Conversation 949-005

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

And we just talked about the necessity of giving them enough room for decisions.

We must let them, the French, we must love their initiatives.

I haven't had a chance to report to you yet, Mr. President, but the Foreign Minister wrote the outline of the possible declaration.

We do?

If I may say so.

We want to hear it from everybody.

But it's better than the one we just saw.

Then I want you to emphasize to the Chancellor his, and I have a comment.

I said this to, I said this to the President very strongly.

I said, look, I said, we can't speak for our allies quite as well as you can speak for yours.

I said, we, and I told Joe here, again, along the same line, I said, look, we don't have any master plan.

We're not trying to impose a year here.

There was a time, the Marshall Plan, when the United States was so strong and so rich and Europe was so weak and so depressed, where we made the plan, you know, the Great European Consultation, everybody knows that we played a major role.

That has changed now.

We're all pretty good.

So we not only welcome, but we think it's indispensable that what we do in these months ahead

Be a gun venture in every sense of the word.

You've got an idea.

The British have got an idea.

The French have.

Some of the smaller countries have.

Now, basically, we have to realize that you can't sit down.

This is one of the problems we have with our friends.

They say, why don't you all sit down, and the NATO Council will work this out.

15 people can't write a declaration.

So what we have to have is a very personal relationship.

And we will not grant anything like that.

But we have to understand it's very personal.

We let us know.

We let you know.

And frankly, with the Danish and the Norwegians and all the other smaller countries, we'll

as I've never had in any discussion since I've come here.

I think the true position of ours, I think long-term vision of Europe is to all practical purposes identical.

And we developed some ideas of the procedure for your trip.

And some new ideas.

Some new ideas, which can really be very constructive.

By the way, we shouldn't mention it publicly because I think it is necessary concerning the third conference to give the French the possibility of launching it.

And we propose a place.

We propose a conference.

We propose a place where to have it.

Mr. President, we have a chance to explain.

Talk to you about it.

That when you're in Russia, you meet with the... With the council.

With the council.

The foreign and defense ministers would come to the council.

Sure.

In NATO.

And then there's a provider for me in the EEC in a different context.

Now you get the... And then how do you get the French in that meeting?

I think that is easy.

I need to make sure they all go that way.

They'll be happy if they are, I guess.

Dan, I want them there.

Very important.

I'm answering some.

And then we're going to tell you after those two meetings.

In Brussels, there might be a certain meeting, an ad hoc meeting of all the leaders of government in Paris.

At the summit, the other one?

Yes, the summit.

And that... Well, that's the press in general.

They should suggest... We suggest the press.

They should suggest an ad hoc meeting.

An ad hoc meeting of heads of... Let's keep this very short.

And we will... As we drank our tea at the summit, they have a press conference.

All right

that of course it was a condition for an all-European side.

Right.

In other words, you played a foundation for the all-European side.

Yes, we did.

We did it in our community and we did it quite deliberately.

We did a long, long session.

We said that we would work expeditions for...

We didn't commit to the son.

We made a commitment from second faith.

I see no problem with the son.

No problem.

Provided.

Provided we're all together before we get there, because they'll be all together.

Or at least as together as we can be.

Provided, too, that we know what's going to come out.

It's just we all come there as if we're a tower of battle.

Don't you agree?

Yes, I agree completely.

So we made it also dependent from the outcome of the second phase.

If there is a chance of a successful conference, we may have the third phase on a head of state and head of government basis.

But if not, we have to finish the work on the level of the foreign ministers.

Only if there is a success

not only possible, but maybe guaranteed, we may do it on the path of states coming over the level.

And that gives us a leverage to get present results.

Well, because the Soviet Union is highly interested to have a summit conference of all European states.

They are so interested that they will give

concessions for that.

And so we had to press on them by this possible sub-conference.

As we did for the first phase, by the time which the Soviets had, they liked to have this conference already in June or July, and they gave concessions

and our agreement with that.

