May 4, 1971
Page 13352
MINORITY LEADER'S ATTACK ON SENATOR MUSKIE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. HECKLER of West Virginia). Under a previous order of the House the gentleman from Maine (Mr. KYROS) is recognized for 30 minutes.
(Mr. KYROS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. KYROS. Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to discuss certain comments that were made by the House minority leader last week, on April 29, at the American-Israel public affairs luncheon held here in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, at that time the gentleman from Michigan made certain remarks about a great American, a great Senator and an outstanding Democrat, Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, which need to be put in perspective, particularly because many House Members have indicated their intention to discuss those remarks in full.
In substance, those remarks were erroneous and, apparently, the gentleman from Michigan was misinformed both as to Senator MUSKIE's statements to Soviet leaders and his general policy regarding the Middle East, In addition, it is my feeling that the discussion of foreign policy as it deals with Southeast Asia, and now particularly with the Middle East, should be devoid of all partisanship.
Certainly an area in which the United States is vitally interested, in which we even today, through our Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, are attempting to achieve some kind of stability and some kind of a rational peace, requires the unified support of people all over this country to insure that that policy can be maintained.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KYROS. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the distinguished gentleman in the well for taking this time to put into proper perspective the remarks of the minority leader last week on the 23d anniversary of Israel's independence, held here at the Rayburn Building
I was at that luncheon and I also heard the remarks. The remarks were in bad taste. This was a solemn occasion marking the 23d anniversary of Israel's independence and hardly the place for a partisan attack on a Member of the Senate. I was deeply concerned that the remarks made were very obviously designed to carry out orders from the White House to stop MUSKIE. It is very apparent the White House high command has decreed that MUSKIE is the man they have got to beat, otherwise he is going to beat them in 1972. MUSKIE has the support, the quality, and the
stature, but more importantly, the understanding of the difficult problems confronting both our country and the world. It is for this reason that the White House strategy is to stop MUSKIE at all cost. It is obvious all the top guns of the Republican leadership have been given orders to "get MUSKIE before he gets us."
Mr. Speaker, the minority leader followed an old, old political tactic: When you cannot say anything good about your own position, then try to discredit your opposition; find a scapegoat.
While the minority leader did not name the particular Senator by name, it was obvious that he was indeed talking about the Senator from Maine. The minority leader had to take off against MUSKIE because he could not very well defend this administration's position in the Middle East.
This administration has suggested that we make the Soviet Union a member of the permanent peacekeeping force in the Middle East. That is like having the fox watch the chicken coop. We should be trying to get the Soviets out of the Middle East instead of legalizing the presence of their troops in this troubled area. This administration has not been able to understand Soviet presence in the Middle East; Soviet imperialism. If this were a problem to be resolved between the Arab States and Israel, the problem would be solved tomorrow, but it is the intransigence of the Soviet Union that makes a solution to the Middle East situation impossible.
So, when we have an administration that encourages and recommends that we make the Soviet Union a member of the permanent peacekeeping force, obviously this administration wants to deliver the Middle East and Israel to Soviet influence and domination; a cordon sanitaire of pro-Soviet states in the Middle East.
Nor could the minority leader defend the other concept of this administration's lack of understanding of the problems in the Middle East, namely opening the Suez Canal with no guarantees to Israel. Right now Secretary of State Rogers is in the Middle East. He is trying to get the Suez Canal opened. Who wants it opened most? The Soviet Union wants it open, because they want to be able to move their fleet out of the Mediterranean into the Indian ocean and to continue their conspiracies and intrigues into that part of the world. Israel has insisted on territorial guarantees before she will agree to open it up; guarantees that Egyptian troops will not cross the Suez. Israel has a right to make such demands, but there is no evidence that Secretary Rogers agrees with Israel's problems.
Finally, the distinguished minority leader made some pronouncement about what the Senator from Maine had told Kosygin in a recent conversation in Moscow.
