Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4526440",
    "label": "Press Conference of Representatives Hale Boggs and Gerald Ford re China Trip, July 8, 1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526440"
}

{
    "id": "4526440",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526440",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Press Conference of Representatives Hale Boggs and Gerald Ford re China Trip, July 8, 1972",
    "description": "This file contains material relating to Chou En-lai.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526440",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Speeches"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "China",
        "Soviet Union",
        "Voyages and travels"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526440.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526440.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526440.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526440",
    "naId": 4526440,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1972-07-31",
        "month": 7,
        "year": 1972
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1972-07-01",
        "month": 7,
        "year": 1972
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526440.pdf",
    "mediaId": "acee3b5a43585bed",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D33, folder \"Press Conference of\nRepresentatives Hale Boggs and Gerald Ford re China Trip, July 8, 1972\" of the Ford\nCongressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nPRESS CONFERENCE, SAT., JULY 8, 1972\nREPS. HALE BOEGS w GERALD FORD\nMr. Boggs:\nMr. Ford and I are very happy indeed to be back.\nM We Office have made Copy\navailable to each of you a very brief statement, telling of the places\nwe visited in the Peoples Republic of China. They are spelled out, but\nShanghai, Peking, Shen Yang, Anshan and Canton. They took us from the\ncoast of China at Shanghai to the North Central part of China at Peking\nand to the northeastern part of China, where no official Americans have\nbeen in 23 years. Finally down to Canton and by rail back into Hong Kong.\nWe have had a most interesting and informative trip and one that I consider\nmost encouraging for the future of the rest of mankind. I yield to Mr. Ford\nand then simply open the rest of the press conference to questions.\nFord: Let me reiterete what Congressman Boggs has said. There are two\nthings I think we ought to set forth before we get into the question and\nanswer period. Immediately on our return at Andrews Air Force Base, we\ncalled the President and had a 30-minute conversation with him. We were\nadvised in Peking after our conference with Cho Lai that there had to\nbe confidentiality concerning the lengthy discussions we had with him.\nOther than that I think we are ready, willing and able to answer any questions\nconcerning a very fascinating, a very interesting, and I think very helpful\n10-day trip to China itself.\nQ. Mr. Ford, Do you feel that, without breaking the confidentiality,\nthat there is any indication that the reports coming out of London during\nthe past week that China and Russia are putting pressure on North Vietnam\nto end the Vietnam conflict?\nR\nA. We had no indication of any outside pressue. The Chinese made\nstatements comparable to this, and this comment was made by high officials\n(not Chou En-Lai, I might add) that the North Vietnamese are their friends.\nThey naturally support the North Vietnamese, They believe the solution to\nthe problem in Vietnam, between the United States and the North Vietnamese,\nis one that we must settle at the negotiating table.\nDigitized from Box D33 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n-2-\nQ. The Administration yesterday grantedam an export license to the Boeing Co.\nfor the sale of 707 jets (to China). Is this any indication\n(inaudible).\n(Boggs)\nA.\nWe had a great many conversations, and in depth, with officials of\nthe Peoples Republic of China with respect to trade between the United\nStates and China. It is our impression that in the area of high\ntechnology such as jet aircraft, computers, advanced medical instruments\nand the whole realm of advanced chemistry in the United States, the Chinese\nare very much interested. And the question of day-to-day trade such as we\ncarry on normally with the other nations, Europe or Canada, China hopes to\nbe self sufficient. It's a very large nation that's bigger than the United\nStates. It has vast natural resources, and I would not anticipate any\ntremendous increase of normal trade. On the other hand I do believe that\nthe Boeing 707 sale is a pretty good indication of the type of trade that\nwe may anticipate in the reasonably near future.\nQ.\nGentlemen, you say in your report that you have a number of\nrecommendations to make to the President. Could you share any of those\nrecommendations with us today?\n(Ford)\nA.\nWell, I would indicate that Mr. Boggs and I certainly feel that in\nthe field of medicine there is a great opportunity for we in the United\nStates to benefit from the phenominal things that they do with acupuncture.\nOn the other hand the Chinese are very, very interested in some of our\nmedical advancements. And, therefore I think that we should send to China\nthe benefitsof our research in cancer, heart and stroke. This is an area\nwhich would be highly beneficial to both parties.\n(Boggs)\nA. I would add to that more general recommendations XHMMXXX And these\ncome after certainly a brief visit, one who goes to any land and spends a\n-3-\nfew days there and returns as an expert is more of a jackass than an expert.