1.
I have a brief opening statement to make about
the function of the Presidency and about the Secretary of State's upcoming
visit to the Soviet Union. I think one of the most impressive observations that
I have understood so far about the Presidency and what it stands for is the
need to derive its strength directly from the people. There have been some
expressions of concern about my bringing on these news conferences and in other
ways, issues that affect foreign policy directly to the people of our country. I
think it is very important that the strength of the Presidency itself be
recognized as deriving from the people of this Nation, and I think it is good
for us, even in very complex matters when the outcome of negotiations might
still be in doubt, to let the Members of Congress and the people of this
country know what is going on and some of the options to be pursued, some of
the consequences of success, some of the consequences of failure. I think in
many areas of the world now we are trying to invest a great deal of time and
attention and the good offices of our country to bring about a resolution of
differences and to prevent potential conflict. Tomorrow, the Secretary of State
will depart for the Soviet Union. We have spent weeks in detailed study about
the agenda that has been prepared. This agenda is one that's been derived by
the Soviet Union and by our own country. I would say the central focal point
will be arms limitations and actual reductions for a change. I have had long
discussions with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and with other members of my own
Cabinet to derive our potential proposals, which Cy Vance will put forward to
Mr. Brezhnev and the Russian leaders. We will be talking about the limitation
on arms sales. We are now the number one exporter or salesman of arms of all
kinds. We have been working with our own allies to cut down this traffic, and
we hope to get the Soviet Union to agree with us on constraint. We'll be
dealing with mutual and balanced force reductions in the NATO area and, on this
trip, Cy Vance will make a report on the attitude of the Soviet Union leaders
concerning the European theater. We'll be trying to control the testing of
nuclear devices, both weapons and peaceful nuclear devices, and we would like
to eliminate these tests altogether if the Soviets will agree. We are going to
try to move toward demilitarizing the Indian Ocean and, here again, we'll be
consulting closely with our allies and friends. And we are going to express our
concern about the future of Africa and ask the Soviet Union to join with us in
removing from that troubled continent, outside interference which might
contribute to warfare in the countries involved. And we will start laying the
groundwork for cooperation with the Soviet Union at the Geneva Conference which
we hope will take place, concerning the Middle East. These matters are
extremely complex. We don't know whether or not we will be successful at all,
but we go in good faith with high hopes. The Soviets have been very cooperative
up to this point, and we are pleased with their attitude. And I know that the
prayers of the American people will go with Cy Vance, our Secretary of State,
to the Soviet Union, in hopes that this trip might result in the alleviation of
tension and the further guaranteeing of peace for our world in the future.
2.
Frank Cormier, AP: Mr.
President, the pace of inflation has been picking up a bit. And at least
temporarily, both the consumer and wholesale price indices, annualized, are in
double-digit range. How do you see the outlook for inflation, and how are you
coming in fashioning a comprehensive program to deal with it?
3.
There is an underlying inflation rate of 5 to 6
percent, which is generally derived from the rate of increase in wages minus
the productivity of workers. It is one of the best measurements. I think that
the monthly reports that come in, quite often, are very misleading. They are
transient in nature. We've had a drastic increase in energy costs during this
winter period because of the unprecedented severity of the weather. And we have
also had a very high increase in the cost of many food items, again because of
damage to crops in different regions of the country, and because of coffee
losses overseas. My own guess is that the inflationary pressures will continue
at about the level that they have historically in the last couple of years,
around 6 or a little bit better percent. We are now preparing a very strong
anti-inflation package which will be delivered to the Congress and to the
American people within the next couple of weeks. We have been working on it
since even before I was inaugurated. We have begun to exercise constraint on
some of the spending policies of our own administration, and we also are
beginning to assess the impact of many decisions made by Government and the
public that contribute to the inflationary pressures which quite often are not
obvious. And I hope to both learn myself and to let the Congress and the
American people learn, in the process, how we can control inflation. I think
the economic stimulus package that we have can boost the increase in our
national product up to around 5 percent or a little better, which is crucial to
cutting down the unemployment rate. It will not be, in my opinion, a major
factor in inflation. But on a long-range basis, I intend to help control
inflation. I intend to cut down the expenditure of Government programs well
enough to bring about a balanced budget by 1981. I am deeply committed to this
goal. And I believe that we will have unveiled, for the Nation to assess, a
comprehensive package against inflation within the next 2 weeks.
4.