I think we ought to be very grateful to Mr. Jack Anderson for his column, "The Washington Merry-Go-Round," which appeared in the Washington Post today. Mr. Anderson had obtained a copy of a secret memorandum that had been prepared by the State Department for the top leaders of the administration on what Senator MUSKIE did tell Kosygin and Gromyko during the Moscow conference.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask unanimous consent that the entire column be placed in the RECORD at the conclusion of all our remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Anderson's column discloses a secret memorandum prepared by the State Department on what Senator MUSKIE actually told the Soviet leader. I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Anderson is stating the case correctly, because Mr. Anderson has wide resources in this Capitol.
Mr. Anderson, in quoting from the secret document, says that Senator MUSKIE told Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko in no uncertain terms:
"Acting as if Israel does not have a security problem is not going to allow a settlement." It is necessary to deal with both Arab desire to recover territories and Israeli desire for security....
The secret memorandum states further:
There was extended discussion of Israeli view of security with Muskie expressing understanding for Israeli feeling about Golan Heights. "This is not a question of logic."
In defending Israel's right to the territories she captured in the 6-day war, the memorandum says Senator MUSKIE: "distinguished between acquisition of territory in war and rectifications of borders in areas sensitive to security of one or another state."
It is quite clear that,Senator MUSKIE had made a very strong and persuasive case before Kosygin and Gromyko in Moscow that Israel is entitled to retention of Golon Heights, and needs these borders in order to have a method of defending herself, and that there can be no peace in the Middle East until the Soviet Union and the Arab States realize that Israel must have these defensive boundaries.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it comes in bad grace for anyone today to try and create the impression at an Israeli luncheon honoring the 23d anniversary of Israel that somehow or other Senator MUSKIE is insensitive to the needs of the Israelis.
I am glad the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. KYROS), has taken this time to put into perspective what it is that Senator MUSKIE said in Moscow and as to his strong position and understanding of the Middle East. I hope we will hear no more of this distortion from the distinguished minority leader. Of course, when we listen to the minority leader attack Senator MUSKIE and then we listen to Senator DOLE, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee on television Sunday attack Senator MUSKIE, we see the pattern unfold; all of the big Republican guns are centering on ED MUSKIE. It becomes very clear and obvious to this Member: MUSKIE is the man to stop – but I do not believe they will succeed.
Mr. KYROS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my good friend from Illinois (Mr. PUCINSKI), for his remarks. And I truly believe, as the gentleman does, that this issue should not have been brought into partisan politics at all. Our attitude toward the Middle East should remain bipartisan, because the United States' position is one of self interest, and the survival and security of Israel is unquestionably in that interest. It is my sincere belief that the interest of Israel and other nations will best be served by keeping this out of politics entirely.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KYROS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HAYS).
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe that it looks to me like the administration is working both sides of the street. The Secretary of State apparently speaks to the Arabs on the administration's policy toward the Arabs, and apparently the minority leader is trying to kid the Israelis about the administration's policy toward Israel. But I really do not think his remarks were aimed at Israel or Israeli assumptions, I think his remarks were aimed at the Jewish population in the United States, hoping that somehow or other he can talk and double-talk his way into having them believe somehow or other that Mr. MUSKIE is antagonistic toward Israel. The fact is that I have known Jewish people all my life, and if the minority leader does not know it I can tip him off that they are too smart to swallow that. About the only thing he is going to do is to insure that they are not going to vote for any Republicans in the next election, along with an awful lot of other people.
Mr. KYROS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his remarks.
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KYROS. I yield to my friend from Illinois.
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the gentleman in the well for taking time to bring this issue into the public forum. It was a distinct displeasure last week to listen to the minority leader of this House as he launched on what really were some very blatant and irresponsible misrepresentations directed against Senator MUSKIE.
Like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. GERALD R. FORD), a lot of us were invited to the luncheon of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to honor the 23d anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel; unlike the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. GERALD R. FORD), every other speaker there refrained from using the occasion for partisan political purposes.
