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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515881
label
National Security
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515881
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National Security
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
International relations
National security
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515881
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-03-31
month
3
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-04-01
month
4
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
10f1f6dc07e70106
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 22, folder "National Security" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
By The Associated Press
[1975]
A Vietcong soldier decorated this photograph of himself with the star symbol of the
National Liberation Front] the Vietcong's political organization. It was found in
body after he was killed in a battle.
J
m
Retreat
Union will further strengthen the se-
Digitized from Box 22
By Robert Thompson
of the James M. Cannon Files at
curity of its base and the can-win,
can't-lose strategic initiative both for
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
file (Comutments Vietuan
This Copy For
NEWS CONFERENCE
#186
AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITN RON NESSEN
AT 12:03 P.M. EDT
April 9, 1975
WEDNESDAY
MR. NESSEN: The President has been meeting
in his office this morning with various advisers,
mostly working on the foreign policy speech for tomorrow
night.
As most of you know, the President decided not
to go to the Kennedy Center last night with Mrs. Ford
so that he could continue to work on the speech, and
other matters. He worked in his office last night
from 8:05 to 10:45.
Q
By himself?
MR. NESSEN: Most of the time by himself.
Q
Ron, have you any idea at the moment how
much time the President will take tomorrow night?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know.
This afternoon, we have added to the schedule
a bipartisan Congressional leaders' meeting at 1:00. He
will discuss with the leaders at that time some of the
foreign policy issues he is going to talk about tomorrow
night. I will attend the meeting and see what we can
say afterward.
Q
Would you possibly bring some of the
leaders out here?
MR. NESSEN: I will check on that.
0
Who are the leaders?
MR. NESSEN: I have not gotten a list of
attendees. I know Rhodes and Albert are in China, so
they obviously won't come. I will get a list of who is
participating and I will see what we can do afterward
in the way of a briefing by them or me.
MORE
#186
- 2 -
#186-4/9
0
Is Senator Jackson among them?
MR. NESSEN: If you want to take pictures
or film that at the beginning, you can do that.
This morning at 10:30, the President also had
another meeting that did not appear on the schedule. That
was with Max Fisher. Max Fisher is a retired businessman
from Michigan and a friend of the President's.
He has been on a visit to Israel, a private and
personal visit, and he came in to talk to the President.
0
Did he bring any letters?
MR. NESSEN: He did not either take or bring
any letters.
Q
Does that mean he was not on a job for the
President?
MR. NESSEN: That is right.
Q
But he is bringing him his views?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what they talked
about, Helen.
Q
Did he combine both a job for the President
and personal and private business?
MR. NESSEN: He did not go as an emmisary of
the President.
Q
He was on his own?
MR. NESSEN: That is right.
Q
Did he discuss with the President what he
discussed with the Israeli leaders?
MR. NESSEN: Dick, I didn't attend the meeting.
Q
Is that why the NSC meeting was delayed?
MR. NESSEN: No, there were several other things
to do before the NSC meeting.
0
Ron, you said vesterday you would ask --
MR. NESSEN: I didn't get an answer for you, Les.
0
There is no answer to this?
MR. NESSEN: I said I didn't get an answer.
MORE
#186
- 3 -
#186-4/9
Q
Oh, you raised the question, but didn't
get an answer?
MR. NESSEN: At 2:00 this afternoon, the President
is going to greet 2,000 youth delegates to the National
Explorer President's Congress, who are in Washington for
their annual meeting. That may be delayed a shade past
2:00, incidentally. It is scheduled for 2:00, but the
Congressional leaders' meeting may run a little late.
It will be on the South Lawn, and there will be
open coverage, and the President will speak briefly.
Before going out on the lawn, the President is
going to meet in is office with the outgoing president
of the Explorers, whose name is Miss Mary Wright, and
the newly elected president who was chosen by the delegates
this morning, and whose name I don't have, because he or
she was just chosen.
Q
What is this?
MR. NESSEN: This is the Explorer President's
Congress that is going on.
Q
What is the hometown of Miss Wright?
MR. NESSEN: We will check.
Q
Who is doing the briefing today -- Ford,
Kissinger and Schlesinger.
MR. NESSEN: Where is that, Helen?
Q
At the bipartisan leaders' meeting.
MR. NESSEN: It has not been held yet, but
I would assume that the President will speak for his own
foreign policy.
I am sorry, I don't have a hometown on her,
but we can get that for you.
a
Ron, is the NSC Meeting underway yet?
MR. NESSEN: Yes. It began at about 11:25.
Q
What delayed it?
MR. NESSEN: Some other business the President
was doing.
Q
You can't tell us what?
MR. NESSEN: It was just other business, Fran.
MORE
#186
FORD
- 4 -
#186-4/9
?
Who was there?
MR. NESSEN: The regular attendees at the NSC
meetings.
0
Any NSC staff in there?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think we normally give the
list of participants of the NSC meetings.
Q
Just generally, without listing the staff
people, who is going over these options?
MR. NESSEN: Let me check and see. I don't
know who is in there. I know the major participants.
The Prime Minister of Tunisia, His Excellency
Hedi Nouira, has accepted the President's invitation to
make an official visit to the United States. He will
meet with the President on May 1st.
The President will host a working dinner at the
White House in honor of the Prime Minister on the evening
of May 1. During his visit, Prime Minister Nouira will
meet with other high level officials of the Administra-
tion and Members of Congress.
This visit reflects the traditionally close and
friendly relations which exist between the United States
and Tunisia.
0
Doesn't that pretty well preclude any
possibility of the President attending the April 29th
meeting?
MR. NESSEN: I had not heard of any --
We have a couple of personnel announcements.
I think you have already been given the announce-
ment that the President intends to nominate Alfred
D. Starbird, of Alexandria, Virginia, to be Assistant
Administrator of the Energy Research and Development
Agency.
O
Is that General Starbird or is that another
Starbird?
MR. NESSEN: Yes, it is General Starbird.
The President is announcing his intention to
nominate James G. Watt, of Wheatland, Wyoming, to be a
member of the Federal Power Commission. You have
biographies of both of them.
MORE
#186
- 5 -
#186
You should also have the text of a letter from
the President to the Speaker of the House and the President
Pro Tem of the Senate requesting a 4-year extension to the
Reorganization Act of 1949.
You should have a Presidential proclamation designa-
ting May 1 as Law Day, U.S.A.
For those who are interested, we have copies
you can pick up in the Press Office of the second quarterly
report of the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
Q
Ron, apropos of your statement to the
Press Club the other night that all questions are tracked
down, I was wondering if you tracked down Fran's question
when she asked, what is the President's reaction to the
FBI exoneration of the agents that knocked down the door
in Alexandria?
MR. NESSEN: I didn't know they had been exonerated,
Les.
0
That certainly is the thrust of the report
of Clarence Kelley. Now, what is the President's reaction
to this report of Clarence Kelley?
MR. NESSEN: I don't have any reaction to give
you, Les.
Q
You said you were going to check on that
yesterday, Ron.
MR. NESSEN: I have not had time to do it.
Q I see.
MORE
#186
9 I I
$186-4/9
Q
Do you have any reaction to the charge of
Senator Jackson?
MR. NESSEN: "Assurances to the Republic of
Vietnam as to both U.S. assistance and U.S. enforcement
of the Paris agreement were stated clearly and publicly
by President Nixon.
"The publicly stated policy and intention of
the United States government to continue to provide
adequate economic and military assistance and to react
vigorously to major violations of the Paris agreement
reflected confidential exchanges between the Nixon
administration and President Thieu at the time.
"In substance, the private exchanges do not
differ from what was stated publicly. The law of
1973, of course, ruled out the possibility of
American military reaction to violations of the agree-
ment."
Now, I can give you, if you would like to see
it, the publicly stated assurances at the time.
Q
Whose statement is this, the President's
statement?
MR. NESSEN: It is my statement.
Q
What is the time that is referred to in
the statement? When were the confidential agreements
made?
MR. NESSEN: What confidential agreements?
Q
Private, whatever you call them.
Q
Confidential exchanges you said between
the Nixon administration and President Thieu at the
time?
MR. NESSEN: That was during the period of the
negotiation of the Paris agreement.
Q
Before the signing?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
Can we see them?
MR. NESSEN: No, I don't think SO.
MORE
#186
- 7 -
#186-4/9
Q
If they do not differ in substance from
what was stated publicly, why can't the private communi-
cations be made public at this time?
MR. NESSEN: I think you know, Mort, that
normally private communications between the heads of
state are not made public.
Q
Are you saying, in effect, that we did
give assurances which were nullified by Congress? Is
that a proper sum-up?
MR. NESSEN: The assurances that were given are
on this sheet of paper that you are being handed now.
Q
I mean, is that a fair statement?
MR. NESSEN: I think the statement does not need
very much elaboration, Helen. It was pretty fairly
stated.