HelenThomas, United
Press International: Mr. President, in terms of bringing the American
people in on the dialog, you spoke of arms reduction. Does that mean that Vance
will take a new set of proposals on SALT? And two, you spoke of the cooperative
attitude of the Soviets. Does that mean that you don't think that any of
Brezhnev's statements in the past week will have any bearing in terms of your
human rights stand on the SALT negotiations?
5.
Well, I think the first question is easily
answered. Yes, we will take new proposals to the Soviet Union. We are not
abandoning the agreements made in the Vladivostok agreement. As you know, all
previous SALT agreements have been, in effect, limitations that were so high
that they were, in effect, just ground rules for intensified competition and a
continued massive arms growth in nuclear weapons. We hope to bring not only
limitations for--to continue in the past, but also actual substantial reduction
that the Soviets will agree. That will be our first proposal. I spelled this
out briefly in my United Nations speech. And the second fall-back position will
be, in effect, to ratify Vladivostok and to wait until later to solve some of
the most difficult and contentious issues. We hope that the Soviets will agree
to the substantial reduction. The other part of your question was, what, Helen?
6.
It was in the question of this new-this
cooperative attitude.
7.
About Brezhnev's attitude?
8.
Right.
9.
Well, I study Mr. Brezhnev's speeches in their
entirety. And I think the speech made this past week to their General Trade
Union Conference and one made previously at Tula--I consider them to be very
constructive. There was a delineation in his speech between human rights--which
he equates with intrusion into their own internal affairs, and I don't agree
with that assessment-that has been divided in his speeches from the subject of
peace and arms limitation, including nuclear arms. So, I have nothing that I
have heard directly or indirectly from Mr. Brezhnev that would indicate that he
is not very eager to see substantial progress made in arms limitations.
10.
Mr. President, in
your opening statement you said you thought it was a good thing for you to
speak out on negotiation details, but you didn't say why. As I understand the
criticism, sir, it is that it impedes negotiations when you put out on the
table, just in a range of thought, things that the parties haven't privately
been able to work out. Why do you think it does not impede negotiations?
11.
Well, I think if anyone would analyze the
details of the statements that I have made so far, they are not so narrowly
defined or specific that they would prevent both parties to a dispute from
negotiating in good faith with a fairly clean slate ahead of them. The Middle
East is one example. I think, in many instances, the propositions that I have
promulgated publicly are generally conceded to be very important and
legitimate, but the public expression of those matters has not been made to the
American people over a period of years. The exact means of defining borders in
the Middle East, the exact resolution of the Palestinian problem, the
definition of permanent peace--all these things obviously have to be decided
between the Arab countries and Israel. But to point out that they are matters
in dispute and that we hope they will 'be solved this year, I think is
constructive. We have not intruded ourselves against the wishes of the
interested nations in the eastern Mediterranean. Both Turkey and Greece
welcomed our emissary, and I think we can be a good mediator to the extent that
both parties trust us to act in good faith. The same thing applies in southern
Africa and the same thing applies to the MIA mission to Vietnam and Laos. And I
believe that it is very important for the American people to know the framework
within which discussions might take place and to give me, through their own
approval, strength, as a party to some of the resolutions of disputes and,
also, to make sure that when I do speak, I don't speak with a hollow voice, but
that the rest of the world knows that on my stand, for instance, on human
rights, that I am not just speaking as a lonely voice, but that I am strongly
supported by the Congress and the people of the country. This week the Congress
passed almost unanimously--I think with only two dissenting votes in 'both
Houses--a strong confirmation that my own stand expressed on human rights is
indeed the stand of the American people. It's an unswerving commitment. It's
one that will not be changing in the future. And I think for the rest of the
world to know this and for the American people to participate in that
expression of concern about human rights is a very constructive thing.
12.
Mr. President,
you said that when you received the report from the Woodcock Commission that
every hope you had for their mission had been realized.
13.
Yes, that is true.
14.
That report suggested that the best way to get
an actual accounting of those still missing in Southeast Asia is for the normalization
of relations; yet, your position in the past has been that there must be an
accounting first before relations can be normalized. Have you changed your
position, and what hope does that give for the families?
15.
