Rogers: I don’t believe there’s any difference of views on anything. Iwould just like to express some of my own thoughts on that. First, it seems tome we should engage in the maximum diplomatic efforts to do everything we can tocaution restraint on both sides at the highest level always so that everyone canlook at the record and see that we have done everything we can diplomatically.Secondly, I think that our relations with Yahya are good and should continue tobe good and we should continue to keep very close to him. Three, I don’t thinkwe should try to mastermind a political solution. I never thought so. I don’tthink it’s possible, and I think he is coming to the conclusion that somethinghas to be done politically.
Nixon: Yahya do it on his own?
Rogers: He is going to have to do it on his own.
Nixon: Do you agree with that?
Kissinger: Completely.
Rogers: Now, he is—
Nixon: As a matter of fact, when the foreign minister was in here, he seemed tome, I didn’t get too specific, but he seemed to be awfully reasonable on thatsubject.
Rogers: Well let me say that I think he’s going to be forced to do something,either that or he’s going to get out. There is a possibility he would turnover to Bhutto, which would not be a good development.
Nixon: Bhutto!
Kissinger: But he’s planning that anyway. [unclear]
Nixon: Turn over to Bhutto?
Rogers: Well, he says he is, but I’m not so sure. I have a feeling that if hecan pull this out that he may stay in some capacity. But in any event, I thinkthat the thing we have to face up to, and not make any decisions, so this is notto ask you to decide anything, but I think, I want to express my view that Ithink that it’s probably going to get worse. I don’t see any solutionfor—so that I think that our principal objective should be to do what we canto prevent fighting from breaking out.
Nixon: Let me ask this, just 1 minute to bring me up to date. I saw the morningpapers and the morning report. To what extent are they fighting now? They had ajet fight, I understand. That doesn’t mean that there’s a damn war going on.
Rogers: Well—
Nixon: Are there—do the Indians deny still that they had divisions in there?
Rogers: Yes, yes. And I think maybe that they don’t have divisions but theycertainly have brigades. And they’ve got people in there—
Nixon: It’s like North Vietnam still denying they are in South Vietnam.
Rogers: And it’s true there is one building, a major penetration. And in twoother areas it looks as though there is penetration. No one is exactly sure. ButI have no knowledge. It’s tough to tell them apart, of course, becausethey’re with the guerrillas. Now—
Kissinger: The guerrillas, the guerrillas have been operating with brigadestrength with artillery support and air support and tanks. So even if they’retechnically—I mean, this doesn’t just happen [unclear exchange].
Rogers: The question really is how, how much are they involved and how [unclear]will they say, and so forth. My own judgment is that they are going to get moreinvolved. Secondly, I think that we have to face the fact that Yahya’sposition militarily is extremely weak. He’s got 60–80,000 men in EastPakistan. He has a whole lot of trouble—
Nixon: He’ll be demolished there.
Rogers: Yeah, and that’s, of course, where the fighting is going on. Andit’s a 2,500-mile flight around the edge of the land. So that the logistics,you know, are impossible from that standpoint. And the, as I say, my ownjudgment is that probably it will get worse, and probably we have to face up tothe fact that it will get worse.
Nixon: [unclear] avoid getting too much blood [unclear]. We’re not reallyresponsible for every war.
Rogers: Oh, we’re not getting the blame so far.
Nixon: What is our [unclear] so far?
Rogers: No.
Nixon: You’re responsible even more than we were, very much for this, don’tyou think so, Henry? [unclear exchange]
Rogers: I think that’s what we should continue to try to do since [unclear]. Ithink the other thing that I want to stress [unclear]. Our ability to affect thecourse of events is quite limited. We don’t have much leverage. We have a fewthings we can do. We are still providing some military equipment and spareparts, and it’s not lethal weapons, but it’s very, very insignificant. Ouraid program is pretty well committed. Theoretically, we could turn some of itoff, but it would create all kinds of legal problems. Hell of a problem withbanks and companies that [unclear] equipment. And it wouldn’t have any effecton the military situation at the moment. Whether we should take some actionsthat would be symbolic or not I think is something you won’t [will?] decide.We could take some action. For example, I already have told my peopleadministratively not to grant any export licenses. Not just say that [unclear]process them.