Q
Were these exchanges written between the
two governments?
MR. NESSEN: There were a whole range of exchanges
at the Embassy here, the Embassy in Saigon, various
communications.
Q
But were they verbal or written? Were
any of them written?
MR. NESSEN: I said there were exchanges, and
I think it would be fair to say both verbal and written.
Q
Was Congress informed?
MR. NESSEN: Everyone has the assurances that
were given because they are on this piece of paper.
Q
No, was it informed that these were in
writing?
MR. NESSEN: Helen, that is before my time
here.
Q
Why can't you ask Kissinger?
Q
Have you been able to trace any background
material to supplement what President Nixon might have
had in mind, what he might have done on the basis of the
statement that the North Vietnamese should not lightly
disregard such expressions of concern with regard to a
violation?
is there any elaboration of what he might have
had in mind, what action he might have taken?
MORE
#186
- 8 -
#186-4/9
MR. NESSEN: I don't really think that I can
speak for what he had in mind, Ralph.
Q
Ron, how can the American people be certain
that the confidential written exchanges do not go beyond
the subsequent statements by the President, beyond a
statement by you and not even by the President, that they
are substantially the same?
MR. NESSEN: Let me say this, that this state-
ment -- even though I am issuing it -- certainly reflects
the President's views.
Q
Ron, would you say that these private
exchanges included letters from former President Nixon
to President Thieu?
MR. NESSEN: There were all ranges of exchanges.
Q
Would it include that?
Q
Who were they from, Ron?
MR. NESSEN: The exchanges involved various
levels and various people.
Q
Did they involve the Presidents of the two
countries?
MR. NESSEN: There were some letters between
the two Presidents.
Q
Were there verbal exchanges of which there
is no recording?
MR. NESSEN: Don't forget, none of us were
here in those days, but my understanding is that there
were various missions that went out there--publicly
known missions. Dr. Kissinger went, General Haig went
several times, and I assume they talked to each other.
Q
Since Senator Jackson's charge and since
the preparation of your statement, did you or any other
office in the White House contact former President Nixon
to ask him if there was anything beyond what you have
stated here?
You said it was clearly and publicly stated
by President Nixon. Did he give you a personal
assurance?
MR. NESSEN: I have not talked to the former
President.
MORE
#186
- 9 -
#186-4/9
Q
Has anyone? Is there any record?
MR. NESSEN: Not that I am aware of.
Q
Ron, which law of 1973 are you talking
about -- Cooper-Church, which came first, or War Powers,
which came after that?
MR. NESSEN: Which was the August 15?
Q
Not War Powers, because that was November.
MR. NESSEN: Cooper-Church.
Q
Ron, does the President plan to show or
submit to Senator Jackson these confidential exchanges,
which he requested in his statement?
MR. NESSEN: I didn't know that he had
requested it.
Q
He requested, rather, that they be made
public. I am sorry.
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
When did this come to the President's
attention?
MR. NESSEN: What?
Q
When did President Ford learn of these
letters that were exchanged?
MR. NESSEN: The President a day or so after
taking office was given a paper by the NSC in which all
the assurances that had been given to South Vietnam were
presented to him.
Q
Ron, does the Administration have any
reason to believe that Senator Jackson knew of these
specific exchanges or some of them when he made the
statement that he did yesterday?
MR. NESSEN: I have no way of knowing that,
Lou.
Q
You didn't answer my question. Does the
President intend to make public these exchanges that
Senator Jackson requested?
MR. NESSEN: The exchanges -- and there were
various kinds of exchanges -- in the course of normal
diplomacy are not normally made public.
MORE
#186
- 10 -
#186-4/9
Q
Ron, this is not the normal situation
where the Senator has requested what he called a
secret agreement.
MR. NESSEN: I have not seen the request, Peter.
Q
Has Senator Jackson communicated with the
White House and asked specifically for the release?
MR. NESSEN: Not that I know of.
Q
Ron, these statements refer obliquely to
the possibility that we might intervene militarily, but
they don't, so far as I can see, state specifically that
a major violation would lead to resumed United States
military intervention.
At the time of the Paris accords, various
people from South Vietnam, and lately the South Vietnamese
Ambassador, have said that those assurances were made
explicitly.
From your information, do you know that
President Nixon or some other official of the Nixon
administration specifically promised the South Vietnamese
that we would intervene militarily with our own military
equipment in the event of a major violation?
MR. NESSEN: As far as I know, the private
confidential assurances do not differ in substance from
what the public assurances were.
Q
Ron, to follow that up, though --
MR. NESSEN: The law has made the whole question
moot.
Q
That is what I was going to say, that it
seems to me here in the statement that you have issued
of Mr. Nixon's statement, he says, "We will not tolerate
violations."
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
In effect, we are tolerating them right
now. Is this because the law has changed what the
President could do?
MR. NESSEN: Doesn't the statement say that,
of course. The law rules out the possibility of
American military reaction?
MORE
#186
- 11 -
#186-4/9
Q
I am asking if that is in fact why we
are tolerating them, because of the law? In other
words, there was an agreement which we can't carry
out.
MR. NESSEN: The former President gave the
assurances, which you see on here, as well as private
ones, which are in substance the same. The law of 1973
forbids the re introduction of American military
forces.
Q
Ron, you are confirming then, aren't
you -- it says Nixon said that in effect that he would
react vigorously to major violations, so aren't you
confirming that there was some sort of tacit agreement
that the United States would reintervene militarily until
Congress passed the law forbidding it?
Aren't you confirming that there was in fact an
agreement for American military intervention in the
event of a massive violation?
MR. NESSEN: I think you have to read this,
Walt. These were the public assurances, the private
communications are in substance the same, and the law
was passed in 1973. This is a set of facts that is
incontestable.
MORE
#186
- 12 -
#186-4/9
Q
Ron, what did the President mean when he
said, "would not tolerate"?
What did he convey to the
South Vietnamese he meant by that?
MR. NESSEN: I suppose you need to ask him,
Fran.
Q
Ron, wait. Let's get back. I want to ask
a question on this very point.
Now, you have given us a piece of paper with
some language by the former President of the United
States which is not specific at all. The actions of the
United States government, as you know, can vary from a
stern note; they can vary from public statements by
a President; they could vary to sending a fleet in;
they can vary to sending B-52 bombers over.
What we are asking, and I think what we need to
know in light of the fact that you have now said that
these communications are in substance the same as the
piece of paper you gave us, were they any more specific?
Did it list any particular, at any time, military option?
I think we need to know that.
MR. NESSEN: They were, in substance, the same
as the public statements.
Q
Have you read them?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
0
Ron, that is not answering the question.
Q
Ron, were some of the assurances made privately
by President Nixon subsequently neutralized or negated by
the Congressional action?
MR. NESSEN: I think the statement says that,
does it not?
Q
No.
Q
Not quite.
MR. NESSEN: Let me hear the question again.
Q
Some of the private assurances that President
Nixon, or other members of the Administration, at that time
made to President Thieu or other South Vietnamese
officials, were some of those assurances neutralized or
negated by Congressional action?
MORE
#186
- 13 -
#186-4/9
MR. NESSEN: Well, there were two assurances
given, both publicly and privately. One, continued
economic and military aid; two, what he called vigorous --
whatever it is, whatever the expression is.
Q
Vigorous reactions.
MR. NESSEN: -- vigorous reaction to any violations.
Now, the law of August, 1973, ruled out any
American military reaction to any violation.
Q
But you have not answered the question of
whether the assurances included that. I mean "vigorous
reaction" could be a tough Presidential statement. I
think you need to be more specific here.
MR. NESSEN: The private assurances are the
same in substance as the public (assurances).
Q
The private assurances contain only that
kind of language, "vigorous reaction," or did it spell
out more specifically what the United States might do?
MR. NESSEN: The private assurances were the
same in substance, Tom.
Q
Ron, the transcript will tell us as soon
as it is out, but I think you just said that the Con-
gressional action did in fact negate vigorous reaction.
MR. NESSEN: As I say, it certainly -- no,
I hope I didn't say that because I didn't mean to say
that.
Q
The statement says that, does it not?
MR. NESSEN: The law of 1973 ruled out the
possibility of American military reaction to any viola-
tions of the cease-fire.
Q
You are not equating vigorous reaction with
military reaction?
MR. NESSEN: I mean that is a fact what the law
did, Steve.
Q
Ron, without going into the question of
what this says right here, how do you respond simply
to the simple question: Was military intervention promised?
MR. NESSEN: Whatever was promised in these
public statements was in substance the same as what was
promised or assured in private communications.
Q
Why do you say "in substance"? I mean,
you understand that the term "in substance" includes what
was specifically agreed to and it is an important question,
whether vigorous reaction in the public statement is the
same as military intervention in the private statement. I
mean, it is a very important point and I don't see why you
cannot address it.
