Washington Straight Talk; Duke Mansfield

Senator Mike Mansfield, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, tonight on Washington Strait Talk, Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana is interviewed by NPAC correspondent Paul Duke. Senator, you said in a speech yesterday it's time for the United States to take some new risks for peace to start pursuing some new diplomatic initiatives. What did you have in mind? Well, I had in mind that we ought to carry out a reassessment not just of our foreign policy, not just in the Middle East where we're doing it voluntarily, not just in the Southeast Asian area where we're being forced to, but throughout the world. I think also we ought to go a little more deeper into the salt talks having to do with limitations of nuclear weapons and devices, and instead of discussing limitations, see what we could

do to bring about reductions, which I think is the answer to recognize that we'll have to change our image from the post-war to syndrome, which is market for the past 30 years, and to face up to the reality of the present and to plan for the future and not to look so much back to the past. Do you agree with Senator Kennedy that we should move toward a stop in all nuclear testing now to have some kind of agreement with the Russians not to have any more nuclear tests? That would be very much worthwhile and would fit in as a first step, I think, towards reduction of nuclear armaments. And in any reevaluation of our foreign policy, do you think we should revise, we should update our CETO obligations in the Pacific and Asian area? Oh, I think we ought to abolish CETO because it's really nothing but a paper pact. It never has been strong, practically all the members who signed originally have departed and the only two remaining members of substance are Thailand

and the Philippines, along with us, and we have, of course, a defense arrangement with the Philippines, which would be an effect and force, if need be. But as one of those who signed the Manila Treaty, the so-called CETO pact, along with John Foster Dulles and the late Alexander Smith, the Senate of New Jersey, I never thought it was much value, I think it's less value now, and we ought to look at these arrangements we've made throughout the world and consider, for example, not only the abolishment of CETO, but the effectiveness of CENTO, so-called, to the Central Treaty Organization, comprising Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, with the United Kingdom and the U.S. as observers. Well, if we do make this overhaul in our foreign policy and if we do abolish CETO, as you suggest, what then should be the basic ingredients of a new foreign policy?

Well, that's something we'd have to work out, but I don't think that our foreign policy should tie us to the mainland of Asia. I think we should follow the advice of authorities like Eisenhower, MacArthur, Ridgeway, recognize that our first line of defense lies not on the Asian mainland, but on the island chain of the Asian mainland, and in that way, I think, be able to better live up to our responsibilities and avoid intervention in civil wars and the like. Do you feel, Senator Mansfield, that in recent years we have related to the rest of the world too much in military terms? Too much, yes indeed. And do you feel now that we must relate more in humanitarian terms that we should be more concerned about? Food policy, economic policy? Those things in terms of working out, right, pro-Shma, and new agreements with other countries? Yes, I would agree

with that thesis. I don't think that we should be the one with the big stick ready to step in in any part of the world when trouble occurs because we have neither the manpower, nor the resources to do so. We're limited in both, as a matter of fact, we are becoming a have-not nation in too many areas, economically speaking. And I think what we ought to try to develop is an attitude of mutual respect, mutual understanding, and mutual recognition of one another as neighbors on this rapidly shrinking globe. Well speaking of the big stick, some people here in Washington are now having second thoughts about the ship seizure incident. Do you think that the military force that we employed in that episode was warranted, and do you have any thoughts that this was an example of gunboat diplomacy? Well, I had some questions about it, but as long as the operations turned out successfully, in that all the crew members were relieved of their captivity, that the ship

has been allowed to gain its freedom, my feeling is one of relief that the matter has been disposed of. But in doing so, of course, we paid a pretty stiff price in casualties. We carried on activities against the mainland, which I think might not have been necessary. And it was a chancey adventure, because if things hadn't worked out as they had, and the Cambodian, for example, had withdrew some or part of the crew into the hinterland, what would our next step be? And would it cause another intervention in Indochina? But because of its success, despite the casualties, which I deeply and sincerely regret, all I can say is that I'm relieved that it's over and behind us as far as the ship and its crew are concerned. Well, did we pay two stiff a price,

because as it turns out, either directly or indirectly, we lost as many men as we saved. Probably more if you total up the casualties altogether. And evidently, most of them were lost in or around Cotang Island. But I remember raising the question with the president after the plan had been announced in a White House meeting with the leadership. If it was known where the crew members were, the answer was no. So they were just taking no chances. They hit Cotang. There were three places to be hit on the mainland. But it's well to remember that during the course of this activity, the Cambodians did send back the crew members. But evidently, the activity was underway and could not be stopped. Though I think we ought to have better communications in case settlements can be reached through diplomatic or returnable means