Kissinger: To whom?
Nixon: India?
Rogers: To diminish the total.
Kissinger: [unclear]
Rogers: Oh, no, no, no. Just said to the processing officer to slow down theprocessing. As of yesterday but don’t grant them until we decide, until thePresident decides what he wants to do. Secondly, I have told our aid people thatthere’s another, there is about $11 million not committed. I said"let’s don’t commit it till we see what develops."
Nixon: Where is this [unclear]?
Rogers: But the fact of the matter, without going into all the details, that Ihave gone over very carefully [unclear] some of which we don’t know, some ofthese things are done by the Congress, and some are done by the [unclear], youknow all that, but still the leverage we have on India is very minimal. If wetake some action against them, which you might decide to do, it would besymbolic rather than substantive. Now the other point I want to refer to brieflyis the United Nations. I do not think, and have never thought, that we shouldtake any action to take it to the United Nations. On the other hand, I think theUnited Nations will be a very useful organization if things get worse, because,and I have a feeling that Pakistan will come to this conclusion itself—
Nixon: Will they [unclear] beyond the UN? [unclear]
Rogers: That’s why India has just written, why Mrs. Gandhi has just written usa letter in which she urges us not to do anything, not to take it to the UN.Obviously, the Indians are worried about it.
Nixon: Huh.
Rogers: You see she doesn’t—
Nixon: Do they have the votes? Hell, they can get all the Russian votes. Theygot the African—
Kissinger: This is the Security Council.
Nixon: Oh.
Rogers: You see what would happen in the Security [Council]—
Nixon: I see. This wouldn’t be a General Assembly thing?
Rogers: No, no.
Kissinger: By Thursday.
Rogers: No, it wouldn’t be. The reason that India doesn’t want it is becauseshe doesn’t want any United Nations presence. She doesn’t want any observersthere. Pakistan’s position is much more reasonable than India’s. That’swhy India doesn’t want—she’s made an appeal to keep it out of the SecurityCouncil.
Nixon: Well, what—we probably [unclear–have not?] got much control. I thinkthat’s your view, isn’t Henry? The United Nations, we are not going to takeit to the United Nations?
Kissinger: No.
Rogers: Well, I think what we ought to keep in mind, though, is I think onbalance it will be the only alternative that Yahya has and it will be helpful tohim. He wants to get through December because he’s got his plans made for thisnew, for this Constitution to go into effect at the end of December, first ofJanuary. If he can keep peace there for a couple of months then he may feel thathe’s on the road to a political solution. What will happen in the UnitedNations, in the Security Council, is that they will, among other things, theywill say why don’t we send a United Nations observer team to the area and makea report and so forth. Now she’ll resist that. She’s already resisted it.She said she doesn’t want the United Nations there. She doesn’t want anybodyto look at what they’re doing. Yahya has the United Nations people in EastPakistan. He’s perfectly prepared for that. He also is prepared to withdrawhis troops from the border if India will do likewise. So that the things thatthe Security Council would recommend in the way of military action and observersand so forth I think would all benefit Yahya. Now the risk, of course, is thatIndia will also bring into the Security Council political questions. But I thinkthat those are manageable. Of course, India will be tremendously embarrassed ifit goes to the Security Council. Now I say these things, not with the thoughtthat we should take action, but with the thought that we should resist fightingPakistan who will move in this direction. Yahya’s told us that this is hisonly alternative, really.
Nixon: At this time? Has he said it recently?
Rogers: I don’t know. When I say recently I know it’s less than—
Nixon: Yeah, what I mean is since the trouble started.
Rogers: Yeah, I think this is one of the things that they are considering. And,of course, in the Security Council we would be China, Pakistan, and the UnitedStates all on one side, so we’ve got some pretty good leverage. And what wewould do is emphasize keeping the peace. And we would say, "We urge bothsides to exercise extreme restraint." We would urge United Nations to sendobservers there to find out what the conditions are. We would urge a mutualwithdrawal. We would urge the very thing that Yahya has offered. That’s whyshe resists this. That’s why her very strong letter to you, in order to keepit out of the Security Council.