As a member of the audience to which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. GERALD R. FORD) spoke, and as a loyal supporter of the commitment that this country made a long time ago toward defending Israel's right to survive, I, for one, resented the cynical use of half truths and mistruths that the minority leader exercised toward the distinguished Senator from Maine. The minority leader seemed to believe, as my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio just stated, that an entire group of potential voters can somehow be influenced to support one candidate or oppose another on the minority leader's say-so. I think he is going to have a very rude shock in 1972. Senator MUSKIE has been a longtime friend of Israel and a supporter of America's commitment to Israel's security. He needs no defense from me or anybody else on that score.
At the same time his has been the voice of sanity calling for increased understanding with the Soviet Union on winding down the arms race in order that we might devote more of our vast resources to the crying human needs at home and abroad.
I am glad that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. PUCINSKI), is going to insert in the RECORD the entire column by Mr. Anderson that appeared in this morning's Washington Post. I think it makes very clear that Senator MUSKIE in his conversation with Mr. Kosygin was not bartering Israel's survival for any points in his debate, but rather was urging the Russians to do something that he has consistently done, and that is to talk seriously about deescalating the tremendous arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States.
I emphatically resent the minority leader's misrepresentation of Senator MUSKIE's position on these crucial issues, it is a calculated, cynical example of partisan politicking of the worst variety.
I think it grossly diminishes what heretofore has been a bipartisan and apolitical expression of support for Israel's right to survival, a right which Senator MUSKIE has vigorously defended.
Mr. KYROS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my most able colleague, the gentleman from Illinois. From my experience here I would say that he is exceedingly knowledgeable and capable of understanding the problems of the Middle East. He has often expressed his views on the floor of the House, and is a gentleman to whom many people look when trying to understand the difficult problems in that part of the world. I am delighted to have the gentleman's help in putting this matter in perspective.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KYROS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to comment briefly on the remarks made by Mr. FORD. I was present at the time the minority leader made the statements that he did, and I speak now as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Near East Subcommittee.
Having just returned from Israel and knowing the high regard that the people of Israel hold for Senator MUSKIE, I want to communicate that to the Members of the House and to repudiate the statements made by the minority leader. I am sorry to see a question with such serious implications being injected into this very tragic situation that exists in the Middle East. Politics really have no place in an area where we are trying to smother the flames that could engulf the entire world. I feel that it is important that the minority leader be informed as to the true nature not only of Mr. MUSKIE's feelings, but also of the statement that he has made. I personally have had experience talking to Mr. MUSKIE about the Middle East and can vouch for his strong convictions and support for Israel – not for the Jewish vote, but because of the fact he feels, as I have understood Mr. FORD has stated in past remarks, that we must support Israel because, to put it in Mr. FORD's words, the security of the United States is tied to Israel and Israel's security is tied to the United States.
I think it is in the U.S. interest that Mr. MUSKIE speaks in support of Israel. The distortion that has occurred as a result of remarks in debate by Mr. FORD are also indicative of the fact that a great amount of misinformation pervades our debates today, and I appreciate the fact that you are standing there and providing us with the opportunity of setting the record straight.
Mr. KYROS. I wish to thank the gentleman from New York. I must say again, with regard to the Middle East crisis as well as to Southeast Asia, that I know the gentleman has made many trips there, and as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he has contributed greatly to the understanding of people like myself, as a result of his knowledge of those areas. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks today.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. KYROS. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the RECORD at the conclusion of this discussion some pertinent excerpts of what Senator MUSKIE has said about Israel on a number of occasions.
On the David Frost Show on March 31, 1971, Senator MUSKIE said:
The local security situation below the Golan Heights, on the Syrian border; the Sharm El-Sheikh situation which, you know, controls the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, over which the Six Day War began in 1967, the very narrow waist of Israel on the West Bank of the Jordan – these are three local security problems that Israel has every right to be concerned about. And she's trying to pursue them the best she can in a tactical situation which is very difficult.
In his speech at Palm Beach, Fla., on February 18, 197I, Senator MUSKIE said, among other things:
Every nation has to be concerned with its security interests and Israel must be as well...
