(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Department of State bulletin"

BOSTOISI 
PUBLIC 
LIBRARY 




;.• 



//^J^7- /S'Sj//^^- 




THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BULLETIN 



Volume LXXI, Nos. 1827-1853 
July 1-December 30, 1974 

INDEX 



umber 


Date 


o/ Issue 


Pages 


1827 


July 


1, 


1974 


1- 36 


1828 


July 


8, 


1974 


37- 76 


1829 


July 


15, 


1974 


77-132 


1830 


July 


22, 


1974 


133-164 


1831 


July 


29, 


1974 


165-224 


1832 


Aug. 


5, 


1974 


225-256 


1833 


Aug. 


12, 


1974 


257-280 


1834 


Aug. 


19, 


1974 


281-304 


1835 


Aug 


26, 


1974 


305-332 


1836 


Sept. 


1, 


1974 


333-352 


1837 


Sept. 


9, 


1974 


353-372 


1838 


Sept. 


16, 


1974 


373-388 


1839 


Sept. 


23, 


1974 


389-428 


1840 


Sept. 


30, 


1974 


429-464 



umber 


Date 


of Issue 


Pages 


1841 


Oct. 


7, 


1974 


465-492 


1842 


Oct. 


14, 


1974 


493-524 


1843 


Oct. 


21, 


1974 


525-564 


1844 


Oct. 


28, 


1974 


565-596 


1845 


Nov. 


4, 


1974 


597-628 


1846 


Nov. 


11, 


1974 


629-660 


1847 


Nov. 


18, 


1974 


661-700 


1848 


Nov. 


25, 


1974 


701-748 


1849 


Dec. 


2, 


1974 


749-780 


1850 


Dec. 


9, 


1974 


781-820 


1851 


Dec. 


16, 


1974 


821-860 


1852 


Dec. 


23, 


1974 


861-908 


1853 


Dec. 


30, 


1974 


909-944 



I' 

THE OFFICIAL WEEKLY RECORD OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 



DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Publication 8803 

Released March 1975 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 
Price: 62 issues plus semiannual indexes, domestic, $42.50, foreign $53.15. Single copy 85 cents 



'OC 



INDEX 



Volume LXXI, Nos. 1827-1853, July 1-December 30, 1974 



Acheson, Dean: Kissinger, 482; 

quoted, 482, 483 
Adair, E. Ross, 667 
Afglianistan (Atherton), 521, 522 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger, 724 
Africa (see also names of indi- 
vidual countries) : Easum, 153; 
Kissinger, 54, 376, 501 
Southern Africa, developments 

(Easum), 838 
U.S. drought relief for Sahel 
Africa: 47; Easum, 153; 
Scali, 241 
.African Development Bank 

(Easum), 154 
Agiiew, Harold Melvin, 55 
Agricultural surpluses, U.S., use 
in overseas programs, agree- 
ments: Bangladesh, 660, 820; 
Chile, 748; Guinea, 36, 162; 
Khmer Republic, 162, 463, .564, 
748; Pakistan, 256; Thailand, 
36; Viet-Nam, Republic of, 
256, 780, 860 
Egypt: 162, 524, 860; Ford, 805 
Agriculture (see also Agricultural 
surpluses. Food production 
and shortages, and name of 
product), 382 
Fertilizer, pesticides, and other 
agricultural inputs, agree- 
ment with Bangladesh for 
financing manufacture and 
acquisition of, 627 
Foot-and-mouth disease and rin- 
derpest, prevention of, agree- 
ment with Panama, 152 
International Epizootics Office 
agreement, U.S. ratification 
urged (Ford), 939 
International plant protection 
convention (1951): Kenya, 
Malawi, 255 
International Rice Commission, 
amended constitution, ac- 
ceptance, Kenya, 943 
Trade, bilateral agreement with 

Poland, 596, 625 
U.S.-Egyptian Joint Working 

Group, 93 
U.S. production (Eberle), 28 



Aguilar, Andres (quoted), 393 
Alba, Jaime, 573 
Ale.xandrakis, IVIenelas, 771 
Algeria: 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 224, 

492 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger 
(Kissinger) 565, 614 
Alingue, Bawoyeu, 16 
AUon, Yigal: 610, 611, 760, 761, 

763; Kissinger, 914 
American ideals (Kissinger), 630, 

640, 643 
Anderson, Robert, 147», 267, 367?;, 

379 
Angola: Easum, 586, 838, 841; Kis- 
singer, 764; White, 659, 673 
Ansary, Hushang, 724 
Antarctic treaty (1959): 

Accession, German Democratic 

Republic, 820 
Recommendations re principles 
and objectives (1972), Ar- 
gentina, ,779 
Arab-Israeli conflict (see also 
Near and IVIiddle East and 
names of individual coun- 
tries): 42, 930; Ford, 334, 
466; Kissinger, 49, 286, 581, 
887, 888; Naffa', 582; Nixon, 
169; Sadat, 81; Sisco, 56, 295 
Geneva Peace Conference: 188, 
704; Ford, 862; Kissinger, 
208, 226, 228, 904; Nixon, 86 
Palestinian delegation, ques- 
tion of: Kissinger, 209; 
Sadat, 613; Sisco, 13 
President Asad, question of at- 
tendance (Kissinger), 124 
Israeli-Egyptian disengagement 
agreement: Nixon, 4, 77; 
Sadat, 89 
Israeli-Jordanian disengagement 
agreement, question of: King 
Hussein, 113; Kissinger, 127, 
358 
Israeli raids on Palestinian 
camps in Lebanon (Kissin- 
ger), 141 
Israeli security: Kissinger, 376; 
Polk, 298; Sisco, 298 



Arab-Israeli conflict — Continued 
Israeli-Syrian disengagement 

agreement: Asad, 99, 102; 
Nixon, 4, 77, 102; Sisco, 2, 
12, 14, 57 
U.N. Disengagement Observer 
Force (Nixon), 78 
Extension: Kissinger, 784; 
Scali, 940; Sisco, . 791; 
text of Security Council 
resolution, 941 
Israeli territorial or otlier con- 
cessions, question of: Bruck- 
ner, 295; Ellis, 298; Kissin- 
ger, 124, 125, 609, 613, 914; 
Sadat, 758; al-Saqqaf, 612, 
759; Sisco, 295 
Egyptian guarantee, question 
of: Kissinger, 613; Sadat, 
613 
Suez Canal reopening, question 
of (Kissinger), 787 
Jerusalem: Ford, 379; King Fai- 
sal, 94; King Hussein, 113; 
al-Saqqaf, 759; Sisco, 296 
Jordan-Palestine federation, 

question of: Ellis, 299; Sisco, 
299 
Kissinger peace role: Ansary, 
724; Asad, 99; King Hus- 
sein, 112; Kissinger, 358; 
Nixon, 4, 90, 95-96, 101; al- 
Saqqaf, 612; Sisco, 14, 791 
Military actions, question of re- 
newal: Kissinger, 782, 783, 
785, 787, 885; Sisco, 791 
Negotiations, progress and con- 
tent: Ford, 738; Kissinger, 
363, 424, 500, 565, 608, 613, 
642, 757, 914, 918; Rabin, 
469; Sadat, 757; Scali, 858; 
Sisco, 12, 485, 790 
Oil as factor: Atherton, 337; 

Sadat, 614; Sisco, 792 
Palestinian issue: Asad, 98; 
Ellis, 298; King Faisal, 94; 
King Hussein, 113; Kissin- 
ger, 125, 613; Sadat, 81; al- 
Saqqaf, 759; Scali, 857; 
Sisco, 13, 299 
Text of General Assembly res- 
olution, 859 



Index, July 1-December 30, 1974 



945 



Arab-Israeli conflict — Continued 
Palestinian leaders, question of 
meeting with Secretary Kis- 
singer (Kissinger), 123, 565, 
757 
Palestinian Liberation Organiza- 
tion: Ford, 738; Kissinger, 
727, 904; Sisco, 790 
Arafat, meetings with, ques- 
tion of: Sisco, 12; Kissin- 
ger, 565, 758 
Negotiations with Israel, ques- 
tion of: Ford, 789, 865; 
Kissinger, 709, 758, 782, 
890, 892 
Observer status in General 
Assembly resolution, text 
of, 859 
Participation in General As- 
sembly debate: 623; Kis- 
singer, 783; Seali, 622; 
Sisco, 790 
Secular state, proposed: Kis- 
singer, 783; Sisco, 790 
Status as legitimate spokes- 
men of Palestinians, ques- 
tion of: Kissinger, 127, 
784, 785; Sisco, 790 
Palestinian refugees, U.S. agree- 
ment with UNRWA re pro- 
vision of elementary educa- 
tion, 352 
Peace, basis for: 92, 880; Asad 
98; King Faisal, 94; Ford; 
379; Kissinger, 376 
Security Council resolution 242 
King Hussein, 113; Sisco 
791 
Security Council resolution 338 
110, 188; Asad, 102; Kis 
singer, 208; Nixon, 102 
Scali, 857 
Soviet role and influence: Kis- 
singer, 204, 226, 783, 787, 
917; Sisco, 14, 295, 791 
Soviet-U.S. discussions: 880; 
Ford, 862, 865; Kissinger, 
897, 904; Nixon, 192; Zieg- 
ler, 171, 173 
Terrorism: 791?i; Sisco, 12, 791 
U.N. Emergency Force (Segel), 
941 
Extension of mandate (Scali), 
674 
U.S. policy, relations and role: 
10; Ford, 789; Prince Fahd, 
8; Kissinger, 8, 50, 124, 125, 
785; Nixon, 3, 80, 95, 100, 
109, 117; Sadat, 85; Sisco, 
11, 56, 57; Ziegler, 171 
Visit of President Nixon: 77; 

Ford, 78, 121 
Visits of Secretary Kissinger: 
Ford, 607; Kissinger, 358, 
565, 607, 731, 757, 783; Sisco, 
11 



Arbitral awards, foreign, conven- 
tion (1958), Dahomey, 35 
Argentina: 

Death of President Peron (Kis- 
singer), 261 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 
779 
Armaments, U.S. (see also Arms 
control and disarmament; De- 
fense, national; Nuclear en- 
tries; and Strategic arms 
limitation talks) : 
Conventional arms (Ford), 865 
MIRV's: Ford, 862, 864; Kissin- 
ger, 143, 200, 208, 211, 514, 
894, 898, 903, 910, 912 
Soviet armaments compared: 
Ford, 863; Kissinger, 134, 
197, 210, 282, 512 
Trident program (ULMS): Kis- 
singer, 137, 140, 901 
Armitage, Mrs. Norman C, 275 
Arms control and disarmament 
(sec also Nuclear enf)ies and 
Strategic arms limitation 
talks): 715; Ford (quoted), 
458; Ikle, 454 
Chemical weapons, treaty pro- 
posed: 187; Kissinger, 519; 
Martin, 371, 385 
1974 session of Disarmament 
Committee, review (Martin), 
385 
Arms Control and Disaniiament 
Agency, Advisory Committee 
members, confirmation, 55 
Asad, Hafiz: 98, 101; Kissinger, 

124 
Asia, South Asia, and Southeast 
Asia (see also names of indi- 
vidual countries) : Atherton, 
520; Ford, 334; Kissinger, 
741; Lord, 618 
Assistant Secretary of State for 
East Asian and Pacific Af- 
fairs (Habib), confirmation, 
464 
U.S. aid: Ingersoll, 60; Kissin- 
ger, 54 
Asian Development Bank, U.S. 
Governor (Simon), confirma- 
tion, 243 
Atherton, Alfred L., Jr., 335, 520 
Atlantic Relations, Declaration on. 
See under North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization 
Atomic energy: 

Cooperation re civil uses of, bi- 
lateral agreements: Austria, 
36, 596; China, Republic of, 
36; Greece, 224; Korea, Re- 
public of Portugal, 162; 
South Africa, Spain, Thai- 
land, Viet-Nam, Republic of, 
163 



Atomic energy — Continued 

Use for mutual defense purposes 

agreement with U.K., 280 . 

Atomic Energy Agency, Interna; 

tional (Scali), 778 

General Conference, 18th session 

Ford, 552; Ray, 552 
Safeguards: Ikle, 546; Kissingei 
501; Ray, 555; Sisco, 485 
Application pursuant to Noti 
proliferation Treaty: Aus 
tralia, 279; Philippine; 
820; Thailand, 161 
Application to bilateral agree' 
ments with U.S. andi 
South Africa, 131, 223f 
Spain, 223 
Statute (1956) as amendec 
Korea, Democratic Republi 
of, 491 
Technical assistance program 

(Ray), 554 
U.S. delegation, confirmation, 46 
U.S. FY 1975 appropriations re 
quest (Buffum), 157 
Australia: 

Extradition treaty with U.S, 
ratification urged (Ford), 
523 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 74, 11 
224, 279, 304, 463, 660, 94 
Austria: i 

Foreign Relations of the Unitet 
States, 19J,9, volume lit 
Council of Foreign Minis 
ters, Germany and Austria 
released, 628 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 3C 
131, 332, 596, 780, 860, 944 1 
U.S. visit of Federal Chancello 
Kreisky, 767, 769 
Kreisky, 767, 769 
Visit of President Nixon: Krei 
sky, 78; Nixon, 78 
Aviation: 

Aircraft, transit of straits, U.S; 

position (Moore), 410 
lATA North Atlantic air fare; 
action urged, statement, 55( 
Treaties, agreements, etc.: 

Aerial photographic system foi 
detection of opium pop- 
py cultivation, agreemen' 
with Mexico, 162, 780 
Air charter traflic agreement 
with Switzerland, 492 , 
Air navigation services ir 
Greenland and the Faroe 
Islands agreement (1956) 
amendment of article V 
entry into force, 224 
Air navigation services in Ice- 
land, agreement (1956)- 
amendment of article V, 
entry into force, 224 



946 



Department of State Bulletin; 



I 



Aviation — Continued 
Treaties, agreements, etc. — Con. 
Air services, nonsclieduled, 
agreement with Jordan, 
564, 580 
Air transport, bilatei-al agree- 
ments witii: Barbados, 463; 
Lebanon, 75; Mexico, 256, 
332; Philippines, 372 
Aircraft: 
International recognition of 
rights in, convention 
(1948), Chad, 303 
Offenses and certain other 
acts committed on board, 
convention (1948), Iraq, 
Lebanon, 303 
Suppression of unlawful acts 
against safety of, con- 
vention (1971): Japan, 
35; Mexico, 462; Nether- 
lands Antilles, 35; Saudi 
Arabia (with reserva- 
tion), 74 

Suppression of unlawful seiz- 
ure, convention (1970): 
Germany, Federal Re- 
public of, 627; Nether- 
lands Antilles, 35; Saudi 
Arabia (with reserva- 
tion), 74 
Airwoi-thiness certifications, re- 
ciprocal acceptance, bilat- 
eral agreements with: Ger- 
many, Federal Republic of, 
224; Israel, 463; Nether- 
lands, 332 
Helicopters, provision for help 
in suppressing illegal nar- 
cotic drugs, agreements 
with: Bui-ma, 160, 162; 
Jamaica, 944; Mexico, 162, 
780 

International civil aviation con- 
vention: 
Protocol (Mar. 12, 1971): 
China, People's Republic 
of, Italy, Swaziland, 
Viet-Nam, Republic of, 
303-304 

Protocol (July 7, 1971): Aus- 
tralia, China, People's 
Republic of, Guatemala, 
Italy, Oman, 304; Ro- 
mania, 505; Spain, Swaz- 
iland, 304; Tunisia, 595; 
Viet-Nam, Republic of, 
304 

Protocols (1954, 1961, 1962), 
Swaziland, 303 

U.S. -U.K. excess airline ca- 
pacity reduction, an- 
nouncement and text of 
joint statement, 551 



B 

Bah, Habib, 16 
Bahamas (Mailliard), 18 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 463, 

524 
U.S. Ambassador (Weiss), con- 
firmation, 76 
Bahrain (Atherton), 338 

International telecommunication 
convention (1973), accession, 
860 
Balance of payments: 
OECD: 31; Eberle, 25 
U.S. (Ford), 921 
NATO, U.S. forces, effect 
(Ford), 792 
Bangladesh (Atherton), 520, 522 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36, 

463, 595, 627, 660, 820 
U.N. membership: Bennett, 558; 

Schaufele, 73 
U.S. wheat aid, 934 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Hossain, 716; Kissinger, 715, 
718; text of joint communi- 
que, 719 
Barbados: 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

573 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 

462, 463 
U.S. Ambassador (Britton), con- 
firmation, 944 
Bartocha, Bodo, 128 
Baruch, Bernard (quoted), 457 
Baudouin, King of Belgium, 166, 

167 
Belgium: 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

771 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 

224, 699, 860 
Visit of President Nixon: King 
Baudouin, 166, 167; Kissin- 
ger, 38; Luns, 167; Nixon, 
120, 165, 166, 168 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger 
(Kissinger), 196, 225 
Bennett, W. Tapley, Jr., 265, 323, 

329, 483, 558 
Berger, Marilyn, 261 
Bhutto, Zulfikar AH, 720, 722 

(quoted) 
Big-power responsibility: Ford, 
920; Kissinger, 505, 644; 
Nixon, 1; Ziegler, 173 
Bills of lading, international con- 
vention (1924): Singapore, 
332; Syria, 491 
Binder, David, 260 
Biological and toxin weapons, con- 
vention (1972): India, 255; 
Pakistan, 563; Turkey, 747 
Black, Shirley Temple, 464 



Bohlen, Charles E. (Ford), 146 
Bolivia, treaties, agreements, etc., 

35, 372 
Borlaug, Norman (quoted), 431 
Botha, Roelof F. (quoted), 844 
Bowdler, William G., 128 
Boyatt, Thomas, 932 
Brazil: 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 162, 

387, 699, 860 
U.S. relations, tabular summary, 
1824 to present, 345 
Brezhnev, Leonid I. (see also So- 
viet Union, visit of President 
Ford) : 174, 704; Kissinger, 
141-142, 895 
Britton, Theodore R., Jr., 944 
Brown, George S. (Kissinger), 782 
Brown, Harold, 461 
Brown, L. Dean (Kissinger), 353 
Brown, Robert W., Jr., 933 
Bruckner, D. J. R., 295 
Buffum, William B.: 157; Kissin- 
ger, 260, 283 
Bulgaria: 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

16 
Consular convention with U.S. 

(Ford), 487 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 279, 
463, 780, 820 
Burelli-Rivas, Miguel Angel, 573 
Bunna, U.S. helicopters for nar- 
cotics control, agreement: 162; 
announcement and text of U.S. 
note, 160 
Burundi, U.S. Ambassador (Mark), 

confiiTnation, 164 
Bush, George, 596 
Butz, Earl L., 829 
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re- 
public, treaties, agreements, 
etc., 255, 780 



Calendar of international confer- 
ences, 23, 488 
Cameroon, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 131, 748 
Camp Wallace (Philippines), agree- 
ment re relinquishment by U.S. 
of certain land, 132 
Canada (Mailliard), 18 

Extradition treaty with U.S., 
ratification urged (Ford), 
805 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36, 75, 
132, 162, 224, 255, 279, 387, 
428, 627, 860 
U.S. visit of Prime Minister Tru- 
deau: Ford, 930; Kissinger, 
914; Trudeau, 931 
Water diversion projects with 
U.S. (Kissinger), 282 
Carlucci, Frank C, 944 
Ceausescu, Nicolae, 731 



ill Index, July 1 -December 30, 1974 



947 



Central Intelligence Agency: Ford, 

471, 472; Kissinger, 639 
Chad: 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

16 
International recognition of 
rights in aircraft, convention 
(1948), adherence, 303 
U.S. Ambassador (Little), con- 
firmation, 596 
Chatti, Habib, 764 
Chavan, Y. B., 704, 707 
Chiao Kuan-hua, 905, 907 
Chile: 

AUende coup, question of U.S. 
involvement: Ford, 471; Kis- 
singer, 710, 711 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 162, 
387, 491, 627, 747, 748, 780, 
908 
China, People's Republic of: 

Meeting with President Ford and 
Mr. Brezhnev, question of 
Chinese views (Kissinger), 
891 
Sino-Soviet relations (Kissin- 
ger), 637 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 255, 

304 
U.S. Liaison Office, Chief (Bush), 

596 
U.S. relations: Ford, 334, 465- 
466, 886; Kissinger, 6, 49, 
141, 286, 376, 634, 637, 709, 
742, 782, 885, 913; Lord, 619; 
Nixon, 3, 108 
Visit of President Ford, pro- 
posed (Kissinger), 913 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Chiao, 905, 907; Ford, 861; 
Kissinger, 141, 905, 906, 907; 
text of joint communique, 
907 
China, Republic of, agreement with 
U.S. re cooperation in civil 
uses of atomic energy, entry 
into force, 36 
Churchill, Sir Winston (quoted), 

375 
Claims, Egypt, notice of time for 
filing by U.S. nationals, an- 
nouncement, 669 
Classified information (Laise), 313 
Safeguarding of, agreement with 
Iran, 224 
Claxton, Philander P., Jr., 649 
Clerides, Glafcos, 267 
Clingan, Thomas A., Jr., 627 
Coffee agreement, international 
(1968), as extended: 
Current actions: Bolivia, 35; El 
Salvador, 747; Gabon, 462; 
Germany, Federal Republic 
of, 35; Japan, 660; Nigeria, 
131; Rwanda, 747; Tanzania, 
279 



948 



Coffee agreement — Continued 
1974 report on, transmittal 

(Nixon), 254 
Protocol for continuation in force 
(1974), open for signature, 
699 
Colombia, treaties, agreements, etc., 

224, 463, 908 
Colorado River Basin Salinity Con- 
trol Act: Nixon, 147, 148; sum- 
mary of the legislation, 149 
Communications satellites (see also 
Outer space) : 
Advanced Technology Satellite 

(ATS-6): Bennett, 327 
Ballistic missile early warning 
station at Fylingdales Moor, 
agreement with U.K., 660 
Direct broadcasting: Bennett, 

325; Kuchel, 846 
INTELSAT agreement (1971): 
Haiti, 563; Lebanon, 35; Tur- 
key, 524 
Remote sensing: Bennett, 325; 
Kuchel, 848, 850 
Cooperative research agree- 
ment with Mexico, 304 
Conferences, international, calendar 

of, 23, 488 
Congo (Brazzaville), safety of sea 
convention (1974), signature, 
780 
Congress, U.S.: 

Foreign policy, documents relat- 
ing to, lists, 59, 156, 195, 
254, 294, 365, 384, 487, 588, 
659, 669 
Kissinger foreign policy, question 
of support (Kissinger), 638 
Legislation: 

Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Act: Nixon, 147, 
148; summary of legisla- 
tion, 149 
Defense bill (Ford), 616 
International Development As- 
sociation replenishment au- 
thorization: Kissinger, 54; 
Scali, 240; Simon, 579 
Trade Reform Act: Ford, 333, 
665, 920; Kissinger, 54, 
289, 731, 935; Nixon, 21, 
343; Simon, 578, 647, 794 
Turkish aid restrictions: Ford, 
658, 739; Kissinger, 909 
Legislation, proposed: 

African Development Bank, 
authorization request 

(Easum), 154 
Energy Research and Develop- 
ment Administration 
(Ford), 494 
Fisheries jurisdiction exten- 
sions, Department position: 
Maw, 389; Moore, 395; 
Stevenson, 392 






Congress, U.S. — Continued 
Legislation, proposed — Continued 
Foreign assistance program: 
Kissinger, 49, 286; Martin, 
291; Sisco, 57 
Freedom of Infoi-mation Act, 
amendments (Laise), 313 
Inter-American Development 
Bank, appropriation urged 
(Kissinger), 54, 290 
International energy program 
agreement (Enders), 531, 
532 
International programs, FY 
1975 appropriations re- 
quest for voluntary con- : 
tributions (Buffum), 157 
Nuclear reactor agreements 
with Egypt and Israel: 
Ikle, 248; Pollack, 250; 
Sisco, 484; Sober, 252 
Service of legal process by 
mail on foreign govern- 
ments in U.S., 458 
Turkey, U.S. aid restrictions, 
veto (Ford), 655, 656, 657 
Senate: 
Advice and consent: 

ABM treaty with Soviet 
Union, ratification urged 
(Ford), 523 
Consular convention with ', 
Bulgaria, transmittal, 
487 
Exti'adition treaty with Aus- 
tralia, ratification urged 
(Ford), 523 
Extradition treaty with Can- 
ada, ratification urged 
(Ford), 805 
International Telecommuni- 
cations Convention, 1973, 
transmittal (Ford), 668 
International wheat agree- 
ment extension, ratifica- 
tion urged (Katz), 33 
Protection of diplomats con- 
vention, ratification 
urged (Ford), 803 
Strategic offensive arms lim- 
itation agreement (Vlad- 
ivostock), question of 
approval (Kissinger), 
903, 919 
Confirmations, 55, 76, 164, 243, 
256, 428, 464, 483, 596, 
667, 944 
Foreign Relations Committee 
(Kissinger), 138, 142, 143, 
200 
Vice-President (Rockefeller), 
confii-mation (Ford), 789 
Conservation (see also Fish and 
fisheries) : 
Antarctic seals, conservation, con- 
vention (1972) with annexes, 
U.K., 524 



Department of State Bulletin 



[0' 



M 



Conservation — Continued 

Endangered species of wild fauna 
and flora, convention (1973) 
on international trade in: 
Canada, 279; Chile, 747; 
Egypt, India, Lesotho, 279; 
Sweden, 747; Switzerland, 
279; Tunisia, 352 
Migratory birds and birds in 
danger of extinction and 
their environment, conven- 
tion with Japan on protection 
of: 492; entry into force, 491 
Consular relations: 

Bulgaria-U.S. consular conven- 

vention (Ford), 487 
Czechoslovakia-U.S. consular con- 
vention, 563 
Soviet-U.S. agreement re opening 
of consulates in Kiev and 
New York, 190 
Vienna convention (1963): Can- 
ada, 387; New Zealand, 747; 
Oman, 161; Rwanda, 131 
Vienna convention (1969), op- 
tional protocols: New Zea- 
land, 747; Oman, 161 
Containers, safe (CSC), interna- 
tional convention (1972) with 
annexes: France (with reser- 
vation), 747; (j«rman Demo- 
cratic Republic, 627 
Cooper, John Sherman, 464 
Copyright convention universal 
(1971), as revised: Norway, 
491; U.S., 279 
Protocol 1 re application to 
works of stateless persons 
and refugees: Norway, 660; 
Senegal, 131; U.S., 279 
Protocol 2 re application to 
works of certain interna- 
tional organizations: Nor- 
way, 660; Senegal, Spain, 
131; U.S., 279 
Cormier, Frank, 862 
Cortina Mauri, Pedro, 47, 228 
Costa Gomes, Francesco da, 646 
Costa Rica: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

573 
Wheat trade convention, protocol 
modifying and extending 
(1971), 256 
Costrell, Edwin S., 345, 677 
Council of Foreign Ministers, Ger- 
many and Austria, volume 
III, Foreign Relations of the 
United States, 191,9, released, 
628 
Crawford, William R., Jr., 428 
Cuba: Ford, 379, 665; Kissinger, 
142; Mailliard, 18 
Space radiocommunications, par- 
tial revision of 1959 radio 
regulations, approval, 943 



Cultural property, illicit import, 
export and transfer of owner- 
ship of, convention (1970) on 
prohibition and prevention, 
Jordan, 699 
Cultural relations and programs: 
Egypt, 383 

Joint U.S. -India Commission on 
Economic, Commercial, Sci- 
entific, Technological, Educa- 
tional and Cultural Coopera- 
tion: 714, 748; Chavan, 707; 
Kissinger, 708, 713; text of 
agreement, 746 
Educational and Cultural Sub- 
commission, announcement 
of U.S. members, 770 
Protection of world cultural and 
natural heritage, convention 
(1972): Algeria, 492; Aus- 
tralia, 660; Sudan, 492 
Seventh U.S.-Japan Conference 
on Cultural and Educational 
Interchange, text of commu- 
nique, 244 
Syria (Nixon), 100, 103 

U.S. participation in Damascus 
International Trade Fair, 
267 
U.S. -Egypt Joint Working Group, 

93 
U.S.-Soviet agreement on ex- 
change of works of art, 190 
Customs (see also Imports) : 
Commercial samples and adver- 
tising material, importation, 
international convention 

(1952), Canada, 255 
Customs Cooperation Council, 
convention (1950) establish- 
ing: Bahamas, 524; Poland, 
462 
Customs facilities for touring, 
convention (1954): Chile, 
491 ; Tunisia (with reserva- 
tion), 352 
Private road vehicles, customs 
convention (1954) on tempo- 
rary importation: Chile, 627; 
Mali, 303; Tunisia (with 
reservation), 372 
Cyprus, 880, 930 

British Sovereign Base areas, 
arrangement re status of 
U.S. forces in connection 
with Suez Canal clearance 
operations, 388 
Ceasefire: Bennett, 265, 329; 
Kissinger, 257, 259, 260, 282, 
285; Scali, 262, 264, 330 
Security Council resolutions, 

texts, 266 
Government, changes in, U.S. 
position: 267; Kissinger, 261, 
267, 283 
Greek officers, issue of: Kissinger, 
260; Scali, 263 



Index, July 1-December 30, 1974 



Cyprus — Continued 

Partition, question of (Kissin- 
ger), 260 
Refugees and relief efforts: 379; 
Kissinger, 261, 500; Scali, 
459, 813 
AID grant to U.N. relief fund, 
announcement, 497 
Resumption of negotiations 
urged: Scali, 366, 367; S.C. 
resolution, 368 
Situation reports: Kissinger, 257, 

284, 354; Luns, 226 
Soviet role (Kissinger), 258, 261 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 74, 

256, 492, 660, 700 
Turkey, U.S. aid restrictions. 

See under Turkey 
Turkish interests: Anderson, 

SGln; Scali, 366 
Turkish invasion: Kissinger, 357; 

Scali, 264 
U.N. Force in Cyprus: Bennett, 
265, 329; Scali, 460, 813; 
Segel, 941; Waldheim, 331 
Casualties: Ford, 466; Scali, 

367; S.C. resolution, 368 
U.S. FY 1975 appropriation re- 
quest (Buffum), 157 
U.S. Ambassador (Crawford), 

confirmation, 428 
U.S. Ambassador Davies, death 
of: 933; Ford, 359; Kissin- 
ger, 353, 359; Scali, 460 
U.S. arms embargo, question of 

(Kissinger), 356 
U.S. position and role: Ford, 789; 
Kissinger, 354, 357, 500, 710, 
916; Scali, 813 
Czechoslovakia, treaties, agree- 
ments, etc., 428, 524, 563, 748, 
780 

D 
Dahomey: 
Foreign arbiti'al awards, conven- 
tion (1958) on recognition 
and enforcement of, acces- 
sion, 35 
U.S. Ambassador (Engle), con- 
firmation, 256 
Davies, Rodger P.: 933; Ford, 359, 
933 (quoted); Kissinger, 353, 
359; Scali, 460 
Debts, consolidation and reschedul- 
ing, bilateral agreements with: 
Chile, India, 162; Sri Lanka, 
304 
Defense, national: Ford, 333; In- 
gersoll, 474; Kissinger, 364; 
Lord, 620 
Grand Forks, N.D., ABM base 

(Kissinger), 281, 282, 283 
Strategic arms agreement with 
Soviet Union, question of 
effect on U.S. defense budg- 
et: Ford, 862, 864, 865; Kis- 
singer, 912 



949 



Defense, national — Continued 

Strategic doctrine, question of 

consultations with Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee 

(Kissinger), 142 

Defense agreement with Iceland, 

continuation, 700 
Defense articles, sale of, bilateral 
agreements re payment of net 
proceeds: Bolivia, 372; Domini- 
can Republic, 428; Ethiopia, 
224; Guatemala, 596; Jordan, 
492; Khmer Republic, 304; 
Korea, Republic of, 25G; Nica- 
ragua, 332; Paraguay, 304; 
Philippines, 332; Tunisia, 388; 
Turkey, 660, 748 
Denmark, treaties, agreements, 
etc., 35, 75, 162, 279, 660, 699, 
780, 860 
Development assistance {sec aluo 
Foreign aid), Bangladesh, 
agreement re trust account, 
463 
Diego Garcia bases: Ford, 378; 

Kissinger, 711, 727 
Diplomatic relations: 

German Democratic Republic- 
U.S. (King), 423« 
Announcement and text of 
joint communique, 423 
Syria, resumption: Asad, 101; 

Nixon, 102 
Vienna convention (1961), ajul 
optional protocols, Oman, 161 
Diplomatic representatives in the 
U.S., credentials: Barbados, 
573; Belgium, 771; Bulgaria, 
Chad, 16; Costa Rica, Ghana, 
573; Greece, 771; Grenada, 924; 
Guinea, 16; Honduras, 924; 
Indonesia, Laos, 771; Luxem- 
bourg, 924; Netherlands, Niger, 
771; Spain, 573; Sweden, Togo. 
16; United Arab Emirate?, 
Uruguay, 924; Venezuela, 573; 
Zambia, 16 
Diplomats, protection of, conven- 
tion (1973): 
Current actions: Bulgaria, 279, 
463; Byelorussian S.S.R., 
255; Canada, 279; Czecho- 
slovakia, 748; Denmark, 35; 
Ecuador, 700; Finland, 35; 
German Democratic Repub- 
lic (with reservation), 74; 
Germany, Federal Republic 
of, 463; Iceland, 35; Mon- 
golia, 463; Nicaragua, 780; 
Noi-way, 35; Paraguay, 780; 
Poland, 255; Rwanda, 748; 
Soviet Union, 255; Sweden, 
Tunisia, 35; Ukrainian 
S.S.R., 279 
U.S. ratification urged (Ford), 
803 



Disaster relief: 

Bangladesh: 934; Atherton, 521 
Honduras (Ferguson), 670 
Sahel Africa, 47 
Disputes, compulsory settlement: 
Optional protocol to convention 
(1961) on diplomatic rela- 
tions: New Zealand, 747; 
Oman, 161-162 
Optional protocol to Vienna con- 
sular convention (1963), 
Oman, 161 
Dominican Republic, treaties, 

agreements, etc., 428, 595 
Double taxation, convention for 

avoidance of, Poland, 596 
Drugs, narcotic: Ferguson, 818; 
Kissinger, 640 
Aerial photographic system for 
detecting opium poppy culti- 
vation, agreement with Mex- 
ico, 162, 780 
Drug Enforcement Administra- 
tion in Caracas, agreement 
with Venezuela re regional 
office, 463 
Helicopters, provision of for help 
in suppression of illegal nar- 
cotic drugs, agreements with: 
Jamaica, 944 ; Mexico, 162, 780 
Burma: 160, 162 
Psychotropic substances, conven- 
tion (1971): 
Current actions: Madagascar, 

372; Philippines, 279 
U.S. ratification urged (Fer- 
guson), 819 
Single convention (1961) on: 
Cameroon, 131; Madagascar, 
352 
Protocol amending: Lesotho, 
943; Madagascar, 352; 
Philippines, 279 
Turkey, opium ban lifted (Kis- 
singer), 226 
Turkish poppy-harvesting meth- 
od changes, Ferguson, 819; 
announcement, 588 
U.N. Fund for Drug Abuse Con- 
trol (Ferguson), 819 
FY 1975 appropriation request 
(Buffum), 157 



East-West relations: 41; Kissinger, 

641; Lord, 619; Ziegler, 171 
Easum, Donald B., 153, 586, 838 
Eberle, William D.: 22 (quoted), 

25; Nixon, 22 
Echeverria, Luis, 661, 663, 664, 667 
Economic, Commercial, Scientific, 
Technological, Educational and 
Cultural Cooperation, Joint 
Commission with India: 714, 
748; Chavan, 707; Kissinger, 
708, 713; text of agreement, 
746 



Economic, technical and related as- 
sistance agreements with: 
Bangladesh, 36 

Soviet Union: 189; Hartman, 
269; text, 219 
Signature and entry into force, 
163 
Economic and Social Council, U.N., 
documents, lists of, 74, 247, 
387, 427, 676, 943 
Economic policy and relations, 
U.S.: 
Domestic (Ford), 789 

Economic Policy Board, estab- 
lishment and text of Exec- 
utive order (Ford), 549 
Recession (Ford), 920 
Foreign (Ford), 333 
Economy, world (see also Infla- 
tion) : 928; Ford, 466, 920; 
Ingersoll, 473; Kissinger, 498, 
502, 509, 634, 644, 744; Percy, 
589; Scali, 239; Simon, 575, 
795 
Ecuador, treaties, agreements, etc., 

75, 224, 256, 279, 700 
Education (Percy), 591 
Egypt, 383 

Joint U.S.-India Commission on 
Economic, Commercial, Sci- 
entific, Technological, Edu- 
cational and Cultural Coop- 
eration: 714, 748; Chavan, 
707; Kissinger, 708, 713; 
text of agreement, 746 
Educational and Cultural Sub- 
commission, announcement 
of U.S. members, 770 
Satellite-broadcast television 

(Kuchel), 851 
Seventh U.S. -Japan Conference 
on Cultural and Educational 
Interchange, text of commu- 
nique, 244 
Educational exchange programs: 
Saudi Arabia (Atherton), 339 
Syria (Nixon), 100, 103 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization, U.N., U.S. dele- 
gation, confirmation, 667 
Egypt (see also Arab-Israeli con- 
flict and Suez Canal): Nixon, 
80, 85; Sisco, 57, 296 
Claims by U.S. nationals, notice 
of time for filing, announce- 
ment, 669 
Joint U.S.-Egyptian Cooperation 
Commission: 669; Nixon, 80, 
90; Kissinger, 9 
Signature: Fahmy, 380; Kis- 
singer, 380 
Text of joint communique, 381 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 35, 75, 
132, 162, 279, 304, 524, 779, 
780, 860 



950 



Department of State Bulletin 



Egypt — Continued 

U.S. economic assistance, FY 
1975: Kissinger, 51, 287; 
Sisco, 58 
U.S.-Egyptian principles of rela- 
tions and cooperation: 304; 
Kissinger, 126; text, 92 
Signature: Nixon, 90; Sadat, 
89 
U.S. sales of nuclear reactors 
and fuel: 93; Ikle, 248; Pol- 
lack, 250; Sisco, 484; Sober, 
252 
Diversion, question of (Kissin- 
ger), 40, 123, 144 
U.S. visit of Foreign Minister 

Fahmy, 380 
U.S. visit of President Sadat, 
question of: Kissinger, 613; 
Nixon, 87 
U.S. wheat sales (Ford), 461, 805 
Visit of President Nixon: Nixon, 
79, 82, 84, 86; Sadat, 79, 80, 
84 
Visits of Secretary Kissinger 
(Kissinger), 607, 612, 757 
News conferences with Presi- 
dent Sadat, 608, 613, 757 
Eilts, Hermann F. (Kissinger), 608 
Eisenhower, Dwight D. : Kissinger, 

374; quoted, 794 
El Salvador, international coffee 

agreement, extension, 747 
Elfin, Mel, 886 
Ellis, Harry, 298 

Endangered species of wild fauna 
and flora, convention (1973) on 
international trade in: Canada, 
279; Chile, 747; Egypt, India, 
Lesotho, 279; Sweden, 747; 
Switzerland, 279; Tunisia, 352 
Enders, Thomas 0., 164, 272, 300, 

477, 525 
Energy sources and problems: 874; 
Kissinger, .502, 749; Lord, 641; 
al-Saqqaf, 612; Simon, 794 
Canada (Kissinger), 914 
Coal research, agreement with 

Poland, 626 
Consumer cooperation, need for: 
Ford, 466, 494, 923; Kissin- 
ger, 288, 377, 644, 749, 784, 
883, 888, 889, 891, 911, 918; 
Simon, 796; Sisco, 792 
Consumers and producers con- 
ference, need for: Kissinger, 
726, 755, 916; Scali, 557; 
Simon, 797, 802 
Cooperation in field of energy, 
bilateral agreements with: 
Japan: 256; announcement and 

text, 277 
Soviet Union: 163, 189; text, 
219 
Emergency sharing: Enders, 525, 
527, 529; Hartman, 30; Kis- 
singer, 632, 784, 888, 912, 916 



Energy sources and problems ■ — 
Continued 
Energy Coordinating Group: 
Hartman, 30; Katz, 65, 67; 
Kissinger, 204 
International Energy Program- 
Enders, 525; Ford, 495; 
Kissinger, 503, 751; Simon, 
797 
Agreement, signatures: Aus- 
tria, Belgium, Canada, 
Denmark, Germany, Fed- 
eral Republic of, Ireland, 
Italy, Japan, Lux- 
embourg, Netherlands, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzer- 
land, Turkey, U.K., U.S., 
860 
Membership, question of: 
Enders, 528; Kissinger, 
788 
Financial standby support, pro- 
posed: 929; Kissinger, 753, 
912, 915; Simon, 797, 799 
France: Enders, 528; Kissinger, 

916, 918; Simon, 798 
Import limitations and other 
consumer restraints: Kissin- 
ger, 883^884; Simon, 797, 793 
U.S.: Ford, 739; Kissinger, 
786, 885, 886, 912 
International Energy Agency 
(OECD): 929; Enders, 526. 
528; Kissinger, 751, 755, 788, 
912; Simon, 797, 798 
Japan: Enders, 529; Kissinger, 

788, 883, 885, 886, 887, 891 
Less developed countries, effect 
on: 31; Eberle, 26; Ford, 
496; Kissinger, 52, 502, 754; 
Percy, 589; Scali, 557; 
Simon, 801 
Mexican oil deposits and export 
policy (Echeverria), 664, 666 
Oil income of OPEC countries, 
investment and uses of: 
Atherton, 335, 339; Eberle, 
26; Enders, 477; Kissinger, 
502, 826, 917; Simon, 576, 795 
Oil prices: 730; Ansary, 728; 
Atherton, 335; Eberle, 25; 
Enders, 301, 532; Ford, 378, 
494, 496, 921, 922; Hartman, 
30; Kissinger, 503, 611, 712, 
725, 726, 728, 750, 753, 759; 
OECD, 31; Percy, 589; al- 
Saqqaf, 759; Simon, 795; 
Stein, 29 
Fixed price, question of (Kis- 
singer), 726 
Oil company role, question of: 
Katz, 67; Simon, 796 
Project Independence: Ford, 333, 
378, 493; Katz, 65, 66; Kis- 
singer, 753; Sisco, 792 



Energy sources and problems • — 
Continued 
Siberian oilfields, question of de- 
velopment (Kissinger), 886, 
890 
U.S. Energy Resources Council 

(Ford), 806 
U.S. policy and role: Ford, 493; 
Katz, 64; Kissinger, 751, 
915; Simon, 797 
Washington Energy Conference: 
Kissinger, 204; Nixon, 5; 
Simon, 797 
World Energy Conference, ninth, 
address (Ford), 493 
Engle, James B., 256 
Environmental problems and con- 
trol {see also Pollution, ma- 
rine) : Peterson, 436 
Biosphere resei-ves, U.S.-Soviet 
agreement: 190; Kissinger, 
209 
Environmental modification, U.S.- 
Soviet statement on dangers 
of military use of: 187; Kis- 
singer, 206, 207, 519; Martin, 
370; text, 185 
Environmental protection, bilat- 
eral agreement re coopera- 
tion with Poland, 625 
European Communities-U.S. co- 
operation program, announce- 
ment and text, 236 
U.N. Envii-onment Program, FY 
1975 appropriation request 
(Buffum), 157 
World Environment Day, 1974, 
proclamation, 215 
Epizootics, International Office 

(Ford), 939 
Erlewine, John A., 468 
ESRO (European Space Research 
Organization), Spacelab proj- 
ect (Bennett), 327 
Ethiopia, agreement re payment to 
U.S. of net proceeds from sale 
of defense articles, 224 
Europe {see also North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization) : 
Conference on Security and Co- 
operation: 41, 188, 704, 880, 
930; Ingersoll, 475; Kissin- 
ger, 39, 46, 208, 226, 227, 
516, 519, 731, 904; Ziegler, 
173 
Mutual and balanced force re- 
ductions: 42, 188, 704, 880, 
930; Ford, 864, 865; Inger- 
soll, 475; Kissinger, 142, 
202, 203, 516, 519; Nixon, 3; 
Ziegler, 173 
NATO nuclear weapons, question 
of inclusion in SALT Vladi- 
vostok agreement (Kissin- 
ger), 897, 899, 910 
Unification: King Baudouin, 168; 
Kissinger, 15 



Index, July 1-December 30, 1974 



951 



Europe — Continued 

U.S. relations: Kissinger, 15, 

228, 631, 637, 640; Lord, 618 

Visit of President Nixon. See 

under Nixon 
Visits of Secretary Kissinger 
(Kissinger), 37, 144, 202, 
225, 730 
Western (Kissinger), 630, 640 
European Atomic Energy Commu- 
nity, memorandum of under- 
standing in nuclear science 
and technical information, 
signature, 699 
European Communities: 

Beef, veal, and cattle imports 

banned, U.S. position, 290 
Duties reduced on certain U.S. 

products: 22; Nixon, 21 
Environmental cooperation pro- 
gram with U.S., announce- 
hient and text, 236 
European Economic Community: 
Food aid convention (1971), ex- 
tension, 75 
NATO Declaration on, proposed: 
King Baudouin, 168; Kissin- 
ger, 38, 46 
European Migration, Intergovern- 
mental Committee for, consti- 
tution (1953): 
Admission to membership: Cyp- 
rus, Venezuela, 74 
Withdrawal, Australia, 74 
European Space Research Organi- 
zation, Spacelab project (Ben- 
nett), 327 
Evidence, taking of abroad in civil 
or commercial matters, con- 
vention (1970), France, 387 
Executive orders: 

Economic Policy Board, estab- 
lishment (IISOS), 549 
Energy Resources Council, acti- 
vation (1181.',), 806 
Exports (see also Imports) : 

Coordinating Committee on Ex- 
port Controls: Enders, 274; 
Hartman, 271 
Jamaican bauxite (Enders), 301 
U.S. (Ford), 921 
Japan, question of preferential 
position (Kissinger), 884, 
889 
Expositions, international, protocol 
to international convention 
(1952): Czechoslovakia, 428; 
Germany, Federal Republic of, 
255 

Expropriation: Kissinger, 918, 939; 

Mailliard, 20 
Extradition, bilateral agreements: 

Australia (Ford), 523 

Canada (Ford), 805 



Extradition, bilateral agreements 
— Continued 
Current actions: Canada, 224; 
Denmark, 162, 279; Para- 
guay, 75 



Fahmy, Ismail, 380 

Faisal, King of Saudi Arabia, 94, 

97 
Farkas, Albert A., 933 
Faulkner, William (quoted), 829 
Ferguson, Clarence Clyde, Jr., 670, 

815, 818 
Finland, treaties, agreements, etc., 

35, 36, 780 
Fish and fisheries: 

Antarctic seals, conservation, 
convention (1972) with an- 
nexes, U.K., 524 
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, 
International Commission, 
U.S. members, appointment, 
130 
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, 
international convention 

(1949): 
Protocol re amendments (1970) : 
Current actions: German 
Democratic Republic, 

255; Romania, 428; U.S., 
748 
Entry into force, 428 
Protocols: June 25 (1956); re 
entry into force (1965); re 
harp and hood seals 
(1963); re measures of 
control (1965); re panel 
membership and regula- 
tory measures (1969), ad- 
herence, German Demo- 
cratic Republic, 255 
Salmon (Stevenson), 233 
Shrimp, agreement with Brazil, 

162 
U.S. fisheries jurisdiction, pro- 
posed unilateral extension: 
Maw, 389; Moore, 395; Stev- 
enson, 392 
U.S. position: 415; Moore, 396 
Whaling convention (1974), in- 
ternational, amendments to 
paragraphs 1, 11-15, 21, 
24(b), (c), entry into force, 
748 
Food for Peace Program, 47, 934 
1973 annual report, transmittal 
(Ford), 587 
Food production and shortages: 
715, 929; Atherton, 521; Bor- 
laug (quoted), 431; Eberle, 27; 
Ford, 466, 547; Herter, 436; 
Ingersoll, 473; Kissinger, 283, 
286, 377, 633, 641, 644, 712, 
725, 883, 889; Kubisch, 152; 



Food production and shortages 
— Continued 

Lord, 621; Percy, 592; Peter- 
son, 434; Scali, 240; Wein- 
berger, 429, 438 
Coordinating Group for Food 
Production and Investment, 
proposed (Kissinger), 825, 
826 
Export Planning Group, pro- 
posed (Kissinger), 786, 824, 
828 
Food reserves system, proposed: 
Butz, 830; Ford (quoted), 
831; Kissinger, 634, 823, 828 
U.S. aid: Butz, 830; Ford, 467, 
472; Kissinger, 503, 709, 786, 
826; Scali, 557 
World Food Conference: Butz, 
829; Ford, 467, 548; Kissin- 
ger, 503, 644, 708, 731, 736, 
744, 754, 786, 821; Leone, 
735; Nixon, 5; Percy, 593; 
Scali, 240 
Resolutions, texts: 

Arrangements for follow-up 

action, 835 
Food aid, improved policy 

for, 834 
Food production, objectives 

and strategies, 831 
International Undertaking on 
World Food Security, 
833 
U.S. program (Kissinger), 823 
World Food Council, proposed, 
835 
World Food Program, U.S. FY 
1975 appropriation request 
(Buffum), 157 
Ford, Gerald R.: 
Addresses, remarks, and state- 
ments: 
American Conference on Trade, 

920 
Arab-Israeli conflict, 334, 379, 
466, 862 
Palestinian Liberation Or- 
ganization, 738, 789, 865 
Soviet-U.S. talks, 862, 865 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger, 
607 
Armaments, conventional, 865 
Arms control (quoted), 458 
Chile, Allende coup, question 

of U.S. involvement, 471 
Cuba, 379, 665 
Cyprus, 789 

Death of Ambassador Davies, 

359, 933 (quoted) 

UNFICYP casualties, 466 

Davies, Rodger, regrets at 

death of, 359, 933 (quoted) 

Defense budget, 616, 862, 864, 

865 
Diego Garcia bases, 378 



952 



Department of State Bulletin 



Ford, Gerald R. — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 

Energy problems, 378, 466, 739, 
788, 806, 921, 922 
International Energy Pro- 
gram, 495 
Project Independence, 333, 

378, 493 
World Energy Conference, 
ninth, Detroit, 493 
Food shortages and problems, 

466, 547, 831 (quoted) 
U.S. food aid, question of, 

467, 472, 788 
Foreign policy, 146, 333, 465, 

467, 739, 789 
Foreign Service: 

50th anniversary, 145 
Memorial Ceremony (quoted), 
933 
General Assembly, 29th, 465 
Guinea-Bissau, 344 (quoted), 

533 
Indochina, 344 

Release of Emmet Kay, 497 
International cooperation, 465 
International Monetary Fund, 

annual meting, 574 
Mexico: 

Meeting with President 

Echeverria, 572 
Migrant workers, 665 
NATO, 334, 453, 792, 925 
Nuclear warfare, 466 
Poland, Joint Statement on 
Principles of Relations, 
601 
Population, 431, 467, 548 
President Nixon, visits to: 
Middle East, 78, 121; So- 
viet Union, 145, 191 
SALT talks, 379, 572 
ABM protocol, 864 
Secretary of State Kissinger, 

145, 465, 573, 607, 861 
Soviet Union, 334, 572, 646 
(quoted), 886, 923 
Meeting with Chairman 
Brezhnev (Vladivostok), 
572, 739, 789, 861, 866, 
878, 882 
Strategic offensive arms 
agreement, Vladivostok, 
789, 861, 862, 864, 865 
Sugar tariffs, 804 
Trade Refoi-m Act, 333, 665, 

920 
Turkey, U.S. aid restrictions, 

veto, 655, 656, 657, 739 
U Thant, death of, 882 
Viet-Nam, 334, 616 
World economy, 466, 920 
Candidacy for reelection, ques- 
tion of reasons (Kissinger), 
895 



Ford, Gerald R. — Continued 
Correspondence and messages: 
Guinea-Bissau, U.S. recogni- 
tion, 533 
IAEA (International Atomic 
Energy Agency), General 
Conference, 552 
World Population Conference, 
431 
Meetings with Heads of States 
and officials of, remarks and 
joint communiques: Austria, 
767; Canada, 930; Germany, 
Federal Republic of, 925; 
Israel, 468; Italy, 534; Japan, 
867; Jordan, 360; Korea, 875: 
Mexico, 572, 661; Poland, 
597; Portugal, 646; Soviet 
Union, 704, 878 
Messages and reports to Con- 
gress: 
ABM treaty, Soviet-U.S., rati- 
fication urged, 523 
Australia-U.S. extradition 

treaty, ratification urged, 
523 
Bulgaria-U.S. consular conven- 
tion, transmittal, 487 
Extradition treaty with Can- 
ada, transmittal, 805 
Food for Peace, 1973 annual 

report, transmittal, 587 
International Office of Epizoo- 
tics, agreement, ratifica- 
tion urged, 939 
International Telecommunica- 
tions Convention (1973), 
transmittal, 668 
NATO, effect on balance of 

payments, 792 
NATO offset, progress report, 

453 
Protection of diplomats con- 
vention, ratification urged, 
803 
Turkish aid restrictions, veto, 

656 
U.S. participation in the U.N., 
28th annual report, trans- 
mittal, 547 
News conferences, 378, 471, 572, 

664, 738, 788, 861 
Visits to: 

China, People's Republic of, 

proposed (Kissinger), 913 

Japan and Korea: Ford, 738, 

788, 861, 866; Kissinger, 
781, 783, 785, 787, 883, 
887, 890, 892 

Japanese security arrange- 
ments, question of (Kis- 
singer), 891 
Risk, question of: Ford, 788; 
Kissinger, 783 
Soviet Union: Ford, 572, 739, 

789, 861, 866, 878, 882; 



Ford, Gerald R. — Continued 
Visits to — Continued 

Soviet Union — Continued 

Kissinger, 781, 785, 787, 
884; Trudeau, 932 
Strategic arms agreement, 
question of: Ford, 789; 
Kissinger, 786 
Foreign aid programs, U.S.: Inger- 
soll, 60; Kissinger, 49, 286; 
Kubisch, 150; Sisco, 57 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, 
Sec. 32: Hummel, 309; Inger- 
soll, 310, 311; Kissinger, 357 
Foreign aid programs of oil-pro- 
ducing states (Atherton), 339 
Foreign policy, U.S.: 

Congressional documents relat- 
ing to, lists, 59, 156, 195, 254, 
294, 365, 384, 487, 588, 659, 
669 
Congressional support for: Ford, 

739; Kissinger, 638 
Decisionmaking responsibilities: 
Ford, 739; Kissinger, 201, 
635, 636 
Impeachment inquiry, question of 

effect (Kissinger), 201 
Implementation of (Kissinger), 

636 
Intellectuals, role of (Kissinger), 

642 
Principles, objectives, and policy: 
Ford, 146, 333, 465, 789; 
Hummel, 305; Ingersoll, 60; 
Kissinger, 53, 373, 629, 640, 
643, 709, 740; Lord, 617; 
Nixon, 1, 95, 116 
Six-year review (Kissinger), 641 
Summits and consultative as- 
semblies, effectiveness (Kis- 
singer), 203 
Foreign Relations of the United 
States, 191t9, volume HI, Coun- 
cil of Foreign Ministers, Ger- 
many and Austria, released, 
628 
Foreign Service: 

50th anniversary (Ford), 145 
Memorial Ceremony: Boyatt, 
932; Ford (quoted), 933; 
Kissinger, 933 
Foster, Charles H. W., 130 
France: 

Energy program, question of 
participation: Enders, 528; 
Kissinger, 916, 918 
Gift for US. Bicentennial: Gis- 
card d'Estaing, 322; Kosci- 
usko-Morizet, 321; Nixon, 
321 
NATO Declaration on Atlantic 
Relations, paragraph 11, 
question of U.S.-French com- 
promise (Kissinger), 39 



Index, July 1-December 30, 1974 



953 



France — Continued 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 
332, 372, 387, 463, 748, 780, 
860 
U.S. Ambassador (Rusli), con- 
firmation, 464 
U.S. visit of Foreign Minister 
Sauvagnargues, 541 
Freedom of Information Act, pro- 
posed amendments (Laise), 313 
Freeman, Donald V., 933 
Friedman, Abraham S., 468 
Fulbright, J. W. (Kissinger), 541 



Gabon, international coffee agree- 
ment (1968), extension, 462 
Gambia, treaties, agreements, etc., 

131, 699 
Gandhi, Mahatma (quoted), 745-746 
Ganley, Oswald H., 837 
Gardiner, Sprague H., 275 
General Assembly, U.N.: 
Documents, lists, 74, 247, 331, 427 
Palestinian Liberation Organiza- 
tion, participation in debate, 
U.S. opposition (Scali), 622 
Resolutions, texts: 
CypiTJS, 814 

Decade for Action to Combat 
Racism and Racial Dis- 
crimination, 817 
MIA's, accounting for, 774 
Outer space, international co- 
operation in peaceful uses 
of, 852 
Palestine, self-determination 

for, 859 
Palestinian Liberation Organi- 
zation, observer status for, 
859 
Palestinian Liberation Organi- 
zation participation in de- 
bate, 623 
Prisoners, treatment of, 810 
Registration of objects, 

launched into outer space, 
Convention, 854 
South Africa, review of U.N. 
relationship, 594 
South Africa, exclusion from 
participation (Scali), 811, 
812 
29th regular session, agenda, 559 
U.S. delegation, confirmation, 483 
Genocide, convention (1948) on 
prevention and punishment, 
Mali, 387 
Genscher, Hans-Dietrick, 45, 281, 

284 
German Democratic Republic: 
Diplomatic relations with U.S., 
establishment (King), 423m 
Announcement and text of 
joint communique, 423 



Treaties, agreements, etc., 74, 

255, 372, 627, 748, 820 
U.S. Ambassador (Cooper), con- 
firmation, 464 
Germany, Federal Republic of: 41; 
Kissinger, 284 
Project Helios (Bennett), 327 
Public opinion of U.S. (Kissin- 
ger), 639 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 35, 75, 
224, 255, 352, 463, 627, 699, 
860 
U.S. visit of Chancellor Schmidt: 
Ford, 925, 926; Schmidt, 926, 
927; text of joint statement, 
928 
U.S. visit of Foreign Minister 

Genscher, 281, 284 
Visit of President Nixon, ques- 
tion of (Genscher), 285 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger 
(Kissinger), 45 
Germany, Foreign Relations of 
the United States, 19J,9, vol- 
ume HI, Council of Foreig^t 
Ministers, Germany and Aus- 
tria, released, 628 
Ghana : 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

573 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 131, 

780 
U.S. Ambassador (Black), con- 
firmation, 464 
Ghobash, Saeed Ahmad, 924 
Gierek, Edward: 598, 599, 602, 603; 

Kissinger, 565 
Ginn, Rosemary L., 667 
Giscard d'Estaing, Valery, 322 
Goheen, Robert, 771 
Graham, Pierre R., 76 
Grand Forks, N.D.: Kissinger, 281, 

282, 283; Young, 281 
Granger, John V. N., 627 
Great Lakes, agreement with Can- 
ada for promotion of safety by 
means of radio, 75 
Greece (see also Cyprus) : Kissin- 
ger, 630 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

771 
Government, change in: 267; 
Kissinger, 258, 259, 267; 
Scali, 366 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 

224, 780 
U.S. Ambassador (Kubisch), 

confirmation, 428 
U.S. military aid, question of 
eff'ect on Cyprus situation 
(Kissinger), 258 
U.S. relations (Kissinger), 356 
Greenland and the Faroe Islands, 
air navigation sei-vices agree- 
ment, entry into force, 224 



Grenada: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

924 
U.N. Charter and ICJ Statute, 

membership, 595 
U.N. membership: 595; Bennett, 

558 
U.S. Ambassador (Britton), con- 
fir-mation, 944 
Gromyko, Andrei A., 701, 765 
Guatemala, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 75, 304, 596 
Guinea: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

16 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36, 162 
Guinea-Bissau (Easum), 586, 841 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 462, 

595 
U.N. membership: Bennett, 558; 
Ford (quoted), 344; Schau- 
fele, 344; White, 659, 673 
U.S. recognition (Ford), 533 
Guyana (Mailliard), 18 

H 

Habib, Philip C, 464 

Haig, Alexander M., Jr., 185 

Haiti, treaties, agreements, etc., 

132, 492, 563 
Hardin, Clifford M., 275 
Hardin, Garrett (Peterson), 434 
Hartman, Arthur A., 30, 186, 228, 

268 
Hays, Wayne, 14 
Health and medical research: 
Artificial heart research, cooper- 
ation in, agreement with 
Soviet Union: 190; Nixon, 
180; text, 222 
Entry into force, 163 
Cooperation in, bilateral agree- 
ment with Poland, 596, 624 
Malnutrition (Kissinger), 827 
U.S.-Egypt Joint Working 

Group, 93, 383 
World Health Organization, con- 
stitution (1946) as amended, 
Guinea-Bissau, 462 
Herter, Christian A., Jr., 436, 627 
Hinton, Deane R., 76 
Hodgson, James D., 164 
Honduras: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

924 
Hurricane victims, U.S. relief 
efi"orts reviewed (Ferguson), 
670 
Hong Kong, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 304, 908 
Hossain, Kamal, 716 
Housing and other construction, 
agreement with Soviet Union, 
190; text, 221 
Entry into force, 163 
Hubbard, Robert W., 933 



954 



Department of State Bulletin 



Human rights (Botha), 844 
LI (quoted) 

Korea, Republic of: Hummel, 

305; Ingersoll, 310, 311 
Prisoners, treatment of: Percy, 
807; text of U.N. resolution, 
810 
Hummel, Arthur W., Jr., 305 
Hungary, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 36, 780, 908, 944 
Hussein, King of Jordan, 112, 118, 
360, 361 

I 

IAEA. See Atomic Energy Agency, 

International 
IBRD. See International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Develop- 
ment 
Iceland, treaties, agreements, etc., 

35, 224, 700, 780 
IDA. See International Develop- 
ment Association 
IDB. See Inter-American Develop- 
ment Bank 
Ikle, Fred C, 248, 454, 543 
Imports {see also Customs and 
Exports) : 
European Communities: 22, 290; 

Nixon, 21 
U.S. (Ford), 922 

Sugar tariffs (Ford), 804 
India (Atherton), 520, 522 

Domestic affairs, question of U.S. 
intervention (Kissinger), 710, 
711 
Joint Commission on Coopera- 
tion: 714, 748; Chavan, 707; 
Kissinger, 708, 713, 745; text 
of agreement, 746 
U.S. members to Educational and 
Cultural Subcommission, an- 
nouncement, 770 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 
162, 255, 279, 332, 699, 748 
U.S. food aid (Kissinger), 708, 

745 
U.S. relations (Kissinger), 710, 

740 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Chavan, 704, 707; Kissinger, 
704, 705, 706, 712; Eingh, 
707; text of joint commu- 
nique, 714 
Indian Ocean {see also Diego Gar- 
cia), Iran role (Kissinger), 
727 
Indochina: 188; Ford, 334; Kis- 
inger, 49, 286, 377 
MIA's: Ford, 497; Ingersoll, 770; 
Kissinger, 377 
General Assembly resolution: 
Ingersoll, 770; Percy, 772; 
text, 774 



Indochina — Continued 
MIA's — Continued 
ICRC (International Confer- 
ence of the Red Cross) 
resolution (1973), text, 773 
U.S. aid: Ingersoll, 60, 61; Kis- 
singer, 51, 287 
Indonesia: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

771 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 700, 

780 
U.S. aid (Ingersoll), 63 
Indus Basin Development Fund, 
U.S. FY 1975 appropriation re- 
quest (Buffum), 157 
Industrial property, convention for 
protection of (1883, as re- 
vised): Netherlands (applica- 
ble to Surinam and Nether- 
lands Antilles), 699; Zaire, 779 
Inflation: Ansary, 729; Eberle, 25; 
Ford, 467, 574, 921; Kissinger, 
377, 502, 583, 644, 725, 744, 
750; OECD, 31; Scali, 238, 
242, 557; Simon, 575; Stein, 28 
Ingersoll, Robert S., 60, 164, 310, 

311, 473, 770 
Intellectual property. World In- 
tellectual Property Organiza- 
tion (see also Patents and Pho- 
nograms), convention (1967): 
Cyprus, 700; France, 332; 
Indonesia, Netherlands (ap- 
plicable to Surinam and Neth- 
erlands Antilles), 700; United 
Arab Emirates, 332; Viet- 
Nam, Zaire, 780 
Inter- American Development Bank: 
U.S. appropriation request urged 

(Kissinger), 54, 290 
U.S. Governor (Simon), con- 
firmation, 243 
Interdependence of modern world: 
Ford, 466, 494; Ingersoll, 473; 
Kissinger, 288, 498, 508, 581, 
583, 633, 712, 740, 821; Ku- 
bisch, 150; Lord, 620; Molina, 
585; Naffa', 582; Percy, 589; 
Simon, 794 
Intergovernmental Committee for 
European Migration, constitu- 
tion (1953): 
Admission to membership: Cy- 
prus, Venezuela, 74 
Withdrawal, Australia, 74 
International Bank for Reconstruc- 
tion and Development: Percy, 
590; Scali, 243 
Annual meeting (Simon), 579 
Articles of agreement (1945) as 
amended: Barbados, 462; 
Western Samoa, 162 
U.S. Governor (Simon), con- 
firmation, 243 
International Committee of the Red 
Cross (Percy), 773 



Index, July 1 -December 30, 1974 



International Committee of the Red 

Cross — Continued 

Agreements re assistance to 

refugees, displaced persons 

and war victims in Khmer 

Republic, Laos, and Viet- 

Nam, 36, 256, 627 

International conferences, calendar, 

23, 488 
International Court of Justice, 
Statute, compulsory jurisdic- 
tion, India, 699 
International Development Associ- 
ation: 
Articles of agreement (1960), 