No, I haven't changed my position. I have always
taken the position that when I am convinced that the Vietnamese have done their
best to account for the service personnel who are missing in action, at that
point, I would favor normalization, the admission of Vietnam into the United
Nations, and the resumption of trade and other relationships with the
Vietnamese. I believe that the response of the Vietnamese leaders to the
Woodcock Commission was very favorable. They not only gave us the bodies of 11
American servicemen, but they also promised to set up a Vietnamese bureaucracy
to receive the information that we have had about the date and the place that
we think service people were lost and to pursue those investigations. I think
this is about all they can do. I don't have any way to prove that they have
accounted for all those about whom they have information. But I think, so far
as I can discern, they have acted in good faith. They have also suggested, and
we have agreed, that we go to Paris to negotiate further without any
preconditions. In the past, the Vietnamese have said that they would not
negotiate with us nor give us additional information about the MIA's until we
had agreed to pay reparations. They did not bring this up, which I thought was
an act of reticence on their part. They had claimed, previously, that President
Nixon had agreed to pay large sums of money to Vietnam because of damage done
to their country. Our position had been, whether or not that agreement had been
made, that the Vietnamese had violated that agreement by intruding beyond the
demilitarized zone during the war. But they told Mr. Woodcock and sent word to
me: We are not going to pursue past agreements and past disagreements. We are
eager to look to the future. And I am also eager to look to the future. If we
are convinced, as a result of the Paris negotiations and other actions on the
part of the Vietnamese, that they are acting in good faith, that they are
trying to help us account for our VIA's, then I would aggressively move to
admit Vietnam to the United Nations and, also, to normalize relationships with
them.
16.
As to the second part of
my question, what about the families of the 2,500 people who have still
not been accounted for, or remains have not been returned?
17.
I have nothing but sympathy for the families
involved, and I can assure them through this news conference presentation, that
we will never cease attempting to account for those 2,500 American servicemen
who were lost. I might point out that at the conclusion of the Korean war and
the Second World War, of those that were lost in action, we only accounted
for--I think we still did not account for 22 percent. At the conclusion of the
Vietnam war, my understanding is that we had accounted for all except about 4
percent. I can't certify that we have all the information available, and we are
never going to rest until we pursue information about those who are missing in
action to the final conclusion. But I will do the best I can. But I don't want
to mislead anybody by giving hope about discovery of some additional information
when I don't believe that the hope is justified.
18.
Mr. President, in
the criticism of your water project hit list, so-called, which now totals about
30 projects, I believe, there has been a suggestion that some kind of an
environmental clique has produced that list but there has been no actual review
or consultation by some of the line agencies--Interior. Specifically, there has
been a suggestion that Secretary Andrus has not been involved in the final
consultations of the review. This, after some years of review, went into the
production of those projects themselves. Could you respond to that kind of
criticism, sir?
19.
Yes, sir. The so-called hit list is a list of
projects that will be meticulously reviewed in public hearings, where Members
of Congress, Chambers of Commerce, Governors, farmers, environmentalists, and
others who are concerned about each individual project can participate. All of
the projects that have been recommended for reassessment have been carefully
reviewed by Secretary Andrus in every one of those that relate to the Interior
Department, the Bureau of Reclamation, and by the Corps of Engineers, those
that are being proposed for construction by the Corps of Engineers. In effect,
the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior have had a veto over
projects that would be reassessed, with only two exceptions--one exception in
Arkansas, one exception in Georgia-which I personally asked that they be
reassessed when the corps did not agree. But these projects need to be looked
at very closely. I personally don't believe that any of the projects ought to
be built, but I will keep an open mind until after the complete review process
is concluded and will then make my own decision as far as the President's
position is concerned. But I can assure you that the Corps of Engineers and
Interior Department have been intimately involved in the preparation of the
list and the reassessment of the list. It's a preliminary screening. Public
hearings will conclude for me what my own position would be.
20.
Ed Bradley, CBS News: Mr.
President, on the subject of Vietnam, if you feel the United States is
not obligated to uphold the terms of the Paris Peace Accords because of the
North Vietnamese offensive that overthrew the South Vietnamese Government, do
you feel, on the other hand, any moral obligation to help rebuild that country?
21.
I can't say what my position would be now on
future economic relationships with Vietnam. I think that could only be
concluded after we continue with negotiations to see what their attitude might
be toward us. My own natural inclination is to have normal diplomatic
relationships with. all countries in the world. Sometimes there are obstacles.
