On December 8, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon and George H. W. Bush met in the Oval Office of the White House from 11:06 am to 11:14 am. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 632-010 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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Coach, I heard.
Well, I thought that was a fine boat that you were able to get out there yesterday last night.
How do you feel about it?
Yeah.
Well, the thing that I think George is very important, and I hope we can get some of our title of Secretary of the House and Senate to speak up on this.
We're not anti-Indian.
We're not anti-Pakistan.
We're anti-aggression.
Isn't that correct?
And basically, or if you want to put it, we're not pro-Pakistan or pro-India.
We are pro-peace.
In this instance, it would seem to me you wouldn't have gotten this kind of vote, with both committees and the Russian for lobbying the other way, I think.
Yeah.
That's right.
And look for me.
To what do you attribute the big vote, George?
Yeah, sure.
Most people in the U.N. realize that in Germany.
This sort of indicates that India's support, apart from Russia, but India's support of the UN isn't all that great, because, you know, the Indians put on this sanctimonious peace, Gandhi-like, Christ-like attitude, and they're the greatest, the world's biggest democracy, and Pakistan is one of the most horrible dictatorships.
I wonder why that, yeah, I don't know that, for example, I mean, it really shows you how the decline in morality among the intellectuals where they say, well, the United States is really taking the wrong position here because there are 600 million Indians and only 60 million Paks.
Well, not all the hell does that determine what your position should be.
We can simply say this now.
We have used all that we have used, after we have used our influence, and we've had considerable success in getting the IAEA, the UN, and the Serbian Union to coming on before this all occurred, before the refugee problem and getting to agree to the civilian thing, agreeing even to contact with the, you know, the machine field and all that jazz.
That's one thing.
We use all our influence if we can.
Also, we have tried to use our influence with India in this respect.
But whatever this is, whatever the criticism of the West Pakistan or the Ayatollah's government may be, and a lot of that criticism is justified,
It does not justify resort to invasion of another country.
If we ever allow the internal problems of one country to be justification for the right of another country, bigger, more powerful, to invade, then international order is finished in the world.
That's really the principle, isn't it?
And that's why I love you.
And I think all the editorial women and so forth, a lot of them have their change or just understood it.
They just want to get a chance to take a little shot at us.
Don't you think so?
Sure, sure.
Well, the idea to the, uh, they, they, they, one of them said, well, Nixon's really anti-Indian because the Indians were not Kurdish when he was out of office.
Well, bullshit.
Hell of a day.
There couldn't have been more Kurdish.
I mean, you know how the Indians are.
They play with everybody.
When I was down there in Christ, they had me stay as a guest for the government when I was out of office.
I met with a guy named, of course, I didn't know before about all this.
But all this is just ridiculous.
What really is the case is that India's hands are not clean.
They're caught in a bloody bit of aggression.
Now, it is true that as far as the IAS are concerned, there are no clean hands there either.
I mean, they handled us very clumsily, very badly.
But India knew that efforts were being made to consolidate it.
And in spite of that, in spite of assurances that we were working and we made some progress, in spite of even an offer on the part of the ILO to withdraw from the border, even though I live in East Pakistan, they proceeded to go in.
Now that is a pretty damn lousy record.
That's why Henry's background was designed for it.
Anyway, you're doing great.
And the main thing, as I say, all this, I think if you could constantly emphasize that world opinion, world opinion, it isn't a question of being pro-democracy or anti-democracy.
It's not a question of being
for 600 billion as against 60 million.
Aggression is wrong, and the size and the difference in size between countries is not justified.
The difference in systems of governance is not justified.
Aggression on the part of a democracy
It is not justified.
It's just as wrong as aggression on the part of a dictatorship.
I put it as bold as that.
It is aggression and it's wrong.
That's what the U.N. is built upon.
After all, those goddamn communist countries are all, they engage in it.
It's wrong on their part, but if a link to a democracy engages in aggression, it's wrong.
You know what I mean?
Well, you're doing well.
Knock them dead.
All right.