Western Samoa, 748 
Fourth replenishment, U.S. con- 
tribution: Kissinger, 54; 
Scali, 240; Simon, 579 
International Finance Corporation, 
articles of agreement (1955): 
Cameroon, Western Samoa, 748 
International Law, Digest of 
United States Practice in, 
1973, released, 388 
International monetary system: 

Ford, 923; Simon, 576 
International organizations, proto- 
col 2 of universal copyright 
convention re application to 
works of: Norway, 660; Sene- 
gal, Spain, 131; U.S., 279 
Investment disputes between states 
and nationals of other states, 
convention (1965) re settle- 
ment: Gambia, 699; Romania, 
462 
Investment guaranties, bilateral 
agreements with: Egypt, 304; 
Nigeria, 332 
Investment of private capital 
abroad : 
Egypt, 93 

Expropriation, U.S. position: Kis- 
singer, 918, 939; Mailliard, 
20 
Latin America (Mailliard), 20 
World investment (Enders), 477 
Iran (Atherton), 336, 338 

Investment in American com- 
panies, question of (Kissin- 
ger), 727 
Joint Commission on: 730, 944; 
Ansary, 725; Kissinger, 725, 
728; text of joint communi- 
que, 729 
Entry into force, 944 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 224, 

780, 944 
U.S. arms relationship (Kissin- 
ger), 728 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: An- 
sary, 724; text of joint com- 
munique, 729 
Iraq, treaties, agreements, etc., 303, 
908 



955 



Ireland, treaties, agreements, etc., 

75, 699, 860 
Isolationism: Kissinger, 639; Nixon, 

2 
Israel (see also Arab-Israeli con- 
flict) : Kissinger, 126, 761 ; 
Sisco, 57 
Armed forces (Nixon), 107 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 463, 

748, 779, 780 
U.S. cooperation agreement on 

nuclear energy, technology 

and fuel: 111; Ikle, 248; 

Kissinger, 127; Pollack, 250; 

Sisco, 484; Sober, 252 
U.S. military aid agreement. 

question of (Kissinger), 124, 

141, 287 
U.S. security assistance, FY 

1975, proposed: Kissinger, 

50; Sisco, 58 
U.S.' visit of Foreign Minister 

Allon (Kissinger), 914 
U.S. visit of Prime Minister 

Rabin, 468 
Visit of President Nixon: Katzir, 

103, 104; Meir, 107; Nixon, 

103, 106, 107; text of joint 

statement, 110 
Visits of Secretary Kissinger: 

Allon, 610, 611, 760, 761, 763; 

Kissinger, 123, 610, 611, 760, 

761, 762 
Italy (Kissinger), 630 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 

131, 255, 279, 304, 387, 428, 

524, 699, 860, 944 
U.S. visit of President Leone and 

text of U.S.-Italian joint 

statement, 534 
Visits of Secretary Kissinger: 

Kissinger, 227, 711, 736, 737; 

Leone, 734; text of joint 

communique, 228 



Jackson, Henry M. (Kissinger), 

144, 198, 202, 204, 903 
Jamaica, agreement re provision of 
helicopters to prevent illegal 
drug traffic (Operation Bucca- 
neer), 944 
Japan: Ford, 334; Lord, 618 

Energy problems: Enders, 529; 
Kissinger, 788, 883, 885, 886, 
887, 891 
Migratory birds and birds in 
danger of extinction and 
their environment, protection 
of, U.S.-Japan convention 
and agreement amending an- 
nex: 492; entry into force, 
491 
NATO Declaration on, proposed 
(Kissinger), 38 



Japan — Continued 

Nonproliferation treaty, question 
of ratification (Kissinger), 
892 

Nuclear weapons sensitivities 
(Kissinger), 885, 886, 888, 
890 

Seventh U.S.-Japan Conference 
on Cultural and Educational 
Interchange, text of commu- 
nique, 244 

Textile agreement with U.S., 563 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 35, 75, 
256, 492, 660, 700, 860 

U.S. agricultural exports, ques- 
tion of (Kissinger), 884, 889 

U.S. Ambassador (Hodgson), 
confirmation, 164 

U.S.-Japan agreement on coop- 
eration in energy, announce- 
ment and text, 277 

U.S. relations (Kissinger), 891 

U.S. visit of Emperor Hirohito, 
proposed: Ford, 871; Kissin- 
ger, 886 

Visit of President Ford: Ford, 

■738, 788, 861, 866, 867, 868, 

871, 872, 873, 881; Kissinger, 

781, 785, 787, 883, 887; text 

of joint communique, 874 

Javits, Jacob K. (Kissinger), 15, 

144 
Johnson, U. Alexis, 461 
Jones, Phil, 573 
Jones, William B., 667 
Jordan : 

Joint Commission with U.S., es- 
tablishment, 362 

Nonscheduled air service agree- 
ment, signature, 580 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 131, 
352, 492, 564, 699, 799 

U.S. assistance, FY 1975, pro- 
posed: 118; Kissinger, 51, 
287; Sisco, 58 

U.S. relations (Sisco), 57 
Joint statement, 352 

U.S. visit of King Hussein, 360 

Visit of President Nixon: King 
Hussein, 112, 118; Nixon, 
114, 117; text of joint state- 
ment, 118 

Visits of Secretary Kissinger 
(Kissinger), 610, 760 
Juarez, Benito (Ford), 663 



Kabbani, Sabah, 573 

Kaiser, Rudolph, 933 

Karamanlis, Constantine, 267 

Katz, Julius L., 33, 64 

Katzir, Ephraim, 103, 104 

Kay, Emmet: Ford, 497; Ingersoll, 

770 
Kekeh, Michel Messanvi, 16 
Kempster, Norman, 788 



Kennan George F. : Ford, 146; 

quoted, 617 
Kenya, treaties, agreements, etc., 

75, 255, 943 
Keynes, Lord (quoted), 502 
Khaddam, Abd al-Halim, 362, 364 
Khama, Sir Seretse (quoted), 844 
Khmer Republic: 188; Ford, 334; 
Ingersoll, 62; Kissinger, 52, 
288 
ICRC agreements re assistance 
to refugees, displaced per- 
sons and war victims, 36, 
256, 627 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 162, 
304, 463, 564, 748 
King, John F., 423n 
Kissinger, Henry A.: 

Addresses, remarks, and state- 
ments: 
Acheson, Dean, 482 
Africa, 54, 376, 501 
Angola, 764 

Arab-Israeli conflict (for de- 
tails see Arab-Israeli con- 
flict), 8, 49, 123, 141, 208, 
209, 226, 228, 500, 642, 904, 
914, 918 
Israeli-Jordan disengagement 
agreement, proposed, 

127, 358 
Israeli-Syrian disengagement 
agreement, U.N. Dis- 
engagement Observer 
Force extension, 784 
League of Arab States, 581 
Military actions, question of 
renewal, 782, 783, 785, 
787, 885 
Palestinian leaders, question 
of meeting, 123, 565, 757 
Palestinian Liberation Orga- 
nization, 127, 709, 727, 
758, 782, 890, 892, 904 
Palestinian secular state, pro- 
posed, 783 
Palestinians, 123, 125, 127, 

613 
Soviet role and influence, 
204, 226, 783, 787, 917 
Brown, General George S., 782 
Canada, 282, 914 . 
Chile, 710, 711 

China, People's Republic of, 6, 

49, 286, 376, 634, 637, 709, 

742, 782, 885, 891, 913 

Visits to, 141, 905, 906, 907 

Central Intelligence Agency, 

639 
Congress, U.S.: 

Consultations and support, 

question of, 138, 638 
Senate Foreig^n Relations 
Committee, 138, 142, 143 
Consultations on strategic 
doctrine, question of, 
138, 142, 200, 202 



956 



Department of State Bulletin i '"in 



Cissinger, Henry A. — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 
Cuba, 142 

Cyprus, 257, 267, 282, 283, 284, 
285, 500, 710, 916 
Death of U.S. Ambassador 
Davies, 353, 358 
Diego, Garcia, 711, 727 
Economy, world, 498, 502, 634, 

644, 744 
Egypt: 

Joint Cooperation Commis- 
sion, 9, 380 
Nuclear capability, question 

of, 40, 123, 144 
U.S. declaration of princi- 
ples, 126 
U.S. economic assistance, 51, 

287 
Visits to, 607, 612, 757 
Energy sources and problems 
(for details see Energy 
sources and problems), 52, 
204, 288, 377, 502, 611, 644, 
712, 725, 726, 749, 786, 826 
Emergency sharing program 
and International Energy 
Agency, 632, 751, 784, 
788, 888, 911-912, 915, 
918 
Japanese problems, 788, 883, 
885, 886, 887, 891 
Europe, 15, 228, 630, 631, 637, 
640 
Conferen<;e on Security and 
Cooperation, 39, 46, 208, 
226, 227, 516, 519, 731, 
904 
Mutual and balanced force 
reductions, 142, 202, 203, 
516, 519 
European Economic Commu- 
nity, proposed NATO Dec- 
laration on, 38, 46 
Expropriation, 918, 939 
Far East visit of President 
Ford, 781, 783, 785, 787, 
883, 887, 890, 892 
Food shortages, 283, 286, 377, 
633, 634, 641, 712, 725, 825, 
883, 889 
U.S. aid, 503, 709, 786, 826 
World Food Conference, 503, 
644, 708, 731, 736, 744, 
^ 754, 786, 821 
Foreign assistance program, 

FY 1975, 49, 286 
Foreign policy, 53, 203, 373, 
629, 635, 640, 643, 709, 740 
Congressional support, ques- 
tion of, 638 
Pragmatism, 637 
Presidential responsibility, 

201 
Six-year review, 641 
State Department decision- 
making, 635 



Kissinger, Henry A. — Continued 

Addresses — Continued 

Foreign Service Memorial 

Ceremony, 933 
France, 39, 541, 916, 918 
Germany, Federal Republic of, 

45, 284, 639 
Grand Forks, N.D., ABM base, 

281, 282, 283 
Greece, 356, 630 
Change in government, 258, 
259, 267 
India, 704, 705, 706, 708, 711, 
712, 740, 745 
News conference, 707 
Indochina, 49, 51, 287 
Intellectuals, role of, 642 
Inter-American Development 

Bank, 54, 290 
Interdependence, 288, 498, 508, 
581, 583, 633, 712, 740, 821 
International Development As- 
sociation, replenishment, 
54 
Iran, 725 
Israel, 126, 761, 914 

Nuclear power plant, 127 
U.S. military aid, 50, 124, 

141, 287 
Visits to, 123, 610, 611, 760, 
761, 762 
Italy, 537, 630 

Visits to, 227, 711, 736, 737 
Japan: 

Domestic politics, question 

of, 890 
Energy problems, 788, 883, 

885, 886, 887, 891 
NATO Declaration on, pro- 
posed, 38 
Visit of President Ford, 781, 
785, 787, 883, 887 
Jordan, 51, 287, 610, 760 
Khmer Republic, 52, 288 
Korea, visit of President Ford, 

781, 785, 884, 892, 919 
Laos, 52, 288 

Latin America, 54, 289, 376, 
640 
Meeting of Latin American 
Foreign Ministers, 583 
Length of term of office, ques- 
tion of, 638 
Less developed countries, 52, 

288, 377, 502, 634 
National defense, 142, 281, 283, 

374, 474 (quoted), 912 
NATO, 202, 282, 283, 284, 374 
Declaration on Atlantic Re- 
lations, 15, 37, 38, 40, 46, 
228 
Parliamentarians meeting, 14 
Nitze, Paul, 198 
Nuclear proliferation, dangers 
of, 498, 501, 519, 645, 711, 
743 



ndex, July 1 -December 30, 1974 



Kissinger, Henry A. — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 
Pakistan, 708, 720 
Peron, Juan, death of, 261 
Portugal, 630, 764 

Meeting with Foreign Min- 
ister, 39 
President Nixon: 

Foreign policy, question of 
effect of impeachment 
inquiry, 201, 285 
Resignation, effect, 638 
Style in negotiations, 125 
Resignation, question of, 39, 

45, 123, 124, 638 
SALT talks (/or details see 
Strategic arms limitation 
talks), 133, 196, 205, 214, 
225, 227, 282, 374, 501, 
513, 743 
Interim agreement, question 
of interpretation, 134, 
138, 139, 145, 198, 200, 
202, 206, 211 
Saudi Arabia, 9, 423, 424, 427, 

565, 611, 759 
Secretary Schlesinger, 198, 913 
Sino-Soviet relations, 637 
Soviet Union: 

Emigration policies, 144, 204, 

212, 518, 915, 936 
Interference with U.S. tele- 
vision transmission, 212 
Limited underground nuclear 
test ban agreement, 140, 
142, 143, 144, 197, 205, 
206, 211, 213, 519, 565 
U.S. relations, 49, 133, 286, 
376, 505, 633, 637, 701, 
709, 742, 765 
Visit to India, question of 
effect, 710 
Visit of President Ford 
(Vladivostok), 781, 785, 
787, 884, 893 
Visit of President Nixon, 133, 
140, 143, 205, 225, 226, 
227 
Impeachment inquiry, ques- 
tion of effect, 139, 201 
Visits to, 204, 701, 702, 765, 
893, 898 
Spain, 40, 230 

State Department, work of, 635 
Syria, 363, 609, 614 
Trade Reform Act, 54, 289, 
584, 730, 731, 904, 935 
Generalized trade prefer- 
ences, 54, 289, 826, 938 
Jackson amendment, 204, 936 
Turkey: 

Opium ban lifted, 226 
U.S. military aid, question 
of, 54, 258, 261, 354, 356, 
909, 916 
United Nations, 504 



957 



Kissinger, Henry A. — Continued 

Addresses — Continued 

United Nations — Continued 

Bloc voting, 914 
Viet-Nam, Republic of, U.S. 

aid, 51, 52, 287, 377 
Watergate, 641 
Weather modification studies, 

215 
World history, 629 
World order, 633, 638, 644 
Criticism, question of effect 

(Ford), 573 
Latin American relations (Mail- 

liard), 18 
News conferences, transcripts, 
37, 45, 123, 133, 196, 205, 
225, 227, 257, 281, 284, 353, 
565, 608, 612, 629, 707, 724, 
757, 781, 883, 887, 893, 898, 
905, 909 
Personal diplomacy (see also 
under Arab-Israeli conflict): 
Kissinger, 358, 710; al- 
Saqqaf, 612; Sisco, 14 
Radio broadcast, transcript, 712 
Tribute to: Bhutto, 720; Ford, 
465, 573; Nixon, 107; Young, 
281 
Visits to: 

Bangladesh (Kissinger), 715 
China, People's Republic of: 
Ford, 861; Kissinger, 141, 
890, 905 
Europe (Kissinger), 144, 202, 

225, 730 
Far East, question of meeting 
with Le Due Tho (Kis- 
singer), 889 
Gei-many, Federal Republic of 

(Kissinger), 45 
India (Kissinger), 704 
Italy (Kissinger), 227, 711, 734 
Japan (Kissinger), 883, 887, 

905 
Middle East: 724; Ford, 607; 
Kissinger, 358, 565, 607, 
731, 757, 783; Sisco, 11 
Pakistan, 720 
Romania (Kisshiger), 730 
Soviet Union: Ford, 145; Gro- 
myko, 701, 765; Kissinger, 
204, 701, 702, 765; text of 
communique, 703 
Syria: Kissinger, 609, 614; 

Nixon, 100 
Yugoslavia, 733 
Koppel, Ted, 727 
Korbut, Olga (Nixon), 178 
Korea, Democratic People's Repub- 
lic of, treaties, agreements, 
etc., 75, 131, 491 
Korea, Republic of: 

Human rights situation and U.S. 
military assistance: Hummel, 
305; IngersoU, 310, 311; Kis- 
singer, 919 



958 



Korea, Republic of — Continued 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 

162, 256, 780 
U.S. aid: Hummel, 309; Inger- 
soU, 63; Kissinger, 54 
U.S. Ambassador (Sneider), con- 
firmation, 428 
U.S. forces, question of reduction 

(Kissinger), 892 
Visit of President Ford: Ford, 
788, 861, 866, 875, 876, 882; 
Kissinger, 781, 785, 884, 892; 
text of joint communique, 
877 
Kosciusko-Morizet, Jacques, 321 
Kosheleff, Bruno, 497 
Kreisky, Bruno, 78, 767, 769 
Kubisch, Jack B., 128, 150, 428 
Kuchel, Thomas H., 483, 845 
Kuwait (Atherton), 337, 339 



Laise, Carol C, 313 
Laos: Ford, 334; IngersoU, 63; Kis- 
singer, 52, 288 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

771 
ICRC agreements re assistance 
to refugees, displaced per- 
sons and war victims, 30, 
256, 627 
Kay, Emmet, release of: Ford. 
497; IngersoU, 770 
Latin America (see also names of 
individual countries) : 
Charter of Economic Rights and 
Duties of States (Echever- 
ria), 666 
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State 
Rogers: 596; Kissinger, 584; 
Molina, 585 
U.S. relations, role and policy: 
Ford, 334; Kissinger, 54, 289, 
376, 583; Kubisch, 150; Lord, 
618; Mailliard, 17 
Law of the sea conference: Ford, 
548; Maw, 389; Moore, 409; 
Stevenson, 232, 389, 400, 402 
Treaty, proposed: Maw, 389; 
Moore, 396; Stevenson, 390, 
400, 405 
Draft articles, texts, 418 
U.S. draft articles, texts, 414, 
417 
200-mile economic zone, pro- 
posed: Moore, 395; Steven- 
son, 232, 391, 406, 412 
Lazarus, Roberto, 924 
Le Due Tho (Kissinger), 889 
League of Arab States (Kissinger), 

581 
Lebanon, treaties, agreements, etc., 

35, 36, 75, 303, 387 
Leone, Giovanni, 534, 536, 538, 734 
Lesotho, treaties, agreements, etc., 
279, 943 



Less developed countries (see uls 
Food production and short 1 „ 
ages, names of individudt 
countries and tinder EnergJ 
sources and problems) 
Easum, 154; Kissinger, 28£t 
377, 634; Scali, 242, 557 
Liberia, safety at sea conventio 

(1974), signature, 780 
Libya, load lines convention (1966) 

accession, 428 
Lisagor, Peter, 140, 899 
Little, Edward S., 596 
Loadlines, international conventioi 
(1966): Libya, 428; Malta 
Venezuela, 748 
Amendments (1971): Canada 
428; Cyprus, 660 
Lord, Winston, 617 
Luns, Joseph, 167, 225 
Luxembourg: 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials 

924 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36^'*' 
699, 780, 860 



M 

Macao, parcel post agreement witi 

U.S., entry into force, 492 
Madagascar, treaties, agreements 

etc., 352, 372 
Mailliard, William S., 17 
Makarios, Archbishop: Kissinger 

259; Scali, 262 
Malagasy Republic, treaties, agree- 
ments, etc., 699 
Malawi: 

International plant protection 
convention (1951), adher- 
ence, 277 
U.S. Ambassador (Stevenson) 
confiiTnation, 76 
Malaysia, Universal Postal Union 
constitution, additional proto- 
col (1969), ratification, 699 
Mali, treaties, agreements, etc., 

303, 387, 388 
Malta: 
Loadlines convention (1966), ac- 
cession, 748 
U.S. Ambassador (Smith), con- 
firmation, 256 
Mann, Thomas (quoted), 829 
Mansfield, Mike (quoted), 54 
Maritime matters: 

Assistance and salvage at sea, 
convention (1910) for unifi- 
cation of certain rules: Sin- 
gapore, 332; Syria, 492 
Bureau of Oceans and Interna- 
tional Environmental and 
Scientific Affairs, establish- 
ment, 627 



Department of State Bulletin 



iiticli 
(1.* 



gilii.^ 
ill. to' 



Bb.G( 



ki 

fetpjTJ' 

servi 
■nt 

mii 

piol( 
m'i 

!i! 
fei; 

itat; 

Jitk 
Wt 

n 

fain 

U : 

Cos 

VI 

Til' 






will 



(IIE 



!ger, 



liih- 



eM 



"' laritime matters — Continued 
International maritime traffic, 
facilitation, amendment of 
article VII of convention 
(1965): Denmark, U.K., 699 
Maritime Consultative Organiza- 
tion, Intergovernmental, con- 
vention (1948), Sudan, 255 
Tonnage measurement for ships, 
international convention 

(1969) vifith annexes: Czech- 
oslovakia, Italy, 524 
:ark, David E., 164 
Marshall, George C. (Kissinger), 

373 
.artin, Graham, 291 
:artin, Joseph, Jr., 369, 385 
Mauritius, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 36, 492 
;aw, Carlyle E.: 164, 389; Kis- 
singer, 138 
.cClure, Russell S., 497 
icintyre, Marie J., 924 
:cLain, Gene, 789 
!cLendon, Sarah, 865 
;eir, Golda: 107; Nixon, 107; 

Sisco, 12 
leisch, Adrien F. J., 924 
ieteorology: 

Comparative meteorological ob- 
servation program, agree- 
ment with Mexico, 463 
GARP Atlantic Tropical Experi- 
ment agreement (1973) and 
protocol: France (with res- 
ervation), Netherlands, U.K., 
372 
North Atlantic Ocean weather 
stations agreement (1954), 
withdrawal, U.S., 162 
Pacific Ocean weather station 
program, agreement with 
Canada, termination, 162 
Weather modification techniques 

(Kissinger), 215 
World Meteorological Organiza- 
tion : 
African climatic change in- 
vestigation (Scali), 241 
FY 1975 appropriation request 
(Buflfum), 157 
World Weather Program report, 
transmittal (Nixon), 320 
iletrology. Legal, International Or- 
ganization, convention (1965) 
as amended: Cyprus, 256; 
Korea, Democratic People's Re- 
public of, 74 
Mexico: 
Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Act (Nixon), 147, 
148 
Summary of legislation, 149 
Meeting of President Echeverria 
and President Ford: 661; 
Ford, 572 



Mexico — Continued 

Migrant farm workers: Eche- 
verria, 665; Ford, 665 
Oil deposits and export policy 

(Echeverria), 664, 666 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 132, 
162, 256, 304, 332, 462, 463, 
700, 780 
U.S.-Mexico Mixed Commission 
on Science and Technology, 
decisions and recommenda- 
tions, 127 
Migration, Intergovernmental Com- 
mittee for European Migration, 
constitution (1953): 
Admission to membership: Cyp- 

i-us, Venezuela, 74 
Withdrawal, Australia, 74 
Migratory birds and birds in dan- 
ger of extinction and their en- 
vironment, convention with 
Japan on protection of, 492 
Entry into force, 491 
Military assistance, bilateral agree- 
ment with: Tunisia, 944; Viet- 
Nam, 700 
Mills, William H., 837 
Molina, Adolfo, 584 
Monaco, treaties, agreements, etc., 

595, 780 
Monetary Fund, International 
(Percy), 590 
Annual meeting, Washington: 

Ford, 574; Simon, 574 
Interim monetary measure, te.xt 

of communique, 129 
Standby financial support for 
energy costs, proposed: Kis- 
singer, 754; Simon, 797, 799 
Mongolia, terrorism, protection of 
diplomats convention, signa- 
ture, 463 
Monnet, Jean (Kissinger), 638 
Monroe, Bill, 11 
Moore, John Norton, 395, 409 
Moro, Aldo, 737 
Morocco: 

Civil liability for oil pollution 
damage, international con- 
vention, accession, 224 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
565; Kissinger, 615 
Mozambique: Easum, 586, 838, 841; 
Walker, 668; White, 659, 673 
Multinational corporations, study 
by Group of Eminent Persons 
(Scali), 242 
Murphy, Richard W., 428 
Murphy, Robert D. (Ford), 146 
Mutual defense assistance agree- 
ment with Belgium, 224 
Mwale, Siteke Gibson, 16 

N 

NafTa', Fu'ad, 582 
Nakasone, Yasuhiro (Kissinger), 
888 



index, July 1-December 30, 1974 



Namibia: Easum, 838; Scali, 775 
U.S. contribution to U.N. fund, 
593 
Nationality, acquisition of, optional 
protocols to Vienna consular 
convention (1963) and to dip- 
lomatic relations convention 
(1961), accession, Oman, 161 
Near and Middle East (see also 
Arab-Israeli conflict and 
names of individual coun- 
tries) : 
Palestinian refugees, U.S. agree- 
ment with UNRWA re pro- 
vision of elementary educa- 
tion, 352 
Social and economic problems 

(Polk), 296 
U.S. aid (Kissinger), 54, 287 
U.S. relations and interests (Ath- 

erton), 335 
Visit of President Nixon (see 
also names of countries 
visited) : Ford, 78; Kissin- 
ger, 125; Nixon, 5, 77, 167; 
Prince Fahd, 8; Sisco, 13 
Nepal (Atherton), 522 
Nessen, Ronald H., 781, 893 
Netherlands: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

771 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 
332, 372, 595, 699, 700, 860 
Netherlands Antilles, treaties, 

agreements, etc., 35, 595 
New York Times, interview of 

Secretary Kissinger, 629 
New Zealand, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 700, 747 
Nicaragua, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 332, 780 
Niger, Ambassador to U.S., cre- 
dentials, 771 
Nigeria, treaties, agreements, etc., 

131, 332 
Nitze, Paul (Kissinger), 198 
Nixon, Richard: 

Addresses, remarks, and state- 
ments: 
Arab-Israeli conflict, 3, 77, 78, 
80, 86, 100, 102, 109, 117, 
169, 192 
Kissinger peace role, 4, 90, 
95, 101 
China, People's Republic of, 3, 

108 
Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act, 147, 148 
Egypt, 80, 85, 87, 90 
European Economic Commu- 
nity, duties reduced, 21 
Foreign policy, 1, 95, 116 
France, gift for U.S. bicenten- 
nial, 321 
Kissinger, Henry, 4, 90, 95, 
101, 107 



959 



Nixon, Richard — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 
NATO, 165, 169, 194 

Atlantic Declaration, 166, 192 
Soviet Union: 

U.S. relations, 2, 4, 78, 169, 

179, 192, 193 
Visit to. See under Soviet 
Union 
Spain-U.S. Declaration of Prin- 
ciples, signature, 285 
U.S. Naval Academy gradua- 
tion, 1 
Viet-Nam, 3 
Impeacliment inquiry, question 
of effect (Kissinger), 139, 
201, 285 
Meetings virith: Heads of State 
and officials of, remarks and 
joint communiques, Saudi 
Arabia, 7 
Germany, Federal Republic of, 
question of (Kissinger), 46 
Messages and reports to Con- 
gress : 
Intel-national Coffee Agree- 
ment Report for 1973, 
transmittal, 254 
Trade Agreements Program, 
18th annual report, trans- 
mittal, 342 
World Weather Program re- 
port FY 1975, transmittal, 
320 
Resignation, effect (Kissinger), 

638, 895 
Style in negotiations (Kissin- 
ger), 125 
Television and radio broadcast, 

transcript, 179 
Visits to: 

Austria: Kreisky, 78; Nixon, 

78 
Belgium: King Baudouin, 166, 
167; Kissinger, 38; Luns, 
167; Nixon, 120, 165, 166, 
168; Ziegler, 171 
Egypt: Nixon, 79, 82, 84, 86; 

Sadat, 79, 80, 84 
Europe (Kissinger), 202 

Second visit, question of 
(Kissinger), 144 
Israel: Katzir, 103, 104; Meir, 
107; Nixon, 103, 106, 107; 
text of joint statement, 110 
Jordan: King Hussein, 112, 
118; Nixon, 114, 117; text 
of joint statement, 118 
Middle East: Prince Fahd, 8; 
Ford, 78, 121; Kissinger, 
125; Nixon, 5, 77, 121, 167; 
Sisco, 13 
Portugal: Nixon, 119, 120; 

Spinola, 119 
Saudi Arabia: King Faisal, 94, 
97; Nixon, 95, 96 



Nixon, Richard — Continued 
Visits to — Continued 

Soviet Union: Brezhnev, 174, 
183; Ford, 145, 191; Kis- 
singer, 133, 225, 227; 
Nixon, 5, 104, 109, 120- 
121, 165, 167, 175, 178, 
179, 182, 192; Scali, 238; 
Ziegler, 173; text of joint 
communique, 185 
Impeachment inquiry, ques- 
tion of effect on relations 
(Kissinger), 139 
Syria: Asad, 98, 101; Nixon, 
100, 102 
North Atlantic Council, ministerial 
meeting, Ottawa: Kissinger, 
37; text of communique, 41 
North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- 
tion: 929; King Baudouin, 168; 
Ford, 334, 925; Genscher, 284; 
Kissinger, 283 
Council meeting, Brussels: Nixon, 

165, 194; Ziegler, 171 
Cyprus situation, problems of: 
Kissinger, 257, 258, 282, 284, 
916; Sisco, 264 
Declaration on Atlantic Rela- 
tions: 540; Kissinger, 15, 37, 
40, 45, 228; Nixon, 192; text, 
42 
Inclusion of Middle East, ques- 
tion of: Kissinger, 40; 
Ziegler, 172 
Signature: King Baudouin, 166, 
167; Kissinger, 166; Nixon, 
166; Ziegler, 172 
Europe, forces in: 

Reduction, question of: 42, 43; 
Kissinger, 40, 46, 202; 
Nixon, 194; Ziegler, 172 
U.-S. forces, costs: Ford, 453, 
792, 925; Ingersoll, 476; 
Kissinger, 283, 374 
Nuclear science and technical in- 
formation memorandum of 
understanding (1974): Bel- 
gium, European Atomic En- 
ergy Community, Germany, 
Federal Republic of, Ireland, 
Italy, Luxembourg, Nether- 
lands, U.S., 699 
Parliamentarians meeting (Kis- 
singer), 14 
Portugal, role (Nixon), 120 
SALT talks, question of secret 
understandings (Kissinger), 
226 
Technical information for de- 
fense purposes, agreement on 
communication of, ratifica- 
tion, Italy, 279 
25th anniversary: Nixon, 169; 
Ziegler, 171 
Norway (Enders), 529 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 35, 75, 
387, 491, 492, 660 



me 1 



vst 



l»oi-i ( 



Nuclear-free zone, Latin Amerid (^„. 
treaty (1967), additional pr., 
tocol II, China, People's Ri 
public of, 255 
Nuclear proliferation, dangers o 
723; Ikle, 543; Kissinger, 49 
501, 519, 645, 711, 743; Lor 
620 
Nuclear nonproliferation treat 
(1968): 187; Ikle, 545; Kissiii 
ger, 501; Martin, 371; Ra' 
555; Scali, 779 
Japanese ratification, question 

(Kissinger), 892 
Review Conference, propose 

(Ikle), 546 
Safeguards under. See undi 
Atomic Energy Agency, Ii 
ternational 
Nuclear tests: 

Peaceful uses of nuclear expl 
sions agreement, propose 
(threshold test ban): Kissii 
ger, 206, 213 
Soviet-U.S. limitation of unde: 
ground nuclear weapon test 
treaty and protocol (1974^ 
163, 187; Kissinger, 140, 14; 
143, 144, 197, 205-206, 21 
213, 519, 565; Martin, 37i 
386; Nixon, 193; text, 217 
MIRV testing, question 
(Kissinger), 211, 213 
Nuclear war, prevention: For(' 
466; Kissinger, 509; Nixon, 5 
Nurjadin, Rusmin, 771 



Kit J 

lat «i 
»\ 

tai, I 

hie 

iite t 
wtij 
Suhf 
fcjirt 
lis 
ill )iii 
ii!k 

m 

m, 



Siio 
llt(t« 

illBI 

pi 



f)iati 



m.\ 



OAS (Organization of Americai 

States): Mailliard, 18 
Ocean dumping, convention (1972) 
Denmark (not applicable t 
Faroe Islands), 660; JordaiJLm. 
779; Spain, 462; United Ara" " 
Emirates, 820 
Ohira, Masayoshi (Kissinger), 881 
Oman (Atherton), 337 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 16lH 

162, 304 
U.S. Ambassador (Wolle), con|_ . 
firmation, 76 jl'' 

Organization for Economic Coop.. ' 
eration and Development (In, 
gersoll), 474 
Declaration on current accoun 
measures: 26, 32; Eberle, 26 
text, 32 
International Energy Agency 
proposed: 929; Enders, 526 
528; Kissinger, 751, 755, 788i| 
912; Simon, 797, 798 ". 

Ministerial Council meeting 
Eberle, 25; Harman, 30 
Stein, 28; text of communi 
que, 31 



960 



Department of State Bulletin' ^ 









ganization of American States 

(Mailliard), 18 
ter space (.see also Communica- 
tions) : 
\erobe sounding rockets to meas- 
ure natural radiation of 
celestial sphere at infrared 
wave lengths, agreement 
with Australia, 463 
lelios-A (Kuchel), 851 
iiternational cooperation: Ben- 
nett, 326; Kuchel, 849 
Text of General Assembly 
i-esolution, 852 
nternational liability for dam- 
age caused by space objects, 
convention (1972), New Zea- 
land, 700 
kloon treaty, draft: Bennett, 324; 

Kuchel, 846 
legistration of objects launched 
into outer space, draft con- 
vention on: Bennett, 323; 
Kuchel, 845; Reis, 68 
Key articles, 72 
Text, 854 
ian Marco Range, agreement 
with Italy re launching of 
NASA satellites, 944 
(kylab program: Bennett, 326; 

Kuchel, 850 
5oyuz- Apollo joint mission: 190; 
Bennett, 327; Kuchel, 851; 
Nixon, 181 
Space telecommunications: 
Allocation of frequency bands, 
partial revision (1971), of 
1959 radio regulations, 
Cuba, 943 
Partial revisions (1963) of 
1959 radio regulations: 
Pakistan, 943; Switzer- 
land, 304 
erseas Private Investment Cor- 
poration (Enders), 480 
ren, Thomas B., 128 



cific Islands Trust Territory, 
UNDP assistance, agreement 
with U.N. re provision of, 304 
iganelli, Robert P., 76 
tkistan (Atherton), 520 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36, 

256, 563, 908, 943, 944 
U.S. arms supply, question of 

(Kissinger), 708 
/isit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Bhutto, 720; Kissinger, 722; 
text of joint communique, 
723 

mama, prevention of foot-and- 
mouth disease and rinderpest, 
agreement with U.S., 162 
mya, Khamphan, 771 



Paraguay, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 75, 304, 780 
Patents: 

Inventions relating to defense, 
agreement (1960) re mutual 
safeguarding, Italy, 279 
Strasbourg agreement (1971) re 
international patent classifi- 
cation: Austria, 332; Brazil, 
699; Egypt, Israel, 779; 
Netherlands (applicable to 
Surinam and Netherlands 
Antilles), 595 
Patterson, John S., 933 
Percy, Charles H., 483, 589, 772, 

807 
Perez Caldas, Jose, 924 
Peru: 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 

256, 387 
U.S. policy, tabular summary, 
1822 to present, 677 
Peterson, Russell W., 433 
Philippines (Ingersoll), 63 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 132, 
279, 332, 372, 780 
Phonograms, protection of pro- 
ducers against unauthorized 
duplication, convention (1971): 
Ecuador, 224; Monaco, 595; 
Spain, 748 
Pitt, William (quoted), 5 
Poland: 

Treaties, .agreements, etc., 255, 

462, 596, 627 
U.S. visit of First Secretary 
Gierek: 597; Kissinger, 565 
Agreements signed, announce- 
ments, 623 
Texts of joint statements and 
joint communique, 603 
Polk, William R., 295 
Pollack, Herman, 128, 250 
Pollution, marine: 

Civil liability for oil pollu- 
tion, international convention 
(1969): Algeria, Morocco, 
224 
Intervention on high seas in 
eases of marine pollution by 
substances other than oil, 
protocol (1973): Italy, 255; 
Poland, 627; Sweden, 131 
Joint pollution contingency plans 
for spills of oil and other 
noxious substances, agree- 
ment with Canada, 132 
Prevention of pollution from 
ships, international conven- 
tion (1973): Bulgaria, 826; 
France, 463; German Demo- 
cratic Republic, 748; Italy, 
279; Poland, 627; Soviet 
Union, 279; Spain, 748; Swe- 
den, 131 



Hex, July 1-December 30, 1974 



Pollution, marine— Continued 
Prevention of pollution of the 
sea by oil, international con- 
vention (1954): Canada, Nor- 
way, 428; U.K., 699 
Amendments: Canada, Norway, 
428 
Popov, Lubomir Dimitrov, 16 
Population problems and control: 
Ford, 467; Kissinger, 286, 377, 
823 
U.S. situation (Weinberger), 429 
World Population Conference 
Claxton, 649; Ford, 431, 548 
Herter, 436; Percy, 592 
Peterson, 433; Weinberger, 
429, 438, 439 
Documents, lists, 595, 623, 676 
World Population Plan of Ac- 
tion: Claxton, 649; Percy, 
592; Peterson, 436; Wein- 
berger, 432, 438; text, 440 
World Population Year: 
Proclamation, 276 
U.S. members of National 
Commission, appointment, 
275 
Porter, DwigTit J., 468 
Portugal: 41; Kissinger, 39, 630 
African colonies, decolonization: 
646; Easum, 586, 841; Kis- 
singer, 764; Scali, 777; 
Walker, 668; White, 659, 673 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36, 

162, 780 
U.S. Ambassador (Carlucci), con- 
firmation, 944 
U.S. visit of President Costa 

Gomes, 646 
Visit of President Nixon: Nixon, 
119, 120; Spinola, 119 
Postal matters: 

Money orders and postal travel- 
lers' cheques agreement 
(1969), Malagasy Republic, 
699 
Parcel post, bilateral agreements 

with: Cyprus, Macao, 492 
Postal Union, Universal, consti- 
tution (1969) with final pro- 
tocol: Gambia, 699; Korea, 
Democratic People's Repub- 
lic of, 131 
Additional protocol: Malagasy 
Republic, Malaysia, 699 
Presidential determination, sale of 
wheat to Egypt: 75-.?/, 461; 
75-5, 805 
Prisoners, treatment of: Kissinger, 
504; Percy, 807; text of U.N. 
resolution, 810 
Proclamations by the President: 
United Nations Day, 1974 

(iSOO), 312 
World Environment Day, 1974 
a296), 215 



961 



Proclamations by the President- 
Continued 
World Population Year, 1974 
(i299), 276 
Publications: 

Congressional documents relating 
to foreiern policy, lists, 59, 
156, 195^ 254, 294, 365, 384, 
487, 588, 659, 669 
State Department: 

Digest of United States Prac- 
tice in International Law, 
1973, released, 388 
Foreign Relations of tlic 
United States, 19J,9, vol- 
ume III, Council of For- 
eign Ministers, Gertnany 
and Austria, released, 628 
Treaties and Other Interna- 
tional Agreements of the 
United States of America 
177e-19J,9, released, 280 
U.N. documents, lists, 74, 247, 
266, 331, 427, 676, 943 



Qatar, U.S. Ambassador (Paga- 

nelli), confirmation, 76 
Quarm, Samuel Ernest, 573 



Rabasa, Emilio O. (Kissinger), 142 
Rabin, Yitzhak, 468, 469, 470 
Racial discrimination: 

Apartheid: Easum, 840, 843; 
Scali, 594, 775, 811; Segel, 
672 
Decade for Action to Combat 
Racism: Ferguson, 815; text 
of U.N. resolution, 817 
International convention (1965) 
on elimination of: Jordan, 
131; Mali, 387; United Arab 
Emirates, 352; Upper Volta, 
372 
Southern Africa (Easum), 838 
Radhakrishnan (quoted), 740 
Radio (see also Telecommunica- 
tions) : 
Great Lakes, agreement with 
Canada for promotion of 
safety by means of radio, 75 
Pre-sunrise operation of certain 
standard broadcasting sta- 
tions, agreement with Ba- 
hamas, 524 
Ragsdale, Thomas, 933 
Rain.sborough, Thomas (quoted), 

844 
Ray, Dixie Lee, 468, 552 
Reed, Tom (quoted), 191 
Reese, Everett D., 933 



Refugees: 

ICRC agreements re assistance 
to refugees, displaced per- 
sons and war victims in 
Khmer Republic, Laos, and 
Viet-Nam, 36, 256, 627 
Protocol 1 of universal copyright 
convention re application to 
works of stateless persons 
and refugees: Norway, 660; 
Senegal, ISl; U.S., 279 
Reis, Herbert, 68 
Reston, James, 629 
Rhodesia. See Southern Rhodesia 
Ribicoff, Abraham A. (Kissinger), 

144 
Rice, International Rice Commis- 
sion, amended constitution, ac- 
ceptance, Kenya, 943 
Rifai, Zaid, 610 
Roberson, Peggy, 788 
Robinson, Charles W., 944 
Rockefeller, Nelson (Ford), 789 
Rogers, William D.: 596; Kissinger, 

584; Molina, 585 
Romania: 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 428, 

462, 595 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Ceausescu, 731; Kissinger, 
730, 731; text of joint com- 
munique, 732 
Rumsfield, Donald (Kissinger), 890 
Rush, Kenneth, 464 
Rusk, Dean (quoted), 933 
Rwanda, treaties, agreements, etc., 
131, 627, 747, 748 



Sadat, Anwar: 79, 80, 84, 88, 89, 
608, 613, 757; Kissinger, 613; 
Nixon, 80, 83, 85; Sisco, 12, 13 

Safety of life at sea: 
International convention (1960), 
amendments (1968, 1969, 
1971), Canada (with reserva- 
tions), 428 
International convention (1974): 
Bulgaria, Byelorussian 

S.S.R., Chile, Congo (Braz- 
zaville), Czechoslovakia, 
Denmark, Egypt, Fi-ance, 
Ghana, Greece, Hungary, 
Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Is- 
rael, Korea, Republic of. 
Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, 
Portugal, Soviet Union, Swe- 
den, Switzerland, U.K., U.S., 
Ukrainian S.S.R., Venezuela, 
Viet-Nam, Republic of, Ye- 
men (San'a), Yugoslavia, 780 
International regulations for prt>- 
vention of collisions at sea, 
convention (1972): Noi-way, 
387; Spain, 131; U.K., 255 

Sakuma Shozan (quoted), 869 



Salifou, Ilia, 771 

Saqqaf, Sayyid Umar al-, 424, 42.'ii 

427, 611, 758 
Saud, Prince Fahd bin Abd a 

Aziz Al, 8, 9 
Saudi Arabia: 
Joint Commission on Economii 
Cooperation: 10; Atherton 
336, 338; Prince Fahd, !) 
Kissinger, 9; Nixon, 96 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36, 74 

75 
U.S. relations: Atherton, 33C 

Sisco, 57 
U.S. visit of Foreign Ministe 

al-Saqqaf, 423 
U.S. visit of Prince Fahd: 7 

King Faisal, 94 
Visit of President Nixon: Kin; 
Faisal, 94, 97; Nixon, 95, 9i 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger 
Kissinger, 565, 611, 759; al 
Saqqaf, 611, 758 
Sauvagnargues, Jean, 541 
Scali, John, 483 

Addresses, remarks, and state 
ments: 
Cyprus, 366, 367, 813 
Ceasefire, 262, 264, 330 
Refugees, 459 
International Atomic Energ; 

Agency, 778 
Less developed countries, 557 
Middle East: 
Palestine, 857 

Palestinian Liberation Orga | 
nization participation iirl 
General Assembly de4- 
bate, U.S. position, 622 If- 
U.N. Disengagement Ob!^ 
server Force in Israeli 
Syria sector, extensioniif- 
940 
UNEF in Egypt-Israel se&j 
tor, extension of man-|li . 
date, 674 'i 

South Africa: 
Exclusion from General As- 
sembly, 811, 812 
Expulsion from U.N., pro- 
posed, 775 
U.N. credentials, question of 
594 
U.N. 1974 budget, U.S. contri- 
bution, 365 
UNRWA, U.S. contribution, 

384 
World shortages and inflation, 
238 
Schaufele, William E., Jr., 73, 344 
Scherer, Gordon H., 667 
Schlesinger, James R. (Kissinger), 

198, 913 
Schmidt, Helmut: 926, 927; Kis- 
singer, 46 
Schweid, Barry, 885, 893, 899 



962 



Department of State Bulletin 



cience and technology: 
Poland-U.S. agreement on coop- 
eration, 596, 624 
L'.S.-Mexico Mixed Commission 
on Science and Technology, 
decisions and recommenda- 
tions, 127 
U.S.-Yugoslav Joint Board on 
Scientific and Technological 
Cooperation, meeting, 837 
cowcroft. Brent, 185 
ea, exploration of, convention 
(1964), protocol, U.S., 428, 
524, 780 
sabed disarmament treaty (1971), 

Italy, 428 
EATO (Southeast Asia Treaty 
Organization), annual meeting, 
616 
3curity Council, U.N.: 
Documents, lists, 266, 331 
Draft resolution, text, expulsion 
of South Africa from U.N., 
777 
Resolutions, texts: 
Cyprus: 

Ceasefire, 266, 368 

Refugees, 460 

Resumption of negotiations 

urged, 368, 369 
U.N. Disengagement Ob- 
server Force, extension, 
941 
UNEF mandate, six-month 

extension, 676 
UNFICYP, 331, 368 
Casualties, 368 
3gel, Joseph M., 672, 941 
2idman, L. William, 549 
snegal, treaties, agreements, etc., 

131, 372 
srvice of legal process by mail on 
foreign governments in U.S., 
proposed bill, 458 
hips and shipping: 
Intervention on high seas in cases 
of marine pollution by sub- 
stances other than oil, proto- 
col (1973): Italy, 255; Po- 
land, 627; Sweden, 131 
Leadlines, international conven- 
tion (1966): Libya, 428; 
Malta, Venezuela, 748 
Amendments (1971): Canpda, 
428; Cyprus, 660 
Prevention of pollution from 
ships, international conven- 
tion (1973): Bulgaria, 820; 
France, 463; German Demo- 
cratic Republic, 748; Italy, 
279; Poland, 627; Soviet 
Union, 279; Spain, 748; Swe- 
den, 131 
ilva, Rodolfo, 573 
imon, William E., 129, 243, 549, 
575, 646, 648, 794 



Singapore, treaties, agreements, 

etc., 131, 332, 944 
Singh, Kewal, 707 
Sisco, Joseph J.: 11, 56, 147, 295, 
484, 790; Kissinger, 257, 259, 
609 
Slavery, supplementary convention 
on abolition of (1956), German 
Democratic Republic, 372 
Smith, Alfred E.: Ford (quoted), 

645; Kissinger, 643 
Smith, Robert P., 256 
Sneider, Richard L., 428 
Soames, Sir Christopher (Nixon), 

22 
Sober, Sidney, 252 
Sonnenfeldt, Helmut, 185, 228 
South Africa: 

Apartheid: Easum, 840, 843; 

Scali, 594; Segel, 672 
General Assembly, exclusion 

from (Scali), 8*11, 812 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 131, 

163 
U.N., expulsion proposed: Easum, 
843; Scali, 775; S.C. draft 
resolution, text, 777 
U.N. credentials, question of 
(Scali), 594 
Southeast Asia Treaty Organiza- 
tion, annual meeting, 616 
Southern Rhodesia: Easum, 838, 

841, 842; White, 673 
Soviet Union (see also Strategic 
arms limitation talks) : 
Emigration policies (Kissinger), 

144, 204, 212, 518, 915, 936 
Sino-Soviet relations (Kissin- 
ger), 637 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 36, 

163, 255, 279, 780 
U.S. grain purchases, limitation, 

announcement, 648 
U.S. relations: 186; Brezhnev, 
174, 184; Ford, 334, 886; 
Gromyko, 702, 766; Kissin- 
ger, 49, 133, 286, 376, 634, 
637, 701, 709, 742, 765; Lord, 
619; Nixon, 2, 4, 78, 169, 
179, 192, 193 
Commercial and economic (see 
also Trade, U.S. Trade Re- 
form Act): 163, 188, 189; 
Brezhnev, 174; Enders, 
272; Ford, 642 (quoted), 
923; Hartman, 268; Kis- 
singer, 510; Simon, 646 
National security aspects 

(Hartman), 271 
Text of economic agreement, 

219 
U.S.-Soviet Trade and Eco- 
nomic Council meeting 
(Simon), 646 



udex, July 1 -December 30, 1974 



Soviet Union — Continued 
U.S. relations — Continued 

Detente: Ford, 572; Kissinger, 
505, 633, 703; Nixon, 4; 
Schmidt, 927; Sisco, 296; 
Ziegler, 173 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger 
to India, question of effect 
(Kissinger), 710 
U.S. television transmissions, 
question of Soviet interfer- 
ence (Kissinger), 212 
Visit of President Ford (Vladi- 
vostock): 704; Ford, 572, 
739, 789, 861, 866, 878, 882; 
Kissinger, 781, 785, 787, 884, 
893 
Chinese views, question of 

(Kissinger), 891 
Ford-Brezhnev relationship, 
question of (Kissinger), 
895 
Joint communique, text, 879 
Joint statement on strategic 
offensive arms: Ford, 789, 
861, 865; Kissinger, 786, 
893, 910, 912, 917; text, 
879 
Visit of President Nixon: Brezh- 
nev, 174, 183; Ford, 145, 191; 
Kissinger, 133, 139, 225, 227; 
Nixon, 5, 104, 109, 120-121, 
140, 143, 165, 167, 175, 178, 
179, 182, 192; Scali, 238; 
Ziegler, 173 
Impeachment inquiry, question 
of effect (Kissinger), 139, 
201 
SALT agreements, question of 

(Ki.ssinger), 140, 143 
Summary (Kissinger), 205 
Text of joint communique, 185 
Visits of Secretary Kissinger: 
Ford, 145; Gromyko, 701, 
765; Kissinger, 204, 701, 702, 
765; text of communique, 
703 
Spain: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

573 
Joint U.S. -Spain Declaration of 
Principles: 47; Cortina, 228; 
Kissinger, 40, 230; text, 231 
Signature (Nixon), 285 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 131, 
163, 223, 304, 387, 463, 627, 
748, 860, 908 
U.S. visit of Foreign Minister 

Cortina. 47 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Cortina, 228; Kissinger, 230 
Sperling, Godfrey, 863 
Spinola, Antonio de, 119 
Sri Lanka (Atherton), 522 

Repayment of certain debts, bi- 
lateral agreement, 304 



963 



state Department: 

Assistant Secretary for East 
Asian and Pacific Affairs 
(Habib), confirmation, 464 
Assistant Secretary of State for 
Economic and Business Af- 
fairs (Enders), confirmation, 
164 
Assistant Secretary of State 
for Inter-American Affairs 
(Rogers): 596; Kissinger, 
584; Molina, 585 ■ 
Bureau of Oceans and Interna- 
tional Environmental and 
Scientific Affairs, establish- 
ment, 627 
Deputy Secretary of State (In- 

gersoll), confiiTnation, 164 
Diplomatic appointments (Kissin- 
ger), 636 
Foreign policy decisionmaking 

(Kissinger), 635 
Petroleum matters, role (Katz), 66 
Secretary of State Kissinger, 
question of resignation (Kis- 
singer), 39, 45 
Tribute of Appreciation award 
to Emmet J. Kay (Inger- 
soll), 770 
Under Secretary of State for Co- 
ordinating Security Assist- 
ance Programs (Maw), con- 
firmation, 164 
Under Secretary of State for 
Economic Affairs (Robinson), 
confirmation, 944 
Stein, Herbert, 28 
Stevenson, John R., 232, 389, 400, 

402, 406, 412 
Stevenson, Robert A., 76 
Stoessel, Walter J., Jr., 185 
Strategic ai-ms limitation agree- 
ments: Kissinger, 140, 143, 
514; Nixon, 3 
ABM systems: 

Limitation, protocol to agree- 
ment with Soviet Union: 
187; Kissinger, 205, 206, 
207, 283; Martin, 369; 
Nixon, 193 
Ambiguities in (Ford), 864 
Current actions, 163 
Text, 216 

U.S. ratification urged 
(Ford), 523 
Replacement, dismantling or 
destruction, protocol on 
procedures: 187; Kissin- 
ger, 207 
Current actions, 163 
Interim agreement (Kissinger), 
514 
Congress, question of informa- 
tion on (Kissinger), 138, 
200, 202 
Extension, question of (Kissin- 
ger), 141, 205, 209 



Strategic arms limitation agree- 
ments — Continued 
Interim agreement — Continued 
Interpretation, question of 
(Kissinger), 134, 137, 139, 
145, 198, 202 
Termination, proposed (Kissin- 
ger), 899 
Secret agreement, question of 
(Kissinger), 134, 136, 198, 
207, 226 
Strategic offensive arms: 
Limitation agreement (Vladi- 
vostok): Kissinger, 786, 
893, 898, 902, 910, 912, 917 
Change of U.S. presidents, 
question of effect on 
negotiations (Kissinger), 
895, 902 
Congressional approval, 

question of (Kissinger), 
903, 919 
Good faith, question of (Kis- 
singer), 903 
Provisions, discussions of: 
Ford, 861, 862, 864, 865; 
Kissinger, 894, 898, 903, 
910, 912 
Sequence of events (Kissin- 
ger), 894, 898 
Signature, question of (Kis- 
singer), 896, 897 
U.S. military budget, ques- 
tion of effect (Ford), 
862, 864, 865 
Replacement, dismantling or 
destruction, protocol of 
procedures (1974): 187; 
Kissinger, 207; Nixon, 193 
Current actions, 163 
Strategic arms limitation talks: 42, 
186; Ford, 379, 572; Ingersoll, 
475; Kissinger, 133, 196, 205, 
207, 214, 225, 227, 374, 501, 
513, 743; Nixon, 179; Ziegler, 
173 
ABM bases, question of further 
U.S. reduction (Kissinger), 
282 
Final agreement, question of: 
703; Kissinger, 140, 197, 212, 
902 
Reconvention, Geneva, U.S. dele- 
gation, 461 
TeiTninating date, question of 
(Kissinger), 209 
Sudan: 
Commutation of terrorist sen- 
tences deplored (Sisco), 147 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 255, 
492 
Suez Canal, 382 
Clearance: 

Mines and unexploded ordnance 
from, clearance, agree- 
ment with Egypt re U.S. 
assistance, 75 



Suez Canal — Continued 

Salvage and/or removal o 

sunken vessels, arrangemen 

with Egypt, 132 

U.S. forces, status of re use o 

British Sovereign Basi 

areas in Cyprus, arrange 

ment with U.K., 388 

Reopening: 93; Sisco, 58 

Israeli withdrawal, question o. 

as prerequisite (Kissin 

ger), 787 

Sugar, U.S. tariffs (Ford), 804 

Surganov, Fedor A., 177 

Swaziland, treaties, agreements 

etc., 303, 304 
Sweden: 

Ambassador to U.S. credentials 

16 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 3S 

75, 131, 163, 747, 780, .860 

Switzerland, treaties, agreements 

etc., 75, 279, 304, 492, 780, 86t 

Symington, Stuart, 483 

Syria: Nixon, 100; Sisco, 57, 58* 

296 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials 

573 
Damascus International Tradt 
Fair, U.S. participation, 26' 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 491 

492, 908 
U.S. Ambassador (Murphy), con- 
firmation, 428 
U.S. diplomatic relations, re- 
sumption: Asad, 101; Nixon 
102 
U.S. visit of Foreign Minister 
Khaddam: 362; Kissinger; 
363 
Visit of President Nixon: Asadjj 

98, 101; Nixon, 100, 102 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Kissinger, 609, 614; Nixon, 
100 



iisicoi, 
ti!kl 

COJV 

ne.« 

lOBjl 

liwat 
tow 
m 

tiE 

r.s. I 

6f 

liritiit 

reri 

(ft 






Ttlffta 

wit 



tor 
tioi 

spt 



! 



Imfss 



Tagore, Rabindranath (quoted), 

745 
Tammenoms Bakker, Age Robert, 

771 

Tanzania, international coffeei 
agreement (1968), extension,, 
279 J 

Tape, Gerald F., 468 ' 

Tariffs, U.S., maintenance of cur- 
rent levels of tariffs on sugar 
(Ford), 804 
Tariffs and trade, general agree- 
ment on (Percy), 590 
Multilateral negotiations, Tokyo: 

Ford, 922; Simon, 578, 794 
Provisional accession of the Phil- 
ippines, declaration: Aus- 
tralia, Austria, Pakistan, 944 



t:o 

Cin 



964 



Department of State Bulletin M 



faxation, income tax convention 

witli Poland, 623 
felecommunications: 
International telecommunication 
convention (1965) with an- 
nexes: Bahamas, 463; Co- 
lombia, 224; Gambia, 131 
International telecommunication 
convention (1973) with an- 
nexes: Bahrain, 860; IVIauri- 
tius, 492; Singapore, 944 
U.S. ratification urged (Ford), 
668 
Maritime mobile sei-vice, partial 
revision of i-adio regulations 
(Geneva, 1959), Switzerland, 
304 
Revised frequency allotment plan 
for aeronautical mobile (R) 
service, partial revision of 
radio regulations (Geneva, 
1959), Switzerland, 304 
Space telecommunications: 
Allotment of frequency bands, 
partial revision (1963) to 
1959 radio regulations, 
Cuba, 943 
Partial revision (1971) of 1959 
radio regulations: Paki- 
stan, 943; Switzerland, 304 
Telegraph regulations (1973) 
with appendices, annex and 
final protocol, and telephone 
regulations (1973) with ap- 
pendices and final protocol: 
Australia, 224; Canada, 627; 
Denmark, Overseas Terri- 
tories for international rela- 
tions of which U.K. is re- 
sponsible, Finland, 780; Hun- 
gary, 943, 944; Luxembourg, 
780; Norway, 492; Rwanda, 
Spain, 627; Sweden, Thai- 
land, U.K., 780 
erritorial sea (Stevenson), 233 
^errorism: 791«; Ford, 548 
Diplomats, protection of, conven- 
tion (1973): 
Current actions: Bulgaria, 279, 
463; Byelorussian S.S.R., 
255; Canada, 279; Czecho- 
slovakia, 748; Denmark, 
35; Ecuador, 700; Finland, 
35; German Democratic 
Republic (with reserva- 
tion), 74; Germany, Fed- 
eral Republic of, 463; Ice- 
land, 35; Mongolia, 463; 
Nicaragua, 780; Norway, 
35; Paraguay, 780; Poland, 
255; Rwanda, 748; Soviet 
Union, 255; Sweden, Tu- 
nisia, 35; Ukrainian S.S.R., 
279 
U.S. ratification urged (Ford), 
803 



Terrorism — Continued 

Sudanese action on murderers of 
U.S. diplomats deplored 
(Sisco), 147 
Textiles: 

Cotton, wool, and manmade fiber 
textiles, bilateral agreements 
with: Hong Kong, 304; Ja- 
pan, 563, 700 
Cotton textiles, trade in, bilat- 
eral agreements with: Haiti, 
132, 492; Hong Kong, 304; 
Hungary, 36; India, 332 
International trade in textiles, 
arrangement (1973): Aus- 
tria, 131, 780; Ghana, 131; 
Nicaragua, Philippines, 780; 
Singapore, 131 
Thailand: Ingersoll, 63; Kissinger, 
54 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 33, 
161, 163, 780 
Thant, U, death of (Ford), 882 
Thomas, Helen, 862, 893 
Thompson, Llewellyn E. (Ford), 

146 
Tito, Josip Broz, 733 
de Tocqueville, Alexis (quoted), 622 
Togo, Ambassador to U.S., creden- 
tials, 16 
Tolstoy, Leo (quoted), 182 
Toth, Robert C, 143 
Touring and tourism: 

Customs facilities for touring, 
convention (1954): Chile, 
491; Tunisia (with reserva- 
tion), 332 
World Tourism Organization, 
statutes (1970): Brazil, 
Chile, Lebanon, Mali, Peru, 
Spain, Venezuela, 387 
Trade: 

Primary commodities: Enders, 

300; Scali, 239; Simon, 577 
U.S.: 

Expropriation of private prop- 
erty, effect of U.S. trade 
policies (Kissinger), 939 
Generalized trade preferences 
(Kissinger), 54, 289, 826, 
938 
Poland, 605, 624 
Romania (Kissinger), 730, 731 
Soviet Union. See Soviet 

Union 
Trade Agreements Program, 
18th annual report, trans- 
mittal (Nixon), 342 
Trade Refoi-m Act: Ford, 333, 
665, 920; Kissinger, 54, 
289, 584, 730, 731, 904, 935; 
Nixon, 21, 343; Percy, 590; 
Simon, 578, 647, 794 
Jackson-Vanik amendment: 
Ford, 924; Kissinger, 
204, 936 



Transportation, 190 
Travel, nonimmigrants traveling 
between U.S. and Mexico, 
agreement re documentation, 
132 
Treaties, agreements, etc.: 

Current actions, 35, 74, 131, 161, 
223, 255, 279, 303, 332, 352, 
372, 387, 428, 462, 491, 524, 
563, 595, 627, 660, 699, 747, 
779, 820, 860, 908, 943 
Treaties and Other Interna- 
tional Agreements of the 
United States of America 
1776-191,9, volume 12, re- 
leased, 280 
Vienna convention on law of 
ti-eaties (1969): Australia, 
279; Greece, 780; Italy, 387; 
Mexico, 700 
Trinidad and Tobago, technical as- 
sistance agreement with U.S., 
908 
Trudeau, Pierre Elliott: 931; (Kis- 
singer), 914 
Truman, Harry S. (quoted), 167 
Tunisia: 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 35, 36, 

352, 372, 387, 595, 944 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Chatti, 764; Kissinger, 763 
Turkey (see also Cyprus) : 

Opium ban, lifting of (Kissin- 
ger), 226 
Poppy-harvesting method changes 
(Ferguson), 819 
Announcement, 588 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 524, 

660, 747, 748, 860 
U.S. military aid (Kissinger), 54 
Cyprus situation, question of 
effect (Kissinger), 258, 
261, 354, 357, 916 
U.S. restrictions: Ford, 655, 
656, 657, 658, 739; Kissin- 
ger, 909 
Twain, Mark (quoted), 535 



Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub- 
lic, treaties, agreements, etc., 
279, 780 
UNICEF (United Nations Chil- 
dren's Fund): Buflfum, 157 
United Arab Emirates (Atherton), 
337 
Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

924 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 332, 
352, 820 
United Kingdom: 
Excess airline capacity reduc- 
tion, 551 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 75, 
255, 280, 372, 387, 524, 56.3, 
595, 660, 699, 780, 860, 908 



ndex, July 1 -December 30, 1974 



965 



United Nations: 
Accomplishments and role: 188; 

Kissinger, 504; Scali, 238 
Bloc voting (Kissinger), 914 
Budget, U.S. 1974 contribution: 

365; Scali, 365 
Documents, lists, 74, 247, 26C, 
331, 387, 427, 595, 623, 67G, 
943 
Membership: 

Bangladesh, 595; Bennett, 558; 

Schaufele, 73 
Grenada: 595; Bennett, 558 
Guinea-Bissau: 344, 595; Ben- 
nett, 558 
Peacekeeping operations (Segel), 

941 
Privileges and immunities, con- 
vention (1946): Colombia, 
463; German Democratic Re- 
public, 820; Spain, 463 
South Africa: 
Credentials, question of: Scali, 
594; text of General As- 
sembly resolution, 594 
Exclusion from General Assem- 
bly participation (Scali), 
811, 812 
Expulsion, proposed: Easum, 
843; Scali, 775; S.C. draft 
resolution, 777 
Structural efficiency review 

(Scali), 241 
U.S. participation, 28th annual 
report, transmittal (Ford), 
547 
United Nations Children's Fund, 
FY 1975 appropriation request 
(Buffum), 157 
United Nations Day, 1974, Procla- 
mation, 312 
United Nations Development Pro- 
gram: 
Pacific Islands Trust Territory, 
bilateral agreement with 
U.N. re provision of assist- 
ance, 304 
U.S. appropriation request FY 
1975 (BuflFum), 158 
United Nations Fund for Popula- 
tion Activities, FY 1975 appro- 
priation request (BufFum), 157, 
158 
United Nations Outer Space Com- 
mittee (Bennett), 323 
United Nations Peace-keeping 
Force in Cyprus. See under 
Cyprus 

United Nations Relief and Works 
Agency: 
Provision of elementary educa- 
tion to Palestinian refugees 
in Middle East, agreement 
with U.S., 352 
U.S. contributions: Buffum, 157; 
Scali, 384 



966 



United States Bicentennial, 1976 
(Ford), 931 
French gift: Giscard d'Estaing, 
322; Kosciusko-Morizet, 421; 
Nixon, 421 
United States public opinion (Kis- 
singer), 629, 632, 640 
Universal Postal Union, constitu- 
tion (1969) with final protocol: 
Gambia, 699; Korea, Demo- 
cratic People's Republic of, 131 
Upper Volta: 

Elimination of racial discrimina- 
tion, international conven- 
tion, accession, 372 
U.S. Ambassador (Graham), 
confirmation, 76 
Upton, R. Miller, 667 
Uruguay, Ambassador to U.S., cre- 
dentials, 924 



Valeriani, Richard, 11, 790 
Van Cauwenberg, Willy, 771 
Vann, John Paul, 933 
Vatican City State, wheat trade 
convention (1971), extension, 
ratification, 75 
Venezuela: 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 

573 
Nationalization of U.S. Steel and 
Bethlehem companies (Kis- 
singer), 918 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 74, 
387, 463, 748, 780 
Viet-Nam, Democratic Republic of: 

Ingersoll, 62; Kissinger, 52 
Viet-Nam, Republic of: 188; Ford, 
334; Ni.xon, 3 
ICRC agreements re assistance 
to refugees, displaced per- 
sons and war victims, 36, 
256, 627 
Treaties, agreements, etc., 163, 

256, 304, 700, 780, 860 
U.S. aid: Ford, 616; Ingersoll, 
61; Kissinger, 51, 52, 287, 
377; Martin, 291 
Volpe, John, 228 

w 

Wachtmeister, Count Wilhelm, 16 

Waldheim, Kurt, 331 

Walker, Peter, 668 

Wallace, David H., 130 

Walters, Barbara, 12, 790 

Ward, Russ, 789 

Washington, George (quoted), 1, 

194 
Watergate (Kissinger), 641 
Weather. See Meteorology 



Procli 



Weights and measures. Interns i* 
tional Organization of Leg; 
Metrology, convention (1955) 
Cyprus, 256; Korea, Demc 
cratic People's Republic of, 7 
Weinberger, Caspar W., 429, 43' 

439 
Weiss, Seymour, 76 
Western Samoa, treaties, agreti 

ments, etc., 162, 748 
Wheat: 

Egypt, U.S. sales (Ford), 461 

805 

Food aid convention (1971), ext 

tension (Katz), 33 

Current actions: Argentine 

Australia, Belgium, Can 

ada, 36; Denmark, Euro 

pean Economic Commu 

nity, 75; Finland, 36 

France, 75; Germany, Fed 

eral Republic of, 75, 352 

Ireland, 75; Italy, 75, 131 

Japan, 75; Luxembourg 

36; Netherlands, Sweden 

Switzerland, U.K., 76 

U.S., 76, 332, 388 

U.S. Food for Peace wheat ai< 

to Bangladesh, 934 
Wheat trade convention (1971) 
extension (Katz), 33 
Current actions: Australia 
Barbados, 75; Brazil, 860 
Canada, 35-36; Costa Rica 
256; Denmark, 75; Domin 
ican Republic, 595; Ecua 
dor, 75, 256; Egypt, Fin 
land, 35-36; Greece, 75 
Guatemala, India, Ireland 
75; Israel, 748; Italy, 131 
Japan, Kenya, Korea, 75: 
Lebanon, Mauritius, 35-36, 
Netherlands, 75; Nigeria 
131; Noinvay, 75; Pakistan 
35-36; Peru, 75, 256; 
Portugal, 35-36; Saudi 
Arabia, 75; Soviet Union, 
35-36; Sweden, Switzer- 
land, 75; Tunisia, 35-36; i 
U.K.. 563; U.S., 75, 332, 
388; Vatican City State, 75 
White, Barbara M., 659, 673 
Williams, Cecil B., 573 
Wills, international, uniform law 
on form of, convention (1973): 
Ecuador, 279; France, 860; 
U.K., 595 
Wilson, Woodrow (quoted), 756 
Wiretap inquiry, question of (Kis- 
singer), 39 
Wolle, William D., 76 
Women : 

Political rights of, convention 

(1953), Mali, 388 
Rights of: Claxton, 651; Percy, 
591 



Department of State Bulletin 



'■H STomen — Continued 
it Status of: 445; Peterson, 436; 
Weinberger, 438 
World Conference, 1975 

(Percy), 592 
(S /orld cultural and natural heri- 
tage, convention (1972) on pro- 
tection of: Algeria, 492; Aus- 
tralia, 660; Sudan, 492 
/orld Environment Day, 1974, 

Proclamation, 215 
VoTld Heritage Trust Fund, U.S. 
appropriation request FY 1975 
(Buffum), 158 
iTorld order: Kissinger, 633, 638, 

644; Nixon, 170 
/orld peace: Ford, 465; Kissinger, 
373, 498; Nixon, 1, 5, 169, 180, 
192 



Yemen (Atherton), 337 

Yemen Arab Republic, safety of 

life at sea convention (1974), 

signature, 780 

Young, Milton R.: 281; Kissinger, 

283 
Yugoslavia: 

Safety of life at sea convention 

(1974), signature, 780 
U.S.-Yugoslav Joint Board on 
Scientific and Technological 
Cooperation, meeting, 837 
Visit of Secretary Kissinger: 
Kissinger, 733; Tito, 733; 
text of joint communique, 
733 



Zaire: 

Treaties, agreements, etc., 780, 
908 

U.S. Ambassador (Hinton), con- 
firmation, 76 

Zambia : 

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 
16 

Importation of educational, scien- 
tific, and cultural materials, 
agreement (1950), notifica- 
tion of succession, 908 

Ziegler, Ronald L.: 171, 185; Kis- 
singer, 126 



Index, July 1-December 30, 1974 



967 



Superintendent of Documents 
U.S. government printing office 

WASHINGTON. DC. 2O402 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



postage and fees paid 
Department of State STA-501 

Special Fourth-Class Rate 
Book 




Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Superintendent 
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D.C. 20402. 