\nBut one on the other hand must necessarily form certain conclusions. We were\nvery intensely briefed. We saw a great deal of China physically. We saw\nmany of its institutions, from its child care centers of kindergarten through\nmiddle schools and the universities. We visited the communes, both the\nagricultural communes and the workers communes. We visited industry, both\nheavy industry and light industry, neighborhood industry. And we talkeed\nto a great many Chinese. It is my impression that the Chinese certainly now\nare concerned with their internal problems. They are not interested in\nexternal aggression. They are very much interested in normalizing relations\nwith the United States. Which, of course, means the recognition of the\ntwo governments, the exchange of ambassadors, the relatively free movement\nof science and business people, and so on.\nQ. Mr. Boggs, it seems that Europe is not the \"in\" place any more, as\ncongressmen and other\nquoted by\ngovernment officals, and China is. Do you think\nthere will be more congressmen going to China?\n(Boggs)\nWell, I would say that was a rather broad generalization inview of\nthe fact that out of 535 congressmen four of them have been there.\nquestion asked\n(Boggs)\nThe point you make is well taken. I think that a vast number of our\ncolleagues will try to go to China. And Mr. Ford and I were both asked by\nmany of our colleagues if we could assist in that direction. And we\ndiscussed this with Premier Chou En-Lai in some detail. He indicated that\nhe would like to have members of Congress visit China in relatively small\ngroups and in a bipartisan fashion such as the two previous groups.\n-4-\nCongressman Boggs and Congressman Ford in your statement you called\nrelations with China.\non both parties to promote the normalization of\n.\nWhat are you asking\nyour respective parties to do?\n(Ford)\nOf course I haven't seen what the Republican Platform preliminary\ndrafts are at the present time. But I do assure you, based on conversations\nwith Congressman John Rhodes, that our party platform will strongly praise\nthe efforts of the President in opening the door and will also\nindicate that the normalization of relations should\nexpand in many, many fields. This is a bipartisan effort as indicated by\nthe visit of the two senators and Mr. Boggs and myself. I can't predict\nthe language of the Democratic Platform in this regard, but I suspect it\nwill be one also of favorable comment because this is in the best interest\nof the United States, not in any one political party.\n(Boggs)\nI might add to that that I have been informed that the Democratic\nPlatform specifically calls for the normalization of relations with the\nPeoples Republic of China.\n(Ford)\nOne of the questions that Mr. Boggs and I raised specifically was the\nChiao Kuan-hua\nvice-chairman of Foreign Affairs, Mr. was the situation\nregarding the American prisoners. The response was that KMMX Mr. Downey the\ncivilian and the two military personnel, Smith and Quinn, was being noted, and\nthe question was asked, were there any other American NMX prisoners held.\n, to his 'knowledge,\neither from the Korean War or the Vietnam War, and the response was\nno. I think this *** is very important from the point of view of many инкиниих\nwives, mothers and fathers who have been concerned over the years about people\nassured\nmissing in action from both engagements. And we were there were none\nother than those who were known by name.\n-5-\nCongressman Boggs, what's your reaction to what your party has\ndone in the way of party reform, specifically the platform\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI'm not really competent to answer the question. I've been away\nfrom the country for two weeks, and developments have been very rapid, and\nthere is one thing you will find out very 4MM quickly in the Peoples Republic\nof China and that is that you don't get very much news from other parts of\nthe world. So unfortunately I'm really not computent to answer your question.\n(Ford)\nA.\nLet me add in a light way if I might. We saw no evidence obviously\nany\nof\nMX elections in the Peoples Republic of China, and therefore there was no\nneed or necessity for\nMMXX any campaign or election reform legislation.\nof\nQ.\nDid you talk about normalization/relations and exchange of\nCould you give us anything more on that.\nDid you discuss this\nin any detail in terms of relations with Taiwan?\n(Boggs)\nA. No we didn't because\nwell I have to go back, there were discussions\nof Taiwan. Most of those discussions as well as more specific discussions\nwith respect to Vietnam and other areas\nwere off the\nrecord.\nhe would\nYou said that Chou En-Lai indicated welcome visits from other\ncongressmen.\nDid\nhe indicate what\nother classifications of Americans\nwould be\nwelcome?\n(Boggs)\nA. Yes, quite definitely. He mentioned journalists and as a matter of\nfact I would say K that more journalists have visited the Peoples Republic\nof China than any single group of Americans up to now. There were a number\nof others as well. He mentioned educators. There were several educators there.\nMr. Fairbank of Harvard was there.\n-6-\ngroups\nHe\nmentioned\neducators\nHe mentioned most specifically, and\nseveral times, American medical teams with special reference to those who\nwere knowledgeable in cancer, heart disease and strokes.\nQ.\nWhat was the President's reaction to your report.\n(Ford)\nA\nWell, he kept us on the line for about a half hour. We started out\nbasedon\nwith a summary of our views then he pursued many many questions\nthe\nintroduction that we Kg gave to him. He pursued certain matters that were\nunfortunately embargoed because of the wish of Premier Chou En-Lai. We had\na ***** report this morning from San amente that the President was very\npleased with the report and is looking forward to having a report in person\nas soon as he gets back and as soon as Congress resumes. And we have\npromised not only to meet with him in person but to submit to him a written\nreport for his information.\nin\nchina.\nMr. Ford, you talked about no need for electoral reform Did\nPremier Chou show any knowledge or interest in the electoral process in the\nUnited States?\n(Ford)\nA\nI don't think we should reveal that kind of information as to the\ntalks we had with him. I would add this, however, (and this is not in\nreference to our conversations with Premier Chou), mong high Chinese\nofficials there was a great deal I of interest shown and many questions\nasked about the sufficiency of our military capability and what the direction\nmight be in the future as to our Defense Department and its funding and its\nprogramming.