I believe there are now 14 nations with whom we do not have diplomatic
relationships. I don't know what the motivations of the Vietnamese might be. I
think part of the motivation might be to be treated along with other nations in
economic assistance from our country, and in trade, and development of their
fairly substantial natural resources, including oil. Other considerations might
be political in nature. They might very well want to balance their friendship
with us with their friendship with the Soviet Union and not be completely
dependent upon the Soviet Union. That is just a ,guess on my part. But I am
willing to negotiate in good faith. But as far as describing what our economic
relationship might be with Vietnam in the future after the relationships are
established, I just couldn't do that now.
22.
Mr. President,
with that understanding and your hesitancy to disclose a position before
negotiations are started.
23.
I don't have a position.
24.
Beyond that, do
you still feel that if that information on those American servicemen who are
missing in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then this country
has a moral obligation to help rebuild that country, if that information is
forthcoming?
25.
Well, the destruction
was mutual. You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture
territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend
the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't feel that we ought to
apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability. Now, I am willing
to face the future without reference to the past. And that is what the
Vietnamese leaders have proposed. And if,
in normalization of relationships, there evolves trade, normal aid processes,
then I would respond well. But I don't feel that we owe a debt, nor that we
should be forced to pay reparations at all.
26.
Mr. President,
yesterday several Congressmen accused your economic policies as being dictated
by New York banks. Now, your plans for bailing out New York through using the
IMF with a hyper-inflationary process indeed does sound like a recent speech
that David Rockefeller made in which he called for hyper-inflating the advanced
sector and imposing so-called demand economies on the Third World, which means
massive austerity. Now, at the same time, over recent weeks a number of our
NATO allies.
27.
What is your question?
28.
My question is,
over recent weeks a number of our NATO allies have indicated that they would
rather see the problem of Third World debt resolved through a debt moratorium.
And I am just wondering if there is any chance that you'd go along with our
allies in that direction, or if you would insist on this kind of by per-inflationary
bailing out?
29.
Well, I have had no entreaties from David
Rockefeller concerning the New York problem, nor have I had any of our allies
that have called on me to join them in a debt moratorium. I am not in favor of
a debt moratorium.
30.
Mr. President, would
you mind telling us what our commitments are in Zaire and what the
ramifications of those commitments might be to us?
31.
We have no outstanding commitments in Zaire.
Over a period of years, President Mobutu has been a friend of ours. We've
enjoyed good relationships with Zaire. We have substantial commercial
investments in that country. After the recent, very disruptive conflict within
Zaire when the country was finally formed--a number of years ago-it has been
fairly stable since then. Zaire was involved, I think at least indirectly, in
the Angolan conflict, and there are some remaining hard feelings between Angola
and Zaire on that part. Some of the Katangans who lived in the southern part of
Zaire are now involved in trying to go back into the area where they formerly
lived. We have no hard evidence or any evidence, as far as that goes, that the
Cubans or Angolan troops have crossed the border into Zaire. We look on them as
a friendly nation, and we have no obligations to them as far as military aid
goes. But we have been cooperating in exchanging information with the Belgian
Government, the French Government, and others, just to try to stabilize the
situation and to lessen the chance of expanding the conflict.
32.
Mr. president, I
don't ask this question in a churlish way or an argumentative way.
33.
I'm sure you don't. [Laughter]
34.
But taking, recalling
the unwillingness of the United States to intervene at the time of the
Hungarian uprising or at the time of Dubcek's ouster in Czechoslovakia, what do
you really think that you can accomplish for political dissidents in the Soviet
Union, not in other parts of the world, but in the Soviet Union? And I have a
follow-up I would like to ask.
35.
Why don't you ask your follow-up now and I will
try to answer.
36.
My follow-up is this: You are saying that all of
the evidence that you have from Mr. Brezhnev is that he is willing to go
forward or he is receptive to SALT II negotiations. Mr. Brezhnev said before
the Labor Congress that normal relations would be
impossible--"unthinkable" was his word--if your human rights campaign
continued. You have referred to private communications with Mr. Brezhnev, and I
would like to know in the follow-up question, whether he has given you any
assurances in those private communications that he is indeed willing to go
forward on SALT II?
37.