Nixon: [unclear exchange]
Rogers: It wasn’t yesterday.
Nixon: Since the trouble started?
Kissinger: No, no.
Rogers: Oh, I guess probably I didn’t notice the date.
Nixon: That’s all right.
Kissinger: It came in on Friday.
Rogers: What’s the date today?
Kissinger: Twenty-fourth.
Nixon: Twenty-fourth.
[unclear exchange]
Rogers: [unclear] Very strong plea to keep it out of the Security Council. So Ithink what I would like to—
Nixon: She must have made that plea—what I’m just, the date is important.She made that plea knowing that she was going to order this attack on Pakistan.
Rogers: That’s right.
Nixon: I think. That’s my guess. She can’t, she can’t, [unclear] as youknow, [unclear] without doing some directing it, without a hell of a lot ofplanning. So she must have known.
Rogers: [unclear]
Nixon: You know, the thing I would say, the main point I would like to do[unclear], the only thing about the symbolism, Bill, that concerns me, is that Iimplied when I met her, and you also talked to her about the fact that theCongress [unclear]. And I talked to her and said [unclear]. We know India haslots of friends, but I said there’s no way that Congress [unclear] withVietnam and everything. I said there’s one thing that’s happened in thiscountry, and it doesn’t make any difference where it is, whether it’sNigeria, or South Asia, or anywhere else. The American Senate is [inclined] to[keep] hands off any situation where fighting breaks out. That’s theirattitude. And I was very strong on that. Now I know it can be said that itwon’t do any good, and we don’t have any leverage, and it’s only symbolicand the rest. But on the other hand, I want you to look into what we could dothat is symbolic because I think we need some symbolism. The other thing is,which I think is very important, looking at the balance there, the Indians aregoing to win. And they are going to lose too. But they are going to win withoutany question. Pakistan eventually will disintegrate. East Pakistan [unclear] alittle down the road. So it is very much in our interest to get the damn thingcooled if we can. In other words, just on the merits India doesn’t want tocool it. They want Pakistan to disintegrate. Despite what she says that’s whatshe wants, there’s no question about that. Now under those circumstances, itseems to me that, clearly apart from the fact that Yahya has been more decent tous than she has, clearly apart from that, I think that our policy wherever wecan should definitely be tilted toward Pakistan, and not toward India. I thinkIndia is more at fault. Let me put it this way, if we could get, if the Congresscould get all excited about cutting off aid to Pakistan when it involved aninternal Pakistan problem—
Rogers: Yeah.
Nixon: —it seems to me that Congress should get twice as excited when itinvolves cutting off aid to India when India is engaged in a violent, across theborder operation. Now my view is that very strongly, I mean, I didn’t franklyfeel that Congress should cut off aid to Pakistan. I mean, when the country hasinternal problems [unclear]. Is the British thing worked out? Is that [unclearexchange]. Let’s support them on that.
Rogers: Oh, sure.
Nixon: Home should know that we will back him.
Kissinger: Well we—
Nixon: [unclear]
Rogers: Oh, yeah.
Nixon: Well I want you to know that you could let—be sure Home knows it. Itold him when he was here that they had made a deal [unclear]. Now, so havingsaid that, it seems to me that our whole game has got to be played—if youcould find something symbolic to do I think it really has to be…
Rogers: Well, we can.
Nixon: She knows, she knows that we didn’t shoot blanks when she was here.Maybe it doesn’t mean anything. Second, in terms of the merits of thesituation, to the extent we can tilt it toward Pakistan, I would prefer to playthat. That’s where the UN game comes in. Now I would say there that if Yahya,he feels it’s in his interest, if he pushed the UN game, that’s one thing.But I couldn’t agree more with the proposition that we shouldn’t push the UNgame if there’s any feeling that it might be to the detriment of Pakistan. Nowyou feel it’s the other way.
Rogers: You know we haven’t done any [unclear].
Nixon: I understand. Well, I know we haven’t done anything yet. But the pointis what do we do now. They’re going to ask are we prepared to go to the UnitedNations and all that. Joe [unclear–Sisco?] talked about that today.