MORE
#186
- 14 -
#186-4/9
MR. NESSEN: I don't see that it is all that
important a point, Mort. For one thing, the whole thing
is moot. Secondly, I have read some of the communications
and while the wording is different, the substance is
the same.
Q
In other words, Ron, what you are saying
in this thing right here is, in substance, the private
exchanges do not differ from what was stated publicly,
and what that means is that Senator Jackson is incorrect
in his charge about secret agreements? Is that what you
are saying or not?
MR. NESSEN: I didn't hear myself say that.
Q Well, I mean, are we to draw this conclusion?
You are making a statement. You are denying Senator Jack-
son, or what, Ron, because this was raised yesterday
and you said you would ask.
MR. NESSEN: I would not tell you what conclusions
to draw from that.
Q
Ron, you were saying that the law made this
moot. The Vietnam War is not a normal thing. It is
something which the American people have been aggitated
on for a very long time.
If, in fact, whatever agreement we have made
has been made moot by that law, why can't you dispel
this sort of doubt that is here by telling is a little
bit about those private agreements beyond saying that they
are in substance the same as the public ones?
MR. NESSEN: What more can I tell you, Lou?
Q
You can tell us whether military action was
specifically promised in those private agreements.
MR. NESSEN: I think I am going to stay with the
statement, which is that the --
Q
Well, Ron, can you say that military
action was definitely excluded in the private statements?
MR. NESSEN: I think I am just going to say that
in substance, the private and public communications
were the same.
MORE
#186
- 15 -
#186-4/9
Q
Ron, look, the South Vietnamese are now
accusing us of going back on a specific commitment
that we made; namely, to use military force in the event
of a major violation.
Now, are the South Vietnamese correct or
are they incorrect in making that charge?
MR. NESSEN: I am just going to stick to the
public statements and the statement that the private
communications do not differ in substance.
cr
Ron, was the initial agreement
between the U.S. government and the South Vietnamese
government both in what was written and including what
the Secretary of State has called moral obligation,
narrow assurances given or inferences given that the U.S.
had an open option on what it meant by vigorous reaction,
but that the Congressional action of 1973 eliminated the
military from this inference?
MR. NESSEN: I don't get the thrust of your
question.
Q
The gist of it is that the United States
left its options open, what it would interpret as vigorous
reaction, in case of North Vietnamese major violation and
in this sense that Saigon was given to understand the
United States had a wide range of options and, therefore,
agreed to the Paris agreement and later Congress curtailed
the power of the Administration to interpret the reaction.
Is that what happened?
MR. NESSEN: I still don't understand what you
are driving at, but I really do need to emphasize that --
I mean, the point of it all is that what you have here in
the way of public statements and what was said in private
communications do not differ in their substance.
Q
Then you are saying that it was deliberately
or diplomatically vague, Ron?
MR. NESSEN: Pardon?
Q
You are saying that it was deliberately
vague, imprecise as to what the reaction would be,
because that is what this is.
MR. NESSEN: I just don't have any idea what the
intention was when those statements were written.
MORE
#186
- 16 -
#186-4/9
Q
Ron, has General Haig been asked to
detail the verbal communications that he carried back
and forth, specifically whether he gave any interpre-
tation to what the statement of not tolerating violations
means?
MR. NESSEN: Secretary Kissinger, who was here
at the time, has filled in the verbal communications that
he recalls being given.
Q
Ron, was Saigon given to understand that
to react vigorously could conceivably include U.S.
military action? There must be some records in the U.S.
government of the power of conversation between the
government people here and the people in Saigon and
the State Department negotiators in Paris and so on.
This, "to react vigorously," at the time that
it was given, did this include the possibility of military
action by the United States?
MR. NESSEN: Dick, I think we just have to
stick with the words as they were given.
Q
Ron, right here in this public statement,
isn't this diplomatic language which would suggest
military action? He says, "I would only suggest that
based on my actions over the past four years that the
North Vietnamese should not" --
MR. NESSEN: That is why I say there is no
difference in substance between what is stated here and
what is said in the private communications, and that is
why I cannot understand the --
Q
Ron, why did you say private communications
if it is all the same?
MR. NESSEN: They go on all the time, as you
know, Peter. In the normal course of things, there are
private communications I suppose virtually every day
between nations.
Q
Are you saying to us, Ron, that the reason
that the private communications were not held to add
something to this, that the purpose of the private
exchanges were not to add some other dimension or some
additional material to these things we have here? Is
that correct?
MR. NESSEN: I would say that the words of
the private communication are different.
MORE
#186
- 17 -
#186-4/9
Q
Are different?
MR. NESSEN: Are different, yes. I mean, they
use different words.
Q
Are they more specific?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think I can characterize
them that way. The words are different in the private
communications, but the end result is that the two assur-
ances were given privately that were given publicly --
economic and military assistance, one: and two, a
vigorous reaction to any violation of the agreement.
Q
Ron, since the North Vietnamese began this
year's spring offensive, have we lived up to that
part of the agreement, and if so, what have we done?
MR. NESSEN: I am sorry. I didn't hear the first
part of your question.
Q
What has been our "vigorous reaction" since
the North Vietnamese moved two more divisions down to the
South, put 3,500 men on the border, increased their
infiltration and attacked Bon Me Thuot and all those good
things? What has been our vigorous reaction?
MR. NESSEN: I think I know what you are driving
at. and I think you know the answer, Steve. The law of
1973 forbidsthe reintroduction of any American military
forces.
Q
Will you describe the January note that
we referred to here a couple of weeks:ago as a vigorous
reaction?
MR. NESSEN: Again, I don't know what you are
driving at, Steve, but that certainly was an effort by
the United States to urge the other nations of the Paris
peace accords, to persuade North Vietnam --
Q
That is a very serious thing. A government
that is a friend of ours has accused us of reneging on a
very serious commitment, and you are not denying it?
You are neither confirming nor denying in the
State Department parlance, and that is kind of a serious
situation. I wonder if you can clarify that.
MR. NESSEN: I can't, beyond what I have said,
Steve.
MORE
#186
- 18 -
#186-4/9
Q
Since you, yourself, have again emphasized
that the possibility of military force is barred, would
he want to use military force if he still had the authority
to do it?
MR. NESSEN: I think that is probably the same
question we got in Palm Springs. I think you were there,
weren't you?
Q
Yes.
MR. NESSEN: I thought I said the President had
neither the inclination nor the authority to do it. I
thought that was brought up out there.
Helen?
Q
Aside from the fact that President Thieu
can read newspapers, were there any exchanges after the
law was passed which would say that all bets were off?
I mean, was Thieu then told that previous promises were
no longer on the books even though he knows Congressional
action would nullify it?
MR. NESSEN: I am not familiar with all the
communications that went on over the years. I did take
a look at the ones that involved this particular period.
Q
Ron, your statement says that the United
States government promised to continue to provide
adequate economic and military assistance. Do either
the public statements or the private assurances say this
is anything beyond military aid? Do either of them imply
use of United States military force, manpower, planes or
ships in that area?
MR. NESSEN: Well, I think you have mixed up
the two assurances, Ted. One was for economic and military
aid and the other was for a vigorous American reaction to
any violation of the Paris accords by the other side.
Q
Ron, when you say "assistance," this
President's statement referring to assistance
MR. NESSEN: In this particular instance --
Q
-- means arms, not men? Is that right?
MR. NESSEN: "To continue to provide adequate
economic and military assistance" refers not to any
American military intervention.
Q
Ron, could you please give me some guidance,
just a yes or no answer. Would we be wrong to conclude,
judging by the language of the Nixon promises, that vigorous
reactions in the private conversations meant American
military force? Would we be wrong to conclude that the
private actions meant that, that the private communications --
referring to vigorous reactions -- mean American military
force?
MORE
#186
- 19 -
#186-4/9
MR. NESSEN: I don't want to tell you what con-
clusions to reach.
Q
Ron, on the other part of the agreement,
were there any specific levels of military and economic
aid provided for in the private communications?
MR. NESSEN: No.
You mean numbers?
Q
Yes.
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
Now, the agreement provides for one-for-one
replacement of used up or worn out military supplies.
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
Did the commitment on the part of the United
States go beyond that at all?
MR. NESSEN: In the private communications?
Q
Yes.
MR. NESSEN: The commitment for aid?
Q
Yes.
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
Ron, is President Ford confident that he
was shown all there was to see when he was shown these
private assurances?
MR. NESSEN: So far as he knows.
Q
Ron, you said you have read some of the
communications. Can you tell us, did you select these?
Were they given to you? You are indicating that you have
not read all of them.
MR. NESSEN: I said I did not read all of the
communications that went back and forth over the years.
I read the ones that I thought were pertinent.
