Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains materials relating to President Thieu and Richard Nixon.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1671419
label
Press Secretary Briefings, 4/30/75
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1671419
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Press Secretary Briefings, 4/30/75
description
This file contains materials relating to President Thieu and Richard Nixon.
citationUrl
collections
Ron Nessen Files (Ford Administration)
Ron Nessen's Press Briefing Transcripts
subjects
Vietnam (Republic)
White House (Washington, D.C.)
Petroleum reserves
Refugees
Treaties
Vietnamese Americans
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1671419
coverageEndDate
day
30
logicalDate
1975-04-30
month
4
year
1975
coverageStartDate
day
30
logicalDate
1975-04-30
month
4
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d07d04b987d2fbb1
ocrText
Digitized from Box 8 of the Ron Nessen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
This Copy For
NEWS CONFERENCE
#200
AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH RON NESSEN
AT 11:40 A.M. EDT
APRIL 30, 1975
WEDNESDAY
MR. NESSEN: The President met at 10:30 this
morning with the Egyptian Parliamentary delegation.
This is the first official visit to the United States
by an Egyptian Parliamentarian since 1967.
The meeting gave the President a chance to
underline America's intention to work actively for a
negotiated settlement in the Middle East, and emphasized
the importance the United States attaches to strengthening
American-Egyptian bilateral relations.
At 11:00 this morning the President met with
the Executive Committee of the House Republican Study
Committee in the Roosevelt Room. The President was
supposed to meet with this group last week, but they
were not able to attend because of the press of business
on the Hill. This group represents 70 to 75 House
Republicans. They requested the meeting to talk to the
President about a number of issues that Congress is
considering.
At 11:45 the President will be meeting with
the Republican Congressional leadership to discuss
energy matters. As I am sure you are aware, May 1 is
tomorrow, and the President will be making a decision
soon on what to do about his energy proposal.
Q He has not made it yet?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q There are Republicans on the Hill saying
he has already made it.
MR. NESSEN: Let me back up when I say no, he
has not made his decision. He has not announced his
decision.
MORE
#200
- 2 -
#200-4/30
Q
Is he going to tell this group?
MR. NESSEN: That is very possible.
Q
Will they tell us, or are you going to
tell us?
MR. NESSEN: I am sure they will be happy to
talk to you. We will obviously announce it officially.
Q
Today?
MR. NESSEN: Either today or tomorrow.
Q
Ron, do we understand he has made the
decision? It simply has not been announced?
MR. NESSEN: I would say that is fair, yes.
Q
He has made the decision?
MR. NESSEN: I think that is fair to say.
Q
Is there any particular reason it can't
be told now if he made the decision?
MR. NESSEN: I think we will wait and do it
when all the necessary documents and statements are
prepared.
At 2:00 the President will meet with a group
from Detroit to discuss the Detroit Plan, which is a
plan to revitalize downtown Detroit. I don't have a
complete list of participants. We will post that later.
Among them are Governor Milliken, Mayor Coleman Young
of Detroit, Henry Ford, Leonard Woodcock, Senators Griffin
and Hart, Secretary Coleman, Attorney General Levi,
Secretary Hills, Jim Lynn, Jim Cannon and Bill Seidman,
and others.
At 6:15 the President is meeting with the
Chowder and Marching Club and the SOS in the Residence.
I think most of you know these are groups of Congressmen
and former Congressmen.
Q
What is the SOS?
MR. NESSEN: It does not stand for anything.
It is like SOS.
The President does periodically meet with these
groups.
MORE
#200
- 3 -
#200-4/30
Q
Is that SOS all Repubublican?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know all that much about
these Hill groups. I will check that for you. I
don't know.
Q
Is that open for coverage?
MR. NESSEN: No, it is not, Fran.
Q
Did you find out who paid for the other
receptions last week?
MR. NESSEN: I did not, but I will try.
Tomorrow at 10:30, the President is meeting
with the Prime Minister of Tunisia, just to refresh
your memory.
At 12:15 tomorrow, the President will participate
in the swearing-in of Rogers Morton as Secretary of
Commerce. That ceremony is at the Commerce Department.
We will have further details for you. I think we will
not have a briefing tomorrow in light of the timing
of that swearing-in.
Q
Why?
MR. NESSEN: Just to remind you, there is a
trip to Winchester on Friday, and a trip to Norfolk
on Saturday.
Q
Can't we have a briefing a little earlier
tomorrow?
MR. NESSEN: We will take an assessment in the
morning and see if one is needed. At the moment, let's
not plan on one.
Q
Can you give us more details on the trips
to Winchester and Norfolk?
MR. NESSEN: I don't have any more details at
the moment, Peter, but we will in plenty of time.
Q
So, there will be no briefing until next
Monday if you don't brief tomorrow?
MR. NESSEN: We will take a look at it in the
morning, Bob, and see whether there is anything to talk
about tomorrow.
MORE
#200
- 4 -
#200-4/30
Q
What if there is nothing to talk about,
but if there are questions to be asked by us?
MR. NESSEN: You have got the whole office
full of press people, and we are always happy to answer
your questions.
Q
Ron, we want a briefing tomorrow.
MR. NESSEN: As I say, we won't plan on one,
but we will take another look at in the morning, Gene.
Q
Do we have something to say about it?
MR. NESSEN: As I say, if we don't have a
briefing and there are questions, we are here to answer
your questions.
Q
Ron, it is not the same thing to simply
go in and ask a secretary or one of your deputies --
MR. NESSEN: I am not talking about a secretary.
I am talking about myself, Bill Greener, Jack Hushen,
Larry Speakes --
MORE
#200
- 5 -
#200-4/30
Q
I think it deserves some discussion. It
seems to me you are being very arbitrary about whether
or not you are going to brief the rest of this week and there
are many questions we would like to ask you as the spokes-
man for the President.
MR. NESSEN: I am right here tomorrow.
