The original documents are located in Box 7, folder “Defense - Rumsfeld News Conferences and Interviews” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Ron Nessen donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. ... ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON. D.C . .20301 February 3, 1976 PUILIC AffAIRS The Honorable Ronald H. Nessen Press Secretary The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Ron: Attached for your information and possible use is the transcript of Don's appearance on Face the Nation last Sunday. Sincerely, ~ Will~ener, Jr. Attachment SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD H. RUMSFELD INTERVIEWED ON CBS-TV "FACE THE NATIONn SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 1~ 1976 BY Mr. George Herman, CBS News Mr. Ike Pappas, CBS News Pentagon Correspondent Mr. Leslie H. Gelb, New York Times Diplomatic Correspondent Mr. Herman: Mr. Rumsfeld, what is the national defense or other national interest significance of Angola? What does it mean to us? Secretary Rumsfeld: I think the best way to look at what's taking place there is to put it in a broader context of all of Africa. If one looks over .the past five years, for example, it's clear that the Soviet Union and Cuba have put something in the neighborhood of three billions of dollars into Africa, including Angola, and the effect of that, of course, is to develop ports and airfields and depots, and to strengthen governments that they feel are favorable to them. And when one looks at that entire continent and recognizes the interests that the Soviet Union has, I think that it's through that that one gets the sense of the significance. Mr. Herman: Mr. Rumsfeld,* * * you* *answered * * *my opening question about the importance of Angola with sort of a sketch of the situation in Africa. I have to say that I'm not anything of an expert on that, and I need to be enlightened a little bit as to whether this presents a military and national defense threat to the United States. Secretary Rumsfeld: I think that what it represents is clearly an increasing interest on the part of the Soviet Union, and certainly in this case Cuba, in Africa, and that our interest is served by having an African continent that the nations have governments that are of their preference and not necessarily of the Soviet Union's preference. The military significance is obvious, that to the extent that the Soviet Union improves its basing and airfields throughout the continent of Africa it is able to project power to a considerably greater extent in that part of the world than previously, but this is not a military question from the standpoint of the United States. I think the confusing thing has been that people have been saying no more Vietnams. Well, there is no one in the government that I've talked to who doesn't fully recognize that we have no intention of putting any U.S. troops in Angola, and that has never been an issue. And it's really a misservice to the discus.sion to get into that Vietnam analogy, because it is so flawed. Mr. Gelb: Mr. Secretary, if we have to stop the expansion of Soviet influence in Angola and other parts of Africa, don't we have to do that everywhere; and if so, aren't we back to the 1950s and '60s in the height of the Cold War -- anything the Russians do we have to stop? Secretary Rumsfeld: No; obviously, I think that what we have to do, however, is to look at the world and look at our circumstance and recognize the fact that MORE,··.· 2. the power of the Soviet Union has grown dramatically in the last ten to "fifteen years. The United States has moved from a position of clear preponderance of power to one of rough equivalency. I don 1 t think that my sketch of what's taking place in Africa suggests that the United States has in the past or is now attempting to stop Soviet influence everywhere in the world. I think, however, that as one watches what's taking place in Africa, reasonable people properly can be concerned about the involvement by the Soviet Union in so many nations of Africa to the tune of some $3 billion in the last five years. Mr. Pappas: Mr. Rumsfeld, is the United States sending money to Britain or to any other countries to train mercenaries in those countries to be sent to Angola? There's a story this morning-- a newspaper report --which says that we are pouring twenty million dollars into Britain to train mercenaries, and sending them to fight in Angola on our behalf. Secretary Rumsfeld: As has been widely discussed on the Hill, there was a covert activity not involving U.S. personnel and no involvement of the Department of Defense. The issue is presently being debated between the Executive and Legislative Branch as to whether, and if so to what extent, it's appropriate for the United States to provide funds to assist those forces in Angola who are in fact resisting the Soviet and Cuban-backed elements. Mr. Pappas: I don't think that that answers the question, though. The question is, have we sent funds to other countries -- CIA money or any other kind of money'( Secretary Rumsfeld: As I indicated, there has been what was once a covert activity on the part of the United States involving some funds to provide assistance to an element in the Angolan conflict. Mr. Passas: By using other countries -- is that correct? SecretaL~ Rumsfeld: I don't care to get into the details of what should have been t think properly something t.hat Mr. Pappas: Is it going on now? Secretary Rumsfeld: - would have been handled in a covert way. I think . that it's clear that the Congress has expressed itself on this, and that to the extent anything is to occur in the future, it would be as a result of extensive Executive and Legislative Branch discussions and possibly legislation. Mr. Gelb: Mr. Secretary, you used the figure three billion dollars, total Soviet aid to Africa in the last few years. I've never heard that figure before. Could you detail that for us? Secretary Rumsfeld: I could, I don't have the statistics with me, but I detailed it before the House Armed Services Committee last week, and it's a matter of public record. The countries between the period 1971-1975, we have estimates of the Soviet and Cuban financial assistance, military assistance and economic af9sistance -- basically military assistance -- and it is a matter of public record. MORE 3. Mr. Gelb: But this comes back to the whole question of how we define our interests in the world. Again you said we're trying to help out in Angola to stop the Soviets. As I look through your posture statement here. l:O justify $112 billion in defense spending. every weapons system is justified on the grounds that the Soviets are doing scaething and we've got to match them. Are our interests in the world defined by what the Soviets do, in every case? Secretary Rumsfeld: That's a good question, and I have answered it in that posture statement, and what I've said essentially is this -- that we certainly do not need to match the Soviets or any other country in every detail. However, the American people have been told that we have a policy, and they have supported that policy, of not wanting the United States to be second to anyone. That is to say, they have supported the concept of maintaining rough equivalence, or sufficiency. The treads that we've seen in spending by the Soviet Union versus the United States in terms of strategic and con- ventional general-purpose forces over the past ten to fifteen years have brought us from a position where we had superiority to one'where we have rough equivalence. If those trends continue -- not in every detail, but in the aggregate - if they continue, we will have changed our policy, because we would have said we are willing to have something less than sufficiency, and that would in fact inject a serious instability into the world. Mr. Herman: Do you mean something less than sufficiency or something less than superiority? Secretary Rumsfeld.: I mean exactly what I said Mr. Herman: Nothing less than sufficiency. Secretary Rumsfeld: -- nothing less than sufficiency. That is to say, we would be creating an unstable world. Now, the specific answer to your question is, yes, in the aggregate, to the extent that the Soviet Union continues to increase annually its spending and improve its capabilities in the strategic and general-purpose force area, there is no question but that if, on a relative basis that continues, and we continue to decrease, that we would have in fact moved to a po&ition of a lack of sufficiency. I don't think that's the policy that the American people want; I don't believe that's the policy we're going to have in the coming years.