\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI would like to get back to that question and say that while it seemed\nto be studiously non partisan there was at all levels a tremendous amount of\n-7-\ninterest in the electoral process in the United States. One piece of\nnews that did come through (as a matter of fact, I picked it up on the\nVoice\nof America) was the action * of the Democratic\nCredentials Committee with respect to the California delegation. And\nmany people asked me to explain that to them. They wanted to know the\nwhole process. The Credentials Committee, what its function was, how it\nis set up, how delegates were selected, why were they pledged, why weren't\nthey pledged, where the convention was, what the function of the convention\nwas.\nIn\nother **** words it was almost like a very intelligent high school\nyoungster in a civics class. I'm talking now about interpreters and people\nthat we talked to generally. And I would also like to give a general feeling\nthat I had and I think that Mr. Ford shared, and X that is that uniformly\nwe found a tremendous amount of interest in the United States. I was unable\nto find any hostility and the traditional Chinese reputation for friendliness\nand hospitality was exceeded.\n(Ford)\nA. We were empecially warmly welcomed, as Mr. Boggs indicated, when we\nwere in Shen Yong and Anshan which is in the northeastern part of China.\nNo American official had visited that part of China for 20 some years. We\nwere\nwelcomed\nin\nthe\ntraditional Chinese fashion, not only by a\na handwave but applause by people on the street. We went into a typical\nEXM Chinese department store and somehow the rumor got out that we were\nthere. By the time that we came out the street was lined on both sides.\nI couldn't guess how many people were there but there were at least three because or\nfour thousand, in my judgment. It was really a heartwarming experience\nThis\nwas spontaneous on their part.\nCongressman Ford, did I understand you to say that when you were\nby\nunder Republican and Democratic administrations?\nasked\nChinese leaders about military spending\nin this country\n(Ford)\nA. It was not put on the basis of Democratic or Republican policy. The\n-8-\nquestion was were we going to reduce our military strength in light of this\nStrategic Arms Limitation Talks. Were we going to withdraw from various\nparts\nof the world\nThey were intens\ninterested in what our role would be diplomatically, militarily in the world\nas a whole and the specifics of what our plans might be in @ilitary programs\nand funding.\nQ.\nWhat did you tell them?\n(Ford)\nA.\nI referred to a vote that we had heard that was taken in the House\nof Representatives while we were in China. M The House of Representatives,\nas we understood it from the news reports, passed the military procurement\nauthorization bill overwhelmingly, defeated any efforts to reduce the\nrecommendations of the Committee on Armed Services. We indicated to them\nthat this was a traditional position of strength in the House of\nRepresentatives on a bipartisan basis and we thought this would be the\neventual final conclusion of the Congress in 1972.\nCongressman Ford , do you think that based on\nthe President's\nforeign policy record that the Republicans will MMMX defeat the Democratic\ncandidate in November?\n(Ford)\nI think in this press conference it is better if we keep on the policy ...th,\nXM the press conference/related coverage to our trip.\nQ. Congressman, in reference to your question the answer before that, it\nstrikes me that this is an obvious reference to the United States attitude\ntoward the Soviet Union. Are these questions about our military function, etc,\nmade in reference to their worry about our backing down in terms of maintaining\na position of strength XXXXXXXXXX regarding the Soviet Union?\n-9-\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI think we would be totally less than frank with you if we did not\nindicate that the impression that has been widespread in the West for\nseveral years now about the tension between the Soviet Union and the\nPeoples Republic of China is accurate. It's wuite accurate. And following\nthrough on Mr. Ford's observations we were advised by high officials that\nthe policy of *MMIK/government that is disarmament but not unilateral disarmament.\nAnd there was specific concern expressed , rather emphatically, with regard\nto the possibility of continued Soviet armament and American disarmament.\nQ. Sir, could you put it in another way and say that they were urging\nyou got the impression that\nthe United States to keep their defenses up?\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI could put it this way ****** that in the present world while they\nare much concerned over the resolution of the ***** Vietnamese\nquestion and the whole question of Indochina, Southeast Asia, they, in my\njudgment would be terribly concerned if the United States deciden)xxx reverted\nto a policy of isolationism.\nKMEXMM (Ford)\nA.\nLet me reiterate and reemphasize strongly what Mr. Boggs has said.\nThey don't want the United States WX to withdraw from the Pacific or from\nthe world at any point . They believe our presence is important for the\nstability of the world now and in the future. A militarily-weak United\nStates, at least I got the impression, would create instability rather than\nstability in the resolution of the many, many problems that all nations face\ntoday.\n(Boggs)\nThis is XM a very large country with a great many people, over\nit's still\n800 million. Agriculture, while it has improved immensely, Mas by Western\nstandards is primitive. Their industry still must be developed. What I\n-10-\nam saying to you, they said to us time and time again, they said we have\nmade progress , but much more remains to be done and we are a developing\ncountry and to develop we must have the time and effort and energy devoted\ninternally and not externally.