Q
But you are not briefing so we can have an
answer on the record the same day.
MR. NESSEN: We will take a look at it in the
morning and see whether we will.
Q
Do you regard the briefing as your decision,
whether to hold it or not? Is it your prerogative?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
And from now on, you are going to decide
whether you want to answer questions from this podium or not.
MR. NESSEN: I don't think it is from now on, Bob.
I think it has always been that way. I think we have a good
record of having briefings.
Q
Ron, it is a question of access here. I
have much easier access to you personally in this briefing
than I do when you are in that office.
Q
I second that.
MR. NESSEN: We are available all day every day
to answer questions.
Q
Ron, is there going to be a briefing Friday?
MR. NESSEN: I will give you a rundown on the trips
if you want them, some rough times.
For Winchester, on Friday, press check-in at the
Southwest Gate of the White House at noon. The trip
to Winchester will be by bus. The buses leave at 12:15
from the Southwest Gate. The buses arrive at the Winchester
Handley High School at 2:15. You should plan to eat before
the trip. So, obviously, there will be no briefing on
Friday because of the time of the departure.
Q
May I interject once again, then, as somebody
just pointed out, if it happens that you don't brief tomorrow,
you won't be briefing Friday; there aren't usually briefings
on Saturday; and some, what, four days go by before there
is a briefing by the Press Secretary.
MORE
#200
- 6 -
#200-4/30
MR. NESSEN: Except the whole staff of the
Press Office is available for questions all day every
day, Peter.
Q
Under that rationale, you don't need to
have briefings at all, ever.
Q
You are opening up a possibility despite
the fact you say you have a good record and that you are
available -- you are opening up the possibility that at
the time the Vitnam crisis is ending and a lot of other
things are going on, that you might not be available
for briefings for four days.
I am sure everybody in this room wants to enter
a most vigorous protest against that possibility.
MR. NESSEN: We will check in the morning. We
will reassess it in the morning.
On Saturday, the check-in at Andrews Air Force
Base is 9:00. There will be no bus. At 9:30, the press
plane leaves Andrews for the Norfolk Naval Air Station.
At 10:15, the press plane arrives at the Naval
Air Station in Norfolk. As you see, the flight is 45 minutes
so there won't be time to serve breakfast on the plane.
There will be sweet rolls and coffee, and hot sandwiches
coming back.
So, if you want a big breakfast, eat at home.
Q
What time are we leaving Norfolk?
Q
And what about the pools?
MR. NESSEN: We will have a more detailed schedule
as the week goes on. I just wanted to give you a rough
outline.
Q
Is there a rough estimate on when we return
from Winchester and Norfolk?
MR. NESSEN: Winchester, I think the President
is supposed to be back here at 6:00. The press will be
back approximately at 8:00.
Q
What about Norfolk? Because of the dinner
Saturday night.
MR. NESSEN: The press will be back at 3:00 from
Norfolk. No later than 3:00.
MORE
#200
- 7 -
#200-4/30
The President today is nominating Lt. General
Louis H. Wilson, Jr., to be Commandant of the Marine Corps
for a period of four years. General Wilson will succeed
General Robert E. Cushman, whose term expires on December 31.
General Wilson also will be nominated for the rank
of full General. General Wilson is 55 years old. He is
currently the Commanding General of the Fleet Marine
Force in the Pacific. He is a Medal of Honor winner. The
biography is not quite done, but will be by the end of this
briefing.
We told you the other day Averill Harriman would
lead the American delegation to the commemorative ceremonies
in Moscow marking the 30th anniversary of the restoration
of the peace in Europe. I can now give you the names
of the other members of the delegation.
They are Ambassador John D. S. Eisenhower, General
Alfred Gruenther, Mrs. Llewellyn Thompson, General Lyman
Lemnitzer, and Mrs. Charles Bohlen. I think you know
probably, on your own, the connection that each of these
people had with the period of World War II.
Q What is the date of that?
MR. NESSEN: It is May 8. The ceremonies are
in Moscow.
Q
Can I ask something about the Saturday trip?
Is the President going to give a speech down there at the
time he inaugurates his boat?
MR. NESSEN: Yes. I think the Naval people would
have a problem with that. (Laughter)
The President is sending a telegram congratulating
Mrs. Jerry Pettis, the widow of the late Congressman Pettis,
for her election in a special election to fill the seat
of her late husband and the President considers this to be
a good omen for Republican candidates.
Q
You mean all they have to do is die first?
(Laughter)
MR. NESSEN: That is why we have briefings.
Okay, fire away.
Q
Has the President sent, or been in touch with,
the Saigon? families of the four men killed in the last days in
MORE
#200
- 8 -
#200-4/30
MR. NESSEN: He either has, or will, Fran.
Q
Will we find out about that, and how?
MR. NESSEN: I will.
Q
What is the President's reaction to the
surrender?
MR. NESSEN: It was obvious from the escalating
demands of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in the past
several days -- it became obvious that their ultimate
goal was the unconditional surrender, and given the
military situation, this did seem to be the inevitable
result.
MORE
#200
- 9 -
#200-4/30
Q
Ron, do we have any way of communicating
with Saigon now, the government?
MR. NESSEN: You mean with the government?
Q
Not only with the government, with any-
body. How will we get information from Saigon to this
government now?
MR. NESSEN: George Esper is filing away like
crazy.
I don't know what you mean about communicating.
Q
How are we getting -- we as a Government --
MR. NESSEN: Who is we?
Q
The White House, the Defense Department,
State -- getting information out of Saigon as to what is
happening?
MR. NESSEN: There are no Americans there to
file information anymore, except for newsmen.
Q
Ron, Kissinger said yesterday, I believe,
we would know today how many Americans chose to stay.
Do we know that?
MR. NESSEN: Not firmly, no.
Q
Ron, do you have a list of those Americans
on the carriers?
Q
Question?
