Q
Prime Minister when you came here there were differences over the Middle East and over Central America. Have you been able to do anything to reduce this?
A
I think there were apparent differences. I have noticed that, as I have been questioned by your American colleagues, they have seemed to question me on the basis that the Middle East initiative was in competition with the Camp David process and I have been really explaining that no it wasn't at all. We started that at a time when the United States was very preoccupied with election politics, and we realised that somehow the negotiations in the Middle East ought to go forward. And there were a good deal of points that needed exploring, a lot of phrases that were used that have never been worked out, and so I was really pointing out that our attitude was complementary to theirs, it's not supplanting it in any way; and we recognise that as soon as the Israeli Elections are over the United States will again formulate its policy for the Middle East and will go forward, and we hope that what we have been able to do will be helpful to them. So that was an apparent difference.
Q
You and your European colleagues have been trying for some months to explain that point to successive Administrations. Have you persuaded them?
A
Oh, I think the Administration knows, it was much harder to get across to the media.
Q
Do you know what the Americans are going to do over El Salvador?
A
We made our position very, very clear before we came and I think we are both concerned that there appears to be outside interference, extensive supplies of arms going to the guerillas. [end p1] We are both very concerned about what is happening there—there are terrible things happening—and for the people of El Salvador. It is deeply worrying and naturally we hope that the outside interference will stop and we call upon it to stop and call upon the Government of El Salvador to look after and to protect their people. Of course one is concerned, of course the United States is concerned, concerned for the people (inaudible).
Q
I am interested in an expression (inaudible) you use. You said last night that the active interference must be stopped. How?
A
One tries to do everything one can to stop the fighting and influence the matter by seeing that the arms do not flow as easily. One knows full well that some of them came from Communist sources. But beyond that one can't say specifically how it shall be stopped. But it is absolutely vital that it be stopped.
Q
Have we been asked to help, specifically?
A
No.
Q
On European Defence, did you encourage the President to develop the so-called neutron bomb?
A
No, they promised to consult us before they make any decisions about that. They have got a tremendous number of decisions to make and they have only been there for a few weeks. I think they are absolutely right first to take their time. Secondly, they have shown full willingness, indeed they want, to consult because they want to be certain that what they do is in step, and is in tune with the feeling of their allies, and so I am quite happy about the way they will go ahead.
Q
Are you in tune on that, you said that you wanted to have an effective anti-tank weapon?
A
One does need an effective and deterrent weapon. I think [end p2] it is a great pity that the neutron bomb was ever called the neutron bomb. It isn't a neutron bomb, it is an effective anti-tank weapon. Precisely what one may choose is of course a matter for further discussion but there is an enormous armoury on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries which could move forward, in enormous waves of power, and naturally we want an effective means of stopping it. The neutron weapon would be one such weapon but there are of course, other possibilities, and they've got to decide which way to go and before they take any decisions they would consult us.
We shall be asked, and we shall give our considered judgment, and opinion, when the time comes.