\nQ.\nThey feel, Sir, that a withdrawal of the United States might encourage\nthe Soviet Union to move into the vaccuum thus created/causing thereby problems for\nthem?\n(Ford)\nA.\nI wouldn't say they put it as bluntly as you have said. THX They're\nconcerned about nations such as ourselves participating in a stable Pacific\nand that the United States withdrawal would create the instability. I wouldn't\nwant to go any further than that in explaining the context MX in which we\ndiscussed it.\nQ.\nWould you comment a wit on what you judge to be their relations with\nthe Soviet Union and whatever their fears might be?\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI think we've already covered it.\nIn regard to the stability of the Pacific, did Japan come up in that\nrespect?\n(Ford)\nA.\nThey talked about the major powers that all had an interest in the\nPacifid.\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI would say that in answer XM to that question that there's XXXXXXXX\nan equal interest again YX for the normalization of relations with Japan.\n-11-\nEqual to what?\nEMMMXXXM Interest in normalization of relations\nwith\nthe United States.\n(Boggs)\nCheck.\nQ. They speak of normalization of relations with the Japane se?\n(Boggs)\nA. Oh, yes. A great deal.\n(Ford)\nA. One of the very broad things that I was impressed with and I'm sure\nbecause\nMr. Boggs was XXIX we talked about it in length. You come away from China\nwith an impression of total discipline and dedication, Starting at a very\nearly age, Redication to their system, X dedication to their objectives,\nThey are really convinced that if they all have *MMX this dedication and\nthis discipline that their society , industrially, economically, educationally,\nnas and otherwise will make great strides forward in the next two decades\nAnd this has some important implications-from our point of view. We have\nto recognize that MIK although *****X they're possibly behind INC in certain\nareas, technically and some other areas, we have to recognize that this kind\nof discipline and this kind of dedication for our children and our children's\nchildren is a matter of deep concern.\nQ. Mr. Ford, you mentioned at the outset that they said they were\nsupporting, naturally, the North Vietnamese. Subsequently, you and\nCongressman Boggs spoke of their belief that the United States should stay\nin the KM Pacific. Are they separating these two and saying that the\nUnited States should get out of Indochina but stay in Thailand and Okinawa\nand places like that?\n-12-\n(Mr. Boggs)\nA. That's a very difficult question to answer or even to speculate X on,\nand I wouldn't even try to. My impression of that is as they put it, and\nthis is no secret. There are two super powers, The the United States and\nRussia. And if Russia becomes a greater super power ХИМИ then much of the\nworld could well be in difficult Where that means people\nmay be located physically or what kind of weapons are required is some-\nthing else. And I am totally, completely unknowledgeable on that subject.\nQ. Did they express any interest in joining the disarmament talks,\neither SALT or the ones in Geneva?\n(Ford)\nA. No. But they did say and they did repeat that they are for total\ndisarmament on the broadest most comprehensive way or comprehensive sense.\npleased\nThey are not or they are not impressed say with the two super\npowers coming ******* to such an agreement. They have saidXXXXXXXXXX I think\nhistorically, that they want disarmament period. And they reiterated that to\nus on several occasions.\nQ. Did they mention the Chinese or the French nuclear tests?\n(Ford)\nA. No.\nQ. Did they talk about their own nuclear proposal which is to destroy\nall nuclear weapons?\n(Boggs)\nNot a\nA. new proposal, we made it back in the days% of Bernard Baruch\nin 1946.\n-13-\n(Ford)\nA. They did say that under no circumstances would their development\n(and this has been said many times) that they would never use it on a\nfirst-strike basis.\nQ. question muffled\n(Ford)\nA.\nNo, they did not.\nQ. Anything about the ships,\nthe ships was shelled\nas a result of lighters\nbringing supplies to XXXXXXX North Vietnam ?\n.\nabout disarmament,\nQ.\nIn answer to your previous question/they showed skepticism about\nthe Moscow agreement on nuclear restraint, the ABM and the technical\nagreement.\n(Boggs)\nA. I wouldn't say that they showed skepticism. They, in answer to a\nspecific question, they approved. But as for general disarmament without\nthe participation of all nations of the world they **** showed considerable\nXXX\nskepticism.\n(Ford)\nA. They just think it should be on a broad, broad basis, including\nall weapons . Not only are they against further development, they're\nfor the destruction of many of the weapons that XXXXXXXXXXX are already in\nbeing and deployed.\nQ. Congressman, could you\nus on the basis of your\nconversation with XMXXX the leaders in Peking and Taiwan\nin the establishment of diplomatic relations between the\n-14-\nthe United States and the satisfied, mainland, Or do you believe now that this\nproblem can be\nor even in the absense of an ultimate\nthat\nresolution of the problems of Taiwan and diplomatic relations between\nWashington and Peking could be established ?\n(Boggs)\nA. Well I have two impressions. The first is that this is indeed one\nof the top Xd difficultmes with respect to normatization of relations\nbetween the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. The second\nis it is their feeling as I understood that this is a matter that can be\nworked out between the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan.\nQ. How?\n(Ford)\nA. But they did not trust us in trying to give an answer or a key to\nthis current difficulty for the total normalization of our relations with\nthe Peoples Republic of China.\n(Boggs)\nA. Correct. They did not trust.\nQ Congressman Ford, did you see any possibility of\narmed\neenfliet\nbetween Communist China and the Soviet Union?