Well, the main thing is, Mr. Foreign Minister, is that if you will keep, and I suppose this applies to all people, but particularly on these very subtle points, we just don't, we don't want to put it on the international,

you know, State Department or Foreign Ministry wired, we are talking about this.

I mean, that'll drive the French up the wall.

Also, it'll give the Russians an opening.

But I think if you could keep in the closest touch with, and actually we'll build on things that, you know, as we work along, that we know that we're not playing

But I think, Henry, you've got to work with the board.

That's your hand, Chancellor.

I haven't had the doubt about that word, Tom.

You're working with Joe Baer.

Joe Baer, basically, we're working with Joe Baer because Papa do said he was the man.

We're working with him.

That's right.

Do you think he's going to tell us where he's designated?

We're trying to put a time for the time.

So you see, so we've got three very top-line calls.

And I designated Kissinger.

And that's it.

And if Newport can't work it out, then Europe is going to go down the ground.

Mr. President, if we can get 90% of what the foreign minister brought with him this morning, we can get the others to come along.

Really?

I think this could be a historic, would be a historic achievement.

It's not just the Bernal-Cerro formulations.

It's really... That's what I don't want.

I think for us to all get together and come out with a lot of God, motherhood, and country.

That will be a great disappointment to the world, you know, really.

I mean, look, there shouldn't be any summit without, I mean, the summit is a mountain, and a mountain cannot produce a mouse or a rat.

It must produce something substantial.

I don't have a mouse or a rat.

A mouse, let's have a mouse and a rat.

But, Henry, can I look at this paper?

Can I wait until the weekend?

I think you might consider waiting.

We sent you some more detail.

It's a foreign necessity, not a really very good outline, which can be then sort of a challenge.

I will not look at it until a chance comes to look at the dark paper.

I really shouldn't, until you're getting down to something quite definitive.

You see, it's terribly important in this period that there not be any using of a Russian American company.

It's difficult to avoid that feeling.

But as you know, the

agreement to the prevention of the queer war was carefully drawn to avoid that feeling.

The point is, or that implication, the point is that the only way you could really avoid it is the allies to meet in concert, not only in meetings like this, but at the so-called bilateral meetings.

And as you know, we have regular yearly meetings, and we need to run transfer.

The British first lost the heat and so on.

And of course, Pompidou, the golfers, Pompidou.

And the attack, I don't remember who the attack was going to be, but now it's Rumor, I think.

Rumor.

But anyway, the point that I make is this.

If we, there's nothing more important than our, than the fact of our keeping.

Not only in touch, but trying to, uh,

work out something substantive.

I was concerned, Henry, about Heath's concern on this point.

He seemed to be concerned about the race to Moscow.

This is the company's.

Yes, Doctor, I'm Heath.

You wrote me a letter after I got here, aren't you?

The reason you have been so much concerned with this Atlantic initiative this year is to give us a body demonstration in relation to our friends.

But I said to the NATO Council, I had our good friend Lund sitting there, you know, a real unspoken follow-on.

I said, let's understand.

I said, the Soviet-American meeting was terribly important.

And I said, I can well remember that when I traveled to Europe in 1969, all European leaders said, why don't you get together with the Soviet, reduce this terrible danger to the NATO, and the Soviet come together with the Soviet.

Do you remember?

And that, I said to the NATO Council, let's well understand, and the way I put it, Henry, I said, we consider our relations with the Soviet important, we consider our relations with China important for us, and we start to self-manage, each of you got to determine what you're solving.

But I said, as important as they are, the alliance comes first.

And that's what it is.

And Brexiteer has no illusions on that.

He doesn't get both.

We talked about this today also, and from our side it is what I explained to you, that we think that the Atlantic Partnership has priority before the European cooperation, West-East cooperation in Europe.

And I think that's an absolute priority.

Well, I feel that way.

I explain it.

I explain it publicly.

Well, it's very important for the Karenins to feel that way because you have the greatest stake in Western European cooperation.

But we have to explain it to the public.