Q
Ron, are you specifically denying that we
promised the South Vietnamese military aid?
MR. NESSEN: What do you mean, military aid?
Do you mean supplies?
Q
You said "vigorous reaction" covered military
aid. Are you denying this?
MR. NESSEN: All I am saying is that --
MORE
#186
- 20 -
#186-4/9
Q
Military intervention as part of vigorous
reaction in case of massive violations of the Paris
agreement. Are you specifically denying that this did not
exist
MR. NESSEN: I am saying that the wording in the
private communications was different, but that in sub-
stance, it added up to the same thing, that there were
two assurances given -- one for economic and military
supplies; and secondly, a vigorous reaction to any
violation.
Q
Are you denying that "vigorous reaction"
included military intervention and help, if needed?
MR. NESSEN: I think I will stay with what I
said.
Q
Ron, can you tell us why the President
does not have the inclincation to use any military
force in this situation?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know that I can answer that,
Phil. You probably ought to ask him at the next news
conference.
Q
Ron, I want to get back to the statement
that you have issued and answered later. You said that
the whole question of nuances here is really moot
because of the action that Congress took. The fact is
that the President who gave the assurances signed that
bill, he did not veto it, number one.
Secondly, during the debate on the floor in the
Congress, do you recall at any time that the Secretary of
State or the President of the United States said that
this legislation, if enacted, would cause the U.S.
to renege on a commitment made privately?
MR. NESSEN: I am not familiar with the entire
debate, Jim, but I believe if I recall the debate correctly,
there was some indication from the White House that --
I tell you, it is on the record, Jim, because I have the
record here in front of me. I just don't think it is proper
for me to explain what the motives or actions of the
previous administration might have been.
Q
Where should we look for the record?
MR. NESSEN: You cannot find it in the record?
Q
The point is, here in connection with what
you are saying today the point is that the action of the
Congress did not make moot what private assurances may
have been made in the way of military action because it
was the action of the President which made this the law.
MORE
#186
- 21 -
#186-4/9
MR. NESSEN: Well --
Q
Is that not true? I mean, answer the
question.
MR. NESSEN: I am not sure that I said
anything about Congress doing anything. I say the
point is moot, which you would have to agree with.
Q
Ron, can you tell us, from your study of
these private exchanges, whether the South Vietnamese
interpreted those exchanges to mean that vigorous
reaction would mean the use of military force, intervention?
MR. NESSEN: I have no way of knowing what the
South Vietnamese concluded.
Q
Well, would you read both sides?
MR. NESSEN: I read one side.
Q
Just one side?
Q
Are you surprised that the South Vietnamese
take the position that they are taking?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what position they took.
MORE
#186
- 22 -
#186-4/9
Q
How about the wire report? I seem to
recall this morning that General Brown had been dis-
cussing bombing as an option. Is this included in the
vigorous business or what? Does the President have any
reaction to this report?
MR. NESSEN: I say that the President has no
inclination or authority to reintroduce American
military force.
Q
And that applies?
MR. NESSEN: I have something here that I
can give you.
Is anybody filing?
Q
We are happy to listen to anything you have
to say.
MR. NESSEN: The President is gratified that
the House Budget Committee has taken the initiative
to set a ceiling on government spending for fiscal year
1976, even though it is not required by law until next
year.
He is gratified by what they have done so far,
although he thinks the ceiling figure they have picked
is too high. He also feels that he would like the
Budget Committee to go further, rather than setting an
overall budget ceiling, to go beyond that and set recommended
amounts for major program categories -- farm, HEW,
defense and so forth.
The President hopes that the establishment of
the Budget Committee would instill a new sense of respon-
sibility for the total Federal spending, and the
President sees this hope as having a chance of fulfillment
by the fact that the Budget Committee has adopted his pro-
posal for a 5 percent ceiling on Federal pay increases
and a ceiling somewhat higher than his of, 7 percent on
the increases in other programs tied to the cost of
living.
As we have mentioned before, if the spending
proposals that are already underway in Congress were all
passed, the budget deficit would go to possibly $100
billion and the total spending would be $380 billion to
$400 billion.
The House Budget Committee resolution goes
to the floor of the House for final action, and the
President hopes that at that time the full membership
would modify the figure and lower it to his upper
limit, which he believes is $60 billion on the
deficit.
MORE
#186
- 23 -
#186-4/9
Q
Ron, one very quick question on that. You
make it sound like they did this in reaction to the
President's request, but they had been planning to set
the ceiling for weeks.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 12:45 P.M. EDT)
#186
I'll
Tortush
October 2, 1975
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUS
H 952
[Roll No. 581]
Eilberg
Lehman
Richmond
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FO}
Emery
Lent
Riegie
YEAS-237
Esch
Levitas
Rodino
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLI
Abdnor
Grassley
Nowak
Evans, Ind.
Long, Md.
Roe
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS o
Alexander
Guyer
Obey
Fascell
Lujan
Roncalio
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORK
Anderson, III.
Hagedorn
O'Brien
Fisher
McHugh
Rooney
AND TRANSPORTATION. TO MEE
Andrews, N.C.
Hamilton
Ottinger
Fithian
McKinney
Rose
Andrews,
Hammer-
Passman
Flood
Madden
Rosenthal
ANY TIME NEXT WEEK DURIN
N. Dak.
schmidt
Patman, Tex.
Florio
Maguire
Rostenkowski
THE 5-MINUTE RULE
Archer
Hansen
Pattison, N.Y.
Ford, Mich
Martin
Roush
Armstrong
Hastings
Pettis
Ford, Tenn.
Mathis
Roybal
Mr. RONCALIO: Mr. Speaker, as
Ashley
Hays, Ohio
Pickle
Gaydos
Mezvinsky
Runnels
unanimous consent that the Subcom
Aspin
Heckler, Mass.
Poage
Glaimo
Mikva
Russo
Bafalis
Henderson
Pressler
Ginn
Miller, Calif.,
St Germain
mittee on Public Buildings and Ground
Baldus
Hicks
Preyer
Green
Miller, Ohio
Santini
of the Committee on Public Works an
Baucus
Hightower
Price
Gude
Mineta
Sarbanes
Transportation be permitted to met
Beard, Tenn.
Hillis
Pritchard
Haley
Minish
Schroeder
Bell
Hinshaw
Quie
Hall
Mink
Sharp
any time next week, while the House
Bergland
Holland
Quillen
Hanley
Mitchell, Md.
Smith, Iowa
in session, under the 5-minute rule_
Bevill
Horton
Railsback
Hannaford
Moakley
Spellman
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
Biester
Hubbard
Randall
Harkin
Moffett
Stanton,
Bingham
Hungate
Rangel
Harrington
Mollohan
James V.
the request of the gentleman froi
Bowen
Hutchinson
Rees
Harris
Moss
Stark
Wyoming?
Breaux
Hyde
Regula
Harsha
Mottl
Steiger, Ariz.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, reservin
Breckinridge
Ichord
Rhodes
Hawkins
Murphy, III.
Stokes
Brinkley
Jarman
Rinaldo
Hayes, Ind.
Murphy, N.Y.
Studds
the right to object, perhaps the gentle
Brooks
Jeffords
Risenhoover
Hechler, W. Va.
Natcher
Thompson
man from Wyoming could confine hi
0.
Broomfield
Johnson, Color
Roberts
Hefner
Neal
Traxler
request to a request for tomorrow, an
ne
Brown, Mich.
Johnson, Pa.
Robinson
Heinz.
Nedzi
Tsongas
Broyhill
Jones, Ala.
Rogers
Helstoski
Nix
Vander Veen
then he can make a new one on Monday
id
Buchanan
Jones, Okis
Ryan
Holt
Nolan
Vanik
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, if th
Burgener:
Jones, Tenn
Sarasin
Holtzman
Oberstar
Vigorito
gentleman will yield, I have made th
Burleson, Tex.
Jordan
Satterfield
Howard
O'Hara
Waxman
request for next week since we have al
Burlison, Mo.
Karth
Scheuer
Howe
O'Neill
Weaver
Butler
Kasten
Schneebell
Hughes
Patten, N.J.
Whitehurst
ready canceled two meetings this weel
of
Carter
Kazen
Schulze
Jacobs
Patterson,
Wolff
We are not scheduled to meet tomorrov
ee
Casey
Kelly
Sebelius
Jenrette
Callf.
Wydler
Cederberg
Kemp
Seiberling
Johnson, Calif.
Pepper
Yates
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker; in th
Chappell
Ketchum
Shipley
Jones, N.C.
Perkins
Yatron
absence of my colleague, the gentlema
al
Chisholm
Keys
Shriver
Kastenmeier
Peyser
Young, Ga.
from California, I would be constraine
Clancy
Kindness:
Shuster
Koch
Pike
Zeferetti
to object to granting permission for th
to
Clausen,
Krueger
Sikes
Krebs
Reuss
he
Don E.