In a speech at Cleveland, Ohio, on February 10, 1971, the Senator said:
Israel's neighbors must recognize that Israel is here to stay. They must recognize – and so must others – that the United States is and will remain committed to Israel's security. That is what I told the students at Hebrew University I would say when I went to Cairo, and that is what I did say, both in Cairo and in Moscow.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe the record is very clear on the position that Senator MUSKIE has taken on the issue of aid to Israel. For the minority leader to try to distort that position in a speech before 400 very distinguished Members of the Congress and members of the Jewish community is, as the gentleman from Maine said, to try to bring this issue into a bipartisan forum at a time when we ought to be standing together. Our Nation for 23 years has been committed under four different Presidents to the principle that Israel is here to stay, and nobody is going to drive Israel into the sea. I believe the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator MUSKIE, has taken that position and has stated it as eloquently and as unequivocally as anything that I might say on this floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. HECKLER of West Virginia). Without objection, the various excerpts adverted to by the gentleman from Illinois will be included in the RECORD.
There was no objection.
Mr. KYROS. I thank the Speaker, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his eloquent remarks concerning Senator MUSKIE's position on Israel. I would suggest that in the light of our discussion of the minority leader's remarks, and in view of the fact that we now have provided sufficient information for him to correct those remarks, that he no longer can be dismayed at what he thought was Senator MUSKIE's position and intent. I believe that the minority leader's remarks were indeed unfortunate – not only as regards a great U.S. Senator, but also as regards a foreign policy which we would all like to be behind in the Middle East. I think the minority leader's remarks were unfortunate in the face of our Nation's fine attempts to achieve a military balance and stability in that area of the world.
Above all, I would call the attention of the Members of this body to the fact that Senator MUSKIE attempted to restate to Premier Kosygin that many Americans today are concerned about the high cost of military spending, and that both the Soviet Union and America mutually would benefit if the cost of such spending in each of our countries were diverted to domestic needs. This is a view which Senator MUSKIE has expressed often and publicly in recent years.
Senator MUSKIE did not explicitly or by any implication suggest that this lessens in any way America's pledge to Israel's security. On the contrary; the Senator has been most emphatic in conveying both to Soviet and to Egyptian leaders his support of the American commitment to Israel's security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. REES. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing their dismay at the actions of the Republican minority floor leader in his purely partisan attack on Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE of Maine, before the meeting of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee last Thursday.
This was a bipartisan meeting to which Members of the Congress were invited. The theme of the meeting was the 23d anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. It was a time to recognize the accomplishments of Israel and to honor this country which is deeply admired by so many of us. The meeting was not for the purpose of making an unfounded, irresponsible partisan attack on a Member of the opposite party.
As the charges were patently misleading, I would like to include for the RECORD what Senator MUSKIE has said publicly concerning Israel, not what the minority leader said he said.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add my voice to those who have spoken out against the irresponsible and improper remarks by the House minority leader at the luncheon meeting of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee on April 29. While I am very concerned about the inaccuracy of Mr. FORD'S statements, I am equally concerned about the impropriety of issuing such a callous political "cheap-shot" at what was without doubt a nonpartisan meeting. The luncheon was arranged by the leadership of both parties and a most distinguished group of leaders of the American Jewish community as well as the Israel Ambassador were present. The remarks of the minority leader were a great source of embarrassment to the organizers of the meeting and the Ambassador was made especially uncomfortable.
Senator MUSKIE is a friend of Israel and a great humanitarian. I can understand the minority leader's desire to discredit a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, but this time Mr. FORD only discredited himself. The Senator's conversations with Soviet leaders centered on the need to limit the arms race and in no way reflected any desire to weaken Israel's security. Senator MUSKIE should be commended for his sincere efforts to lessen the dangers of a world conflagration. The strategy of those who oppose an arms limitation is evidently to sound the alarm that our friends' defensive capabilities will be weakened by any such limitation and then to appeal to interest groups in the United States that have a special affinity or affection for a particular, friendly, nation. This is a sad commentary on both the policies and politics of the GOP.
I hope that the minority leader will take the time to reassess his own position on arms limitations and will extend a most necessary apology to the junior Senator from Maine.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I add my voice on this matter, I hold the minority leader in high personal regard as one who normally places the public interest above any other consideration.
