henry would agree that since our Chinese are away from the Soviet

Now, we're thinking, we're not going to remain in this, but we'll be getting very significant progress from this all.

We're creating a very significant progress from this all.

The training also stands after a very, very instructive, maybe a microcosm that's going on this year.

I don't know if it was crucial or not, but it was, I believe, within the framework

bold, not bold nations, bold PRC, and so being pragmatic, tough, and totalitarian, we can sell it in our own interest, that it is possible that bold meetings we have are serving American useful purpose, because each in a different way may lead

to have a better relationship with us.

And we, for our reasons, we have a better relationship with both.

We're not going to play one against the other.

We're not going to side with one against the other.

Would you like to add anything to that, Henry?

Because it is what that means to me.

But I might follow through on something.

Yes, sure.

You say fear or hatred, which in this particular case, I think fear might be the paper.

But it has to do with the influence of the Chinese on their part of the world.

I do notice, as a matter of fact, that we do want the eastern parts of Russia to almost

Sometimes you kind of see all those Asians down there.

I would tend to, I do tend to be afraid that the Chinese would start to send each other a needle there.

Isn't that the point, Henry?

It's about making sure they're both worried about moving out of the ground.

Well, the Chinese expected that all the trees in the 19th century were out of the tree.

Were what?

Well, not the trees, and so there's a substantial slice of the grass where those animals discovered.

Well, that's all I have for you on that point.

I don't know if there's anything that matters in this report.

If it does, I'll hold it back in session.

That's all I have for you on that point.

and how these are spiritually aligned to all of this.

We have no illusions about the Chinese.

As a result, they start to exercise.

We have seen a big change in our interests, in the character of our people.

It is because, as I say, we both think we have a certain heritage, and this can be a very useful time in the community.

That's very important.

Mark, I'm going to ask you a question.

It's very important.

The re-counseling of powers is a new definition of power relationships and it's the only important consideration.

I mean, it's not that you just think of yourself as being yourself.

It's that you reassure some of your friends and stuff each other.

And that you are not forgetting them.

In terms of the future of all of us, I think it's much better if we talk about the future of the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and the moon and

I've got, not just from Washington, from Europe, everybody's spent money.

It could be something very terrible.

So all this at least is a step.

It doesn't mean anything like that.

But I think that one of the reasons that this India-Pakistan thing troubles us, I say us, so much, is because

That's why we are hitting as strong a line as we can.

You know, that's supposed to be quite, quite, quite impressive.

We have over 400 million engines, that's about a hundred million packs.

We know in terms of the future of South Asia, we know that in terms of American motherland, we know that in terms of American motherland, we know that in terms of American motherland, we know that in terms of American motherland, we know that in terms of American motherland,

is this principle of what justifies aggressive military action.

Aggressive military action in the daily world is justified because of internal conditions in any country and all health and arrangements in all places.

That's what it is, as she said.

And we have something for a reasonable amount of money

It's the danger of using the U.N. otherwise.

Yes, it can be.

Instead of the seizure of delays, the U.N. actually counts the day of death, because it then ratifies the deceased's life instead of only the day after death.

That's what you think is going to happen.

In the end, it's not going to happen.

You'll have to think about all the thoughts that sit on a deceased's mind.

before the Liberals tried to beat the attacks.

I think that is the question.

The Liberals resist any action, delay the action of the generals, or anything like that.

Just go ahead and do it then, please.

You know, it's ironic in the sense that the Indians, and particularly in Northern Europe, with the name of Congress,

The great leader of the non-aligned, neutral, pro-UN, non-violent nation should be saying the hell of the United Nations.

Huh.

He is.

No doubt he did that at the meeting with you, Mr. President.

But I'll be convinced that within a year, East Pakistan will be autonomous.

And that's the...

and the unit in front of me exercised mathematics.

It was the children's room that we sat in the back of the children's room when she had stood.

There was nothing to explain it.

The group admitted that I had cheated ten years ago.

To some observers, the decision was regarded as the 54th trip.

The trip around the world was a natural sensation which hit the ground a hundred times faster.

But we, when she was here, we did everything to show you more of us.

More of us.

But I think we're just a little bit away from where we were when I got her.

and said, I have this offer, which came in the morning, which he derived from directly the message.

Now, he would probably go, no conditions.

And he said, no conditions, no taxes.

And I said, well, I do have it.

And we were on these things.

And he said, well, that's fine.

That's fine with me.

She said, well, she said she could have just answered the next day, and then she discussed the entire thing instead.

I'll get into a lot of other subjects, but I'll get into that in a moment.

Anyway, you will, uh, you know your place in the warehouse, don't you?

You're there.

And, uh, we, uh, we, uh, we, uh, we, uh, we, uh, we, uh, we, uh,

Let's see, where is your car?

Oh, you're out this way.

Do you have a coat?

Do you have this buzzer here?

Come on.

Why don't you just, uh, down on the right, I'll find your, uh, I'll find your buzzer.

That's a nice, that's a nice, that's a nice, that's a nice, that's a

I don't think so.

Go back two.

Go back.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.