Page:Kissinger's Trip (4) - November 25-29, 1974(Gerald Ford Library)(1553937).pdf/38

Rh You don't think they were friendly? [Laughter]

Would that indicate that all of the words used to characterize the talks did not happen? So, frankly, my views are that the question of whether or what the atmosphere was like -- actually, the characterizing of atmospheres in communiques is a foreign influence and we don't think it is very necessary. So our thinking is to conduct it in a more straightforward way. Atmospheric things are not substantial.

Could we say "in a straightforward atmosphere?" In 1973, I want to point out, we said all these talks were conducted in an unconstrained atmosphere. Frankly, I don't think what we say about atmosphere... For example, I don't think the New York Times would say the talks in Peking were conducted in a friendly atmosphere. It is simply that the China watchers will notice there was an unconstrained atmosphere in 1973, then there was a friendly atmosphere, and now nothing. That is the only point.

But "frank" also is an atmosphere. Only friends can talk very frankly.

In that case, let's drop "frank." [Laughter]

But if we are ready to talk about atmosphere, it might be more accurate to characterize these talks as being frank and unconstrained.

Why don't we say frank, unconstrained, wide-ranging and mutually beneficial? [Laughter]

And add "constructive."

Let's leave out the word "atmosphere."

Shall we conclude an agreement that we will never talk about atmosphere in the future? [Laughter]

I think that would be tremendous news all over the world.

I would like now to solicit your opinion as to whether we should cut off the head of the announcement?

You mean the word "Announcement?" [Laughter]