But the gentleman's remarks at last week's luncheon cannot be explained away as an excess of spontaneity. They followed the lines of a prepared press release, appearing to be part of a carefully-orchestrated partisan attack on a front-running Democratic leader. If I have any nose for these things, the gentleman's speech was written in executive offices of the White House.
Had the subject been economic trends, the environment; or even ping-pong, Senator MUSKiE would have been fair game. He is entitled to no special protection against harsh partisan attack – even for the kind that Mr. Nixon likes to call "a cheap shot." But the delicate balance of peace in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker, is no subject for such byplay.
We all yearn for stability in that troubled area – in approaching this goal let us cast aside the vestiges of disruptive and totally unnecessary partisanship.
Mr. PRYOR of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Mr. KYROS, in opposing the use of half-truths in maligning Senator MUSKIE'S position on foreign policy.
I must admit that I am struck by the fact that in defense of bipartisanship in foreign policy, the minority leader has leveled an absolutely partisan attack. More important, however, is the fact that this is certainly not the time in American history to create discord where none need exist.
There will certainly be many opportunities over the course of the next year and a half for Democrats and Republicans to have honest differences of opinion. Those differences serve to make both the two-party system and America, itself, strong. There is no need, however, for differences to be fashioned from half-truths and I am proud to be associated with my colleague from Maine in combating it.
(The material referred to by Mr. PUCINSKI is as follows:)
[From the Washington Post, May 4, 1971]
KOSYGIN HARSH WITH MUSKIE ON MIDEAST
(By Jack Anderson)
A hush-hush reporter to the State Department on Senator Ed Muskie's recent conversations with Soviet leaders reveals, ominously, that Premier Alexei Kosygin spoke "in uncompromising harsh terms" about the Middle East.
A U.S. embassy interpreter, Sol Polansky, accompanied Muskie to the Kremlin with.the understanding that his notes would belong to the senator, not to the State Department.
Later, however, the State Department demanded a full report on the talks. Despite Ambassador Jacob Beam's agreement to respect Muskie's rights to his own confidential conversations, the embassy obediently submitted a detailed summary intended for the eyes only of top administration officials.
We have been shown a copy of the summary, which gives the highlights of Muskie's four-hour meeting with Premier Kosygin and earlier visit with Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko.
"Kosygin," states the summary, "appeared sober, attentive throughout, with some iciness showing through when talking about Jewish problem and heat when talking about Vietnam, and in general was conspicuously more doctrinaire and polemical than Gromyko.
When the conversation got around to the Middle East, Muskie stressed "that no area had more potential for destroying any constructive U.S. Soviet relationship, that it has poisoned the atmosphere on both sides, and resolution of this problem will help eliminate others.
"Kosygin replied in uncompromising harsh terms, charging specifically that:
"A. Israel is settling people on seized Arab territories.
"B. U.S. did not call for settling Arab-Israeli conflict by peaceful means but supported aggression – another example, he said, where U.S. takes position 'on other side of barricade from SU' where major problem is involved.
"C. Israel is like gangster who in U.S. (where there can be large-scale gangster problem) might seize your house and demand that you negotiate with him for its return.
"D. Rejoicing in USG (U.S. government) circles over Israel's victory surprised U.S.S.R. since 200 million Arabs will never be reconciled to loss of territory, and this has become inflammatory factor in the situation.
"E. Arabs will remember U.S. policy and this will not create confidence but rather will build tension by implication between Arabs and U.S."
Kosygin added "that U.S.S.R. had said all along that Israel must exist as independent state but must give up occupied territories. U.S.S.R. was acting in accordance with the relevant SC (United Nations Security Council) resolution.
"Muskie replied that the situation is not black and white as Kosygin described it. It is a question of what is really 'security.’
"Acting as if Israel does not have a security problem is not going to allow a settlement: It is necessary to deal with both Arab desire to recover territories and Israeli desire for security," Muskie said.