LaFalce
Simon
entire week, and I do object.
NOT VOTING-20
Cleveland
Lagomarsino
Skubitz
The SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
S-
Cochran
Landrum
Slack
AuCoin
Hebert
Staggers
b-
Cohen
Latta
Smith,
Biaggi
Macdonald
Steed
se
Collins, Tex.
Leggett
Snyder
Bolling
Metcalfe
Sullivan
Conable
Litton
Solars
Brown, Ohio
Rousselot:
Treen
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE OI
Conte
Lloyd, Calif
Stanton,
Dingell
Ruppe
Udall
PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPOR
e-
Coughlin
Lloyd, Tenn.
J. William
Evins, Tenn.
Sisk
Van Deerlin
ise
Crane
Long, La.
Steelman
Fary
Spence
TATION TO MEET TOMORROV
Daniel, Dan
Lott
Steiger: Wis.
DURING THE 5-MINUTE RULE
n-
Daniel, R. W
McClory
Stephens
The Clerk announced the following
de la Garza
McCloskey
Stratton
pairs:
Mr. ANDERSON of California. MI
he
Dent
McCollister
Stuckey
On this vote:
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent tha
Derwinski
McCormack
Symington
the Committee on Public Works an
Devine
McDade
Symms
Mr. Hébert for, with Mr. AuCoin against.
Dickinson
McDonald
Talcott
Mr. Treen for, with Mr. Biaggi against.
Transportation be permitted to meet to
Downing, Va.
McEwen
Taylor, Mo.
Mr. Sisk for, with Mr. Macdonald of Massa-
morrow for the purpose of conducting
he
Duncan, Oreg.
McFall
Taylor. N.C.
chusetts against.
business during the 5-minute rule.
Eckhardt
McKay
Teague
Mr. Steed for, with Mr. Metcalfe against.
Edwards, Ala.
Madigan
Thone
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
English
Mahon
Thornton
Mr. Staggers for, with Mr. Fary against.
the request of the gentleman fron
1e.
Erlenborn
Mann
Ullman
Mr. Evins of Tennessee for, with Mrs. Sul-
California?
Eshleman
Matsunaga
Vander Jagt
livan against.
Evans, Colo.
Mazzoli
Waggonner
Mr. Van Deerlin for, with Mr. Dingell
There was no objection.
Fenwick
Meeds
Walsh
against
I
Findley
Melcher
Wampler
Fish
Meyner
Whalen
Until further notice:
Flowers
Michel
White
Mr. Udall with Mr. Rousselot.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR
Flynt
Milford
Whitten
Foley
Mills
Wiggins
Mr. Brown of Ohio with Mr. Spence.
TOMORROW
Forsythe
Mitchell, N.Y.
Wilson, Bob
Fountain
Montgomery
Wilson, C. H
Mrs. SCHROEDER and Messrs. BEN-
(Mr. RHODES asked and was giver
Fraser
Moore
Wilson, Tex.
NETT and TRAXLER changed their
permission to address the House for
Frenzel
Moorhead,
Winn
vote from "yea" to "nay"
minute and to revise and extend his re-
Frey
Calif.
Wirth
Fuqus
Moorhead, Pa.
Messrs. TEAGUE and CHARLES
marks.)
Wright
Gibbons
Morgan
Wylie
WILSON of Texas changed their vote
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, I take
Gilman
Mosher
Young, Alaska
from "nay" to "yea."
this time to ask the distinguished acting
Goldwater
Murtha
Young, Fla.
Gonzales-
Myers, Ind.
Young, Tex.
So the Senate bill was passed.
majority leader what the program is for
Goodling
Myers, Pa.
Zablocki
tomorrow, if he has it available.
The result of the vote was announced
the
Gradison
Nichols
Mr. McFALL. Will the distinguished
as above recorded.
10-
NAYS-176
minority leader yield?
A motion to reconsider was laid on
Abzug
Bonker
Cornell
Mr. RHODES. I am happy to yield to
Adams
Brademas
Cotter
the table.
the gentleman from California.
Addabbo
Brodhead
D'Amours
the
Mr. McFALL The proposed program
Ambro
Brown, Calif.
Daniels, N.J.
Anderson;
Burke, Calif
Danielson
GENERAL LEAVE
for tomorrow is, first, consideration of
d.
Calif.
Burke, Fla.
Davis
H.R. 8070, the HUD appropriations con-
Annunzio
Burke, Mass
Delane
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
ference report.
the
Ashbrook
Burton, John
Dellums
unanimous consent that all Members may
Badillo
Burton, Phillip
Derrick
Second on the calendar will be H.R.
have 5 legislative days in which to re-
Barrett
Byron
Diggs
8841, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
I
Bauman
Carney
Dodd
vise and extend their remarks on the
Rodenticide Act Amendments, commonly
Beard, R.L.
Carr
Downey, N.Y.
Senate bill just passed.
known as FIFRA.
Bedell
Clawson, Det
Drinan
Bennett
Clay
Duncan, Tenn
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
No. 3 will be S. 584, retirement credit
de-
Blanchard
Collins, III.
du Pont
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
for National Guard technician service.
Blouin
176.
Conlan
Early
sylvania?
Boggs
Conyers
Edgar
No. 4 will be H.R. 7222, Federal em-
Boland
Corman
Edwards, Calif.
There was no objection.
ployees' group life insurance.
[1976]
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: German Proposal to Sell Aircraft to the Coast
Guard
In your meeting with Chancellor Schmidt, you should be aware of
an instance involving a German-Dutch company, VFW Fokker,
which is one of five bidders offering jet aircraft to the
Coast Guard. The German-Dutch aircraft manufacturer has
submitted a bid to the Coast Guard offering to sell the
"VFW 614" in response to a Coast Guard procurement for 41
medium range surveillance (MRS) aircraft. The other four
bidders are a French aircraft manufacturer and three American
manufacturers. The proposals are presently in the final
stages concerning their evaluation
BACKGROUND:
The initial plan for procurement of 41 MRS aircraft was
to obtain the Rockwell Sabre 75A on a sole source basis
by initiating a Military Inter-Departmental Procurement
Request (MIPR) to the Naval Air Systems Command. Due to
Congressional and industry concern over sole source method
of procurement, in May 1974 Coast Guard modified procurement
to a "Two-step" formal advertising procedure. A January
1975 solicitation resulted in more than one proposal being
received. During the evaluation of step 1 proposals, however,
all but one of the proposals dropped out leaving only the
VFW 614. In order to obtain additional competition, the
procurement was reopened in January 1976. This resulted
in the current competition from five companies.
NATO STANDARDIZATION/BUY AMERICAN ACT:
Some Members of Congress attempted to put a rider on the
DOT Appropriation which would have required the Coast Guard
to buy American. Through strenuous efforts of DOT and State
this attempt was defeated. There still remains the normal
Buy American provisions which apply to all U. S. procurements.
German-Dutch government and aircraft industry represent-
atives have made personal presentation to ask for waiver
of the normal Buy American Act provisions. Numerous
diplomatic messages referring to this procurement and the
applicabilityoof NATO standardization have been received.
Our review has SO far indicated that NATO standardization
is not applicable to this procurement. The Department of
Defense is actively working to ease various restrictions
on foreign procurements which could affect NATO stand-
ardization. This effort includes their waiving of the
Subj: German Proposal to Sell Aircraft to the Coast Guard
cost differential normally applied under Buy American
legislation. Similarly, they are encouraging non-DOD
agencies, including the Department of Transportation, also to
consider such waivers.
There are indications from some representatives of the
American aircraft industry that they likewise support
the waiving of these restrictions in furtherance of
international trade. Any waiver action must carefully be
weighed, however, due to the possible impact it may have
on American competition in any procurement, including this
procurement for Coast Guard MRS aircraft.
The Coast Guard is still evaluating the proposals. At
the appropriate time the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, will
determine whether there are facts or circumstances which
justify waiving the normal Buy American Act provisions.
William T. Coleman, Jr.
NOT FOR RELEASE
Industry proposals currently being evaluated by the U. S. Coast Guard
for MRS procurement.
GRUMMAN
ROCKWELL
LOCKHEED
FALCON (FRENCH)
VFW FOKKER (GERMAN)
1395 Add-on
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHHINGTON
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR
JACK MARSH
3/24/76
FROM:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
signed
SUBJECT:
Idaho Governor Andrus' Request for a
Presidential Letter to the Shah of Iran
This is in reference to the letter to the President at Tab B from
Idaho Governor Andrus who requested a Presidential letter of intro-
duction to the Shah of Iran in connection with the Governor's visit
there, now planned for late April/early May.