1 /J 

7A 



/f^7 




THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BULLETIN 



Volume LXXI 



No. 1827 



July 1, 1974 



PRAGMATISM AND MORAL FORCE IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 
President Nixon's Commencement Address at the Naval Academy 1 

UNITED STATES AND SAUDI ARABIA AGREE 
ON EXPANDED COOPERATION 7 

INTER-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN TRANSITION 
Address by Ambassador Mailliard 17 

OECD MINISTERIAL COUNCIL MEETS AT PARIS 
U.S. statements and Texts of Communique and DeclanQ,tion\x,^Sy 



THE OFFICIAL WEEKLY RECORD OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 

For index see inside back cover 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Offline 

Washington. D.C. 20402 

PRICE: 

52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80. foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN 



Vol. LXXI, No. 1827 
July], 1974 



The Department of State BULLETm 
a weekly publication issued by th« 
Office of Media Services, Bureau m 
Public Affairs, provides tfie public ana 
interested agencies of the governmen* 
with information on developments ii» 
the field of U.S. foreign relations anoi 
on the work of tlie Department ano) 
tfie Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selectetk 
press releases on foreign policy, issuei 
by the Wliite House and the Depart* 
ment, and statements, addressesf 
and news conferences of the Presiden^ 
and the Secretary of State and othei^ 
officers of the Department, as well tt^ 
special articles on various phases aH 
international affairs and the functioni 
of the Department. Information Is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the ^ 
United States is or may become d 
party and on treaties of general inten 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field 
international relations are also list 



y.s" 



Ui 



litk], 
U i 
fit*: 
Iwi 
f!«(ial 
litipatf 
■y 

lilSr 

imam 

kistory 

In a 

m, 

1 Jeti: 

Mnit' 

ie ai 

Asl 



,i„j,, 



M 



n?a 



Hi 

Coup 
111 



Pragmatism and Moral Force in American Foreign Policy 



Address by President Nixon 



Admiral Mack [Vice Adm. William P. 
Mack], members of the graduating class of 
1974, and all of our very distinguished 
guests: As one who served in World War 
II with great pride in the U.S. Navy, it is a 
special honor and privilege for me to par- 
ticipate in this 124th commencement cere- 
mony of the U.S. Naval Academy. The class 
of 1974 will face challenges as unique and 
demanding as any in the long and proud 
history of the Academy. 

In a letter to Lafayette in November of 
1781, George Washington wrote, "Without 
a decisive Naval force, we can do nothing 
definitive. And with it, everything honor- 
able and glorious." 

As Washington well knew, it was the Navy 
that meant the difference between victory 
and defeat in America's struggle for inde- 
pendence. It was the Navy that meant the 
difference in the birth of a nation. 

Today, in a nuclear age, the Navy's role 
is just as important as it was two centuries 
ago. For now, when the American Continent 
is no longer an isolated fortress but instead 
an integral part of a shrinking and a troubled 
world, a strong American Navy is an indis- 
pensable factor in maintaining global peace 
and global stability. 

You are embarking on your careers at a 
time when America's Armed Forces are mak- 
ing a vital contribution to achieving a goal 
of fundamental importance to each of us here 
today, to all Americans, and to all nations 



^ Made before the graduating class of the U.S. 
Naval Academy at Annapolis on June 5 (Weekly 
Compilation of Presidential Documents dated June 
10). 



of the world : the goal of a lasting peace. 
This is the goal to which I have personally 
pledged this administration since the first 
day of my Presidency. It is a goal to which 
American diplomacy is totally committed. 
And it is a goal that can only be reached 
when it is backed by American strength and 
American resolve. 

As you set out on your noble voyage as 
new leaders in the defense of peace, I would 
like to sketch for you the outline of Amer- 
ica's strategy for peace and the important 
role you will now play in advancing that 
strategy. 

Let us look back a moment to the world 
in which you have grown to manhood. 

When the war ended in Europe and Asia 
in 1945, America was the only economic 
and military superpower in the world. Most 
of Europe and Japan were in ruins — eco- 
nomically exhausted, politically demoralized. 
Leadership of a whole free world fell on 
our shoulders, whether we wanted it or not. 

Hard as it was, our task at the outset 
was made easier by our overwhelming ma- 
terial strength and by a strong, unified sense 
of national purpose. 

Around the globe, we, as Americans, com- 
mitted ourselves to halting the advance of 
communism, to promoting economic develop- 
ment, and even to encouraging other coun- 
tries to adopt our economic, political, and 
social ideals. 

Simplistic and occasionally misguided as 
this goal may have been, it was a noble and 
unselfish goal in its enthusiasm. And despite 
some mistakes which we came to correct, we 
in our hearts know — and millions in Europe 
and Japan and in the developing world know 



July 1, 1974 



1 



— that America's contribution to mankind 
in the quarter century after the war was of 
historic and unprecedented dimensions. 

And we can be proud that America was 
as generous in helping our former enemies as 
we were in aiding our friends. 

During this same period, the face of the 
world changed more rapidly and dramatical- 
ly than ever before in the world's history. 
Fifty-eight newly independent nations joined 
the world community. The once-monolithic 
Communist bloc was splintered. New centers 
of power emerged in Europe and Asia. 

American zeal and innocence were tem- 
pered during these years, also. The war in 
Korea, followed by the long war in Viet- 
Nam, sapped too much of our national self- 
confidence and sense of pui'pose. Our own 
domestic needs commanded greater attention. 
And by the later 1960's, our policy of trying 
to solve everyone's problems all over the 
world was no longer realistic, nor was it 
necessary. 

America was no longer a giant, towering 
over the rest of the world with seemingly 
inexhaustible resources and a nuclear mo- 
nopoly. 

As our overwhelming superiority in power 
receded, there was a growing threat that we 
might turn inward, that we might retreat 
into isolation from our world responsibilities, 
ignoring the fact that we were, and are still, 
the greatest force for peace anywhere in the 
world today. 

This threat of a new wave of isolationism, 
blind to both the lessons of the past and the 
perils of the future, was, and remains today, 
one of the greatest potential dangers facing 
our country — because in our era, American 
isolation could easily lead to global desola- 
tion. Whether we like it or not, the alterna- 
tive to detente is a runaway nuclear arms 
race, a return to constant confrontation, and 
a shattering setback to our hopes for build- 
ing a new structure of peace in the world. 

When we came into oflfice in 1969, this 
administration faced a more complex, a more 
challenging, and yet in some w^ays a more 
promising world situation than that which 
existed in the post- World War II era. 

While we could not, and will not, abdicate 



our responsibilities as the most powerful 
nation in the free world, it was apparent that 
the time had come to reassess those responsi- 
bilities. This was the guiding purpose of the 
Nixon doctrine, a doctrine which says that 
those we help to enjoy the benefits of free- 
dom should bear a fair share of the burden 
of its defense as well. 

It was also clear that both pragmatism and 
moral force had to be the double prongs of 
any American foreign policy in the new era. 
A sense of moral purpose is part of our 
heritage, and it is part of the tradition of our 
foreign policy. Pragmatism, i-ealism, and 
technical efficiency must not be the sole 
touchstone of our foreign policy. Such a poli- 
cy would have no roots or inspiration and 
could not long elicit positive support from 
the American people and the Congress, and 
more important, it would not deserve the 
respect of the world. 

We had to remember, however, that un- 
realistic idealism could be impractical and 
potentially dangerous. It could tempt us to 
forgo results that were good because we 
insisted upon results that were perfect. 

Resolving Problems With the Soviet Union 

A blend of the ideal and the pragmatic in 
our foreign policy has been especially critical 
in our approach to the Soviet Union. 

The differences between our two systems 
of life and government are sharp and funda- 
mental. But even as we oppose totalitarian- 
ism, we must also keep sight of the hard, 
cold facts of life in the nuclear age. 

Ever since the Soviet Union achieved 
equality in strategic weapons systems, each 
confrontation has meant a brush with poten- 
tial nuclear devastation to all civilized na- 
tions. Reduction of tensions, therefore, be- 
tween us has become the foremost require- 
ment of American foreign policy. 

The United States will not retreat from 
its principles. The leaders of the Soviet 
Union will not sacrifice theirs. But as we 
have the valor to defend those principles 
which divide us as nations, we must have 
the vision to seek out those things which 
unite us as human beings. 



Department of State Bulletin 



Together, we share the capacity to destroy 
forever our common heritage of 4,000 years 
of civilization. Together, we are moving to 
insure that this will not — because it must not 
— happen. 

Slowly and carefully over the past five 
years, we have worked with the Soviet Union 
to resolve concrete problems that could de- 
teriorate into military confrontations. And 
upon these bridges we are erecting a series 
of tangible economic and cultural exchanges 
that will bind us more closely together. 

The American people are a great people; 
the Russian people are a great people. These 
two great people who worked together in war 
are now learning to work together in peace. 
Ultimately, we hope that the United States 
and the Soviet Union will share equally high 
stakes in preserving a stable international 
environment. 

The results of this policy have been heart- 
ening. The problem of Berlin, where our 
nations were at swords' point for a quarter 
of a century, has now been resolved by nego- 
tiation. Our two countries have concluded an 
historic agreement to limit strategic nuclear 
arms. 

We and our allies have engaged the Soviet 
Union in negotiations on major issues of 
European security, including a reduction of 
military forces in Central Europe. We have 
substantially reduced the risk of direct U.S.- 
Soviet confrontation in crisis areas. We have 
reached a series of bilateral cooperative 
agreements in such areas as health, environ- 
ment, space, science and technology, as well 
as trade. 

At the Moscow summit in 1972, our Secre- 
tary of the Navy, the Commander-in-Chief 
of the Soviet Navy, signed an agreement on 
the prevention of incidents on and over the 
high seas — a code of conduct aimed at elimi- 
nating dangerous actions of the cold war era 
and a code of conduct which has already 
proved a success. 

Over the past five years, we have reached 
more agreements with the Soviet Union than 
in the entire postwar period preceding that, 
and this is a record in which all Americans 
can take pride. 

In keeping with our efforts to bring Amer- 



ica's foreign policy into line with modern 
realities, we have also sought to normalize 
our relations with the People's Republic of 
China, where one-fourth of all of the people 
in the world live, a country with which we 
shared nothing but confrontation and dis- 
trust during a quarter century of cold war. 

Beginning with an official dialogue opened 
in 1971, we have negotiated constructive 
agreements in the areas of trade and scien- 
tific and cultural exchanges. We established 
Liaison Offices in our respective capitals last 
year. We expect further progress in the years 
ahead. 

We have also succeeded, as Admiral Mack 
has indicated, in ending our military involve- 
ment in Viet-Nam in a manner which gave 
meaning to the heavy sacrifices we had made 
and which greatly enhanced the preservation 
of freedom and stability in Southeast Asia. 

One result is that today the 20 million 
people of South Viet-Nam are free to govern 
themselves and they are able to defend them- 
selves. An even more important result is 
that we have proved again that America's 
word is America's bond. 

We have preserved the trust of our allies 
around the world by demonstrating that we 
are a reliable partner in the defense of lib- 
erty; we have earned the respect of our 
potential adversaries by demonstrating that 
we are a reliable partner in the search for 
peace. 

Road to Middle East Peace 

America's unique and essential contribu- 
tion to peace is nowhere better demonstrated 
than in the Middle East. The hate and dis- 
trust that has for so long poisoned the rela- 
tionship between Arabs and Israelis has led 
to war four times in the last 40 years, and 
the toll of death and human sufi'ering was 
immense, while the tension made the Middle 
East a world tinderbox that could easily 
draw the United States and the Soviet Union 
into military confrontation. 

The need for a stable solution among the 
regional parties as well as between the great 
powers was overwhelmingly urgent. 

The October war of last year, while tragic, 



July 1, 1974 



also presented a unique opportunity — be- 
cause for the first time it was clear to us 
and clear to the moderate leaders of the 
Arab world that a positive American role 
was indispensable to achieving a permanent 
settlement in the Middle East. And it was for 
this reason that I sent Secretary of State 
Kissinger to the Middle East to offer our 
good offices in the process of negotiation. 

The results, which reflect more than any- 
thing else the vision and statesmanship of 
the leaders of both sides, have been encour- 
aging. An agreement to separate military 
forces has been implemented on the Egyp- 
tian-Israeli front, and now a similar accord 
has been negotiated between Israel and 
Syria. For the first time in a generation, we 
are witnessing the beginning of a dialogue 
between the Arab states and Israel. 

Now, the road to a just and lasting and 
permanent peace in the Mideast is still long 
and difficult and lies before us. But what 
seemed to be an insurmountable roadblock 
on that road has now been removed, and we 
are determined to stay on course until we 
have reached our goal of a permanent peace 
in that area. The role of Secretary Kissinger 
in this process has presented a testament to 
both his remarkable diplomatic capabilities 
and to the soundness and integrity of our 
belief that a lasting structure of peace can 
and must be created. 



Primary Concern of Foreign Policy 

In surveying the results of our foreign 
policy, it is ironic to observe that its achieve- 
ments now threaten to make us victims of 
our success. In particular, a dangei'ous mis- 
understanding has arisen as to just what 
detente is and what it is not. 

Until very recently, the pursuit of detente 
was not a problem for us in America. We 
were so engaged in trying to shift interna- 
tional tides away from confrontation toward 
negotiation that people were generally agreed 
that the overriding consideration was the es- 
tablishment of a pattern of peaceful inter- 



national conduct. But now that so much 
progress has been made, some take it for 
granted. 

Eloquent appeals are now being made for 
the United States, through its foreign policy, 
to transform the internal as well as the in- 
ternational behavior of other countries, and 
especially that of the Soviet Union. This is- 
sue sharply poses the dilemma I outlined at 
the outset. It affects not only our relation 
with the Soviet Union but also our posture 
toward many nations whose internal sys- 
tems we totally disagree with, as they do 
with ours. 

Our foreign policy therefore must reflect 
our ideals, and it must reflect our purposes. 
We can never, as Americans, acquiesce in 
the suppression of human liberties. We must 
do all that we reasonably can to promote 
justice, and for this reason we continue to 
adhere firmly to certain humane principles, 
not only in appropriate international for- 
ums but also in our private exchanges with 
other governments — where this can be effec- 
tive. But we must recognize that we are 
more faithful to our ideals by being con- 
cerned with results and we achieve more re- 
sults through diplomatic action than through 
hundreds of eloquent speeches. 

But there are limits to what we can do, 
and we must ask ourselves some very hard 
questions, questions which I know members 
of this class have asked themselves many 
times. What is our capability to change the 
domestic structure of other nations? Would 
a slowdown or reversal of detente help or 
hurt the positive evolution of other social 
systems? What price, in terms of renewed 
conflict, are we willing to pay to bring pres- 
sure to bear for humane causes? 

Not by our choice, but by our capability, 
our primary concern in foreign policy must 
be to help influence the international con- 
duct of nations in the world arena. We would 
not welcome the intervention of other coun- 
tries in our domestic affairs, and we cannot 
expect them to be cooperative when we seek 
to intervene directly in theirs. 



Department of State Bulletin 



We cannot gear our foreign policy to trans- 
formation of other societies. In the nuclear 
age, our first responsibility must be the pre- 
vention of a war that could destroy all so- 
cieties. 

We must never lose sight of this funda- 
mental truth of modern international life: 
Peace between nations with totally differ- 
ent systems is also a high moral objective. 

An Era of Cooperation 

The concepts of national security, partner- 
ship, negotiation with adversaries, are the 
central pillars of the structure of peace that 
this administration has outlined as its ob- 
jective. 

If a structure of peace is to endure, it must 
reflect the contributions and reconcile the 
aspirations of nations. It must be cemented 
by the shared goal of coexistence and the 
shared practice of accommodation. It must 
liberate every nation to realize its destiny 
free from the threat of war, and it must 
promote social justice and human dignity. 

The structure of peace of which I speak 
will make possible an era of cooperation in 
which all nations will apply their separate 
talents and resources to the solution of prob- 
lems that beset all mankind : the problems 
of energy and famine, disease and suffer- 
ing — problems as old as human history it- 
self. 

It was with this thought in mind that in 
February we launched an effort to bring to- 
gether the principal consumer countries to 
begin working on the problem of equitably 
meeting the needs of people throughout the 
world who are faced with the prospect of 
increasingly scarce resources — in this case, 
energy. 

Out of recognition of the tragedy of hu- 
man hunger and of the urgent need to apply 
man's technology cooperatively to its solu- 
tion, the United States has also called for a 
U.N. World Food Conference to take place 
in Rome this fall. 

My trip to the Middle East next week will 
provide an opportunity to explore with the 



leaders of the nations I shall visit ways in 
which we can continue our progress toward 
permanent peace in that area. 

And then later this month, on June 27, I 
will again journey to Moscow to meet with 
General Secretary [Leonid I.] Brezhnev to 
explore further avenues, further prospects 
for a lasting peace not only between the So- 
viet Union and the United States but among 
all nations. 

Each of these missions, in a way, is a re- 
flection of America's broader hopes and re- 
sponsibilities. And I say to you gentlemen, 
these are hopes and responsibilities each of 
you will be helping to meet as you journey 
to your first duty stations. 

As long as you do your duty, as long as 
the people and the government support you, 
the America, the country you love and serve, 
will survive. 

Today, each one of you becomes a custo- 
dian of a noble tradition of service. As the 
first class to have begun its studies in the 
post-Viet-Nam era, it falls to you to .serve 
in such a way that the graduates who follow 
you in the years to come will enter a U.S. 
Navy that is strong, that is prepared and is 
respected, and above all, a Navy and a na- 
tion at honorable peace with all nations in 
the world. 

One-hundred seventy years ago, after Nel- 
son's great victory at Trafalgar, Prime Min- 
ister William Pitt was honored at a dinner 
at London's historic Guildhall. He was hailed 
as the savior of Europe. He responded to 
that toast with a brief speech that has been 
named by Lord Curzon as one of the three 
masterpieces of English eloquence. 

Listen to his words: I return you many 
thanks for the honor you have done me. But 
no single man will save Europe. England 
has saved herself by her exertions and will, 
I trust, save Europe by her example. 

Today, 170 years later, we can say no sin- 
gle nation can save the world but America 
can and will save herself by her exertions 
and will, we trust, by our example, save the 
cause of peace and freedom for the world. 



July 1, 1974 



Secretary Reiterates U.S. Goal 

of Normalized U.S.-P.R.C. Relations 

Following are remarks made by Secretary 
Kissinger on June 3 at a reception given by 
the National Council for U.S.-China Trade, 
the National Committee on U.S.-China Rela- 
tions, and the Committee on Scholarly Com- 
munication With the P.R.C. 

Press release 233 dated June 4 

As your three organizations meet to re- 
view the past and assess the future of your 
work in constructing new channels of com- 
munications between the United States and 
the People's Republic of China, I am struck 
by the fact that this relationship, new as it 
is, already has a history. Indeed, this hotel 
is now itself a part of that history, having 
housed the distinguished Ambassador from 
the People's Republic of China for nearly a 
year. 

The success of your work is demonstrated 
by how strangely difficult it is now to recall 
or to account for the days of prehistory when 
our two countries were so unproductively 
estranged. I am delighted to see Ambassador 
Huang Chen and many others of our Chinese 
friends here this evening, thus underlining 
our mutual desire for improved relations. 

It is this common desire that brings me 
here this evening. This administration has 
a firm commitment to the constant improve- 
ment of relations with the People's Republic 
of China. Despite periodic accounts of sup- 
posed ups and downs in our bilateral rela- 
tions, there should be no doubt in anyone's 
mind that, from the U.S. point of view, we 
remain firmly on course. The normalization 
of relations with the People's Republic of 
China is a permanent and essential element 
in our foreign policy. 

A primary task in the second term of any 
administration is to leave an ongoing legacy 
to its successors. That is our purpose with 



respect to our relations with the People's 
Republic of China. 

The United States has, and will continue to 
have, an interest in a peaceful, strong, and 
independent China; and no policy of this 
administration has had greater bipartisan 
support than the normalization of relations 
with the People's Republic. In the time since 
the Shanghai communique, your organiza- 
tions and the counterpart organizations in 
China have begun to forge links between the 
two societies that inevitably must influence 
the character and the prospects of the overall 
relationship between the United States and 
the People's Republic of China. 

You know as well as any that the essential 
differences between the social systems and 
foreign policies of our two countries compli- 
cate the job of developing communications. 
You know that it would be unreasonable to 
expect a smooth and unchecked progression. 

Communication at its best, as Samuel But- 
ler said, is, like a painting, a compromise 
with impossibilities. But the painting is tak- 
ing shape. As a result of the commercial, 
scholarly, artistic, and athletic exchanges 
conducted by your three organizations, some 
of our country's most talented and most in- 
fluential men and women have achieved a 
far greater understanding of the people of 
China and their goals. Through this process 
of understanding, immeasurable strength has 
been added to the fundamental tenet of our 
policy : That the normalization of relations 
with China must continue and that the Amer- 
ican interest in closer ties with the People's 
Republic is firm. 

You have our thanks and our continuing 
support. With you, we will go on seeking 
practical steps to promote trade and schol- 
arly and cultural exchange on the basis of 
equality and mutual benefit. 

With you and our Chinese friends, we will 
make the Shanghai communique a document 
of truly historic importance. 

Thank you very much. 



Department of State Bulletin 



United States and Saudi Arabia Agree on Expanded Cooperation 



His Royal Highness Prince Fahd bin Abd 
al Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia visited the 
United States June 5-S. Folloiving are toasts 
exchanged by President Nixon and Prince 
Fahd at a luncheon at the White House on 
June 6, remarks by Secretary Kissinger at a 
dinner that evening in honor of Prince Fahd, 
excerpts from remai-Jcs exchanged by the 
Secretary and Prince Fahd on June 8 upon 
signing a joint statement on Saudi Arabian- 
United States cooperation, and the text of 
the joint statement. 



TOASTS AT WHITE HOUSE LUNCHEON, 
JUNE 6 

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated June 10 

President Nixon 

Your Royal Highness and all of our dis- 
tinguished guests from Saudi Arabia and 
from the United States : It is very appropri- 
ate that we are having this luncheon, the 
last social function at the White House prior 
to a visit to the Middle East by the President 
of the United States. This visit is one that 
comes at a time that we are developing a 
hopeful new relationship with the nations in 
that area and particularly with the Arab 
nations, some of which we have not had very 
helpful or, shall we say, close relations with 
in the past because of events on the interna- 
tional scene. 

But as we welcome our friends from Saudi 
Arabia, it seems to me very important to 
say to this company, and also to say it to all 
of those who may hear or read these words 
in America and in the world, that America's 
interest in the Middle East is not solely and 
not even primarily dictated by what we call 
those pragmatic selfish concerns that usu- 



ally are the factor most important in foreign 
policy. 

For example, there are those who might 
say we receive our Saudi friends here in 
this company and the President of the United 
States welcomes the opportunity to go there 
because Saudi Arabia is the greatest pro- 
ducer of oil in the world, and we buy some 
oil from them, but a relationship between 
two countries bound together only by oil 
would not last very long. 

Our very distinguished guest, His Royal 
Highness Prince Fahd, brought this home to 
me in our constructive discussions this morn- 
ing when he said, "The friendship between 
Saudi Arabia and the United States goes 
back many years before we discovered the 
enormous oil reserves of that country." 

And it is that friendship which binds us 
together ; it is that friendship that we honor 
today; it is that kind of friendship that we 
wish to develop with the nations we will 
visit on this trip and the other nations in 
that area. 

And I can only say, speaking personally, 
that while I have not had the privilege of be- 
ing to Saudi Arabia before, I have valued 
for over 20 years a very close personal friend- 
ship with King Faisal, with many members 
of this company who are here today, and I 
know whereof I speak when I say that, yes, 
we have interests which bring us together, 
but even more important, we have friend- 
ship that will last long after any interests 
might disappear. 

And to that friendship between two great 
countries, it is in that spirit that I propose 
a toast today to His Royal Highness. 

Gentlemen, will you rise to His Royal High- 
ness Prince Fahd and a friendship between 
the Saudi Arabian and the American people. 



July 1, 1974 



Prince Fahd ^ 

Mr. President, distinguished guests: It is 
a great source of pleasure for me to find my- 
self here in this great country among my 
American friends, headed by President Nix- 
on. 

The sentiment so eloquently expressed by 
the President when he said that what binds 
us is an age-old friendship is exactly the sen- 
timent I would like to reiterate and to em- 
phasize that it is this kind of friendship 
that we have always sought, that we will 
continue to seek ; namely, the friendship that 
is not based on just things material but that 
springs from the heart. 

Mr. President, the great role that you, 
aided by your very able Secretary of State, 
played in trying circumstances in the Mid- 
dle East for bringing about the achievements 
that have so far been brought about, will be 
immortalized by history, will be chalked up 
as an excellent, commendable, brilliant mark 
for the United States as such, for the U.S. 
President, U.S. Government, and the U.S. 
people. 

This is precisely the great role that we 
feel is tailored for the United States of 
America to play, because it is this country 
that has sounded for many a year the clarion 
of freedom, of independence, stability, and 
prosperity for the whole world. 

The Arab world, particularly those coun- 
tries that you, Mr. President, will be visiting, 
those countries are looking forward to the 
days of your visits because of the symbolism 
unfolded on that day, the symbolism of 
friendship, of your U.S. efforts to work for 
peace and prosperity not only for the Near 
Eastern area but for the world at large. 

Therefore I beseech Almighty God to guide 
your steps, to grant you divine guidance and 
the power and the will to achieve those 
things, to reach those goals that we know 
you cherish for the good of humanity and 
for the world. 

We realize that the future is never smooth, 
the future will probably hold some difficul- 
ties, but we do not consider them insur- 



' Prince Fahd spoke in Arabic. 



mountable because, given the stout heart and 
the great will that you have, Mr. President, 
that the American people are famous for, 
there is nothing you cannot vanquish to the 
good of mankind. 

Therefore permit me to propose a toast to 
the President of the United States and His 
Majesty King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. 



REMARKS BY SECRETARY KISSINGER 
AT A DINNER, JUNE 6 

Press release 240 dated June 7 

Your Royal Highness, distinguished 
gue.sts : I think it is a very fortuitous and 
happy coincidence that His Royal Highness 
and I should be visiting Washington at the 
same time. [Laughter.] I had an opportunity 
to discuss his itinerary with His Royal High- 
ness, and I noticed that His Royal Highness 
returns to the Middle East after I do. 
[Laughter.] 

It has been six months since I first had the 
privilege of meeting His Royal Highness and 
visiting his capital. At that time, there was 
.some strain in the relationship between the 
Arab peoples and the United States. There 
was some question as to what the future evo- 
lution in the Middle East might be. 

Since then, we have had the opportunity 
to exchange ideas on four occasions with His 
Majesty and on each occasion also with His 
Royal Highness. And great changes have 
taken place in the Middle East. Important 
first steps have been made in the direction of 
a permanent and just peace. And those of 
us who have had an opportunity to partici- 
pate in this process have greatly valued the 
advice and sometimes the subtle and indirect 
assistance of His Majesty and of the Govern- 
ment of Saudi Arabia. 

As far as the United States is concerned, 
we will persevere on this course, and we will 
continue to make major efforts to bring about 
a just and permanent peace in the Middle 
East. And we count on the advice and coop- 
eration of our old friends in the area. 

But in addition to the negotiations that are 
going on between the Arab countries and 



Department of State Bulletin 



Israel, there is a very important relationship 
that must be tended between the United 
States and the Arab peoples. 

From the first time that I had an opportu- 
nity to discuss with His Royal Highness, we 
talked about the problem of how the United 
States could give expression to its traditional 
friendship for Saudi Arabia and, through 
Saudi Arabia, for all of the Arab peoples. 

We knew we were moving into a new era 
of interdependence. We knew that there were 
great needs of development, of technological 
training, and, for that matter, of defense. 
And we promised each other that at the first 
opportunity we would begin a cooperative 
effort between the United States and Saudi 
Arabia. 

It is appropriate that it should be between 
these two countries, with their long and un- 
broken tradition of friendship. But what 
takes place between the United States and 
Saudi Arabia is not of significance to these 
countries alone. It is of great significance to 
all the other Arab nations. And we have 
pointed out to His Majesty and His Royal 
Highness that the cooperative enterprises 
that we are beginning with Saudi Arabia 
are open as well to all other Arab nations. 
And indeed we have already announced the 
creation of a cooperation commission with 
Egypt, and we will do .so with other coun- 
tries as well. 

This is why the visit of His Royal High- 
ness to Washington is of great importance to 
all of us. 

We have had extensive talks today about 
cooperation in the field of industrialization, 
of technology, of investment. And His Royal 
Highness pointed out that this was not a ne- 
gotiation among adversaries, but a discus- 
sion among friends with common objectives 
and similar purposes. And as a result, I 
think we can say that very considerable 
progress has been made. We will continue 
to build on this progress. And we are cer- 
tain that in the months to come, for the bene- 
fit of the people of Saudi Arabia and of the 
United States and from there to all the peo- 
ples of the Arab world, a pattern will de- 
velop that gives expression to the fact of in- 



terdependence of the modern world — the re- 
ality that no nation can solve its problems in 
isolation and that the United States has an 
interest in the well-being and progress of the 
entire area. 

So, Your Royal Highness, on behalf of all 
of my colleagues who had the privilege of 
working today with their Saudi friends, I 
believe that we have started an important 
project who.se significance will grow as the 
months and years go on. 

I would like to express the appreciation of 
our government for the understanding and 
help that we have received in our diplomatic 
effort. 

It is in this spirit that I ask you all to rise 
and to honor His Royal Highness, the friend- 
ship between Saudi Arabia and the United 
States, and His Majesty King Faisal. 



EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS UPON SIGNING 
JOINT STATEMENT, JUNE 8 

Press release 243 dated June 10 

Secretary Kissinger 

My colleagues and I, on behalf of the 
President, would like to express gratification 
that we have been able to conclude this agree- 
ment for wide-ranging cooperation between 
our two countries. We consider this a mile- 
stone in our relations with Saudi Arabia and 
with the Arab countries in general. We also 
consider that the discussions beyond this 
agreement have deepened the existing friend- 
ship between Saudi Arabia and the United 
States. . . 

Prince Fahd ^ 

This agreement augurs very well. It is an 
excellent opening in a new and glorious chap- 
ter in relations between Saudi Arabia and 
the United States. That is why we earnestly 
hope and pray that we stay on the path we 
both desire — justice, fairness, prosperity, and 
peace for the world. . . Permit me not only 
to congratulate you but myself for having 



- Prince Fahd spoke in Arabic. 



July 1, 1974 



achieved successfully an agreement which is 
the culmination of talks not between two op- 
posing sides but the brilliant, successful re- 
sult of friendly, amicable discussions between 
friends. 



TEXT OF JOINT STATEMENT ON COOPERATION, 
JUNE 8 

Press release 242 dated June 10 

Following the joint announcement of April 5, 
1974, in which Saudi Arabia and the United States 
expressed their readiness to expand cooperation in 
the fields of economics, technology, and industry, 
and in the supply of the Kingdom's requirements 
for defensive purposes, His Royal Highness Prince 
Fahd bin Abd al Aziz, Second Deputy Prime Min- 
ister and Minister of Interior, accepted an invitation 
to visit the United States on June 5-8 to discuss 
these matters with President Nixon and Secretary 
of State Kissinger. 

His Royal Highness was accompanied by a num- 
ber of high Saudi officials. Prince Fahd met with 
President Nixon on June 6, and he and his col- 
leagues also had meetings with Secretary of State 
Kissinger, Secretary of the Treasury Simon, Secre- 
tary of Defense Schlesinger, Secretary of Commerce 
Dent, and other high government officials. 

The visit provided an opportunity for the two 
sides to agree on specific steps to strengthen re- 
lations in a variety of areas. Major attention was 
focussed on Saudi Arabia's economic and social 
development plans and defense requirements as 
well as on the ways in which the United States 
could be helpful in the realization of Saudi aspira- 
tions. There was a broad review of global problems 
of peace and security and, in this context, the 
situation in the Arabian Peninsula was examined. 
It was recognized that responsibility for maintain- 
ing security and promoting orderly development 
in this area belonged to the states of the region 
and that close cooperation among them is needed 
for their security. The United States expressed 
its continuing support for cooperative measures. 

The visit also provided an opportunity to review 
the current status of U.S. efforts currently under- 
way to work towards a just and lasting solution 
in the Middle East in accordance with UN prin- 
ciples and resolutions. Both sides expressed satis- 
faction with the progress made and expressed their 
hope for continuing early progress in this regard. 
The U.S. side reaffirmed its intention to continue 
its efforts looking toward a just and durable peace 
in the Middle East and noted the constructive 



support it has received from the Kingdom in these 
efforts. 

At the conclusion of the visit. His Royal High- 
ness and the Secretary of State agreed on the 
following: 

A. To establish a Joint Commission on Economic 
Cooperation. This Commission will be headed by 
the Secretary of the Treasury for the United States 
and by the Minister of State for Finance and Na- 
tional Economy for Saudi Arabia. Its purpose will 
be to promote programs of cooperation between 
the two countries in the fields of industrialization, 
trade, manpower training, agriculture, and science 
and technology. The first formal meeting of this 
Commission will take place in Saudi Arabia in 
October of this year. The Commission members 
will include representatives from the Departments 
of State, Treasury, and Commerce, and the Na- 
tional Science Foundation and possibly other agen- 
cies for the U.S. side. For the Saudi Arabian side, 
it will include representatives from the Ministries 
of Foreign Affairs, Finance and National Economy, 
Commerce and Industry, the Central Planning Orga- 
nization, and other government departments con- 
cerned. The Economic Commission will review at 
this first meeting the recommendations and plans 
prepared by Working Groups that will be meeting 
in the meantime. These include the following: 

(1) A Joint Working Group on Industrialization 
will meet in Saudi Arabia beginning on July 15, 
1974 to consider plans for Saudi Arabia's economic 
development, paying special attention to the use 
of flared gas for expanding the production of fer- 
tilizer. 

(2) A Joint Working Group on manpower and 
education will meet in Saudi Arabia shortly there- 
after to consider projects aimed at the further 
development of Saudi technical manpower skills, 
the expansion of educational and technical insti- 
tutions, the transfer of technological expertise, the 
establishment of a comprehensive Saudi Arabian 
science and technology program keyed to the na- 
tional goals of the Kingdom, and an expansion of 
sister university relations. 

(3) This will be followed by another Joint Work- 
ing Group on technology, research and development 
in scientific fields of interest to examine specific 
cooperative endeavors in such fields as solar energy 
and desalination. 

(4) In addition a Joint Working Group on Agri- 
culture will meet to examine agricultural develop- 
ment proposals in general and desert agriculture 
in particular. 

The Commission will encourage and facilitate 
periodic visits to Saudi Arabia by scientists, engi- 
neers and research specialists drawn from the U.S. 



10 



Department of State Bulletin 



Government, universities, and private business in 
order to supplement the operations of the Working 
Groups and to examine specific proposals for co- 
operation. The two governments have agreed to 
study a proposed technical cooperation agreement 
between them. The two governments will also con- 
sider sponsoring an Economic Council composed 
of prominent American and Saudi participants from 
the private sector to work together to further the 
aims of the cooperative arrangements between the 
two countries. Consideration will also be given to 
the formation of a U.S. -Saudi Industrial Develop- 
ment Council, which might include government as 
well as private enterprise representatives. 

The U.S. Treasury Department and the Saudi 
Arabian Ministry of Finance and National Economy 
will consider cooperation in the field of finance. 

B. To establish a Joint Commission to review 
programs already underway for modernizing Saudi 
Arabia's armed forces in light of the Kingdom's 
defense requirements especially as they relate to 
training. The Commission will be headed by the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
Security Aflfairs for the U.S. and by His Royal 
Highness the Vice Minister of Defense and Avia- 
tion for Saudi Arabia. The first meeting of this 
Commission will take place in Saudi Arabia in 
the fall of this year. 

It was agreed that Saudi Arabia and the United 
States will continue to consult closely on all matters 
of mutual interest. To that end, the Secretary of 
State and His Royal Highness Prince Fahd will 
remain in close contact with each other to oversee 
and to ensure that the activities of the joint com- 
missions to be formed as a result of these talks 
are fully coordinated and are responsive to the 
interests of both countries. 

It was agreed that the visit of Prince Fahd not 
only enhanced the spirit of friendship and under- 
standing between the two countries but that it 
also heralded an era of increasingly close coopera- 
tion. This friendship is not based exclusively on 
material considerations but is derived from mutual 
respect and intimate relations over many years. 
The United States for its part hopes that this co- 
operation will be the benchmark for its evolving 
relations with the Arab world. Saudi Arabia for 
its part hopes that the era now opening will wit- 
ness successful progress for its citizens and for all 
people of the area as they seek peace and security 
and the transformation into reality of their goals 
for prosperity and well-being. 



Fahd bin Abd al Aziz 

Second Deputy 

Prime Minister and 

Minister of the hiterior 



Henry A. Kissinger 
Secretary of State 



Under Secretary Sisco Discusses 
Middle East Negotiations 

FoUotving is a transcript of an interview 
with Under Secretary for Political Affairs 
Joseph J. Sisco bi/ Bill Monroe, Richard Va- 
leriani, and Barbara Walters on the NBC To- 
daij Show on June 3. 

Mr. Monroe: What is tiring about being 
with Kissinger for 33 days? Is it the long 
hours, the tension, the sleeplessness — the 
com bination ? 

Mr. Sisco: All of it, Bill, all of it. 

Mr. Monroe: How does it work? Hoiv does 
your day work? 

Mr. Sisco: In this particular instance, as 
Dick will verify, an early morning arising, 
meeting with the Israelis in the morning, an 
hour's ride to the airport, an hour's flight to 
Damascus, a half hour's ride again to the 
guesthouse where we met, long meetings — 
six to eight hours — with President Asad, the 
same flight back to Israel, usually a mid- 
night meeting with the Israeli oflicials, wind- 
ing up about 2:00 in the morning, and then 
our work began in terms of preparation for 
the next day. Don't ask me what we did with 
our spare time. 

Mr. Monroe: I hope the correspondents are 
relaxing while these men are working. 

Mr. Valeriani: Well, it's a combination. 
You're trying to find out what's going on and 
you can't relax entirely, and the Kissinger 
aides have the same problem that the news- 
men have. That is, when Kissinger's through 
at 2:00, he can go to sleep, but they have to 
stay up and draft the cables and we have to 
stay tip writing onr stories after it's all over. 

Mr. Sisco: Bill, I'd say this — both Dick 
and I are plugging for a raise. 

Mr. Monroe: How did Mr. Kissinger do it? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, I think first of all, you 
have to go back to fundamentals, Bill. The 
October war changed the objective condi- 
tions in the area, and this gave the United 



July 1, 1974 



11 



states the opportunity — an unparalleled op- 
portunity — that we didn't have before. And 
secondly, I think the moderate forces in the 
area are moving: in the direction of trying to 
find a way to achieve a settlement. I think 
Etryptian President Sadat took the lead; I 
think that it is significant that the Syrians 
have followed. Hopefully, this could be a 
very significant turning point in the area. 
Insofar as our Secretary of State is con- 
cerned, a remarkable rapport was estab- 
lished with both sides — confidence of both 
sides in the kind of personal diplomacy that 
he has pursued throughout this last six 
months. 

Mr. Monroe: Would you like to add some- 
thing to that, Dick? 

Mr. Valeriani: Yes. plus the stamina as 
he goes at it, and you heard the hours; he 
stays at it for hour after hour until — in fact, 
I think he, in part, wears both sides down. 

Miss Walters: It was reported in yester- 
day's New York Times that you had a meet- 
ing with the Palestinian terrorist leader 
[Yasir] Arafat. 

Mr. Sisco: No, Barbara, I have had no 
such meeting. 

Miss Walters: The new Prime Minister, 
[Yitzhak] Rabin, has said that he would not 
go back to the 1967 borders. In the meetings, 
were the final borders at all discussed? 

Mr. Sisco: No, Barbara. The specific con- 
centration in the last 33 days has been on 
the separation of forces between Syria and 
Israel. Obviously, as the months evolve, we're 
going to have to get at the problem of what 
the final borders are. But really, our efforts 
over this last month have been concentrated 
on this disengagement. 

Miss Walters: There also are supposedly 
secret agreements which have been tvritten 
about, to one degree or another — the assur- 
ances the United States gave to Israel — 
about infiltration of possible Palestinian ter- 
rorists over the borders. Hotv strong were 
these assw'arices to the Israeli, and what 
does this mean on the U.S. part? 



Mr. Sisco: Well, I think secret agreement 
is the wrong rubric, Barbara. What we did 
is this : We did communicate assurances be- 
tween the two sides. There were instances 
where one side or the other preferred to give 
an assurance directly to the United States 
rather than to the other side, and we did 
that. We also interpreted various aspects of 
the agreement. We also made a U.S. pro- 
posal that both sides found to be the right 
compromise. This is analogous to the situa- 
tion at the time that we negotiated the Egyp- 
tian-Israeli agreement. 

Insofar as the terrorist problem is con- 
cerned, Mrs. [Golda] Meir read a statement 
of the U.S. position a few days ago when the 
matter came before the Knesset. What it 
amounts to is simply this : that obviously we 
think this terrorist problem is a very serious 
one and that it could jeopardize the agree- 
ment if, in fact, it were to be pursued. 

Mr. Valeriani: What you're saying, Mr. 
Secretary, is this: that in fact the United 
States ivill be the final arbiter if there are 
serious violations, and doesn't that really 
lead to making the United States a guarantor 
of the agreement? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, Dick, I don't think we're 
the guarantor, but there isn't any doubt that 
we are going to be directly involved if one 
side or the other claims a violation. We are 
the only country that knows the views of 
both sides; we know the entire legislative 
history, obviously, of the agreement, and 
there isn't any doubt that if one side or the 
other feels that some aspect of the agree- 
ment is either not clearly understood or has 
been violated that we are involved fairly di- 
rectly. But that doesn't make us the guaran- 
tor of the agreement. 

Mr. Monroe: Did Syria give Israel ayiy 
unwritten informal commitment that it would 
try to control terrorists? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, here, Bill, we are in a 
gray area — and quite frankly, I am not 
going to answer your question very directly. 
What I want to say here is that I think there 
is recognition, certainly on our part, that it 



12 



Department of State Bulletin 



is a serious problem that could have an im- 
pact on what has been agreed to in terms of 
separation of forces. Anyone who has been 
in Israel, for example, in the aftermath of 
Ma'alot will certainly realize the depth of 
feeling with respect to terrorism. 

Mr. Valeriani: On that point, Mr. Sisco, 
the terrorism ivould probably diminish, if 
not vanish altogether, once the Palestinian 
problem is resolved. 

Mr. Monroe: Where do ive go from here in 
terms of the Palestinians? Can there be any 
kiyid of settlement in the area loithout re- 
solving that problem, and shoidd the Israelis 
negotiate with them directly? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, first of all, there really 
can't be a permanent settlement unless it 
meets the principal concerns of the Arab 
states and it meets the legitimate interests 
of the Palestinians. There isn't any question 
about that, Dick. 

Now where we go is much more difficult 
to answer for this reason. You have, for ex- 
ample, this report that we heard just a few 
minutes ago emanating from Cairo. The Pal- 
estinians are trying to determine their own 
direction at the present time; and just as 
there have been, historically, divisions in the 
Arab world between and among Arab states, 
so are there divisions between the Palestini- 
ans ; and there are a number of critical ques- 
tions, I am sure, that this Palestinian con- 
gress is focusing on at the present time. 
They're in the middle of their deliberations. 
How it will come out, of course, is very diffi- 
cult for us to ascertain. 

Mr. Monroe: Mr. Sisco, Mr. Rabin, the 
new head of the government in Israel, is say- 
ing that the Israelis don't want any repre- 
sentatives of any Palestine terrorists orga- 
nizations present at the Geneva talks. Cayi't 
that be read to mean that Israel doesn't want 
any Palestinians officially represented in Ge- 
neva ? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, I think that we will have 
to wait and see, Bill. Candidly, one has to 
take all public statements seriously — on the 
other hand, the history of this area is such 



that when the two sides get into an actual 
negotiation, obviously, public statements have 
to be reconciled with what the national in- 
terest is as conceived in that particular coun- 
try. I think it is premature to tell as to with 
whom negotiations will be conducted in the 
future, and I think we will just have to wait 
and see how it evolves. I think none of us 
would have predicted, for example, the 
amount of progress that has been made in 
the last six months. 

Mr. Monroe: For Geneva to ivork, won't 
the Palestinians have to be there in one form 
or another? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, this is one of the ques- 
tions which the Palestinians are trying to 
determine for themselves at the present time. 
I gather from the reports — and I know of 
nothing more than the press reports that 
have been seen this morning — I gather that 
there are two 'schools of thought, those that 
would like to get into the political stream 
and exercise the diplomatic option and those 
who would like to continue to exercise the 
military option and pursue that course. 

Mr. Valeriani: Does the United States 
favor the presence of a Palestinian delega- 
tion in Geneva? 

Mr. Sisco: Dick, we have not taken any 
concrete position on this, for the following 
reasons. In the first instance, this is a mat- 
ter for the Arab states and the Palestinians 
to determine. Notice, for example, what Pres- 
ident Sadat said as we left there just a few 
days ago. This very question was asked by 
one of your colleagues and he, I thought, 
gave the sensible reply ; namely, that this is 
something that really has to be discussed 
among the Arab states. 

Miss Walters: President Nixon is about 
to go to the Middle East. Will there be any- 
thing expressed coming out of this, more 
than a goodwill tour or cementiyig of rela- 
tions ? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, first let me say, Barbara, 
no definite announcement has been made as 
yet, as you know, but I think that any such 



July 1, 1974 



13 



trip is certainly a continuing manifestation 
of the American interest. What is so fas- 
cinating about the recent weeks and months 
is that it is only the United States that has 
really been able to play this impartial role 
in negotiations. I think there is a very def- 
inite evolution that is developing in the area 
itself. The amazing thing about these nego- 
tiations there is both sides, both the Israelis 
and the Ai-abs, feel that their legitimate in- 
terests have been met, and I think the Pres- 
ident's trip will certainly manifest a contin- 
uing interest of the United States. 

Miss Walters: Speaking of impartiality, 
the Israeli Ambassador, Simcha Dinitz, said 
yesterday on television that he thought that 
the Soviet Union had impeded the negotia- 
tions. Secretary Kissinger said that theij 
were not obstructive of the two points of 
view that seem to be yet in disagreement. 
Conld you help ns on this? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, I don't think that there is 
necessarily a disagreement, Barbara. The 
fact of the matter is that the United States 
has played the primary role in this negotia- 
tion, and the Soviets have not played the 
kind of direct role that we have. I have no 
evidence that they have actually tried to be 
obstructive, but they were not directly in- 
volved in the same way that we were. 

Mr. Monroe: You talked about Secretary 
Kissinger's remarkable rapport with both 
sides. Are ive getting into a situation where 
he is almost indispensable to the evolvement 
of negotiations in that area? 

Mr. Sisco: Well, of course, I think that 
this personal diplomacy of the last six months 
has been absolutely essential and there is no 
substitute for it. Certainly one thing that any 
Secretary of State has to weigh is the amount 
of time that he has been away as against the 
amount of time that he would normally put 
in here at the office in Washington. My own 
feeling is this, Bill, given the magnitude of 
the problem, really the major issue in the 
world today internationally that could create 
major difficulties is the Middle East, and so 
I think that you have got to weigh really 30 



days at the office at his desk as against this 
particular achievement, and for me, there 
isn't any doubt as to where the balance of 
interest weighs. 

Mr. Monroe: So you think that everything 
is going to work out all right. If something 
happened to him the whole process woiddn't 
stop. 

Mr. Sisco: Well, I think, obviously, he 
played an indispensable role. I think the 
Secretary himself would be the first one to 
say that no one individual is indispensable. 
I think the objective conditions favor an 
agreement. 



Secretary Kissinger Greets 
NATO Parliamentarians 

Following are remarks made by Secretary 
Kissinger before members of the North At- 
lantic Assembly at the Department of State 
on June 6. Congressman Wayne Hays intro- 
duced the Secretary. 

Press release 239 dated June 7 

Mr. Hays, ladies and gentlemen : I want to 
tell you how delighted I am that my visit 
to Washington coincided with yours. 
[Laughter.] 

It is always with some trepidation that I 
speak to European groups, because the last 
time I made some informal remarks to a 
group of ladies — with some reflections on 
European history and other aspects of trans- 
atlantic relationships — the results were quite 
startling. 

I am very grateful to Congressman Hays 
that he let himself be persuaded to organize 
the meeting of the NATO Parliamentarians 
here in Washington. We thought it would be 
appropriate that on this, the 25th anniversary 
year of NATO, we have an opportunity to 
talk to you. 

There have been so many debates in recent 
months that we sometimes forget what 
started the debates and what our underlying 
purpose was. What started the debate wasn't 



14 



Department of State Bulletin 



really a disagreement about objectives; it 
was an attempt by the United States to find 
a new basis for the Atlantic relationship that 
would make the Atlantic relationship as vital 
in the next 25 years as it has been in the past 
25 years. 

It reflected our commitment to an organi- 
zation that has assured the security of the 
Western world and that we believe in the 
new period of international affairs in which 
we now are can contribute beyond security 
— in other fields as well. 

We felt the need to give a new definition to 
this relationship so that a new generation 
that has grown up, to which the cold war 
has a different connotation than it had to the 
founders of NATO, could dedicate itself to a 
new period of construction. 

Now, in the process, inevitably, important 
questions were raised on both sides of the 
Atlantic. And as always happens in family 
quarrels, the mere fact that there was the 
disagreement sometimes proved more irri- 
tating than the substance of the disagree- 
ment. 

But if we look at our relationship in its 
proper perspective, we know that the basic 
relationship is firm and that the direction in 
which we are going is clear. 

The United States wants a strong Europe. 
The United States has always favored and 
continues to favor a united Europe. We do 
not believe that European unity needs to be 
defined through opposition to the United 
States but we recognize that a united Europe 
will not always agree with us — and after all, 
we cannot expect Europe to be infallible. 
[Laughter.] And if a united Europe dis- 
agrees with us, we will bear this with pa- 
tience, good will, grace, and restraint, for 
which we are noted. [Laughter.] 

But obviously a united Europe will seek 
its own identity. We do not confuse the Eu- 
rope of Nine — we do not wish to transport a 
Europe of Nine into an organization of ten. 

I believe that in recent months some of 
the debates that have threatened to turn 
theological have been seen in a clearer per- 
spective. I think there may be progress on a 
NATO declaration. But beyond the formal 



documents, the discussions that took place 
over the last year have served the useful 
purpose of clarifying the question of how 
much unity do we want and how much di- 
versity can we stand. 

In any event, the United States expects to 
cooperate on the basis of equality with its 
European allies and has never believed that 
it had anything to fear from a strong and 
self-confident Europe. 

A great deal of discussion has taken place 
about consultation. But I believe that the 
essence of consultation will be reflected in a 
community of shared purposes and when 
both sides of the Atlantic are convinced that 
they are engaged in a common enterprise 
consultations will occur spontaneously. And 
if they do not believe they are engaged in a 
common enterprise, legal requirement for 
consultation cannot provide the substitute for 
shared purposes. 

So as we have gone through this period, 
and with a pledge from me not to speak again 
to groups of ladies when the press is present, 
I think we can look to the future with some 
optimism. We believe that this North Atlan- 
tic Assembly has performed a very major 
role. The report of the Committee of Nine on 
the Future of the Atlantic Alliance, chaired 
by Senator [Jacob K.] Javits, on which the 
Department of State has just provided com- 
ment, is an outstanding example of the con- 
tributions that can be made to cover these 
debates in the alliance. 

And as we face the agenda of the next 
year — the discussions on European security, 
the discussions on mutual balanced force re- 
ductions, bilateral negotiations between the 
United States and the Soviet Union on con- 
trol of the strategic arms race, the future 
evolution of the Middle East — we should be 
clear about one thing: 

The United States will not knowingly sac- 
rifice European interests to negotiations with 
other powers. And the United States will 
make a major eflFort to keep in close touch 
with its European allies as it launches itself 
into these various enterprises. We believe 
that in many parts of the world, such as the 
Middle East, that we can both — Europe and 



July 1, 1974 



15 



the United States— play a major and sig- 
nificant role. 

The United States does not consider itself 
a competitor of Europe in such aims. 

So as we look ahead, it is time to return the 
debate not to the form of our dialogue but 
to the substance of our dialogue — to com- 
plete what one may be working on in the 
form of NATO declarations. 

But remember that the vitality of the alli- 
ance has been reflected in the attitude of its 
leaders and with the conviction of its people 
— and not in legal documents established as 
formal obligations. 

This will be the attitude of the United 
States in the years ahead, and in that spirit, 
I know that we will be able to celebrate a 
50th anniversary of the North Atlantic Or- 
ganization — and we can look back to this 
period as having started a new era of vitality 
among the free people. 



sented his credentials to President Nixon on 
June 5. For texts of the Ambassador's re- 
marks and the President's reply, see Depart- 
ment of State press release dated June 5. 

Gumea 

The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Republic of Guinea, Habib Bah, presented 
his credentials to President Nixon on June 5. 
For texts of the Ambassador's remarks and 
the President's reply, see Department of 
State press release dated June 5. 

Sireden 

The newly appointed Ambassador of Swe- 
den, Count Wilhelm Wachtmeister, presented 
his credentials to President Nixon on June 5. 
For texts of the Ambassador's remarks and 
the President's reply, see Department of 
State press release dated June 5. 



Letters of Credence 

Bulgaria 

The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
People's Republic of Bulgaria, Lubomir 
Dimitrov Popov, presented his credentials 
to President Nixon on June 5. For texts of 
the Ambassador's remarks and the Presi- 
dent's reply, see Department of State press 
release dated June 5. 

Chad 

The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Republic of Chad, Bawoyeu Alingue, pre- 



To(jo 

The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Republic of Togo, Michel Messanvi Kekeh, 
presented his credentials to President Nixon 
on June 5. For texts of the Ambassador's 
remarks and the President's reply, see De- 
partment of State press release dated June 5. 

Zambia 

The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Republic of Zambia, Siteke Gibson Mwale, 
presented his ci'edentials to President Nixon 
on June 5. For texts of the Ambassador's re- 
marks and the President's reply, see Depart- 
ment of State press release dated June 5. 



16 



Department of State Bulletin 



Inter-American Relations in Transition 



Address by William S. Mailliard 

Permanent U.S. Representative to the Organization of American States ' 



When I was offered the job of Ambassador 
to the Organization of American States, I 
accepted it for several reasons. High among 
these was my conviction that Latin America 
is very important to the United States — and 
may I note that when I refer to Latin Amer- 
ica I mean to include the Caribbean nations, 
some of which are not "Latin" in historical 
and cultural background. 

In fact, I think it is probably the area of 
the world where there is the greatest gap 
between its importance to us and the atten- 
tion the general public. Congress, and the 
executive have given it. I believe that we 
and Latin America have enough in common 
— a common European cultural background 
and basically similar values, for example — 
to make long-range political and economic 
cooperation between us a reasonable hope for 
the future. Many of the Latin American 
countries have reached a stage of develop- 
ment where a highly technological society 
such as the United States has a great deal 
to offer — and they have much to offer us in 
return. And most importantly, I am con- 
vinced that Secretary Kissinger is personally 
and strongly committed to real and produc- 
tive changes in our altitudes and policies in 
the hemisphere. 

Unfortunately, over the past half century, 
U.S.-Latin American relations have oscillated 
for the most part between "fair" and "bad." 
In the thirties and early forties, the good- 
neighbor policy and then mutual concern 



' Made before the Pan American Society of San 
Francisco at San Francisco, Calif., on June 6 (press 
release 236). 



over the dangers of Axis influence in the 
hemisphere gave rise to a feeling of shared 
interests and of cooperation. The OAS Char- 
ter, providing for a structure of peaceful 
hemispheric cooperation, was signed in 1948. 
The Rio Treaty, the hemisphere's mutual 
security and peacekeeping instrument, had 
been agreed to the year before. The concepts 
in both treaties antedate the cold war and 
owe somewhat more to Latin ideas than to 
our own. 

There was an unfortunate decline in U.S. 
interest during the late forties and fifties, 
but the phenomenon of Castroism helped 
remind us of Latin America's nearness and 
crucial importance. In the closing years of 
the Eisenhower administration and during 
the Kennedy administration we gave a new 
dimension to our relations. We joined with 
the Latin Americans in a major push to 
impi'ove the economic and social conditions 
of life in the hemisphere. As we now know, 
the Alliance for Progress has not been all we 
might have hoped for. It did inaugurate, 
however, a joint moral commitment to mu- 
tual efforts for economic development, a com- 
mitment which, though somewhat ailing, is 
still very much alive. 

During the mid and late sixties and up to 
recently our attention has been diverted by 
crises in other parts of the world and by our 
own urgent domestic problems. 

During these years, significant and some- 
times dramatic changes have occurred in the 
hemisphere. The whole world has become 
much more interdependent, and the notion 
of autarky has less and less relevance to the 



July 1, 1974 



17 



needs of nations, large or small. The dy- 
namic of interdependence produces new 
opportunities for international cooperation 
and also new risks of dislocation and tension. 

No longer is it possible to divide the world 
into neat blocs of nations. The Third World 
has an increasing appeal for some of the 
nations in this hemisphere. It is a gross 
oversimplification to say that the world is 
now cut North-South (or rich-poor) rather 
than East-West (or free world-Communist). 
The world is more complex than that. But 
the North-South dichotomy has more reality 
than a few years ago. And it affects relations 
in the hemisphere. 

Very soon after he became Secretary of 
State, Secretary Kissinger began to move to 
strengthen relations with Latin America. 
The Department of State tackled two of the 
most serious bilateral problems facing us in 
the hemisphere: agreement with Peru on 
expropriation problems and agreement with 
Panama on principles for working out the 
Panama Canal negotiations demonstrated a 
new political will to resolve outstanding 
problems. Somewhat earlier, we also found 
a basis for agreement with Mexico over the 
longtime irritant of the quality of the waters 
of the Colorado. 

I was present at a luncheon in New York 
early last fall when Secretary Kissinger in- 
vited the Foreign Ministers of Latin America 
and the Caribbean to embark with him on a 
"new dialogue." He suggested that the Latins 
get together and decide what they would like 
to discuss. The Latin American Foreign Min- 
isters met in Bogota in November, decided 
on an eight-point agenda, and came to a 
common position on the items on that agenda. 

I was also present in February in Mexico 
City when Secretary Kissinger met with the 
Foreign Ministers for full and remarkably 
candid discussions on the eight items on the 
Latin American agenda, plus two items 
which we had added. Some first steps were 
taken toward attacking such thorny prob- 
lems as what to do about multinational cor- 
porations and how to promote the transfer 
of technology. But the most important thing 



to emerge from the meeting was a new spirit 
of trust and cooperation, too long absent, 
which began to be diffused through inter- 
American relations. This "spirit of Tlate- 
lolco" has prepared the way for vastly im- 
proved relations among the Americas. 

Reshaping Inter-American Institutions 

Most of this new dialogue has so far taken 
place outside the framework of the OAS, the 
traditional regional institution. The issues 
and the people are the same, so why has the 
locus of the new dialogue been outside the 
structure? One reason stems directly from 
the OAS itself or, more accurately, from the 
rigidity that has characterized some of the 
institutions of the inter-American system in 
recent years. 

For too long, the OAS has been a forum 
for formal statements of positions, not for 
solving problems. This was not a particularly 
suitable atmosphere for new initiatives or 
for the freewheeling style of the new U.S. 
Secretary of State. 

A second reason for holding the dialogue 
outside the OAS is that some of the coun- 
tries of the Americas are not members. Guy- 
ana is effectively barred from membership 
by an article of the OAS Charter which de- 
nies accession to aspiring members which 
have territorial disputes with existing mem- 
bers. Other new countries, such as the Ba- 
hamas, have not yet decided whether they 
wish to join. Canada is not a participant, 
and the Cuban issue has proved divisive in 
OAS forums. 

The dialogue among the Foreign Ministers 
has been the central element in inter-Amer- 
ican relations over the past eight months. At 
the same time, most of the decisions taken 
by the Foreign Ministers have either been 
assigned to inter-American institutions or 
else to ad hoc working groups which are 
being set up outside the OAS to work out the 
necessary ways and means of implementa- 
tion. 

If, over time, the nations of the hemisphere 
set up permanent institutions outside the 
framework of the OAS to deal with inter- 



18 



Department of State Bulletin 



American problems — in other words, if the 
Foreign Ministers decide that the OAS can't 
or won't do the job — then we would have to 
ask some hard questions about the future of 
the OAS as an institution. Right now, how- 
ever, we are embarked on what seems to me 
to be a constructive course of action, that of 
seeking to instill the spirit of the dialogue 
into the inter-American system and to re- 
invigorate and reshape its institutions to 
deal with the needs of today and tomorrow. 

In 1973 the General Assembly of the OAS 
created CEESI — the Special Committee to 
Study the Inter-American System and Pro- 
pose Measures for Restructuring It. The spe- 
cial committee has been laboring off and on 
for a year both in Lima and in Washington 
on reforms in the principles and the work- 
ings of the inter-American system. But so 
far it has concentrated most on divisive sub- 
stantive issues and has made little real prog- 
ress. 

The OAS General Assembly in its recent 
meeting in Atlanta made perhaps its most 
important decision in directing the special 
committee to continue its work and to sub- 
mit its final report, including recommenda- 
tions for correcting the procedural and op- 
erational deficiencies of the organization, by 
February 15, 1975. The General Assembly 
also gave the OAS Permanent Council power 
to serve as a sort of board of directors, to 
give more direction and purpose to the OAS's 
activities. The United States strongly sup- 
ported both of these resolutions. At Atlanta, 
the member nations gave considerable evi- 
dence of their intent to instill the spirit of 
Tlatelolco and the procedures of the dialogue 
into the OAS. 

The special committee resumed its delib- 
erations yesterday in Washington, and I think 
the results of its labors will go a long way 
toward answering the question, "Whither the 
OAS?" 