that we could bring about an instant stop or something approximating it. Isn't it true, though, Senator, that if this ship had been seized by a major power, say China, that we would have exercised considerable more restraint than we did? Oh, no question about that. And the difficulty, as I understand it, was the lack of diplomatic contacts either through Peking. The people's Republic of China, which I understand returned a note, we'd asked them to deliver, returned it unopened. And the Cambodian embassy in Peking, I note in the papers recently, this may or may not be true, that Prince Yanuk has said that the Cambodian embassy in Peking did not receive any note of any kind. Did the President violate the spirit, if not the letter of the War Powers Act, so recently approved by Congress, designed to give Congress a greater say in these emergency matters? In part, he adhered to it by sending to the Congress in writing a resume of his activities

within the 48-hour period call for the War Powers Act. But there was no consultation with the appropriate members of the Congress prior to that time. There were three briefings, and you may recall that I believe was Ron Nesson, issued a statement saying that the leadership of the Congress had been consulted and had approved. That was not the fact, because we were briefed after the plans had been made and operations put into effect, but not consulted. Well, after everything we've been through, aren't you myth that they didn't consult you in advance? No, I'm not mythed, really, because I think the President had the power to act under his constitutional responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief. But I do think, not speaking personally, believe me, that President's would be much better off if they would turn to the Congress for

advice and counsel, especially when they have served in that body, as so many of them have in recent years, so that they could get the reaction from their friends, regardless of party as to what the representatives of the people think. He doesn't have to take the advice, but he could ask for it, and it could be given consideration. The decision would have to be his as to its final disposal. On that very point, Senator, one of your colleagues, Senator Eglton of Missouri, is now proposing an amendment to the War Powers Act that would require the President to seek the advice and counsel of Congress. Do you favor such an amendment? Yes, I do. Again, not speaking personally, because it's immaterial to me whether or not I'm involved, but as a matter of principle, I do. And I think Tom Eglton has done a good job in trying to point out some of the difficulties and discrepancies in the War Powers Act has passed, and what he's trying to do now is to once again correct these loopholes which exist or which seem to. In other words, you favor beefing up that

act. Yes, indeed. And if that were the case, and we had another ship episode, then the President would be compelled to seek your advice before he made a decision, right? If the Eglton amendment is adopted, yes. You've advocated a withdrawal of American forces from South Korea and Taiwan in the light of what has happened, the defeat of South Vietnam, Cambodia, the ship episode. Do you still favor that? Well, let's get that straight. I was asked by a report a couple of weeks ago about our situation in Korea, and would our troops remain there? And I said yes, because there was a treaty between the two countries, which would have to be adhered to. But I said, I did not think they should remain there indefinitely. And I would hope that arrangements could be worked out over a period of time, so that we would not be bound through the use of approximately two divisions stationed in Korea to the future of that country. We do have a treaty. We would

honor that treaty. We have no choice. But I was reading an article by a commentator, whom I greatly respect, Joseph Harsh, and the Christian Science Monitor, a few days ago, in which he suggested that a guarantee of the two Koreas, by the people of the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Japan, and the United States, might be one way out of the impasse, which confronts us at this time through the maintenance of a U.S. garrison on the Asian mainland. As far as Taiwan is concerned, I would refer you to the Shanghai Community, which call for a further normalization of relations between Peaking and Washington, a gradual reduction of troops, and a recognition of the fact that there is one China, which both China has recognized, but which we did not recognize on the Shanghai Community. And since that time, the U.S. troop personnel in Taiwan has been drawn down, reduced by about half.

Suppose North Korea attacks South Korea tomorrow. We have American troops there. Should those American troops then be employed to defend South Korea? There'd be no choice because they're right on the line of the 38th parallel. Does that mean we'd be back in another Vietnam situation? We'd be back in another war on the mainland of Asia. Does that prospect worry you? It does. But there's nothing that Congress could do about it. There's nothing the White House could do about it. Isn't this a real danger then of a new Vietnam taking place? Well, there's a danger of an outbreak there whether or not Kim Il-Sung, the Chief of State of North Korea, will undertake an adventure of that sort remains to be seen. My feeling at the moment is that he will not into the indefinite future, but one never knows what happens, what will or can happen on the Asian mainland. It is a difficult situation, but we are bound. You're an old China hand, Senator, and you recently visited China. Do you see what has happened

in Southeast Asia recently? The forced retreat of American power is providing us with a new opportunity now to broaden our relations with China. That will be up to President Ford when he visits Peking next fall. But what China wants is a strong NATO, and it doesn't want us to reduce our troops there by one person. What China wants is to see us stay in Japan, because in that way on both the eastern and the western flanks, there will be a force to be used potentially against the Soviet Union, which is the great fear of the Republican China. As far as Southeast Asia was concerned, they seemed to have an interest when I saw them last, only in the independence stabilization and overthrow, independent stabilization of Cambodia and the overthrow of the then