MR. NESSEN: Peter was wondering whether we
had a firm count of how many Americans stayed behind and
who they were, and the answer is I don't. The next
question was, how many Americans on the carriers. The
count has not been completed. Somewhat over 7,000 people
were evacuated yesterday, which breaks down roughly to
about 6,000 Vietnamese and 1,000 Americans.
Q
When did the inevitability of the obvious
become apparent to the President?
MR. NESSEN: I don't follow you there, Walt.
MORE
#200
- 10 -
#200-4/30
Q
You were asked for a reaction to the sur-
render, and you said it was obvious from the escalating
demands of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese that
their ultimate goal was surrender and the general
military situation made it obvious the result was
inevitable, too.
When did the inevitability of that situation
become apparent to the President?
MR. NESSEN: I cannot give you a precise time,
Walt.
Q
It would be helpful, especially in
gauging the timing of the evacuation, if we could get
that.
MR. NESSEN: I say I cannot pin it down to an
exact minute.
Q
Ron, these two members of the Embassy
staff that were left behind, are we going to get them
out somehow?
MR. NESSEN: I have not heard there were two
members of the Embassy staff left behind.
Q
This was stated last night.
MR. NESSEN: By whom?
Q
CBS and Walter Cronkite.
MR. NESSEN: I don't have any indication that
there are any members of the Embassy staff left behind.
Q
I suppose the Secretary was erroneous
when he told us yesterday that Ambassador Graham Martin
was on the last helicopter out?
MR. NESSEN: He was on the last chopper
carrying evacuees out, and then the security guard was
taken out after that.
Q
Ron, how did all that come about? It
was our impression you all announced the evacuation was
over.
MR. NESSEN: I frankly don't know.
Q
Were you all aware they were still there?
MR. NESSEN: At the time of the announcement?
MORE
#200
- 11 -
#200-4/30
Q
Yes.
MR. NESSEN: Somebody was, but I was not.
Q
Ron, I don't know whether Kissinger
covered this yesterday, but I want to ask you anyway.
Are there any plans by the United States Government to
attempt to evacuate any other South Vietnamese now
that all Americans have left?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
That operation, regardless of whether it
was a separate operation or whether it was just part of
taking out the Americans, that operation is finished.
There will be no further effort to bring out any South
Vietnamese, is that right?
MR. NESSEN: That is correct. Some South
Vietnamese, I understand, are making their way by
various boats out into the South China Sea. I suspect
they probably will be picked up.
Q
Is a ship going to stand by to pick them
up?
MR. NESSEN: The ships are in the area, yes.
Q
That was my next question. There were,
of course, a large number of ships carrying a substantial
number of Marines and so forth in the South China Sea,
and off the coast of South Vietnam. Is that flotilla
going to stay there for an appreciable length of time,
or is it going to return to its various bases?
MR. NESSEN: You better check with the Pentagon
on what their sailing plans are. I don't know.
Q
Wouldn't the President decide, as Commander-
in-Chief, how long that flotilla of ships stayed there?
MR. NESSEN: I just don't know the answer, Jim.
The Pentagon can probably help you.
Q
Ron, can you tell us what authority the
President used to use American military forces to
evacuate the South Vietnamese?
MR. NESSEN: The President decided that to
leave these people here would endanger their lives,
and the specific judgment of how many would be able to
be evacuated was left to the people on the scene. The
President is proud that he took them out.
MORE
#200
- 12 -
#200-4/30
Q
Is the President disappointed that he was
not able to get between 100,000 and 200,000 out, as he had
originally hoped?
MR. NESSEN: As many were evacuated as was
realistically possible.
Q
Do you have any sort of figure on that?
We have had figures all the way from 45,000 to 70,000.
MR. NESSEN: It is not possible yet because some
left on their own, and have gone to various places,
and there is no complete count. Dr. Kissinger used a
figure of about 56,000 yesterday.
Q
Ron, has the President decided how much
money it will take to care for the refugees on a short-
term basis, and can you tell us of any plans that he
has for caring for the refugees on a longer-term
basis?
MR. NESSEN: He does want Congress to pass the
$327 million humanitarian aid bill and to put up the
money that goes with that authorization quickly for three
purposes. One is to repay the funds that have been
borrowed from other accounts.
Q
Do you know how much that is now?
MR. NESSEN: I don't, but you can get it from
Ambassador Brown. Two is to pay for the needs of the
refugees who have come out and will need assistance, and
three, to have money available if he decides that it is
possible to deliver aid through private humanitarian
organizationsor otherwise, to the people left behind.
Q
How much does he figure number two will
cost, to care for the refugees?
MR. NESSEN: I just don't have a figure for
you, Tom.
Q
Has he sent a message to Congress on this
subject?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know that he will send a
specific message to Congress, but obviously at some
point it will be determined how much it will cost and
Congress will know.
Q
He said that yesterday, to the Congress-
ional leaders, didn't he? That is what Senator Scott
said, that he thought there would be a message to
Congress.
MORE
#200
- 13 -
#200-4/30
MR. NESSEN: I think the message he was
talking about was an assurance to Congress that the
section of the conference report giving authority for
evacuation is now moot, and he has assured Congress of
that.
Q
Does he have special plans for dealing
with the refugees who will be coming to this country;
a task force, for instance?
MR. NESSEN: Ambassador Brown is coordinating
the various organizations and Government agencies
and departments in a plan to deal with the refugees.
Q Ron, I understand some of the refugees
are coming out with large supplies of gold. Some of it
in suitcases and some fancy jewelry.
MR. NESSEN: Let me just add to Tom's question.
I don't know what the figures are, but a number of the
refugees who are coming out are relatives of Americans.
Quite a lot of the refugees are relatives of Americans,
and others have American sponsors of various kinds, and
these people do have homes and places to go and people
to help care for them as soon as they are sorted out
and gotten to the right places.