MUSKIE, GROMYKO ARGUE
Earlier, Muskie reported to Gromyko on his talks with both Israel and Egyptian officials. The summary quotes Muskie as saying: "While neither side wishes the resumption of hostilities, except as a last resort, their respective positions on territory make the possibility of settlement discouraging.
"Gromyko questioned Israel's view that it can gain security by clinging to occupied territory . . .
'It seems to us that when offered peace and effective guarantees, Israel runs away.'
"There was extended discussion of Israeli view of security with Muskie expressing understanding for Israeli feeling about Golan Heights. 'This is not question of logic.'
"Gromyko argued against need for even minor rectificaations, saying that U.S.S.R. would have answered similar withdrawal offer from Nazi Germany with massed artillery salvos.
"Muskie replied that he distinguished between acquisition of territory in war and rectifications of borders in areas sensitive to security of one or another state. He cited examples of Soviet borders with Finland and Poland and the Oder-Neisse border. He also recalled that it was only after the Six Day War that UA.R. (Egypt) was ready to concede Israel's right of passage through Suez and right to exist.
"Gromyko argued, in turn, that U.S. position on what is necessary to achieve a settlement has continued to expand since 1967, and he referred to international convention which states that U.A.R. has sovereignty over canal, and if U.A.R. agrees to Israeli passage, it should be considered a goodwill gesture of peace.'
"Gromyko also asserted that U.S. could exert 'sobering influence' on Israel to get it to agree to peaceful settlement."
Footnote: The unauthorized embassy summary, incidentally, completely contradicts House GOP leader Gerald Ford's recent attack upon Muskie. Ford gave a distorted account of what Muskie had told Kosygin, although the GOP high command had a complete report of the conversation. Apparently, Ford hoped his attack would keep wealthy Jews from contributing to Muskie's presidential campaign.
EXCERPT OF STATEMENTS MADE BY SENATOR MUSKIE ON THE SUBJECT OF ISRAEL: DAVID FROST SHOW, MARCH 3i, 1971
FROST. How about that other flashpoint of trouble, the Middle East. Currently, with the Egyptian Premier, President, apparently making some concession, the onus, and a lot of opinions coming out of Washington, seems to be that at the moment, it's Israel who's being too unyielding. That seems to be the general view that's emerging at the moment. Is it one you could go along with?
MUSKIE. Well, that's a tactical judgment which is difficult to make without knowing what is being said privately, as well as publicly, by both sides. Israel has very real security problems. They cannot be solved, I don't think, wholly by guarantees, whether they're four power guarantees, or two power guarantees.
The local security situation below the Golan Heights, on the Syrian border; the Sharm El-Sheikh situation which, you know, controls the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, over which the Six Day War began in 1967, the very narrow waist of Israel on the West Bank of the Jordan – these are three local security problems that Israel has every right to be concerned about. And she's trying to pursue them the best she can in a tactical situation which is very difficult. And so I'm not going to try to second guess the tactical moves from the sidelines. But I think that all the countries involved ought to understand, and in a realistic way, Israel's security problems in this connection.
SENATOR MUSKIE'S REMARKS: SPEECH AT PALM BEACH, FLA., FEB. 18, 1971
Then I went to Moscow. You have read more about that than you have about the others. But I had three hours with Mr. Gromyko and almost four with Mr. Kosygin. We discussed many things.
But having come out of the Middle East with these strong impressions that I just described so briefly, I felt that there was one point above all that I must make to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union up to that point, and indeed, up to this point, has indicated complete, one hundred percent support of the Egyptian position, with respect to withdrawal from territories. And, I felt it was important to emphasize Israel'e case for secure and recognized borders. And I was able to do so from my first-hand exposure.
Most of my time with Mr. Gromyko was spent in discussing and debating this question. I also went into it with Mr. Kosygin, not in such details, because I had already covered it with the foreign minister. But both the Egyptians and the Russians tend to cast this question of borders in the context of the principle of withdrawal from conquered territories which is part of the Security Council's resolution. So finally I used an historical precedent to drive the point home to Mr. Gromyko. I said, "What the Israelis are talking about as essential to their national security is a rectification of borders, related to their security needs." And, I said, "Mr. Foreign Minister, you Russians understand what is meant by rectification of borders. You had a little something of it at the end of the Finnish War in 1940. You had a little something more of it along the Polish border, at the end of World War II. Every nation has to be concerned with its security interests and Israel must be as well ...