government under the presidency of Laon Noël. In South Vietnam, they said that that thing would have to be worked out between the South Vietnamese, ourselves, and the North Vietnamese, and as far as Laos was concerned, they were satisfied with the situation there. So I don't think this makes much difference in our relations with the People's Republic, and I think that we have to recognize the fact that we're in a three-quartered game as far as the People's Republic, the Soviet Union, and the United States are concerned. Henry Kissinger has been taking a tougher line lately on the day-taught, suggesting that it's more difficult now to work out new agreements with the Soviets to relax tensions. Do you think it's time to reconsider the policies of the time? I think it's time to emphasize them more, and I wish that some of our officials would mute their words, would let the actions of this country speak for this nation, and I don't believe in threats implied direct or indirect, because I think they're counterproductive, they accomplish nothing,

and maybe it gives the person who orders them a feeling of machismo for the time being, but in the long run it doesn't do much of any good. Senator Jackson said last week that Henry Kissinger is largely to blame for the setbacks we've suffered in Indo-China and the Middle East. Do you agree with that? Well, he'll have to take his share of the responsibility, as will all the presidents from Harry Truman on, as will all the Congresses during that period of presidential tenures. Nobody is blameless, nobody should beat their breasts. We really shouldn't point the finger because in one way or another, all of us have to assume share the blame. It was a tragic mistake. It was a misadventure of the worst kind. It created divisions in this country, that is the Indo-China War, and it helped along with the energy crisis to create the present inflation recession. But you don't put any special blame on Kissinger. No, he'll have to take his share of the blame

just as I will and all the rest of us who were involved in one way or another. You said recently that the odds on peace in the Middle East have now dropped, and in the light of that, why didn't you sign the statement along with 75 other senators the other day, calling for new guarantees of military aid to Israel? I very seldom sign letters of that nature. I think the letter is untimely because I would point out that President Ford will meet with President Sadat of Egypt later this month, and with Mr. Rabin, the premier, Prime Minister of Israel, the first part of next month here in Washington, and I think that he ought to have as full reign as possible to work out his reassessment of foreign policy in the Middle East, which will be accomplished after the meeting with these two people. Is Congress too responsive to the so-called Jewish lobby? Well, each member has to vote his own convictions and do as he sees fit. That's a lot as much as I'd say

on that. But the Jewish lobby is a powerful lobby, and do you feel that? Well, there are all kinds of lobbies. There's a Greek lobby, there's a Jewish lobby, there's a manufacturer's lobby, there's a labor lobby. You name it, and it has lobbies, so that goes across the board. You said also the other day that it's up to the President and Kissinger to decide whether to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba. That is correct. But doesn't this fly in the face of the demands, the insistent demands by Congress for a greater voice in foreign policy? Oh, no, because under the Constitution the executive branch has that prerogative solely. It has the right to appoint ambassadors. It has the right to extend recognition or to withdraw recognition. And I would point out that on March the 1st I believe in San Antonio, Texas, Kissinger indicated, and that the trend was towards that direction that the United States would abide not by the necessary two-thirds vote of the Organization of American States, but by a majority vote.

And the first step, of course, not direction would be for the OAS to act. Presumably, I assume, on the base of what the administration said, we'd fall in line, and then to remove the embargo, and then to establish some kind of relations. Well, this leads to the more fundamental question, though, Senator, does Congress really want a major voice in foreign policy, or is it only making noises? Well, we'd like an equal voice. We think that the advice clause in the Constitution applies to the field of foreign policy in general. And I think that we're gradually achieving a degree of equality. It'll take a long time years before it's fully consummated. But the War Powers Act and the prohibition of bombing over in China several years ago are all indications of this trend towards constitutional equality with the executive. We hear talk on all sides, Senator, of more cooperation between the President and Congress. But yet, there seems to be little cooperation.