Q Did the U.S. Government advise Big Minh
to surrender?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
Did we have a role in that decision
coming about?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q Were you surprised --
MR. NESSEN: I said it was inevitable.
Q We played no role in that?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
Does the fact that an American sponsors
a Vietnamese mean that that Vietnamese is not eligible
for this humanitarian aid?
MR. NESSEN: Point two, of why he wants the
money, I referred to the expenses of, through the
Philippines, Guam, transportation, and so forth.
MORE
#200
- 14 -
#200-4/30
Q
That was not my question. My question
was, a lot of Americans have sponsored Vietnamese,
and it is not clear really what they have done.
They have done it out of compassion and impulse, but
what I am asking is, are they not eligible for funds
if they need it?
MR. NESSEN: I just don't know the specific
details, but Ambassador Brown can help.
Q
Point three, two questions. Do you know
how much is in the part three, which is money available
to decide if it is possible to deliver to South Vietnam?
MR. NESSEN: No, the President told the Congress-
ional leaders and has said publicly, as a matter of fact --
I know Secretary Kissinger did yesterday -- that this is
a matter that needs to see how the situation settles
down.
Q
I understand, but I want to know, do
you have a breakdown as to how much of the $320-some
million is in category three?
MR. NESSEN: I don't.
Q
And the second part of that is, the way
it is distributed, through private agencies and other-
wise to get to the people, does that exclude distri-
buting it through the new government of South Vietnam?
MR. NESSEN: At the moment it does.
MORE
#200
- 15 -
#200-4/30
Q
How about the United Nations, Ron? Could
it be distributed through the U.N.?
MR. NESSEN: If it goes to the people, yes.
Q
Ron, some of the refugees are rather
well-to-do, and as I understand it, the Americans who are
coming out have to pay their own way. If it is determined
that some of these wealthy Vietnamese can afford to pay
for the flight and the services they are getting, are
they going to be charged.
The second part of my question: Some of the gold
is allegedly a part of the national reserves of
South Vietnam. Has the President ordered an investigation
into. those charges and will that gold be allowed into the
country if it is determined that the gold being brought
out is part of their monetary reserve?
MR. NESSEN: The first part of your question you
should address to Ambassador Brown, and the second part
I don't know anything about.
Q
Ron, can I return to the question earlier
that was asked about what authority the President had to
evacuate South Vietnamese? I don't think your answer
really addressed itself to the question.
MR. NESSEN: The answer is the answer the President
wants given and it is the answer the President feels. extremely
stronly about. He took the people out because they would
have been killed otherwise and he is proud he did it.
Q The point is --
MR. NESSEN: The point is that is the way he
feels and that is why he did it, and the answer is not
going to go any further, no matter how much you push on it.
Q
Ron, does the President have any reaction
to this surrender over there other than your statement
that he recognized the obvious?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
Then, I guess we have to ask, does he feel
he broke the law?
MR. NESSEN: He did it because the people would
have been killed otherwise, Bob, and he is proud he did it.
MORE
#200
- 16 -
#200-4/30
Q
But I mean --
MR. NESSEN: That is as far as I am going to go.
Q
I assume he is ascribing to some higher
moral law, or something like that. Did he take that into
account? That is what I am trying to ask you.
MR. NESSEN: Does anybody have another question?
Q
Ron, would it be fair to say, on that point,
that the President -- the actual evacuation occurred within
the limits that had been agreed upon by the Conference
Committee and Congress, and would have been enacted by the
Congress. Is that fair to say?
MR. NESSEN: John, it really was not cut that
fine, frankly. It was a question of saving as many lives
as could be saved.
Q
So, you are unable to cite a legal rationale
for it?
MR. NESSEN: I am citing a moral rationale for it.
Q
Ron, is any thought being given to having
any diplomatic contact --
MR. NESSEN: I might quote you a few of the other
people who have thoughts on that matter.
The Los Angeles Times, for instance, feels that
we can welcome them, find them shelter, offer them a
chance to start from scratch again after the personal
tragedies and wrenching changes that all have undergone
this month.
The Washington Post feels that the effort made
to assist those Vietnamese was an admirable demonstration
of loyalty to a group of human beings otherwise bereft
of hope.
The inscription on the Statue of Liberty --
in case any of you have forgotten it -- I can read you
that, too.
Q
Just a minute. Why are you and the President
so exercised about this point when it seems to be a matter
of legal distinctions?
MR. NESSEN: Because he feels it is not a matter
of legal distinctions.
MORE
#200
- 17 -
#200-4/30
Q
Is the President under criticism that we
don't know about from Congressional leaders on this legal
point?
MR. NESSEN: No. I was asked, and I told you
why he did it.
Q
Could I ask a question relative to the news-
papers you quoted? Does the President have any reaction
to some of the things we have seen on television, particu-
larly the folks in Florida who said they didn't want the
South Vietnamese refugees in this country? Does he have
any reaction to that attitude on the part of some
Americans?
MR. NESSEN: On the part of some Americans. But
I notice that Governor Askew of Florida, and the President
was particularly interested in Governor Askew's remarks -- this is
locating people during their transit period at Eglin Air
Force Base in Florida -- "It is a humanitarian gesture on
behalf of the Nation and we will certainly work with the
Federal authorities to assume our share of the responsibilities.'
Q
I don't mean this facetiously, but does the
President have a strong moral statement saying these people
should be welcome because they are refugees of war?
MR. NESSEN: He believes the vast majority of
Americans follow the tradition of charity and compassion
that this country has always shown toward refugees and
people fleeing oppression. I would guess a lot of us in
this room are here because our relatives fled oppression
and came to the United States.
MORE
#200
- 18 -
#200-4/30
Q
Ron, does the President feel the evacua-
tion carried out yesterday ought to be a point of
departure for our re-examination of recent restrictions
put on Presidential authority in these matters?
MR. NESSEN: I have not heard him say that.