SENATOR MUSKIE'S REMARKS AT CLEVELAND, OHIO, FEB. 10, 1971
Israel's neighbors must recognize that Israel is here to stay. They must recognize – and so must others – that the United States is and will remain committed to Israel's security. That is what I told the students at Hebrew University I would say when I went to Cairo, and that is what I did say, both in Cairo and in Moscow.
ISSUES AND ANSWERS: FEBRUARY 7, 1971
Mr. GILL. Senator, there has been some confusion by new reports about your talks with Russia's Premier Kosygin. Now you reportedly said during that conversation with Mr. Kosygin that there was a large body of opinion in this country that would favor cuts in military spending. To clear up the confusion about that conversation, can you tell us what you did say to Mr. Kosygin on this point?
Senator MUSKIE. First of all I did not say what you have described in your question. I made it clear to Mr. Kosygin as I did to every head of state I met on the trip, that I was there as an individual Senator, that I was not there in any official capacity, that I did not represent the Administration, that I was not there to criticize the Administration, that I was there to exchange points of view and to express my own in the process.
Now, with respect to the question of armaments, I launched this discussion in terms of the long term. I pointed out that I believed that unless we found a way to reach meaningful agreements with the Soviet Union that what we would see would be an escalation of arms, the commitment of even greater proportions of our material resources to the cost of arms, a diversion of those resources away from the problem of dealing with human needs of our people and those of other people around the globe, and the end result of this kind of movement would be an increased risk of war and the end of life on this planet. And so that in terms of the long-term, I wanted him to understand how urgent was my feeling that the Soviet Union and the United States find some way to stabilize the arms race.
Secondly, I said that because we each had the power to destroy each other, we each understandably feared the ultimate intentions of the other, that that fear and the distrust which it breeds are real problems that we each must deal with and that these fears are exacerbated by such problems as the Middle East problem, the continually arising problem of Berlin, and others. That in addition there were internal developments from time to time in our countries that raised doubts as to the ultimate intentions of the other, problems such as the treatment of Jewish minorities in the Soviet Union, problems such as the continuing speculation now that hard-liners are taking over in Moscow and the Soviet Union. I mean, this was the frankness with which we discussed developments.
REMARKS BY GERALD R.. FORD, TO THE AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C. April 29, 1971
(Excerpts taken from page 2 of Ford's release)
"In exercising such caution it is vital that we maintain the great bastion of bi-partisan Congressional support of Israel. Such support strengthens the hand of our President who is committed to a just peace. But I am troubled that some very important Members of the United States Senate are abandoning bi-partisanship on the Middle East and are making statements that facilitate the Soviet Union's anti-Israel pressures.
"I am thinking of one Senator who is seeking our highest national office. Earlier this year he went to the Middle East and then called on Soviet Premier Kosygin in Moscow. He told Kosygin that "there was a strong body of opinion in the United States" opposed to U.S. defense appropriations linked to our foreign commitments including the Middle East.
"I am dismayed that such a well-informed Senator could visit Israel and Egypt where he actually witnessed the ongoing Soviet military build-up and still find it possible to go to Moscow and tell Kosygin that there was disunity between him and President Nixon on U.S. military spending that relates to Israel's security. This was a disservice to Israel's security. It was a disservice to the bipartisan foreign policy objectives of the United States. It tended to undermine the credibility of American deterrence of the growing military involvement against Israel. It undercut the impact of President Nixon's visit to the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean last autumn when the President served notice on Moscow that we were prepared to defend freedom in the Mediterranean.
"I am dismayed that this Senator could ignore what the Soviet Union is doing not only in the United Arab Republic but also through its intervention in such places as Ceylon, Sudan and East Pakistan. Russia's MIG's and Russian bombs are killing peasants in those places. But some are too busy denouncing our own nation to notice."