The Democrats pass their bills, the President vetoes their bills. Can we afford this kind of stalemated government when we have such enormous problems in the country? No, it really is too bad that we're at six and sevens as often as we are. I would like to see a graded degree of cooperation and accommodation between the executive and the legislative branches. Now, of course, in the executive branch, the President, the President alone, can speak as to what he once done or what he wants to recommend or suggest. Whereas in the Congress, you have five hundred and thirty-five members at full strength. And it's very difficult for the Congress to speak with one voice. And I think the Democratic majorities have been exaggerated because we aren't that strong when you get right down to it. The Democrats are noted for their independence and they go in all directions. And it's only rarely that we can get together on a program. More often, we find it

quite difficult. And if it's a matter of overriding a veto, it's that much more difficult. But doesn't it go beyond independent Senator? Aren't the Democrats in disarray on Capitol Hill today? You can't agree on an energy policy. Your bills are vetoed. You're divided on other issues. What's happened to the Democratic majority? Where is the leadership there? Well, as far as I'm concerned, I guess I must assume a part of the blame because I haven't been able to bring about the cohesion, which I think is necessary to achieve a unified energy policy. In the Senate, we've done quite well in that respect. I must say an all-cander. But in the Congress, we do seem to have the different proposals. And it appears to me that the President has gone out of his way to be cooperative and accommodating with the Congress in the matter of his policy, which calls for the imposition of an additional $2 on imported petroleum and a deregulation of

old oil. At our request, he has held back on putting the second dollar into effect. He gave us first 60 days, now an additional 30 days. So he's walked more than half way. He's bit the bullet. And we haven't walked, except part of the way, and we haven't bit the bullet. Well, this brings up another fundamental question, and that is that after the ordeal of Watergate and the removal of Richard Nixon from office, a great many people in this country look to Congress to fill the leadership gap. But the difficulties that Congress is having now, do they show that Congress is ill-equipped to make the basic decisions to run this country? Well, it isn't as equipped as best as it should, but when you have to contend with 535 men and women, I don't know what kind of a system you can devise to make the Congress a better equipped body. We don't operate under the British parliamentary system by means of which

members are beholden to their party on the basis of caucuses and conferences. The spirit of independence is still alive. The remark thing is that despite our weakness, we've been able to accomplish as much as we have down through the two decades, through the almost two centuries of our independence. But aren't you abdicating, isn't President Ford now moving into the driver's seat? He's getting stronger. The Mayweza Fair has increased his standing considerably. I have never agreed with those who underrated Ford as a potential candidate next year, because I think his candor and his openness have made a great impression on the American people. And I say this, despite the fact that I differ with him on his oil import, terrified idea, I differ with him on his veto of the strip mining bill. Many things I differ with him, but at least you know where the fellow stands and he's always laid it on the table. Are you saying he's doing a good job? All things considered yes.

Well, how do you assess the democratic chances for beating Mr. Ford in 1976? To order to say, because we have too many candidates for potential candidates, we'll have a good many more, but as long as this is the race track season, the only thing I can say isn't, they're all bunched at the start. Nobody has the inside rail and only time will tell through the state primaries who will emerge as the leading contender. As of now, there really is none. Who do you like for the nomination? Anyone who'll be nominated by the Democrats? No, but do you have a favorite? Well, if I did, I wouldn't state it because I've got to get along with these people. Any dark horses? Well, yes, I would like to see a fellow like a man like Governor asked you a Florida for whom I have great respect and admiration, who's done a great job in Florida, have become interested. I don't think it ought to be confined just to the Congress. I think too many have come from the Congress of recent years and we ought to step out and look over the governors and see if somebody there won't become interested and they have qualified personnel.

What about some of the new senators? They're fine. It's an awfully good class. They're innovative, they're interested. They're not afraid to express their ideas. There have been talk about such senators as Dale Bumpers of Arkansas and John Glen of Ohio. But whether or not they're interested, I don't know. They've given no indication up to this time of any interest in seeking you. Do they impress you? They certainly do. They're a good group and they're making themselves felt and I'm very pleased with this class. Senator, I believe you're now 72 years of age. You came to Congress back in 1943. Any retirement plans? Not yet. How much longer do you expect to serve? Oh, that's up to the good lord. Well, you have no plans for voluntarily retiring from Congress. That's what you're saying. That's right. What has given you the most satisfaction about your job?

You've never been known as a Lyndon Johnson arm twister, but obviously you like being the Senate majority leader. I like being a senator. I've never sought the leadership. I've never was a candidate for it, but I've done the best I could in that job. But what I like best is being able through statutory legislation to get the vote for the 18-year-olds because I felt that as long as they were being drafted for Vietnam, that they were subject to trial and adult courts, that they could marry at that age, could sign contracts, that they ought to have the franchise. And my biggest disappointment is that they had been so lax in exercising that privilege, which I think should be carried out to the fullest extent and which would allow them in a manner of speaking to participate in the political affairs of the nation. Thank you for coming here tonight, Senator Mansfield. Washington Straight Talk. From Washington, NPACTS has brought you the majority leader of the US Senate,

Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, with NPAC correspondent Paul Duke. Production funding provided by Public Television Stations, the Ford Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This has been a production of NPACTS, a division of GWETA.