\n(Ford)\nin\nA. We did not engage in any discussions that kind of detail. We\nrecognize they have differences they indicated, which is a fact that they\nhave differences, but as to the imminence or the possibility, *MMX there\nwas no discussion.\n-15-\n(Boggs)\nA. Well, as a matter of fact, the deputy foreign minister% said that\nthe discussions were by word of mouth and by writings. I certainly have\nheard little any indications of any armed conflict.\nQ. Congressman Boggs, may I pose a political question to you since you\nare ************ one of your Party's leaders.\n(Boggs)\nA.A. You mean a Chinese political question.\nQ. No sir, its about\n(Boggs)\nA. Well I would be glad to hold a press conference about that but not\nat this OTHERXX time.\nNewsman: Thank you, sir.\n######\nIRESS CONFERENCE SAT, , JULY 8, 1972\nREPS, HALE BOGGS E, GERALD FORD\nMr. Boggs:\nMr. Ford and I are very happy indeed to be back. We\nOffice have made Copy\navailable to each of you a very brief statement, telling of the places\nwe visited in the Peoples Republic of China. They are spelled out, but\nShanghai, Peking, Shen Yang, Anshan and Canton. They took us from the\ncoast of China at Shanghai to the North Central part of China at Peking\nand to the northeastern part of China, where no official Americans have\nbeen in 23 years. Finally down to Canton and by rail back into Hong Kong.\nWe have had a most interesting and informative trip and one that I consider\nmost encouraging for the future of the rest of mankind. I yield to Mr. Ford\nand then simply open the rest of the press conference to questions.\nFord: Let me reiterate what Congressman Boggs has said. There are two\nthings I think we ought to set forth before we get into the question and\nanswer period. Immediately on our return at Andrews Air Force Base, we\ncalled the President and had a 30-minute conversation with him. We were\nadvised in Peking after our conference with Cho® En-Lai that there had to\nbe confidentiality concerning the lengthy discussions we had with him.\nOther than that I think we are ready, willing and able to answer any questions\nconcerning a very fascinating, a very interesting, and I think very helpful\n10-day trip to China itself.\nQ. Mr. Ford, Do you feel that, without breaking the confidentiality,\nthat there is any indication that the reports coming out of London during\nthe past week that China and Russia are putting pressure on North Vietnam\nto end the Vietnam conflict?\nR\nA. We had no indication of any outside pressue. The Chinese made\nstatements comparable to this, and this comment was made by high officials\n(not Chou En-Lai, I might add) that the North Vietnamese are their friends.\nThey naturally support the North Vietnamese, They believe the solution to\nthe problem in Vietnam, between the United States and the North Vietnamese,\nis one that we must settle at the negotiating table.\nBERALD FORD (IBRNA)\n-2-\nQ. The Administration yesterday grantedam an export license to the Boeing Co.\nfor the sale of 707 jets (to China). Is this any indication\n(inaudible).\n(Boggs)\nA.\nWe had a great many conversations, and in depth, with officials of\nthe Peoples Republic of China with respect to trade between the United\nStates and China. It is our impression that in the area of high\ntechnology such as jet aircraft, computers, advanced medical instruments\nand the whole realm of advanced chemistry in the United States, the Chinese\nare very much interested. And the question of day-to-day trade such as we\ncarry on normally with the other nations, Europe or Canada, China hopes to\nbe self sufficient. It's a very large nation that's bigger than the United\nStates. It has vast natural resources, and I would not anticipate any\ntremendous increase of normal trade. On the other hand I do believe that\nthe Boeing 707 sale is a pretty good indication of the type of trade that\nwe may anticipate in the reasonably near future.\nQ.\nGentlemen, you say in your report that you have a number of\nrecommendations to make to the President. Could you share any of those\nrecommendations with us today?\n(Ford)\nA. Well, I would indicate that Mr. Boggs and I certainly feel that in\nthe field of medicine there is a great opportunity for we in the United\nStates to benefit from the phenominal things **** they do with acupuncture.\nOn the other hand the Chinese are very, very interested in some of our\nmedical advancements. And, therefore I think that we should send to China\nthe benefitsof our research in cancer, heart and stroke. This is an area\nwhich would be highly beneficial to both parties.\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI would add to that more general recommendations ******* And these\ncome after certainly a brief visit, one who goes to any land and spends a\n-3-\nfew days there and returns as an expert is more of a jackass than an expert.\nBut one on the other hand must necessarily form certain conclusions. We were\nvery intensely briefed. We saw a great deal of China physically. We saw\nmany of its institutions, from its child care centers of kindergarten through\nmiddle schools and the universities. We visited the communes, both the\nagricultural communes and the workers communes. We visited industry, both\nheavy industry and light industry, neighborhood industry. And we talkeed\nto a great many Chinese. It is my impression that the Chinese certainly now\nare concerned with their internal problems. They are not interested in\nexternal aggression. They are very much interested in normalizing relations\nwith the United States. Which, of course, means the recognition of the\ntwo governments, the exchange of ambassadors, the relatively free movement\nof science and business people, and so on.\nQ. Mr. Boggs, it seems that Europe is not the \"in\" place any more, as\ncongre and other\nquoted by\ngovernment officals, and China is. Do you think\nthere will be more congressmen going to China?\n(Boggs)\nWell, I would say that was a rather broad generalization invview of\nthe fact that out of 535 congressmen four of them have been there.