The President considered the options outlined in the memo which
was sent to you for clearance prior to forwarding to the President
and which recommended against a letter to the Shah, but suggested
the option of a letter to Ambassador Helms. The President has
decided against a letter to the Shah but has signed the letter to
Ambassador Helms at Tab A. The original Presidential letter is
being sent to the Department of State for appropriate transmission
to the Ambassador. The Departments of State and Commerce are
also rendering appropriate assistance in connection with the Govern-
or's travels to Iran, and we understand that the Governor's office
has also been in touch with the Iranian Embassy in Washington to
assist in the visit, including seeking a meeting with the Shah.
The remaining action is to inform the Governor of the response to
his request to the President and of the efforts being made to assist
in his visit. I suggest that the Governor's office be contacted to
explain that, as a matter of standing practice, Presidential letters
of introduction are not sent to foreign leaders but that the President
has sent a letter to Ambassador Helms (the copy at Tab A could be
forwarded to the Governor). It could also be pointed out that, in
line with our policy to encourage expanded trade opportunities and
increasing United States-Iranian understanding, we are ensuring
that the Departments of State and Commerce render all appropriate
assistance in connection with the Governor's visit. Alternatively,
you may wish to send a written reply to the Governor, along the lines
of the attached proposed text.
Dear Governor Andrus:
The President has asked me to thank you for your very
thoughtful letter informing him of your forthcoming visit
to Iran with a delegation of business executives from your
State. It has long been our policy to encourage expanded
trade opportunities and increasing mutual understanding
between the United States and Iran.
In line with our policy and in response to your request,
the President has asked me to inform you that he has
written to Ambassador Helms about your visit so that
all appropriate assistance may be provided in connec-
tion with your travel. I am pleased to enclose a copy
of the President's letter. As a matter of standing policy,
such messages are not sent to foreign leaders but we
believe that the President's letter to Ambassador Helms
will help ensure that your visit is a constructive one in
view of the strong interest of our Government in expanded
trade relations between the U.S. and the nations of the
Middle East and Persian Gulf.
We are also requesting that the Departments of State and
Commerce be of assistance and trust that you and your
colleagues will have an enjoyable and successful visit.
The President has asked me to extend his best wishes and
hopes that you have a fruitful visit to Iran. Please let me
know if I may be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
The Honorable
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor of the State of Idaho
Boise
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 24, 1976
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
Governor Cecil Andrus of Idaho has indicated
that he will lead a delegation of businessmen
from his State to Iran in the near future. The
Departments of State and Commerce are render-
ing the appropriate assistance in line with our
policy of encouraging expanded trade opportun-
ities and increasing mutual United States-Iranian
understanding. I want you to know in advance
that I appreciate the effort which will be made
to ensure that they have a constructive visit.
With best wishes,
The Honorable Richard Helms
American Ambassador
Tehran
FORD (TERCE)
7570
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
CECIL D. ANDRUS
BOISE
GOVERNOR
March 2, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
In the near future, it will be my pleasure, as Governor of Idaho, to
lead a delegation of prominent Idaho business executives to Iran to
exchange ideas and viewpoints related to energy, mining, agriculture
and recreation with Iranian government officials and business leaders
of Iran. Senator James McClure will also be accompanying the mission.
I believe it would be of great assistance to the success of the
mission and also a matter of courtesy if you would be so kind as to
write a letter of introduction to His Imperial Majesty the Shah of
Iran for my personal presentation to him upon our arrival. We will
also extend an invitation to the Iranian government and business
officials to visit the United States and Idaho this summer.
At a recent luncheon at the Iranian Embassy, His Excellency Ardeshir
Zahedi, Ambassador of Iran, was most complimentary to our country and
to you personally in a toast. Ambassador Zahedi is most anxious for
the success of this mission and has been very helpful to Senator
McClure and myself in making the necessary arrangements. We will also
be accompanied by one of your former colleagues in the House of Repre-
sentatives, Ralph Harding, who is also assisting us.
Your favorable consideration to furnish us with a letter of intro-
duction will be greatly appreciated; and I shall look forward to
your reply at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Cecilh lendrus
CECIL D. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
wmb
FORD
IRAN - IDAHO SYNERGISTIC
P. O. Box 1559
Boise, Idaho 83701
Telephone Number: (208) 343-5454
ATTENTION: Blaine F. Evans
PARTICIPATING IDAHO COMPANIES
OFFICIAL AND COMPANY
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
James (Jim) McClary
Construction
Chairman of the Board
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.
400 Broadway Avenue
Boise, Idaho
83729
(208) 345-5000
William (Bill) Bridenbaugh
Lumber, Housing,
Senior Vice President
Building materials,
Boise Cascade Corporation
Paper products and
One Jefferson Square
packaging
Boise, Idaho
83702
(208) 384-6527
J. R. (Jack) Simplot
Agriculture,
Chairman of the Board
Livestock, Produc-
J. R. Simplot Company
tion, Food processing,
One Capitol Center
Fertilizer production,
Boise, Idaho 83701
Mining
(208) 336-2110
William C. (Bill) Janss
Recreation and resort
President
operations, Condominiu
Sun Valley Company
construction, sales an
Sun Valley, Idaho 83353
rentals.
(208) 622-4111
Charles (Chuck) Rice
Nuclear Energy
President
technology and
Energy, Incorporated
alternative energy
381 Shoup Avenue
sources
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
(208) 524-1000
Sam Bennion
Oil Refining, Petro-
President
leum Products distri-
V 1 Oil Company
bution. Member of
1800 North Holmes Avenue
Federal Reserve Board
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
(208) 522-1210
OFFICIAL AND COMPANY
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
J. H. (Jack) Hume
Potato and Onion and
Chairman of the Board
Garlic Processing
American Potato Company
4600 Bank of America Center
San Francisco, California
9404
(415) 981-5590
G. T. (Bud) Newcomb
Sprinkler Irrigation
President
Systems, Land develop-
G. T. Newcomb, Inc.
ment, Potato production
P. O. Box 246
Ketchum, Idaho
83340
(208) 726-5641
(602) 991-1899
Robert (Bob) Rebholtz
Cattle ranching and
President
Cattle feeding
Snake River Cattle Company
P. O. Box 549
American Falls, Idaho
83221
(208) 226-5126
IRAN - IDAHO SYNERGISTIC
P. 0. Box 1559
Boise, Idaho 83701
Telephone Number: (208) 343-5454
ATTENTION: Blaine F. Evans
ELECTED OFFICIALS, DELEGATION LEADERS AND STAFF
Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
State of Idaho
State Capitol
Boise, Idaho
83221
(208) 382-2100
Honorable James McClure
United States Senator
Room 460 Russell Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
(202) 224-2752
Ralph R. Harding
General Manager - Iran-Idaho Synergistic
Route 4, Box 164
Blackfoot, Idaho
83221
(208) 785-1248
Blaine F. Evans
General Counsel - Iran-Idaho Synergistic
Elam, Burke, Jeppesen, Evans & Boyd
1010 Bank of Idaho Building
P. O. Box 1559
Boise, Idaho
83701
(208) 343-5454
Wayne Mittleider
Assistant to Governor Andrus
State Capitol
Boise, Idaho
83720
(208) 382-2100
Mike Hathaway
Assistant to Senator McClure
Room 460, Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C.
20510
(202) 224-2752
James A. Goller (NOT GOING TO IRAN)
Assistant to Senator McClure
8th and Bannock Streets
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 343-1421
Allen Suderman (NOT GOING TO IRAN)
Treasurer & Controller
Iran-Idaho Synergistic
Elmer Fox, Westheimer and Co.
515 Bank of Idaho Building
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 344-2527
Claude J. Greene (NOT GOING TO IRAN)
Travel Agent
Travel, Inc.
217 N. 10th Street
P. O. Box 420
Boise, Idaho
83701
(208) 343-4667
FORD
IRAN - IDAHO SYNERGISTIC
P. O. Box 1559
Boise, Idaho 83701
Telephone Number: (208) 343-5454
ATTENTION: Blaine F. Evans
AUXILIARY
Mrs. Cecil D. Andrus (Carol)
1805 North 21st Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 345-5570
Mrs. James McClure (Louise)
3467 North Venice Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207
(703) 536-8562
Mrs. James McClary (Mary Jane)
4903 Roberts Road
Boise, Idaho 83705
(208) 343-9535
Mrs. J. R. Simplot (Esther)
1500 Harrison Blvd.
Boise, Idaho
83702
(208) 343-2457
Mrs. William C. Janss (G16nn)
Sun Valley, Idaho 83353
(208) 622-5975
Mrs. Ralph R. Harding (Willa)
Route 4, Box 164
Blackfoot, Idaho 83221
(208) 785-1248
Mrs. Blaine F. Evans (Lucille)
6700 Randolph Drive
Boise, Idaho
83705
(208) 375-6896
Mrs. Sam Bennion (Faye)
635 11th Street
Idaho Falls, Idaho
83401
(208) 523-1950
Mrs. G. T. Newcomb (Debbie)
Box 325
Sun Valley, Idaho
83353
(208) 726-3287
Mrs. J. H. Hume (Betty)
3355 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, California
94118
(415) 929-2345
Mrs. Robert Reboltz (Dorothy)
Route 1
American Falls, Idaho
83221
(208) 226-5615
THIS PRESIDENT HAS UKFK
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
March 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
BD
SUBJECT:
Request from Governor Andrus of
Idaho for a Letter to the Shah of Iran
At Tab B is a letter from Idaho Governor Andrus expressingthe hope
that you would write a letter of introduction to the Shah of Iran for per-
sonal presentation by him and a group of Idaho businessmen. The
Governor notes that Senator McClure and former Representative
Harding will accompany this mission.