Rogers: Well there are two things about the United Nations that I think weshould keep in mind. One, I think on balance that Pakistan will come off betterthan India.
Nixon: In the UN?
Rogers: In the UN—in the Security Council. Because there’s nothing you cando by way of—we can try to work out a political accommodation. That’ssomething that has to be done inside Pakistan. There are many things you can doto counsel military restraint. You can send people there. I’ve talked to allthe UN people who’ve been out there and they’ve all been very upset aboutthe lack of cooperation on Mrs. Gandhi’s part. She’s made, I think, a verybad impression in this country by saying that she didn’t want the UnitedNations presence and so forth. So I think on balance, I think they would benefitby the Security Council action. There would be some fallout that would becritical of Yahya, even Mujib, but I think that would be less important than theaction that the UN would take to have a presence in India. That’s what shedoesn’t want. She doesn’t want to get caught at it. She’s denying thatthese troops are invading Pakistan. She’s denying that they are trainingguerrillas and all these other things. Now if you had a presence of the UnitedNations, there you’d have a good answer. She will resist it. She will resistit strongly. She’s very strongly opposed to it. So I think on balance it wouldbe helpful to Pakistan. I’ll let that be your own judgment. But where doesthat lead me? It just leads me to this conclusion: that we shouldn’t doanything to discourage it. I don’t think we should carry the lead. And Idon’t think we should counsel [unclear] if we’re asked. I think it would bebeneficial to Pakistan. And I think most people that have studied it will cometo that conclusion. Secondly, I agree fully with the idea that we ought to tilttoward Pakistan. We have. My problem is I dislike the Indians so goddamn much. Ihad trouble even being reasonable with them.
Nixon: Right. Well, in tilting toward them for 25 years, it has only gotten us akick in the pants.
Rogers: So, really now when you say you’re [unclear].
Nixon: How do we do it?
Rogers: Oh I [unclear] bring over here this afternoon, which you can take withyou, which will suggest several ways we can take action. One would be right nowwe’d just announce that we’re not going to grant any more export licenses intheir sales act. And that would be perfectly consistent with what we did in thecase of Pakistan. It doesn’t have any, it doesn’t have any real meaning toit. But the symbolism.
Nixon: Small arms.
Rogers: That’s right.
Nixon: Spare parts. That could be done.
Rogers: That can be done. We actually could embargo everything in the pipeline.We’ve got maybe, well we may have $10 or $15 million worth in the pipeline.
Nixon: Military?
Rogers: Military equipment. But most, a lot of it is communications equipment.Some of it is tools for manufacturing ammunitions.
Nixon: Yeah. They got arms?
Rogers: We could do that. That’s quite a job if we embargoed everything. Thatwould really be passing judgment. We did not do that in the case of Pakistan. Ifyou remember we did not grant any new licenses. [unclear exchange] Now, we justclose the pipeline off. We could, we could say that we’re not going to permiteconomic assistance [to be] committed, it’s about $11 million worth. It’sinsignificant. I think that would be probably not a wise thing to do becausewe’re going to have to provide help for them for the refugees anyway. We got alot of money, $250 million, for food and that sort of thing.
Nixon: What at the present time, though, are we doing for Pakistan? Have we gotnothing going there?
Rogers: Oh, yes. Yeah, we have—
Nixon: Still, some economic stuff.
Rogers: Yeah. Oh, yes. We’ve got about, what is the total, Henry, 200 [unclearexchange].
Nixon: I guess, any action on Pakistan.
Kissinger: Well, the astounding thing [unclear] Mr. President, where theargument is made that economic assistance isn’t effective. Cutting it offisn’t effective. It’s almost the best argument against economic assistance.[unclear]
Rogers: Well, Henry, all I’ve got to say is [unclear] that it’s committed.In other words, economic assistance to India, $300 and some odd million is donein irrevocable letters and credit, so we can’t get out of that. Now on some ofthese contracts we had a lot of—
Nixon: At least let me see, let me see what the operative [unclear]. You know wejust, I just may want to take a hard line on that.
Kissinger: We had 11 million, as Bill says, in obligated total funds [unclear].And then we have 107 [unclear]. And then from then on it gets more difficult.