Q
I am still puzzled by your strong reaction
here. Did the President's legal advisers tell him
that perhaps. he might be in violation of the law
or there was a question about this?
MR. NESSEN: It did not come up, as far as I
know.
Q
Ron, let me see if we get the same point
in a different way. You are saying he took them
out because their lives were in danger and he is proud
of it?
MR. NESSEN: Right.
Q
Now, suppose he had started to take out
South Vietnamese four months ago. He might have been
able to take out maybe another 100,000 whose lives are
endangered right now, but we have not been given any
real detailed information on why he did not do that.
These peoples' lives that did not get out
presumably are still in danger, according to the official
position of this Administration.
Why didn't he do it before is the question
I think we are trying to get at. Why didn't they
start bringing them out months earlier. Why didn't
he bring the Americans out weeks earlier?
MR. NESSEN: I think Dr. Kissinger addressed
that yesterday.
Q
No, he really did not. He said something
happened Sunday night, that he felt the North Vietnamese
changed their position, but he did not tell us exactly
what. We don't know anything about what was going on
in these negotiations. You are talking about human
lives. You are talking about tens of thousands of
people. We would like to get some answers to these
questions rather than a lot of vague generalities about
it. I think that is a legitimate point.
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
MORE
#200
- 19 -
#200-4/30
Q
At yesterday's meeting with Congress-
ional leaders, was there any objection raised to doing
this, to evacuating South Vietnamese?
MR. NESSEN: No. Which Congressional leaders'
meeting?
Q
The Congressional leaders were in
yesterday for a briefing on the final evacuation,
and we are again trying to find out why you are reacting
so strongly. I am wondering, is it because some
Congressional leaders raised the objection about its
legality or propriety?
MR. NESSEN: No, they did not.
Q
Ron, going back to my original question,
whether or not he is sorry that he did not get more
people out, we had once a very high senior official in
this building tell us a few weeks ago that we had
150,000 to 200,000. He would like to take one million
out. That was not realistic, but at least 150,000 to
200,000 out. We did not get anywhere near that.
Is the President sorry he was not able to
get those people out who are now obviously very much in
danger?
MR. NESSEN: As I say, the number that were
taken out was what could realistically be accomplished.
Q
Ron, was there not a limitation set by
the Attorney General on the number of Vietnamese
refugees which could be admitted to this country?
MR. NESSEN: There was authority for 130,000
with the proviso that if need be, it would be raised.
Q
Was a proviso for that?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
Ron, since the Communist victories in
Cambodia and now in Vietnam come at a time when the
U.S. has been moving gradually closer toward normali-
zation of relations with mainland China, I am wondering,
is any thought being given at this time to, if not
actually formally recognizing the new governments in
Cambodia and Vietnam at least setting up some type of
diplomatic liaison so that we start out on the right
foot, so to speak, not being totally isolated, diplo-
matically from them?
MORE
#200
- 20 -
#200-4/30
MR. NESSEN: I think it is too soon to say
anything on that subject.
Q
Ron, don't we have someone that represents
our interests in Hanoi?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. I just don't know.
Q
Ron, Ambassador Brown, when he had his
briefing last week, said the decision to admit 50,000
so-called high-risk people, which includes approximately
10,000 actual high-risk officials, plus their families --
MR. NESSEN: Plus relatives, yes.
Q
-- was made in the White House. Was made
by the President, I think he said. The question is,
why was the limit set at 10,000 high-risk officials
in view of the fact that high Administration officials
had said 200,000 to 300,000 persons whose lives might
be in danger? Can you say what --
MR. NESSEN: I don't remember. I thought
General Brown was talking about another category when
he used the 10,000 figure.
Q
The 10,000 to 75,000 was the range on
families. No one knew for sure whether it would be
10,000 to 75,000. A limit of 50,000 was set on those
who needed special parole authority because they were
high-risk.
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
MORE
#200
- 21 -
#200-4/30
Q
Now, that is a considerably smaller number
and presumably a decision was made in the White House
and presumably by the President, and it is a question I
have tried to get the answer to all week, and what the criteria
were for the decision.
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. As I said to Gene,
whatever the numbers initially set were it was always with
the provision they would be raised, if necessary. But to
your specific question, I don't know the answer.
Q
Ron, to go back for a minute, just to tidy
up a question Peter had. This was the number left in
Saigon, and the names and so forth. Are those things
being worked on now and when can we get them?
MR. NESSEN: You know it may be difficult to get
precise numbers and names, but the State Department, if it
is possible to assemble close to an accurate list, it would
be there.
Q
Ron, I want to go back to something, and
that is your statement that somebody was aware at the time
that you put out the statement that the evacuation was over,
that it was not over, and my question is, if that is the
case, why was the statement put out?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. As I say, I have
not been able to quite figure out all the sequence of
events yesterday.
Q
Was that a military source who knew?
MR. NESSEN: I just don't know how it happened,
Phil.
Q
Ron, to change the subject, did the President
meet with Secretary Butz yesterday and have they reached
a decision on the farm bill?
MR. NESSEN: You mean in terms of the veto?
Q When will they announce the veto, yes.
MR. NESSEN: The veto will probably be tomorrow,
Friday at the latest, but I suspect tomorrow.
Q Did he meet with Energy Administrator
Zarb and what did they discuss?
MR. NESSEN: I don't have the schedule for yester-
day. We can check. I am not sure.
MORE
#200
- 22 -
#200-4/30
Q
Ron, do you have anybody in this Congressional
meeting now?
MR. NESSEN: I have Greener and Carlson.
Q
Are they going to give us a fill?
MR. NESSEN: I think they could, yes.
Q
Are you bringing any of the leaders out
here in the press area, as usual?
MR. NESSEN: I had not planned to, but I can go
check.
Q
We always when the Republicans come in,
we have always had one or two out.
Q
Ron, has the President received a report
from Ambassador Martin as to the final dates on Vietnam?