\nquestion asked\n(Boggs)\nThe point you make is well taken. I think that a vast number of our\ncolleagues will try to go to China. And Mr. Ford and I were both asked by\nmany of our colleagues if we could assist in that direction. And we\ndiscussed this with Premier Chou En-Lai in some detail. He indicated that\nhe would like to have members of Congress visit China in relatively small\ngroups and in a bipartisan fashion such as the two previous groups.\nFORD in LIBRARY GERALD\n-4-\nCongressman Boggs and Congressman Ford in your statement you called\nrelations with China.\non both parties to promote the normalization of . What are you asking\nyour respective parties to do?\n(Ford)\nOf course I haven't seen what the Republican Platform preliminary\ndrafts are at the present time. But I do assure you, based on conversations\nwith Congressman John Rhodes, that our party platform will strongly praise\nthe efforts of the President in opening the door and will also\nindicate that the normalization of relations should\nexpand in many, many fields. This is a bipartisan effort as indicated by\nthe visit of the two senators and Mr. Boggs and myself. I can't predict\nthe language of the Democratic Platform in this regard, but I suspect it\nwill be one also of favorable comment because this is in the best interest\nof the United States, not in any one political party.\n(Boggs)\nI might add to that that I have been informed that the Democratic\nPlatform specifically calls for the normalization of relations with the\nPeoples Republic of China.\n(Ford)\nOne of the questions that Mr. Boggs and I raised specifically was the\nChiao Kusn-hua\nvice-chairman of Foreign Affairs, Mr. was the situation\nregarding the American prisoners. The response was that KNMX Mr. Downey the\ncivilian and the two military personnel, Smith and Quinn, was being noted, and\nthe question was asked, were there any other American pex prisoners held,\n, to his knowledge,\neither from the Korean War or the Vietnam War, and the response was of\nno. I think this *** is very important from the point of view of many КИМИНИИХ\nwives, mothers and fathers who have been concerned over the years about people\nassured\nmissing in action from both engagements. And we were there were none\nother than those who were known by name.\n-5-\nQ.\nCongressman Boggs, what's your reaction to what your party has\ndone in the way of party reform, specifically the platform\n(Boggs)\nA. I'm not really competent to answer the question. I've been away\nfrom the country for two weeks, and developments have been very rapid, and\nthere is one thing you will find out very MMM quickly in the Peoples Republic\nof China and that is that you don't get very much news from other parts of\nthe world. So unfortunately I'm really not computent to answer your question.\n(Ford)\nA.\nLet me add in a light way if I might. We saw no evidence obviously\nany\nof KX elections in the Peoples Republic of China, and therefore there was no\nneed or necessity for MMXX any campaign or election reform legislation.\nof\nQ.\nDid you talk about normalization/relations and exchange of\nCould you give us anything more on that. Did you discuss this\nin any detail in terms of relations with Taiwan?\n(Boggs)\nA. No we didn't because\nwell I have to go back, there were discussions\nof Taiwan. Most of those discussions as well as more specific discussions\nwith respect to Vietnam and other areas\nwere off the\nrecord.\nhe would\nQ. You said that Chou En-Lai indicated welcome visits from other\ncongressmen. Did-he-indicate-what- other classifications of Americans would be\nwelcome?\n(Boggs)\nA. Yes, quite definitely. He mentioned journalists and as a matter of\nfact I would say X that more journalists have visited the Peoples Republi\nFORD LIBRARY j GERALD\nof China than any single group of Americans up to now. There were a number\nof others as well. He mentioned edicators. There were several educators there.\nMr. Fairbank of Harvard was there.\n-6-\ngroups He mentioned educatore And there\nHe mentioned most specifically, and\nseveral times, American medical teams with special reference to those who\nwere knowledgeable in cancer, heart disease and strokes.\nQ.\nWhat was the President's reaction to your report.\n(Ford)\nA Well, he kept us on the line for about a half hour. We started based out\nwith a summary of our views then he pursued many many questions on the\nintroduction that we Kg gave to him. He pursued certain matters that were\nunfortunately embargoed because of the wish of Premier Chou En-Lai. We had\na ***** report this morning from San C1 amente that the President was very\npleased with the report and is looking forward to having a report in person\nas soon as he gets back and as soon as Congress resumes. And we have\npromised not only to meet with him in person but to submit to him a written\nreport for his information.\ninchina.\nMr. Ford, you talked about no need for electoral reform, Did\nPremier Chou show any knowledge or interest in the electoral process in the\nUnited States?\n(Ford)\nA. I don't think we should reveal that kind of information as to the\ntalks we had with him. I would add this, however, (and this is not in\nreference to our conversations with Premier Chou) A mong high Chinese\nofficials there was a great deal I of interest shown and many questions\nasked about the sufficiency of our military capability and what the direction\nmight be in the future as to our Defense Department and its funding and its\nprogramming.\n(Boggs)\nFORD A LIBRARY 07VU39\nA.