Rogers: Yeah, 380 million. The bulk of it is committed. We just can’t dickerwith it.
Kissinger: In addition to that, there’s an appeal for an aid agreementthat’s ready to be signed if we can drag out these arms.
Rogers: Oh, [unclear] that’s no problem.
Kissinger: And then there’s another $100 million item.
Nixon: Well I just want to see that. [unclear] It may be—
Kissinger: One point I would like to make, Mr. President, for yourconsideration, I agree on the UN. I’m in total agreement with Bill. I think weshould [unclear] absolutely right. And it’s going to go that way. We shouldtake then initiative if it comes that way.
Nixon: Now let’s, just on the UN thing, because I won’t be exposed to anyquestioning on this till Monday or Tuesday, till Tuesday of next week.
Rogers: Your press conference is on Tuesday?
Nixon: I may have it Tuesday. But it depends on how much of this in the Cabinet.You may be exposed to questions and Ziegler may. Now what do we want to sayabout this in your opinion?
Rogers: My opinion—
Nixon: See, I don’t think you can sort of take the idea that. . . I don’tthink you can take the idea that well the UN—a very delicate thing. A lot ofpeople are, why the Christ aren’t we for the UN getting in? What do you think?
Kissinger: Well, we haven’t said we’re against the UN.
Nixon: I know. Well, that’s the point. What should Bill say? The same thing.What I meant is I think we’ve got to do nothing about getting in the UN. Butit sort of appears that, well that’s—what do you think?
Rogers: I—
Nixon: What can you say?
Rogers: Well, I think the ideal—
Nixon: You may be put to that very soon.
Rogers: I think our position should be for the moment we’re watchingdevelopments, we’re actively engaged in diplomatic activity.
Nixon: That’s right.
Rogers: I’m going to talk, in fact, to the Indian Chargé, he’s trying tosee me with some special message now. And I’ll try to see the Paks so we cansay we’ve talked to everybody. And we’ve talked to the Russians. So that wecan say that we’ve done all this and that kind of activity. Now, we’vegotten a good deal of credit for that already.
Nixon: I think so.
Rogers: We’ve been very active, and we aren’t committed necessarily toeither side. Secondly, on the, it seems to me we can say we’re doing this,we’re watching the situation carefully, we’re consulting with all theparties concerned. That we haven’t—that there’s no judgment on that yet.We have no decision. That we would assume that that’s something that eachnation will want to consider itself, leaving the impression that that reallyhelps Pakistan. Pakistan makes the first move and India resists, they’ll gaina good deal.
Nixon: Yeah.
Rogers: Because people will say that India must be responsible. India [unclear]the United Nations. And I think that they—
Nixon: That’s the thing that I can’t understand Bill, that Mrs. Gandhi, thatshe’s reading the P.R. wrong there, don’t you agree, Henry? Becausethey’ve resisted the UN on refugees and everything else. Pakistan has invitedthem in.
Kissinger: Well, their crimes are not in P.R. [unclear exchange] Well, Mr.President, it’s not inconceivable that the Indians are trying this one onbecause they don’t seem irrevocably committed to go in deep. They’re sort of[unclear] in nearly division strength. So, if we show at this point, not yet[unclear] irrevocable strength, I think it would be wrong to cut away now. Butif we—
Nixon: [unclear]
Kissinger: We could do a number of things that warn them that something iscoming. And if it escalates—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: All we would have done is a very mild démarche to [unclear].
Nixon: There’s another reason that it just, I feel that it might have aneffect. Bill, you know, I called on her after you met with her. You told her,"Now look here, you’re going to catch hell on this." I think, I feelthat we must not shoot blanks. Because I also told, well even Tito when he washere. I said [unclear] I told him much more directly when we were talking atdinner [unclear]. He was on the Indian side of course. I said, well let’s justunderstand one thing. I said I don’t know what’s going to happen. But ifthere’s a breakout of war, you can forget United States aid to India. And Ifeel that we ought to do something symbolic, I really feel it.
Rogers: Yeah, there’s no problem there.
Nixon: That I think something symbolic might have an effect, might have aneffect, on restraining India. That—I don’t know. Many people think itwon’t?
