Page:Kissinger's Trip (4) - November 25-29, 1974(Gerald Ford Library)(1553937).pdf/36

Rh That is what you said.

[Referring to Rumsfeld] He is not used to this method of negotiation.

We think it might be better to say "the two sides agree that President Ford would visit the People's Republic of China in 1975." In Chinese, it wouldn't seem useful to mention it more.

What adjective would be useful?

Because to us the visit of such a person of high rank as the President to the People's Republic of China would be a very important event, and to characterize it as being of use or not of use is not the question.

I would say this. In English, to say President Ford would visit the People's Republic of China in 1975 is too stark. Can we say "to deepen contacts -- and leave out authoritative -- President Ford will visit the People's Republic of China in 1975."

It also would give the impression that the purpose of the President's visit would be merely for the sake of deepening contacts.

It is a good point.

My school of thinking is it would be better to say less than to say too much.

I understand your point. I just don't want to make you overconfident. [Laughter]

Let me provisionally accept it. Let's see what else we have got.

So, let's go up a sentence. So my view of the Shanghai Communique and subsequent joint statements is that between parent and child. So, in both your toast and mine, we only mentioned the Shanghai Communique. That is a well-known document in the world.

You want to drop the word "subsequent?"

So perhaps for the sake of brevity we could just mention the Shanghai Communique.