This travel is in line with our policy of encouraging expanded trade
opportunities between the US and nations of the Middle East and Per-
sian Gulf. The Departments of State and Commerce are providing
assistance and we also unde rstand that Ambassador Zahedi is re-
commending to his Government that the Shah meet with the Governor
and his colleagues.
However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for you to
write a letter of introduction to His Majesty. For some time it
has been Administration policy not to provide letters to foreign
government officials for Americans who are not travelling abroad
on official Federal Government missions. There are a number
of reasons for such a policy:
1. Presidential letters of this kind might suggest official
endorsement by the USG of the activities and statements
of American citizens who are visiting foreign countries
in unofficial capacities. Though the Governor's trip
should be helpful to the United States, he is not travel-
ling to Iran as a representative of the United States
Government.
2. Such letters might also suggest official USG preference
for one group of US businessmen over another in private
business dealings with foreign governments, even though
this may not be intended.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
- 2 -
3. Such letters might be seen by foreign governments as
an attempt to gain special access or courtesies which
private citizens would not be accorded with only normal
assistance by the United States Government. Also, we
want to avoid any potential embarrassment should foreign
government officials not wish to meet with private
Americans carrying Presidential letters.
This policy is especially relevant against the backdrop of recent
problems arising from improper activities of US firms seeking con-
tracts with foreign governments. Under this policy a wide range of
similar requests from prominent Americans travelling abroad privately
on business and other special interests have been declined. Making an
exception in this instance would create a precedent in dealing with others
seeking similar treatment and be an affront for those who have not
received it in the past.
If you wish to make some special gesture to Governor Andrus, however,
there is a procedure which has been employed in the past. You or
an appropriate member of the Administration could send a letter to
Ambassador Helms indicating that the Governor plans a trip to
Iran and requesting appropriate courtesies. A copy would be given
to Governor Andrus. This would indicate an interest in being help-
ful but restrict our efforts to official USG channels.
I suggest, therefore, that an appropriate member of the White
House staff be in touch with the Governor's office to explain that,
as a matter of policy, such letters are not provided to foreign
leaders. Should you wish a letter to Ambassador Helms (a proposed
letter is at Tab A), the Governor would also be informed of this and
a copy would be provided him.
Staff Views: Messrs. Marsh, Buchen, McConahey, Mr. Hartmann's
office and I all concur that you should not write a letter of introduction
to the Shah and that our policy on this should be explained to the
Governor's office. Mr. Marsh and Mr. Hartmann's office concur
in providing a letter from you to Ambassador Helms (Tab A). Mr.
Buchen recommends, and Mr. McConahey (for Domestic Council)
and I concur, that such a letter be signed instead by an appropriate
Administration official. Just as a matter of principle, I believe it
would be better to avoid the precedent of Presidential letters in
support of non-official trips abroad.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
- 3 -
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That no letter of introduction to the Shah from you be provided
to the Governor and that our policy on this be explained to his office.
APPROVE WR7
DISAPPROVE
2. That you indicate your preference for the following with regard
to the option of a letter to Ambassador Helms:
I will sign letter to Ambassador Helms at Tab A
WR9
Prefer you (General Scowcroft) communicate with
the Ambassador
Disapprove; no letter to the Ambassador required
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
och
X
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
FOR BRENT SCOWCROFT
4/8
Brent,
Late message further to the attached. Helms,
in reporting on other aspects of the Andrus
visited, has noted (according to NEA) that
the Shah has not received other visiting State
trade delegations such as that by Governor
Waller of Mississippi. This may well explain
why Zahedi is not pushing, probably to avoid
precedent for others. With Andrus pressing,
I still believe we could take the normal step
of asking Helms to follow up, as contained
in the attached recommendation. [The other
steps would be optional, although obviously
more forthcoming in helping Andrus.
Bab
Bob Oakley
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
MEMORANDUM
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
1395 Add-on
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
ACTION
April 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
FROM:
ROBERT B. OAKLEY PO
SUBJECT:
Governor Andrus' Dissatisfaction--Request
for Guidance from Jack Marsh
Jack Marsh has sent for your guidance a letter from Democratic Governor
Andrus Tab D] expressing dissatisfaction at not being provided a letter
from the President to the Shah of Iran in order to obtain a meeting with the
Shah during his forthcoming visit. He urges that the President reconsider
and provide him with the letter. He indicates that Ambassador Zahedi
has said this is essential to seeking a meeting with the Shah. We understand
that the Governor may even be contemplating cancelling his trip if he cannot
have a meeting with the Shah.
As you know, the President decided against a letter from himself to the
Shah for reasons of established policy on such requests, but he did send
a letter to Ambassador Helms as a way of being of assistance but through
official USG channels. Mr. McConahey has told us that Governor Andrus
(as a Democrat) has been very supportive of the President, particularly
on human resources and block grant programs and that he may well be
the next Chairman of the National Governors' Conference. The issue
for us is how we can be of further assistance without violating standing
policy on private American business travel abroad. Mr. McConahey
favors doing what we can within this framework.
The one viable option that exists is to have Ambassador Helms play the
normal facilitative role often performed by our Embassies. It is customary
for US Ambassadors abroad, in receipt of requests from private Americans
seeking high-level appointments, to routinely forward such requests to the
foreign government. However, the Embassy of Iran--because of the
enormous volume of American private travel to Tehran and the understandable
desire to protect the Shah from so many requests--has developed its own
policy of having all requests for meetings with the Shah channelled through
Ambassador Zahedi and refusing to raise with the GOI any private request.
Subject to GDS of E. O. 11652
Automatically Declassified on
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
December 31, 1982.
WHM 5/15/00
FORD is LIBRARY 078839
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS) -- 2
Ambassador Helms took this position with the Governor's advance party
in Tehran last month, thereby stimulating the request to the President.
[Helms is now in receipt of the President's letter to him and will other-
wise ensure that the Governor's visit is a success, but despite that
letter he has reaffirmed his position on not channelling requests for
meetings with the Shah in a message to NEA.] For his part, Ambassador
Zahedi -- who has received a request from the Governor's office -- is
reluctant to endorse it to the Shah because he does not like to have to
choose among competing Americans. This has led to the Governor's
statements that both Ambassadors Helms and Zahedi feel a letter from
the President would be necessary, an action which the President has
decided against.
You may wish to phone Mr. Marsh on this but I concur with Mr. Mc-
Conahey that we do what we properly can for the Governor -- request
that Ambassador Helms follow up on the Governor's request for a
meeting with the Shah (as other Embassies would do). State could be
so instructed via the memo (with draft telegram) at Tab A.
If you wish to go beyond this, you could phone Ambassador Zahedi,
using the talking points at Tab B. You could also send Ambassador
Helms a back-channel message along the lines of Tab C. In any event,
you will want to get back to Mr. Marsh recommending he be in further
touch with the Governor to emphasize we are doing what we can but to
explain again the standing policy on Presidential letters to foreign
leaders. [Tab D] [Mr. McConahey believes the Governor, if properly
informed, would be reasonabl
RECOMMENDATION: That you take the normal step of approving an
instruction to Ambassador Helms to follow up on the request for a
meeting -- via approving the memo to State at Tab A.
APPROVE
AS AMENDED
That you indicate your preference for going further than this by
FORD
Phoning Ambassador Zahedi (talking points Tab B)
Approving back-channel message to Helms, Tab C
That, if you approve of some or all of the above, you sign the memo
to Jack Marsh at Tab D
APPROVE
AS AMENDED
Alternatively, that we go back to Jack Marsh and say that nothing further
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS) -- 3
can be done for the Governor.
APPROVE; prepare such a memo to Marsh
SEE ME
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
LIBRARY
1395
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
VIA LDX
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GEORGE SPRINGSTEEN
Executive Secretary
Department of State
SUBJECT:
Visit of Idaho Governor Andrus to Iran
Governor Andrus of Idaho has informed the White House that his
request for a meeting with the Shah of Iran during his upcoming
visit has been channelled through Ambassador Zahedi but with no
positive results to date. State is requested to seek Ambassador Helms'
assistance in following up on this request by sending the following
telegram to him as soon as possible: [NSC should be on distribution.]