Rogers: Well, we haven’t gotten the reports back from the telegrams we sentout. I’ll see this fellow when I get back to the office. But I think what, Mr.President, maybe—
Nixon: Keating’s a traitor.
Kissinger: [unclear]
Rogers: I think what we might do is wait until Friday, this announcement onFriday that we have suspended the, issuing any further export licenses. Nowthat’s what we did last time.
Nixon: Let me suggest this, I think it would be helpful, Henry—Bill it’s onthe list here today for Ziegler to say that this was the subject of thediscussion, is that all right?
Kissinger: I think that would be very—
Nixon: We had an hour discussion on India–Pakistan and then I think we willcontinue to meet on Friday. In other words, we will have a whole newconversation and so forth. But that gives us time to think about it. I want toread the paper, could you have something by five o’clock?
Rogers: Oh, yeah.
Nixon: I mean that these alternatives—things are options that we can do. Iwon’t, as you know [unclear–do?] anything that is useless or anything.
Rogers: We don’t want to seem petulant.
Nixon: But on the other hand, very firm. That we want to be helpful. But Ithink, I think in anything that we say there should be a very positive statementthat the United States commitment to help refugees, to help hungry people, etcetera remains. And that’s where, Henry, you can continue with this potentialPL– 480 to both Pakistan and India, granted so that we are feeding peoplethere. Right?
Kissinger: That’s right.
Nixon: On the other hand, military stuff. Boy, we could be awfully tough.
Rogers: I wish we had. [unclear]
Nixon: One thing, I mention this [unclear] with SALT. I’ve mentioned this toHenry, this multilateral aid thing, we have got to get some stroke. I thinkthat’s a study for the next 2 or 3 months.
Rogers: I couldn’t agree more.
Nixon: I just, every time we turn around and we try to fight the UN; Bill, wehaven’t got any stroke with anybody.
[unclear exchange]
Nixon: World Bank
Kissinger: I don’t think they would lightly go into a confrontation with us,if we catch them early enough.
Nixon: Who?
Kissinger: The Indians.
Nixon: Now, the interesting thing is how do you both read the Russian thing? Youread the Russian thing totally that they’re acting in a restraining way onIndia? Do you believe that?
Rogers: I do.
Nixon: Do you?
Kissinger: I think they are trying to restrain them but not very hard.
Rogers: Why?
Kissinger: Why, because there is some advantage to have [unclear] the Chinesepresence.
Nixon: They want to screw the Chinese.
Kissinger: Humiliate them.
Nixon: On the other hand, well, on the other hand, it’s going to cost Russia ahell of a lot of money. I mean by a lot a great deal because they’ve got tosupport India in this war. And that they’re not for, are they? That’s whythey ended the other one—the India-Pakistan [unclear–war?] Russia didn’tdo that.
Kissinger: Well, I think the Indians are such, my reading of the Indians is thatany rational assessment should indicate that there is only one way a politicalrevolution can go [unclear]. So they know they’ve got that. But what they arepressing for is so traumatic a settlement on the East Pakistan situation thatthe West Pakistan situation starts unraveling also. And what they want is toreduce West Pakistan to something like Afghanistan status. And that they are theonly significant country. They want to turn East Pakistan into a sort of Bhutan.And after that, I’m willing to predict [unclear]. Because East Pakistansuffers from neglect from West Pakistan. I think the Indians have a vestedinterest in keeping them down.
Rogers: Yeah.
Kissinger: Because if East Bengal becomes even nominally [unclear] then WestBengal is going to be attractive.
Nixon: It’s already a horrible place.
Kissinger: So they want to make sure that East Bengal is worse off than WestBengal [unclear].
Nixon: That’s right.
Rogers: I’m not sure—I think that Henry’s right. I suppose there’s a lotof that thinking. But also a lot of it is just hatred—they hate. Just sheerhate.
Kissinger: No that’s [unclear exchange].
Nixon: I think actually that both Pakistan and India hate each other so muchthat they are totally irrational about [unclear]. They really are. You talk to aPakistani and get his take.
Rogers: Just like a man and wife. They hate each other and they are too jealousto care about the welfare of the children. They just hate each other.