I would like to say a further word here 
about the Atlanta General Assembly because 
it demonstrated so clearly the OAS's capacity 
both for positive achievement and for wheel- 
spinning. Certainly there was in Atlanta a 



spirit of getting on with the resolution of 
outstanding problems — as evidenced by the 
Council reform and the directions given to 
the special committee. A new program budg- 
et, with emphasis on developmental pro- 
grams, was also approved at Atlanta. But 
there was also ample evidence that the OAS 
members have not yet made a decision to 
"bite the bullet" on many issues. The old 
pattern of lengthy traditional statements of 
positions was still quite visible. The old habit 
of shuttling problems from one organ of the 
OAS to another without resolution was still 
very much in evidence. 

The Question of Cooperation for Development 

Let me discuss briefly but candidly some 
of the substantive problems we must con- 
front in the inter-American arena. A broad 
complex of problems is encountered under 
the heading of the phrases "cooperation for 
development" and "collective economic secu- 
rity." These are the subjects which have re- 
ceived the greatest emphasis in the dialogue 
of the Foreign Ministers and have been ac- 
corded priority by the Atlanta General As- 
sembly in the effort to reform the inter- 
American system. 

If I understand them correctly — and these 
terms have not been clearly defined — what 
the Latin Americans are saying here is that 
national development possibilities are condi- 
tioned by the external circumstances which 
affect the international transfer of resources. 
They are talking not only about official de- 
velopment assistance — foreign aid, as we 
usually call it — but about all of the channels 
of resource flows through trade, private in- 
vestment, technological transfer, and inter- 
national payments mechani.sms. 

They hold, as we do, that the basic respon- 
sibility for development is that of the indi- 
vidual nation itself. Insofar as domestic de- 
velopment is constrained by external fac- 
tors, they hold that the United States and 
other developed countries have a moral ob- 
ligation to make external resources avail- 
able. To fulfill this obligation, the United 
States must grant trade preferences and 



July 1, 1974 



19 



stimulate the transfer of technology and, of 
course, increase the level of official capital 
flows. The United States should do this "with- 
out imposing unilateral conditions." What 
this amounts to is that resources should be 
made available without using criteria other 
than technical ones, that external assistance 
should not be used to achieve political objec- 
tives, to influence the form of government, 
or to persuade a government to take any spe- 
cific action or to reverse some action already 
taken. 

In other words, if some Latin American 
country seizes a U.S. fishing boat 130 miles 
at sea, or expropriates a U.S. firm without 
just compensation, this does not justify cut- 
ting off U.S. assistance. 

Obviously, this view gives us a few prob- 
lems. It is very diflflcult to convince a U.S. 
citizen that the U.S. Government should 
stand by and do nothing when he gets picked 
up and fined for fishing in what the United 
States regards as international waters. It is 
also difficult to convince a U.S. businessman 
that the U.S. Government should do nothing 
when his firm's foreign subsidiary is expro- 
priated without compensation. It may also 
be hard to convince the U.S. taxpayer that 
his tax dollars should continue to flow to 
countries which take actions he views as hos- 
tile to the interests of the United States. 

It is questions such as these which must be 
examined frankly and openly if the new dia- 
logue is to become meaningful in our normal 
relationships with one another. 



Foreign Private Investment 

In considering cooperation for develop- 
ment, it is impossible to avoid the issue of 
foreign private investment. As you know, 
some unfortunate history colors this issue. 
But U.S. companies do have productive in- 
vestments in many places in Latin America 
and, seen from the other side, the amount of 
public funds available from all of the devel- 
oped nations can never be sufficient to pro- 
vide adequate developmental capital. For- 
eign private investment becomes at once a 
necessity and a problem. 



Most of the governments of the hemisphere 
recognize the importance to their develop- 
ment of foreign private capital and exper- 
tise. Sometimes, however, foreign companies 
become too prominent in the economic land- 
scape. We have seen reaction in Canada and 
Australia, as well as in Latin America, to 
what is perceived as foreign domination of 
the economy. Fortunately, in most cases the 
governments and companies are wise enough 
to work out reasonable solutions. But some- 
times there is confrontation that sours rela- 
tionships for years to come. 

This whole question of private investment 
cries out for more factual analysis and for 
mutually beneficial accommodation between 
the interests of the host country and the for- 
eign private investor. There are a number of 
things we can and should do to improve the 
conditions of resource flows to Latin Amer- 
ica, but to do these things will require sup- 
port from the Congress and the people of the 
United States. This support is diflficult to 
obtain unless the Latin American countries 
show a willingness to arrive at ways to 
avoid or at least mitigate the kind of prob- 
lems we have been talking about. That is 
why it is a very healthy sign that the Foreign 
Ministers agreed in Washington to set up an 
ad hoc working group to look at the issue of 
multinational corporations and that the OAS 
General Assembly, in a complementary move, 
directed a study of the same subject. 



"Collective Economic Security" 

The concept of collective economic secu- 
rity as a conceptual framework for dealing 
with the problems of interdependence has 
considerable appeal. Among other things, the 
concept recognizes that security is not simply 
a question of safeguards against armed ag- 
gression, as essential as these safeguards 
are. In the lives of nations as well as indi- 
viduals and families, economic security can 
be a dominant factor. Nor should it be over- 
looked that causes of violence in the world 
are often closely linked to the economic well- 
being of nations. And finally, the concept im- 
plies corresponding duties and obligations 



20 



Department of State Bulletin 



for both developed and developing nations. 

But as this concept is sometimes presented, 
it takes on a one-sided cast. Collective eco- 
nomic security becomes solely a mechanism 
to prevent the United States from taking ac- 
tions viewed by some Latins as "economic 
aggression." An example of "economic ag- 
gression" in their view might be when the 
United States decides to suspend assistance 
to a Latin American country as a result of 
uncompensated expropriations. Another 
might be when the United States or perhaps 
a more powerful Latin neighbor adopts poli- 
cies which adversely affect the economic in- 
terests of a small country. The idea which 
some have proposed is to create a mechanism 
for a collective respon.se which would force 
the United States — or possibly Brazil or 
Mexico — to cease and desist and perhaps 
even compensate for injury caused by such 
"economic aggression." 

This is clearly unrealistic. We accept the 
basic concept and, in advance of negotiations 
on the specific issue of collective economic 
security, are now engaged in an effort to 
write regulations under which adequate prior 
consultation would assure that all interests 
are taken into consideration when economic 
decisions are made. But it would be sad in- 
deed if a "system of collective economic se- 
curity" would turn out to be merely a mech- 
anism for confrontation. 

The atmosphere of U.S. -Latin American 
relations is good. 

It is inevitable that in this early stage of 
building up our relations there would be 
something of a we-they relationship as we 
work to resolve existing we-they problems. 
But more and more we are leaving the pa- 
ternalism of the past behind us and trying 
to adopt the key concept of mutuality. We 
will help Latin America in the achievement 
of its goals, and we are confident that the 
countries of Latin America are prepared to 
be helpful to us and one another in those 
areas where they can be. As Secretary Kis- 
singer has pointed out, this does not mean a 
quid pro quo — a one-for-one tradeoff. As a 
wealthier and more powerful nation, we are 
prepared to do more — as should the more af- 



fluent Latins — to assist the poorer nations in 
their efforts to improve the quality of life of 
their citizens. 

In short, we hope that the new spirit which 
the meetings of Foreign Ministers have es- 
tablished has produced an atmosphere in 
which we can recognize our interdependence 
and our respective interests in a wide range 
of regional and global problems. Mutual ef- 
fort and understanding should enable us to 
confront problems rather than confront one 
another. Considering the complexity of the 
problems, no one should expect the task to be 
easy. 

Cautious optimism is an overworked ex- 
pression, I know, but that is how I feel about 
the prospects for significantly improved hem- 
ispheric relations in the years just ahead. 



European Community To Reduce Duties 
on Certain American Products 

Following is a statement by President 
Nixon issued on May 31, together with a 
statement issued that day by the Office of the 
Special Representative for Trade Negotia- 
tions. 

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT NIXON 

White House press release dated May 31 

I am pleased to announce this morning 
that trade negotiators from the United States 
and the European Community, meeting in 
Brussels, have agreed on a formula for re- 
ducing Community import duties on a sig- 
nificant number and volume of American 
exports. These reductions are in compensa- 
tion for changes which occurred when the 
European Community was enlarged to in- 
clude Great Britain, Ireland, and Denmark. 

The resolution of this important issue, fol- 
lowing long and arduous negotiations over 
a period of several months, represents a 
major step toward improved Atlantic rela- 
tionships. It also helps to clear the way for 
prompt Senate action on the Trade Reform 
Act. 



July 1, 1974 



21 



For their efforts in negotiating this agree- 
ment, Sir Christopher Soames, Vice Presi- 
dent of the European Community Commis- 
sion, and Ambassador William D. Eberle, the 
U.S. Special Representative for Trade Nego- 
tiations, both deserve the thanks of the entire 
Atlantic community. 

It is the hope of the United States that the 
spirit which prevailed during these negotia- 
tions will continue in the months and years 
ahead as we seek to resolve other important 
and sensitive issues. 

STATEMENT BY OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE FOR TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 

Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations 
press release 195 dated May 31 

Approval by the European Community of 
a formula for resolving "longstanding U.S.- 
EC negotiations over compensatory Common 
Market import tariff reductions on a signifi- 
cant number and volume of U.S. agricul- 
tural and industrial exports was "warmly 
welcomed and accepted" by Ambassador 
William D. Eberle, the President's Special 
Representative for Trade Negotiations. 

The EC import duty cuts on U.S. exports 
were negotiated and agreed to under provi- 
sions of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade. GATT Article XXIV: 6 requires 
customs unions to negotiate tariff compen- 
sation to supplier nations when individual 
national import duties of member states are 
raised in adjustment to a common external 
tariff schedule. Such was the case as a result 
of the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Den- 
mark joining the European Community. 

Ambassador Eberle hailed the EC approval 
of the settlement formula, announced in 
Brussels, as "an important indication, at a 
particularly critical point in current inter- 
national economic relations, that potentially 
disruptive commercial disputes between na- 
tions can be resolved under multilateral 
rules, with the necessary mutual patience, 
good faith, and political will." 



"I agree with the EC Commission," Am- 
bassador Eberle said, "that this resolution of 
a difficult and sensitive issue moves us much 
closer to starting the new round of multilat- 
eral reciprocal trade negotiations, which are 
more urgent now than ever before because 
of serious strains on the international trad- 
ing system." 

"The resolution of the XXIV: 6 talks also 
significantly opens the way for progress on 
our Trade Reform Act, now pending in the 
Seriate, which is a sine qua non to the new 
multilateral round," he said. 

The XXIV: 6 formula approved by the EC 
involves duty reductions on U.S. exports of 
tobacco, oranges and grapefruits, kraft 
paper, photographic film, nonagricultural 
tractors, excavating machinery, diesel and 
marine engines and outboard motors, engine 
additives, measuring instruments, pumps, 
plywood, and other items. 

Estimates are that the value of U.S. ex- 
ports to the EC of the items on which new 
concessions have been made by the EC in 
these negotiations will be in the range of 
$%-$! billion. These concessions are addi- 
tional to other tariff improvements which 
automatically follow from adjustments in 
the British, Irish, and Danish tariff sched- 
uling as they adopt the Community's com- 
mon tariff. 

The formula approved by the EC on May 
31 does not include compensation claimed by 
the United States for cereal grain export 
coverage. The United States has reserved its 
rights under GATT to continue negotiations 
on this issue, and the United States and the 
EC have jointly agreed to "continue discus- 
sions with a view to seeking through inter- 
national negotiations, agreed solutions to the 
problems arising in the field of international 
trade in cereals." 

Ambassador Eberle also pointed out that 
resolution of the XXIV: 6 issue represents a 
mutually beneficial breakthrough in U.S.-EC 
economic relations and should substantially 
improve the atmosphere of overall relations. 



22 



Department of State Bulletin 



INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES 



Calendar of International Conferences' 



Scheduled July Through September 

OECD Environment Committee Paris . . , 

PAHO Executive Committee: 72d Meeting Washington 

FAO Codex Alimentarius Executive Commission: 20th Session . . . Rome . 

UNCTAD Committee on Manufactures: 6th Session Geneva 

Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Non-Tariff Barriers) Geneva 

U.N. ECOSOC Statistical Commission Working Group Geneva 

ICAO Passport Card Panel: 4th Meeting Montreal 

Conference of the Committee on Disarmament Geneva 

U.N. Economic and Social Council: 57th Session Geneva 

Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Tariffs) Geneva 

Energy Coordinating Group Brussels 

ECE Group of Rapporteurs on Customs Questions Concerning Con- 
tainers. Geneva , 
IMCO Subcommittee on Ship Design and Equipment: 12th Session . London . 

Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Agriculture) Geneva . 

OECD Economic Policy Committee Working Party 2 on Economic 

Growth. Paris . 

Multilateral Trade Negotiations Committee (Tropical Products) . . Geneva 
UNESCO Executive Committee of the International Campaign To 

Save the Monuments of Nubia: 23d Session. Paris . 
ECE Preparatory Meeting for Seminar on Desulphurization of Fuels 

and Combustion Gases. Geneva . 
UNESCO/IOC International Coordination Group on Southern Ocean: 

2d Session. Buenos Aires 
UNESCO/IOC International Coordination Group for the Global In- 
vestigations of Pollution in the Marine Environment: 2d Session. New York . 
UNESCO Diplomatic Conference on Regional Convention on the Inter- 
national Recognition of Studies and Degrees in Latin America and 
the Caribbean. Mexico City 
UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group on Transfer of Technology: 3d 

Session. Geneva . 

Multilateral Trade Negotiations Committee Geneva . 

ECE Group of Rapporteurs on Air Pollution Geneva . 

UNCTAD Committee on Shipping: 6th Session Geneva . 

FAO 8th Regional Conference for Africa Port Louis 

ECAFE Coordinating Committee on Offshore Prospecting .... Bangkok 

FAO 13th Regional Conference for Latin America Panama . 

FAO 12th Regional Conference for Near East Cyprus . 



July 


1-3 


July 


1-12 


July 


1-12 


July 


1-12 


July 


2-3 


July 2-4 


July 


2-11 


July 


2-August 


July 


3-Aug. 2 


July 


4-5 


July 8-9 


July 


8-12 


July 8-12 


July 8-12 


July 


9-10 


July 


10-15 


July 


11-12 


July 


15-17 


July 


15-19 


July 


15-19 


July 


15-19 


July 


15-26 


July 


17-18 


July 


29-Aug. 2 


July 


29-Aug. 9 


Aug. 


6-17 


Aug. 


7-21 


Aug. 


13-23 


Aug. 


13-23 



' This schedule, which was prepared in the Office of International Conferences on June 13, 1974, lists inter- 
national conferences in which the U.S. Government expects to participate officially in the period July-Septem- 
ber 1974. Nongovernmental conferences are not included. 

Following is a key to the abbreviations: CCC, Customs Cooperation Council; ECAFE, Economic Commis- 
sion for Asia and the Far East; ECE, Economic Commission for Europe; ECOSOC, Economic and Social Coun- 
cil; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; IBRD, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; 
ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization; ICEM, Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration; 
ICRC, International Committee of the Red Cross; IHO, International Hydrological Organization; ILO, Inter- 
national Labor Organization; IMCO, Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization; IMF, Interna- 
tional Monetary Fund; IOC, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; OECD, Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development; PAHO, Pan American Health Organization; UNCTAD, United Nations Con- 
ference on Trade and Development; UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi- 
zation; WHO, World Health Organization; WMO, World Meteorological Organization. 



July 1, 1974 



23 



U.N. World Population Conference 

UNCT.\I) Trade and Development Board: 14th Session 

U.N. Preparatory Committee for Nonproliferation Treaty Review Con- 
ference: 2d Meeting. 

UNESCO Coordinating Council of the International Hydrological Dec- 
ade: 9th Session. 

WHO Regional Committee for the Western Pacific: 25th Session . . 

U.N. ECOSOC Group of Experts on Explosives 

U.N. ECOSOC Human Rights Commission Subcommission on Preven- 
tion of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. 

U.N. Ad Hoc Committee on special measures for countries most 
seriously affected by price changes for raw materials. 

U.N. ECOSOC Group of Rapporteurs on Packaging of Dangerous 
Goods. 

OECD Working Group on the Listing of Securities 

IMCO Panel of Experts on Maritime Satellites: 5th Session .... 

UNESCO/W.MO International Conference on the Results of the Inter- 
national Hydrological Decade and on Future Programs in Hydrology. 

ICAO Panel on .-Sipplication of Space Techniques Relating to Aviation: 
6th Meeting. 

ICEM Subcommittee on Budget and Finance 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

IMCO Subcommittee on Radio Communications: 13th Session . . . 

ECE Committee on Housing, Building, and Planning 

U.N. Environment Program Preparatory Committee for Conference- 
Exposition on Human Settlements: 1st Meeting. 

OECD Development Assistance Committee (Review of U.S. Aid 
Efforts). 

ECE Ad Hoc ^Meeting of Experts on Grading Rules for Coniferous 
Woods. 

ECE Coal Committee 

ILO Advisory Committee on Salaried Employees and Professional 
Workers: 7th Session. 

IMCO Subcommittee on Fishing Vessels: 16th Session 

UNESCO International Coordinating Council of the Program on Man 
and the Biosphere: 3d Session. 

WMO Regional Association VI (Europe): 6th Session 

FAO 12th Regional Conference for Asia and the Far East .... 

U.N. General Assembly: 29th Session 

UNESCO Bureau for World Science Information System: 2d Session 

UNESCO Intergovernmental Conference on Planning Overall Docu- 
mentation, Library, and Archives Infrastructures. 

UNCTAD Permanent Group on Synthetics and Substitutes: 6th Session 

ECE Group of Rapporteurs on Container Transport 

U.N. Preparatory (Committee for World Food Conference: 3d Meeting 

UNESCO Executive Board: 95th Session 

ICAO Triennial Assembly 

ICRC Conference of Government Experts on Humanitarian Law . . 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

ECE Group of Experts on Data Requirements 

IMCO Council: 33d Session 

FAO Ad Hoc Consultations on Grains 

IBRD and IMF Boards of Governors 

ECE Committee on Water Problems 

International Council for Exploration of the Sea: 62d Statutory Meet- 
ing. 

CCC Working Party of the Permanent Technical Committee: 85th and 
86th Sessions. 

ILO Advisory Committee on Rural Development: 8th Session . . . 

International Atomic Energy Agency: 18th General Conference . . 

South Pacific Commission: 14th South Pacific Conference and 37th 
Session of the Commission. 

UNESCO Intergovernmental Copyright Committee: Special Session 

IHO Meeting of Experts on a Host Agreement 



Bucharest 
Geneva . 

Geneva . 

Paris . . 

Manila . 
Geneva . 



New York 
Geneva . 



Geneva 
Paris . 

London 



Paris 



Montreal 
Geneva . 
Paris . . 
London . 
Geneva . 

New York 



Paris 



Geneva 
Geneva 

Geneva 
London 

Washington 
Bucharest 
Tokyo 
New York 
Paris . 



Paris . 
Geneva 
Geneva 
Rome . 
Paris . 
Montreal 
Lucerne 
Paris . 
Geneva 
London 
Rome . 
Washington 
Geneva . . 

Copenhagen 

Brussels 
Geneva . . 
Vienna . . 

Rarotonga . 
Paris . . . 
Monte Carlo 



Aug. 19-29 
Aug. 20-Sept. 13 

Aug. 26-Sept. 6 

Aug. 29-30 

August 

.August 



August 
August 



August 
Sept. 2-6 
Sept. 2-6 

Sept. 3-14 

Sept. 2-13 
Sept. 5-6 
Sept. 9 
Sept. 9-13 
Sept. 9-13 

Sept. 9-13 

Sept. 11-12 



Sept. 
Sept. 

Sept. 
Sept. 

Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 

Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Sept. 



11-13 
16-19 

16-27 
16-27 

17-24 
17-25 
17-27 

17-Dec. 17 
19-21 



23-27 

23-27 

23-27 

23-Oct. 

23-Oct. 

24-Oct. 

24-Oct. 

26-27 

30-Oct. 

30-Oct. 

30-Oct. 

30-Oct. 

30-Oct. 



4 

11 
16 
18 

1 
2 

4 
4 
4 



Sept. 30-Oct. 9 

Sept. 30-Oct. 11 
Sept. 30-Oct. 11 
September 

September 
September 
September 



24 



Department of State Bulletin 



OECD Ministerial Council Meets at Paris 



The Ministerial Council of the Organiza- 
tion for Economic Cooperation and Develop- 
ment (OECD) met at Paris May 29-30. 
Following are statements made before the 
Cotincil by William D. Eberle, the President's 
Special Representative for Trade Negotia- 
tions; Herbert Stein, Chairman of the Coun- 
cil of Economic Advisers; and Artliur A. 
Hartman, Assistant Secretary of State for 
European Affairs; together with the texts 
of a communique and a declaration issued 
at the conclusion of the meeting on May JO. 



STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR EBERLE, MAY 29 

The dramatic changes in the world econ- 
omy since the last OECD ministerial meet- 
ing have confronted us with a sharply 
changed policy framework as well. The quad- 
rupling of oil prices, with its many rami- 
fications on national economies, has been 
and remains our predominant concern. But 
we face issues other than higher oil prices 
alone, issues such as supply shortages, in- 
adequate distribution systems, and other 
adjustment problems. And underlying all 
these issues is a rapid and alarming infla- 
tionary trend in all industrialized countries 
which was aggravated by the dramatic oil 
price increases and indeed by the whole 
broadly based commodity price boom. 

After months of reviewing and analyzing 
these developments in the OECD and in 
other forums, the OECD members repre- 
sented here are, I believe, in a position to 
outline the policies which we hope can begin 
to alleviate these problems. The Secretary 
General's note on agenda item I — Coopera- 



tion on Issues of General Economic Policy — 
provides an excellent focus for discussing 
these policies. The United States will make 
a two-part intervention. I will comment on 
the international aspects of the current eco- 
nomic situation. Dr. Stein will then address 
the domestic policy implications, especially 
the current high rate of inflation in member 
countries. 

In the international economic field, we are, 
as you know, confronted with a major un- 
precedented shift in the current accounts of 
most member countries. The traditional 
structure of international payments has 
changed dramatically since last summer. 
Whereas in past years the OECD countries 
as a whole had a current account surplus of 
$10 billion or more, the Secretariat estimates 
that this year their combined current account 
could be in deficit by as much as $40 billion. 

Whether or not the deficit reaches that 
extraordinarily high figure — we think the 
figure is on the high side — there has clearly 
been a change in the payments structure 
which will challenge our ingenuity and test 
our sense of responsibility. We face, it seems 
to me, three related problems of international 
adjustment. 

The first is how to prevent the OECD 
countries from resorting to restrictive cur- 
rent account actions or artificial stimulation 
of exports, since such actions could lead to 
retaliatory action by others. Moreover, a 
deficit on current account does not justify 
adjustment action when the overall payments 
position is satisfactory. 

The second problem is the avoidance of 
persistent overall payments imbalances in 
individual countries. If countries find their 



July 1, 1974 



25 



reserves rising or falling persistently, they 
have an obligation to take corrective action, 
choosing measures appropriate to the situ- 
ation. Trade measures would also be par- 
ticularly dangerous in these circumstances. 

The third problem is how to insure an 
adequate transfer of resources to those de- 
veloping countries whose need has been most 
seriously aggravated by the high price of 
oil. 

Financial reflows from the oil producers 
will, in the aggregate, be large enough to 
offset the deficit of the consuming nations 
of the world. The financial problem is one 
of distribution of the reflows. The OECD 
countries and the stronger developing coun- 
tries can probably rely primarily on the 
private markets to distribute capital, al- 
though it is clear that international institu- 
tions and governments should stand ready 
with a safety net. Governmental policies will 
play an important role in determining how- 
well the private markets fulfill this task, and 
it follows that close and continuing consulta- 
tions among national authorities will be more 
important than ever. This organization, par- 
ticularly the Economic Policy Committee and 
its Working Party 3, has a responsibility to 
insure that the necessary consultation occurs. 

Since a number of the oil-exporting na- 
tions cannot spend all of their earnings on 
goods and services in the period ahead, it 
will be impossible for the oil-importing na- 
tions as a whole to avoid trade deficits. And 
if one OECD nation takes measures to re- 
duce its trade deficit, the deficits of the other 
oil-importing nations will be increased. The 
inevitable effect will be to increase the pres- 
sure on other nations to act in similar 
fashion. A successive wave of measures and 
countermeasures would have the most seri- 
ous consequences for our economies and for 
the whole fabric of economic and political 
cooperation which we have been painstak- 
ingly constructing for almost three decades. 

As part of an international effort to miti- 
gate this danger, the Executive Committee 
in Special Session recommended the adop- 
tion of the trade and current account decla- 



U.S. Welcomes OECD Declaration 
on Current Account Measures 

Department Statement ' 

Today the member countries of the Organi- 
zation for Economic Cooperation and Develop- 
ment in Paris declared their determination 
over the next 12 months to avoid unilateral 
measures which would shift the burden of 
current account deficits to their trading part- 
ners. Attempts by the major trading nations 
to deal with the consequences of the current 
international economic situation, particularly 
the rise in energy costs, by such unilateral 
actions would present a potentially serious 
threat to the stability of the international 
economic structure. The declaration helps 
meet that threat. 

Major problems still confront the world's 
trade and monetary systems. Progress in 
the multilateral trade negotiations and toward 
reforming the international monetary and 
trade systems is more essential than ever. 
But with this declaration the member coun- 
tries of the OECD have renewed their com- 
mitment to a cooperative multilateral approach 
to resolving the problems of our ever more 
interdependent world. 

Moreover, they have helped assure stability 
in international economic relations while the 
governments of their nations proceed with 
more fundamental reform of the world eco- 
nomic system. Secretary of State Kissinger 
and former Treasury Secretary Shultz had 
called for this type of action, and the U.S. 
Government now warmly welcomes the suc- 
cessful achievement of this declaration and 
pledges its full support to its objectives. 



' Issued on May 30 (press release 228). 



ration now before us. My government whole- 
heartedly supports this recommendation as 
the product of constructive statesmanship. 
We agree fully with the text of the draft 
declaration and with the interpretation of 
the text set forth in the Secretary General's 
notes. I would like to express my particular 
appreciation of the efforts of Secretary Gen- 
eral [Emile] van Lennep and Chairman 
[Paul] Jolles of the Executive Committee in 
Special Session in helping us reach agree- 



26 



Department of State Bulletin 



ment on this most important document. The 
United States attaches to it a high political 
importance. We regard this declaration as 
complementary to the work going forward 
in the Committee of Twenty which is con- 
sidering proposals to supplement existing 
international procedures in order to deter 
the choice of trade measures for balance of 
payments adjustment. 

In approving this declaration, the United 
States and other nations have necessarily 
taken into account applicable constitutional 
limitations relating to executive and legis- 
lative authority as well as such statutory 
provisions as those dealing with escape clause 
actions, countervailing duties, and antidump- 
ing measures. This constitutional consider- 
ation is reflected in the text and in the inter- 
pretive notes to the declaration. 

My government endorses the inclusion of 
export restraints in the trade measures to 
be covered by the current account standstill. 
It is essential, in our view, to develop a 
more effective international discipline and 
consultation procedures to deal with the 
longer term problem of export restrictions 
for economic purposes. We hope that the 
OECD, and particularly its Trade Commit- 
tee, will give high priority to work in this 
area. 

The avoidance of destructive competition 
in the field of official export credits, which 
we fully endorse, should not of course be 
construed as precluding the normal process 
of meeting the terms of credit ofl"ered by 
other government lending institutions. 

The third structural problem the world 
faces — assuring an adequate flow of re- 
sources to the developing countries hardest 
hit by the higher oil prices — also calls for 
concerted action. Just as the system cannot 
tolerate unilateral current account measures 
by individual countries, neither can it oper- 
ate for long if the more fortunate countries 
are not actively concerned with the problems 
of those countries which are faced with the 
most difficult economic adjustments. 

Most of the countries represented here 
have already acknowledged this reality. We 



have indicated our intention to maintain, 
and if possible increase, our assistance levels. 
We have indicated, as well, our willingness 
to consult with others as to how the effects 
of increases in oil and other commodity 
prices on the poorest developing countries 
could be mitigated. 

The DAC [Development Assistance Com- 
mittee] Chairman, through his proposal, has 
led us to focus our attention in the OECD 
on the same issues. He has asked us to 
look not only at the short-term naeds of th.2 
poorest LDC's [less developed countries] but 
also at the long-range implications of com- 
modity price increases on overall develop- 
ment assistance efforts. My government — 
and I believe most other DAC members — 
has been reexamining our capacity to pro- 
vide emergency aid where it is most needed, 
in such areas as food, fertilizer, and techni- 
cal assistance. 

We have also welcomed indications that 
the oil-producing countries will participate 
in an expanded international assistance ef- 
fort on concessional terms. Of course, price 
reductions and removal of restraints on 
petroleum production would make the most 
positive contributions. 

At this meeting, I believe we should stress 
this organization's strong interest in devel- 
opment assistance and its particular concern 
for the hardest hit developing countries. We 
in the OECD should also, in my view, empha- 
size our desii'e to have the DAC continue 
to examine, as rapidly as possible, the im- 
plications of recent price rises for develop- 
ing nations. 

In addition to these immediate problems, 
we believe that the OECD members must 
take steps to assure both that adequate sup- 
plies of food and raw materials are available 
to meet longer term needs and that com- 
modity prices do not add to the inflationary 
pressures. We need a strong coordinated 
effort to improve our knowledge of price 
and supply trends. 

A good deal of uncertainty remains con- 
cerning the world food situation, both in 
the short term and over the next decade. 



July 1, 1974 



27 



The U.S. delegation is pleased to note that 
the Secretariat is already at work in prepar- 
ing the study of long-range trends which 
the members have asked it to complete. 

Estimates for our own crop outlook are 
good. While weather will remain a critical 
factor until the end of the present growing 
cycle, we anticipate a record U.S. grain 
crop. With a greatly increased carryover at 
the end of this summer, prospective soybean 
supplies will also be larger than during the 
current marketing year. The idled land 
which the United States returned to produc- 
tion this year and last has played a major 
role in obtaining this favorable result. We 
e.xpect that much of the U.S. production in- 
crease will be available for export and will 
help to ease world food shortages signifi- 
cantly. 

In recent weeks, improved outlook for 
crops in the Northern Hemisphere countries 
and good harvests in the Southern Hemi- 
sphere have acted as strong moderating in- 
fluences on agricultural commodity prices. 
Wheat prices, for example, have dropped by 
40 percent since their record highs earlier 
this year. There is now good reason to 
expect that prices of major agricultural 
commodities, both wholesale and retail, will 
moderate or level off and that their effect 
on inflation rates will thereby diminish con- 
siderably. 

As the international economy adjusts to 
the major changes brought about by higher 
oil prices, the free flow of capital and in- 
vestment becomes more important than ever. 
The United States places a high priority on 
the work in the OECD in the international 
investment area. This work was undertaken 
as an essential part of the efforts underway 
to adapt the international economic sys- 
tem to new needs and opportunities. We 
regard this work on international invest- 
ment as a necessary complement to reform- 
ing the multilateral trading system and the 
international monetary order and to provid- 
ing assistance to developing countries. We 
believe that international understandings on 
principles, rules, and procedures for con- 
sultations on international investment issues 



would make an important contribution to- 
ward stabilizing the international economy 
in the present period of uncertainty and 
minimize harmful distortions in the flow of 
resource allocation and trade. 

The U.S. delegation is pleased that the 
Secretary General and the group of inter- 
national investment experts have made so 
much progress on the work program on 
investment issues which was outlined by the 
Executive Committee in Special Session at 
its November meeting. We are glad to see 
that progress is also being made by the 
various specialized OECD committees on 
the difficult and complex issues connected 
with multinational enterprises following the 
work program approved by the Council. 



STATEMENT BY DR. STEIN, MAY 29 

The Secretary General properly empha- 
sizes the worldwide character of the infla- 
tion, its unusual intensity, and the priority 
of the need to deal with it. However, he 
is, in our opinion, too pessimistic about the 
probability of some reduction of the rate 
of inflation and insufficiently insistent on 
the firm use of conventional fiscal and mone- 
tary policies to restrain the inflation. 

In the United States at least, and to some 
extent in other countries, the recent infla- 
tion has consisted of two parts. One was 
the exceptionally rapid rise of food and fuel 
prices resulting from poor world crops on 
the one hand and from restriction of oil 
production on the other hand. The other 
part was the more moderate but still sub- 
stantial rise of prices in the rest of the 
economy reflecting general demand condi- 
tions, unit labor costs, and other factors. 

These two elements interact. Most impor- 
tant, the big rise of food and fuel prices 
raises the cost of living and generates pres- 
sure for higher wage increases, which may 
in turn intensify the general rate of inflation 
even after the food and fuel prices have 
ceased rising so fast. However, in the past 
year rapid food and energy price increases 
have not been fully translated into the rest 
of the economy, and if the extraordinary 



28 



Department of State Bulletin 



increase in these two sectors now subsides, 
us we expect, we will be left with a sub- 
stantial reduction in the rate of inflation. 

In the United States in the past year 
retail food prices rose 16.2 percent, prices 
of energy directly purchased by consumers 
rose 31.3 percent, and the rest of the con- 
sumers' price index rose 6.3 percent. This 
gave us a total increase of 10.2 percent. 
Ending the extraordinary increase of food 
and energy prices could bring our inflation 
rate down substantially, perhaps to the 
neighborhood of 7 percent. 

The increased supplies of food in hand 
and in prospect have already resulted in a 
marked change in the behavior of food prices 
at the farm and wholesale levels. In the six 
months that ended in October 1973 wholesale 
prices of farm products and processed foods 
and feeds ro.se by 14 percent; in the six 
months ended in April they rose by less than 
one-half of 1 percent; and in March and 
April they declined. This will be reflected in 
much more slowly rising retail prices in the 
months ahead. 

On the energy side, the dominant fact is 
the price of crude oil. No one believes that 
the world prices of crude oil will triple or 
quadruple as they did in the pa.st year. In 
fact there is some evidence that these prices 
are declining, and we expect them to decline 
further. 

These same forces in markets for food 
and energy that we feel in the United States 
will be felt in the other OECD countries and 
should help to slow down their inflation 
rates, although perhaps less than in the 
United States. So we should not regard our- 
selves as consigned to the high inflation 
rates recently experienced. However, even if 
we allow for the abatement of pressures on 
food and fuel prices, the remaining inflation 
rate will be too high. Moreover, the danger 
of renewed acceleration cannot be disre- 
garded. Therefore, while somewhat optimis- 
tic about the near future of inflation, we re- 
main concerned and determined about the 
basic problem. 

In our view, the main conclusion is the 
need for firm, continued use of what the 



Secretary General calls, in passing, tradi- 
tional or conventional measures. Presumably 
these are measures of fiscal and monetary 
restraint. There is some implication that 
these measures have been used and found 
wanting. The fact is that they have not been 
used for very long anywhere. The worldwide 
skepticism about the future of inflation is 
largely the result of skepticism about the 
willingness of governments to carry out 
these traditional policies. A sign now of de- 
termination by the members of OECD to do 
so would be a major contribution to arrest- 
ing the tide of inflation and inflation-fear. 

The Secretary General calls attention to 
unusual measures governments might want 
to employ temporarily in the months ahead 
to reduce the inflation of consumers' prices 
more rapidly. These include "temporary re- 
ductions in indirect taxes," "selective sub- 
sidies," or "particularly strict direct con- 
trols in certain of the more sensitive price 
areas." There is little scope for these meas- 
ures in the United States, although we do 
hope to conduct policies which will bring 
about increased supply and voluntary price 
restraints in .some sectors. We have no wish 
to dissuade others from direct tax, subsidy, 
or control measures intended to prevent in- 
flation. However, we think it extremely im- 
portant that interest in these other measures 
should not divert attention from fundamen- 
tal policies, either in the statement of OECD 
or in the action of our governments. 

We do not believe that we should turn 
quickly from the urgent need to restrain in- 
flation now to the possibility that commodity 
prices may fall "too far." Many basic com- 
modity prices have skyrocketed as supply 
could respond only slowly to booming de- 
mand. If these prices should fall now, in re- 
sponse to supply increases or less inflation- 
ary expectations, that would be natural and 
helpful. Concern with the problems of the 
less developed primary-producing countries 
should not be reflected in policies to hold up 
prices while the world is under the threat 
of inflation. 

Reluctance to rely on classical anti-infla- 
tion measures often reflects continuing anx- 



July 1, 1974 



29 



iety about inadequate growth of output and 
employment. This was a major worry in the 
OECD and elsewhere early in 1974. How- 
ever, we should now recognize that the risk 
of a worldwide recession has diminished, 
and there is little danger of any government 
pursuing a policy that is too restrictive. The 
Secretary General's statement is prudent in 
not urging any government to a more expan- 
sive policy. We would welcome a stronger 
warning against excessive expansion and 
more explicit acceptance of the fact that if 
we want to slow down the inflation we must 
not run too close to the limits of our eco- 
nomic potential. 

We believe that a statement by the Coun- 
cil of Ministers expressing our common de- 
termination to fight inflation, acknowledging 
the interest of each in the success of others 
in reducing inflation, and stressing the need 
for discipline and restraint in fiscal and 
monetary policy, would be helpful to all. 



STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY HARTMAN, 
MAY 30 

The serious challenges of the energy crisis 
have been met, in our view, with a clear dem- 
onstration by the industrialized countries 
of their ability to cooperate. We believe that 
the political will and the momentum are pres- 
ent and will enable us to complete the initial 
phase of the multilateral eff"orts in which 
the OECD has played and continues to play 
an important role. 

Two years ago this month, well before the 
energy crisis had erupted, the Ministerial 
Council initiated the long-term energy as- 
sessment. That assessment is the kind of 
fundamental work which is vital in insuring 
that member governments base their poli- 
cies on the best available information and 
analysis. 

Moreover, the Organization has not been 
parochial in its approach to the energy prob- 
lem. Some of its recently undertaken energy 
projects are fruitfully related to the work of 
the Energy Coordinating Group in a way that 
shows the OECD can react promptly and 



flexibly to new requirements. I refer spe- 
cifically to the ad hoc groups on the acceler- 
ated development of conventional energy 
resources and on energy conservation — in 
addition to the already established group 
concerned with oil sharing in times of emer- 
gency — and to the value of the OECD's oil 
market forecasting work for the Energy Co- 
ordinating Group. 

My government is in broad agreement with 
the initial tentative findings of the long-term 
energy assessment which the Secretary Gen- 
eral has summarized in the document before 
us. 

We agree that, contrary to pre-crisis esti- 
mates, the volume of oil imported annually 
into the OECD area during the remainder of 
the 1970's will probably not exceed the vol- 
ume of imports in 1973, assuming that in- 
ternational oil prices remain near present 
levels. Prices are the heart of the energy 
problem. My government believes that the 
best solution, and the solution that would be 
in the longer run interest of the producers 
as well, would be substantial reduction in oil 
prices. 

My government also agrees that conserv- 
ing energy and restraining demand would 
achieve significant and early progress on the 
demand side of the energy equation and 
should be given highest priority. 

We in the United States believe strongly 
that additional resources should be devoted 
both to overcoming the technical obstacles 
and to examining the economic or financial 
issues which might constrain progress to- 
ward greater self-suflliciency in indigenous 
energy production. The fact that new tech- 
nologies are now becoming economically at- 
tractive increases the likelihood of attaining 
this goal. 

The matter of energy pricing policies has 
been noted by the Secretariat as an area in 
which exchanges of information on oil com- 
pany operations could be helpful to national 
authorities. The United States is prepared in 
principle to cooperate with other govern- 
ments in a mutual exchange of such infor- 
mation. We recognize, of course, that now 
it is the producing countries and not the oil 



30 



Department of State Bulletin 



companies that make the basic decisions on 
petroleum prices and supply. We believe that 
further study is necessary to determine more 
precisely what kind of information might 
usefully be exchanged by governments. We 
also believe that the arrangements that are 
finally agreed to should be carefully drawn 
to insure that they do not prejudice competi- 
tion among oil companies. 

My government welcomes the steps being 
taken by the Secretary General within the 
Secretariat to work toward our goals in the 
energy field. We applaud the recent appoint- 
ment of a special counselor to the Secretary 
General to coordinate energy afi'airs and to 
head the newly established Energy Director- 
ate. We also support the proposed amendment 
to the procedures for completing work on 
the long-term energy assessment. We think 
that the question of whether the report 
should be submitted to the Council at min- 
isterial level would, however, be better ad- 
dressed at a later time when the report is 
nearer completion and other energy activi- 
ties are more clearly in focus. 

In concluding, let me restate in the brief- 
est possible way the central thrust of my 
remarks. It is that cooperation has been 
and must continue to be our common re- 
sponse to the energy crisis. My government 
sees no alternative and does not intend to 
seek another alternative, for we are con- 
vinced that none exists. I hope and trust 
that this conviction is shared by all who 
are present today. 



TEXT OF COMMUNIQUE, MAY 30 

1. The Council of the OECD met at Ministerial 
level in Paris on 29th and 30th May, 1974, under 
the Chairmanship of Mr. Antonio Giolitti, Minister 
for the Budget and Economic Planning of Italy. 
Ministers welcomed this opportunity to have an 
exchange of views in the light of the present inter- 
national economic problems and underlined the con- 
structive role which co-operation in the OECD can 
play in helping to solve these problems. 

The Problems 

2. Ministers identified three main outstanding 
problems which need further international co-ordi- 



nation of national policies if they are to be solved: 

— The widespread problem of inflation, already of 
serious proportions, has been aggravated by the 
sharp increase in the price of oil; anti-inflationary 
policies must be carefully chosen so as to avoid 
serious unemployment problems. 

— For most OECD countries the international pay- 
ments situation, radically altered by the oil price 
increase, has moved into substantial deficit on cur- 
rent account. 

— Certain developing countries, including some of 
the poorest nations in the world, are facing a griev- 
ously worsened economic and financial situation. 

The Response 

3. Governments are resolved to approach all these 
problems jointly and concurrently, and Ministers 
emphasized their determination to develop a co- 
herent set of measures to this end. In particular, 
they recognise that no acceptable solution to in- 
dividual countries' problems of internal and external 
balance can be found in action which only shifts 
those problems across frontiers. 

4. Inflation and Employment. Ministers recognise 
that, in all OECD countries, the present rates of 
inflation constitute a threat to economic and social 
progress. Their Governments therefore accord high 
priority to reducing the rate of price increases. 
They will seek to maintain economic activity at 
satisfactory levels and avoid policies that would 
transfer employment problems from one country to 
another. But Ministers agreed that great care is 
at present needed to avoid the emergence of excess 
demand in the OECD area, and that fiscal and 
monetary policies have to be shaped to this end. 
They also emphasized the need to use, where fea- 
sible, other, more selective, measures to increase 
supply and reduce inflationary expectations. And 
they agreed that OECD, taking account of work 
in other international bodies, should seek to identify 
policies conducive to better market stability of 
primary products with adequate supplies at prices 
equitable both for producing and for consuming 
countries. 

5. Trade a7id Payments Policy. The need for 
OECD countries to adapt to the new balance of 
payments situation is a problem that, particularly, 
has to be tackled on an international basis. Govern- 
ments are determined to take all appropriate action 
to limit the size and duration of the weakening of 
their current account positions. But they recognise 
that, in the years immediately ahead, a deterioration 
has to be accepted because of the oil price-rise. 
Ministers have also recognised that the financing 
of external deficits persisting despite the implemen- 
tation of appropriate adjustment policies will con- 
stitute a difficult problem for some Member coun- 
tries. 



July 1, 1974 



31 



fi. In these circumstances, Ministers are conscious 
of the special danger of mutually conflicting policies 
to improve national competitive positions and agreed 
on the need to prevent new unilateral action which 
may have a detrimental impact on international eco- 
nomic relations. They have, as part of an overall 
response to the current situation, issued the at- 
tached Declaration, stating the determination of 
their Governments, for a period of a year, to avoid 
recourse to new restrictions on trade or other cur- 
rent account transactions and the artificial stimula- 
tion of visible and current invisible exports, which 
would be contrary to the objectives of the Declara- 
tion. 

7. The Declaration, at the same time, also ex- 
presses the agreement of Governments to co-operate 
fully to facilitate the financing of the deficits de- 
scribed above, and their readiness to consider appro- 
priate arrangements which may prove necessary in 
this respect. 

8. In addition. Ministers reaffirmed their support 
for the multilateral trade negotiations in the frame- 
work of the GATT and urged that these negotiations 
be regarded as a matter of priority. They stressed 
the importance in the present situation of these 
new efforts to liberalise trade. 

9. Ministers welcomed the intensification of the 
Organisation's work on the issues related to inter- 
national investment and to multinational enterprises, 
with a view to improving co-operation on these 
issues. 

10. Development Co-operation. Ministers noted 
that Members of the Development Assistance Com- 
mittee (DAC) and some other Member countries 
of the OECD will make strenuous efforts to main- 
tain and enlarge the flow of their official development 
assistance with a view to promoting further eco- 
nomic and social progress of developing countries. 

11. Ministers expressed particular concern at the 
acute economic problems of those developing coun- 
tries with low income which are most seriously 
affected by the increase in the prices of oil and 
other essential imports. Although there is as yet 
no generally agreed estimate as to the amount of 
special assistance required by these countries, they 
noted the preliminary studies made by certain inter- 
national organisations indicating that these require- 
ments might amount, as an order of magnitude, to 
some $3-$4 billion up to the end of 1975. 

12. Ministers of the countries which are Members 
of the DAC and some other OECD Members, 
recognising the need to contribute constructively to 
the follow-up of the Sixth Special Session of the 
General Assembly of the United Nations on Raw 
Materials and Development, agreed to make every 
effort to contribute in an appropriate manner to 
the special relief needed by the most seriously 
affected developing countries, bilaterally and within 



the framework of the appropriate international in- 
stitutions. The DAC will review the progress of its 
Members' relief efforts under way and any further 
steps which may be appropriate. Ministers reiterated 
the view that all countries throughout the world 
in a position to do so should share the responsi- 
bility to contribute to the special relief of the most 
seriously affected developing countries. 

13. Ministers agreed that all possible efforts 
should be made to ensure that shipments of ferti- 
lizers to developing countries with urgent needs 
are maintained at their previous level and that, 
through financial and technical assistance, encour- 
agement should be given to increased production of 
fertilizers in developing countries. 

14. Energy. Ministers discussed the consequences 
of recent developments in the world energy market. 
They agreed that a strong co-operative effort is 
needed if serious damage to the economic and social 
welfare of the OECD community as well as to 
the world economy is to be avoided. Ministers 
underlined their will to intensify international co- 
operation on energy problems and to strengthen 
OECD capability in this field. 

15. Ministers noted that the work on the Long- 
Term Assessment of energy and related policies 
being prepared by the OECD has been accelerated 
and that the assessment will be at the disposal of 
Governments in October 1974 at the latest. They 
underlined the necessity to ensure energy supplies 
without undue, adverse impact on environmental 
conditions. 

16. Ministers stressed the importance of OECD's 
work, already under way, in the fields of energy 
conservation and demand restraint, accelerated de- 
velopment of conventional energy sources, alloca- 
tion of oil supplies in times of emergency and severe 
shortages, and energy research and development. 
The work on these subjects has been speeded up 
in order to permit early policy decisions. 



TEXT OF DECLARATION, MAY 30 



Declaration 

Adopted by Govenments of OECD 
Member countries oyi -iOth May, 1971, 

Governments of OECD Member Countries,' 

Considering that, among other factors, the rise in 
oil prices is aggravating the economic problems con- 
fronting .Member countries, and notal)ly the problem 
of inflation, as well as causing additional structural 
problems, and that it is creating an unprecedented 



' Including the European Communities [footnote 
in original]. 



32 



Department of State Bulletin 



change in the structure of the balance of payments 
and, in particular, a deterioration of current accounts 
of Member countries as a whole; 

Considering that all Member countries are affected 
by these developments though in varying degrees; 

Agree: 

that the nature and size of the above-mentioned 
problems facing Member countries as well as a num- 
ber of developing countries call for wide co-operative 
action in the fields of economic, trade, financial, 
monetary, investment and development policies; 

that the financing of international payments defi- 
cits will constitute a difficult problem for certain 
Member countries and that, accordingly. Member 
countries will co-operate fully to facilitate such fi- 
nancing and are ready to consider appropriate ar- 
rangements which may prove necessary in this 
respect; 

that unilateral trade or other current account 
measures by one or more Member countries to deal 
with this situation would aggravate the problems of 
other countries and, if generalised, would be self- 
defeating and have a depressing effect on the world 
economy; 

that countries have responsibilities both as im- 
porters and exporters to avoid disruption of regular 
trade flows; 

that, as a matter of urgency and without prejudice 
to the outcome of the monetary and trade negotia- 
tions, there is therefore a need for a joint under- 
taking having as its objective to prevent new uni- 
lateral action which may have a detrimental impact 
on international economic relations; 

Declare Their Determination, in the light of the 
foregoing and for a period of one year, 

(a) to avoid having recourse to unilateral meas- 
ures, of either a general or a specific nature, to 
restrict imports or having recourse to similar meas- 
ures on the other current accounts transactions, 
which would be contrary to the objectives of the 
present Declaration: 

(b) to avoid measures to stimulate exports or 
other current account transactions artificially; and, 
inter alia, abstain from destructive competition in 
official support of export credit and aim at taking 
appropriate co-operative actions to this effect in the 
immediate future; 

(c) to avoid export restrictions which would be 
contrary to the objectives of the present Declaration ; 

(d) to consult with each other, making full use of 
the general procedures of consultation within OECD, 
in order to assure that the present Declaration is 
properly implemented; 

(e) to implement the present Declaration in ac- 
cordance with their international obligations and 
with due regard to the special needs of developing 
countries. 



THE CONGRESS 



Department Supports Extension 
of International Wheat Agreement 

Following is a statement hy Julius L. Katz, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic 
and Business Affairs, made before the Sen- 
ate Committee on Foreign Relations on May 
30.^ 

During the past two years the food grain 
situation has been a prime focus of world 
attention. The supply-demand balance for 
wheat and other food grains has been tighter 
in 1973-74 than at any time since the end 
of World War II. Carryover stocks of the 
major grain-exporting countries are unprece- 
dentedly low. In this situation of short sup- 
ply and rapidly changing prices, there is 
heightened appreciation of the need for in- 
ternational consultation and cooperation. 

The administration strongly supports the 
extension of the Wheat Trade Convention 
and the Food Aid Convention, which to- 
gether form the International Wheat Agree- 
ment, 1971. 

Extending the Wheat Trade Convention 
will maintain existing machinery and proce- 
dures for collecting and disseminating in- 
formation on world supply and demand for 
wheat. While we of course have our own 
world agricultural data and rely on it pri- 
marily, the data of the International Wheat 
Council is an important contributing source 
of information for us as well as for other 
nations. 

The consultative function of the Wheat 
Council and its subcommittees is equally, or 
perhaps more, important. The twice-yearly 
meetings of the Council itself bring together 



' The complete transcript of the hearings will be 
published by the committee and will be available 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 



July 1, 1974 



33 



government and private grains experts to 
discuss means of achieving stability in inter- 
national wheat markets and the expansion of 
trade in wheat and flour. In the subcom- 
mittees, personnel stationed in London con- 
sult regularly on market conditions and 
moi-e technical matters such as freight rates 
and charters. 

The third major reason why it is desir- 
able to extend the Wheat Trade Convention 
is that we are in a period of great interna- 
tional concern and attention to world grain 
problems. The United States and other na- 
tions are reassessing their policies regard- 
ing trade relationships, stockpiles, food aid, 
and assistance to agriculture in the less de- 
veloped countries. The World Food Confer- 
ence in Rome in November serves as the 
focus for this effort, but the multilateral 
trade negotiations, if carried forward as the 
administration hopes, will also be an impor- 
tant forum. Depending on the results of the 
World Food Conference and the multilateral 
trade negotiations, the International Wheat 
Council and the procedures established 
under the Wheat Trade Convention could 
play an even more important role in the 
future. 

The Food Aid Convention was a U.S. ini- 
tiative in 1967 arising from the Kennedy 
round of trade negotiations. It established 
the important principle that food aid is a 
responsibility of developed importing nations 
as well as the exporting nations such as the 
United States, Canada, and Australia. The 
European Economic Community is now the 
second largest food aid donor. At a time 
when world food prices are still high and 
many developing countries are faced with 
severe balance of payments problems be- 
cause of oil and other commodity price in- 
creases, we believe it would be particularly 
unfortunate to let the Food Aid Convention 
lapse. 

The International Wheat Agreement, 1971, 
is the successor to the agreement of 1949 
which was revised, renewed, or extended in 
1953, 1956, 1959, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 
1968. 

The organ of the Wheat Trade Convention 
is the International Wheat Council, com- 



posed of representatives of all member 
countries — 56 at the present time. Since 
there are no price provisions in the 1971 
agreement, the functions of the Council are 
primarily to direct the collection, analysis, 
and dissemination of data on the interna- 
tional wheat situation with reference to sup- 
ply, demand, trade, and prices. Through the 
mechanism of the Advisory Subcommittee on 
Market Conditions, developments in the in- 
ternational wheat markets are under con- 
tinuous review. 

The subcommittee's monthly wheat market 
report reviews the latest trends in wheat 
trade, stocks, prices, and ocean freight rates, 
and other developments based on reports by 
member countries to the Secretariat. In 1972 
the Council agreed that the subcommittee 
should undertake a "Forecast of World 
Wheat Supply and Demand" at the begin- 
ning of the crop year as an aid to planners 
in assessing export availabilities for the year. 
The quality of analysis and timeliness of 
publication of these documents makes the 
International Wheat Council's work prac- 
tically unique among the various interna- 
tional commodity organizations. 

The Wheat Trade Convention, 1971, does 
not contain provisions on price or purchase 
and supply commitments as did its predeces- 
sor, the 1967 agreement. It does, however, 
provide for the convening of an interna- 
tional conference to negotiate substantive 
provisions. Mr. [Richard E.] Bell of the 
Department of Agriculture will discuss this 
aspect in more detail. 

I wish to note, however, that the Depart- 
ment of State, as well as other agencies of 
the administration, has been very mindful 
and cognizant of Senate Resolution 136 of 
June 15, 1971, introduced by Senator [Gale 
W.] McGee. The sense of that resolution 
was that the President take steps at the 
earliest possible date to see that an interna- 
tional conference was convened to negotiate 
price and supply provisions covering the in- 
ternational wheat trade. 

It has not been possible to do this. In 
1971 we had a severe disruption of the 
major world money markets, culminating in 
the economic policy changes announced by 



34 



Department of State Bulletin 



the President on August 15, 1971. Nineteen 
seventy-two proved to be a very bad year for 
world crops; and almost all commodity 
prices, not just wheat, started on an upward 
trend that accelerated through 1973 and 
early 1974. Had a wheat agreement with 
substantive provisions existed, it i'- doubtful 
that it could have withstood the exceptional 
strains of the past three years. In this 
period, agreements on coffee and tin were 
actually or effectively suspended. The U.S. 
view that we could not ne^ jtiate substantive 
provisions to the Wheat Trade Convention 
during the past three years has been shared 
by other major trading nations. 

The organ of the Food Aid Convention is 
the Food Aid Committee. The European 
Economic Community and its member states 
and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, 
Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the 
United States are members. Unlike the 
World Food Program, which is also a multi- 
lateral food aid undertaking, the Food Aid 
Convention sets quantity-level obligations. 
This has been of great importance during 
the recent period of high prices when food 
aid programs expressed in dollar terms alone 
have been sharply reduced. Obligations 
under the Food Aid Convention total 4.2 
million tons annually. The U.S. share of 1.9 
million tons is met through the operations of 
the Public Law 480 program. 

Mr. Chairman, the extending protocols 
before this committee stipulate June 18 as 
the date by which signatories or countries 
wishing to accede should deposit ratification 
or provisional application. While there is 
provision for requesting an extension, the 
administration hopes that, with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, it will be possible 
to meet this deadline and continue uninter- 
rupted U.S. participation in both conven- 
tions. 

Mr. Chairman, we consider that the Wheat 
Trade Convention and the Food Aid Con- 
vention, together comprising the Interna- 
tional Wheat Agreement, serve the interests 
of the Nation, and I am pleased to join with 
other witnesses today in recommending fav- 
orable action. 



TREATY INFORMATION 



Current Actions 



MULTILATERAL 

Arbitration 

Convention on the recognition and enforcement of 
foreign arbitral awards. Done at New York June 
10, 1958. Entered into force June 7, 1959; for 
the United States December 29, 1970. TIAS 6997. 
Accession deposited: Dahomey, May 16, 1974. 

Aviation 

Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure 
of aircraft. Done at The Hague December 16, 

1970. Entered into force October 14, 1971. TIAS 
7192. 

Extended to: Netherlands Antilles, June 11, 1974. 
Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts 
against the safety of civil aviation. Done at 
Montreal September 23, 1971. Entered into force 
January 26, 1973. TIAS 7570. 
Accession deposited: Japan, June 12, 1974. 
Extended to: Netherlands Antilles, June 11, 1974. 

CoflFee 

Agreement amending and extending the interna- 
tional coffee agreement, 1968. Approved by the 
International Coffee Council at London April 14, 
1973. Entered into force October 1, 1973. TIAS 
7809. 

Notification that constitutional procedures com- 
pleted: Bolivia, May 9, 1974; Federal Republic 
of Germany, May 15, 1974. 

Satellite Communications System 

Agreement relating to the International Telecom- 
munications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), 
with annexes. Done at Washington August 20, 

1971. Entered into force February 12, 1973. TIAS 
7532. 

Ratification deposited: Lebanon (with a state- 
ment), June 11, 1974. 

Terrorism — Protection of Diplomats 

Convention on the prevention and punishment of 
crimes against internationally protected persons, 
including diplomatic agents. Done at New York 
December 14, 1973.' 
Signatures: Denmark, Finland," Iceland, Norway, 

and Sweden, May 10, 1974; Tunisia, May 15, 

1974.= 

Wheat 

Protocol modifying and extending the wheat trade 
convention (part of the international wheat agree- 



' Not in force. 

' With reservations. 



July 1, 1974 



35 



ment) 1971. Done at Washington April 2, 1974. 
Enters into force on June 19, 1974, with respect 
to certain provisions; July 1, 1974, with respect 
to other provisions. 
Ratifications deposited: Mauritius, June 11, lJ/4; 

Canada, Finland, Pakistan, June 14, 1974. 
Acceptance deposited: Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics (with a statement), June 11, 1974. 
Accessions deposited: Egypt, June 13, 1974; Leb- 
anon, June 11, 1974. . 
Declarations of provisioiial application deposited: 
Portugal, June 7, 1974; Tunisia, June 10, 1974 
Protocol modifying and extending the food aid 
convention (part of the international wheat agree- 
ment) 1971. Done at Washington April 2, 1974. 
Enters into force on June 19, 1974, with respect 
to certain provisions; July 1, 1974, with respect 
to other provisions. 
Ratifications deposited: Canada, Finland, June 14, 

1974. 
Declarations of provisional application deposited: 
Luxembourg, June 14, 1974. 



BILATERAL 

Austria 

Amendment to the agreement of July 11, 1969 
(TIAS 6815), for cooperation concerning civil uses 
of atomic energy. Signed at Washington June 
14, 1974. Enters into force on the date on which 
each Government shall have received from the 
other written notification that it has complied with 
all statutory and constitutional requirements for 
entry into force. 

Bangladesh 

Economic, technical, and related assistance agree- 
ment. Signed at Dacca May 21, 1974. Entered 
into force May 21, 1974. 

China, Republic of 

Amendment to the agreement of April 4, 1972 
(TIAS 7364), for cooperation concerning civil 
uses of atomic energy. Signed at Washington 
March 15, 1974. 
Entered into force: June 14, 1974. 

Guinea 

Agreement amending the agreement for sales of 
agricultural commodities of May 8, 1974. Ef- 
fected by exchange of notes at Conakry May 24, 
1974. Entered into force May 24, 1974. 

Hungary 

Agreement amending the agreement of August 13, 
1970, as amended, relating to trade in cotton 
textiles. Effected by exchange of notes at Wash- 
ington May 31 and June 10, 1974. Entered into 
force June 10, 1974. 



International Committee of the Red Cross 

Agreement amending the grant agreement of No- 
vember 1, 1973, to provide assistance to refugees, 
displaced persons, and war victims in the Republic 
of Viet-Nam, Laos, and the Khmer Republic. 
Signed at Geneva May 1, 1974. Entered into force 
May 1, 1974. 

Saudi Arabia 

Joint statement on Saudi Arabian-United States 
cooperation. Signed at Washington June 8, 1974. 
Entered into force June 8, 1974. 

Thailand 

Agreement amending the agreement for sales of 
agricultural commodities of March 17, 1972 (TIAS 
7330). Effected by exchange of notes at Bangkok 
May 23, 1974. Entered into force May 23, 1974. 




GPO Sales Publications 

Publications may be ordered by catalog or stock 
number from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 
20^02. A 25-percent discount is made on orders for 
100 or more copies of any one publication mailed to 
the same address. Remittances, payable to the Su- 
perintendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 
Prices shown below, which include domestic postage, 
are subject to change. 

Africa: U.S. Development Aid. Current Foreign 
Policy series pamphlet based on a recent address by 
David N. Newsom, then Assistant Secretary of State 
for African Affairs, before the annual meeting of the 
African Studies Association in New York. Pub. 8754. 
African Series 56. 7 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. S1.116:56). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Sri 
Lanka. TIAS 7753. 10 pp. 25^'. (Cat. No. S9.10: 
7753). 

Privileges and Immunities for United States Inter- 
American Geodetic Survey Mission. Agreement with 
Ecuador. TIAS 7755. 9 pp. 25<'. (Cat. No. S9.10: 
7755). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Bangla- 
desh amending the agreement of August 6, 1973, as 
amended. TIAS 7756. 3 pp. (Cat. No. S9.10:7756). 



36 



Department of State Bulletin 



INDEX July 1, 1974 Vol. LXXI, No. 1827 



Agriculture. Department Supports Extension 

of International Wheat Agreement (Katz) 33 

Bulgaria. Letters of Credence (Popov) ... 16 

Chad. Letters of Credence (Alingue) ... 16 

China. Secretary Reiterates U.S. Goal of Nor- 
malized U.S.-P.R.C. Relations (remarks) . 6 

Congress. Department Supports Extension of 

International Wheat Agreement (Katz) . 33 

Economic Affairs 

European Community To Reduce Duties on 
Certain American Products (Nixon, state- 
ment by Office of Special Representative 
for Trade Negotiations) 21 

OECD Ministerial Council Meets at Paris 
(Eberle, Hartman, Stein, communique and 
declaration) 25 

U.S. Welcomes OECD Declaration on Current 

Account Measures (Department statement) 26 

Energy. OECD Ministerial Council Meets at 
Paris (Eberle, Hartman, Stein, communique 
and declaration) 25 

Europe. European Community To Reduce Du- 
ties on Certain American Products (Nixon, 
statement by Office of Special Representa- 
tive for Trade Negotiations) 21 

Guinea. Letters of Credence (Bah) .... 16 

International Organizations and Conferences 

Calendar of International Conferences ... 23 
OECD Ministerial Council Meets at Paris 
(Eberle, Hartman, Stein, communique and 

declaration) 25 

U.S. Welcomes OECD Declaration on Current 
Account Measures (Department statement) 26 

Israel. Under Secretary Sisco Discusses Mid- 
dle East Negotiations (interview on NBC 
Today Show) 11 

Latin America. Inter-American Relations in 
Transition (Mailliard) 17 

Middle East 

Pragmatism and Moral Force in American 
Foreign Policy (Nixon) 1 

Under Secretary Sisco Discusses Middle East 
Negotiations (interview on NBC Today 
Show) 11 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Secretary 
Kissinger Greets NATO Parliamentarians 
(remarks) 14 

Presidential Documents 

European Community To Reduce Duties on 
Certain American Products 21 

Pragmatism and Moral Force in American 
Foreign Policy 1 

United States and Saudi Arabia Agree on 
Expanded Cooperation 7 

Publications. GPO Sales Publications ... 36 

Saudi Arabia. United States and Saudi Arabia 
Agree on Expanded Cooperation (Nixon, 
Prince Fahd, Kissinger, joint statement) . 7 

Sweden. Letters of Credence (Wachtmeister) 16 

Syria. Under Secretary Sisco Discusses Mid- 
dle East Negotiations (interview on NBC 
Today Show) 11 



Togo. Letters of Credence (Kekeh) .... 16 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 35 

Department Supports Extension of Interna- 
tional Wheat Agreement (Katz) .... 33 

U.S.S.R. Pragmatism and Moral Force in 

American Foreign Policy (Nixon) ... 1 

Zambia. Letters of Credence (Mwale) ... 16 



Name Index 

Alingue, Bawoyeu 16 

Al Saud, Prince Fahd bin Abd al Aziz ... 7 

Bah, Habib 16 

Eberle, William D 25 

Hartman, Arthur A 25 

Katz, Julius L 33 

Kekeh, Michel Messanvi 16 

Kissinger, Secretary 6 7, 14 

Mailliard, William S .' . 17 

Mwale. Siteke Gibson 16 

Nixon, President 1, 7, 21 

Popov, Lubomir Dimitrov 16 

Sisco, Joseph J 11 

Stein, Herbert D 25 

Wachtmeister, Count Wilhelm 16 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: June 10-16 

Press releases may be obtained from the 
Office of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Releases issued prior to June 10 which ap- 
pear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 
228 of May 30, 233 of June 4, 236 of June 6, 
and 239 and 240 of June 7. 

No. Date Subject 

Joint statement on U.S.-Saudi 
Arabia cooperation, June 8. 

Kissinger, Prince Fahd: remarks 
at signing ceremony, June 8. 

Study group 1 of the U.S. 
National Committee for the 
CCITT, July 24. 

Kissinger: news conference, Salz- 
burg, Austria. 

Study group 4 of the U.S. Na- 
tional Committee for the CCIR, 
July 2. 