Well, it is not just a matter of private
conversations. We are not trying to overthrow the Soviet Government nor to
intrude ourselves into their affairs in a military way. I think it has been a
well-recognized international political principle that interference in a
government is not a verbal thing. There is an ideological struggle that has
been in progress for decades between the Communist nations on the one hand and
the democratic nations on the other. Mr. Brezhnev and his predecessors have
never refrained from expressing their view when they disagreed with some aspect
of social or political life in the free world. And I think we have a right to
speak out openly when we have a concern about human rights wherever those
abuses occur. I think that Mr. Brezhnev has not said that he is concerned about
my campaign on human rights. What he said is that he objects to any intrusion
into the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. Now, I have tried to be reticent
about it. I have tried to let my own position be clear in the speech at the
United Nations and in my other actions. I have tried to make sure that the
world knows that we are not singling out the Soviet Union for abuse or
criticism. We are trying to move in our own country to open travel
opportunities and to correct civil rights abuses and other abuses in our country.
So, I don't think this is a matter that is connected with the search for peace
through the SALT negotiations, for instance. The very fact that Mr. Brezhnev
and his associates have welcomed Secretary Vance to the Soviet Union and have
helped us prepare a very comprehensive agenda is adequate proof that he has not
broken off relationships in any way, and that he has hopes that the talks will
be productive. My belief is that he is acting in good faith. We are not going
to negotiate in such a way that we leave ourselves vulnerable. But if the
Soviet Union is willing to meet us halfway in searching for peace and
disarmament, we will meet them halfway. I think that this is a good indication
that they are acting in good faith. If we are disappointed, which is a
possibility, then we'll try to modify our stance. Yes, Mr. Sperling
38.
Godfrey Sperling, Jr.,
Christian Science Monitor: On a subject on which I don't believe you
have been questioned before, have you asked the Justice Department to finally
come up with a national strategy for fighting organized crime?
39.
I have discussed this with Attorney General
Bell, and he has not yet evolved to present to me a comprehensive approach to
the organized crime question. But I'd have to give you an answer to that after
the press conference. (1) I don't know what the status of his effort is, Mr.
Sperling.
40.
(1) Later in the day, the White House Press
Office issued the following statement:
41.
At his news conference, the President said he
assigned a high priority on fighting organized crime and promised to elaborate
on his position after he had a chance to review the status of this effort with
Attorney General Bell. The President is informed by the Attorney General that
Peter Flaherty, whose nomination to be Deputy Attorney General advanced in the
Senate today, will have overall supervision over Justice Department efforts in
fighting crime. To this end, Flaherty will bear the prime responsibility for
the activities of the Criminal Division of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and the Drug
Enforcement Administration. Both the President and the Attorney General endorse
the principle of concentrating Federal law enforcement efforts on attacking
large, organized crime operations, instead of focusing on minor offenders. They
are particularly concerned about curtailing the activities of large-scale
narcotics traffickers. In this connection, a study is underway on the
advisability of making the Drug Enforcement Administration part of the FBI as a
means of stepping up the fight against narcotics. They believe these efforts
must take place with the close involvement of local and State law enforcement
agencies, since this is where most of the resources for fighting crime are
located. The administration looks in this regard toward a national program in
which all levels of government would cooperate to produce the maximum reduction
of crime. The administration also places a high priority on fighting
white-collar crime. To promote this effort, programs will shortly begin within
the FBI to train and recruit more accountants, computer specialists, and other
experts, so as to increase the FBI's effectiveness in uncovering and
successfully helping to prosecute intricate fraud, financial manipulations, and
other white-collar crime. The Attorney General will report to the President as
aspects of his anti-crime program are developed.
42.
Let's put it this way:
How high a priority would you be giving to the fighting of organized crime?
43.
I think quite high. When I was Governor, we
organized a substantial effort to fight organized crime. And we detected the
interrelationship between gambling, which a lot of people assume is just a
normal part of life, prostitution, which some people think is not too bad, the
distribution of drugs, which is condemned by almost everyone, and other forms
of illegalities. And the upshot of our analysis was that they are very closely
interrelated. Profits from gambling, profits from prostitution and other more
acceptable kinds of crime, in some people's minds, are directly used to enhance
the distribution of heroin and other drugs. So, I think it is a very serious
problem. It is one that we ought to address from a national level. And one of
the crucial elements that can be improved is to have local, State, and Federal
law enforcement agencies cooperate in a much more effective fashion in exchange
of ideas and information and, also, in the prosecution of criminals.
44.
Thank you, Mr. President.
45.
Thank you very much.
President Carter's fourth news conference began
at 2:30 p.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building. It was broadcast
live on radio and television.
No comments:
Post a Comment