"SUBJECT:
Visit of Governor Andrus of Idaho and
Prominent Business Executives - Request
for Meeting with the Shah
FOR: Ambassador
1. We know that you are informed of the forthcoming visit of
Governor Andrus of Idaho and prominent business executives
from his State. The Governor's office has informed White House
that his request for meeting with the Shah was made through
Ambassador Zahedi three weeks ago but evidently there has
been no response at this time. The Governor is most interested
in such a meeting. In the spirit of close US-Iranian relations
and the desirability of maintaining an on-going dialogue on
matters of common interest, including with leaders from all
parts of our country, you should follow up by whatever means
you deem best on the Governor's request for meeting with the
Shah.
2. This need not affect standing Embassy policy on channelling
requests of this nature through Ambassador Zahedi since this has
already been done. We would appreciate an early reply on the
prospects of a meeting."
Jeanne W. Davis
Staff Secretary
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
TALKING POINTS FOR TELEPHONE CALL TO AMBASSADOR ZAHEDI
1.
I understand that Governor Andrus of Idaho is planning a visit to
Tehran in the near future.
2.
We regard this visit as in line with our policy of encouraging
closer ties between our two nations and we are pleased that
the Governor is able to travel to your country.
3.
We understand that the Governor's office has been in touch with
you to discuss arranging a meeting with the Shah. We fully
appreciate the burdens on the Shah's schedule and the fact
that he cannot meet with every private American who is travelling
abroad for private purposes.
4.
On the other hand, Cecil Andrus is a fine Governor and the Shah
may find it useful to have an exchange of views with him since
he comes from yet another part of our country. This would be
purely in the context of broadening and deepening US-Iranian
relations. We are not su ggesting anything more than a general ex-
change of views should there be an appropriate occassion.
5.
Your help in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
FORD
SECRET
BACKCHANNEL MESSAGE FOR AMBASSADOR HELMS
FROM: BRENT SCOWCROFT
SUBJECT: Visit of Idaho Governor Andrus to Tehran
1. As you know, Governor Andrus of Idaho would like to meet with
the Shah during his forthcoming visit and we have separately authorized
State to have you follow up on this request. The Governor appropriately
requested this meeting through Ambassador Zahedi but with no luck.
The Governor feels (and Ambassador Zahedi has indicated) that a
Presidential letter of introduction to the Shah is essential to securing
a meeting. We are uncertain as to what, if any, action Zahedi has
taken in Tehran on this request.
2. Just to put this request in perspective, it is not our policy to
provide Presidential letters to foreign leaders for Americans travelling
abroad in unofficial USG capacities. However, as you know, the
President is interested in seeing that Governor Andrus receives all
proper assistance through official USG channels. The Governor has
been provided with a copy of the President's letter to you.
3. The Governor remains keenly interested in meeting with the Shah.
In line with our policy on Americans travelling abroad privately, we
do not wish to force this event and we respect your policy of having
all private requests for meetings with the Shah originate with Zahedi.
On the other hand, your approach would be a follow-up to the request
SECRET
DECLASSIFIED
E.O. 12958, Sec. 3.5
NSC Memo, 11/24/98, State Dept. Guidelines
By WHM , NARA, Date 5/15/00
SECRET -- 2
through Zahedi. It should be seen in the context of our close bilateral
ties with Iran and the interest of both sides (especially Iran) in
exchanges of views between distinguished representatives from all
segments of our society. Since Governor Andrus represents an
important part of our country which is unfamiliar with Iran, I would
encourage you to try to seek even a very brief meeting for him with
the Shah.
4.
Warm regards.
SECRET
FORD
1395
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
SUBJECT:
Governor Andrus' Request for a
Presidential Letter to the Shah
of Iran
This is in response to the attached further letter and the telephone
call your office received from Governor Andrus who is obviously
dissatisfied that he has not received a Presidential letter to the
Shah of Iran.
The problem is a standing White House policy that the President
does not send such messages in order to avoid favoritism. The
President agreed with our recommendation a few weeks ago that
he not make a special exception for Governor Andrus. On the other
hand, he did sign a letter to Ambassador Helms, although the
Governor may not appreciate the full nature of this gesture.
We can properly instruct Ambassador Helms in Tehran to follow
up on the Governor's request for a meeting with the Shah (though
we cannot guarantee success). State is being authorized to do this
since it is customary for our Embassies to play this kind of facilita-
tive role. Between this and the Governor's approach to Ambassador
Zahedi, some result might be produced. We do not wish to try and
pressure the Shah in a direction in which he may not want to go (he
has not received other trade delegations, including one led by Governor
Waller of Mississippi who recently visited there).
I recommend that you or Mr. McConahey personally phone the Governor
and reaffirm that the policy on Presidential messages to foreign leaders
is a long-established one and reflects absolutely no lack of interest in
the Governor's trip or in the importance of expanded trade opportunities
between the US and Iran. You could emphasize that the President has
done this for no other leading American, including other Governors
who have led trade delegations. At the same time, you could point
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
-2-
out that the President did take the step of writing to Ambassador
Helms because of his interest in the Governor's travels and that
we have buttressed this with instructions that Ambassador Helms
follow up on the Governor's request for a meeting with His Imperial
Majesty. You could emphasize that we are doing all we can to be of
assistance within the framework of a long-standing Presidential
policy that official Presidential messages are confined to official
Federal Government travel. High-level meetings with Americans
not travelling in official Federal Government capacities is mainly
a decision for the foreign government leaders involved.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 6, 1976
BRENT SCOWCROFT
TO:
FROM: JOHN O. MARSH, JR
nab
For Direct Reply
X
For Draft Response
For Your Information
Please Advise
OREAT
REAL
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
CECIL D ANDRUS
BOISE
GOVERNOR
March 31, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On March 2nd, I wrote to you informing you of a planned visit of
Idahoans on a trade mission to Iran and requested a letter of intro-
duction to His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Iran. The letter would
be personally presented to the Shah when we arrived in Tehran with
Senator McClure and the ten leading business executives from Idaho.
Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi of Iran suggested that such an intro-
duction would assure our being received by His Imperial Majesty
the Shah.
Unfortunately, my letter was misinterpreted because I received instead
a letter from John 0. Marsh, Jr., enclosing a copy of your letter
to Ambassador Richard Helms.
Mr. President, Mr. Marsh's letter stated that as a matter of stand-
ing policy, such messages are not sent to foreign leaders. I am
sure this is a State Department position; however, I am equally
certain that you would not have allowed the State Department to
dictate to you whether or not you could write a letter of intro-
duction on behalf of a governor, a United States Senator and ten
prominent business executives to a foreign leader.
I would appreciate your reconsideration of this matter and am most
hopeful that you will find it possible to provide us with the re-
quested letter of introduction. I am enclosing, for your information
and convenience, a copy of the March 2nd letter.
Sincerely,
LocalD Indrews
CECIL D. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
wmb
encl.
I
March 25, 1976
NSC
Dear Governor Andrus:
The President has asked ma to thank you for your very thoughtful letter
informing him of your forthcoming visit to Iran with 3 delegation of
business executives from your State. It has long been our policy to
encourage expanded trade opportunities and increasing mutual under-
standing between the United States and Iran.
In line with our policy and in response to your request, the President
has asked me to inform you that be has written to Ambassador Helms
about your visit so that all appropriate assistance may be provided In
connection with your travel. 1 am pleased to enclose a copy of the
President's letter. As a matter of standing policy, such messages are
not sent to foreign leaders but we believe that the President's letter to
]
Ambassador Halms will help ensure that your visit is a constructive one
in view of the strong interest of our Government in expanded trade rela-
tions between the United States and the nations of the Middle East and
Persian Gull.
We are also requesting that the Departments of State and Commerce
be of assistance and trust that you and your colleagues will have an
enjoyable and successful visit.
The President has asked me to extend his best wishos and hopes that
you have a fruitful visit to Iran. Please let me know If I may be of
any further assistance.
Sincerely.
John O. Marsh, Jr.
Counsellor to the President
The Honorable Cecil Andrus
Governor of Idaho
Doise, Idaho
JOM/NSC/dl
FORD & LIBRARY DERALD
THE WINTE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 24, 1976
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
Governor Cecil Andrus of Idaho has indicated
that he will lead a delegation of businessmen
from his State to Iran in the near future. The
Departments of State and Commerce are render-
ing the appropriate assistance in line with our
policy of encouraging expanded trade opportun-
ities and increasing mutual United States-Iranian
understanding. I want you to know in advance
that I appreciate the effort which will be made
to ensure that they have a constructive visit.
With best wishes,
Herald R. Forl
The Honorable Richard Helms
American Ambassador
Tehran
GERAED LICENSE FORD