We have had a very logical idea since many years that detente in Europe can only be based on a strong alliance

And now I explain in her thinking that the alliance not only is the basis of the policy of detente, but is carrying it out itself.

And now we have to explain... That would be impossible.

Yes, otherwise it would be impossible.

As I said, we would never have had this meeting, the Soviet-American meeting.

unless the alliance has been strong.

So why change the game plan when it's working, right?

Of course, of course.

If you have read, perhaps, I said in Helsinki that some people thought that NATO and the Warsaw Pact would be an obstacle for a determined Europe.

but it turned out exactly the contrary.

They are the places of policy of deterrent, and there cannot be a policy of deterrent without the two military systems, even now carrying out practically this policy.

And now we have to explain to our public that Atlantic Partnership has priority.

Therefore, it is so important

come to some concrete declaration during your visit to Europe.

We let it open to prepare a declaration or if it would not be possible until then to have a complete and worked out declaration to

agree on some kind of communique with basic principles and some main ideas.

We should try to.

A declaration is very communique.

Yes, a declaration.

You know, you take the Atlantic Charter and make sure more freedom for all is served.

But that was many, many, many years ago.

Of course.

But the point is, it had symbolic significance far beyond what it meant.

What did it mean?

Not much.

But the fact that the Declaration, the Declaration of Western Civilization is what is at stake.

That's what it means.

The Western Civilization deserves a declaration of great historic significance.

rather than just a communique where a bunch of, shall we say, parochial leaders sit down and argue about whether we doubt the high proserty.

The foreign minister actually brought up an outline of the declaration that is more abrasive than what we have thought of because that even includes philosophical basis of the humane society.

I mean, I'm all for that.

And that is not considered to be

these days, the pragmatism, the philosophical basis of society, the nation, our children, every place, and every world needs to hear a little about the philosophical basis.

Of course.

I said to Dr. Kissinger, there is a lack of theory in our time.

First of all, young people, they must have a theoretical view of what they should do, or what they will do.

You see, otherwise, we all turn out to be just a bunch of cold, dumb pragmatists.

Now, we've got to be pragmatic, even with our friends, the Soviets and their colleagues, because they're terribly cold and dumb and pragmatic.

But interestingly enough, interestingly enough, they use the idealism, the words of the West,

You know what I'm saying?

Right?

And what we need to do is to get our young people to think that, my God, they can be good and decent things, that we all believe in, and not be communists.

And, of course, that's one contribution that the gentleman's can make particularly, because I think you, I think you, speaking to the gentleman, basically think in philosophical terms, a great deal, think in philosophical terms.

Uh, we Americans have, uh, we are so impatient, so impatient, we have, I think it's just, I think it's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of,

All of us are capable of it.

But they're French.

They're British.

John Dewey.

Yeah.

Oh, Dewey.

Yes.

Reconstruction of ideology.

Yeah.

Oh.

I read.

It's practice.

Oh, I thought you were talking about John Dewey.

But I, I feel so strongly that what the free world needs is a good dose of idealism.

Idealism.

Yeah.

That we believe in good things.

Not practice.

Oh my gosh.

We're richer than they are, and we produce better than they do.

But that's their game.

Their game is materialism.

We can beat them on the material side, but we have the added ingredient of idealism.

And here they are.

I speak of them in, you know, not as an animation, but in terms of people we've got to question.

But here they are taking what we actually have as ideals and appealing to our young people.

Now, that's just wrong.

I mean, Western civilization, our friend, you know, from Lebanon, Henry, it's my, Malachi's friend, Malachi, he says Western civilization, he says Western civilization must present its case not simply in the pragmatic, cold way that we have,

We've got to put some ideological content.

Now, I don't need to suggest that a few nice ideological words in this statement or declaration will be enough.

You've got to have some substance in the press.

The press, who are all, or most of them, cynics, will say, ah, it doesn't mean anything.

But let me tell you, we need it.

If you give us a few words, our country, I wish the Chancellor would, I wish Papa would, and the Trump country would sit down and think a little bit.

What do we believe?