MR. NESSEN: I am not sure, Fran. I can check.
Q
Ron, does the President have anything to say
about the decision between the Greek government and the
United States as to canceling the homeporting facilities
in Greece?
MR. NESSEN: This is part of a negotiation that
is continuing in dealing with a whole range of matters,
and there would not be anything to say until the negotiations
are done.
Q Ron, can we get a direct quote from the Presi-
dent on this business of the law, and so forth? You say he
took the people out because he thought they would be
killed and he is proud of it. Do you have a direct
quote you can give us from the President?
MR. NESSEN: That is a direct quote.
Q
He said to you, "I took them out because" --
MR. NESSEN: -- "they would be killed, and I am
proud of it."
Q
Ron, what is the status or rather, has
there been any change in the White House position on the
release of the private messages, communications,
between former President Nixon and former President Thieu?
Is it still a case that you are not going to put them
out and you are referring us to Senator Sparkman or what
is the situation now?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
MORE
#200
- 23 -
#200-4/30
Q
You have no plans to put them out at
any time. Is that right?
MR. NESSEN: Right.
Q
Sparkman's people are saying they have not
received any letter.
MR. NESSEN: I checked up on that and the letter
was mailed by regular mail. (Laughter) So, it was delayed
getting there.
Q
Do you think they have it now?
MR. NESSEN: I think they have it now because I
think another copy was sent to them by hand.
Q
Could it have been sent air mail?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know if that would have
helped.
Q
Ron, on another domestic matter, there is
a reprot that the President has withdrawn his support
for the bill which would transfer the control of Elk
Hills to private enterprise and the Interior Department.
That is, to Interior, which in turn, could lease it to
private enterprise to pump the oil and that he is
now favoring instead retaining the Elk Hills control
in the hands of the Navy. Is that true?
MR. NESSEN: Is that the Hebert bill?
Q
Yes, sir.
MR. NESSEN: The Hebert bill leaves it in
the hands of the Navy, but the President's problem with
that bill is not that it stays in the hands of the Navy.
The problem with that bill is that the Hebert bill cuts
down the amount of pumping from the President's recommenda-
tion of 300,000 barrels a day to 200,000 barrels a day. He
believes it ought to be 300,000 barrels a day, but that it
should stay with the Navy.
MORE
#200
- 24 -
#200-4/30
Q
Ron, was that because of anti-trust
problems in any way?
MR. NESSEN: No, it was for the need for
the oil.
Q
No. I am saying the choice between
the Melcher approach and the Hebert approach, is
that based on anti-trust problems at all?
MR. NESSEN: Not that I know of.
Q
Is the President aware of the Justice
Department's renewed investigation of anti-trust on
this?
MR. NESSEN: He got a good briefing on Elk
Hills when he was out there, and he knows all the
details of it.
Q
Ron, evidently there is going to be
a reassessment of our policy in Asia, according to
what we were told yesterday. How will this be handled?
Will everything flow through Dr. Kissinger or will there
be a broader review of this?
MR. NESSEN: It is too soon to say how that is
going to work.
Somebody asked whether Frank Zarb met with the
President yesterday. He did, but I don't have the
subject matter of the meeting. There was a meeting with
Secretary Butz yesterday, also.
Q
Let me just clear up one thing. There
was never any question in the President's mind that he
had the authority to take these people out?
MR. NESSEN: The President took them out
because they would have been killed, Bob, and he is
proud he did it.
Q
Was there a question in his mind about
whether he had the authority? We know what he did.
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
There was a question?
MR. NESSEN: I just don't know whether there
was or not. He did it.
Q
Ron, without begging the issue, we were
told at the briefing on the night of the State of the
World Address very specifically that Administration
legal experts did not feel that the President had the
authority to do that without a revision of the law, a
one-time exception. Now, obviously, that was not
granted and I am not trying to push you into a corner
or anything. I think the people just want to know, did
the President feel he had the inherent powers of his
office to go ahead and do that?
MORE
#200
- 25 -
#200-4/30
MR. NESSEN: Dick, I probably answered the
question about four times, and I don't really see any
need to answer it any further.
Q
You did not address yourself to that
question. Why did the President ask for the authority
if he was going to go ahead and do it without getting
it?
MR. NESSEN: I think probably four answers
to the same question is about enough for one briefing.
Q
Is there any word on whether Thieu or Ky
have expressed an interest in coming to the United
States or whether they have specifically asked to come
to the United States?
MR. NESSEN: I have not heard of any expression
like that on their part.
Q
Anything more on the leaders and their
availability?
MR. NESSEN: They probably will not come
out here. They will not come out here.
Q
Is that meeting still going on?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
Could I ask whether Melvin Laird is
going to run the President's campaign?
MR. NESSEN: No determination has been made
as to who will run the President's campaign.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Ron.
END
(AT 12:25 P.M. EDT)
#200
This Copy For
NEWS CONFERENCE
#201
AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH RON NESSEN
AT 6:40 P.M. EDT
APRIL 30, 1975
WEDNESDAY
MR. NESSEN: Some of you have inquired about
these two letters that the South Vietnamese put out today.
I read the letters, and I reviewed the public record
in somewhat more detail than I reviewed it before, and
I am convinced that what we said at the time still holds
today, that there is nothing in the letters to Thieu
that differs in substance from what was said publicly.
I do have a few more of the public statements
that were made at the time that appear to me to be
actually stronger than what President Nixon said to
President Thieu.
For instance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State, William Sullivan, who appeared on "Meet the Press"
January 28 and was asked about, "What is our commitment?
What would we do if the cease-fire breaks down," replied
"There are no inhibitions upon us."
Q January 28, 1973?
MR. NESSEN: 1973.
Q
What was he, Ambassador to Cambodia at
that time?
MR. NESSEN: No, he was Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State. I think later he was Ambassador
to Laos.
Q This was when?