Sisco: House Foreign Affairs 
Committee. 

Study group 5 of the U.S. 
National Committee for the 
CCITT, July 11. 

Kissinger: news conference. Bad 
Reichenhall, Germany, June 11. 

U.S. track and field teams to tour 
Africa, June 16-July 31. 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 



242 


6/10 


243 


6/10 


*244 


6/10 


*245 


6/11 


*246 


6/11 


t247 


6/12 


*248 


6/14 


t249 


6/14 


*250 


6/14 



Superintendent of Documents 

u.s. government printing office 

washington. d.c. 20402 



OFFICIAU BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Special Fourth-Clats Rate 
Book 







Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 8 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, OflSce 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 



U: 



7A 



VS^S 




THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BULLETIN 



Volume LXXI 



No. 1828 



July 8, 1974 



NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL MINISTERIAL MEETING 

ADOPTS DECLARATION ON ATLANTIC RELATIONS 

Secretary Kissinger's News Conference 

and Texts of NATO Communique and Declaration 37 

THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: A VITAL TOOL 

IN BUILDING A MORE COOPERATIVE WORLD 

Statement by Secretary Kissinger 4.9 

MAINTAINING A MOMENTUM FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE 

THROUGH DIPLOMACY AND ASSISTANCE 

Statement by Under Secretary Sisco 56 



THE OFFICIAL WEEKLY RECORD OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 



For index see inside back cover 



I 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN 



Vol. LXXI, No. 1828 
July 8, 1974 



For sale by the Superintendent of Document* 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

PRICE: 

62 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.26 

Single copy 60 centa 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literatore. 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, iasiud 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 



j'ftlese 



North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting Adopts 
Declaration on Atlantic Relations 



The North Atlantic Council held its regu- 
lar ministerial meeting at Ottawa on June 
18-19. Following is the transcript of a news 
conference held by Secretary Kissinger after 
the meeting, together with the texts of a 
final commtinique issued at the close of the 
meeting and the Declaration on Atlantic Re- 
lations adopted by the ministerial meeting 
on June 1 9. 



SECRETARY KISSINGER'S NEWS CONFERENCE 

Press release 255 dated June 19 

Ladies and gentlemen: What I wanted to 
express was the satisfaction of the U.S. 
Government with the outcome of this meet- 
ing. The discussions were for the first time 
organized by subject matter rather than on 
the basis of formal statements by the various 
ministers, and the result was an extraordi- 
narily good and constructive discussion on 
all the subjects that were raised, so much 
so that it raises the question whether we 
should not extend these meetings in the fu- 
ture to permit more time for discussion. 

Of course the most important event was 
the final agreement on the NATO declara- 
tion. When the United States first proposed 
this idea 14 months ago. we started from 
the premise that conditions in the world had 
changed fundamentally in the 25 years since 
the alliance had been founded and that there 
was a need for the alliance to take account 
of these changed relationships — changes in 
the strategic situation, the new fact of con- 
stant negotiations between East and West, 
the impact of events in other parts of the 
world on the alliance. 



We also felt that it was important for a 
new generation to see that the spirit of cre- 
ativity in the Western World was still alive 
and for the governments of the alliance to 
dedicate themselves to take account of the 
new realities and to shape constructively 
their common future. 

The process which led to this declaration 
had its ups and downs, as is normal in an 
alliance composed of free nations. But the 
final result creates a framework which states 
the aspirations of the alliance and permits us 
to move forward jointly. 

It had always been the American view 
that a declaration does not represent a set of 
legal obligations but, rather, that the real 
meaning of such a declaration will be when 
it is never invoked as a declaration but be- 
comes a living practice. 

On such issues as consultation, it is obvious 
that no one can be compelled to consult, but 
if one can create a community of shared 
aspirations, then there will be a desire to 
consult. 

So far as the United States is concerned, 
we look at this declaration as an expression 
by the free countries of the Atlantic area 
that they will gear their policies to the new 
realities — that they recognize their destiny 
as common in the next quarter of a century, 
as it has been in the last quarter of a century. 

As the country which has the most inter- 
ests outside of the treaty area of any of our 
allies, we will meticulously implement the 
principle of consultation and will do our 
utmost to make the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization and the spirit which it reflects 
as vital an element in the next 25 years as 
it has been in the last quarter of a century. 



July 8, 1974 



37 



It remains for me only to thank the Cana- 
dian Government for its hospitality, for the 
excellence of the arrangements, and to join 
with what the British Foreign Secretary said 
when the declaration was adopted : that it is 
well that the declaration was agreed to in 
Ottawa, the capital of the country that sym- 
bolizes the connection between North Amer- 
ica and Western Europe. 

And now I'll be glad to take your ques- 
tions. 

Q. May I just ask one question: One of the 
concerns of the conference, especially among 
the European nations, ivas this very princi- 
ple of co7isitltation. Will this new agreement 
obviate the sort of thing that happened last 
fall, ivhen the United States unilaterally 
called a worldivide NATO alert? This caused 
a great deal of consternation among the 
member nations. 

Secretary Kissinger: One has to separate 
two problems : the problem of long-term poli- 
cy and the pi-oblem of military emergencies. 
I think it is always possible that emergency 
situations will arise in which the United 
States in the common interest may feel that 
it has to act. And I believe that any NATO 
ally analyzing the situation as it existed at 
that time will be grateful that the United 
States acted decisively. However, in all situ- 
ations which are not emergency situations, 
the United States feels an obligation to con- 
cert its general policies with those of its 
allies. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, you stated in your April 
1973 speech there were three declarations 
that you ivere seeking. May I ask you what 
has happened to the other two — the one cov- 
ering the EEC [Europeayi Economic Com- 
munity'] and the general one involving 
Japan? 

Secretary Kissinger: No, that is not quite 
correct. In my April 1973 speech I pointed 
out that Japan eventually had to be brought 
into this overall structure. And the idea was 
to have one common Atlantic declaration. 
Later there was an attempt made to take 
account of the emerging European political 



unity and to seek to draft a document that 
established the relationship between that 
European political unity and the United 
States. But it became apparent during the 
course of drafting this document that until 
that European political unity was more fully 
articulated, it was very difficult to state 
general principles as to its method of coop- 
eration with the United States. 

It was therefore decided to permit the 
practice to develop somewhat further before 
a formal attempt would be made to reduce 
it to writing. We believe that this document 
takes care of the necessities in the Atlantic 
area, though we are prepared to have further 
discussions with the Nine when they feel 
ready to do so. 

With respect to Japan, the need to give 
Japan a sense of belonging to a structure 
larger than itself continues to be and will 
remain to be a concern of America's policy. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, in view of the fact that 
this document rvas published here and teas 
approved here, and in vieiv of the fact that 
you have already briefed your NATO allies 
about what is e:(pected at the Moscoiv sum- 
mit, what is the purpose and point of the 
summit meeting that will be held next week 
in Brussels? 

Secretary Kissinger: The principal pur- 
pose of the summit meeting to be held next 
week in Brussels is to give the President an 
opportunity to discuss personally with his 
colleagues at the head-of-government level 
in NATO our plans for the summit and our 
long-term expectations for Western policy. 
The President has not had an opportunity to 
have such a meeting in many years, and it 
seems to us a logical f ollowup of this declara- 
tion that he have an opportunity to exchange 
views with his colleagues before going to 
Moscow. 

Secondly, the purpose of the meeting — of 
this visit to Brussels — is to have a formal 
signing of this document which will give 
an adequate solemnity to its importance. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, some papers and some 
radio stations have mentioned that there was 



38 



Department of State Bulletin 



some, disagreement up to the last minute 
between France and the United States ivith 
regard to paragraph 11 of the Atlantic Dec- 
laration. Would you specify what kind of 
compromise took place between you and the 
French representative? 

Secretary Kissinger: The problem with re- 
spect to paragraph 11 really concerned less 
the substance of the two or three competing 
formulations which existed than to reach an 
understanding of what was intended by the 
practice of consultation — whether it was in- 
tended to be a legal obligation or a practice 
reflecting the spirit of the alliance. 

It stands to reason that no government can 
ever wave a document at another and claim 
that this provides a formal obligation to 
consult. And even if it did, that would not 
produce consultation. 

I had a very satisfactory talk with the 
French Foreign Minister. And once we un- 
derstood each other's purposes, we found 
formulations which took account of each 
side's concerns and which met the approval 
of all our allies. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what is the status of 
that wiretap inquiry you requested, and is 
it still your iyitention to resign if it is not 
cleared up ? 

Secretary Kissinger: As you know, I never 
comment on domestic affairs in a foreign 
country. [Laughter.] 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I understand that you 
have suggested that the alliayice assess its 
minimum expectations for going forward 
with the European Security Conference to 
stage 3 and perhaps at the summit level. 
Would you — 

Secretary Kissinger: I missed the first 
part of your question. 

Q. I understand that you have suggested 
to the alliance that it set in process a reas- 
sessment of its minimum expectations from 
the Russians in the course of the present 
talks on CSCE [Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe] and that to get to 
phase 3 you want to set up a price for a sum- 



mit. Can you tell me if this is an advance on 
the pace toward such a summit? 

Secretary Kissinger: The view we ex- 
pressed here was as follows. A number of 
our allies, and we ourselves, have expressed 
the view that if the results of stage 2 justi- 
fied it, there would be a summit. Yet to my 
knowledge, no one has yet defined what he 
would consider a satisfactory outcome of 
stage 2 in detail that would justify a summit. 
So I proposed to our allies that we agree 
among each other on what we would consider 
a satisfactory outcome of stage 2 that would 
justify a summit. This was not an attempt 
either to promote it or to oppose it but 
simply to clarify our thinking and go from 
the general formulation to the specific one. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that we 
must separate the problem of long-term poli- 
cy from the policy of military emergency. 
This sounds fine until we have a military 
emergency. Has this been written into the 
declaration, that that woidd be an exception, 
if this arises? How ivill we not arrive back 
to the same place that we found ourselves 
in during this Middle East crisis? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, to the extent 
that emergencies are foreseeable, and to the 
extent that it is possible to do contingency 
planning, obviously it should be done in full 
consultation with the alliance. However, it is 
conceivable that emergencies would arise in 
which we would hope that it would be seen 
to be in the interests of the alliance as a 
whole that we might have to act, informing 
our allies as rapidly as we possibly could. 
Those circumstances should be extremely 
rare, and we would seek to avoid them to the 
maximum extent possible, but it would be 
irresponsible to predict that they can never 
happen. 

Q. Mr. Secretary of State, coidd you make 
any statement concerning your meeting today 
with the Portuguese Foreign Minister? 

Secretary Kissinger: I had a good talk with 
the Portuguese Foreign Minister, who ex- 
plained some of the intentions of the Portu- 



July 8, 1974 



39 



guese Government with respect to its Afri- 
can dependencies and some of its domestic 
situation. I listened to his account with sym- 
pathy, and we will cooperate to the extent 
that we can. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the language of the dec- 
laration suggests that the United States is 
going to maintain its troops and nuclear 
forces in Europe at their present levels. One, 
is that correct? And tivo, how long do you 
think the present administration and suc- 
ceeding administrations can hold the line on 
troops in Europe without progress on the 
troop reduction negotiations? 

Secretary Kissinger: Of course, the dec- 
laration also speaks of the necessity of con- 
tinuing negotiations leading to detente. The 
United States will maintain its forces in Eu- 
rope at the levels which are judged necessary 
by the alliance, and we hope very much that 
the Congress will support us in what is in 
the common interest of the West. 

Q. [In French} Mr. Secretary of State, 
you spoke in September in Brussels about a 
parallel declaration between Spain and the 
United States, parallel to the Atlantic Dec- 
laration. What is the state of this declara- 
tion? Can you tell us anything about it? 

Secretary Kissinger: The Spanish Foreign 
Minister is visiting the United States this 
week, and I expect to meet with him on Fri- 
day. The United States is in principle pre- 
pared to sign a parallel declaration with 
Spain. This will undoubtedly be one of the 
subjects of conversation. What precise deci- 
sion will be made as to timing and content, I 
cannot foretell until I have talked with the 
Spanish Foreign Minister. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, in article 11 of the dec- 
laration, it refers to areas outside the NATO 
area wherein some members are affected. 
Does this mean in particidar the Middle 
East? And xvoxdd you be able to tell us some- 
thing of what you told your colleagues about 
the Middle East sitziation, especially in vieiv 
of the statemeyit by the Egyptian Foreign 
Minister, Mr. Fahnii, that Egypt would make 
nuclear weapons in certain circumstances? 



Secretary Kissinger: We hold the view 
that events outside the treaty area, in many 
parts of the world, can intimately affect the 
security and the well-being of the alliance. 
Obviously the Middle East is one of the areas 
that is not formally covered by the treaty 
and not formally subject to the various con- 
sultation provisions but which nevertheless 
affects the well-being and security of the 
countries so intimately that it would, as far 
as the United States is concerned, be neces- 
sarily a subject for consultation. 

I gave my colleagues an account of our 
Mideast policy and of the President's recent 
travels. 

With respect to the Egyptian statement, as 
I understood the Egyptian statement, it was 
that if Israel developed nuclear weapons, 
then Egypt, by one way or another, would 
seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. 

I have stated in Jerusalem [on June 17], 
and I have repeated it here, that we see no 
possibility that Egypt can develop nuclear 
weapons by means of the reactor that we 
have agreed to sell, that it will take six to 
eight years to install, or to build, and which 
will be subject to safeguards which we con- 
sider substantially foolproof. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, this morning you talked 
about the spirit of creativity in the West, 
and this dociunent picks up and expands on 
language in the earlier document about hu- 
man rights, democracy, and common heri- 
tage. Could you indicate where the alliance 
lias operated in the past to promote those 
ai7ns in either Greece or Portugal prior to 
the change in government in Portugal? 

Secretary Kissinger: The preferences of 
the overwhelming majority of the members 
of the alliance for the basic values of democ- 
racy and well-being have been made clear on 
a number of occasions, including, once again, 
in the communique agreed to today. That in- 
fluence can be most effectively expressed by 
the general consensus of its attitudes than 
by any specific decisions that it can take at 
NATO meetings. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, you survived with only 
one sentence in the declaration relating to 



40 



Department of State Bulletin 



economics. Bid do you think this gives you 
enough foundation so that the alliance can 
get itself together better in the event of a 
new energy crisis than it did in the last one ? 

Secretary Kissinger: This declaration can- 
not be used as a legal document producing 
inevitable results. The common interests of 
various members of the alliance, together 
vi^ith other countries, in the energy problem 
have been expressed in the Washington En- 
ergy Conference and some of its follow-on 
machinery. And it will not be the document 
as such that will produce common action as 
the shared consciousness that we will do our 
utmost to continue to promote. 

It is our view, and I believe it is shared by 
most of our allies, that obviously the field of 
economics is closely related to other fields. 

TEXT OF COMMUNIQUE, JUNE 19 

Press release 257 dated June 20 

The North Atlantic Council met in minis- 
terial session in Ottawa on 18th and 19th 
June, 1974. 

In this, the 25th anniversary year of the 
Alliance, ministers declared their countries' 
continuing dedication to the aims and ideals 
of the North Atlantic Treaty. Ministers 
emphasized the desirability of developing 
and deepening the application of the princi- 
ples of democracy, respect for human rights, 
justice and social progress. Today in Ot- 
tawa ministers adopted and published a 
Declaration on Atlantic Relations. This im- 
portant declaration reaffirms the commit- 
ment of all the members to the Alliance and 
sets its future course in light of the new 
perspectives and challenges of a rapidly 
changing world. 

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Por- 
tugal gave a report on developments in his 
country since the change of regime and on 
the efforts of his government to promote 
peace in Africa. Ministers welcomed the 
evolution towards the establishment of dem- 
ocratic and representative government in 
Portugal. 

Ministers reviewed the state of East-West 



relations. They reaffirmed the determination 
of their governments patiently to pursue pol- 
icies aimed at reducing tensions and promot- 
ing greater understanding and cooperation, 
not only between states but also between 
people. But they recalled that real and last- 
ing improvement in East- West relations calls 
for a constructive approach by all concerned. 
At the same time, in the face of growing 
Soviet and Warsaw Pact military power and 
the risk of renewed tensions the Allies must, 
through the Atlantic Alliance, maintain their 
resolve and capacity to defend themselves. 

Ministers took note of recent developments 
in relations between the Federal Republic of 
Germany and the German Democratic Re- 
public, including the exchange of permanent 
representations between the two states in 
Germany. They expressed the hope that re- 
lations between these states will be further 
improved for the benefit of the German 
people. 

As regards Berlin, ministers discussed the 
further experience gained in the application 
of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3rd Sep- 
tember, 1971. In doing so, they stressed the 
essential importance of the provisions of 
this agreement which stipulate that traffic 
between the western sectors of Berlin and 
the Federal Republic of Germany will be 
unimpeded. Ministers reaffirmed their con- 
viction that progress towards detente in 
Europe is inseparably linked with the strict 
observance and full application of the Berlin 
Agreement. 

Ministers reviewed developments in the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe. They reaffirmed the importance 
they attach to increasing security and con- 
fidence, to developing further cooperation 
between the participating states in all 
spheres and to lowering barriers between 
people. They noted that in the second stage 
of the Conference, which should make a 
thorough examination of all aspects of the 
Conference agenda, the work has advanced 
unevenly. Some progress has been made on 
certain issues, but much work remains to 
be done, as for example on such key ques- 
tions as the improvement of human contacts 



July 8, 1974 



41 



and the freer flow of information, as well as 
confidence building measures and essential 
aspects of the principles guiding relations 
between states. Ministers expressed their 
governments' determination to pursue the 
negotiations patiently and constructively in 
a continuing search for balanced and sub- 
stantial results acceptable to all participat- 
ing states. They considered that, to bring 
the second stage to its conclusion, these re- 
sults need to be achieved in the various fields 
of the program of work established by the 
Foreign Ministers at the first stage of the 
Conference in Helsinki. 

Ministers reviewed developments in the 
Middle East since their last meeting. They 
welcomed the recent progress achieved, in 
particular the disengagement of Syrian and 
Israeli forces. They affirmed the support of 
their governments for the relevant resolu- 
tions of the United Nations Security Council 
and for all endeavors directed towards a 
just and lasting settlement bringing peace 
to the area; they also welcomed the con- 
tributions made by allied governments to 
UN peace-keeping activities. Ministers took 
note of the report by the Council in Perma- 
nent Session on the situation in the Mediter- 
ranean prepared on their instructions. They 
invited the Council in Permanent Session 
to continue to keep the situation under re- 
view and to report further. 

Ministers representing countries which 
participate in NATO's integrated defense 
program reviewed the conduct of the nego- 
tiations on Mutual and Balanced Force Re- 
ductions. These ministers continue to be- 
lieve that mutual and balanced force reduc- 
tions achieved through allied solidarity 
would contribute to the lessening of tensions 
in Europe and to a more stable peace. They 
expressed satisfaction at the results so far 
reached in the continuing consultations in 
the Council in Permanent Session on ques- 
tions of objectives and policy. They in- 
structed the Council to continue this work. 

These ministers noted that the current 
round of negotiations is proceeding in a 
businesslike way. They expressed their de- 
termination to persist in their efforts to 
bring the negotiations to a satisfactory con- 



clusion. They recalled that the general ob- 
jective of the negotiations is to contribute to 
a more stable relationship at a, lower level 
of forces with the security of all parties 
undiminished. This objective should be 
achieved by establishing approximate parity 
between the two sides in the form of a 
common ceiling for overall ground force 
manpower on each side in the area of re- 
ductions, taking into account combat capa- 
bility. These ministers reiterated that a 
first phase agreement providing for the re- 
duction of United States and Soviet ground 
forces would be an important initial step 
forward towards that objective. 

In reaffirming their conviction that reduc- 
tions of allied forces in Europe should take 
place only within the context of an East- 
West agreement, these ministers referred to 
the statements contained in paragraph 4 
of the Communique of the Defense Plan- 
ning Committee in Ministerial Session is- 
sued on 14th June, 1974. 

Ministers expressed appreciation for con- 
tinuing consultations on developments with 
respect to the SALT negotiations. They noted 
with satisfaction the efforts undertaken by 
the United States towards limitations of 
strategic arms and expressed the hope that 
these efforts would lead to satisfactory re- 
sults. 

The next Ministerial Session of the North 
Atlantic Council will be held in Brussels in 
December 1974. 



DECURATION ON ATLANTIC RELATIONS, JUNE 19 

Press release 258 dated June 20 

1. The members of the North Atlantic 
Alliance declare that the Treaty signed 25 
years ago to protect their freedom and in- 
dependence has confirmed their common des- 
tiny. Under the shield of the Treaty, the 
Allies have maintained their security, per- 
mitting them to preserve the values which 
are the heritage of their civilization and 
enabling Western Europe to rebuild from 
its ruins and lay the foundations of its 
unity. 

2. The members of the Alliance reafliirm 



42 



Department of State Bulletin 



their conviction that the North Atlantic 
Treaty provides the indispensable basis for 
their security, thus making possible the pur- 
suit of detente. They welcome the progress 
that has been achieved on the road towards 
detente and harmony among nations, and 
the fact that a conference of 35 countries 
of Europe and North America is now seek- 
ing to lay down guidelines designed to in- 
crease security and cooperation in Europe. 
They believe that until circumstances permit 
the introduction of general, complete and 
controlled disarmament, which alone could 
provide genuine security for all, the ties 
uniting them must be maintained. The Al- 
lies share a common desire to reduce the 
burden of arms expenditure on their peoples. 
But states that wish to preserve peace have 
never achieved this aim by neglecting their 
own security. 

3. The members of the Alliance reaffirm 
that their common defense is one and in- 
divisible. An attack on one or more of them 
in the area of application of the Treaty shall 
be considered an attack against them all. 
The common aim is to prevent any attempt 
by a foreign power to threaten the independ- 
ence or integrity of a member of the Alli- 
ance. Such an attempt would not only put 
in jeopardy the security of all members of 
the Alliance but also threaten the founda- 
tions of world peace. 

4. At the same time they realize that the 
circumstances affecting their common de- 
fense have profoundly changed in the last 
ten years : the strategic relationship between 
the United States and the Soviet Union has 
reached a point of near equilibrium. Con- 
sequently, although all the countries of the 
Alliance remain vulnerable to attack, the 
nature of the danger to which they are ex- 
posed has changed. The Alliance's problems 
in the defense of Europe have thus assumed 
a different ajid more distinct character. 

5. However, the essential elements in the 
situation which gave rise to the Treaty have 
not changed. While the commitment of all 
the Allies to the common defense reduces 
the risk of external aggression, the contri- 
bution to the security of the entire Alliance 
provided by the nuclear forces of the United 



States based in the United States as well 
as in Europe and by the presence of North 
American forces in Europe I'emains indis- 
pensable. 

6. Nevertheless, the Alliance must pay 
careful attention to the dangers to which it 
is exposed in the European region, and must 
adopt all measures necessary to avert them. 
The European members who provide three- 
quarters of the conventional strength of the 
Alliance in Europe, and two of whom pos- 
sess nuclear forces capable of playing a 
deterrent role of their own contributing to 
the overall strengthening of the deterrence 
of the Alliance, undertake to make the nec- 
essary contribution to maintain the common 
defense at a level capable of deterring and 
if necessary repelling all actions dii-ected 
against the independence and territorial in- 
tegrity of the members of the Alliance. 

7. The United States, for its part, reaf- 
firms its determination not to accept any 
situation which would expose its Allies to 
external political or military pressure likely 
to deprive them of their freedom, and states 
its resolve, together with its Allies, to main- 
tain forces in Europe at the level required to 
sustain the credibility of the strategy of de- 
terrence and to maintain the capacity to 
defend the North Atlantic area should de- 
terrence fail. 

8. In this connection the member states 
of the Alliance affirm that as the ultimate 
purpose of any defense policy is to deny 
to a potential adversary the objectives he 
seeks to attain through an armed conflict, 
all necessary forces would be used for this 
purpose. Therefore, while reafllirming that 
a major aim of their policies is to seek 
agreements that will reduce the risk of war, 
they also state that such agreements will 
not limit their freedom to use all forces at 
their disposal for the common defense in 
case of attack. Indeed, they are convinced 
that their determination to do so continues 
to be the best assurance that war in all its 
forms will be prevented. 

9. All members of the Alliance agree that 
the continued presence of Canadian and sub- 
stantial US forces in Europe plays an ir- 
replaceable role in the defense of North 



July 8, 1974 



43 



America as well as of Europe. Similarly 
the substantial forces of the European Allies 
serve to defend Europe and North America 
as well. It is also recognized that the fur- 
ther progress towards unity, which the mem- 
ber states of the European Community are 
determined to make, should in due course 
have a beneficial effect on the contribution 
to the common defense of the Alliance of 
those of them who belong to it. Moreover, 
the contributions made by members of the 
Alliance to the preservation of international 
security and world peace are recognized to 
be of great importance. 

10. The members of the Alliance consider 
that the will to combine their efforts to 
ensure their common defense obliges them 
to maintain and improve the ef!iciency of 
their forces and that each should undertake, 
according to the role that it has assumed in 
the structure of the Alliance, its proper 
share of the burden of maintaining the 
security of all. Conversely, they take the 
view that in the course of current or fu- 
ture negotiations nothing must be accepted 
which could diminish this security. 

11. The Allies are convinced that the ful- 
filment of their common aims requires the 
maintenance of close consultation, coopera- 
tion and mutual trust, thus fostering the 
conditions necessary for defense and favor- 
able for detente, which are complementary. 
In the spirit of the friendship, equality and 
solidarity which characterize their relation- 
ships, they are firmly resolved to keep each 
other fully informed and to strengthen the 
practice of frank and timely consultations 
by all means which may be appropriate on 
matters relating to their common interests 
as members of the Alliance, bearing in mind 
that these interests can be affected by events 
in other areas of the world. They wish 
also to ensure that their essential security 
relationship is supported by harmonious po- 
litical and economic relations. In particular 
they will work to remove sources of con- 
flict between their economic policies and to 



encourage economic cooperation with one 
another. 

12. They recall that they have proclaimed 
their dedication to the principles of democ- 
racy, respect for human rights, justice and 
social progress, which are the fruits of their 
shai-ed spiritual heritage and they declare 
their intention to develop and deepen the 
application of these principles in their coun- 
tries. Since these principles, by their very 
nature, forbid any recourse to methods in- 
compatible with the promotion of world 
peace, they reaffirm that the efforts which 
they make to preserve their independence, 
to maintain their security and to improve 
the living standards of their peoples exclude 
all forms of aggression against anyone, are 
not directed against any other country, and 
are designed to bring about the general im- 
provement of international relations. In 
Europe, their objective continues to be the 
pursuit of understanding and cooperation 
with every European country. In the world 
at large, each Allied country recognizes the 
duty to help the developing countries. It is 
in the interest of all that every country 
benefit from technical and economic progress 
in an open and equitable world system. 

13. They recognize that the cohesion of 
the Alliance has found expression not only 
in cooperation among their governments, 
but also in the free exchange of views among 
the elected representatives of the peoples 
of the Alliance. Accordingly, they declare 
their support for the strengthening of links 
among Parliamentarians. 

14. The members of the Alliance rededi- 
cate themselves to the aims and ideals of 
the North Atlantic Treaty during this year 
of the twenty-fifth anniversary of its sig- 
nature. The member nations look to the 
future, confident that the vitality and cre- 
ativity of their peoples are commensurate 
with the challenges which confront them. 
They declare their conviction that the North 
Atlantic Alliance continues to serve as an 
essential element in the lasting structure 
of peace they are determined to build. 



44 



Department of State Bulletin 



Secretary Holds News Conference 
at Bad Reichenhall, Germany 

Secretary Kissinger met with Foreign Min- 
ister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of the Federal 
Republic of Germany at Bad Reichenhall, 
Germany, on June 11, while en, rovte to the 
Middle East with President Nixon.^ Follow- 
ing is a news conference held after the meet- 
ing; questions to and answers by Foreign 
Minister Genscher were not interpreted. 

Press release 249 dated June 14 

Secretary Kissinger: I would like to speak 
in English in order not to violate my native 
language too violently. [Laughter.] 

I welcome the opportunity to meet the 
Foreign Minister for the first time and to es- 
tablish the relationship that is essential and 
characteristic of German-American relations 
of confidential and open and full discussions. 

From our side we had a very useful and a 
very satisfactory talk. I agree with what the 
Foreign Minister has said, and I can really 
add nothing to it except that we have agreed 
to stay in close and frequent contact by all 
means at our disposal, and I hope very much 
that he will come to Washington in July. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, to what extent has a 
new element been hitroduced by yoiir earlier 
announcement that you are contemplating 
resignation ? 

Secretary Kissinger: I have said every- 
thing that I have to say about that earlier 
subject, and I will be glad to answer any 
other questions. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, did you discuss any stop 
in West Gey-many on your way to the Moscow 
sum niit ? 

Secretary Kissinger: No, but I discussed a 
stop on the way back from the summit in 
Germany for some football games and of 
course very important conversations. [Laugh- 



' Documentation relating to President Nixon's 
visit to the Middle East will be printed in a later 
issue of the Bulletin. 



ter.] But I need some very substantive rea- 
son. 

Q. Mr. Kissinger, do you feel that after 
talks here at the Foreign Miyiisters' meeting 
in. Bonn that European- American dialogue is 
making very satisfactory progress? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think the European- 
American dialogue is making good progress. 
We are making progress on the NATO dec- 
laration and we are separating the discus- 
sions between the Community and the United 
States from theology and concentrating on 
the practice, and I think that the consultative 
procedure that is now evolving in practice 
promises to meet the needs of both sides. 

Q. Have you got any reservations at all 
about the European approach to the Arabs 
on political, technical, and economic coopera- 
tion ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, I have not been 
reticent in expressing our views, and we have 
no re.servations about the technical, economic, 
and scientific cooperation. We have expressed 
some hesitation at the prospect of 20 Arab 
Foreign Ministers meeting with nine Euro- 
pean Foreign Ministers without a very clear- 
ly defined agenda; but we have made no se- 
cret of that conviction, and having stated 
our views, it is up to our friends to make 
their decision. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what do you. think are 
the possibilities on the way to the Soviet 
Union the President will stop over in Brus- 
sels, or somewhere else in Western Europe, 
sign some kind of new statement on princi- 
ples betweeji Western Eiirope — principles of 
intent betiveen Western Europe and the 
United States? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't want to spec- 
ulate on that. There is a possibility that he 
will stop somewhere in Europe on the way to 
the Soviet Union, but no final plans have 
been made. 

Q. Did you discuss troop cuts in Europe 
on the part of the United States? 



July 8, 1974 



45 



Secretary Kissinger: The United States is 
planning no troop cuts in Europe except in 
the context of the negotiations on mutual 
force reductions, which are, of course, made 
as a joint NATO exercise. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the European Securitrj 
Conference seems to be stalemated right now, 
for the time being. Do you foresee any kind 
of move to get if going again? 

Secretary Kissinger: We had a very full 
discussion on the European Security Confer- 
ence, and the Foreign Minister reported to 
me in detail the conclusions of his colleagues 
and himself. We shared the views that were 
conveyed to us. We would like to make prog- 
ress. We stand ready to make progress, and 
we hope that in the next few weeks progress 
will be made, but it doesn't depend only on 
us. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, did you disciiss a possi- 
ble meeting in the near future betiveen Pres- 
ident Nixon and the neiv Chancellor, Helmut 
Schmidt ? 

Secretary Kissinger: We didn't discuss it 
specifically here, but we considered such a 
meeting in the near future highly desirable. 

Q. How would you rate the chances for a 
summit-level ending to the European Security 
Council [Conference'] ? 

Secretary Kissinger: This depends, as the 
Foreign Minister and I agreed, on the sub- 
stance of the negotiations. All of us are not 
opposed in principle to a summit meeting. 
We are, in principle, ready for a summit 
meeting provided the substance of the nego- 
tiations justifies it, and we cannot yet make 
that determination. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, did you bring a message 
from President Nixon to the Foreign Minis- 
ters ? 

Secretary Kissinger: No, I did not bring a 
message from President Nixon to the For- 
eign Ministers. 

Q. Or any guidance ? 

Secretary Kissinger: I always have guid- 
ance when I speak to Foreign Ministers. 



[The next question was asked in German.'] 

Secretary Kissinger: The question was 
whether we expect the NATO declaration to 
be signed at the forthcoming NATO meeting 
in Ottawa. We believe a possibility exists, at 
least, to complete the text at the Ottawa 
meeting. The formal signature and the loca- 
tion have not yet been decided. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, can the United States 
be satisfied with a considtation procedure 
tvith the Common Market which involves in 
effect a veto right for any of the Nine to halt 
this procedure when the others want it? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, it is my under- 
standing that the consultation procedure that 
is now being envisioned can either go via the 
Presidency by unanimous consent, which is 
not new, or bilaterally by any of the coun- 
tries composing the Nine. So we believe that 
between those two forms it should be possible 
to work out adequate procedures. A major 
goal, in any event, is the substance and not 
the legal form. 

Q. Mr. Kissinger, if there is nothing new 
in the consultation procedure, what reason 
do you have to believe that the consultations 
tvill be improved? 

Secretary Kissinger: The element that is 
new in the consultation procedure is the 
greater use of bilateral consultation. But I 
believe that there has been a change in the 
spirit and attitude of consultation. For a pe- 
riod last year and early this year, an issue 
seemed to be made of defining European de- 
tente by opposition to, or at least in separa- 
tion from, the United States. 

[A question was addressed to the Secretary 
in German.] 

Secretary Kissinger: I have the impres- 
sion, as a result of some of the discussions to 
which I sometimes unintentionally contrib- 
uted, that it is now better understood on both 
sides of the Atlantic that this attitude is not 
in the interests of either side, and in recent 
months consultations have taken place on a 
more pragmatic and more openminded basis. 

But I think the Foreign Minister should 
perhaps say a few words on that. 



46 



Department of State Bulletin 



For the benefit of the traveling press here, 
the United States supports, in principle, the 
attitude on peaceful exchange in the Euro- 
pean Security Conference, and we will at- 
tempt to work out appropriate language 
within the Bonn group. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you envision any 
eventuality that might interfere with your 
jilan to return to Germany the first week in 
July? 

Secretary Kissinger: We will have to see, 
but I expect to be there for the final game. 

The press: Thank you. 

Spanish Foreign Minister Cortina 
Visits Washington 

Joint Communique ' 

Pedro Cortina, Minister of Foreign Af- 
fairs of Spain, paid an official visit to Wash- 
ington June 21 and June 22 at the invitation 
of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. This 
visit was one of the periodic meetings held 
by the leaders of Spanish and United States 
foreign policy, in conformity with the provi- 
sions of the Agreement of Friendship and 
Cooperation of 1970, for the purpose of 
strengthening the good relations existing 
between the two countries. 

The Minister of Foreign Aft'airs and the 
Secretary of State discussed international 
questions of common interest, and especially 
the progress of the Conference on Security 
and Cooperation in Europe, the situation in 
the Mediterranean, and the prospects for 
peace in the Middle East. 

The Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs 
and the Secretary of State considered the 
text of a Declaration of Principles that will 
serve as a guide for cooperation between 
Spain and the United States for mutual se- 
curity, within the scope of Western defense, 
and for closer political and economic rela- 
tions between the two countries. They agreed 



' Issued on June 22 (press release 259 dated June 
22). 



that negotiations would begin in the near fu- 
ture on the terms of the continuation of the 
defense cooperation between their two coun- 
tries. 

The Declaration will confirm that for 20 
years their cooperation has strengthened 
their own security and that of the North At- 
lantic area, thus helping to preserve the val- 
ues, ideals, and aspirations based on the dig- 
nity and freedom of the individual ; that each 
of the two nations is affected by and con- 
cerned with the security of the other, that 
the two Governments will continue to coop- 
erate in the area of defense and will coor- 
dinate their common efforts with those of ex- 
isting Atlantic organizations; and that they 
will scrupulously respect sovereign equality, 
territorial integrity, political independence, 
and the rights to govern themselves freely 
and to pursue their welfare. 

Secretary Kissinger accepted the invitation 
of the Foreign Minister to visit Madrid July 
9 for the completion of the text of the Dec- 
laration. 



Summary of U.S. Drought Relief 
for Sahel Africa 

Following is a statement issued by the 
U.S. Mission to the United Nations on June 
18. 

USUN press release 77 (Corr. 1) dated June 18 

In response to the urgent need of millions 
of drought victims in six countries in sub- 
Saharan Africa, the U.S. Government, in a 
speech in July of 1973 by Ambassador John 
Scali to the United Nations Economic and 
Social Council, called for a major interna- 
tional effort to bring emergency relief 
to the people of those countries. At the same 
time, the United States launched a massive 
humanitarian effort of its own to rush aid 
to the stricken area. 

As part of the multidonor international 
effort, the U.S. Government, through the 
Agency for International Development 
[AID] and the Food for Peace Program, do- 
nated about $129 million in food and nonfood 



July 8, 1974 



47 



aid to the six countries— Chad, Mali, Mauri- 
tania, Niger, Upper Volta, and Senegal. 
Those countries, which are part of the 
Sahelian Zone, stretch for more than 2,600 
miles along the southern edge of the Sahara 
Desert; they have suffered from severe 
drought for more than five years. 

The U.S. Government has donated more 
than 500,000 metric tons of Food for Peace 
grain to the drought victims, about 40 per- 
cent of the total contribution from all 
sources. About one-third of the 500,000 tons 
was provided for the 1972-73 harvest. The 
United States is striving to deliver the re- 
maining two-thirds to those countries to 
meet the food needs of the people before the 
1974 harvest season. The delivered value of 
the food is about $100 million. 

In addition to the food, the U.S. Govern- 
ment has donated $29 million for a variety 
of nonfood aid activities. For example, about 
$4 million went in 1972-73 to airlift 10,000 
tons of grain to Chad, Mali, and Mauritania 
and for financing a survey by the Center 
for Disease Control designed to establish a 
nutritional surveillance system in the region. 
The U.S. Government also provided for sup- 
plementary livestock feed, vaccines, and 
medicines to preserve livestock, rental of 
trucks to transport grain, and delivery of 
medicines and vitamins to supplement coun- 
try medical programs. 

One of the first priorities has been improv- 
ing basic transportation facilities to insure 
that grain can be moved to remote areas of 
the drought region; this includes repairs to 
rural roads, provision of fuel for trucks and 
river barges, and purchase of spare parts for 
roadbuilding equipment. 

AID also is supporting programs for addi- 
tional storage facilities in remote areas to 
insure food availabilities during the rainy 
season, for improvement of rural health, and 



for increasing shortrun agricultural produc- 
tion and protecting livestock and grazing 
range. 

AID also has launched another major ef- 
fort to provide medicine, vaccines, and other 
necessary medications and commodities to 
help the aged, nursing mothers, and displaced 
persons forced to live in camps. These efforts 
have been supported by a grant to the Food 
and Agriculture Organization's Sahelian 
Trust Fund for use by UNICEF [United 
Nations Children's Fund] and the World 
Health Organization in carrying out their 
emergency drought relief programs and by 
contribution to other international organiza- 
tions working with displaced persons in the 
Sahel. 

AID also has undertaken preliminary ac- 
tions to identify and design special projects 
to help reestablish a productive economy 
in the six countries. These medium-term pro- 
grams concentrate on restoring the basic 
food-crop and livestock potential of the re- 
gion and have an impact on the lives of 
people over a period of three to five years. 

The U.S. response to the drought area is 
therefore comprised of three basic efforts: 

— First, an emergency response of food 
and special programs designed to permit the 
affected governments to undertake critical 
activities over an 18-month period. This in- 
cludes assistance channeled through interna- 
tional organizations. 

— Second, a medium-term effort to identify 
and design special projects over three to five 
years. 

— Third, a series of studies designed to 
increase our understanding of the special 
ecological relationships in the Sahel and to 
permit realistic long-term planning to roll 
back the desert and make these drought- 
stricken areas habitable once again. 



48 



Department of State Bulletin 



THE CONGRESS 



The Foreign Assistance Program: A Vital Tool in Building 
a More Cooperative World 



Statement by Secretary Kissinger 



In previous appearances before this com- 
mittee I have discussed the Middle East and 
Indochina, our relations with the Soviet 
Union and the People's Republic of China, 
and our desire to build an enduring struc- 
ture of peace. The subject before us today — 
the foreign assistance program — links, and 
is linked to, all of these issues. It symbolizes 
my conviction that the world political order 
perhaps for years to come will be profoundly 
influenced by the capacity this program pro- 
vides for a major American contribution to 
a more just, peaceful, and cooperative world. 

We have in recent years witnessed a 
tendency to take peace for granted, to assume 
that our security is guaranteed, to believe 
that we could reduce our eff"orts to support 
American interests abroad. We have begun 
to take initial success for final achievement. 
This is a time of lessened tension, of greater 
equilibrium, of diffused power. But if the 
world is better than our earlier fears, it still 
falls far short of our hopes. 

If we are to move toward a world where 
power blocs and balances are no longer rele- 
vant, where justice, not stability, can be our 
overriding preoccupation, where countries 
consider cooperation in the world interest to 
be in their national interest, we must begin 



' Made before the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations on June 7 (press release 241). The com- 
plete transcript of the hearings will be published by 
the committee and will be available from the Super- 
intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 



from the world as it is. Thus the assistance 
program before you proceeds neither from 
future possibilities of stability and peace 
nor from past illusions of unlimited Amer- 
ican power and resources, but from present 
realities. It is neither a cold war nor a Uto- 
pian scheme. 

We confront a world in which : 

— The prospects for avoiding a return to 
confrontation with the Soviet Union and the 
People's Republic of China depend upon 
America's determination and ability to help 
resolve such sources of potential great-power 
conflict as Indochina and the Middle East; 
conversely, the progress we have made to 
date in these areas would have been incon- 
ceivable without the detente that now exists 
between ourselves and the Soviets, and our- 
selves and the P.R.C. ; 

— The prospects for lasting peace within 
Indochina and the Middle East depend upon 
America's capacity for constructive action, 
for maintaining the confidence of old friends 
and gaining the respect and trust of nations 
too long alienated from us ; and 

— The prospects for global stability and 
cooperation depend upon America's contribu- 
tion to overcoming the confrontation of ener- 
gy and raw material producers and consum- 
ers, the growing imbalance of food and 
population, the surplus of despair, and the 
scarcity of physical resources. 

The fabric of international cooperation we 
are striving to weave is delicate; it is made 



July 8, 1974 



49 



of many interrelated threads. We cannot 
hope for pead^e if nations perceive the world 
order to be unjust. We cannot preserve 
America's values and our prosperity in a 
world of unrestrained confrontation and un- 
limited competition. 

Our economic assistance is designed to re- 
inforce developing nations' efforts to bring a 
better life to their citizens, increasing their 
stake in a cooperative global economy at a 
time when events threaten to divide the 
world anew — between North and South, de- 
veloped and developing, consumer and pro- 
ducer. Our security assistance is designed 
primarily to help others strengthen the peace 
in areas where it is threatened and to provide 
a framework of cooperation that will prevent 
new threats from emerging. 

From this perspective it is possible to see 
these programs for what they are — not as 
"do good" programs, but as the vital tools 
through which we help build an international 
climate conducive to American interests. 

If detente fails now, it will have the most 
profound consequences not just for the re- 
mainder of this administration but for the 
next decade. If we miss the unprecedented 
opportunities for peace in the Middle East 
and Indochina that now exist, they will not 
soon return. If we fail to manage the grow- 
ing pains of an interdependent world, we risk 
a return to the autarkic policies of the thir- 
ties — policies which led to a collapse of world 
order. 

Middle East Assistance Proposals 

Against this background, let me describe 
our approach to each of the principal ele- 
ments of the program we have proposed to 
the Congress. 

Let me begin with the Middle East. Amer- 
ica has a vital stake in a lasting Mideast 
settlement. Our traditional concern for the 
security of Israel, our transformed relations 
with the Arab states, the danger of great- 
power confrontation which chronic Arab- 
Israeli conflict creates, and the necessity for 
a cooperative approach to the energy problem 
— all demonstrate the American interest. We 



are asking Congress for sufficient resources 
to make it possible for us to play a construc- 
tive role. 

At the end of October here is what we 
faced. The Arab world was convinced that 
the United States was one-sidedly supporting 
Israel and that there was a basic hostility 
between American objectives and Arab ob- 
jectives. Our relations with Europe and 
Japan were under severe strain because of 
the emerging oil problem and pressures for 
a rapid Middle East settlement. The Soviet 
Union was the principal friend of the Arab 
countries, and Israel was concerned about 
its future. 

During recent months the first crucial 
steps have been taken to break this impasse. 
Thanks to the farsighted views of key lead- 
ers in the region, and with the active role of 
the United States, we have seen important 
steps toward peace and the partial erosion of 
decades of hostility and mistrust among the 
parties. 

This process has also involved major diplo- 
matic changes. While we have maintained 
our steady support of Israel, we have also 
moved toward fundamental improvements in 
our relations with the Arab nations. Many 
of these countries have turned toward a 
moderate course, giving up exclusive reliance 
on a single outside power and increasingly 
prepared to focus on development rather 
than dispute. 

This is in the interests of all peoples in 
the Middle East; it is clearly in our own 
interest. The program we are requesting is 
designed to further the momentum that the 
peace process has now acquired. It recognizes 
that a settlement in the Middle East requires 
that Israel be confident of its own security 
and that the Arabs be confident that their 
legitimate aspirations can be realized. 

The program we propose would provide 
Israel with the assistance needed to maintain 
its own security, strengthening its resolve to 
persevere in the negotiations assured of its 
own strength and our support. It would give 
tangible expression to our new and fruitful 
relations with various Arab countries and 
encourage those seriously prepared to work 



50 



Department of State Bulletin 



for peace. It would foster the peaceful de- 
velopment of the area, reducing the incentives 
to violence and conflict and deepening the 
interest of all the area's peoples in coopera- 
tion. 

More specifically, with the program — 
which we regard as a package — we would : 

— Make available to Israel $350 million in 
grants and credits to enable it to continue 
purchasing vitally needed military equipment 
from the United States and to relieve it of 
some of the burden of its onerous defense 
costs. This would be a significant demon- 
stration of our steadfast support for Israel's 
security. 

— Extend to Jordan roughly $207 million 
in grants and credits both to enhance its 
security and to assist its economic develop- 
ment. This would strengthen Jordan's abili- 
ty to hold to the course of moderation it 
has consistently followed in the Middle East. 

— Provide $250 million in economic assist- 
ance to Egypt. There has been a dramatic 
turn in Egyptian foreign policy. Egypt has 
made the bold decision to move from con- 
frontation to negotiation as a means of 
resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. Its leaders 
have shown a desire to substitute friendship 
and trust in the United States for the hos- 
tility and distrust which has so long divided 
us. 

— Make $100 million available in the form 
of a special requirements fund to be used to 
reinforce the peace process as we get further 
into negotiations. We would consult closely 
with Congress on the use of this money. 

In short, we have both opportunity and 
responsibility in the Middle East — opportu- 
nity to reach the goal of the negotiated peace 
that is so vital to world peace and that has 
so long eluded us; responsibility to assist 
those countries in the area which have ac- 
cepted that goal and which need our help in 
reaching it. We hope that you will be able to 
act swiftly on these proposals, both to signal 
the support of the U.S. Congress for our 
policies in the Middle East and to enable us 
to act rapidly with funding. 



Proposals for Indochina 

Now let me turn to Indochina. An Amer- 
ican foreign policy once almost totally preoc- 
cupied with one country — Viet-Nam — now 
addresses broader concerns. But we must not 
forget what is needed to sustain that situa- 
tion. A concerted effort was required to reach 
the. present equilibrium in Viet-Nam. A con- 
certed effort is still required to move toward 
a lasting peace. 

This administration devoted its first four 
years to building South Viet-Nam's capacity 
for self-defense and eliminating our direct 
military involvement. In our second four 
years, we are pursuing a program which is 
building South Viet-Nam's capacity for self- 
sufficiency, a program designed to eventually 
reduce our economic and security assistance. 

By August 1, we will submit to Congress a 
five-year projection which will reflect our ex- 
pectation of a gradually declining role in 
South Viet-Nam. We will submit similar 
projections for Cambodia and Laos. 

But two decades of gradually increasing 
economic dependence on tlie United States 
cannot be ended in one year or two without 
the most serious consequences for the Viet- 
namese people — and for ourselves. As we 
learned in Europe following World War II, 
no nation, even one at complete peace, can 
make that rapid a transition. 

We have a moral obligation to persevere. 
It is rooted in the history of our involvement 
and the continuing efforts of our friends. 
There is no escaping the fact that many 
American lives were lost and much American 
treasure spent in Viet-Nam. Now South Viet- 
Nam has assumed the direct responsibility 
for their own defense. We owe the Vietnam- 
ese people the chance to succeed. 

Failure to sustain our purposes would have 
a corrosive effect on interests beyond the 
confines of Indochina. Renewed warfare in 
Viet-Nam could put renewed pressure on re- 
lationships we are developing with other in- 
terested powers. 

Our immediate objective in Viet-Nam is to 
consolidate the gains for peace and stability 
I have already noted. In economic assistance. 



July 8, 1974 



51 



our objective is the earliest possible develop- 
ment of a South Vietnamese economy which 
is self-sustaining. In military assistance, we 
seek only to provide our friends with the 
minimum required to defend themselves and 
to deter a renewed North Vietnamese offen- 
sive. 

The achievements of recent years may 
hinge on sums that are small in proportion 
to the total effort that has been made. In- 
cluding the separate legislation for military 
aid, our total Vietnamese assistance request 
is about what we spent in a single month in 
1968 at the height of U.S. involvement. 

We hope that in time North Viet-Nam will 
recognize the futility of its efforts to win a 
victory of arms and will turn to political ac- 
commodation within the terms of the Paris 
accords. 

A stable military situation and eventual 
accommodation cannot be achieved if South 
Viet-Nam's economic problems are allowed 
to get out of hand. Our request for $750 mil- 
lion in economic and humanitarian assistance 
is essential to ward off that danger. In the 
past year, South Viet-Nam has experienced 
problems over which it has very little con- 
trol — a sharp decline in dollar revenue fol- 
lowing the withdrawal of our troops, and 
world inflation. At the peak of our involve- 
ment in the war, Viet-Nam's dollar earnings 
from U.S. Government activities ranged be- 
tween $350 million and $400 million a year; 
last year, following the withdrawal of U.S. 
troops, this figure dropped to just over $100 
million. At the same time, the costs of Viet- 
Nam's imports soared, as global inflation 
boosted the prices of raw materials and semi- 
finished products. 

South Viet-Nam has done an excellent job 
of adjusting to these challenges. It initiated 
a dramatic austerity program, increased tax 
collections, raised exports, and dramatically 
cut imports. But its foreign exchange re- 
serves have fallen severely. 

Substantial assistance is still necessary. 
Our programs, however, are designed to do 
more than shore up the Vietnamese economy. 
They are shaped to nurture Viet-Nam's ca- 
pacity for self-support by : 



— Stimulating reconstruction and develop- 
ment; 

— Returning refugees to productive lives; 
and 

— Helping the Vietnamese to defend them- 
selves. 

In the past, Viet-Nam has made good use 
of our assistance. We are confident they will 
do so in the future. 

We are also seeking $362.5 million in mili- 
tary assistance and $110 million in recon- 
struction funds for the Khmer Republic. The 
Cambodians are fighting for their survival 
against forces aided and advised by the North 
Vietnamese. The country's economy has been 
shattered, and the level of combat is intense. 
The people have paid a heavy price. The Gov- 
ernment of the Khmer Republic has consist- 
ently affirmed its desire for a peaceful settle- 
ment through direct negotiations with its ad- 
versaries. Clearly, a negotiated settlement of 
this war is the only responsible outcome. 

In Laos, a cease-fire has been achieved and 
the process of political accommodation begun. 
The country is shifting from war to rehabili- 
tation and reconstruction. The $142 million 
assistance package we are seeking will help 
it to carry out that transition. 



Development and Security Assistance 

In development assistance we are respond- 
ing to a new situation with a new program — 
a program shaped in large measure by last 
year's congressional mandate to focus on ba- 
sic human needs. It is our purpose to give 
effect to the principles we have enunciated at 
the Washington Energy Conference, at the 
special session of the General Assembly, and 
at the recent meeting of the Organization of 
American States in Atlanta. 

If we are to avoid the division of the world 
into confronting groups, it is essential that 
the United States possess the ability to give 
effect to its conviction that the improvement 
of conditions around the world, and the con- 
structive use of resources, requires the joint 
effort of all nations. 

The energy problem symbolizes this real- 



52 



Department of State Bulletin 



ity — the dangers of confrontation between 
developed and developing nations, the severe 
plight of the poorest nations, as well as the 
potential for new forms of mutually benefi- 
cial cooperation. No nation has an interest 
in prices that set off an inflationary spiral 
and economic recession which reduces in- 
come for all. For example, the price of fer- 
tilizer has risen in direct proportion to the 
price of oil, putting it beyond the reach of 
many of the poorest nations and thus con- 
tributing to worldwide food shortages. 

Confrontation can only drive prices up, 
production down, and nations apart. It will 
corrode the structure of global stability and 
peace. Thus consumers and producers, devel- 
oped and developing, must join in meeting the 
challenges of global economic interdepend- 
ence — not by creating restrictive blocs but 
by seeking higher levels of income and pro- 
duction for all nations, not by attempting to 
achieve unilateral advantage but by meeting 
the legitimate aspirations and interests of all 
people. 

A nation's foreign policy must be rooted 
in its most basic beliefs. The economic as- 
sistance program of the United States is a 
faithful expression of our moral values. It 
reflects the humanitarian dimension of the 
American character. Our people cannot be 
fulfilled by a foreign policy devoid of concern 
for the hunger, illiteracy, and despair which 
still haunt so many of our fellow men. 

Assistance also is a device by which we 
pursue our national interest. The programs 
we are proposing will place us in a better po- 
sition : 

— To enlist the developing nations' coop- 
eration in sustaining an open global economy ; 

— To promote a long-term balance between 
demand for goods and their supply; and 

— To be responsive to the concerns of coun- 
tries and areas of importance to us. 

We face two challenges. 

The immediate problem is that the poorest, 
the 800 million people who subsist on 30 
cents a day, have no means to pay the sharply 
higher prices for the fuel, food, and fertilizer 
imports on which their survival depends. An 



urgent, generous, and substantial program is 
required — a program to which both the newly 
rich oil producers and traditional aid donors 
contribute. It would be unconscionable as 
mankind approaches the 21st century to al- 
low a quarter of humanity to be over- 
whelmed. 

The long-term challenge, on which man's 
ability to survive on this planet may depend, 
is to achieve a balance between food produc- 
tion and population growth. Since 1969, glo- 
bal production of cereals has not kept pace 
with world demand. As a result, current re- 
serves are at their lowest levels in 20 years. 
A significant crop failure today could bring 
major disaster in its wake. 

All nations must join in meeting these chal- 
lenges — the resource-poor and the resource- 
rich, the developed and the developing. Oil 
prices are a major cause of the immediate 
crisis, so the oil-producing nations should 
make a generous contribution. Indeed, they 
are now considering programs totaling $5- 
$10 billion. Both the terms and the amounts 
of these programs must match the magnitude 
of the problem. 

The United States must also respond. We 
must contribute, or other nations will not. 
We must contribute, or world population and 
food imbalances will engulf us all in tragedy. 

The United States should pursue a compre- 
hensive approach to our relationship with the 
developing nations. Both aid and trade can 
play a major part in meeting the two chal- 
lenges we face. 

First, the administration is considering ur- 
gent action America can take to meet the 
short-term crisis caused by fuel, food, and 
fertilizer shortages. We commend members 
of this committee for their thoughtful and 
positive consideration of this problem. 

Second, a long-term approach is required: 

— The development assistance program re- 
flects congressional priorities: long-term 
food, population, and education programs. It 
places particular emphasis on helping devel- 
oping nations increase their agricultural 
production. $675 million would be spent for 
that purpose. 



July 8, 1974 



53 



— Another crucial source of assistance is 
the International Development Association 
(IDA), which also concentrates on the needs 
of the poorest. We are heartened that this 
committee and the Senate support IDA, and 
urge the entire Congress to approve our 
$1.5 billion request for the U.S. share in 
IDA'S fourth replenishment. 

— Developing nations meet more of their 
foreign exchange needs through trade than 
aid. Congressional passage of the adminis- 
tration's trade bill would be a crucial con- 
tribution to the development process. The 
bill contains our request for authority to 
grant generalized tariff preferences, which 
are of major economic and political signifi- 
cance to the developing nations. 

We wish to consult further with the Con- 
gress as both our short- and long-term ap- 
proaches are more explicitly defined. 

Political and economic development can 
only take place in a more secure world. Thus, 
security assistance is a necessary complement 
to our efforts to assist development. 

As you know, we have greatly modified our 
security assistance programs in the past five 
years to encourage nations to bear the pri- 
mary burden for their own defense. But in 
specific situations, grant assistance must 
continue to play a major role. The bulk of 
grant assistance, excluding Indochina, is di- 
rected to Korea, Turkey, and Thailand. In 
each, we have very substantial security in- 
terests. The rest of the program will provide 
modest amounts of materials and training to 
nations in Latin America, Africa, the Middle 
East, and East Asia. 

And where we decrease grant assistance 
we should provide adequate credit to our 
friends and allies to enable them to purchase 
the arms they require. The foreign military 
sales program promotes the self-sufficiency 
we seek and our partners are pursuing. 

Assistance to Latin America 

If the technically advanced nations can 
ever cooperate with the developing nations, 
if people with similar aspirations but vary- 
ing circumstances can ever achieve common 



goals, then it must start here in the Western 
Hemisphere. 

But as Senator Mansfield wrote in his elo- 
quent report on our meetings with the Latin 
American Foreign Ministers in Mexico City : 

Too often, in recent years, rhetoric has substituted 
for reality in our dealings with the other American 
States. Too often, too, there has been surface coop- 
eration but sub-surface confrontation between the 
United States and the nations to the South. 

We launched at Mexico City a new search 
for partnership — one founded on reality and 
not illusion. This hemisphere reflects the 
great diversity of the developing world — of 
nations only beginning to emerge from il- 
literacy, disease, grinding poverty, and na- 
tions already on the road of self-sustaining 
growth. 

For our relations with the most advanced 
Latin American nations, trade is particularly 
important. I strongly urge the Congress to 
support the generalized tariff preferences 
contained in the administration's trade bill. 

For the majority of our southern neigh- 
bors still requiring economic assistance, we 
ask that you provide : 

— $345.6 million in bilateral aid. Our 
$267.5 million in development programs will 
focus on food production, rural development, 
and development of human resources. 

— $500 million to complete our share of the 
last replenishment of the Inter-American De- 
velopment Bank. This appropriation, orig- 
inally authorized in 1972, would fulfill an 
agreement made more than four years ago, 
on which we are in arrears. The Bank is ef- 
fectively promoting development and de- 
serves our support. 

We also request that the $150 million ceil- 
ing on credit arms sales be lifted. Latin 
America spends a smaller percentage of its 
total product on arms than any other devel- 
oping area except Africa south of the Sa- 
hara. The credit limitation has not worked 
to discourage arms purchases. It has worked 
to reduce our access, not the access of others, 
to governments in the area. It is, as well, un- 
worthy of a relationship of equals. 

Mr. Chairman, the fundamental question 



54 



Department of State Bulletin 



before us is whether together the executive 
and legislative branches can define and sup- 
port an assistance program which will help : 

— Create lasting peace in the Middle East 
and Indochina. 

— Establish the basis for relationships of 
mutual restraint and respect with the Soviet 
Union and People's Republic of China. 

— Avoid the division of the world into 
competing blocs of developed and developing 
nations. 

— Bring into balance food production and 
population growth. 

— Lower the burden on the United States 
by building other nations' capacity for self- 
development and self-defense. 

It is my profound conviction that the for- 
eign assistance program before you makes a 
substantial contribution to these goals. Early 
congressional action is urgently required to 
symbolize America's will to move decisively 
toward their achievement. 

In a world shadowed by monstrous nuclear 
weapons, where global economics and global 
communications link the prosperity, the des- 
tiny, and even the survival of all mankind, 
we can conceive of no alternative to a net- 
work of relations that remove the incentive 
for war and deepen the stake in peace. We 
believe very strongly that the central issue of 
our time is whether economic problems and 
political problems are going to be solved with 
a cooperative attitude or through a process 
of confrontation. 

If this is the reality, then obviously pro- 
grams of foreign assistance are not hand- 
outs. They are done on behalf of an interna- 
tional order and and on behalf of an approach 
to the solution of problems that is in all of 
our interests, and very much in the Amer- 
ican interest. 

The burden Americans are being asked to 



bear is small — less than 1 percent of our na- 
tional product. It is our lowest level in the 
past quarter century. 

But the question is not one of percentages 
or comparisons. Rather, we must ask whether 
what we are doing is adequate to meet the 
need and whether anything less would fulfill 
our purposes as a nation. 

A renewed American commitment to as- 
sist development and defense is essential. As 
we approach our 200th anniversary, let us 
demonstrate that the United States has 
gained the wisdom of maturity, not the wea- 
riness of old age. As we consider our assist- 
ance programs, let us ask not what we want 
to achieve this year or next, but what kind 
of a world we want to shape for the remain- 
der of this century. 



Senate Confirms Members 
of ACDA Advisory Committee 

The Senate on June 12 confirmed the fol- 
lowing-named persons to be members of the 
General Advisory Committee of the U.S. 
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency: 
Harold Melvin Agnew (chairman), Gordon 
Allott, Edward Clark, Lane Kirkland, Carl 
M. Marcy, Joseph Martin, Jr., John A. Mc- 
Cone, and Gerard C. Smith. (For biographic 
data, see White House press release dated 
May 29.) 

The General Advisory Committee was cre- 
ated by the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Act of 1961 to advise the President, the Sec- 
retary of State, and the Director of the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency respecting 
matters affecting arms control, disarmament, 
and world peace. The Committee consists of 
not more than 15 members appointed by the 
President. 



July 8, 1974 



55 



Maintaining a Momentum for Middle East Peace 
Through Diplomacy and Assistance 



Statement by Joseph J. Sisco 

Under Secretary for Political Affairs ' 



As you know, the Middle East problem is 
one that has occupied my attention for many 
years. Throughout the period of my involve- 
ment, the peoples of the area have been 
locked in incessant struggle — a cycle of wars 
followed by uneasy cease-fires, followed 
again by bloodshed and tragedy. Thus, two 
peoples who lived and worked together 
peacefully for centuries were thrown to- 
gether in what history will undoubtedly re- 
cord not as a series of wars, but as one long 
war broken by occasional armistices and 
temporary cease-fires. 

The area's progression from conflict to 
conflict has been written in death and sufl'er- 
ing for the peoples of the region. But the 
effects of the Mideast struggle transcended 
the local issues. When chronic tension 
erupted into war, world peace was threat- 
ened. The interests and concerns of two 
global powers meet in the Middle East. It 
is an area of vital interest to the United 
States. A stable and lasting peace in the 
world requires a stable and durable settle- 
ment in the Middle East. 

Now, for the first time in my memory, it 
is possible to hope, if not see, a time when 
the Arab-Israeli war will be punctuated not 
by an armistice but by a secure and lasting 
peace. Ironically, the progress made has its 



' Made before the House Committee on Foreigrn 
Affairs on June 12 (press release 247). The complete 
transcript of the hearings will be published by the 
committee and will be available from the Superin- 
tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 



origin in the ferment resulting from yet 
another Arab-Israeli war — the war of Oc- 
tober 1973, which changed the objective con- 
ditions in the area and the perception each 
side has of the other. 

If I may, therefore, I would like to trace 
for you briefly the situation we faced be- 
fore that war, the results we sought when 
that war began, and what we have accom- 
plished in the months that followed. I do 
this so that you can have a better under- 
standing of what we mean when we refer to 
a momentum for peace in the Middle East. 

For many years this was the panorama 
that presented itself to us in the Middle 
East: 

— The Arabs and the Israelis shared only 
a distressing legacy of mutual distrust and 
suspicion. The Israelis, as a result of their 
experience, have stressed security and sur- 
vival as the primary issues. The Arabs, as 
a result of their experience, have under- 
scored justice and national sovereignty as 
the primary issues. Nations who shared 
borders had almost no real understanding of 
each other's problems, motivations, and con- 
cerns. 

— The area was dominated by a trend to- 
ward polarization between Israel, strongly 
tied to the United States, and certain Arab 
states increasingly dependent upon the So- 
viet Union. 

— It was clear that a final settlement in the 
Mideast could only come about primarily 
by the actions of the parties themselves. 



56 



Department of State Bulletin 



But the participants were too deeply divided 
to begin the process of compromise, and no 
third party was in a position to bring them 
together, although the United States, more 
than any other nation, made major efforts 
to do so between 1969 and 1973. 

When war came again to the Middle East, 
we had two immediate objectives: first, to 
bring about a cease-fire, and second, to do 
so in a manner that would leave us in a 
position to play a constructive role with both 
Arabs and Israelis in shaping a more secure 
peace. It was evident that the search for 
that peace would be arduous and that a 
lasting settlement could only be approached 
through a series of discrete steps in which 
the settlement of any particular issue would 
not be dependent on the settlement of all 
issues. 

What have we accomplished in the past 
eight months? 

— For the most part, guns are silent. 
Disengagement agreements between Israel 
and Egypt and Israel and Syria have been 
completed. 

— We have demonstrated that the United 
States can maintain its undiminished sup- 
port for Israel's survival and security and 
have relations of trust and understanding 
with Arab nations. We have reopened chan- 
nels of communication with Syria and re- 
established diplomatic relations with Egypt. 
We have deepened our relationships with 
Jordan and Saudi Arabia. We have helped 
both the Arabs and Israelis to move toward 
mutual understanding. 

— The focus of discussion is now on prog- 
ress on a step-by-step basis toward peace. 
Countries in the area are no longer depend- 
ent on a single outside power. Most have 
adopted a more moderate course. Instead 
of concentrating solely on preparation for 
war, they are ready to consider, however 
tentatively, the possible fruits of peace. 