Other than more cars, other than balance payments, other than inflation, which is not our only problem here, do we believe in anything else?

If the Russians come in and they talk about wheat and all the rest, but it comes down to philosophy, it would look like the only competition between our two societies is in terms of co-economic pragmatism.

Now, if that is the game, we will lose.

We won't lose because our, we won't lose too soon, but we will lose mainly because the, it is their aim, that's all they believe in, you know, scientific, the communists, but it's over.

But what do we have to offer the world?

We, unfortunately, and fortunately in a way, it's a very diverse thing.

There's dozens to save.

Freedom and diversity is the whole point of freedom.

But what we have to think about is that we offer more to the world and to our children and so forth than simply better homes, better housing, better cars, better roads, better social security, better air conditioning.

And we do.

We offer a great deal more.

There's a big leap when you move.

We all know this.

East China, West China.

even though he's probably doing better than us, but you have the fanciest places in the world, and if they don't have the...

I think the main issue is individual freedom.

Sure you can.

That's the whole plan offered to our people, and they cannot.

they would start to do so, they would lose their system, and they cannot buy it.

In fact, as a certain incompatibility during every period of time, they have to plan down a bit at home, but they can't do it in depth.

No, they can't.

So their behavior on this conference, I think it was, to be with us, increased.

the cooperation and communication, but among the governments only.

They try to limit it on exchanges between governments, and we try to extend it on the individuals.

And I talked about it in my speech.

When I'm prepared... You may copy that speech.

Please.

It's fine.

I don't want to mislead you.

But I'd like to make some remarks on the societal structure of both sides, the difference of our political system.

Because, in my opinion, this European Conference on Security and Cooperation is both the first event in the field of competition of the political systems in Europe, because this is the final result of European cooperation, the competition between the different political systems.

And we have to be fully aware, fully aware of that, and to start very early, without inciting somebody.

You can't explain it in very serious words, and even in friendly words.

Well, do you remember Khrushchev, in 1959, talking about peaceful competition between our two societies?

I made a speech in Cliff Hall in London, another one.

I include the same thoughts in my children's future.

I said, let us compete, let us compete.

Better life, more cars, better housing, better security.

But also, let us extend the competition.

Let us extend it to those great idealistic concepts

So much trust.

And I know Ron, and we've opened the door.

And so that is a great joy that people understand.

Because that's an area they can't compete in.

What are they going to say?

This has no, having said this, this is not cold war talk.

I mean, they're a fact, we're a fact.

And we're going to deal with those facts.

And that's the better thing.

We've been meeting so many times.

Here's what happened.

But they're being a fact.

We're being a fact.

They believe in our system, and we believe in our system.

I'm talking to the leaders.

It does not mean that we should just hunker down and cannot stand on soapboxes and say, well, we happen to believe in certain great ideals that are very different from the ideals they believe in.

Otherwise, all we end up is each of us making a race for automobiles.

But we have a good chance.

I think we, after this talk today, Mr. President, are out of the way.

I think we've made a contact.

We've made a contact.

Because Britain, the British will go along, and we think, thankfully, the French will also come along.

Well, I think all of us will talk to them, and I will be in close contact with them.

We'll talk to them.

I don't get it, but they must have gotten the lesson from the French.

You know, the French, we must remember, their old tradition of going back to the French Revolution.

They should be able to contribute to this field of ideals.

I'm going back to that.

I'm sure that's their recent history, but you know...

But very practically, there is no European corporation possibly without France as a moving force and...

about Franco-German cooperation, and it works quite well, so we can use it.

But the French are in a rather difficult situation.

We talked about the nucleus of that that means they are

nuclear policy.

It's very difficult for them, and they have to find a new concept, and then they will move, I'm quite sure.

But now they are reflecting this difficult question.

Well, I'm always glad to see you.

That's your calling.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your work on this.

Maybe we could produce something.

Yes, I do hope so, but not a mouse or a rat.

No, no, no.

No mouse, no rat.

Henry's not the rat.

I don't mean that.

Thank you.