MR. NESSEN: January 28, 1973 on "Meet the
Press." He was asked, "What are our commitments? What
would we do if the cease-fire breaks down?" He said,
"There are no inhibitions upon us."
About three days later Kissinger was inter-
viewed by Marvin Kalb, on February 1, 1973.
MORE
#201
- 2 -
#201-4/30
Q
On TV? On CBS?
MR. NESSEN: I have to assume that is right.
Kalb recalled to him Ambassador Sullivan's statement.
Kalb said, "Only last Sunday Ambassador Sullivan said,
'There are no inhibitions" -- I believe were his words --
"on the use of airpower. Is that correct?"
"Dr. Kissinger: That is legally correct."
"Mr. Kalb: Politically and diplomatically?"
"Dr. Kissinger: We have the right to do this.'
Then you have the Nixon news conference of
March 15, which I believe we called to your attention
before.
Q
Ron, if I could maybe suggest a context
for that, it was the context that it would not violate
the accords if we availed ourselves of that opportunity
if we wanted to.
MR. NESSEN: Well, the question was, "There
are no inhibitions on the use of air power, is that
correct?" "Kissinger: That is legally correct."
Nixon, at his news conference on March 15,
1973 said, "I would only suggest that based on my
actions over the past four years that the North Vietnamese
should not lightly disregard such expressions of
concern."
Q
What date was that?
MR. NESSEN: That was Nixon's news conference
of March 15, 1973.
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
William Porter, in a speech in Grand Rapids on March 21,
1973, said, "If it continued, this infiltration could
lead to serious consequences."
Elliott Richardson, you may recall, at that
time was the Secretary of Defense. I would like to
read you two things by Elliott Richardson from early
April 1973, and then I really don't think we need to
prolong this much longer because -- I have got any
number of things here.
On April 2, 1973 Elliott Richardson appeared
before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
MORE
#201
- 3 -
#201-4/30
Q
This is as Secretary of Defense?
MR. NESSEN: Right, and he was asked this
question, just to show you there is nothing new under
the sun.
"Question: There are reports out of South
Vietnam today" -- which is more than two years ago --
"that President Thieu of South Vietnam says the United
States and the South Vietnamese government have an
agreement that if there were an offensive, that if the
North Vietnamese do come in, that the United States
will come back with its airplanes and with its support.
Do we have such an agreement?"
"Richardson: This is a question simply of
very possible contingencies. I would not want to try
to amplify on anything he said or to subtract from it."
Finally, to indicate to you that the public
statements at the time appear in some cases to be stronger
than these letters, Elliott Richardson the next day,
on April 3, appeared before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense, April 3, 1973.
Before he went in, some newsmen approached
him and asked him a question. The question was, "Is
it possible that we will have to bomb either North
Vietnam or in support of the South Vietnamese Army
again?"
Q
The same day, right?
MR. NESSEN: The next day, April 3.
Richardson replied, "It certainly is some-
thing we cannot rule out at this time."
MORE
#201
- 4 -
#201-4/30
Q
Ron, were there any public remarks by
Mr. Nixon at that period which are as strong as
the letters?
MR. NESSEN: Of course, these are all people
who are speaking for the Administration at the time.
Kissinger had a news conference on May 2nd saying, "We
have made clear that we mean to have the agreement
observed."
Nixon, on May 3, 1973, in his foreign policy
report -- we put out these before -- "We shall be vigilant
concerning violations of the agreement. North Vietnam,
if it violated, would risk revived confrontation with us."
That is Nixon.
Also, "We will not tolerate violations by
the North Vietnamese or its allies. We have told Hanoi
privately and publicly that we will not tolerate viola-
tions of the agreement."
Q Ron, can I ask a question just to establish
a fact? Are these letters -- you must have seen copies
of the Nixon letters -- are they genuine?
MR. NESSEN: As far as we can determine, they are.
Q
Are these the letters you saw?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
Ron, there are quotes from other letters
in here. Have you read the document that Mr. Hung put out?
MR. NESSEN: I only saw the two letters put out
in full.
Q
There are several -- January 17th he has
a quote. The One point he makes in there is that there
was a threat by Nixon to cut off aid if Thieu did not
sign the agreement. I did not know that had come up
before. He puts it usually in the form that Congress
probably would refuse further aid.
MR. NESSEN: Yes. You know this is interesting
for the historic record, Dick, but as far as the question
we are dealing with here -- you mean, is this an authentic
letter?
Q
Yes.
MR. NESSEN: It appears to be.
Q
I have a question.
MORE
#201
- 5 -
#201-4/30
MR. NESSEN: But let me just say all these
items are interesting for the diplomatic histories, but
I do want to try to keep this focused on how this
question arose in the beginning.
"Were there any secret agreements or commitments?"
And I think if you read the letters and if you read what
was said publicly at the time, what we said is correct,
that there was nothing in substance said privately that
was not said publicly.
Q
But there is a question of timing here.
Don't the Nixon letters to Thieu constitute a secret
agreement in and of themselves?
MR. NESSEN: You mean between the time he
wrote the letter and the time he said the same thing
publicly?
Q
The dates on the letters are prior to the
quotes which you gave us. That is, the earliest quote
you gave us is January 28, 1973, and that was Sullivan,
and Nixon was making the assurances to Thieu in private
confidential letters to Thieu in November of 1972.
MR. NESSEN: You mean the agreement was
secret for two or three months?
Q
Yes.
MR. NESSEN: If there was ever an irrelevant
story today, this is it.
Q
Ron, isn't it relevant, though, because
you told us when the issue was first raised that the
extent of the President's letters was that the United
States would respond vigorously and that is not --
MR. NESSEN: You are reading a wire copy story
of what I said. The "responding vigorously" was in
a public document.
Q
The question of relevance is also important
because we have the same Secretary of State who apparently
was in on these private commitments and who said these
private commitments did not exist.
MR. NESSEN: What private agreements?