We did none of these things alone. Prog- 
ress to date has been possible only through 
the courage, vision, wisdom, and statesman- 
ship of key leaders in the area. 

But it is apparent that none of the prog- 



ress that has been made would have been 
possible without the United States. 

It is equally clear to me that a will to 
achieve peace has emerged and is gathering 
strength in the area, challenging tho.se forces 
still opposed to a peaceful settlement based 
on mutual accommodation. The challenge 
to all parties concerned with the Middle 
East is to build a bridge between current 
realities and a future vision — a vision of 
peace. 

If there is to be such a transition, the 
United States once again will have to play 
a critical role. The steps ahead are clear: 

— There must be further stages in the 
diplomatic process. It will be even more 
difficult as we approach the more funda- 
mental issues of an overall settlement. It is 
important in the first instance that the dis- 
engagement process on the Syrian-Israeli 
front continue to proceed smoothly in ac- 
cordance with the agreement. Each day of 
effective implementation, hopefully, will help 
build the kind of confidence which will at 
least begin to break some shackles of past 
suspicions. 

— There is continuing need to maintain 
Israel's security. For Israel to persevere in 
the negotiations it must possess the confi- 
dence of our support for its security. 

— There is an urgent need to make a start 
on reconstruction and development. Leaders 
have made the bold decision to move to- 
ward moderation in the belief that their 
aspirations for a life free of tragedy, with 
security, justice, and decency for their peo- 
ples, can best be realized in conditions of 
peace. 

The agenda is a full one. We have come 
a good distance toward our overriding ob- 
jective in the Middle East — a comprehensive 
and lasting peace as a framework for dur- 
able U.S. relationships with all the nations 
of the area. The obstacles are formidable. 
Yet it must be stressed that these are only 
first steps. We still have a very long way 
to go. 

Congress is now considering a major pro- 
gram which can contribute to our overall 



July 8, 1974 



57 



objectives. We do not pretend that the as- 
sistance program you are considering can 
buy peace. Nor can we purchase constructive 
relations in the area. Peace and good rela- 
tions are not for sale — in the Middle East 
or anywhere else. 

Rather, the program is an essential ad- 
junct to our broader diplomacy, necessary 
to the success of that diplomacy, though not 
sufficient to bring success. 

As you consider the program, I ask you 
to bear in mind that the sums involved are 
not large when compared to what this na- 
tion has spent over the past 25 years in the 
area — 25 years in which peace remained an 
elusive goal. 

The program that has been placed before 
you will: 

— Contribute to Israel's security. 

— Help sustain the growing belief in the 
area that peace is an essential condition for 
modernization — an aspiration shared by all 
peoples of the area. 

— Reinforce our diplomacy as we move 
toward the most difficult aspects of Mideast 
negotiations. 

Secretary Kissinger has already outlined 
for you this program. At the risk of re- 
peating what you already know, let me 
place in the record a more detailed descrip- 
tion: 

— $350 million in grants and credits would 
be made available to Israel. $300 million of 
this total would be used to assist Israel to 
purchase the military equipment it needs 
to strengthen its defense capability. $50 
million in economic support would be uti- 
lized to relieve it of some of the economic 
burden which has arisen notably from its 
heavy defense expenditures. 

— $207 million in grants and credits would 
be extended to Jordan. $100 million of this 
total would be grant military assistance, 
$30 million would be as credit for military 
equipment purchases, and $77.5 million 
would be economic assistance. These funds 
are designed to enhance its security and to 
assist its economic development. Jordan has 



long and consistently been a force for mod- 
eration in the Middle East. This assistance 
would contribute significantly to its ability 
to maintain that position. 

— $250 million in economic assistance 
would be furnished to Egypt. Of this sum, 
$20 million is intended to finance our part in 
helping Egypt reopen the Suez Canal; $80 
million would be used to purchase badly 
needed commodities in the United States; 
$150 million would be earmarked for re- 
construction in the Suez Canal area. Thus, 
the major part of our proposed assistance 
to Egypt would be destined to a part of the 
country which has been devastated by war 
and whose reconstruction and rehabilitation 
will be seen, not only by us but by other 
countries in the area, as convincing evidence 
of the sincerity of Egypt's interest in peace. 
Our program should help generate an inter- 
national effort, hopefully led by the World 
Bank, to revitalize the Suez area. 

— Lastly, $100 million would be available 
in the form of a special requirements fund. 
In general terms, we look upon this fund 
as a means of having a flexible resource 
available to use as and when needed. Hav- 
ing access to such funds would permit us 
to respond swiftly in ways calculated to 
reinforce our diplomatic efforts. For exam- 
ple, if our relationship with Syria continues 
to develop and Syria makes concrete re- 
quests, some of the money would be used in 
that country. We will consult closely with 
the Congress on the use of this special fund. 

A momentum for Mideast peace ha^ been 
established. In our view, this program is 
essential to the maintenance of that momen- 
tum. Opportunities such as the one before 
this nation in the Middle East do not come 
often. They are not easily hoarded. In fact, 
on the basis of my experience in this volatile 
region, I would say that opportunities for 
creative diplomacy are especially perishable 
in the Middle East. 

Thus, it is our hope that Congress can 
act expeditiously on our request. We need 
to demonstrate that Congress supports the 
initiatives that we have taken. We need to 



58 



Department of State Bulletin 



encourage those who are seriously interested 
in working for peace. And we need to do 
these things in a timely manner. 

This program bespeaks our unremitting 
concern for the security of Israel. It points 
the way toward a new and mutually reward- 
ing relationship of friendship with Egypt 
and other Arab countries. We trust these 
are objectives the Congress supports as it 
has supported our search for a Middle East 
that contributes to a stable world order. 

The promise of a just and lasting settle- 
ment is closer today than in the past — 
a past made up of lost opportunities. It has 
taken great and sustained effort by many 
to come so far. Still greater courage and 
effort will be required to reach a secure and 
durable peace. It is in our interest that 
there be such a peace. We must do what 
we can to see that that goal does not elude 
us and the people of the area once again. 



Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 



93d Congress, 1st Session 

Trade Preferences: Latin America and the Carib- 
bean. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Inter- 
American Affairs of the House Committee on For- 
eign Affairs. June 25-26, 1973. 81 pp. 

World Food Security: A Global Priority. Hearing 
before the Subcommittees on Africa and on Inter- 
national Organizations and Movements of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. July 31, 
1973. 109 pp. 

World Food Grain Situation. Hearing before the 
Subcommittees on South Asian Affairs and on 
African Affairs of the Senate Committee on For- 
eign Relations. October 5, 1973. 94 pp. 

Political Situation in Thailand. Hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs of the 
House Committee on For'^ign Affairs. October 24, 
1973. 107 pp. 



United Nations Peacekeeping in the Middle East. 
Hearings before the Subcommittees on Interna- 
tional Organizations and Movements and on the 
Near East and South Asia of the House Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs. December 5-6, 1973. 
105 pp. 



93d Congress, 2d Session 

Weather Modification. Hearings before the Sub- 
committee on Oceans and International Environ- 
ment of the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- 
tions on the need for an international agreement 
prohibiting the use of environmental and geo- 
physical modification as weapons of vv^ar and 
briefing on Department of Defense weather modi- 
fication activity. January 25 and March 20, 1974. 
(Top Secret hearing held on March 20, 1974; 
made public on May 19, 1974.) 123 pp. 

Proposed Expansion of U.S. Military Facilities in 
the Indian Ocean. Hearings before the Subcom- 
mittee on the Near East and South Asia of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. February 
21-March 20, 1974. 219 pp. 

The United States and the Multilateral Development 
Banks. Prepared for the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs by the Foreign Affairs Division, Congres- 
sional Research Service, Library of Congress. 
March 1974. 230 pp. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Strategic Policies. Hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Law 
and Organization of the Senate Committee on For- 
eign Relations on U.S. and Soviet strategic doc- 
trine and military policies. March 4, 1974. (Top 
Secret hearing held on March 4, 1974; sanitized 
and made public on April 4, 1974.) 57 pp. 

The Middle East Between War and Peace, Novem- 
ber-December 1973. Staff report prepared for the 
Subcommittee on Near Eastern Affairs of the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. March 
5, 1974. 50 pp. 

"Right to Peace" Resolution. Hearing before the 
Subcommittee on International Organizations and 
Movements of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs on H. Con. Res. 417 and 418. March 13, 
1974. 39 pp. 

Testimony of John Zighdis on American Policy 
Toward Greece. Hearing before the House Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs and its Subcommittee 
on Europe. March 27, 1974. 22 pp. 

Negotiation and Statecraft. Chinese Comment on 
Strategic Policy and Arms Limitation. Compiled 
by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga- 
tions of the Senate Committee on Government 
Operations. April 10, 1974. 18 pp. 



July 8, 1974 



59 



Foreign Assistance and East Asian Development 



Statement by Robert S. Ingersoll 

Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs ^ 



I am pleased to appear before you this 
morning in support of our request for eco- 
nomic and security assistance funds for East 
Asia in the coming fiscal year. I would like 
to speak briefly of our assistance programs, 
particularly those in Indochina, within the 
context of the major objectives of U.S. policy 
toward this region, after which I will be glad 
to answer your questions. 

The two major goals of American policy 
in East Asia, as defined in the Nixon doc- 
trine, are the reduction of tension among 
the major powers involved in the region and 
a condition of peaceful evolutionary develop- 
ment among the smaller nations in which 
those nations are able to provide increas- 
ingly for their own economic and defense 
needs. Our ability to contribute to the 
achievement of those goals is, to a very large 
degree, premised on continued American in- 
terests in the region — of which our assistance 
programs are an important tangible mani- 
festation. Thus, with respect to those smaller 
nations, U.S. assistance is an essential in- 
gredient in the accelerated economic, politi- 
cal, and social development which they need 
and which continued regional stability re- 
quires. 

By the same token, our ability to shift 
gradually from a leading to a supportive de- 



' Made before the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs on June 13. The complete transcript of the 
hearings will be published by the committee and will 
be available from the Superintendent of Documents, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
20402. 



fense role in the region, reducing our own 
military presence and role as the nations of 
the area become more able to assure their 
own security, is heavily dependent on mili- 
tary assistance. Were such assistance to be 
curtailed drastically, adjustments in our role 
— particularly in terms of our military pres- 
ence — could not be made without damaging 
effect upon the peace and stability of the area. 

The Nixon doctrine precept of shared re- 
sponsibilities for development and defense 
presents a challenge to governments associ- 
ated with us, whether in formal treaty rela- 
tionships or only by informal ties of friend- 
ship. They are called upon to exert greater 
efforts, not only in identifying and develop- 
ing their own talents and resources and 
bringing these to bear on the problems they 
face but in putting to use in the most effec- 
tive manner possible the assistance we pro- 
vide. The nations of East Asia have re- 
sponded impressively to this challenge ; they 
have in fact assumed a larger share of the 
burden, and we have been able to reduce our 
role and our responsibilities accordingly. For 
example, American forces in Asia have been 
reduced by more than 600,000 in the past 
five years — and by 110,000 even excluding 
our withdrawals from Viet-Nam. 

As East Asian nations provide increas- 
ingly for their own defense and developmen- 
tal needs, which our assistance has helped 
them to do, they have grown in self-confi- 
dence. This in turn has fostered a trend to- 
ward regional cooperation as the nations of 
the area — confident of their political identi- 



60 



Department of State Bulletin 



ties, their economic prospects, and their se- 
cure independence — are willing to subordi- 
nate nationalistic considerations in order to 
seek common solutions to common problems. 
Our assistance has obviously not been the 
sole determinant of this encouraging trend, 
but it has contributed toward it, and the en- 
hanced prospects for regional stability which 
that development portends are an important 
indirect result of the economic and security 
assistance programs the United States has 
maintained in the region. 

However, despite a generally encouraging 
picture throughout the area, the economic 
imperatives which continue to confront a 
number of East Asian nations require that 
aid continue to be provided. Overpopulation, 
pervasive poverty, food shortages, illiteracy, 
and disease persist in many areas, as do 
shortages of investment capital and techni- 
cal expertise with which to combat these 
problems. The economies of the region have 
recently had to contend with a new difficulty 
as well — the precipitate rise in oil prices, as 
a result of which capital needed for domestic 
investment must be spent for fuel require- 
ments and developmental objectives must be 
revised downward. Food production goals 
may also go unmet because of fertilizer 
shortages resulting from the energy squeeze. 
Thus, foreign aid remains essential to the 
orderly growth of many of the national econ- 
omies of East Asia, and drastic reductions in 
outside assistance would not only imperil fu- 
ture prospects but could vitiate progress al- 
ready achieved. 

Similarly, despite reduced tensions in the 
region and the major efforts made by East 
Asian nations themselves, the legitimate self- 
defense needs of many nations of the area 
can only be met by a m'^asure of outside as- 
sistance. A failure on the part of the United 
States to provide such assistance would, at 
the very least, undermine self-confidence and, 
eventually, regional stability. I should add 
that it is my firm belief that our programs of 
security assistance do not contribute to ten- 
sions in Ea.st Asia. On the contrary, insofar 
as such programs demonstrate our continu- 



ing concern for the security of our friends 
and allies in the area, the likelihood of ag- 
gressive and destabilizing actions by un- 
friendly powers from within the region and 
without is reduced. This is particularly evi- 
dent in Korea. There, U.S. security assist- 
ance to the Republic of Korea has reassured 
it of our support and enabled it to take con- 
structive initiatives toward stability of the 
peninsula. 



Need for Continuing Aid to Indochina 

By far the largest portion of our request is 
for Indochina. I would like to speak for a 
moment of the situation there: Why is it in 
our interest to provide this aid? Why is more 
needed this year than last? What are the 
prospects for the future ? 

Our continuing aid to the Indochina coun- 
tries is designed to support and preserve the 
rough balance of forces in Indochina which 
made possible the movement toward peace — 
and toward great-power disengagement — 
which has taken place over the past two 
years. This is in turn vital to the worldwide 
structure of peace we are trying to build. 
Our assistance is also neces.sary to fulfill our 
commitments to the governments and peoples 
of these countries. Failure to honor these ob- 
ligations, and to sustain the purposes they 
reflect, would corrode the value and credi- 
bility of our commitments everywhere and 
thereby reduce our ability to conduct effec- 
tive worldwide diplomacy. I strongly believe 
that we have a moral obligation — rooted in 
the history of our involvement and the con- 
tinuing eflTorts of our friends — to see the 
struggle through. Our huge investment of 
human and material resources and our en- 
couragement through two decades of these 
governments and peoples in their efforts to 
achieve self-determination — which we be- 
lieve redounds to our interests as well as 
their own — demand that we persevere. 

Some maintain that eliminating or sharply 
cutting our aid to South Viet-Nam will bring 
peace by forcing the South Vietnamese to 
negotiate a settlement. This may be true if 



July 8, 1974 



61 



the kind of peace desired is that of abject 
surrender to Communist aggression or the 
peace which would follow a bloody Commu- 
nist military victory. But this is not the kind 
of peace for which we have invested so much 
all these years nor the kind of peace which 
would be in our interest or in the interest of 
the South Vietnamese people. In fact, it has 
not been the South Vietnamese Government 
which has been blocking implementation of 
the Paris agreement and further progress 
toward peace but, rather, the North Viet- 
namese. Consequently, short of forcing their 
surrender or military defeat, there is no way 
we can pressure the South Vietnamese alone 
to make a real peace. The best hope for a 
genuine negotiated settlement and eventual 
reconciliation in Viet-Nam is to maintain the 
balance of forces which has permitted the 
progress made thus far. 

The need for a higher aid level, especially 
in Viet-Nam, has become increasingly evi- 
dent in recent months. South Viet-Nam is in 
a deepening economic crisis not of its own 
making. The crisis stemmed initially from 
the 1972 North Vietnamese offensive which 
caused widespread disruption and left in its 
wake a new influx of refugees into already 
crowded urban areas. The crisis has been 
perpetuated since the Paris agreement by 
the continuing North Vietnamese military 
buildup and failure to observe the cease-fire. 
It has been exacerbated by the sharp decline 
in real terms in the past two years in the 
value of U.S. economic assistance and by the 
economic impact of U.S. troop withdrawals. 
And it has been further compounded by rapid 
increases in the price of major South Viet- 
namese imports, primarily petroleum, fer- 
tilizer, and foodstuffs. 

South Viet-Nam must look to others for 
the wherewithal to reverse this economic 
deterioration and begin the reconstruction 
and development effort necessary for move- 
ment forward toward economic viability and 
self-sufficiency. It is therefore imperative 
that we increase our assistance. Continuing 
aid at or below the present level would at 
best postpone the day when South Viet-Nam 
can stand on its own ; at worst it could facili- 



tate a violent Communist takeover. 

On the other hand, in spite of its present 
economic problems, South Viet-Nam is 
stronger militarily and politically than ever 
before, and it has excellent long-range pros- 
pects for economic self-sufficiency. Its mili- 
tary forces have demonstrated their ability 
to defend the country; its government is po- 
litically strong and stable and controls well 
over 80 percent of the population; and — if 
they can be developed — its adequate natural 
resources, including good prospects of major 
oil discoveries, give it the possibility of an 
economic takeoff comparable to that of Korea 
and Taiwan. 

Consequently, provided we continue for 
the next two or three years to provide the 
military support necessary for self-defense 
and the economic support necessary to begin 
serious reconstruction and development, 
there are good prospects that North Viet- 
Nam will be deterred from launching all-out 
offensives; that further reductions in the 
level of violence can be achieved ; that South 
Viet-Nam can move steadily toward self- 
sufficiency, thus permitting a gradually de- 
clining U.S. role in that country; and that, 
over the long run, evolution toward peaceful 
accommodation and reconciliation will be 
possible. As Secretary Kissinger mentioned 
in his recent appearance before this commit- 
tee, we will submit to Congress by August 1 
a five-year projection which will reflect our 
expectation of a gradually declining U.S. 
role. However, if we do not provide adequate 
assistance now, these desirable prospects will 
be impi'obable if not impossible. 

In Cambodia, a war for survival goes for- 
ward against forces aided and advised by the 
North Vietnamese. The level of combat re- 
mains high, and the Cambodian economy has 
been shattered. The Government of the 
Khmer Republic has consistently afltirmed its 
readiness to seek a negotiated solution of the 
conflict. Insurgent forces have as consistently 
rejected negotiations, apparently in the be- 
lief that a military victory was possible. It is 
our hope that, as the prospect of military 
solutions becomes more obviously remote, the 
insurgent leadership will accept the compel- 



62 



Department of State Bulletin 



ling logic of negotiations. In the meantime, 
continued military assistance — and economic 
aid to ease the burden of warfare for the 
people of Cambodia — is an unavoidable and 
urgent necessity. 

In Laos, an effective cease-fire has been 
maintained for well over a year, and the 
process of political accommodation has pro- 
gressed to the point that a coalition govern- 
ment has been formed and is functioning. 
The country is thus in a transition from a 
period of prolonged warfare to one of peace 
and reconstruction. The assistance we are 
seeking for Laos will help it to carry out that 
transition. 



Assistance to Other East Asian Nations 

We are also requesting security and devel- 
opment assistance funds for four other coun- 
tries in East Asia — Korea, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, and Thailand. 

These nations have legitimate self-defense 
needs which continue to require a measure of 
outside assistance. Such assistance, by in- 
creasing the sense of confidence and security 
of these nations, increases their readiness to 
deal openly and cooperatively with their 
neighbors and to negotiate with their adver- 
saries. The maintenance of a strong, mili- 
tarily capable Republic of Korea, for exam- 
ple, is essential to the avoidance of hostili- 
ties and, indeed, contributes significantly to 
the process of accommodation on the Korean 
peninsula. For the nations of Southeast Asia, 
military assistance is an important element 
in their efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in 
their defense, in line with the Nixon doctrine 
concept of burden sharing, and reinforces the 
encouraging trend toward cooperation and 
stability in the region. Our programs of mili- 
tary assistance thus do' not contradict our 
espousal of detente and reduced tensions but, 
in fact, contribute to the hopeful evolution 
from an era of confrontation to one of coop- 
eration in East Asia. 

Similarly, each of these countries has made 
major and sustained efforts to overcome the 
obstacles to progress posed by underdevelop- 
ment. The Republic of Korea has developed 



a strong industrial base and has emerged as 
an important trading nation. Indonesia has 
continued a steady recovery from its severe 
economic problems of the midsixties, and its 
mineral and energy resources have of course 
assumed new importance. The Philippines, 
despite natural disasters in 1972, has achieved 
steady economic growth and is attracting 
private foreign investments at a substantial 
rate. Thailand, too, has maintained an en- 
couraging GNP growth rate in recent years, 
has accumulated ample foreign exchange re- 
serves, and has developed a healthy produc- 
tion base. Nonetheless, in order to sustain 
the progress they have made, each of these 
countries stands in continuing need of out- 
side assistance. They have shown an ability 
to use such assistance effectively, and we can 
be sure that additional aid will be sharply 
focused upon their most critical developmen- 
tal needs. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, 
we do not envision economic or security as- 
sistance to East Asia as a burden to be borne 
perpetually by the American people. The 
economies of many of the developing coun- 
tries of the region have performed impres- 
sively in recent years; we wish to sustain 
that progress and thereby hasten the day our 
aid will no longer be necessary. U.S. eco- 
nomic assistance to the Republic of China 
has already been terminated, as I am sure 
you are aware, and other programs have 
been reduced as the need has diminished. 
Similarly, it is our expectation and the long- 
term policy of the United States that the lev- 
els of our security assistance will be gradu- 
ally reduced, and that we will continue to 
move from grant MAP [military assistance 
program] to FMS [foreign military sales] 
credit and ultimately to cash sales of military 
equipment as circumstances permit. 

Let me take note of one additional concern 
which you and many of your colleagues have 
expressed and which we share — the indis- 
putable fact that many of the governments 
to which the United States provides economic 
and security assistance pursue internal poli- 
cies in conflict with American democratic 
values. Our assistance programs do not con- 



July 8, 1974 



63 



stitute an endorsement of such policies nor 
even of the governments which pursue them. 
Our aid is designed to promote the economic 
well-being of the people of recipient nations 
and, in the larger sense, to promote a secure, 
stable, and relatively prosperous environment 
in which their interests — and the cause of 
peace — can be advanced. As the President 
stated in his June 5 address at Annapolis : 

Our foreign policy . . . must reflect our ideals, and 
it must reflect our purposes .... we continue to ad- 
here firmly to certain humane principles, not only 
in appropriate international forums but also in our 
private exchanges with other governments— where 
this can be eflTective .... (We believe we can) 
achieve more results through diplomatic action than 
through hundreds of eloquent speeches. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, 
I spoke earlier of the major objectives of 
American policy in Asia as being twofold — 
on the one hand a reduction of tensions 
among the great powers whose interests 
interact in the region, and on the other a 
situation of stability and evolutionary 
change among the smaller nations in which 
the largest responsibility for development 
and defense is assumed by those nations 
themselves rather than the United States. 
These two goals are complementary and mu- 
tually reinforcing. Reduced tension among 
the major powers helps to establish an 
atmosphere of stability and confidence which 
encourages the smaller nations to devote 
their attention, their talents, and their re- 
sources to the tasks of peaceful development. 
In turn, confidence, security, and relative 
prosperity among the smaller nations reduce 
the likelihood that local tensions and conflicts 
may arise which would engage the major 
powers, undermine the nascent understand- 
ing which has emerged among those powers, 
and which could thereby threaten the peace 
of Asia and the world. It is therefore im- 
portant — for our own interests in this age of 
interdependence and in the interests of the 
Asian peoples — that we remain steadfast in 
our determination to help these nations help 
themselves. 

I would like to urge, in closing, that these 
programs be given early — and I hope favor- 



able — consideration and action. If this is pos- 
sible, these countries will be much better 
able to plan ahead and to make the best and 
most effective use of our assistance. 



Government and Industry Role 
in Assuring Energy Supplies 

Following is a statement by Jidius L. Katz, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic and 
Business Affairs, made before the Subcom- 
mittee on Multinational Corporations of the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 
June 6.^ 

I welcome the opportunity given me to 
testify today before the Subcommittee on 
Multinational Corporations regarding the 
international petroleum industry. 

The future role of the industry is an ele- 
ment of one of the most important issues 
confronting our nation regarding the future 
supply of energy. There is wide recognition 
in this country and abroad of the need to 
move in the shortest time possible to increase 
the dependability of energy resources. The 
period of transition to expanded production 
of conventional resources and to new forms 
of energy could be a difficult one with serious 
implications for the political and economic 
stability of the world. In these circumstances 
it is proper that the executive branch and 
the Congress examine together the role 
played by industry and government respec- 
tively and consider the role to be played by 
government and industry in the future with 
respect to the continued supply of our energy 
requirements. 

As requested by you, Mr. Chairman, I will 
concentrate today on evolving U.S. policy to 
deal with the international energy problem. 
The basic goal of our policies is to insure 
adequate and secure energy supplies at prices 
that contribute to reasonable growth and to 



' The complete transcript of the hearings will be 
published by the committee and will be available 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 



64 



Department of State Bulletin 



an improved environment in all the nations 
of our interdependent world. In pursuit of 
this goal we are now engaged in three initia- 
tives. Internationally, we are making a major 
effort to develop a scheme for cooperation 
among consuming countries. At the same 
time, we are seeking improvement of our 
relations with producing countries. At the 
base of our international programs, however, 
are the efforts at home through Project Inde- 
pendence to increase our self-reliance 
through greater production and improved 
conservation practices. These three endeav- 
ors, involving our domestic policies and our 
activities abroad with consumers and pro- 
ducers, are interrelated and are closely co- 
ordinated. 

For much of the past year, our concern 
was with the adequacy of oil supply to meet 
our own requirements and that of the world 
economy. This remains a concern over the 
long term, but it has been overshadowed by 
a more immediate problem created by the 
fourfold increase in crude oil prices of last 
year. These price increases pose a serious 
challenge to the world economy. 

All oil-importing countries face an adverse 
impact on their general price structures, bal- 
ance of payments, industrial output, and 
employment levels. The situation of the 
poorer countries is particularly acute. The 
additional cost of their energy imports will 
exceed the official development assistance 
they are now receiving and threatens to re- 
verse their economic gains in recent years. 
Some of the oil-exporting countries, too, will 
find their development aspirations eroded 
as high oil prices feed global inflation. In 
today's interdependent world, no country, 
even one self-sufficient in oil, could escape 
the effects of general economic and political 
instability. 

Based on this assessment and the convic- 
tion that concerted international action was 
essential, the President took the initiative in 
inviting the world's 13 largest energy con- 
sumers to attend the Wa.shington Energy 
Conference in February of this year. Twelve 
of the invited nations agreed to work to 
develop a cooperative program to deal with 



the problem. Intensive work has followed, 
centered in a body called the Energy Coordi- 
nating Group (ECG). Four meetings of the 
group has taken place, and a, further meeting 
is scheduled for the middle of this month. 
While I cannot today forecast the conclusions 
which are likely to be reached, I can say that 
solid progress has been achieved in devel- 
oping a consensus on measures to be taken 
internationally. 

Working groups have produced proposals 
for cooperation in the related areas of con- 
servation and demand restraint, accelerated 
development of conventional energy re- 
sources, and measures to deal with supply 
interruptions. The Energy Coordinating 
Group is also seeking to develop cooperative 
programs in the fields of energy research 
and development and in uranium enrich- 
ment. The group is following closely and co- 
ordinating views regarding the financial 
implications of the energy problem being 
di.scussed in the various international finan- 
cial institutions. The coordinating group has 
considered in some depth the possibility of 
joint consumer-producer meetings and has 
discussed a number of the issues which could 
be raised in such meetings. Finally, the group 
is also considering the role of the interna- 
tional oil companies. The sense of urgency 
and serious purpose displayed by the govern- 
ments participating in the Energy Coordi- 
nating Group reflects a deep commitment to 
bring to a successful conclusion the work 
begun at the Washington Energy Conference. 

Secretary Kissinger personally has carried 
our message of international cooperation to 
Latin America. Our views have been made 
known to interested governments in all con- 
tinents. The responses we have received have 
been on the whole positive, and we are en- 
couraged to press ahead. At the recent 
United Nations General Assembly Special 
Session on Raw Materials and Development, 
we and other consumer countries had the 
opportunity to make known our views and 
to initiate a dialogue between producer and 
consumer countries which we expect will con- 
tinue. 

While we are working to develop multi- 



July 8, 1974 



65 



lateral projjrrumH of cooperation, we are 
I)roc(!(!(liiiK to imfirovt: our |jil;itfral rclation.s 
with oii-(;xportiIl^,' coutitri(;.s. We liavo itidi- 
cated our willinKnewH to expand and Kive 
more concnjte cxprcsHion to cooperation in 
the fieid.H of economic relation.s, inclndiiiK 
technoioKical and indu.strial development, 
and d((f(!n,s(! niiatioriH with tho world's hirKe.st 
producer ont.Hidc th(! United States, Saudi 
Aral)ia. Ah you l<riow, Mr. (Chairman, talks 
are j-roiiiK on tod;iy and tomorrow in Wash- 
ington l>etwe(!n Ministers of the Government 
of Saudi Arabia, led by Prince Fahd, and 
American ofllciais, led by Secretary Kissin- 
Rcr. 

Let me Htate clearly and une(|ui vocally that 
these discussions are tiot directed toward 
seekinK bilateral oil deals. What we are seek- 
inK ar(! ways of incrciasiiiK coof)eration across 
a broad sp(!ctrum of relations with Saudi 
Arabia in the be!i(!f that, in so doin^, our 
mutual interests and tho.se of the rest of the 
world will be served. We are prepared to 
incre.'i.se cooijeration with other oil-producinf? 
countries where Ihei'e is mutual benelit. We 
regard these ed'orts ;is fully consistent with 
th(( rnullilaler-;d cooix'r.'il ion a^rcu'd to at the 
Washinj^toii iOneri',y Conference and now 
boinw developed by I he I'lnerKy CoordinatinK 
Group. 

The inip(H-l.iiicc (if I'ldject Independence 
to our iuleiii.it ioual oil policy does not re- 
([uire elabor.ilioii. The successful inip!(>nien- 
tation of a l):il;inced program of greater 
self-reliance will contribute substantially to 
our ii;il ioii.il security. l'\)r this i-eason the 
Department of State endorses fully the K'oals 
of Project independence and is cooperating' 
with other aj':encies in its dexclopment. 

You have asked me to outline the role of 
the Department of State in future negotia- 
tions on i)(>troleum matters and to assess the 
coordination of energy policy within the ad- 
ministration. Secretai'y Kissinger .iiid the 
Deiiartment have i>Iayed a leading' role in 
developinir and carrying out the initiatives to 
imjjrove i'ooi)erati()n with consuming and 
producinjj: nations. As I stated, we are al.so 
conlributinj.': to the development of Project 
Independence. In all of these etl'orts there is 



a hit(h degree of cooperation among various 
aK<!ncies of the executive branch. 

Overall leadership of our international 
efforts i.s provided by Secretary Kissinger. 
Details are coordinated within the Depart- 
ment of State and the National Security 
Council. In addition, there has been active 
participation by ofTicials of the Federal Ener- 
gy Oflice and the Treasury, Interior, and 
Commerce Departments. The AEG [Atomic 
Energy Commission] and EPA [Environ- 
mental Protection Agency] are also inti- 
mately involved. The problem has been much 
less one of coordination than of the complex 
nature of the i.ssues involved. The Depart- 
ment of State will neces.sarily continue to 
play a major role as we move toward the 
goals we have established. 

One of the mo.st striking characteristics of 
the situation in which we find ourselves is 
the major change which has taken place in 
tho role of the major international oil com- 
panies. Over a relatively brief period, the 
companies have lost or appear to be losing 
a number of the elements of the preeminent 
l)osition they have occupied in the world oil 
industry. 

The governments of the producing coun- 
tries have taken advantage of a basic shift 
in the world supply-demajid balance for oil 
and have assumed virtually complete control 
over both the level of production and prices. 
The e(|uity holdings of the companies in the 
Middle East are diminishing to what now 
appears 40 percent or less. Thus, the com- 
panies appear to be moving increasingly 
toward a relationship with the producing 
countries in which they are engaged primar- 
ily in exploration and production services. 

This shift in decisionmaking power from 
the companies to the producing-country gov- 
ernments has called into question some of 
the basic assumptions underlying consumer- 
government oil policies. Given the fact that 
the companies do not presently determine 
the level of production or of price, consumer 
governments are questioning whether they 
can rely on the major companies as the sole 
suppliers of oil. At the same time, the ap- 
parent disparity between rising oil prices 



66 



Department of State Bulletin 



and increasod company profits has sparked 
(iomands for more Kovcrnment control over 
the operations of the companies or, at a mini- 
mum, more public knowledge of these op- 
erations. 

We are now actively considering this 
question of the role of the companies in the 
Energy Coordinating Group. In cooperation 
with the other group members, we have tried 
to assess the future role of the companies 
and are in the process of making recommen- 
dations as to the type of action which might 
be taken. The United States has expressed 
its willingness to cooperate with the other 
ECG countries in the exchange of informa- 
tion on the operations of the companies 
which will be used to assess the equity of 
allocation and pricing policies. 

The diminished role of the companies has, 
not surprisingly, led various consuming- 
country governments to raise the issue of 
the extent to which they should now become 
directly involved in the oil industry. It seems 
inevitable that consumer governments .should 
and will become more directly involved in 
the oil industry. The problem is to define 
what this role should be. 

The ultimate character of the relationship 
between the companies and the producing 
governments is still not clear. The situation 
continues to evolve, and we should be very 
careful about taking actions which might ad- 
versely influence its outcome. For example, 
I think it is likely that market conditions 
could again develop so that companies might 
regain some of their former bargaining 
power over the price at which they will buy 
oil from the producers. 

At the .same time, the oil companies con- 
tinue to provide essential services in finding, 
lifting, shipping, refining, and distributing 
oil. The.se are .services which we and all 



other countries will continue to require for 
the foreseeable future. We should take care 
that we do not unnecessarily impede the 
companies' ability to provide such essential 
services. To do .so could have serious adverse 
impact on our own future energy supplies 
and, becau.se of the continuing importance of 
the international oil indu.stry, the energy sup- 
plies of the larger world market. Similarly, 
we should be careful not to reduce that com- 
petition which exi.sts among the major com- 
panies. This competition operates to the bene- 
fit of the consumer, and it should be pre- 
served. 

I do not think we should be under any il- 
lusions that direct negotiations between con- 
sumer and producer governments on the 
terms under which oil would be supplied 
might not create at least as many problems 
as they would solve. The companies have 
served and continue to serve a very useful 
role as a bull'er between governments and, 
to a large extent, help to insulate the oil 
market from purely political considerations. 

A more fundamental que.stion arises from 
the fact that the United States is still com- 
mitted to a market economy. It may be true 
that the oil market operates imperfectly, but 
we should be very careful in taking any ac- 
tion which might fundamentally alter the 
pre.sent market orientation of the oil indus- 
try. A market economy may not be perfect 
but, like democracy, it seems preferable to 
the alternatives. A situation in which gov- 
ernments are negotiating directly on price 
and supply might permanently preclude any 
reduction in price brought about by the mar- 
ket forces of supply and demand. We .should 
not now lock ourselves into a .system which 
foiTcloses the po.ssibility of benefiting from 
a shift in the supply-demand balance and 
lower prices. 



July 8, 1974 



67 



THE UNITED NATIONS 



U.S. Gives Views on Draft Convention on Registration 
of Objects Launched Into Outer Space 



The Legal Subcommittee of the U.N. Com- 
mittee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 
met at Geneva May 6-31. FoUowiyig is a 
statement made hi the subcommittee by U.S. 
Representative Herbert Reis on May 31, to- 
gether with key articles of the draft Con- 
vention on Registration of Objects Launched 
Into Older Space, which was approved by 
the subco7nmittee on May 28. 



STATEMENT BY MR. REIS 

The hour is late, and we do not want 
unnecessarily to tax the patience of the mem- 
bers of the Outer Space Legal Subcommittee. 
However, I would like on behalf of the U.S. 
delegation to put on record certain views 
concerning the draft Convention on Regis- 
tration of Objects Launched Into Outer 
Space, the negotiation of which this sub- 
committee has undertaken and completed. 
This is the fourth treaty negotiation success- 
fully concluded by the Outer Space Legal 
Subcommittee, which in 1966 completed the 
Outer Space Treaty, in 1967 the Astronaut 
Assistance and Return Agreement, and in 
1971 the Outer Space Liability Convention. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States takes 
some considerable pride in having been a 
principal negotiator of the now decade-old 
voluntary system for the registration of 
earth satellites and other space objects main- 
tained by the Secretary General of the 
United Nations on behalf of U.N. member 
states. 

The essential thought of the United States 
in negotiating what became General Assem- 



bly Resolution 1721B (XVI), adopted on 
December 20, 1961, was that for a variety 
of reasons it would be useful for the inter- 
national community to have at its disposal 
a central and public registry of manmade 
space objects. Resolution 1721B requests, 
and I quote, "States launching objects into 
orbit or beyond to furnish information 
promptly to the Committee on the Peaceful 
Uses of Outer Space, through the Secretary- 
General, for the registration of launchings" 
and asks the Secretary General to maintain 
a public registry of the information thus 
furnished. By way of footnote, the words 
"or beyond" in the phrase "into orbit or 
beyond" were included to insure coverage 
of such activities as deep space probes and 
lunar impact vehicles. 

Experience with this voluntary registry 
has, on the whole, been excellent. Nearly all 
U.N. member states that have conducted 
space activities have reported on the fact 
of launchings, notwithstanding a certain va- 
riety in the reporting format, the quantity 
of information disclosed, and the length of 
time between the launching and transmission 
of the report. Registration statements have 
been filed by the United States, Canada, 
France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, 
and the Soviet Union. 

The United States has adopted the prac- 
tice of reporting on its launchings at regu- 
lar intervals, generally about every two or 
three months. Consistent with our own no- 
tion that the registry should constitute a 
complete and current tabulation of manmade 
orbiting vehicles, the United States has from 
the very beginning also reported U.S. space 



68 



Department of State Bulletin 



objects that have deorbited. Our practice 
was not, however, universally copied. The 
United States has also reported in detail 
when a single object in orbit has split into 
a number of fragments having different 
orbits. 

Against the background of the 1961 vol- 
untary registration system, France and Can- 
ada began an effort to amplify and to put 
into meaningful treaty form both the inter- 
national census concept and an additional 
concept involving the national registration 
of space objects. The latter was inspired in 
part by familiar, if quite different, prac- 
tices in the fields of maritime transport and 
civil aviation. In 1968, France introduced 
a draft treaty proposal whose purpose was 
to provide for and regularize national regis- 
tration practices in the context of space 
activities. A second principal initiative was 
taken in 1972 by Canada which sought to 
strengthen and codify the 1961 registration 
system and insure the better functioning of 
the international registry of space vehicle 
information. Later that year Canada and 
France combined their efforts in a new 
joint proposal. The following year the United 
States introduced its own treaty proposal 
so as to give concrete indication of the views 
of our government concerning what would 
constitute an acceptable treaty instrument 
and, if I may say so, what would not.^ 

The negotiations for the Outer Space Li- 
ability Convention were concluded in 1971, 
and that convention was opened for signa- 
ture early in 1972. In-depth negotiations 
for the treaty now before us, the Registra- 
tion Convention, were begun at the Legal 
Subcommittee session later that year. Bear- 
ing in mind the complexity of the concerns 
of participating countries and the character 
of some of the issues involved either directly 
or in an ancillary manner, we have been 
neither surprised nor discouraged that the 
current negotiations required three sessions 



' For text of the U.S. draft treaty, see U.N. doc. 
A/AC.105/C.2/L.8.5, Mar. 19, 1973; for a U.S. state- 
ment made in the Legal Subcommittee of the U.N. 
Outer Space Committee on Mar. 27, 1973, see Bul- 
letin of May 28, 1973, p. 712. 



to complete. The subcommittee, like the par- 
ent Outer Space Committee and the commit- 
tee's other subsidiary bodies, has since its 
establishment in 1962 followed without ex- 
ception the guiding principle that all of our 
work will be done by consensus and we will 
not vote on any issue. There is thus now 
before us a Registration Convention which 
almost all delegations including the United 
States consider to further their mutual in- 
terests and to which no country has made 
objection. 

National Registration 

I would now like to make a few observa- 
tions with regard to the text of the Regis- 
tration Convention. In view of the short- 
ness of time remaining, this statement will 
by no means comprise an article-by-article 
analysis but will touch upon certain points 
which in our view warrant comment. 

Article II of the convention concerns na- 
tional registration, while articles III, IV, and 
V deal with the international census of space 
objects to be maintained by the U.N. Secre- 
tary General. Article II embodies the basic 
idea that each launching authority should, in 
an appropriate manner, record in a national 
registry the fact that a given object has been 
launched into earth orbit or into other sus- 
tained space transit. In our opinion, a pri- 
mary purpose of article II is to encourage 
every state engaging in space activities to 
establish and maintain an orderly national 
record of launchings. But each party to the 
convention remains entirely free to decide 
the manner in which it wishes to maintain 
its national registry. In particular, a na- 
tional registry may be maintained as a public 
document or, conversely, given no publicity. 
This is made clear by the third paragraph 
of article II, which states that "The contents 
of each registry and the conditions under 
which it is maintained shall be determined 
by the State of registry concerned." 

Another main aspect of article II is the 
fact that the text does not seek to lay down 
any requirement as to the time at which a 
launching state should furnish information 



July 8, 1974 



69 



concerning a particular launching. We know 
that some negotiators sought to have the 
treaty require notification in advance of 
launching, but they acquiesced in the view of 
the United States and other launching states 
that prelaunch notification was neither prac- 
ticable nor appropriate to a registration con- 
vention. 

A final observation with regard to article 
II is that it suggests a practical way to regis- 
ter the launching of a space vehicle which is 
the product of a bilateral or multilateral 
cooperative space activity. Paragraph 2 of 
article II provides that where there are two 
or more launching states in respect of any 
space vehicle, "they shall jointly determine 
which one of them shall register the ob- 
ject . . . ." However, in order to negate 
any unwarranted assumption that a particu- 
lar legal consequence might flow from a de- 
cision as to which coparticipant is to register, 
the text states that such a decision is "with- 
out prejudice to appropriate agreements 
concluded or to be concluded among the 
launching States on jurisdiction and control 
over the space object and over any personnel 
thereof." 

International Registry of Space Objects 

The central register of information con- 
cerning space vehicles which the U.N. Secre- 
tary General is to maintain is dealt with in 
articles III, IV, and V. Article III adopts the 
1973 U.S. proposal that "There shall be full 
and open access to the information in this 
Register," which is of course essential if the 
central register is to be of use to states, the 
scientific community, and other interested 
persons. 

Article IV sets forth the various types of 
information which a launching authority is 
expected to transmit to the Secretary Gen- 
eral for inclusion in the register. It may be 
noted that the text is carefully drafted to 
require each "State of registry" to furnish 
the specified information, not each "launch- 
ing State." Thus, in the case of a joint ven- 
ture, the coparticipant which has agreed to 



be the national registrant under article II is 
expected to furnish information to the Secre- 
tary General in accordance with article IV. 

As to the types of information to be sup- 
plied, article IV is in keeping with the report- 
ing practice employed for some 12 years by 
the United States and to a large extent 
paralleled by the Soviet Union and most 
other countries which have launched objects 
into space or constructed payloads whose 
launching has been accomplished by others. 
Accordingly, a state of registry is asked to 
transmit the name of the launching state or 
states ; an appropriate designator or registry 
number for the particular space object; the 
date and place of launch ; basic orbital pa- 
rameters, including nodal period, inclination, 
and apogee and perigee where, as in the 
usual case, these are relevant; and a brief 
description of the general function of the 
space object. 

A further word might be said in passing 
with respect to the words "launched into 
earth orbit or beyond." This constitutes the 
keystone phrase of the national registration 
provision in article II and is carried forward 
into article IV with regard to the transmis- 
sion of information to the international reg- 
ister by the state of registry. 

Parties thus will be reporting under article 
IV on the launching of objects into earth 
orbit or sustained space transit. On a volun- 
tary basis they may, if they wish, submit 
information concerning objects intended to 
be launched into orbit or beyond but which 
failed to achieve orbit. The United States 
has regularly done so. But article IV does 
not require or, for that matter, anticipate 
transmission of information concerning 
other objects that may briefly transit areas 
that could be considered as lying beyond air- 
space, such as sounding rockets, with which 
many negotiating countries have experi- 
mented, or ballistic missile test vehicles ; as 
would be expected, no state has filed infor- 
mation concerning such activities under 
Resolution 1721B. 

Paragraph 2 of article IV provides that a 
state of registry, if it wishes, may transmit 



70 



Department of State Bulletin 



additional information to the central regis- 
ter. Paragraph 3, we are pleased to observe, 
incorporates the U.S. idea that a state of 
registry should make every effort to inform 
the register when an object earlier reported 
as being in orbit no longer remains in orbit. 
This provision carries forward our concept, 
noted earlier, that the Secretary General's 
census of orbiting objects should be a net 
tabulation, not an inventory marked by re- 
dundancies or seriously out-of-date data. 

Article V is the final substantive provision 
of the convention dealing with the interna- 
tional register. It contains a formula worked 
out over a long period, and with difficulty, 
for dealing with the much-disputed issue of 
marking space vehicles. 

As delegations are aware, the United 
States continues to believe that no system of 
marking objects to be launched into space 
has yet been or is likely to be devised which 
is practicable — in the sense that marking 
employed will survive reentry — and economi- 
cal by not adding unacceptably to the costs 
of conducting space activities. We know that 
many delegations have held the view that, 
ideally, a registration convention should lay 
down an obligation requiring a launching 
country to mark each satellite and launching 
vehicle in some physical manner. Among the 
suggestions have been painting a flag or na- 
tional symbol or registration number on nose 
cones, inserting plaques in the interior of 
payloads, and color coding. 

Our contrary view has been concisely re- 
flected in the analysis done by the Outer 
Space Scientific and Technical Subcommittee 
in 1970. As is stated in the 1970 report of the 
Outer Space Committee, "For reasons of 
economy and safety, a marking system to 
survive re-entry is not considered technically 
practical at the present time" and "The basic 
resources ... in connexion with the identi- 
fication of space objects orbiting or surviv- 
ing re-entry lie in the several complementary 
national capabilities, particularly those of 
launching States." - 



'U.N. doc. A/8020. 



Notwithstanding our views, we have 
sought to move toward those who believe 
that marking is important and who hope it 
may someday become feasible. Accordingly, 
we have accepted a Canadian proposal which 
takes into account a suggestion put forward 
by the delegation of Brazil. This proposal, 
as agreed to and set out in article V, requires 
that if in a particular case an object has in 
fact been "marked," whether with a designa- 
tor or national registration number, the state 
of registry should notify the Secretary Gen- 
eral of this fact when it submits the other 
information to the international register. 

I would underscore the subcommittee's 
shared understanding that article V does not 
require marking but constitutes a require- 
ment for mandatory reporting in the case of 
voluntary "marking." As I believe you all 
know, the United States does not anticipate 
for the foreseeable future "marking" objects 
we launch. 



Other Identification Assistance 

We sought in another way to deal with the 
case where another country might experience 
difficulties in trying to identify the origin of 
a manmade object or fragment thereof which 
has come back to earth on its territory and 
caused damage or appeared in some way to 
constitute a hazard. This fear of inability to 
identify is, of course, the essential stimulus 
underlying the desire for mandatory "mark- 
ing." The U.S. draft treaty of March 1973 
thus proposed that a party having difficulty 
identifying a space object in the circum- 
stances I have described should be able to 
ask for and receive appropriate assistance 
from a party which possesses advanced space 
monitoring or tracking facilities. Developed 
with the cooperation of a number of coun- 
tries, including, in particular, France, Japan, 
the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, 
this suggestion is incorporated in article VI 
of the convention. 

The article also lays down a reasonable re- 
quirement for the requesting party to accom- 
pany its request with information, furnished 



July 8, 1974 



71 



to the best of its ability, concerning the time, 
nature, and circumstances of the event. Spe- 
cific assistance arrangements would be ex- 
pected to be worked out on an appropriate 
ad hoc basis. 

U.N. Secretary General as Depositary 

One brief word with regard to the final 
clauses of the convention, concerning signa- 
ture, ratification, and so forth. We are glad 
that the subcommittee has accepted the pro- 
posal of the distinguished Representative of 
Argentina that the U.N. Secretary General 
should serve as the depositary for the Regis- 
tration Convention. We agree with his thesis 
that it is appropriate for the Secretary Gen- 
eral to serve as the depositary for any 
general multilateral treaty that may be 
concluded within the framework of the 
United Nations, and it is the more appro- 
priate that he should serve as depositary for 
this particular convention, since it is he who 
is to maintain the international register. We 
are glad that political developments with re- 
gard to problems posed by attempted signa- 
tures of, or adherence to, U.N. treaties by 
unrecognized regimes have made possible our 
now joining in support of this view. With 
regard to possible future problems in this 
context, we attach importance to the willing- 
ness of the Secretary General to implement 
the "all States" accession and related clauses 
by consulting in the event of serious contro- 
versy, in accordance with the statement 
delivered by the U.N. Legal Counsel on 
December 14, 1973 concerning the manner 
in which the Secretary General would in- 
tend to act under the similar provision of 
the Convention on the Prevention and 
Punishment of Crimes Against Internation- 
ally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic 
Agents. 

In a nutshell, we consider that the Regis- 
tration Convention provides a reasonable 
and mutually acceptable treaty framework 
for national registration of objects launched 
into earth orbit or beyond and for the 
maintenance of an international register of 



orbiting space vehicles. We acknowledge the 
contribution made by many delegations to 
this work and take pride in the role played 
by the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, we would conclude by ex- 
pressing the thanks of the U.S. delegation 
for the courtesy and cooperation shown by 
other negotiators in the Outer Space Legal 
Subcommittee. After long efforts and not a 
few obstacles, the members of the subcom- 
mittee have joined in developing a Regis- 
tration Convention which we hope will find 
broad acceptance, be widely adhered to, and 
once in force, prove a useful addition in the 
years ahead to the body of international law 
concerning the peaceful exploration and use 
of outer space. 



KEY ARTICLES OF DRAFT CONVENTION ^ 

Article II 

1. When a space object is launched into earth orbit 
or beyond, the launching State shall register the 
space object by means of an entry in an appropriate 
registry which it shall maintain. Each launching 
State shall inform the Secretary-General of the 
United Nations of the establishment of such a regis- 
try. 

2. Where there are two or more launching States 
in respect of any such space object, they shall jointly 
determine which one of them shall register the object 
in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, bear- 
ing in mind the provisions of Article VIII of the 
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of 
States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, 
including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, and 
without prejudice to appropriate agreements con- 
cluded or to be concluded among the launching States 
on jurisdiction and control over the space object and 
over any personnel thereof. 

3. The contents of each registry and the conditions 
under which it is maintained shall be determined 
by the State of Registry concerned. 

Article III 

1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations 
shall maintain a Register in which the information 
furnished in accordance with Article IV shall be 
recorded. 

2. There shall be full and open access to the infor- 
mation in this Register. 



'For the complete text, see U.N. doc. A/AC.105/ 
C.2/13. 



72 



Department of State Bulletin 



Article IV 

1. Each State of registry shall furnish to the Sec- 
retary-General of the United Nations, as soon as 
practicable, the following information concerning 
each space object carried on its registry: 

(a) Name of launching State or States; 

(b) An appropriate designator of the space object 
or its registration number; 

(c) Date and territory or location of launch; 

(d) Basic orbital parameters, including: 

(i) Nodal period, 

(ii) Inclination, 

(iii) Apogee, and 

(iv) Perigee; 

(e) General function of the space object. 

2. Each State of registry may, from time to time, 
provide the Secretary-General of the United Nations 
with additional information concerning a space ob- 
ject carried on its registry. 

3. Each State of registry shall notify the Secre- 
tary-General of the United Nations, to the greatest 
extent feasible and as soon as practicable, of space 
objects concerning which it has previously trans- 
mitted information, and which have been but no 
longer are in earth orbit. 

Article V 

Whenever a space object launched into earth orbit 
or beyond is marked with the designator or regis- 
tration number referred to in Article IV (1) (b), or 
both, the State of registry shall notify the Secretary- 
General of this fact when submitting the information 
regarding the space object in accordance with Article 
IV. In such case, the Secretary-General of the United 
Nations shall record this notification in the Register. 

Article VI 

Where the application of the provisions of this 
Convention has not enabled a State Party to identify 
a space object which has caused damage to it or to 
any of its natural or juridical persons, or which may 
be of a hazardous or deleterious nature, other States 
Parties, including in particular States possessing 
space monitoring and tracking facilities, shall re- 
spond to the greatest extent feasible to a request by 
that State Party, or transmitted through the Secre- 
tary-General on its behalf, for assistance under 
equitable and reasonable conditions in the identifica- 
tion of the object. A State Party making such a 
request shall, to the greatest extent feasible, submit 
information as to the time, nature and circumstances 
of the events giving rise to the request. Arrange- 
ments under which such assistance shall be rendered 
shall be the object of agreement between the parties 
concerned. 



United States Supports Admission 
of Bangladesh to the U.N. 

Folloiving is a statement made in the U.N. 
Security Council on June 10 by U.S. Deputy 
Representative William E. Schaufele, Jr. 

USUN press release 67 dated June 10 

My delegation was pleased to concur in 
the recommendation of the Committee on the 
Admission of New Members regarding the 
application of the Government of the Peo- 
ple's Republic of Bangladesh and to join 
other members of the Council in recommend- 
ing to the General Assembly the admission 
of Bangladesh to membership. ^ 

The United States recognized the Govern- 
ment of the People's Republic of Bangladesh 
on April 4, 1972. Formal diplomatic rela- 
tions were established on May 18 of that 
year. My government has had continuous 
representation in Dacca since 1949. Through 
these years, ties of trade, shared concern for 
economic development, and personal friend- 
ships have grown even stronger. Conse- 
quently the U.S. Government has taken par- 
ticular satisfaction in the development of the 
excellent bilateral relations which now exist 
between our two countries. 

The existence of Bangladesh has not been 
a matter of dispute during the unusually 
long period taken to consider the application 
just decided upon by this Council. Rather 
the questions raised by some members have 
concerned the settlement of issues that were 
still unresolved at the time of the cessation 
of hostilities. We join others in expressing 
gratification regarding the return of prison- 
ers of war in accordance with the Geneva 
Conventions of 1949 and with the 1971 Se- 
curity Council resolution. 

My government considers that the efforts 
of the former belligerents in South Asia to 
initiate a process of regional reconciliation 



" The Council on June 10 adopted without vote a 
resolution (S/RES/351 (1974)) recommending to the 
General Assembly "that the People's Republic of 
Bangladesh be admitted to membership in the United 
Nations." 



July 8, 1974 



73 



deserve the encouragement and admiration 
of all peaceloving nations. We fully endorse 
the concept that regional problems should 
be solved by negotiation among the nations 
most immediately involved in the region it- 
self. The determination of the Governments 
of Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan to do so 
has given new life to the hope that historic 
rivalries in the subcontinent can soon give 
way to fruitful cooperative relationships. 

We should note that the Government of 
Bangladesh, under the leadership of Prime 
Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, has played 
a statesmanlike role in these developments. 
Bangladesh has over the past 21/2 years 
clearly demonstrated its dedication to the 
ideals and to the charter of this organiza- 
tion. 

The U.S. Government looks forward with 
sincere pleasure to the assumption by Ban- 
gladesh of its rightful place in this communi- 
ty of nations. I am confident that Bangladesh 
will contribute a constructive and fresh new 
voice to the deliberations of the United Na- 
tions. 



United Nations Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Mimeographed or processed documents (such as 
those listed below) may he consulted at depository 
libraries in the United States. U.N. printed publi- 
cations may be purchased from the Sales Section 
of the United Nations, United Nations Plaza, N.Y. 
10017. 



General Assembly 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space : 
Report on the Working Group on Direct Broad- 
casting Satellites on the work of its fifth ses- 
sion. A/AC.105/127. April 2, 1974. 44 pp. 
Progress report (1973/74) of the World Meteoro- 
logical Organization on its tropical cyclone 
project. A/AC.105/130. April 4, 1974. 3 pp. 



Economic and Social Council 

World Food Conference. Appraisal of prospective 
food deficits and food aid needs. Report of the Di- 
rector General of the Food and Agriculture Orga- 
nization. E/5455. February 22, 1974. 11 pp. 

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 



for 1973 (Summary). E/5456. February 22, 1974. 
5 pp. 

Consideration of the economic and social situation 
in the Sudano-Sahelian region stricken by drought 
and measures to be taken for the benefit of that 
region. Report of the Secretary General. E/5457. 
February 25, 1974. 6 pp. 

Human Rights Questions. Decade for action to 
combat racism and racial discrimination. Summary 
of information concerning activities of govern- 
ments and international organizations. Note by the 
Secretary-General, E/5475. April 11, 1974. 3 pp. 



TREATY INFORMATION 



Current Actions 



MULTILATERAL 

Aviation 

Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure 
of aircraft. Done at The Hague December 16, 
1970. Entered into force October 14, 1971. TIAS 
7192. 

Accession deposited: Saudi Arabia (with reserva- 
tion), June 14, 1974. 

Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts 
against the safety of civil aviation. Done at Mon- 
treal September 23, 1971. Entered into force Janu- 
ary 26, 1973. TIAS 7570. 

Accession deposited: Saudi Arabia (with reserva- 
tion), June 14, 1974. 

Migration, European 

Constitution of the Intergovernmental Committee for 
European Migration. Adopted at Venice October 
19, 1953. Entered into force November 30, 1954. 
TIAS 3197. 
Admission to membership: Venezuela, December 

4, 1973; Cyprus, May 28, 1974. 
Withdrawal: Australia, December 31, 1973. 

Terrorism — Protection of Diplomats 

Convention on the prevention and punishment of 
crimes against internationally protected persons, 
including diplomatic agents. Done at New York 
December 14, 1973.' 

Signature: German Democratic Republic (with 
reservation). May 23, 1974. 

Weights and Measures 

Convention establishing an International Organiza- 
tion of Legal Metrology. Done at Paris October 



' Not in force. 



74 



Department of State Bulletin 



12, 1955, and amended January 18, 1968. Entered 
into force May 28, 1958; for the United States 
October 22, 1972. TIAS 7533. 

Adherence deposited: Democratic People's Repub- 
lic of Korea, May 9, 1974. 

Wheat 

Protocol modifying and extending the wheat trade 
convention (part of the international wheat agree- 
ment) 1971. Done at Washington April 2, 1974. 
Entered into force June 19, 1974, with respect to 
certain provisions; July 1, 1974, with respect to 
other provisions. 

Ratifications deposited: Denmark, India, Ireland, 
Korea, Sweden, June 17, 1974; Australia, Vati- 
can City State, June 18, 1974. 
Approval deposited: Norway, June 18, 1974. 
Accessions deposited: Barbados, June 18, 1974; 

Saudi Arabia, June 17, 1974. 
Declarations of provisional application deposited: 
Guatemala, June 12, 1974; Peru, June 14, 1974; 
Switzerland, United States, June 17, 1974; Ecua- 
dor (with observation), Greece, Japan, Kenya, 
Netherlands, June 18, 1974. 
Senate advice and consent to ratification: June 21, 
1974. 
Protocol modifying and extending the food aid con- 
vention (part of the international wheat agree- 
ment) 1971. Done at Washington April 2, 1974. 
Entered into force June 19, 1974, with respect to 
certain provisions; July 1, 1974, with respect to 
other provisions. 
Ratifications deposited: Sweden, June 17, 1974; 

Australia, June 18, 1974. 
Accessions deposited: Denmark, United Kingdom, 

June 17, 1974. 
Declarations of provisional application deposited: 
Belgium, European Economic Community, 
France, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, 
Italy, Switzerland, United States, June 17, 1974; 
Argentina, Japan, Netherlands, June 18, 1974. 
Senate advice and consent to ratification: June 21, 
1974. 



BILATERAL 

Canada 

Agreement for promotion of safety on the Great 
Lakes by means of radio, 1973, with technical reg- 
ulations. Signed at Ottawa February 26, 1973. 
Enters into force May 6, 1975. 
Proclaimed by the President: June 8, 1974. 

Egypt 

Arrangement relating to assistance by the United 
States in the clearance of mines and unexploded 
ordnance from the Suez Canal. Effected by ex- 
change of notes at Cairo April 13 and 25, 1974. 
Entered into force April 25, 1974. 

Lebanon 

Air transport agreement, with exchange of notes. 
Signed at Beirut September 1, 1972. Entered into 
force provisionally September 1, 1972. TIAS 7546. 
Entered into force definitively : June 5, 1974. 



Agreement relating to air transport services, and 
exchange of notes. Signed at Beirut August 11, 
1946. Entered into force April 23, 1947. TIAS 1632. 
Terminated: June 5, 1974. 

Understandings relating to the air transport agree- 
ment of August 11, 1946 (TIAS 1632). Eifected by 
exchange of notes at Beirut August 27, 1970. En- 
tered into force August 27, 1970. TIAS 6951. 
Terminated: June 5, 1974. 

Paraguay 

Treaty on extradition. Signed at Asuncion May 24, 
1973. Entered into force May 7, 1974. 
Proclaimed by the President: June 8, 1974. 



PUBLICATIONS 



GPO Sales Publications 

Publications may be ordered by catalog or stock 
number from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20Jtt02. 
A 25-percent discount is made on orders for 100 or 
more copies of any one publication mailed to the 
same address. Remittances, payable to the Superin- 
tendent of Documents, tnust accompany orders. 
Prices shown below, which include domestic postage, 
are subject to change. 

Background Notes: Short, factual summaries which 
describe the people, history, government, economy, 
and foreign relations of each country. Each contains 
a map, a list of principal government officials and 
U.S. diplomatic and consular officers, and a reading 
list. (A complete set of all Background Notes cur- 
rently in stock — at least 140 — $16.35; 1-year sub- 
scription service for approximately 77 updated or 
new Notes — $14.50; plastic binder— $1.50.) Single 
copies of those listed below are available at 25^ each. 



Gabon 


. . . Cat. 


No. S1.123:G11 




Pub. 


7968 4 pp. 


Guyana .... 


. . . Cat. 


No. S1.123:G99 




Pub. 


8095 4 pp. 


Honduras .... 


. . Cat. 


No. S1.123:H75/2 




Pub. 


8184 8- pp. 


Iceland .... 


. . Cat. 


No. S1.123:IC2 




Pub. 


8227 4 pp. 


Poland 


. . Cat. 


No. S1.123:P75 




Pub. 


8020 8 pp. 


Somalia .... 


. . Cat. 


No. S1.123:S05 




Pub. 


7881 8 pp. 


Syria 


, . Cat. 


No. S1.123:SY8 




Pub. 


7761 8 pp. 


Viet-Nam, North . . 


. . Cat. 


No. S1.123:N81V 




Pub. 


8505 8 pp. 


Yugoslavia . . . . 


. . Cat. 


No. S1.123:Y9 




Pub. 


7773 8 pp. 



July 8, 1974 



75 



Trade With People's Republic of China. Current In- 
formation Supplement in the Issues in United States 
Foreign Policy series which supplies general infor- 
mation on trade with the P.R.C., trade services (U.S. 
Government and private) with addresses, and names 
and addresses of state trading corporations of the 
P.R.C. Pub. 8666. East Asian and Pacific Series 
206. 4 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. S1.38:206). 

Cultural Relations — American Information Center in 
Sarajevo. Agreement with the Socialist Federal Re- 
public of Yugoslavia. TIAS 7757. 7 pp. 25(*. (Cat. 
No. 89.10:7757). 

Atomic Energy — Cooperation for Civil Uses. Proto- 
col with Japan amending the agreement of February 
26, 1968, as amended. TIAS 7758. 33 pp. iOf. (Cat. 
No. S9.10:7758). 

Status of Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany. 

TIAS 7759. 8 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7759). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Jordan 
amending the agreement of May 20, 1973, as 
amended. TIAS 7760. 3 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. S9.10: 
7760). 

Fisheries in the Western Region of the Middle At- 
lantic Ocean. Agreement with the Socialist Republic 
of Romania. TIAS 7761. 23 pp. S5<?. (Cat. No. S9. 

10:7761). 

Convention on International Liability for Damage 
Caused by Space Objects. TIAS 7762. 96 pp. $1.40. 
(Cat. No. 89.10:7762). 

Control and Eradication of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. 

Agreement with Colombia. TIAS 7763. 24 pp. 75(^ 
(Cat. No. 89.10:7763). 

Air Transport Services. Agreement with Mexico ex- 
tending the agreement of August 15, 1960, as 
amended and extended. TIAS 7764. 3 pp. 25^. (Cat. 
No. 89.10:7764). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Indo- 
nesia amending the agreement of February 14, 1973. 
TIAS 7766. 2 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7766). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreements with the 
Khmer Republic amending the agreement of July 25, 
1973, as amended. TIAS 7767. 11 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 
89.10:7767). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam. TIAS 7768. 8 pp. 25(*. (Cat. 
No. 89.10:7768). 



Refugee Relief in the Republic of Viet-Nam, Laos and 
the Khmer Republic. TIAS 7769. 4 pp. 25('. (Cat. 

No. 89.10:7769). 

Fisheries — Shrimp. Agreement with Brazil extend- 
ing the agreement of May 9, 1972. TIAS 7770. 3 pp. 
25('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7770). 

Air Charter Services. Agreement with the Nether- 
lands. TIAS 7771. 5 pp. 25^ (Cat. No. 89.10:7771). 

Establishment of Temporary Purchasing Commis- 
sion. Agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics. TIAS 7772. 13 pp. 25<'. (Cat. No. 89.10: 

7772). 

Atomic Energy — Cooperation for Civil Uses. Agrree- 
ment with Switzerland amending the agreement of 
December 30, 1965. TIAS 7773. 19 pp. 30t (Cat. 
No. 89.10:7773). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Bangla- 
desh amending the agreement of August 6, 1973, as 
amended. TIAS 7774. 3 pp. 25c'. (Cat. No. 89.10: 

7774). 



DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE 



Confirmations 

The Senate on June 12 confirmed the following 
nominations: 

Pierre R. Graham to be Ambassador to the Re- 
public of Upper Volta. 

Deane R. Hinton to be Ambassador to the Republic 
of Zaire. 

Robert P. Paganelli to be Ambassador to the State 
of Qatar. 

Robert A. Stevenson to be Ambassador to the Re- 
public of Malawi. 

Seymour Weiss to be Ambassador to the Com- 
monwealth of the Bahamas. 

William D. WoUe to be Ambassador to the Sultan- 
ate of Oman. 



76 



Department of State Bulletin 



INDEX July 8, 197 i Vol. LXXI, No. 1828 



Africa. Summary of U.S. Drought Relief for 
Sahel Africa (statement by U.S. Mission 
to the United Nations) 47 

Asia 

Foreign Assistance and East Asian Develop- 
ment (Ingersoll) 60 

The Foreign Assistance Program: A Vital 
Tool in Building a More Cooperative World 
(Kissinger) 49 

Bangladesh. United States Supports Admis- 
sion of Bangladesh to the U.N. (Schaufele) 73 

Congress 

Confirmations (Graham, Hinton, Paganelli, 

Stevenson, Weiss, Wolle) 76 

Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

Policy 59 

Foreign Assistance and East Asian Develop- 
ment (Ingersoll) 60 

The Foreign Assistance Program: A Vital 
Tool in Building a More Cooperative World 
(Kissinger) 49 

Government and Industry Role in Assuring 

Energy Supplies (Katz) 64 

Maintaining a Momentum for Middle East 
Peace Through Diplomacy and Assistance 
(Sisco) 56 

Senate Confirms Members of ACDA Advisory 
Committee 55 

Department and Foreign Service. Confirma- 
tions (Graham, Hinton, Paganelli, Steven- 
son, Weiss, Wolle) 76 

Disarmament. Senate Confirms Members of 
ACDA Advisory Committee 55 

Economic Affairs. Government and Industry 
Role in Assuring Energy Supplies (Katz) 64 

Energy. Government and Industry Role in 
Assuring Energy Supplies (Katz) ... 64 

Europe 

North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting 
Adopts Declaration on Atlantic Relations 
(Kissinger, communique, declaration) . . 37 

Secretary Holds News Conference at Bad 
Reichenhall, Germany 45 

Foreign Aid 

Foreign Assistance and East Asian Develop- 
ment (Ingersoll) 60 

The Foreign Assistance Program: A Vital 
Tool in Building a More Cooperative World 
(Kissinger) 49 

Maintaining a Momentum for Middle East 
Peace Through Diplomacy and Assistance 
(Sisco) . 56 

Summary of U.S. Drought Relief for Sahel 
Africa (statement by U.S. Mission to the 
United Nations) 47 

Latin America. The Foreign Assistance Pro- 
gram: A Vital Tool in Building a More 
Cooperative World (Kissinger) .... 49 

Middle East 

The Foreign Assistance Program: A Vital 
Tool in Building a More Cooperative World 
(Kissinger) 49 

Maintaining a Momentum for Middle East 
Peace Through Diplomacy and Assistance 
(Sisco) 56 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting 
Adopts Declaration on Atlantic Relations 
(Kissinger, communique, declaration) . . 37 

Secretary Holds News Conference at Bad 
Reichenhall, Germany 45 



Publications. GPO Sales Publications ... 75 

Space. U.S. Gives Views on Draft Convention 
on Registration of Objects Launched Into 
Outer Space (Reis, key articles of draft 
convention) 68 

Spain. Spanish Foreign Minister Cortina 
Visits Washington (joint communique) . . 47 

Treaty Information. Current Actions ... 74 

United Nations 

United Nations Documents 74 

U.S. Gives Views on Draft Convention on 
Registration of Objects Launched Into 
Outer Space (Reis, key articles of draft 

convention) 68 

United States Supports Admission of Bangla- 
desh to the U.N. (Schaufele) 73 



Name Index 

Graham, Pierre R 76 

Hinton, Dean R 76 

Ingersoll, Robert S 60 

Katz, Julius L 64 

Kissinger, Secretary 37, 45, 49 

Paganelli, Robert P 76 

Reis, Herbert 68 

Schaufele, William E., Jr 73 

Sisco, Joseph J 56 

Stevenson, Robert A 76 

Weiss, Seymour 76 

Wolle, William D 76 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: June 17-23 

Press releases may be obtained from the 
Office of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Releases issued prior to June 17 which ap- 
pear in this issue of the BULLETIN are Nos. 
241 of June 7, 247 of June 12, and 249 of 
June 14. 

Subject 

Government Advisory Committee 
on International Book and Li- 
brary Programs, July 18. 

Kissinger: news conference, Je- 
rusalem, June 17. 

Kissinger: arrival statement, Ot- 
tawa, June 17. 

U.S. delegation to the Law of the 
Sea Conference, Caracas, June 
20-Aug. 29. 

Kissinger: news conference, Ot- 
tawa. 

Conference on World Population 
Year, Department of State, 
June 27. 

NATO ministerial meeting, Otta- 
wa, June 18-19: communique. 

NATO Declaration on Atlantic 
Relations, Ottawa, June 19. 

Visit of Spanish Foreign Minis- 
ter: joint communique. 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 



No. 


Date 


*251 


6/17 


t252 


6/18 


*253 


6/18 


*254 


6/18 


255 


6/19 


*256 


6/19 


257 


6/20 


258 


6/20 


259 


6/22 



SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Special Fourth-Class Rale 
Book 




Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, OflBce 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 



/.3: 




THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BULLETIN 



Volume LXXI 



No. 1829 



July 15, 1974 



PRESIDENT NIXON VISITS FIVE MIDDLE EAST NATIONS 

Exchanges of Remarks With Foreign Leaders 
and Texts of Joint Statements 77 

SECRETARY KISSINGER'S NEWS CONFERENCE 
OF JUNE 17 AT JERUSALEM 123 



THE OFFICIAL WEEKLY RECORD OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 



For index see inside back cover 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLET I 



2 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

PRICE: 

52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 
approved by the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 
Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 



Vol. LXXI, No. 1829 
July 15, 1974 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information i» 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 



President Nixon Visits Five Middle East Nations 



President Nixon left Washington on June 10 for a visit to 
Egypt (June 12-lU), Saudi Arabia (June H-15), Syria (June 
15-16), Israel (June 16-17), and Jordan (June 17-18). He also 
visited Atistria (June 10-12) and Portugal (June 18-19). Fol- 
lotving are remarks exchanged by the President during the trip 
with Chancellor Bruno Kreisky of Aitstria, President Anwar Sa- 
dat of Egypt, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, President Hafiz Asad 
of Syria, President Ephraim Katzir of Israel, King Hussein of 
Jordan, and President Antonio de Spinola of Portugal, and his 
exchanges of remarks with Vice President Ford at the White 
House upon departure and arrival, together with the texts of 
joint statements issued in Egypt, Israel, and Jordan. 



DEPARTURE, WASHINGTON, JUNE 10 

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated June 17 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. Vice President, members of the diplo- 
matic corps, members of the Cabinet, and all 
of our friends who have been so gracious to 
come here to see us off on what we hope and 
believe will be another journey for peace: It 
seems just a little while ago that we saw 
many of you when we left in 1972, first on a 
trip to the People's Republic of China early 
in that year, and later on a trip to the Soviet 
Union. Both of those journeys were ones that 
had a profound impact not only on the rela- 
tions between the nations involved but also 
on building a structure of peace for the whole 
world. 

This trip will take us to a part of the 
world that has known nothing but war over 
the past 30 to 40 years. As we go to five 
countries, four of which have never been 
visited by an American President before, we 
realize that one trip is not going to solve dif- 
ferences that are very deep, that go back in 



some cases many years and in some cases 
centuries, but we also realize that a begin- 
ning has to be made. As a great philosopher 
once said, the beginning is often the most 
important part of the work. And the begin- 
ning has been made toward a different rela- 
tion and a better relation between the na- 
tions in that area. 

We have been proud to play a part in that 
beginning. The disengagement between Is- 
rael and Egypt and later between Israel and 
Syria, and on the part of Secretary of State 
Kissinger and others and that the United 
States played, is one that we can be proud 
of. But now as I go there it will provide an 
opportunity to reaffirm support for the ini- 
tiatives that have been undertaken, to ex- 
plore ways that we can have new and better 
relations between the United States and each 
nation in the area, and also to explore ways 
in which those nations in the area may have 
better relations with each other and build 
toward the permanent and lasting and just 
and equitable peace that all of them, we 
know, want and certainly that we want. 

As we go, above everything else, we will 



July 15, 1974 



77 



bring to all the people that we will see, most 
of whom we will not have a chance to meet 
personally, but we will bring them, we know 
from the hearts of all Americans, whatever 
their partisan affiliation, the best wishes, the 
hopes for peace and for friendship not only 
between our countries and theirs but among 
all countries in that area. And with that 
kind of backing, with that kind of message 
from the people of the United States, we be- 
lieve this trip, like the other journeys we 
have taken, will contribute to that lasting 
peace to which we, as Americans, are so 
deeply dedicated. 

Remarks by Vice President Ford 

Mr. President: On behalf of everybody 
here this morning on this beautiful day in 
the Nation's Capital, let me express our ap- 
preciation for the great job you have done, 
and on behalf of 211 million Americans who 
I think join us in wishing you and Mrs. Nix- 
on well, we will look forward to the successes 
which will, I think, materialize, building on 
what has been done in the past as we broaden 
the effort and broaden the accomplishments 
for peace. 

We wish you well. Our prayers will be with 
you every day you are gone, and we look for- 
ward to a wonderful and successful trip. Let 
us all say, on behalf of all Americans, God 
bless you. 



ARRIVAL, SALZBURG, AUSTRIA, JUNE 10 



white House press release (Salzburg) dated June 10 

Remarks by Chancellor Kriesky ' 

Mr. President : I would like to welcome you 
and Mrs. Nixon, as well as your party, on be- 
half of the Austrian Government, on Aus- 
trian soil. 

I welcome you in the City of Salzburg. 
When you were here last time, that was 
shortly before your trip to the Soviet Union, 
which promoted so successfully the lessening 



^ Chancellor Kreisky spoke in German. 



of tension throughout the world. This time, 
you have come to Salzburg before your jour- 
ney to Cairo and to other countries in the 
Middle East, and we hope that you will be a 
pacemaker for peace in that part of the 
world. 

It is very fortunate, as I also found re- 
cently in Moscow, that the world powers, the 
United States and the Soviet Union, are mak- 
ing such strenuous efforts for the mainte- 
nance of peace in the world, and in that en- 
deavor we wish you all the best luck. 

So once again, welcome to Austria. 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Chancellor Kreisky, Mr. Foreign Minister, 
all of our distinguished guests : We are very 
grateful for your very warm words and for 
the welcome we have received here in Aus- 
tria, which is world famed for its hospital- 
ity. I 

As you pointed out, we had the privilege 
of spending a day in Salzburg, preparing 
for our first summit meeting in Moscow just 
two years ago. That journey not only created 
a new relationship and a new direction inso- 
far as the two major powers, the United 
States and the Soviet Union, were concerned ; 
but it also contributed to a lessening of ten- 
sion, as you have indicated, and, we believe, 
to peace for all nations in the world. 

And now tomorrow, just two years later, 
we will be spending another day in Salzburg, 
preparing for a trip to the Mideast. Every 
nation in the world has a stake in maintain- 
ing peace in the Mideast, and we trust that 
this journey, just as the one two years ago, 
will contribute not only to peace in that area 
but to peace generally for all nations in the 
world. 

Mr. Chancellor, we want to express appre- 
ciation on behalf not only of the United States 
but for all nations for the part that Austria 
is playing in furnishing the largest contin- 
gent for the U.N. Force which is preserving 
the area in the Golan Heights which has re- 
sulted from the disengagement talks between 
Syria and Israel. 

And I finally want to say that tomorrow I 



78 



Department of State Bulletin 



shall look forward to having the opportunity 
to meet with you again and to meet with the 
Foreign Minister to get your views, not only 
on the problems of the Mideast but on the 
problems of Europe and on international 
problems generally. We found our talks very 
useful and very helpful two years ago, and I 
am sure that you can provide insight into 
these problems on this occasion as well. 

And in a sense I think we can say that this 
great free and independent nation, Austria, 
now symbolizes a bridge between East and 
West, a bridge of peace. 



THE VISIT TO EGYPT 



ARRIVAL, CAIRO, JUNE 12 

White House press release (Cairo) dated June 12 

Remarks by President Sadat - 

It is with great pleasure that we see among 
us President Nixon and Mrs. Nixon. It is an 
added pleasure that President Nixon has ac- 
cepted my invitation to visit Egypt at this 
particular and crucial phase which the Mid- 
dle East is going through. 

Coming at this very junction when the 
Middle East crisis is geared toward a peace- 
ful, honorable, and just settlement. President 
Nixon's official visit acquires a major sig- 
nificance. The role of the United States under 
the leadership of President Nixon is vital to 
promote peace and tranquillity in the area. 

It is a great challenge, but I am convinced 
that with good will and determination, states- 
men of the stature of President Nixon are 
apt to meet it. The challenge is whether to 
substitute this precarious situation of cease- 
fire by a just and durable peace so that our 
area will be ushered into an era of normalcy. 

It is with vision, forwardness, and collec- 
tive human efforts that the Middle East will 
be afforded at long last the proper opportu- 
nity to contribute positively to the various 



^ President Sadat's remarks at the arrival cere- 
mony, his toasts at the dinners in Cairo and Alex- 
andria, and his remarks upon signing the Principles 
of Relations and Cooperation were delivered in Ara- 
bic. 



endeavors to build and cement the global 
strategy for peace and progress. 

I am not only convinced but also confident 
that the visit of President Nixon will be a 
milestone in the .shaping and evolution of 
American-Egyptian relations on a sound and 
solid basis and in such a manner that I hope 
would compensate for the long years of strain 
and lack of understanding. 

As you will soon witness, Mr. President, 
the Egyptian people, who have given the 
world its first civilization, will express to 
you, and through you to the American peo- 
ple, their sentiments and friendship. The re- 
cent efforts of the United States, exerted un- 
der your leadership and wise guidance, has 
led in a very concrete way to the consolida- 
tion of the cease-fire decisions of the Security 
Council both on the Syrian and Egyptian 
fronts; and despite the fact that this is but 
one step, it is, however, a right one and in 
the right direction, and without it no prog- 
ress could have been achieved on the long 
road to peace. 

As you have mentioned, Mr. President, on 
many occasions, starting by your inaugural 
statement, you have dedicated this era for 
peace through negotiations rather than con- 
frontation. 

I am fully aware that you share with me 
the belief that this is a unique moment and a 
major turning point which should not be lost 
but, rather, grasped with vigilance, persist- 
ence, and dedication to build a durable and 
honorable peace. 

On my behalf and on behalf of the Egyp- 
tian people and in my own name, I welcome 
you, Mr. President, and Mrs. Nixon. 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. President, our very distinguished 
guests, and ladies and gentlemen : Mr. Presi- 
dent, we have been greatly touched by your 
generous remarks, and we have also been 
enormously moved by the reception we have 
received as we passed through the streets of 
Cairo today. You have spoken of the fact 
that we stand here at a time in history which 
could well prove to be not only a landmark. 



July 15, 1974 



79 



but which could well be remembered cen- 
turies from now as one of those great turn- 
ing points which affects mankind for the bet- 
ter. 

It has been too long that our two nations 
have been through a period of misunder- 
standing and noncooperation, and today 
marks the day when by your meeting with 
the President of the United States— the two 
Presidents of Egypt and the United States 
meeting together — we cement the founda- 
tions of a new relationship, a new relation- 
ship between two great peoples, two great 
peoples who will dedicate themselves in the 
future to working together for great causes. 

I speak first of the cause of progress for 
the people of Egypt and for our own people. 
As we traveled through the streets and saw 
hundreds of thousands of people greeting us, 
as you have said, from their hearts, it made 
us both realize what we owe to them and 
what we owe to future generations, and so 
we want to work together for progress, eco- 
nomic progress for the people of Egypt, for 
all peoples in this area and in the world. And 
the United States welcomes the opportunity 
to cooperate with you and your government 
in your programs for economic progress to 
which you are devoting and dedicating so 
much of your very great energies today. 

And also, as we saw those hundreds of 
thousands of people, we thought of another 
great goal toward which we shall and will 
work together : that is the goal of peace. We 
have already made progress toward that goal. 
Certain roadblocks along the long and diffi- 
cult road toward permanent peace have been 
removed. The disengagement on the Egyp- 
tian-Israeli front and then later on the Syr- 
ian-Israeli front laid the foundation for fur- 
ther progress in the future. 

Let us today recognize that as we meet, 
then, our goals are twofold : Economic prog- 
ress, progress in all fields for the people of 
your country, the people of this area, and 
peace, peace which is permanent and just and 
equitable, because without peace there can be 
no progress and without progress and hope 
there can be no peace. 

And, Mr. President, finally, I should like in 



the presence of your people to pay a tribute 
to you. The historians years later will per- 
haps see all of these great events in perspec- 
tive, but one fact stands out today — that 
without the wisdom, without the vision, with- 
out the courage, without the statesmanship 
of President Sadat of Egypt, we would not 
have made the progress toward peace that 
we have made, and the world owes him a 
great debt for what he has done. 

And it is for this rea.son, combined with 
the reason that my wife and I have such 
pleasant memories of our previous visit to 
Egypt in 1963, where we met so many of 
your people, but it is for this reason that I 
have looked forward to this moment, to meet- 
ing you, to talking to you personally and of- 
ficially about the problems that we face in 
the future, in which our two great peoples 
now at last will be working together. 

Progress at home and peace not only in 
this area but for all peoples in the world — 
these are our goals, and together we are priv- 
ileged to have the opportunity to work for 
such great goals. 



DINNER HONORING PRESIDENT NIXON, 
CAIRO, JUNE 12 

White House press release (Cairo) dated June 12 

Toast by President Sadat 

It is a pleasure indeed to welcome you in 
our midst as the first American President to 
pay an official visit to Egypt. Your visit 
marks the opening of a new phase which will 
go down in history as one of your major 
achievements. 

Your choice to visit Egypt on your tour 
has a manifold political significance. While 
it indicates your eagerness to turn a new 
page in the American-Egyptian relations, it 
at the same time manifests the change of em- 
phasis in yours and in the American strategy. 

For my part, and on behalf of the Egyp- 
tian people, I would like to reciprocate and 
assure you and the American people that we 
welcome this change with all its political and 
psychological significance. 



80 



Department of State Bulletin 



I hope you agree with me, Mr. President, 
that the Middle East for the first time in re- 
cent history is facing a turning point, a turn- 
ing point in the sense that the political cli- 
mate in our region has never been more op- 
portune and paved for bringing about a dur- 
able peace. This, however, could not be 
achieved vmless all our efforts are exerted 
and mobilized toward this end. 

This area was, and still is, of major stra- 
tegic importance and as such should have 
been, and should be, an area where stability 
and normalcy prevail. The political and stra- 
tegic sensitivity of this region is of such a 
nature that it could at any time be the spark 
for a global conflict. But in spite of all this, 
for one reason or another, wars continued 
and tension prevailed in this region for more 
than 25 years. 

It is not for me to recapitulate on this oc- 
casion the history of this area and the causes 
of its troubles. Suffice it to mention that the 
real cause was the aggression committed 
against a whole nation, the Palestinian na- 
tion. Since then, this nation has been deprived 
by force of arms of its homeland, its prop- 
erty, and all the prerequisites of life. This 
nation is now either living in tents or ex- 
pelled and living in the diaspora. The ap- 
palling conditions under which a whole new 
generation of Palestinians were born and 
brought up do not attest to anything but the 
failure of our modern civilization, with its 
ingenious means of advancement and its es- 
tablished rules of law, to tackle the roots of 
this problem in a manner acceptable to the 
parties concerned. 

Mr. President, let me be candid with you 
lest in the future there would be a misunder- 
standing or false reading of the turn of 
events in our region. The political solution 
and the respect of the national aspirations of 
the Palestinians are the crux of the whole 
problem. It is an oversimplification indeed to 
profess that it is not a complex problem. 

However, there is no other solution and no 
other road for a durable peace without a po- 
litical solution to the Palestinian problem. 
This does not mean, as the Israelis claim in 
order to justify their expansionist designs, 



that this would lead to the liquidation of Is- 
rael. History attests to the fact that Jews 
have lived under one roof with the Palestin- 
ian Christians and Moslems alike. Moreover, 
history shows beyond doubt that Jews lived 
for centuries without any discrimination 
whatsoever under the Arab rule, be that in 
the Middle East, Africa, or Europe. 

I have purposely started with the Palestin- 
ian problem because its solution is indis- 
pensable for the attainment of a just and 
durable peace. 

The other outstanding problems are not 
of that magnitude. Egypt has been a sov- 
ereign state within its present international 
boundaries since time immemorial. The 
Egyptian people have always repulsed all 
invaders. All kinds of aggressions and at- 
tempts ■ to conquer Egyptian territory by 
force were completely foiled. They were al- 
ways met by the determination of the Egyp- 
tian people to defend the sanctity of their 
territory. Thus, it is inevitable for a country 
like Egypt, with a people of such potentiali- 
ties and capabilities, to regain its territory 
either by peaceful means or through might. 

You may recall, Mr. President, that we 
have deployed all our efforts within and out- 
side the United Nations since the war of 
June 1967 for achieving a peaceful solution, 
but to no avail. Although world public opin- 
ion was aware of the facts and statesmen 
from time to time admitted the inherent dan- 
ger in letting the state of "no war, no peace" 
prevail, Israel continued for one reason or 
another to refuse to listen to the voice of rea- 
son and logic. It rather tried to shield itself 
behind the illusion and fallacy of its suprem- 
acy, failing to realize that occupation by force 
would sooner or later be repulsed, that this 
area, like any other area of the world, should 
be subject to the rule of law, and that its peo- 
ple should live in peace under the accepted 
norms of the family of nations. 

While history is full of lessons that occu- 
pation by force will never hold and is always 
doomed, the Israeli leaders failed to grasp 
that vital and simple lesson. 

Then came the 6th of October, with the 
Arab armies and people ready to exercise 



July 15, 1974 



81 



their sacred right and duty to liberate their 
land. The course of events of that period both 
during and after the military operations 
should be the proper signal for all of us to 
work together to achieve a just and honor- 
able peace. 

One of the major changes resulting from 
the 6th of October has been the change that 
occurred in the American attitude, together 
with the various steps taken since that his- 
torical day. The American involvement in a 
positive way is a clear-cut political achieve- 
ment of the 6th of October. The new chapter 
which we are opening with your country, Mr. 
President, is the living testimony of the fact 
that it is in the vital interest of the United 
States to have good relations with all the 
countries of this sensitive and strategic area. 

For our part, let me say that I am satis- 
fied with the rapid development in our rela- 
tions and I hope that it will be bolstered in 
the future for the sake of peace and tran- 
quillity. Let us work to promote friendship 
between our two peoples, to agree on the es- 
sentials of a permanent peace which could 
provide for everybody the right to live in a 
dignified, human, and proud way. 

We in Egypt are dedicated, together with 
our Arab brothers, to work for peace and to 
mobilize our efforts and potentialities for 
construction rather than destruction, for ad- 
vancement rather than regression, for prog- 
ress rather than stagnation. 

Let us work, Mr. President, for an era 
where we can go into history as people with 
creativity and imagination, and let us sup- 
press together the forces of evil. 

With this I propose that we drink a toast 
in honor of President Nixon and Mrs. Nixon, 
their health and prosperity, and for the 
friendly American people, their well-being. 

Toast by President Nixon 

Mr. President, Mrs. Sadat, and all of the 
very distinguished guests attending this mag- 
nificent banquet here in Cairo: Mr. Presi- 
dent, it has been a very great honor and a 
privilege for Mrs. Nixon and me to travel to 
many countries over the past 27 years. As a 
matter of fact, this is the 83d nation that I 



have had the privilege of visiting. There have 
been many memorable days over those years, 
in those countries. But I can say tonight that 
I can think of no day that will stay more in 
our memory, that will bring back such pleas- 
ant memories of those things that occurred 
than this hi.storic day that we have spent 
with you here in Cairo. I say this for a num- 
ber of reasons. 

First, because of the heartwarming recep- 
tion we received, and we know we received it 
for the American people that we represented, 
as we drove from the airport into Cairo. We 
have seen big crowds before, but as has of- 
ten been said, you can get a crowd out but 
you cannot make that crowd smile unless 
they want to smile. And we felt that we 
could sense the heart of Egypt on this occa- 
sion and on this day, and through their hearts 
they reached ours and we believe they 
reached the hearts of the American people. 
Because we in America want to be friends 
of this nation and its people and that tradi- 
tional Egyptian-American friendship which 
goes back over so many years, which has 
been disturbed at times over the past gen- 
eration — that friendship has now been re- 
stored. 

This day's events signify and symbolize 
that restoration, and also this day's events, 
we trust, will initiate a new era in our rela- 
tions in which the Egyptian people, the 
American people, will be able to work to- 
gether, dedicating their energies to solving 
the problems of peace and thereby develop- 
ing the progress that both peoples want in 
both of our countries as well as in other 
countries in the world. 

Another reason we will remember this day 
is of course this magnificent banquet tonight, 
and we only wish that time would permit 
more of an opportunity for us to talk to each 
and every one of the very distinguished 
guests who are here, those from your coun- 
try, the distinguished Ambassadors from 
most of the countries of the world, and of 
course those guests from the United States 
you have been so kind to have. 

A third reason that this day will be a mem- 
orable one for me has been the opportunity 
that it has provided to know for the first 



82 



Department of State Bulletin 



time through personal discussion — except for 
a brief telephone conversation a few months 
ago at Aswan — to know the President of this 
nation, a man who in a very short space of 
time has earned the respect not only of his 
nation's friends but those who are his ad- 
versaries, or were his adversaries, and cer- 
tainly the respect of all observers in the 
world. 

As we look at this man and what he has 
done, I would analyze leaders of the world 
who I have met in two different categories. 
It is of course sometimes rather dangerous 
to oversimplify, but I think it can be fairly 
said that sometimes a leader concentrates al- 
most exclusively on the problems of his own 
country at the expense of concentration that 
he might well give to problems of the nations 
around him, or of the world, that might affect 
his country. 

There are other leaders who have gained 
their reputations through exactly the oppo- 
site tactic; they have failed to pay as much 
attention as they might to the problems of 
their own people because of their desire to 
become involved in adventurous activities 
and policies with regard to their neighbors 
and other countries in the world. 

But what marks the difference between a 
leader who is parochial on the one hand or 
who is too much concerned about the prob- 
lems of other people than his own, on the 
other, is one who recognizes that the two 
problems are inseparable, and so it is with 
this nation. 

Egypt, because of its size, because of its 
location, because of the competence and the 
quality and the ability of its people, because 
of its great historical heritage, is destined to 
play a great role in this area of the world 
and in the whole world, as it has played such 
a role in the centuries past. 

And consequently, whoever leads this peo- 
ple and this nation is one who should concen- 
trate his efforts on building a better life for 
the people of his nation, and President Sadat 
has done that. He has dedicated his Presi- 
dency to accomplishing that goal, but he has 
also recognized that this country, for the rea- 
sons that I have mentioned, must also play a 
role, an activist role, a positive role, on the 



world scene and particularly in this area of 
the world which has caused so much suffer- 
ing and so much potential danger over these 
past 30 to 40 years. 

And so the opportunity to meet with Pres- 
ident Sadat, to discuss not only the new bi- 
lateral initiatives we are going to undertake 
for better relations between our own coun- 
tries, initiatives that will help us both, to 
discuss with him also the problems of this 
area, and to discuss with him international 
policies generally, was for me a very valua- 
ble and a very constructive experience. 

And so you can see why I would say that 
of all the many days that it has been my priv- 
ilege to spend abroad among great people in 
many fine capitals, this day will be remem- 
bered, certainly as much, or even more than 
almost any day I can remember. 

The President has spoken of some of the 
difficult problems and the complex ones that 
still exist in this area; and I would be less 
than candid if I were not to say, standing 
here in his presence, that I do not come — just 
as Dr. Kissinger did not come earlier in his 
conversations — with readymade solutions for 
these complex problems, some of which go 
back over many years, some of which are 
going to require a great deal of dedicated 
diplomacy on the part of all parties con- 
cerned in order to find a just and equitable 
solution. 

But I do .say to you, Mr. President, and I 
do say to this company — I say to every na- 
tion represented here, because every nation 
in the world has a stake in the peace in the 
Mideast for the reasons I mentioned this 
morning — I say the United States will play 
a positive role. We have no designs on any 
nation in this area. We have no desire to 
dominate any part of this area. Our only in- 
terest is, first, peace in the area and, second, 
the right of every nation and every people 
to achieve its own goals in its own ways by 
its own choosing, free of outside domination 
or outside interference. 

To accomplish this goal will take not sim- 
ply the diplomacy, brilliant though it was, 
that has brought us as far as we have come, 
the first two great steps toward reaching a 
permanent and just peace. 



July 15, 1974 



83 



We have started down a long road, but the 
road stretches on and we have a long way to 
go. And I can only say that we in the United 
States, our government, will dedicate its best 
efforts to going down that road to achieve 
the goals of the peoples of this area, the na- 
tions of this area — goals of peace and prog- 
ress and prosperity, we would trust, in the 
end for all concerned. 

On such an evening as this, standing in 
such a place as this, one cannot help but 
feel the sense that centuries of civilization 
look down upon us, and as we feel that sense 
of history in this place which has perhaps as 
much or more history behind it than any in 
the world, we feel the obligation that we 
have, each of us here, to future generations. 

This has been called, this area, the cradle 
of civilization. And now we have the chal- 
lenge, the opportunity, the privilege, of see- 
ing that the civilization which we have in- 
herited from the great giants of the past sur- 
vives and not only survives but is passed on 
to future generations, stronger, more effec- 
tive, certainly, we would trust, more helpful 
to all of the people who live in this part of 
the world. 

I can only say that I am sure I speak for 
all those here who are the guests of the Pres- 
ident and Mrs. Sadat, that we are privileged 
to be here on such a memorable day. We 
trust that this is a day truly of a new begin- 
ning for all the nations in this area, a new 
and a good beginning, and one that will bene- 
fit thereby all the nations of the world. And 
I am sure that all of you would want to join 
me in the toast that I will propose, not only 
to the new Egyptian-American relationship, 
a relation.ship of friendship that should never 
have been broken in the past — and we dedi- 
cate ourselves to seeing that it will never be 
broken in the future — and second, to a man 
who has demonstrated that he is not only a 
great leader of his own country but that he is 
one of those rare leaders who also has the vi- 
sion and wisdom to contribute to peace for 
all people in all countries as well. 

And in proposing a toast to him, I would 
not forget Mrs. Sadat. She, like my wife, 
stands by her husband's side, and she is 



known throughout her country for her dedi- 
cation to him and for her service to her coun- 
try, whether it is in war or in peace. So, la- 
dies and gentlemen, if you would rise and 
raise your glasses to the President and Mrs. 
Sadat. 



REMARKS TO REPORTERS ON SPECIAL TRAIN 
EN ROUTE TO ALEXANDRIA, JUNE 13 

white House press release (Alexandria) dated June 13 

Q. Hoiv do you feel the tour has gone, sir? 

President Ni.ron: President Sadat and I 
have been really overwhelmed by not only 
the size of the crowd but, even more impor- 
tant, their enthusiasm. I, on the one hand, 
have been impressed by the enormous per- 
sonal respect and trust that President Sadat 
has among his own people, because they are 
not here just to see me, they are here also to 
pay their respects to him. 

And the other thing that of course is im- 
pressive is the fact that these crowds show 
a very deep feeling of affection and friend- 
ship for America. The fact that this could 
exist despite almost 25 years of misunder- 
standing, an off-and-on relationship, in the 
last seven years very bitter misunderstand- 
ing — the fact that this gracious relationship 
still exists here in Egypt, shows that Egyp- 
tian-American friendship is a natural reac- 
tion among Egyptians, and I am sure it is 
among Americans, and therefore we are 
building on a foundation that will last be- 
cause it is built on natural and not unnatural 
interests. 

I don't know whether the President may 
have something to add to that or not. 

President Sadat: Well, it is a great occa- 
sion for us to have President Nixon among 
us and to show him our true feelings toward 
the American people and toward himself 
also. President Nixon by all measures has 
performed a great act in our most dangerous 
area here for the first time since 26 years to 
the millions that you have seen hailing him 
and you have seen what they wrote on the 
balconies and so, "Nixon's America is a 



84 



Department of State Bulletin 



peace-loving nation," so they want to show 
you and tell the American people that the 
most natural thing for us is to be friends, 
the unnatural is that there may be any con- 
flict among us. 

Q. Mr. President, your being here per- 
haps, too, might raise some very high ex- 
pectations. Do you feel that your being here 
might raise expectations that cannot be 
reached? 

President Nixon: President Sadat and I 
have had very extensive conversations, first, 
about the needs of Egypt and, second, about 
how we can meet those needs in an effective 
way without overpromising and without dis- 
appointing people as a result of expectations 
that have been raised. It is not a case of com- 
ing into a nation, for example, led by unso- 
phisticated men who simply think that the 
visit of an American President means in- 
stantly the problems will be solved. 

President Sadat, for example, wanted me 
to see what he called the slum areas of Cairo. 
He wanted me to see the delta, which is very 
rich, but many of the peasants are poor. It 
was interesting to note that the people in 
both places, incidentally, were just as friend- 
ly as they were in downtown Cairo around 
the palace, but we have been very careful in 
our talks and in our public statements to 
speak of what can be done. 

And I would say that I look for an era of 
cooperation, not just government-to-govern- 
ment but an era of cooperation in which 
American private enterprise will be wel- 
comed in Egypt and will bring not only cap- 
ital but technology to Egypt. 

So, in a word, naturally the unsophisti- 
cated individual may expect that instantly 
life will be better. Thai; will not be the case. 
The foundation has been laid for steady eco- 
nomic growth, and the President's programs 
which I have examined in some detail — for 
one, reconstruction; two, industrialization; 
three, in the field of agriculture; and four, 
and most important, education — in all areas, 
these programs will build a solid base where 
Egypt will go no place but up and it will not 
be plagued by what it has had for the past 25 



years, intermittent wars, when every time 
they began to move forward they were 
pushed back. That is my view. 

Q. President Sadat, what is the principal 
contribution that the United States can make 
for continuing peace in the Middle East? 

President Sadat: It is to keep the momen- 
tum of the whole thing going on, and I must 
say you have read what my people wrote. 
They wrote, "We Trust Nixon." Since the 
6th of October and since the change that took 
place in the American policy, peace is now 
available in the area, and President Nixon 
never gave a word and didn't fulfill it. He 
has fulfilled every word he gave. So if this 
momentum continues, I think we can achieve 
peace. 

Q. What neiv pledges would you like, sir? 

President Nixon: I particularly enjoyed 
the opportunity to see not only the officials 
and for me to know people like President 
Sadat, who will provide great leadership for 
this part of the world — not only his own 
country — but also to get a sense and feeling 
about the people themselves, what their prob- 
lems are, what their hopes are, what their 
feelings are toward America, and how we 
can play a part in helping them to a better 
way of life on a cooperative basis. 

Q. Do you think we ought to have a rail- 
road car like this in the United States, Mr. 
President? 

President Nixon: Well, I must say I like 
the car, but what I like better is the roadbed 
because, as I told President Sadat, the road- 
bed between Cairo and Alexandria is infin- 
itely better than the roadbed between Wash- 
ington and New York. As we know, that is 
almost an obsolete roadbed, and when I go 
back I am going to tell some of our people 
that railroads, instead of just concentrating 
on building fancy new air-conditioned cars, 
they ought to pick up the roadbed. This is a 
smooth ride all the way. 

I think, too, I would only add to what Pres- 
ident Sadat has said, that he recognizes — as 
a mature leader of this part of the world, he 



July 15, 1974 



85 



recognizes and feels very deeply about the 
goals he wants to achieve and therefore no- 
body can condemn him as being one who is 
not dedicated to the goals that people in the 
surrounding nations want to achieve. 

On the other hand, he is a man who is 
aware of the intricacies of international di- 
plomacy and realizes, as we do, that where 
you have a number of nations with different 
interests and different viewpoints and dif- 
ferent approaches that rather than a huge 
public forum as being the place to put it all 
out on the table and solve it at once and im- 
mediately and then have it blow up, rather 
than having that approach, what is needed 
is the step-by-step approach — not because 
we want to go slow, but because we want to 
get there. 

And so nation by nation, first with Egypt, 
then with Syria, taking up each problem as 
it is timely to take it up in a quiet, confiden- 
tial way, like President Sadat and I have 
talked to each other in complete confidence 
and we find that we have a general agreement 
on a great number of things, but particularly 
we understand the necessity in the field of 
diplomacy to handle each one of these prob- 
lems in a case-by-case, very considerate ba- 
sis and not in a melodramatic grandstand 
play where everybody cheers and then all of 
a sudden it falls down. 

I don't know whether the President agrees 
or not. 

Q. Are you suggesting, sir, that perhaps 
there should be more bilateral talks before a 
Geneva conference? 

President Nixon: We do not want in our 
first stop to indicate that we are going to 
say what ought to happen, because these are 
decisions that must be made by each of the 
leaders that we talk to. However, I would 
say that before ever going to a summit con- 
ference where a number of leaders represent- 
ing different viewpoints sit down around a 
table, it is essential that the way be prepared 
by bilateral discussions in which you iron 
out those differences which can be ironed out 
before you get to the summit. That is Presi- 
dent Sadat's recommendation, too. 



President Sadat: We have discussed in our 
meeting and we have agreed upon this form. 

Q. Who should those bilateral discussions 
he between? 

President Sadat: Between President Nixon 
and me, and then between our two Foreign 

Ministers. 

Q. But you are not suggesting bilateral 
discussions ivith other countries? 

President Sadat: We shall be doing this. 
We shall be doing this with our Arab col- 
leagues, also bilateral, we shall be doing it 
with the Soviet Union, also bilateral, and 
when the time comes, we are proposing a 
small Arab summit for discussing the next 
step. 

Q. This would be before Geneva, sir? 

President Sadat: I hope this would be be- 
fore Geneva. 

Q. You are not suggesting bilateral dis- 
cussions with Israel? 

President Sadat: No, not at all. Not yet. 

Tlie press: Thank you, gentlemen. 



DINNER HONORING PRESIDENT SADAT, 
ALEXANDRIA, JUNE 13 

White House press release (Alexandria) dated June 13 

Toast by President Nixon 

President Sadat, Mrs. Sadat, and all of 
our distinguished guests : Mr. President, this 
dinner tonight affords an opportunity for us, 
in a very small way, to indicate our very 
grateful appreciation to you for the hospital- 
ity that you and your people have shown to 
us on the occasion of our visit to Egypt. 

We thought yesterday, after the magnif- 
icent reception in Cairo, that it would be im- 
possible to see more people in one day again 
in our lives, but I remember you told me, 
"Wait until we get to Alexandria." And you 
were right, because on the journey that we 
took by train through the rich delta country 
and then through the streets of Alexandria, 



86 



Department of State Bulletin 



going clear out by the sea as well as through 
the downtown area, we again had the priv- 
ilege, as we did yesterday, of seeing literally 
millions of people who were there to greet 
us and to welcome us. 

And there is an old saying that, "You can 
turn people out, but you can't turn them on." 
They will only be turned on if they want to 
be. And we felt, as you said to us so often, 
that there was no question about the people 
that we saw yesterday and today — they were 
from their hearts giving us a warm welcome 
— and I can assure you, Mr. President, they 
touched our hearts, and I am sure the hearts 
of millions of Americans who saw that wel- 
coming on television, with what they did. 

Let me say, too, that we are grateful that 
on this visit, brief though it is, that you, in 
arranging our itinerary, saw to it that we 
were not only in Cairo, the capital of the na- 
tion, but that we should see another part of 
the country as well. 

We in Washington often say as we think of 
our Nation's Capital, of which we are very 
proud because it is a beautiful city, that 
Washington is not all of America and that 
one must travel to other cities as well. And 
you gave us a double pleasure today because 
we saw the countryside, the farmers, the 
peasants tilling the rich land with three 
crops a year growing there, some with the 
equipment that goes back many centuries 
and others with the most modern equipment. 
And we saw, also, one of the great cities of 
the world, Alexandria, which we would other- 
wise not have seen had you not planned our 
schedule in such a way that we could extend 
it to include other parts of Egypt than just 
the capital. 

And here in Alexandria, I would like to 
add that we feel certainly in the presence 
of — and I have no other better words to de- 
scribe it than this — in the presence of the 
whole heritage of learning which our civili- 
zation has benefited from. We think of the 
great library that was here, we think of, for 
example, those who landed on the moon and 
that the abilities that developed those high 
techniques were based on the great scholars 
of the past, many of whom centered here in 



Alexandria, the mathematicians, the astron- 
omers, and the like. And as we think of that 
heritage of learning which Alexandria sig- 
nifies to the whole world today, it reminds 
us of how much both Egypt and America will 
gain from this new relationship which we 
have established. 

I say a new relationship — it is the rees- 
tablishment of a relationship that was al- 
ways there, but one which we now have for- 
malized to an extent, as our statement to- 
morrow will indicate, and one on which we 
will build because there are perhaps some 
things that we have learned in the New 
World in America that you will find useful 
in the development of your country. But you 
caji be very sure that we who have learned 
so much from the civilization which is repre- 
sented in this land, that we also will profit 
from this mutual exchange of ideas and that 
the wisdom that is here — the wisdom not 
only of the past but the wisdom which is now 
being developed to meet the challenge of the 
future — will benefit not only you, but benefit 
us as we learn to work together in develop- 
ing and meeting the policies which will lead 
to a peaceful and a prosperous world for all 
of us. 

So, finally, Mr. President, I want you to 
know that as I announce to our guests with 
very great pleasure the fact that you have ac- 
cepted an invitation to visit the United States 
on a state visit and that Mrs. Sadat will ac- 
company you, that that will occur before the 
end of this year, that it is going to be my 
privilege to give you an itinerary also where 
you will see not only Washington but, we 
trust, other pai'ts of the country that you 
have not seen before. And in that connection, 
we will not be able, of course, to match cer- 
tainly what we have seen in the way of the 
antiquities of the past that we have here, but 
I can assure you that we will do our best to 
demonstrate to you, as you and your people 
have demonstrated to us, that the American 
people in their hearts have nothing but the 
greatest affection and the highest hopes for 
our friends in Egypt. 

We welcome this opportunity to work to- 
gether again as friends, and that friendship 



July 15, 1974 



87 



that we have had the privilege of feeling af- 
ter Dr. Kissinger and his colleagues on his 
side and your representatives on your side 
laid the foundation — that friendship is one 
that we will treasure and, we trust, pass on 
to future generations to enjoy for years to 
come. 

So, ladies and gentlemen, all of us, I think, 
would want to join, including our American 
friends particularly, and our Egyptian guests 
as well, in a toast to the President in the 
sense that he has been such a great host for 
us. And also, shall we toast him and Mrs. Sa- 
dat, a little in advance, wishing him what we 
will have — a very fine and warm welcome in 
the United States of America when he re- 
turns this visit later this year. To President 
Sadat. 

Toast by President Sadat 

My friends, President Nixon, Mrs. Nixon, 
their guests: It was yesterday that you ai-- 
rived in our country and took a historic step 
in American-Egyptian relations. After our 
talks and after we all listened to your mem- 
orable statement in Cairo, you will perhaps 
agree with me that the most important out- 
come of the visit is the establishment of 
American-Egyptian relations on a clear and 
sound basis which finds its fruit in a shared 
conviction and then with determination that 
it is in the interest of both our countries and 
our two peoples not to allow the reoccur- 
rence of what has strained this relationship 
in the past, and that we work together for 
an inspiring future corresponding with the 
deepest sense of the essentials of peace for 
our region and beyond it. 

Mr. President, you spoke about me and the 
Egyptian people, whom I have the honor to 
represent, in a manner that made me feel 
the gravity of the responsibility that I shoul- 
der on behalf of that people and of the Arab 
nation, for these are responsibilities in need 
of numerous and varied energies that are be- 
yond the reach of one person. 

What really matters is my belief, which 
transcends my other beliefs, that the para- 
mountcy of building for peace and of work- 
ing without hesitation until all peoples of the 



area are afforded the safety and the political 
climate necessary for the area and its peoples 
in order to resume their former standing so 
that all could contribute in solidarity in the 
setting up of a modern civilization. 

When I referred to your attribute, I did 
this on purpose in order to emphasize what I 
have already mentioned to you concerning 
my admiration for your courage in taking the 
initiative in making daring and decisive deci- 
sions on all levels on the international plane 
since you assumed the leadership of your 
country. 

I am quite confident, Mr. President, that 
your vast experience and your universally 
acknowledged reputation as a statesman who 
dedicated his energy to knock hard on the 
doors that have been cut on intricate political 
problems and opened them to your wisdom 
and your ability to move at the proper time 
without hesitation, this being on record, I do 
not hesitate to state that you and your people 
will spare no eff'ort in eff'ecting what is right 
and establishing a just and beautiful peace 
in this region as well. 

I want to express to you at this stage, be- 
fore the end of your historic visit to Egypt, 
my gratification and that of my people. Yet, 
however hard I try to find the suitable words 
for that, they also thought of what you have 
personally witnessed yourself since you set 
foot on our soil and while you were en route 
from Cairo to Alexandria, our second capital. 

We are now in this historic city which was 
the stage for many historic battles, among 
which were those of Aboukir between the 
British and the French and that of Alamein 
on the outskirts of Alexandria. 

Parallel with all that, it has been a source 
of continuing culture and science, though de- 
servedly it was the center and a lighthouse 
for our well-known civilization. In this great 
city, with its historic values, its unique stra- 
tegic position and direct contact with all 
countries of the world without exception, 
you were received by the people of Alexan- 
dria as you were received on the way here, 
too, and in Cairo by their fellow citizens, 
who express to you and through you to the 
American people their feelings of friendship 
and their belief in the idealistic value of 



88 



Department of State Bulletin 



building for peace which conforms with what 
has been known of Egypt even before its re- 
cent history and its creative civilizations 
which were an endowment to the peoples of 
the world. 

As I mentioned before, the 6th of October 
was the key to all that occurred ; the unhesi- 
tating attitude of your country under your 
leadership and through the enormous efforts 
exerted by your Secretary of State is to be 
considered the first step on the road to peace 
and to a warm and sincere relationship be- 
tween our two peoples. 

For all that, Mr. President, let me say that 
nothing exceeds my delight at your visit ex- 
cept my gratification that you and Mrs. Nix- 
on were able to come. Related to this is my 
gratification at your invitation for me and 
Mrs. Sadat to visit your great country to 
meet directly with your people and your offi- 
cials. 

Until we meet again, I ask you to take with 
you to the American people our appreciation 
and our warm and friendly feelings as well 
as recollections which I sincerely hope will 
be renewed when next we meet in the near fu- 
ture. 

Allow me to invite you all, dear friends, to 
drink a toast to the friendship between the 
American people and the Egyptian people, as 
well as a toast in honor of the President of 
the United States : President Nixon and Mrs. 
Nixon. 



REMARKS UPON SIGNING PRINCIPLES 
OF RELATIONS, CAIRO, JUNE 14 

White House press release (Cairo) dated June 14 

Remarks by President Sadat 

Great guest of Egypt, the President, Rich- 
ard Nixon, distinguished guests, ladies and 
gentlemen: I am indeed happy to be able to 
speak to you once again at the end of this 
visit which we all share the view that it is a 
visit which is both historic and of paramount 
importance because of the significance that 
it bears in steering American-Egyptian rela- 
tions once again toward the path of friend- 
ship and cooperation and because of the dras- 



tic steps which it is taking now in order to 
try and bring a settlement to a painful situa- 
tion that has existed for over a quarter of a 
century in the Middle East. 

Your visit, Mr. President, has actually 
come in the wake of concentrated efi'orts that 
have been exerted and which were crowned 
by the disengagement agreements that were 
signed on both the Egyptian and Syrian 
fronts. 

And you personally, Mr. President, have 
had great efforts which we are indeed thank- 
ful for. And at the same time, your Secretary 
of State, Mr. Kissinger, who knows no rest at 
all and no respite in his efforts — he also has a 
role that will always remain known and rec- 
ognized. 

And once again, I find that I have to for- 
mulate the situation as we conceive it before 
you. And this position, we feel, has three 
main factors : We find that the disengage- 
ment agreement, although it has contributed 
immensely in breeding the right climate, we 
believe that it still remains to be a military 
issue that had only to do with the implemen- 
tation of the Security Council resolutions 
dealing with the cease-fire. 

We find that the disengagement agree- 
ments have actually opened the door before 
an issue that needs a lot of eff'orts, and we 
believe that we cannot possibly belittle the 
dimensions of those great efforts. 

And this, in fact, is the only alternative 
against the painful recurrence of war. 

The second factor is that we have to admit 
that the crux of the whole problem in the 
Middle East are the legitimate rights of the 
Palestine people, and unless this is imple- 
mented, we feel that the prospects of peace 
in the Middle East will be dwindling. 

The third factor is that from the bottom of 
our hearts, we do welcome the change that 
has occurred in the American position, and 
we actually welcome and feel satisfied with 
this new spirit and this positive policy. 

We all, and I personally, have been very 
frank from the very beginning, and I have 
actually submitted and expressed initiatives 
to our victorious troops on the front and to 
the whole world and with full determination 
to pursue that policy. 



July 15, 1974 



89 



But I feel that these efforts cannot possibly 
implement everything on their own, but I 
feel that in order to implement this drive of 
ours, all the parties have to admit that the 
6th of October has brought a change and it 
has dissipated forever the fantasy that there 
could be anything that can be achieved by the 
force of arms or to try and impose a certain 
will. 

And it is upon such conviction by all the 
parties of such principles that peace can pos- 
sibly be established. And it is indeed with sat- 
isfaction that I have to say that all the bi- 
lateral talks that have taken place between 
President Nixon and myself, or whether 
President Nixon and U.S. Secretary Dr. Kis- 
singer and myself and Mini.ster Ismail Fah- 
mi, that is on the official plane, or whether 
the meetings that have taken place unoffi- 
cially during that visit, I believe that this all 
enhances our feeling that a great deal is be- 
ing done for the establishment of peace. 

We shall do our very best actually to pur- 
sue this line of conduct so that the coopera- 
tion between our two countries should be 
based on mutual respect and for a broader 
sphere of cooperation. 

Allow me that personally I will say that 
this visit has been an excellent opportunity 
for me and for Mrs. Sadat to get to welcome 
a great statesman and the head of a very 
great state, President Nixon, and Mrs. Nix- 
on and a tribute to a great lady that stands by 
her husband in the assumption of a great role. 

In the name of the people of Egypt, I would 
like to expi'ess once again our happiness that 
we have been able to welcome President Nix- 
on and Mrs. Nixon and were to welcome him 
on that visit, a visit which we feel has been 
of paramount importance and most fruitful, 
and we do hope that the practical effect of 
that visit would appear in the very near fu- 
ture. Thank you. 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen : 
Mr. President, I first want to endorse very 
enthusiastically your very generous compli- 
ment to our Secretary of State for the role 
he has played along with members of the U.S. 



team in working out the various problems to 
which you have referred. 

And on my part, may I pay my respects to 
Foreign Secretary Fahmi for the role that 
he has played, and members of your team, in 
working out many of the details and also 
many of the hard, substantive issues that 
have confronted us. 

We are both fortunate, I believe, in the 
support that we have had, and the talks that 
have gone forward have been ones that have 
laid the foundation for not only a continua- 
tion of a direct contact between you, Presi- 
dent Sadat, and me, through channels that 
we have established, but also direct contacts 
at the foreign minister level and at all levels 
of government to put meaning and also sub- 
stance into the papers that we sign, the 
speeches that we may make, the declarations 
that may be forthcoming. 

Also, on this occasion, before leaving Cairo, 
could I express again our grateful apprecia- 
tion on behalf of not only Mrs. Nixon and 
myself, but all of ours who are in the Amer- 
ican party, for the overwhelming hospital- 
ity that you have extended to us on this visit. 
We are most grateful, grateful for that hos- 
pitality, and we shall always remember it, 
and we look forward to the opportunity later 
this year to have Mrs. Sadat, who stands so 
strongly and loyally and effectively by your 
side, as well as you, Mr. President, visit the 
United States again and get to know our 
country and our people better not only at the 
official level but, as I have had the opportu- 
nity, across the nation among all people from 
all walks of life. 

We have today signed a statement which 
has as its title "Principles of Relations and 
Cooperation Between Egypt and the United 
States." I think, Mr. President, as I sign this 
statement, as you must think, of the many 
statements and treaties and executive agree- 
ments and others that I have signed since I 
have been in this office. Some have meant a 
great deal more than others, but there is one 
important rule which governs statements or 
agreements or treaties or whatever docu- 
ments are signed by heads of government, 
and that is this: That the statement, the 
treaty, the agreement, is only as good as the 



90 



Department of State Bulletin 



will and the determination of the parties con- 
cerned to keep that agreement. 

Now, what we have established in this 
visit, brief though it is — first, that that will 
and determination to keep the agreement and 
not to be satisfied just with it, but to build 
on it. We have certainly established that that 
will and determination exists between the 
two heads of state and heads of government. 
President Sadat and myself. We have estab- 
lished that it also exists at official levels in 
other areas of government. 

But I think, also, we have something else 
which is worthy of note. As we saw in the 
three days that we have been in your coun- 
try, these Principles of Relations and Coop- 
eration Between Egypt and the United States 
have the support of the Egyptian people. We 
sensed that as we saw your people in such 
great numbers, and I can assure you, Mr. 
President, they also have the support of the 
American people. 

And so not only officially, not only at the 
head-of-state and head-of-government level, 
but also among our people, there is support 
for this document that we have signed — and 
support not only for the specific agreements, 
declarations that are contained therein, but 
support for the spirit which we have dis- 
cussed, in which we will go on from this 
agreement to others in the future that will 
build on them. 

For example, in our discussions we have 
explored ways and means that in the future 
we could build on the understandings set 
forth in this agreement. It is also very sig- 
nificant to note that the relations and princi- 
ples described herein are relations and coop- 
eration which are dedicated to the works of 
peace, and we believe that this is again some- 
thing which has the .■support of your people 
and of the American people, based on what 
we have seen in our visit here. 

You have referred, Mr. President, to the 
fact that while we have made very significant 
progress by reason of the negotiations that 
have taken place today in removing road- 
blocks which have existed toward a final, 
equitable, permanent peace agreement, that 
there is still a long road to travel. We recog- 
nize that as you recognize it, and we look 



forward to attempting to work with you, with 
other governments involved in attempting to 
find solutions to these problems, because we 
believe that in the final analysis it is the per- 
manent peace settlement which is in the in- 
terest of every government in the area and 
every nation in the area. And it is not our in- 
tention, as you have indicated it is not your 
intention, that what we have done to date is 
final. It is a beginning, a very good begin- 
ning, and it has been followed up very sub- 
stantially by this bilateral understanding 
which we have signed today. But there is 
more to be done on both fronts, and we look 
forward to working with you in accomplish- 
ing those goals. 

And finally, Mr. President, I would not 
want this moment to pass without reflecting 
on those few minutes that we had, through 
your courtesy, standing by the pyramids, 
thinking back over the thousands of years of 
history which your people have known, and 
history which is the common heritage of the 
civilization of our world today. 

We think of the great things that your 
people have done in the past, but as we stood 
there, I thought also of the even greater 
things that you, your government, now that 
we move into an era of peace, now that we 
will have cooperation with the United States 
and with other governments as well, I am 
sure, in accomplishing peaceful goals, we 
think that Egypt now is at the beginning — 
it is almost trite to say it — not only of a new 
era but the beginning of what can be the 
greatest progress this nation has known for 
many generations and even centuries. 

That is your goal. You have spoken feel- 
ingly to me about that goal as we have seen 
your people, so many of them, the farmers, 
the workers, the teachers, the professional 
people, and the others, whether in the coun- 
tryside, in Cairo, or in Alexandria. 

It is a great goal, and you can be sure, Mr. 
President, that we in America share that goal 
with you, and as far as the principles stated 
in the papers that we have just signed are 
concerned, you can be sure we do not con- 
sider this just another piece of paper. It has 
the backing of our government officially, it 
has my personal backing, and it also has the 



July 15, 1974 



91 



heartfelt support, I am sure, of the Amer- 
ican people. 



TEXT OF PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONS 
AND COOPERATION, JUNE 14 

Principles of Relations and Cooperation 
Between Egypt and the United States 

The President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, 
Muhammed Anwar el-Sadat, and the President of 
the United States of America, Richard Nixon, 

— Having held wide-ranging discussions on mat- 
ters of mutual interest to their two countries, 

— Being acutely aware of the continuing need to 
build a structure of peace in the world and to that 
end and to promote a just and durable peace in the 
Middle East, and, 

— Being guided by a desire to seize the historic 
opportunity before them to strengthen relations be- 
tween their countries on the broadest basis in ways 
that will contribute to the well-being of the area as 
a whole and will not be directed against any of its 
states or peoples or against any other state, 

Have agreed that the following principles should 
govern relations between Egypt and the United 
States. 

I. General Principles of Bilateral Relations 

Relations between nations, whatever their eco- 
nomic or political systems, should be based on the 
purposes and principles of the United Nations Char- 
ter, including the right of each state to existence, 
independence, and sovereignty; the right of each 
state freely to choose and develop its political, social 
economic and cultural systems; non-inten'ention in 
each other's internal affairs; and respect for terri- 
torial integrity and political independence. 

Nations should approach each other in the spirit 
of equality respecting their national life and the 
pursuit of happiness. 

The United States and Egypt consider that their 
relationship reflects these convictions. 

Peace and progress in the Middle East are essen- 
tial if global peace is to be assured. A just and dura- 
ble peace based on full implementation of U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 
1967, should take into due account the legitimate 
interest of all the peoples in the Mid East, including 
the Palestinian people, and the right to existence of 
all states in the area. Peace can be achieved only 
through a process of continuing negotiation as called 
for by United Nations Security Council Resolution 
3.38 of October 22, 1973, within the framework of 
the Geneva Middle East Peace Conference. 

In recognition of these principles, the Governments 
of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United States 
of America set themselves to these tasks: 



They will intensify consultations at all levels, in- 
cluding further consultations between their Presi- 
dents, and they will strengthen their bilateral coop- 
eration whenever a common or parallel effort will 
enhance the cause of peace in the world. 

They will continue their active cooperation and 
their energetic pursuit of peace in the Middle East. 

They will encourage increased contacts between 
members of all branches of their two governments 
— executive, legislative and judicial — for the purpose 
of promoting better mutual understanding of each 
other's institutions, purposes and objectives. 

They are determined to develop their bilateral re- 
lations in a spirit of esteem, respect and mutual 
advantage. In the past year, they have moved from 
estrangement to a constructive working relationship. 
This year, from that base, they are moving to a rela- 
tionship of friendship and broad cooperation. 

They view economic development and commercial 
relations as an essential element in the strengthen- 
ing of their bilateral relations and will actively pro- 
mote them. To this end, they will facilitate coop- 
erative and joint ventures among appropriate 
governmental and private institutions and will 
encourage increased trade between the two countries. 

They consider encouragement of exchanges and 
joint research in the scientific and technical field as 
an important mutual aim and will take appropriate 
concrete steps for this purpose. 

They will deepen cultural ties through exchanges 
of scholars, students, and other representatives of 
the cultures of both countries. 

They will make special efforts to increase tourism 
in both directions, and to amplify person-to-person 
contact among their citizens. 

They will take measures to improve air and 
maritime communications between them. 

They will seek to establish a broad range of work- 
ing relationships and will look particularly to their 
respective Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors and 
to the Joint Commission on Cooperation, as well as 
to other officials and organizations, and private indi- 
viduals and groups as appropriate, to implement the 
various aspects of the above principles. 

II. Joint Cooperation Commission 

The two governments have agreed that the inten- 
sive review of the areas of economic cooperation 
held by President el-Sadat and President Nixon on 
June 12 constituted the first meeting of the Joint 
Cooperation Commission, announced May 31, 1974. 
This Commission will be headed by the Secretary 
of State of the United States and the ]\Iinister of 
Foreign Affairs of Egypt. To this end, they have 
decided to move ahead rapidly on consultations and 
coordination to identify and implement programs 
agreed to be mutually beneficial in the economic, 
scientific and cultural fields. 



92 



Department of State Bulletin 



The United States has agreed to help strengthen 
the financial sti-ucture of Egypt. To initiate this 
process, United States Secretary of the Treasury 
William Simon will visit Egypt in the near future 
for high level discussions. 

III. Nuclear Energy 

Since the atomic age began, nuclear energy has 
been viewed by all nations as a double-edged sword 
— offering opportunities for peaceful applications, 
but raising the risk of nuclear destruction. In its 
international programs of cooperation, the United 
States Government has made its nuclear technology 
available to other nations under safeguard condi- 
tions. In this context, the two governments will 
begin negotiation of an Agreement for Cooperation 
in the field of nuclear energy under agreed safe- 
guards. Upon conclusion of such an agreement, 
the United States is prepared to sell nuclear reactors 
and fuel to Egypt, which will make it possible for 
Egypt by the early 1980s to generate substantial 
additional quantities of electric power to support its 
rapidly growing development needs. Pending conclu- 
sion of this Agreement, the United States Atomic 
Energy Commission and the Egyptian Ministry of 
Electricity will this month conclude a provisional 
agreement for the sale of nuclear fuel to Egypt. 

IV. Working Groups 

The two governments have agreed to set up Joint 
Working Groups to meet in the near future to pre- 
pare concrete projects and proposals for review by 
the Joint Commission at a meeting to be held later 
this year in Washington, D.C. These Joint Working 
Groups will be composed of governmental repre- 
sentatives from each country and will include the 
following: 

(1) A Joint Working Group on Suez Canal Re- 
construction and Development to consider and review 
plans for reopening the Suez Canal and reconstruc- 
tion of the cities along the Canal, and the United 
States role in this endeavor. 

(2) A Joint Working Group to investigate and 
recommend measures designed to open the way for 
United States private investment in joint ventures 
in Egypt and to promote trade between the two 
countries. Investment opportunities would be guided 
by Egypt's needs for financial, technical, and ma- 
terial support to increase Egypt's economic growth. 
The United States regards with favor and supports 
the ventures of American enterprises in Egypt. It is 
noted that such ventures, currently being negotiated, 
are in the field of petrochemicals, transportation, 
food and agricultural machinery, land development, 
power, tourism, banking, and a host of other eco- 
nomic sectors. The estimated value of projects under 
serious consideration exceeds two billion dollars. 
American technology and capital combined with 
Egypt's absorptive capacity, skilled manpower and 



productive investment opportunities can contribute 
effectively to the strengthening and development of 
the Egyptian economy. The United States and Egypt 
will therefore negotiate immediately a new Invest- 
ment Guarantee Agreement between them. 

(3) A Joint Working Group on Agriculture to 
study and recommend actions designed to increase 
Egypt's agricultural production through the use of 
the latest agricultural technology. 

(4) A Joint Working Group on Technology, Re- 
search and Development in scientific fields, including 
space, with special emphasis on exchanges of scien- 
tists. 

(5) A Joint Working Group on Medical Coopera- 
tion to assist the Government of Egypt to develop 
and strengthen its medical research, treatment and 
training facilities. These efforts will supplement 
cooperation in certain forms of medical research al- 
ready conducted through the Naval Medical Research 
Unit (NAMRU), whose mutually beneficial work will 
continue. 

(6) A Joint Working Group on Cultural Ex- 
changes to encourage and facilitate exhibitions, 
visits, and other cultural endeavors to encourage a 
better understanding of both cultures on the part of 
the peoples of the United States and Egypt. 

The two governments have agreed to encourage 
the formation of a Joint Economic Council to include 
representatives from the private economic sector of 
both countries to coordinate and promote mutually 
beneficial cooperative economic arrangements. 

In support of their economic cooperation, the 
United States will make the maximum feasible con- 
tribution, in accordance with Congressional authori- 
zation, to Egypt's economic development, including 
clearing the Suez Canal, reconstruction projects, 
and restoring Egyptian trade. In addition, the 
United States is prepared to give special priority at- 
tention to Egypt's needs for agricultural commodi- 
ties. 

Consistent with the spirit of cultural cooperation, 
the United States Government has agreed to consider 
how it might assist the Egyptian Government in the 
reconstruction of Cairo's Opera House. The Egyptian 
Government for its part intends to place the "Treas- 
ures of Tutankhamen" on exhibit in the United 
States. 

Both governments, in conclusion, reiterate their 
intention to do everything possible to broaden the 
ties of friendship and cooperation consistent with 
their mutual interests in peace and security and with 
the principles set forth in this statement. 

In thanking President el-Sadat for the hospitality 
shown to him and the members of his party. Presi- 
dent Nixon extended an invitation to President 
el-Sadat, which President el-Sadat has accepted, to 
visit the United States during 1974. 

Cairo, Egypt, June H, 197i. 

MUHAMMED ANWAR-EL-SADAT RICHARD NIXON 



July 15, 1974 



93 



THE VISIT TO SAUDI ARABIA 

DINNER HONORING PRESIDENT NIXON, 
JIDDA, JUNE 14 

White House press release (Jiiltia) dated June 14 

Remarks by King Faisal ' 

Your Excellency, Mr. President, honorable 
gentlemen : I extend to you a warm welcome 
in this land of the heavenly message that il- 
luminated for all humanity the path of right- 
eousness and wisdom. 

Mr. President, we have always endeav- 
ored to maintain the friendship which was 
founded by His Majesty the late King Abd 
al-Aziz — may God bless his soul — between 
the people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
and the American people. We have always 
been concerned with the improvement and 
strengthening of this friendship and con- 
stantly advised our friends in the United 
States of America to do likewise and not to 
give anyone the pretext to harm it. 