\nI would like to get back to that question and say that while it seemed\nto be studiously non partisan there was at all levels a tremendous amount of\n-7-\ninterest in the electoral process in the United States. One piece of\nnews that did come through (as a matter of fact, I picked it up on the\nVoice\nof America) was the action * of the Democratic\nCredentials Committee with respect to the California delegation. And\nmany people asked me to explain that to them. They wanted to know the\nwhole process. The Credentials Committee, what its function was, how it\nis set up, how delegates were selected, why were they pledged, why weren't\nthey pledged, where the convention was, what the function of the convention\nwas. In other **** words it was almost like a very intelligent high school\nyoungster in a civics class. I'm talking now about interpreters and people\nthat we talked to generally. And I would also like to give a general feeling\nthat I had and I think that Mr. Ford shared, and X that is that uniformly\nwe found a tremendous amount of interest in the United States. I was unable\nto find any hostility and the traditional Chinese reputation for friendliness\nand hospitality was exceeded.\n(Ford)\nA. We were empecially warmly welcomed, as Mr. Boggs indicated, when we\nwere in Shen Yong and Anshan which is in the northeastern part of China.\nNo American official had visited that part of China for 20 some years. We\nwere welcomed in the ********** traditional Chinese fashion, not only by a\na handwave but applause by people on the street. We went into a typical\nEXM Chinese department store and somehow the rumor got out that we were\nthere. By the time that we came out the street was lined on both sides.\nI couldn't guess how many people were there but there were at least three because or\nfour thousand, in my judgment. It was really a heartwarming experience This\nwas spontaneous on their part.\nCongressman Ford, did I understand you to say that when you were\nby\nunder Republican and Democratic administrations?\nasked\nChinese\nleaders\nabout\nmilitary\nspending\nin this country\n(Ford)\nA. It was not put on the basis of Democratic or Republican policy. The\n-8-\nquestion was were we going to reduce our military strength in light of this\nStrategic Arms Limitation Talks. Were we going to withdraw from various\nparts\nof the world\nThey were intens\ninterested in what our role would be diplomatically, militarily in the world\nas a whole and the specifics of what our plans might be in @ilitary programs\nand funding.\nQ.\nWhat did you tell them?\n(Ford)\nA.\nI referred to a vote that we had heard that was taken in the House\nof Representatives while we were in China. K The House of Representatives,\nas we understood it from the news reports, passed the military procurement\nauthorization bill overwhelmingly, defeated any efforts to reduce the\nrecommendations of the Committee on Armed Services. We indicated to them\nthat this was a traditional position of strength in the House of\nRepresentatives on a bipartisan basis and we thought this would be the\neventual final conclusion of the Congress in 1972.\nQ. Congressman Ford , do you think that\nbased on\nthe President's\nforeign policy record that the Republicans will MMMX defeat the Democratic\ncandidate in November?\n(Ford)\nI think in this press conference it is better if we keep on the policy\nXR the press conference/related coverage to our trip.\nQ. Congressman, in reference to your question the answer before that, it\nstrikes me that this is an obvious reference to the United States attitude\ntoward the Soviet Union. Are these questions about our military function, etc,\nmade in reference to their worry about our backing down in terms of maintaining\na position of strength MMXXMXXXXX regarding the Soviet Union?\n-9-\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI think we would be totally less than frank with you if we did not\nindicate that the impression that has been widespread in the West for\nseveral years now about the tension between the Soviet Union and the\nPeoples Republic of China is accurate. It's quite accurate. And following\nthrough on Mr. Ford's observations we were advised by high officials that\nthe policy of KNMXK/government that is disarmament but not unilateral disarmament.\nAnd there was specific concern expressed , rather emphatically, with regard\nto the possibility of continued Soviet armament and American disarmament.\nQ. Sir, could you put it in another way and say that/they were urging\nyou got the impression that\nthe United States to keep their defenses up?\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI could put it this way *MM*** that in the present world while they\nare much concerned over the XXXXXXXXXM resolution of the ***** Vietnamese\nquestion and the whole question of Indochina, Southeast Asia, they, in my\njudgment would be terribly concerned if the United States decidenxxxx reverted\nto a policy of isolationism.\nKMXXMM (Ford)\nA. Let me reiterate and reemphasize strongly what Mr. Boggs has said.\nThey don't want the United States WX to withdraw from the Pacific or from\nthe world at any point They believe our presence is important for the\nstability of the world now and in the future. A militarily-weak United\nStates, at least I got the impression, would create instability rather than\nstability in the resolution of the many, many problems that all nations face\ntoday.\n(Boggs)\nA. This is XM a very large country with a great many people, over\nit's still\n800 million. Agriculture, while it has improved immensely, Mas by Western\nstandards is primitive. Their industry still must be developed. What I\n-10-\nam saying to you, they said to us time and time again, they said we have\nmade progress , but much more remains to be done. and we are a developing\ncountry and to develop we must have the time and effort and energy devoted\ninternally and not externally.\nQ.\nThey feel, Sir, that a withdrawal of the United States might encourage\nthe Soviet Union to move into the vaccuum thus created/causing thereby problems for\nthem?\n(Ford)\nA.\nI wouldn't say they put it as bluntly as you have said. Tax They're\nconcerned about nations such as ourselves participating in a stable Pacific\nand that the United States withdrawal would create the instability. I wouldn't\nwant to go any further than that in explaining the context XX in which we\ndiscussed it.\nQ.\nWould you comment a bit on what you judge to be their relations with\nthe Soviet Union and whatever their fears might be?\n(Boggs)\nA.\nI think we've already covered it.\nIn regard to the stability of the Pacific, did Japan come up in that\nrespect?