Q
The private agreements between Thieu
and Nixon or Nixon to Thieu in November of 1972.
MORE
#201
- 6 -
#201-4/30
MR. NESSEN: Look, I just think, number one,
this conversation today is irrelevant. Number two, the
whole thrust of this is, were there any secret agree-
ments? Clearly, there were not. Three, what we have
said from the beginning and based on these letters as
compared to the public statements, there were not secret
commitments given in private that were not stated
publicly.
Why are we toying with semantics at this very
late date?
Q
Ron, may I ask, all of the statements
you gave us by Richardson, by Sullivan and otherwise,
do not, as I read them, allude to any agreements with
South Vietnam. They are unilateral statements of what
the United States might be able to do under the terms
of the accord. They seem to me to not go to the question
of whether or not there was an agreement. Am I reading
them incorrectly or are you saying that Richardson was
saying, when he said that we possibly might bomb, that
he was at that point saying we had told Thieu that we
possibly might bomb?
MR. NESSEN: That is what I feel misses the
point of all of this. This whole thing came up with a
charge that some secret commitment thad been made to
Thieu and what I am saying is, and what we have said from
the beginning is if you review the public record, you will
see that nothing was promised to Thieu in private that
was not said out loud.
Q
These statements do not say anything
about what we told Thieu we were going to do. They refer
to what we might do on our own.
MR. NESSEN: I don't see the distinction.
Q
The distinction is that these documents
which were handed to us today by this South Vietnamese
gentleman indicate that President Nixon promised full force,
among the other things, to Thieu.
MR. NESSEN: And he went out in public and
promised vigorous reaction. So, you know, maybe on
another time he would have used "vigorous reaction"
in the letter and "full force" in public. What is the
difference?
Q
Let me put it another way: Can you
assure us that in the oral statements that were
made to General Thieu by General Haig, by Vice President
Agnew, by President Nixon, by Secretary Kissinger and others,
that in those oral statements, there was not a definition
given of what these terms "full force," et cetera, mean;
that they might have been definitions which led Thieu to
believe that certain actions would take place. Does your
denial of this go to the oral memos of conversation, the
possible cables as well as just to these written letters?
MORE
#201
- 7 -
#201-4/30
MR. NESSEN: No. This is about my fourth time
around on this thing and all the questions are always
the same and all the answers are always the same. The
record has been reviewed and the President knows of no
secret agreements. Nixon has never said there were
any secret agreements. Haig says there were no secret
agreements. Kissinger says there were no secret agree-
ments. Those are your leading characters.
Q
I am not asking about agreements. I am
asking about oral statements. Secret agreements has a
technical meaning. I am also asking if your denial goes
to the full record of cables and memos of conversations?
MR. NESSEN: As far as these people who are
involved go -- Haig must have been aware of what he
said to Thieu, don't you think? And Kissinger must
have been aware. Nixon must have been aware and all
those people are on the public record.
Q
They take the technical definition of
what is a secret agreement? At least they have in the
past.
MR. NESSEN: Anyhow, I really think we are
back doing what we have done about four times.
Q
Can I just ask you before you quit, I
think Walter's point -- the thing that troubled me from
the outset -- the timing of all this. Is there any
public statement that you can cite -- and you have cited
quite a few.
MR. NESSEN: You have to recall that during the
Paris peace negotiations there were no public statements
about this because I believe Kissinger said at the time
that any public statements would upset the negotiations.
You know, if you want to write a story and say,
secret promises were given and kept for three months before
they were made public, I guess you have a story, Dick.
Q
So far as you know, there were no similar
statements?
Q
By the same token, there was no agreement
in November.
MR. NESSEN: That is right.
Q
So, were the letters contingent on an
agreement -- and I have not read the letters -- did
the letters say, "This is what will happen? This is what
we promise you if you sign"?
MORE
#201
- 8 -
#201-4/30
MR. NESSEN: You have the letters. You can
read the letters yourself.
Q
Is that the way you would interpret them?
Q
They say, "Should you decide, as I trust
you will, to go with us, you have my assurance of continued
assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will
respond with full force."
Q
The agreement came in January and the state-
ments started in January.
MR. NESSEN: That was January 5th, and Sullivan
said there are no inhibitions on January 28th, so you
have 13 days of a secret promise on your hands. That is
a hell of a story.
MORE
#201
- 9 -
#201-4/30
Q
Isn't one of the questions involved
whether or not the President made promises here
which helped the South Vietnamese to go along and
sign the agreement?
MR. NESSEN: You have the letter right in
front of you, Dick. After asking for it fourweeks, you
have it. What more can I tell you about it? You
have the living words right in your hand.
Do you want me to do an annotated commentary
on it?
Q No, I just want to make sure I understand
that there is a distinction between what they said --
Q
Ron, why didn't you tell us the letter said
he was going to use full force?
MR. NESSEN: As opposed to vigorous reaction?
Q Yes. Why didn't you tell us that?
MR. NESSEN: I said the words were different,
but in substance they were the same, and they are.
Q
Do you mean, "full force" is the same
as "vigorous reaction"?
Q
You said you did not know what "vigorous
reaction" meant. You said it could have meant any
number of things.
MR. NESSEN: I am not sure what full force
meant, either.
You have a high official of the United States
saying he isn't going to rule out bombing. To me,
that is more explicit than "full force." I am telling
you the public statements in many ways are stronger than
the private statements.
Q
There is a heck of a difference between
saying you are not going to rule out bombing and
promising full force.
MR. NESSEN: The war happens to be over and,
as you know, whatever was said publicly and privately
at the time, there was an act of Congress in August
of 1973, in the summer of 1973, that took care of any
intention to react in a military way, which is why I
say it is irrelevant.
MORE
#201
- 10 -
#201-4/30
Q
Would you like to have Nixon tell what
he meant by that?
MR. NESSEN: I work for the other guy.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Ron.
END (AT 7:00 P.M. EDT)
#201