Nixon: I don’t think Yahya’s that far.
Rogers: No, he isn’t.
Nixon: But Bhutto. Now what—really what he did is disgusting.
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: Good God. What am I thinking?
Rogers: Not helpful. He’s supposed to be, he’s more leftish than—
Nixon: Oh, he’s leftish. I know. But which way? Is he anti-India? Anti-US?
Kissinger: Violently anti-Indian. Pro-Chinese.
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: But in a way we gain a lot if he comes in.
Nixon: Right.
Kissinger: —we have less obligations to—
Nixon: Bhutto might make a deal with the other fellow. Would he make a deal withthis Mujib guy?
Rogers: No.
Nixon: No.
Rogers: That’s, of course, part of the trouble. The reason that—
Nixon: You ever met Bhutto?
Rogers: No. No.
Nixon: More important, have you ever met his wife? Boy, she is one of the mostbeautiful women in the world.
Kissinger: It depends, Mr. President.
[unclear exchange]
Kissinger: If Mujib is, if they’re thinking of a united Pakistan then Bhuttowould never deal with Mujib. Because he’s afraid that Mujib will aim for theprime ministership.
Nixon: Right.
Kissinger: If, however, to [unclear] Bengal, then Bhutto is in a better positionto present himself than Yahya. Yahya is a better man for reconciliation. Bhuttois—
Nixon: Yahya is a thoroughly decent and reasonable man. Not always smartpolitically, but he’s a decent man.
Rogers: Quick note on what Henry said, and that is—if Yahya steps out of thepicture,which is quite possible. That means that he’s given up on EastPakistan. Cause Bhutto can’t—
Nixon: Yeah, yeah. Bhutto basically has been—he hasn’t changed. My lastreport is one of my basic [unclear] in ’67 when I was there, is that theson-of-a-bitch is a total demagogue. And therefore Ayub Khan gave me a rundownon him, and he’s a pretty good judge of men, and he said this fellow is justbad news.
Rogers: Let me say, Mr. President, when you asked me what I thought the Russianswere doing, I think they would like to have a major war avoided. But I agreethat they are not restraining the Indians too much. In other words, they wantthe Indians to do much as they are doing. I think they hope a major war can beavoided. I think to that extent they help. I wouldn’t be surprised if theypull back a while on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if next week or so it coolsoff a little bit. But I don’t think it’s going to cool off—
Nixon: Well, let me talk to one other subject, which I think also relates tothis—relates to what you, we decided on Friday. I don’t want us to getcaught in this—we of course are interested in results—but I don’t want toget caught in the business where we take the heat for a miserable war that wehad nothing do with.
Rogers: No.
Nixon: I think it’s very important that we do enough, that we appear tobe—but I think we just got to get it across to the American people that wecannot be responsible for every goddamn war in the world. Now we weren’tresponsible for the Nigerian war. We are not responsible for this war. The ideathat this thing, and the refugees, and Pakistan and the rest, we couldn’tavoid that, could we?
Rogers: As a matter of fact, that’s another advantage of having the thing inthe Security Council, because then it does put the heat on the United Nations,and distinguishes it from us. There’s very little we can do.
Nixon: Do you have any thought there as to how we—I think we got to, I sensethese political things developing. You know, we’re doing well in severalfields. But I just don’t want this thing to muddy the water. I mean, how canwe avoid getting caught in the [unclear]. Now the United States—why didn’twe avoid the war with India-Pakistan?
Kissinger: The truth of the matter is, if anything produced the war, not sayingwe did it, was the Indians [who] see the Pakistanis in a uniquely weak position,with the world opinion turned against them. And basically there’s anopportunity they’ll never get again for at least [unclear]. So if any mistakewas made it was being too hard on Pakistan. [unclear] Secondly, I think, we havea very aggressive record. Of one we haven’t backed down, first for therefugees, secondly for relief in East Pakistan, and thirdly in moving thingsconcretely towards the political evolution. We’re the only ones that pass thattest.
Rogers: Yeah.
Kissinger: We got the military governor replaced with a civilian governor. Wegot them to admit UN observers. We got them to permit UN peace [unclear].
[unclear exchange]