\n(Ford)\nA.\nThey talked about the major powers that all had an interest in the\nPacifid.\n(Boggs)\nA. I would say that in answer XM to that question that there's\nan equal interest again ** for the normalization of relations with Japan.\n-11-\nEqual to what? EMMMXXXM Interest in normalization of relations\nthe United States.\n(Boggs)\nCheck.\nQ. They speak of normalization of relations with the Japane se?\n(Boggs)\nA. Oh, yes. A great deal.\n(Ford)\nA. One of the very broad things that I was impressed with and I'm sure\nbecause\nMr. Boggs was xxx1 we talked about it in length. You come away from China\nwith an impression of total discipline and dedication, Starting at a very\nearly age, Redication to their system, I dedication to their objectivesx.\nThey are really convinced that if they all have **** this dedication and\nthis discipline that their society , industrially, economically, educationally,\nnaa and otherwise will make great strides forward in the next two decades\nAnd this has some important implications-from our point of view. We have\nto recognize that MIX although *****X they're possibly behind *** in certain\nareas, technically and some other areas, we have to recognize that this kind\nof discipline and this kind of dedication for our children and our children's\nchildren is a matter of deep concern.\nQ. Mr. Ford, you mentioned at the outset that they said they were\nsupporting, naturally, the North Vietnamese. Subcequently, you and\nCongressman Boggs spoke of their belief that the United States should stay\nin the pa Pacific. Are they separating these two and saying that the\nUnited States should get out of Indochina but stay in Thailand and Okinawa\nand places like that?\nGERALD FORD LIBRAR\n-12-\n(Mr. Boggs)\nA. That's a very difficult question to answer or even to speculate X on,\nand I wouldn't even try to. My impression of that is as they put it, and\nthis is no secret. There are two super powers, The the United States and\nRussia. And if Russia becomes a greater super power **** then much of the\nworld could well be in difficult ty Where that means people\nикиха/Беу located physically or what kind of weapons are required is some-\nthing else. And I am totally, completely unknowledgeable on that subject.\nQ. Did they express any interest in joining the disarmament talks,\neither SALT or the ones in Geneva?\n(Ford)\nA. No. But they did say and they did repeat that they are for total\ndisarmament on the broadest most comprehensive way or comprehensive sense.\npleased\nThey are not or they are not impressed say with the two super\npowers coming ******* to such an agreement. They have saidXXXXXXXXXX I think\nhistorically, that they want disarmament period. And they reiterated that to\nus on several occasions.\nQ. Did they mention the Chinese or the French nuclear tests?\n(Ford)\nA. No.\nQ. Did they talk about their own nuclear proposal which is to destroy\nall nuclear weapons?\n(Boggs)\nNot a\nA. new proposal, we made it back in the daysM of Bernard Baruch\nin 1946.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n-13-\n(Ford)\nA. They did say that under no circumstances would their development\n(and this has been said many times) that they would never use it on a\nfirst-strike basis.\nQ. question muffled\n(Ford)\nA. No, they did not.\nQ. Anything about the ships,\nthe ships was shelled\nas a result of lighters\nbringing supplies to XXXXXXX North Vietnam ?\n.\nabout disarmament,\nQ. In answer to your previous question/they showed skepticism about\nthe Moscow agreement on nuclear restraint, the ABM and the technical\nagreement.\n(Boggs)\nA. I wouldn't say that they showed skepticism. They, in answer to a\nspecific question, they approved. But as for general disarmament without\nthe participation of all nations of the world they **** showed considerable\nXXX skepticism.\n(Ford)\nA. They just think it should be on a broad, broad basis, including\nall weapons . Not only are they against further development, they're\nfor the destruction of many of the weapons that are already in\nbeing and deployed.\nQ. Congressman, could you\n#\nus on the basis of your\nconversation with XXXXX the leaders in Peking and Taiwan\nGERALD FORD\nin the establishment of diplomatic relations between the\n-14-\nthe United States and the satisfied, mainland. Or do you believe now that this\nproblem can be\nor even in the absense of an ultimate\nthat\nresolution of the problems of Taiwan diplomatic relations between\nWashington and Peking could be established ?\n(Boggs)\nA. Well I have two impressions. The first is that this is indeed one\nof the top II difficultmes with respect to normatization of relations\nbetween the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. The second\nis it is their feeling as I understood that this is a matter that can be\nworked out between the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan.\nQ. How?\n(Ford)\nA. But they did not trust us in trying to give an answer or a key to\nthis current difficulty for the total normalization of our relations with\nthe Peoples Republic of China.\n(Boggs)\nA. Correct. They did not trust.\nQ Congressman Ford, did you see any possibility of\narmed\neenflict\nbetween Communist China and the Soviet Union?\n(Ford)\nin\nA. We did not engage in any discussions that kind of detail. We\nrecognize they have differences they indicated, which is a fact that they\nhave differences, but as to the imminence or the possibility, **** there\nwas no discussion.\n-15-\n(Boggs)\nA. Well, as a matter of fact, the deputy foreign ministerM said that\nthe discussions were by word of mouth and by writings. I certainly have\nheard little any indications of any armed conflict.\nQ. Congressman Boggs, may I pose a political question to you since you\nare ************ one of your Party's leaders.\n(Boggs)\nA.R. You mean a Chinese political question.\nQ. No sir, its about\n(Boggs)\nA. Well I would be glad to hold a press conference about that but not\nat this ODEXXX time.\nNewsman: Thank you, sir.\n######\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD"
}