Mr. President, the Kingdom of Saudi Ara- 
bia appreciates fully and realizes her respon- 
sibility toward the world community, whose 
members should cooperate together for their 
common happiness and prosperity. 

But at the same time, .she cannot approve 
of any harm which may be inflicted upon any 
of its member nations, especially if such 
harm is directed against her. 

Mr. President, the injustice and aggres- 
sion which were wrought upon the Arabs of 
Palestine are unprecedented in history, for 
not even in the darkest ages had a whole pop- 
ulation of a country been driven out of their 
homes to be replaced by aliens. 

The Arab nation has appealed to the con- 
scienceof the world for more than a quarter 
of a century to regain their lost rights and 
to undo the injustice which had been com- 
mitted, but those appeals were in vain and 
they had no alternative but to resort to arms 
in the defense of their rights, their lands, 
and their sacred shrines. 



' King Faisal spoke in Arabic on both occasions. 



Mr. President, we seek a peace based on 
right and justice, because only with such 
peace can security and stability throughout 
the world be obtained. 

In this i-espect, we highly appreciate this 
step forward which has been realized on the 
road to peace and under Your Excellency's 
guidance and by the wise and decisive efforts 
of your Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissin- 
ger. We hope that the United States of Amer- 
ica will continue her efforts for a ju.st and 
lasting peace in the area so that it may live 
in peace and security, because it is peace and 
security that form the basis for its develop- 
ment and prosperity ; thus the United States 
of America would be fulfilling her responsi- 
bility as the most powerful nation of the 
world. 

We believe that there will never be a real 
and lasting peace in the area unless Jerusa- 
lem is liberated and returned to Arab sov- 
ereignty, unless liberation of all the occupied 
Arab territories is achieved, and unless Arab 
peoples of Palestine regain their rights to 
return to their homes and be given the right 
to self-determination. 

Mr. President, the step performed by Your 
Excellency in visiting the area is such a wise 
act which wins our thanks and appreciation. 
We hope that it will bring peace and pros- 
perity to this part of the world. We assure 
Your Excellency that we value the friendship 
of the United States of America and wish to 
cooperate with her for the benefit of the 
Arab world in general and the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia in particular. 

We also hope that the visit which our 
brother His Royal Highness Prince Fahd has 
just paid to the United States of America will 
be the beginning of a constructive and fruit- 
ful cooperation between the two friendly na- 
tions. 

Mr. President, may you convey to our 
friends in the United States and to the 
friendly American people our deepest thanks 
and great appreciation. 

Once more, Mr. President, I welcome Your 
E.xcellency and the distinguished members of 
your party in our country, wishing you all a 
happy stay. 



94 



Department of State Bulletin 



Remarks by President Nixon 

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, 
Your Excellencies, and distinguished guests : 
Your Majesty, speaking for all of us here 
who are your guests from the United States, 
I express appreciation for this magnificent 
dinner and also for your very gracious re- 
marks. 

This is indeed a very historic visit as far 
as I personally am concerned and as far as 
the United States is concerned, because of the 
five nations that we are visiting on this 
journey for peace through the Mideastern 
area, Saudi Arabia has the longest record of 
unbroken friendship with the United States 
of all those nations. And while I have had the 
opportunity on several occasions to receive 
not only Your Majesty but others represent- 
ing your country in the United States and to 
meet and talk to you there, I am honored 
that this is the first visit of an American 
President to Saudi Arabia. 

And I believe that it is important and sig- 
nificant to point out to all of those assembled 
here that this visit is not one that is neces- 
sary because of any differences we have in a 
bilateral sense, because as Your Maje.sty 
pointed out and as Prince Fahd's recent visit 
to the United States underlined, we have em- 
barked on new areas of cooperation in the 
economic and security fields which we are 
sure will serve the interests of not only our 
two countries but the interest of peace in 
this part of the world. 

We live in a very decisive time in the his- 
tory of world diplomacy. Over these past 
three years, we have seen the United States 
of America establi-sh a new relation.ship with 
the People's Republic of China, where one- 
fourth of all the people in the world live. 
We have seen the end of America's longest 
and most diflRcult war, in Viet-Nam. We have 
had a series of meetings with the leaders of 
the Soviet Union to resolve difi"erences and 
develop, where possible, areas of cooperation 
for peaceful purposes. 

But I would be certainly much less than 
candid if I were not to admit that despite 
these advances in the cause of peace, we know 



how difficult and long the road ahead is if we 
are to have a permanent peace. 

I think, for example, of His Majesty's 
background, the fact that when he was only 
14 years of age he attended a conference at 
the end of World War I, a war that was de- 
scribed at that time as one that would end 
all wars. But that of course was not the case. 
Versailles left only the seeds for a war that 
was to follow in the next generation. 

And then His Majesty attended another 
conference after the Second World War, in 
San Francisco — the conference that set up 
the United Nations. And yet, with all the high 
idealism that motivated so many of those 
who attended that conference, it did not pro- 
duce a framework which guaranteed what so 
many wanted — a lasting peace — because 
wars continued to come. 

And that is why, to the extent that we can 
contribute to a great goal, our goal is not 
simply a peace that will be an interlude be- 
tween wars but a peace that can last, and 
such a peace must be built carefully, step by 
step, having in mind the fact that if mistakes 
are made in the making of the peace, the re- 
sult inevitably will be simply another con- 
flict. 

So I can say tonight that, while we do have 
a new and promising relation with the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China, while we do have a 
dialogue discussing many constructive items 
with the Soviet Union, we realize that the 
process of peace is one that never ends, we 
must continue to work in order to preserve 
it. 

And that brings me, of course, to the area 
of the world in which we are most interested 
at this time, the Mideast. We want to play a 
helpful role. And our Secretary of State, we 
believe, has played a helpful role, working 
with the governments in the area to settle 
longtime differences. But we are aware that 
we cannot produce an instant formula to 
solve all longtime differences. But what is 
new in the present situation is that the 
United States is playing a role, a positive 
role, working toward the goal of a perma- 
nent peace in the Mideast. 

And it is for this reason. Your Majesty, 



July 15, 1974 



95 



that this visit to Saudi Arabia, clearly apart 
from the very great pleasure it gives us to 
see you personally again and to see so many 
of our friends, it is for this reason that this 
visit is important. 

Because over the past 27 years I have had 
the privilege of meeting and knowing the 
leaders of over 80 nations in the world. And 
I can assure all of those assembled here that 
in terms of years of experience, in terms of 
wisdom, in terms of vision, not only for his 
own country and his own area but for the 
whole world, there is no man on the world 
scene who can surpass our host tonight, His 
Majesty King Faisal. 

I know that most people — at least it is as- 
sumed that most people — come to Saudi Ara- 
bia to get oil. We can use oil. But we need 
more, something that is worth far more than 
oil. We need wisdom. 

And that is why I am sure that the talks 
that His Majesty and I have already been 
privileged to have and that we will continue 
tomorrow will help me, help the Secretary 
of State, in our developing the policies and 
developing the programs that can continue 
the momentum toward the goal that we all 
seek, a just and lasting peace for the people 
of the Mideast and all of the nations in this 
area. 

And finally, just to demonstrate that I am 
somewhat of a practical politician, let me 
say that while we will treasure most the wis- 
dom that we will take with us after this visit, 
we of course will need the oil to carry us to 
our next stop. And, Your Majesty, I just 
want to make clear we of course will pay the 
world price. 



DEPARTURE, JIDDA, JUNE 15 

white House press release (Jidda) dated June 15 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, 
Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen : 
Once again, it has been my great privilege 
and pleasure to meet with Your Majesty, as 
well as with Crown Prince Khalid and other 
members of the Saudi Arabian Government. 



Our talks have been constructive and far- 
reaching, covering problems of the whole 
world. We have particularly directed our at- 
tention to, and have reviewed in detail, the 
momentous changes that are occurring in 
this area of the world, the Middle East. 

While we both recognize that important 
steps have already been taken on the long 
road to permanent peace in this area, there 
is much that remains to be done in reaching 
our goal. 

And the United States intends to persevere 
in its active efforts to achieve this difficult 
but great goal of a permanent and equitable 
and just peace in this area, and essential ele- 
ments in the search for peace are the funda- 
mental developments that we are witnessing 
in American relations with Saudi Arabia and 
with other nations in the Arab world. 

The American and Arab nations are rap- 
idly moving into an era of close cooperation 
and interdependence, an era unprecedented in 
the long history of our relationships. It is 
entirely fitting that one of the first manifes- 
tations of this new era should come in the 
relationships between Saudi Arabia and the 
United States, the two nations that have 
been closely bound by ties of friendship for 
more than three decades. 

In exploring avenues of cooperation. His 
Majesty and I have focused in particular on 
the work of the joint commissions which were 
agreed to a week ago during the visit of His 
Royal Highness Prince Fahd and other sen- 
ior Saudi Ministers to Washington. These 
commissions and the goals they represent 
hold rich promise for the future of Saudi 
Arabia and for the future of the entire Mid- 
east. 

And, Your Majesty, the United States in- 
tends to be Saudi Arabia's active and con- 
structive partner in insuring the success of 
these goals. 

His Majesty and I have also reviewed the 
efforts by the United States to assist Saudi 
Arabia in maintaining its defense forces. 
Our two nations are totally dedicated to 
peace. But to achieve that goal in this area, 
Saudi Arabia must have a level of security 
that is consistent with its role as a leader in 
this part of the world. If Saudi Arabia is 



96 



Department of State Bulletin 



strong and secure as it will be, we will en- 
hance the prospects for peace and stability 
throughout the Middle East and in turn 
throughout the world. 

As we conclude these talks after having 
met on several occasions before, I would say 
that today American ties with Saudi Arabia 
have never been stronger and have never 
more solidly been based than they are now. 
We have long been good friends, and our 
friendship which now develops into an active 
partnership will be further strengthened 
through active cooperation between us in the 
areas that I have described. 

And, Your Majesty, on behalf of all the 
Americans traveling with me, I would like 
to express our grateful appreciation to you 
for the very generous hospitality you have 
extended to us and also to express apprecia- 
tion to you for the gestures of hospitality and 
the counsel you have provided for Secretary 
Kissinger during his visit to your nation. 

And personally, I look forward to meeting 
you again when you next can plan a trip to 
the United States. I can assure you of a warm 
and friendly reception. 

Remarks by King Faisal 

Mr. President, Excellencies, distinguished 
guests: It is a source of great appreciation to 
meet with you again, Mr. President, only this 
time in our country, and to receive you so 
warmly as you may have seen, so genuinely, 
on the part of the people and the Government 
of Saudi Arabia. 

We greatly appreciate, Mr. President, 
your genuine expressions of friendship and 
solidarity and cooperation between our two 
countries. We have no doubt whatsoever that 
everybody who is genuine and who knows us 
well, both sides of us, is absolutely assured of 
our agreeing with you fully about the 
strengthening and deepening of our relations. 

And as I have mentioned to you, Mr. Pres- 
ident, I have the conviction that all our 
Arab brethren are desirous of and are seri- 
ously looking forward to improve the rela- 
tions that bind them to the United States of 
America in ties of friendship and respect. 

It is our sincere hope that all the problems 



and the blemishes that seem to mar the rela- 
tionship between the United States of Amer- 
ica and some Arab countries will be removed 
so that the clear waters will go back to their 
natural course. 

We are fully confident in the efficacy of 
Your Excellency's endeavors to remove all 
these problems and blemishes so that we 
can once again, the Arab world and the 
United States of America, be very close and 
deep friends. 

But what is very important is that our 
friends in the United States of America be 
themselves wise enough to stand behind you, 
to rally around you, Mr. President, in your 
noble efforts, almost unprecedented in the 
history of mankind, the efforts aiming at se- 
curing peace and justice in the world. 

It goes without saying that in addition to 
our professions, genuine professions of 
friendship between us, and our desires to 
strengthen the ties, there is no doubt that 
our ultimate objectives, both you and us, 
are in the same direction; namely, aiming 
at securing peace, justice, stability, and pros- 
perity to the whole world. 

And anybody who stands against you, Mr. 
President, in the United States of America, 
or outside the United States of America, or 
.stands against us, your friends, in this part 
of the world, obviously has one aim in mind; 
namely, that of causing the splintering of 
the world, the wrong polarization of the 
world, the bringing about of mischief, which 
would not be conducive to tranquillity and 
peace in the world. 

Therefore, we beseech Almighty God to 
lend his help to us and to you so that we both 
can go hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder in 
pursuance of the noble aims that we both 
share; namely, those of peace, justice, and 
prosperity in the world. 

And we sincerely hope that God will grant 
us success to our joint efforts in reaching 
those noble aims for all peoples of the world. 

I would like to assure you, Mr. President, 
that for our part, we will pursue, realize, and 
carry out every item we have agreed upon, 
both sides, between Dr. Kissinger and His 
Royal Highness Prince Fahd, between the 



July 15, 1974 



97 



American side and the Saudi side in the 
fields of cooperation. 

And I would like to reiterate my thanks 
and gratification at your having taken the 
trouble to grace us with this very kind and 
most welcome visit and certainly beseech 
Almighty God to grant you continued success 
in vour noble endeavors. 



THE VISIT TO SYRIA 

DINNER HONORING PRESIDENT NIXON, 
DAMASCUS, JUNE 15 

White House press release (Damascus) dated June 15 

Remarks by President Asad ^ 

Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon, honored guests, 
ladies and gentlemen : I am indeed happy to 
extend a warm welcome to President Rich- 
ard Nixon and to Mrs. Nixon, also to our 
honored American guests, wishing them all a 
happy stay in our country. 

Mr. President, as we extend greetings to 
the American people through you, we also 
express appreciation for your visit, which 
has a historic significance, considering that 
you are the first President of the United 
States to pay a visit to our country. Your 
visit is especially meaningful in that it is 
taking place in an important juncture in the 
modern history of our region and after a long 
period of estrangement between our two 
countries. It is also meaningful in that it 
constitutes a part of the tour which you have 
declared to be dedicated to efforts aimed at 
establishing a just and durable peace in our 
region. 

We welcome every sincere endeavor aimed 
at achieving a just peace, and we wish you 
full success in your efforts. I should also 
make it clear that peace is a genuine at- 
tribute of the Arab nation and that we 
have a real interest in such a peace. We de- 
sire a stability based on real freedom, in 
order to insure for ourselves a many-sided 
progress, that would ultimately restore to 



' President Asad spoke in Arabic on both occasions. 



our people the ability to play an appropriate 
role in the activities of the international com- 
munity wherewith to serve both themselves 
and humanity at large. 

For a long period of time, the Arab 
nation has struggled to achieve peace. How- 
ever, it has faced difficulties, and obstacles 
have been placed in its way. Moreover, it has 
been subjected to pressures and threats that 
have aimed at depriving it both of freedom 
and of the exercise of its free will, as well as 
at making it abandon the principles with 
regards to which it refuses all compromise. 

Our nation, whose land was the cradle of 
the most ancient civilizations and the birth- 
place of monotheistic religions and which, 
through its long history, made rich contri- 
butions to culture, is a productive nation that 
harbors no harm to anyone. It has no other 
aim than living freely on its land and re- 
constructing its life in all fields so as to 
be able to resume contributing to humanity 
under peaceful conditions. 

It cannot do this, however, while it feels 
that its fate and land are threatened and its 
freedom violated through the occupation of 
parts of its territory and while millions of 
our nation, from Palestine and other Arab 
lands, are dispersed. 

For 26 years now, the people of Palestine 
have lived homeless and completely deprived 
of their legitimate rights, which have been 
recognized by international law and conven- 
tions as well as confirmed — almost every 
year since 1947 — by resolutions of the 
United Nations. This made them despair of 
the justice of man and international organi- 
zations because the more they complained 
against injustice, the more aggressions were 
heaped upon them and the more their rights 
were ignoi-ed by the aggressors, who have 
gone so far as to deny these rights and even 
to deny the very existence of the Palestinian 
people. By doing this, they have forced the 
Palestinian people to follow a path not of 
their own choice in order to remind the world 
of their existence and of their case. No peace 
can be established in this region unless a real 
and just solution is found for the Palestine 
question. 

Mr. President, you can imagine the extent 



98 



Department of State Bulletin 



of the disappointment of the Arab people 
during past years when they saw that the 
efforts they had exerted and the sacrifices 
they had made to achieve peace and justice 
were being spurned and rejected. They were 
Hkewise disheartened by the faihire of ef- 
forts aimed at redressing their grievances. 

The only lasting and durable peace in this 
region would be a peace that would terminate 
Israeli occupation, restore the land to its 
people, remove the grievances inflicted upon 
the people of Palestine and insure them of 
their legitimate national rights. 

During the last few years, efforts were 
made to impose a fait accompli that has all 
the elements of renewed war and bloodshed 
and is far removed from the pathway to 
peace. We had to resist those efforts as we 
did, first in the October war, then in the 
Golan war, when it was proved that a fait 
accompli based on occupation and aggression 
cannot last. 

It was also proved that reliance on force to 
extract from others what is their legal rights 
constitutes disregard to human values on one 
hand and a lack of vision on the other hand. 
Furthermore, a fact repeatedly reaffirmed 
throughout different historical events has 
been reasserted ; namely, the fact that any 
triumph which is not based on right and 
justice, if triumph it is, is only a temporary 
and feeble triumph which is bound sooner or 
later to collapse once the strong wind of 
good, right, and justice start blowing. 

Real peace is an urgent demand and a 
pressing need for all peoples of the world. 
Such peace should be based on insuring the 
rights of peoples and removing their griev- 
ances. 

Indeed, world peace in the present age has 
become the ideal cf humanity — an ideal 
which governments seek and for which peo- 
ples struggle. But this peace is almost im- 
possible to achieve without establishing a 
just peace in this region which is one of the 
pivotal points of the world. 

Mr. President, we hope that your visit to 
the Syrian Arab Republic will mark the be- 
ginning of a new phase of relations between 
our two countries, a phase based on mutual 
respect, unselfish cooperation, and adherence 



to provisions of the United Nations Charter. 
We are confident that the existence of such re- 
lationship serves the interests of our peoples. 

We believe that the key to understanding 
and the essence of sound relations between 
any two states lies in a frank and clear 
approach. Hence our eagerness that our talks 
should be frank and clear in the hope that 
through this we can arrive at common con- 
ceptions regarding subjects of discussion and 
a common understanding of the elements con- 
stituting a just peace in our region. There is 
no doubt that this would help us to take firm 
steps leading to a peace that fulfills the inter- 
ests of the Arab people and all other peoples 
of the world. 

Mr. President, we fully appreciate your 
personal role and American political initia- 
tives as well as the importance of these 
initiatives and their effect on international 
detente. We appreciate your desire for good 
and friendly relations in our region and your 
endeavor to establish a durable and firm 
peace in it. We have witnessed a manifesta- 
tion of this new attitude in the mission you 
entrusted to your Secretary of State, Dr. 
Henry Kissinger, to contribute to the reali- 
zation of a first step along the road of a 
permanent and lasting peace. We appreciate 
the great efforts he exerted during the talks 
for the disengagement of forces on the 
Syrian front. 

It is very important that we should regard 
what has been achieved as a prelude to the 
next stage which should establish peace on 
a firm and real foundation. This is the great 
challenge to meeting which the efforts of all 
sincere supporters of peace should be di- 
rected. 

Mr. President, you will be soon celebrating 
in the United States the bicentennial of inde- 
pendence. Let us not forget the lofty princi- 
ples for which you fought the American War 
of Independence — above all, the principle of 
liberty. 

I am happy to refer to the fact that a large 
number of U.S. citizens are of Syrian descent 
and have proved themselves to be good citi- 
zens in all fields of life. This should serve as 
an urge to enhance friendship between our 
two peoples. 



July 15, 1974 



99 



Let us open a new page and begin a new 
phase in the relations between our two coun- 
tries in which freedom and justice are 
emphasized, the causes of aggression are le- 
moved, and actions are performed with the 
support and bacl<;ing of our two peoples in 
order to serve the good of the whole hu- 
manity. 

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I 
wish to stress the importance of this visit 
and to extend greetings to President Richard 
Nixon and Mrs. Nixon and to wish them good 
health and happiness. Let us also extend 
greetings to the American people, for whom 
we wish continued success and progress. 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. President, Mrs. Asad, Your Excellen- 
cies, and distinguished guests: Mr. Presi- 
dent, on behalf of all your guests tonight and 
particularly your American guests, I express 
appreciation for this magnificent dinner and 
for the entertainment which accompanied it. 

I was somewhat prepared for this evening 
by our Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. 
He told me of his great respect for your 
quick intelligence, for your tough negotiating 
ability, and also for your statesmanship. And 
you, Mr. President, have told me that there 
is a Syrian saying to the effect that the 
guest's respect and admiration for his host 
is directly measured by the amount of food 
the guest consumes at the host's dinner. 

I can now see why Henry Kissinger gained 
seven pounds in his 13 trips to Damascus in 
the past 30 days. And whenever we wear him 
out on his other travels throughout the 
world, we will send him back here to build 
him up. 

And tonight, in addition to complimenting 
those who prepared this magnificent dinner, 
all of them and those who served it so beau- 
tifully, may I pay respects on behalf of all 
our guests and your guests tonight to the 
cultural groups who entertained us so beau- 
tifully. 

And it is my hope, Mr. President, that 
with the cultural exchange program between 



our two countries being reestablished, that a 
group like this, maybe this one, you will 
choose to send to the United States so that 
people in Washington and other cities may 
be able to see and hear it. 

Mr. President, I am sure you must know 
how I feel in my position standing here in 
what is generally agreed to be the oldest con- 
tinually inhabited city in the world, Damas- 
cus, and to realize that this city in 6,000 
years has seen more of history than any 
other continually inhabited city on the whole 
globe. 

And tonight, as you have indicated, this 
ancient city with its honorable traditions, 
its great history, sees another event which 
will mark a new direction in the relations not 
only between two nations but, we trust, be- 
tween and among many nations in this part 
of the world. 

That new direction is symbolized by what 
you have referred to, that this is the first 
time a President of the United States has 
ever visited Damascus, has ever stood on Syr- 
ian soil. But it symbolizes far more than that. 

You have indicated the fact that a first 
step has been taken toward the just and 
equitable peace that we want for this area of 
the world. And you have indicated very elo- 
quently, very directly, very candidly, as you 
have always done, your concern about what 
other steps may be taken or should be taken 
in order that the peace be just and be equita- 
ble. You have indicated your concern about 
such matters as the Palestinians, which we 
of course understand, your concern about 
your borders, which we of course understand, 
and other matters that are for future nego- 
tiations. 

I would like to tell you that I have an 
instant solution for these very complex prob- 
lems, but you would know, with your vast 
experience in diplomacy and negotiations, as 
would our other guests here, that I do not 
bring any instant solution to these problems. 

I do know that for 30 years that resort 
to war by either side, by whatever chance, 
has not solved these problems. And I do know 
that the United States for that reason, as 



100 



Department of State Bulletin 



well as for other reasons involving our inter- 
ests in justice and equity, now is directly in- 
volved in attempting to get solutions for 
these problems through the channels of peace 
rather than through resort to war. 

The fact that a first step has been taken 
has been credited, with very good reason, to 
the persistence and ability of our Secretary 
of State and his colleagues. But your own 
statesmanship, your own recognition of what 
could be accomplished and should be accom- 
plished as a first step, played an indispen- 
sable part in obtaining this first disengage- 
ment step in this critical area. 

Tomorrow we will explore in greater detail 
all of the factors involved in the problems 
that you have touched upon tonight. 

I can simply state tonight, however, that 
we do not consider the first step to be the 
last step. It is a beginning, and a good be- 
ginning. But now we must move forward 
step by step as each case permits it to be 
done until we reach our goal of a just and 
equitable peace. 

And while, Mr. President, as I said earlier, 
it would be very easy to make rather over- 
blown promises about what can be accom- 
plished and when it can be accomplished, I 
can tell you that the United States is com- 
mitted irreversibly to participating where 
we can be of assistance in working out an 
equitable and just peace settlement. 

And it is with that spirit of good will, of 
understanding, and a determination that we 
will enter our talks tomorrow with you on 
what various steps can be taken in the future 
that can be effective. 

Having referred to that specific problem, 
may I return in conclusion to the theme 
which you touched upon as well in your re- 
marks. 

America is fortunate to have many of Syr- 
ian background as citizens of our country. 
They are all good American citizens, but 
proud of their Syrian background, and they 
have enriched the diversity of our American 
life. And tonight, Mr. President, as I met you, 
Mrs. Asad, your wonderful family, had the 
opportunity to see some exhibits of your 



culture, I realize how much both of our coun- 
tries have missed in being apart for so many 
years over these past 30 years. 

As I sensed at this dinner tonight, and as 
I sensed as we rode through Damascus ear- 
lier today, it is natural for Syrians and 
Americans to be friends. It is not natural for 
us to be enemies. And I would hope and trust 
that we would never again allow differences 
to drive us apart as they have over these past 
few years. 

We will not always agree, just as friends 
do not always agree. But as friends, we will 
learn from each other, and we will work to- 
gether for a goal to which we are both deeply 
dedicated, the cause of peace not only be- 
tween and among the nations in this area 
but for all peoples in the world. 

And so I think we can safely say that after 
6,000 years of history, this great city is see- 
ing again something happen, something 
that will change not only the relations be- 
tween our two countries, but something that 
can change the world and make it a better 
world for all of us. 

And for that and many other reasons, Mr. 
President, Mrs. Nixon and I, Dr. Kissinger 
and all of your American guests are proud 
to be here tonight in your company as your 
guests. 



REMARKS FOLLOWING AGREEMENT TO RESUME 
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, DAMASCUS, JUNE 16 

White House press release (Damascus) dated June 16 

Remarks by President Asad 

It was a good opportunity to receive in 
Damascus Mr. Richard Nixon, the President 
of the United States of America, since his 
visit afforded us the opportunity to exchange 
views on matters concerning our bilateral 
relations and the Middle East issue. Many 
values of civilization and humanity link the 
American people and the Syrian-Arab people. 
It is natural that the American citizens of 
Syrian descent form one of the bridges of 
understanding that would pave the way for 



July 15, 1974 



101 



a new phase in relations between our two 
peoples, relations based on the mutual inter- 
ests and the respect of each side for the inde- 
pendence and sovereio:nty of the other side. 

We welcome the participation of the 
United States of America in the Damascus 
International Fair this year. We declare our 
readiness for conducting- a dialogue to con- 
solidate friendship between the peoples of 
both countries and to establish ties of coop- 
eration in the educational and economic fields 
so as to serve the interests of both sides. 

The Syrian Arab Republic extends thanks 
to President Nixon for the constructive ef- 
forts which the United States of America 
exerted for reaching an agreement on the 
disengagement of forces on the Golan 
Heights. The Syrian Arab Republic declares 
its readiness to pursue its sincere and con- 
structive cooperation with the Government 
of the United States of America for laying 
down the firm basis for a just and lasting 
peace in the Middle East region. 

The agreement of the disengagement of 
forces and our understanding constitutes a 
first step toward and an integral part of the 
comprehensive, ju.st settlement of the issue. 
Such a settlement cannot be reached without 
Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied 
Arab territories and the securing of the na- 
tional rights of the Palestinian people in 
conformity with our understanding of Se- 
curity Council Resolution No. 338 of October 
22, 1973, this understanding which we com- 
municated to the United Nations in due time. 

We are dedicating our utmost efforts for 
achieving a just and lasting peace in our re- 
gion. We consider this peace an essential 
condition for the stability of international 
peace and security. We believe that peace in 
any region cannot be consolidated if the peo- 
ple of that region is robbed of his basic 
rights that are recognized under the Charter 
of the United Nations and its resolutions. 

President Nixon and I have agreed to 
consolidate dialogue and cooperation be- 
tween our two countries for achieving a just 
and lasting peace in our region and in the 
world. 

We also agreed to enhance the relations 
between our countries in all fields. 



Finally, we have agreed that diplomatic 
relations between our two countries be re- 
stored as of today at the ambassadorial 
level. 

Thank you. 

Remarks by President Nixon 

President Asad, distinguished guests : I 
join President Asad in expressing my pleas- 
ure that our two governments are today re- 
establishing diplomatic relations. The Amer- 
ican and the Syrian peoples have a long 
history of friendly relations, and we in 
America are proud to count on many persons 
of Syrian descent among our citizens. 

We look forward now to an expansion in 
contacts and cooperation between the United 
States and Syria. President Asad and I have 
agreed that Ambassadors will be named with- 
in two weeks. 

In the many contacts which have taken 
place in recent weeks between the United 
States and Syrian Governments, in the 
course of the negotiations on disengagement, 
each side has made clear its respect for the 
independence and for the sovereignty of the 
other. I want to reaflirm that relations be- 
tween our two countries shall be based on 
this principle of international law. I also 
want to take this opportunity to express my 
admiration for the efforts of President Asad 
and his colleagues, the efforts they have 
undertaken in the interest of peace. The 
United States will work closely with Syria 
for the achievement of a just and lasting 
peace in implementation of United Nations 
Security Council Resolution 338 — a peace 
which will bring a new era of growth and 
prosperity and progress in the Middle East. 

The renewed contacts between our govern- 
ments, and especially the intensive dis- 
cussions leading to the agreement on the 
disengagement of the Israeli and Syrian 
military forces, have contributed markedly 
to a deeper understanding and improvement 
in the overall relationship between the 
United States and Syria and between our 
two peoples. President Asad and I consider 
this agreement a first step toward a just and 
lasting peace in this area. 



102 



Department of State Bulletin 



President Asad and I have agreed that our 
governments will review and develop further 
concrete ways in which the United States 
and Syria can work more closely together 
for their mutual benefit. A senior Syrian 
official will visit Washington in the near 
future to discuss specific plans to achieve this 
goal. In the general context of strengthen- 
ing our bilateral relations, I have aflirmed 
that the United States is prepared to resume 
educational and cultural exchanges. Presi- 
dent Asad extended an invitation to the 
United States to participate in the Damascus 
International Trade Fair next month, and 
I have accepted this invitation with great 
pleasure on behalf of the United States. 

I have extended an invitation to President 
Asad to visit the United States at a time to 
be agreed, and I am delighted to announce 
that he has accepted this invitation. 



THE VISIT TO ISRAEL 



ARRIVAL, TEL AVIV, JUNE 16 



White House press release (Tel Aviv) dated June 16 

Remarks by President Katzir 

Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon, distinguished 
guests from the United States, ladies and 
gentlemen: Blessed are you who come in the 
name of peace. 

You are the first President of the United 
States to visit the State of Israel, and we 
welcome you and Mrs. Nixon and the distin- 
guished members of your party with a very 
warm shalom. Your visit to our country is 
an occasion of joy as well as of great sig- 
nificance for us. 

The United States has stood by the side of 
Israel from the day of her rebirth as a 
sovereign state. Throughout the years, the 
great American people have demonstrated 
their friendship. In hours of trial we have 
enjoyed your sympathy and support, just as 
we always have benefited from your nation's 
generosity in helping us to advance our coun- 
try and to bring a better life to our people. 

You personally, Mr. President, have dem- 



onstrated in a singular manner your amity 
and your constant readiness to come to our 
assistance. We shall never forget, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that you stood with us in hours of grave 
perils as well as in days of opportunity and 
hope. 

And today our hopes are that our people, 
gathered from the four corners of the earth, 
after centuries of persecution and decades 
of wars, will be able to live as free men in 
peace and security. 

We are grateful to our great sister democ- 
racy and to you, Mr. President, for all that 
has been done and is being done to strength- 
en us in our national rebuilding. You will 
have some opportunity to observe for your- 
self what has been accomplished in trans- 
forming this once-barren land into a fast- 
developing and vibrant country. 

We welcome you, Mr. President, because 
your presence here epitomizes the mission of 
peace in our area which the American admin- 
istration, under your guidance and leader- 
ship, is pursuing. As a people whose supreme 
goal is peace, we applaud your eflforts, in 
which we wholeheartedly participate. 

We know that you, Mr. President, regard 
the mission of peace in this area as an essen- 
tial ingredient of the wider endeavor to build 
a world structure of peace. 

On behalf of the Government of Israel and 
the people of Israel, and in the spirit of the 
profound friendship between our nations, I 
bid you Barukh Haba — blessed be he who 
comes. 



Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Your 
Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and 
gentlemen: It is for me, as I am sure all of 
you can imagine, a very great moment to 
be standing here, as the President has indi- 
cated, as the first American President to be 
here in Israel and particularly so because our 
two countries have been joined together in 
friendship from the time of Israel's birth as 
a nation in our modern times. 

We have been through, over these years, 
some difficult times. During the period that I 
have served as President of the United 



July 15, 1974 



103 



states, we have been through some difficult 
times together; and I can only say that the 
friendship that we have for this nation — the 
respect and the admiration we have for the 
people of this nation, their courage, their 
tenacity, their firmness in the face of very 
great odds — is one that makes us proud to 
stand with Israel as we have in the past in 
times of trouble and now to work with Israel 
in a better time, a time that we trust will be 
a time of peace. 

Reference has been made to the fact that 
this is the first visit of a President to Israel, 
a President of the United States. It is, of 
course, not my first trip to this land. I was 
here in 1966 and then at the very end of the 
June war in 1967. As I visited some of the 
troops, as I met for the first time the now 
Prime Minister, then commander, and also 
Mr. [Moshe] Dayan and others who were 
leaders of Israel at that time, and particu- 
larly as I visited the hospitals where some of 
the wounded were, the wounded on both 
sides, I realized, first, how much Israel had 
gone through to defend itself in war, how 
much war cost not only Israel but also those 
on the other side, and how the goal of peace 
was one that was in the interests of both 
sides, in the interest of Israel, this nation of 
enormous abilities, enormous prospects, 
whatever the odds may be, but a people with 
the ability to go forward to heights un- 
dreamed of if the terrible danger of war 
could be reduced and even sometime removed. 

And that is why, at this time as I travel to 
nations that over the past few years have 
been Israel's traditional adversaries, that I 
have been glad to know that the people of 
this nation understand, that they appreciate 
the purpose of that journey. 

The people of Israel understand, appreci- 
ate, the purpose of a journey I will take later 
to the Soviet Union for the third meeting 
with Soviet leaders. And that purpose is the 
purpose of peace for all the world and, in 
this area particularly, peace among the na- 
tions involved. It is not an easy goal to 
achieve. 

The road ahead is difficult because the 



peace that we seek — that all nations in the 
area seek — must be one that is just and one 
that is equitable, one that provides the op- 
portunity for each nation to maintain its 
independence and its security against all 
those who might threaten it. 

But we have taken the first steps down 
that long road and now, working with our 
traditional friends fi'om Israel as well as 
with some of the other nations in the area 
who have indicated a similar desire to find 
a way to solve differences through peace 
rather than war, we believe the goal can be 
achieved. 

We are dedicated to it. We know that you, 
too, are dedicated to it. And I would say, fi- 
nally, you are dedicated to it not because you 
have, as you look back over your history, 
any fear insofar as your ability to defend 
yourself is concerned — because you have 
demonstrated your courage over and over 
again — but you look forward to the achiev- 
ing of this goal because you know how much 
more Israel, this great, proud people, small 
in numbers but high in intelligence and ded- 
ication and ability, how much more they 
could create for their own good and for the 
people of the world if they could turn their 
full attention to the works of peace. That is 
our goal. 

"An impossible dream," one would have 
said when I was in Israel at the end of the 
June war in 1967. A possible dream now. 
What we want to do is to make that possible 
dream come true with your cooperation, with 
your help, and I am confident we can. 

Thank you. 



DINNER HONORING PRESIDENT NIXON, 
JERUSALEM, JUNE 16 

White House press release (Jerusalem) dated June 16 

Toast by President Katzir 

Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon, Secretary Kis- 
singer, honored guests : We meet this eve- 
ning in the great hall of the Knesset, the leg- 
islative body of the State of Israel, heir to 



104 



Department of State Bulletin 



the tradition of the great Knesset of close to 
2,500 years ago. The great Knesset came into 
being during the first return to Zion after 
the destruction of the first temple, and it was 
the great Knesset which continued the pro- 
phetic tradition and laid the foundations for 
the democratic life of the Jewish people. The 
modern Knesset, too, has come into being 
during a period of return to Zion, the second 
return, realizing the 2,000-year-old dream of 
the Jewish people. 

A generation ago, a battered people 
emerged from the valley of the shadow of 
death into the light of liberty. Here, where 
Jewish peoplehood was born, where our law- 
makers proclaimed the Biblical ethic, where 
the prophets spoke their immortal message — 
here did we, the surviving sons of that peo- 
ple, rekindle the torch of national independ- 
ence, thereby ending 20 centuries of exile. 
Israel's history records that the first country 
to welcome us back into the family of sov- 
ereign nations — literally five minutes after 
our declaration of independence — was the 
United States of America. From that day to 
this, a fabric of friendship has become closely 
interwoven between our peoples. 

Mr. President, welcome to you and to all 
your distinguished fellow Americans who are 
with you. Your presence here tonight is a 
magnificent personal expression of that un- 
derstanding and friendship, making this an 
exalted moment in the history of the Amer- 
ican-Israeli relations. 

You come to an ancient land, to Jerusa- 
lem, City of David, whose Jewish memories 
run 4,000 years deep. You come to a small 
people, poorly endowed in geography, but 
alive with passion of creation. And whilst the 
differences between our countries in size and 
age are great, this has not hindered the in- 
timacy of our peoples. This is surely so be- 
cause our human purpose as nations rests 
upon deep aflSnities of ideals and experience. 

Both our lands are built upon immigra- 
tion. Our founding fathers, yours and ours, 
had a vision of a haven for the homeless and 
the helpless. At the entrance to your major 
harbor stands the Statue of Liberty, and at 



the entrance to ours, a refugee immigrant 
barge. Both are symbols of the concept of 
countries built by those who entered desti- 
tute, by the oppressed and the persecuted. 
The American people can surely grasp the 
meaning of our ingathering of exiles and the 
intensity of our compulsion to create here, in 
the land of our heritage, a small place under 
the sun where we may live our own lives in 
freedom, according to our own needs, our 
own will, and our own choice. 

We share, too, a common heritage of pio- 
neering, of the arduous fight against nature, 
of pushing back deserts and marsh, of sac- 
rificing in order to build and sow and reap. 
Our geographies differ vastly, but not the 
spirit of our pioneering tradition rooted in 
the imagery of the Hebrew prophecy of men 
who "went into the wilderness, in the land 
that was not sown." 

The edifice in which we are here assem- 
bled this evening, the great Knesset, symbo- 
lizes what is most significant in our common 
tradition : our democracies. Their paths lead 
back to these ancient hills and city — holy to 
three great faiths — where man first pro- 
claimed the dignity of man created in the 
image of God, where human life was declared 
a sacred absolute, where nations were urged 
to beat swords into ploughshares, where man 
was enjoined to work to earn his bread but 
should not live by bread alone, and where 
the rights of all men were respected. How 
consciously did the American fathers of the 
Revolution dedicate themselves to this moral 
system to which the land of our ancestors 
gave birth. American democracy and Israeli 
democracy are alive and vibrant because they 
cling tenaciously to these eternal truths of 
.social and international justice. 

Central to our common vision is a doctrine 
of universal peace. You, Mr. President, have 
left no stone unturned in your pursuit of it. 
Under your leadership, the United States of 
America has written an impressive new chap- 
ter in the diplomatic chi'onicles of our times. 
Your very visit to our region — which is so 
unprecedented and which we in Israel so 
greatly welcome — dramatically illustrates 



July 15, 1974 



105 



your determination to advance the cause of 
reconciliation. 

Peace, Mr. President, was and remains 
our cherished goal. We are not a martial peo- 
ple. Our legendary heroes are prophets and 
scholars. We are the authors of mankind's 
oldest pacific tradition. "Make peace and pur- 
sue it," declared the psalmist. I can there- 
fore assure you, on behalf of the Govern- 
ment and the people of Israel, that we are 
eager to pursue the path of dialogue and ne- 
gotiations which you are endeavoring to 
bring about between ourselves and our neigh- 
bors. 

May your effort prove to be a new and 
shining chapter in the history of our rela- 
tions, which stretches back to the earliest 
days of our struggle for freedom, of our 
self-defense, and of our striving to build in 
peace. The name of this great American peo- 
ple is written large in the drama of this na- 
tion's rebirth. I here must make mention of 
the Jewish community of the United States, 
with whom we share profound ties of faith 
and spiritual attachment, a community that 
has generously assisted us in meeting the 
welfare needs of our homecoming people. 

Mr. President, we have had to do so much 
in so little time. And while we have been 
building we have had to sacrifice much to 
safeguard our freedom. Certainly in this we 
shall never falter. At the same time, in our 
quest for peace with security, we shall al- 
ways remember the moral and material sup- 
port we received from the greatest democ- 
racy in the world, the United States of Amer- 
ica. Therefore, Mr. President, Israel salutes 
you. It does so in gratitude and appreciation. 
It does so because of your special historic 
role in giving strength to a historic people. 
True friendship is tested in times of trial, 
and you, Mr. President, have demonstrated 
this magnificently. Your understanding, your 
concern, your deeds in support of our de- 
fense and our freedom, have contributed 
greatly to the strength of Israel to defend 
herself through her own efforts. And a strong 
Israel is in itself a component of the peace 
and stability in our area to which your mis- 
sion is dedicated. 



May God grant you ultimate success in 
this, your great mission of peace for the sake 
of all the people of our region and the world 
as a whole. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to raise 
your glasses to drink to the health of an out- 
standing statesman and world leader whose 
contribution to build a better world and to 
bring peace has brought hope to our whole 
generation. To the President of the United 
States of America. Lehayim TJ'Leshalom — 
all the best. 



Toast by President Nixon 

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, and 
all the very distinguished guests on this very 
great occasion : I say it is a very great occa- 
sion because for Mrs. Nixon and for me, for 
Secretary Kissinger and all of your Amer- 
ican guests, it is a great moment for us to be 
entertained here in this place which means 
so much to this country, which has won our 
admiration and affection and respect over the 
years, and also because of the very gracious 
and eloquent remarks that have been made 
by the President in proposing the toast to 
the President of the United States. 

To President Katzir, of course, I will pro- 
pose a toast in response. But it is the pre- 
rogative of Presidents sometimes to break 
precedents. Normally there is only one toast 
in an evening, particularly a state dinner. 

Tonight I would like to propose a second 
toast and propose it first, not in derogation 
of your President, but because I discussed 
the matter with him and have his permission. 

I had the great privilege over the past 27 
years to travel to over 80 countries. I have 
met most of the leaders of the world. Some 
were called great, some near great, and some 
were called things much worse than that. 
[Laughter.] I also have had a chance as 
President to meet, talk to, and evaluate most 
of the leaders on the current scene today and 
those who have been on it over the past five 
years. 

And I can say to this audience here gath- 
ered in the Knesset in Israel that no leader I 
have met, no President, no King, no Prime 



106 



Department of State Bulletin 



Minister, or any other leader, has demon- 
strated in the meetings that I have had with 
that leader greater courage, greater intelli- 
gence, and greater stamina, greater determi- 
nation and greater dedication to her country, 
than Prime Minister Meir. 

The President has informed me that this is 
the first state dinner that has been held in 
this room, this great hall, since she left that 
post. And consequently, I thought that I, 
having worked with her, having become her 
friend — and she has been my friend — that I 
might have the honor and the privilege to 
ask you to join me in a toast to the former 
Prime Minister, Prime Minister Golda Meir : 
To Golda. 

Former Prime Minister Meir 

As President Nixon says, Presidents can 
do almost anything, and President Nixon has 
done many things that nobody would have 
thought of doing. All I can say, Mr. Presi- 
dent, as friends and as an Israeli citizen to 
a great American President, thank you. 

President Nixon 

In responding also to the very eloquent re- 
marks of President Katzir, it gives me an 
opportunity to reflect for a moment on the 
contribution that has been made to my coun- 
try, the United States of America, by those 
of Jewish background. I could mention them 
in many fields, and the names are legion ; 
their accomplishments in many cases certain- 
ly exceed those of any group that we could 
possibly imagine. And I suppose that some- 
times those who do not know America, and 
do not know our system, wonder how it 
happens. 

We have no quota system. We don't do it 
because we are trying to recognize people 
because they happen to represent a particu- 
lar group in the society. Oh, there is some 
of that in politics, there always is. But just 
to give you an idea as to the standard that 
most of us, as Americans, have applied and 
that I have tried to apply, I recall that when 
I made the appointment of Dr. Kissinger as 



Secretary of State, much ado was made 
about it and they said, "Well, President 
Nixon has appointed the first Jewish Secre- 
tary of State." 

And I can say to this audience here, I 
appointed him not because he happened to 
be of Jewish background, I appointed him 
because he was absolutely the best man for 
the job, and he has proved to be the best 
man for the job. 

And when we speak of the programs for 
peace to which the United States is dedicat- 
ing itself now, and to which we have been 
dedicated throughout this administration, a 
great deal of the credit goes to this man, 
one who worked long and hard when he was 
an Assistant to the President for National Se- 
curity Affairs and now who works twice as 
hard when he holds that position and the 
position of Secretary of State and three 
times as hard since he is also now married. 
[Laughter.] 

The other point that I thought was ap- 
propriate to touch upon in responding to the 
toast by the President of Israel was for me 
to pay a tribute to those who have served 
in the armed forces of this country. I had 
an opportunity, as I pointed out when I 
arrived at the airport, to see some of them 
at the conclusion of the war in 1967. Some 
of them had been wounded and some of them 
of course, most of them, were, well, all of 
them were enormously impressive. 

I saw an honor guard today, and I can 
see as I look here at the present Chief of 
Staff that the quality of the Israeli Armed 
Forces is as high now as it was then. 

Throughout the world Israeli soldiers, air- 
men, sailors, have earned respect for their 
courage, for their discipline, and of course 
for their enormous effectiveness in the bat- 
tles that they have had to fight. And one 
of the reasons that Israel has survived is 
that in addition to having the arms which 
they have had, that they have had the per- 
sonnel, the skilled personnel, the dedicated 
personnel, the patriotic personnel, that could 
use those arms effectively in defense of their 
country. 

And as I think of those armed forces and 



July 15, 1974 



107 



what they have done, I would like to reiter- 
ate what has been American policy not only 
in this administration, it was in the previous 
ones and as Israel became a modern state, 
and it will be, I think, in the next adminis- 
tration, whatever the outcome of the next 
election may be, to reiterate the fact that 
the United States and Israel are friends, 
that the United States has responded when 
Israel has had problems involving its de- 
fense. We have tried to respond as gener- 
ously and effectively as we can. 

We have known that when we have re- 
sponded that whatever help we have been 
able to give will be used well, and that is a 
tribute to the men and the women who serve 
in the armed forces, the men and women who 
led them, and certainly in this respect Israel 
can be proud of those in uniform who have 
had to go to war too often, but necessarily, 
in order to see that this state survived. 

Now, I suppose many of you wonder what 
a tribute to the Armed Forces of Israel has 
to do about talking concerning the Secretary 
of State, who has worked for peace, and of 
responding to a toast by the President of 
Israel which is concerned about peace. 

Very simply, I would like to tell you how 
I felt as I drove through the streets of this 
city today. I saw many people, and of course 
as an American I was proud to see so many 
with the American flags and the Israeli flags, 
their friendly welcome. 

But as is often the case as I travel through 
cities with my wife and we see people along 
the sides of the street, knowing always that 
they are there not to welcome us personally 
so much as to perhaps to pay their respect 
to the great nation that we are proud to 
represent, what impresses me the most al- 
ways are the children. They are so young, 
they are so full of hope, they are so full of 
life, and they deserve, I think, a better 
chance than we had — not that we have any 
complaints. 

All of us who live in these times should 
recognize that whatever our hardships are, 
these are great times, great times because 
they are times in which we are changing 
the world and we are changing it, we trust, 
for the better. 



But what we are all trying to do in our 
governments, be they large or small, what 
we are all trying to do in serving our coun- 
tries, whether proudly wearing the uniform 
or in the Foreign Service, as the case might 
be, or as a member of the parliament, we are 
trying to create a better nation and a bet- 
ter world for those thousands of children 
we saw on the streets here. Yes, and the 
thousands of children I have seen in the 
streets of Cairo, Leningrad, London, Japan 
— all over the world. 

This may sound rather idealistic and over- 
simplistic, but I am convinced that what 
motivates the great majority of the leaders 
of the world today, whatever their differ- 
ences may be on major matters, is a desire 
to have progress within their countries and 
is a recognition that without peace there 
cannot be sustained progress. 

And so we now come to the problems we 
confront in building that kind of peace. It 
takes courage, and great courage, to fight 
in war and we admire that courage, and I 
pay tribute particularly tonight to those in 
the Israeli Armed Forces, who have shown 
courage far beyond the call of duty in their 
service to their country every time they have 
been called to serve. 

It also takes courage, a different kind of 
courage, to wage peace. It requires risks, 
just as war requires risks, and the stakes 
are high, just as the stakes in war are high. 
And so this is what has characterized our 
foreign policy, which has been subject per- 
haps to some legitimate criticism — because 
we have taken risks, the opening, for ex- 
ample, of relations on a new basis with the 
People's Republic of China, not because there 
was any difference in our attitude toward 
their system of government or their attitude 
toward ours, but because the leaders of the 
People's Republic of China had one-fourth 
of all the people in the world and unless the 
United States of America, as the most pros- 
perous nation in the world today, finds a 
way to start a dialogue with the most popu- 
lous nation in the world today, 15, 20, 25 
years from now, the whole human race may 
pay a very great price. 

And so, we began. All diflferences are not 



108 



Department of State Bulletin 



ended. But the dialogue is begun, and peace 
in the Pacific has a better chance to survive 
as a result of that risk we took. 

Our dialogue with the Soviet Union has 
been subjected, as we know, to some rather 
sharp criticism. It also contains risks for 
us, perhaps for them as well. But the alter- 
native to negotiation, of course, is confron- 
tation ; and the alternative to talking is to 
return to the cold war, where there would 
be no influence whatever of the United States 
on their policies, or theirs, for that matter, 
on ours, where they might come into armed 
confrontation. 

And it is in that spirit that we will go 
to Moscow again, just a week after return- 
ing from the Mideast, on June 27, go there 
to continue a dialogue between the two 
strongest nations in the world, but to con- 
tinue it recognizing that under no circum- 
stances will we negotiate at the expense of 
any other nation, large or small. 

We believe that is in the interest of 
peace, because if the two strongest nations 
are unable to find a way to live together in 
peace — uneasy, competitive, call it what you 
will — the chances for civilization to survive, 
the civilization which we feel so strongly as 
we stand in this place here tonight, the 
chance for that civilization to survive is in- 
finitely less. 

And that brings us, of course, to the area 
of the Mideast. I would be, as a pragmatist 
— and my colleague Dr. Kissinger, also as 
a pragmatist, would agree — that when we 
talk about bringing an era of peace to the 
Mideast, we do not consider this to be a 
simple task, an easy task, or even one in 
which the goal can surely be achieved. But 
we do know that we must try. We do know 
that we must begin. There have been four 
wars in a little over a generation in this 
area, and unless we change the situation 
some way, somehow, there will be another 
war and another one. And each one, of 
course, is terribly costly to the nations in- 
volved, and particularly to this nation, of 
course, since you feel it, since you are here, 
and also potentially very dangerous to the 
peace of the world. 

What is the U.S. role? Let me state it 



very simply: Under no circumstances does 
the fact that the United States is seeking 
better relations with some of Israel's neigh- 
bors mean that the friendship of the United 
States and the support for Israel is any 
less. What it simply means is this : We feel 
that if by creating a different relationship, 
by bringing a new element into the discus- 
sions that may take place in this area, by 
bringing perhaps some new ideas to the 
attention of those other nations in the area 
who have been involved in war over these 
past years, that there is a chance that the 
process that has begun, the two disengage- 
ments with which you are familiar, can be 
and will be continued, and that eventually 
we can achieve the goal of a just and endur- 
ing peace for this area. 

And that brings me, finally, to the leaders 
in this room. And they are leaders of very 
great quality. And if those in the diplomatic 
corps and those in the American community 
who are guests will forgive me for a moment, 
let me address these remarks only to those 
who are here from our host, from Israel. 
There is a new Prime Minister and a new 
government. I know the new Prime Minis- 
ter well. He is, as we know, one of Israel's 
and one of the world's most famed military 
men. He was a man of great courage, great 
discipline, and unusual ability — a leader in 
war. 

And then he demonstrated that he could 
be a diplomat when he came to Washington, 
and after having met him first briefly in 
1967, I learned to know him very well when 
he was there serving in Washington. And 
now he succeeds Golda Meir as head of 
government of this nation. And as I think 
of him, I think of the members of parlia- 
ment, I think of the members of his govern- 
ment, there are two courses that are open 
to them. The one is an easy one, an easy 
one particularly politically, I suppose, and 
that is the status quo — don't move, because 
any movement has risks in it, and therefore, 
resist those initiatives that may be under- 
taken, that might lead to a negotiation which 
would perhaps contribute to a permanent, 
just, and durable peace. 

But there is another way. The other, I 



July 15, 1974 



109 



believe, is the right way. It is the way of 
statesmanship, not the way of the politician 
alone. It is a way that does not risk your 
country's security. That must never be done. 
But it is a way that recognizes that con- 
tinuous war in this area is not a solution 
for Israel's survival and, above all, it is not 
right — that every possible avenue be ex- 
plored to avoid it in the interest of the 
future of those children we saw by the hun- 
dreds and thousands on the streets of Jeru- 
salem today. 

And so, for that reason, let me say that 
we have been honored and proud to work 
with Israel and to support Israel in times 
when Israel found it necessary to go to war. 
And now we hope and trust that this great 
creative ability which is here in such great 
abundance in this room and in this nation 
will be used to the works of peace in the 
same dedication as has been shown when- 
ever war was concerned. Because with that 
kind of intelligence, that kind of dedication, 
I am confident that together we can find a 
way in this very difficult area of the world, 
where the hatreds go back over many years, 
where the differences seem insoluble, where 
nations many times are unstable, that we 
can find a way to build a permanent, just, 
and durable peace. 

I would simply close my remarks on this 
point by saying it is more difficult perhaps 
than the opening to China was, and that was 
a difficult mission and venture, but worth 
taking the risk. It is more difficult than 
our bringing America's longest and most 
painful war to an end and bringing it to an 
end in the right way so that America would 
remain respected in the world, respected by 
its allies and its adversaries alike. It is more 
difficult perhaps even, some would say, than 
the continuing dialogue between the two 
strongest nations in the world, which must 
go forward if we are to have any chance 
for a peaceful world. 

Here, where civilization began, we have 
the greatest challenge, but also the greatest 
opportunity to make sure that civilization 
continues. This is the cradle of civilization. 
We must make sure that it does not become 



its grave. And it is that challenge that I am 
confident that the leaders of Israel will join 
with us in trying to seek those solutions to 
those differences which remain so that we can 
build that permanent peace that we want in 
this area, because peace for Israel, peace for 
the Mideast, will mean that the whole world 
has a better chance for peace. 

And Mr. President, I know from having 
talked to you that you are dedicated to such 
ideals and consequently, in proposing this 
toast to the people of your country, the peo- 
ple of Israel, I suggest that we raise our 
glasses to the President of Israel : President 
Katzir. 



TEXT OF JOINT U.S.-ISRAELI STATEMENT 
ISSUED AT JERUSALEM JUNE 17 

The President of the United States, Richard Nixon, 
visited Israel June 16-17, 1974. This is the first visit 
ever to have been paid by an American President 
to the State of Israel. It symbolizes the unique rela- 
tionship, the common heritage and the close and 
historic ties that have long existed between the 
United States and Israel. 

President Nixon and Prime Minister Rabin held 
extensive and cordial talks on matters of mutual 
interest to the United States and Israel and reviewed 
the excellent relations between their two countries. 
They discussed in a spirit of mutual understanding 
the efforts of both countries to achieve a just and 
lasting peace which will provide security for all 
States in the area and the need to build a structure 
of peace in the world. United States Secretary 
of State Henry Kissinger and members of the Israeli 
Cabinet participated in these talks. 

Prime Minister Rabin expressed Israel's appreci- 
ation for the outstanding and effective role of the 
United States in the quest for peace under the 
leadership of President Nixon assisted by the tireless 
efforts of Secretary Kissinger and indicated Israel's 
intention to participate in further negotiations with 
a view to achieving peace treaties with its neighbors 
which will permit each State to pursue its legitimate 
rights in dignity and security. 

President Nixon and Prime Minister Rabin agreed 
that peace and progress in the Middle East are 
essential if global peace is to be assured. Peace 
will be achieved through a process of continuing 
negotiations between the parties concerned as called 
for by U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 of 
October 22, 1973. 

The President and the Prime Minister agreed on 



110 



Department of State Bulletin 



the necessity to work energetically to promote peace 
between Israel and the Arab States. They agreed 
that States living in peace should conduct their 
relationship in accordance with the purposes and 
principles of the United Nations Charter, and the 
U.N. Declaration on Principles of International Law 
concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation 
among States which provides that every State has 
the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging 
the organization of irregular forces or armed bands 
including mercenaries for incursion into the territory 
of another State. They condemned acts of violence 
and terror causing the loss of innocent human lives. 

The President and the Prime Minister expressed 
their great pleasure in the intimate cooperation 
which characterizes the warm relationship between 
their two countries and peoples. They agreed to do 
everything possible to broaden and deepen still 
further that relationship in order to ser\'e the inter- 
ests of both countries and to further the cause of 
peace. 

President Nixon reiterated the commitment of the 
United States to the long-term security of Israel and 
to the principle that each State has the right to exist 
within secure borders and to pursue its own legiti- 
mate interests in peace. 

Prime Minister Rabin expressed his appreciation 
for the U.S. military supplies to Israel during the 
October War and thereafter. The President affirmed 
the continuing and long-term nature of the military 
supply relationship between the two countries, and 
reiterated his view that the strengthening of Israel's 
ability to defend itself is essential in order to pre- 
vent further hostilities and to maintain conditions 
conducive to progress towards peace. An Israeli 
Defense Ministry delegation will soon come to Wash- 
ington in order to work out the concrete details 
relating to long-term military supplies. 

President Nixon affirmed the strong continuing 
support of the United States for Israel's economic 
development. Prime Minister Rabin expressed the 
gratitude of Israel for the substantial help which 
the United States has provided, particularly in recent 
years. The President and Prime Minister agreed that 
future economic assistance from the United States 
would continue and would be the subject of long- 
range planning between their governments. The 
President affirmed that the United States, in accord- 
ance with Congressional authorization, will continue 
to provide substantial ecoromic assistance for Israel 
at levels needed to assist Israel to offset the heavy 
additional costs inherent in assuring Israel's military 
capability for the maintenance of peace. 

In the economic field, the President and the Prime 
Minister noted with satisfaction the effective work- 
ing relationship between their governments at all 
levels and the depth of the relationship between the 
economies of the two nations. They agreed to 
strengthen and develop the framework of their bi- 
lateral relations. The primary goal will be to estab- 
lish a firmer and more clearly defined structure of 



consultation and cooperation. Where appropriate, 
they will set up special bi-national committees. Both 
sides recognize the importance of investments in 
Israel by American companies, the transmission of 
general know-how and marketing assistance, and 
cooperation of American companies with Israeli 
counterparts on research and development. The 
United States Government will encourage ventures 
by .American enterprises and private investment in 
Israel designed to increase Israel's economic growth, 
including in the fields of industry, power, and tour- 
ism. They agreed to begin immediately negotiations 
for concrete arrangements to implement such policy 
including in the area of avoidance of double taxation. 

The President and Prime Minister announce that 
their two governments will negotiate an agreement 
on cooperation in the field of nuclear energy, tech- 
nology and the supply of fuel from the United States 
under agreed safeguards. This agreement will in par- 
ticular take account of the intention of the Govern- 
ment of Israel to purchase power-reactors from the 
United States. These will secure additional and 
alternative sources of electricity for the rapidly de- 
veloping Israel economy. As an immediate step, 
Israel and the United States will in the cuiTent 
month reach provisional agreement on the further 
sale of nuclear fuel to Israel. 

Prime Minister Rabin particularly expressed the 
view that the supply of oil and other essential raw 
materials to Israel must be assured on a continuous 
basis. President Nixon proposed that United States 
and Israeli representatives meet soon in order to 
devise ways of meeting this problem. 

The President and the Prime Minister stressed as 
an important mutual aim the further encouragement 
of the fruitful links already existing between the 
two countries in the scientific and technical field, 
including space research. Special emphasis will be 
put on exchanges of scientists and the sponsorship 
of joint projects. With this end in view they will 
explore means to widen the scope and substance 
of existing agreements and activities including those 
pertaining to the Bi-Xational Science Foundation. 

In the area of water desalination the two coun- 
tries will expand their joint projects. 

The President and the Prime Minister agreed to 
develop further the cultural ties between the two 
countries through exchanges of scholars, students, 
artists, exhibitions, mutual visits and musical and 
other cultural events. In the near future, Israel will 
send to the United States an archeological exhibition 
depicting the Land of the Bible. The Israel Philhar- 
monic Orchestra will visit the United States on the 
occasion of the American bicentennial celebrations. 

The President and the Prime Minister noted with 
gratification the large number of tourists from their 
respective countries visiting both the United States 
and Israel and affirmed that they would continue 
their efforts to foster this movement. To this end, 
the two governments will resume negotiations on 
an agreement granting landing rights to the Israel 



July 15, 1974 



111 



national carrier in additional major cities in the 
continental United States. 

The President and the Prime Minister discussed 
the plight of Jewish minorities in various countries 
in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. The Prime Minister thanked the President 
for his efforts in support of the right of free emi- 
gration for all peoples without harassment, including 
members of Jewish minorities. The President affirmed 
that the United States would continue to give active 
support to these principles in all feasible ways. 

The President was particularly pleased at the 
opportunity to meet with former Prime Minister 
Golda Meir, whose courage, statesmanship, patience 
and wisdom he greatly admires. The President ex- 
pressed his satisfaction at the constructive coop- 
eration between Israel and the United States under 
Prime Minister Meir's leadership which had led to 
the conclusion of the agreements between Egypt and 
Israel and between Israel and Syria respectively 
on the disengagement of their military forces. 

In departing. President and Mrs. Nixon expressed 
their deep appreciation of the warm reception ac- 
corded to them in Israel and their admiration for the 
achievements of the Israeli people. They were deeply 
impressed by the manner in which the overwhelming 
problems of integrating many hundreds of thousands 
of immigrants of many various backgrounds and 
cultures were being successfully overcome. Convinced 
of the determination of this valiant people to live 
in peace, the President gave them renewed assur- 
ance of the support of the people of the United 
States. 

The Prime Minister and the President agreed that 
the cordiality of Israel's reception of the President 
reflected the long friendship between Israel and 
the United States and pledged their continued ener- 
gies to nurture and strengthen that friendship. To 
this end, the President invited Prime Minister Rabin 
to pay an early visit to Washington. 



THE VISIT TO JORDAN 

DINNER HONORING PRESIDENT NIXON, 
AMMAN, JUNE 17 

White House press release (Amman) dated June 17 

Toast by King Hussein 

Mr. President: I am sure you know, sir, 
how happy I am personally to welcome you 
and Mrs. Nixon to Jordan and to return, if 
only briefly and inadequately, the hospitality 
that you and the American people have ex- 
tended to me over the last 15 years. 

As you may remember, we met for the first 



time in 1959 when my friend, and your very 
great and good friend, the late President 
Eisenhower first invited me to the United 
States. It was an experience of his kind per- 
son-to-person relationship that I shall never 
forget and will always cherish. And each 
succeeding visit to the United States has not 
only intensified my affection for the Amer- 
ican people but has strengthened, I believe, 
the friendship between our two countries. 

I hope, Mr. President, that you have also 
been aware of the obvious warmth of feeling 
the Jordanian people want to express to you 
and, through you, to the American people. It 
is a feeling born, in part, of gratitude for the 
support you have given us and for the in- 
spiration you have been to us. The support 
helped us to surmount enormous difficulties, 
and the inspiration helped us, and many 
small nations, to survive in a free world. 

Mr. President, we join with you in all the 
hopes and expectations you must have for 
this memorable journey for peace that you 
are undertaking, and we in the Arab world 
are grateful that you have made it. Al- 
though you know better than anyone else 
perhaps that a journey for peace seems to 
have no ending, your coming to us at this 
time has been perfectly timed to preserve 
the momentum that American initiative had 
begun under your inspired and inspiring 
leadership. 

The dispatch of your Secretary of State, 
the world now knows, ranks with the most 
celebrated diplomatic missions of all time, 
and your insistence that he pursue his course 
to the end has undoubtedly led to a turning 
point in Middle East history that will long 
be remembered. 

Dr. Kissinger's skill, patience, and deter- 
mination in negotiation has brought us closer 
to peace in the Middle East than we have 
been in a quarter of a century. At no time has 
the will to peace been stronger or the oppor- 
tunity greater. But this opportunity will be 
lost, perhaps forever, if we do not take cou- 
rageous advantage of the chance for peace 
that lies before us. 

The separation-of-forces agreements be- 
tween Egypt and Israel and between Syria 
and Israel were major milestones on the road 



112 



Department of State Bulletin 



to peace. Another lies ahead. But we must 
not lose sight of, we must keep within oui* 
vision, the final goal that it is still many 
milestones away. The next one, of course, is 
the separation of forces between Jordan and 
Israel. That is an essential prerequisite to 
any discussion of a permanent settlement, if 
Jordan is to contribute its full share in the 
efforts leading toward a just and lasting 
peace. Once that has been accomplished, with 
again the strong and friendly hand of Amer- 
ica, we must then press forward with rea- 
soned and firm determination toward the final 
goal. 

If the initiative launched by the United 
States under your leadership, Mr. President, 
is lo.st, and the momentum slowed down, the 
days of "no peace, no war" will be with us 
again in a potentially more dangerous and ex- 
plosive situation. 

I am grateful, Mr. President, that this is 
the last stop on your current journey for 
peace. I am sure there will be others. But 
your visit here before returning home gives 
me the opportunity to express to you, before 
your departure tomorrow, four thoughts 
which we hope you will take home with you, 
and which I am sure you have heard from 
my brothers, the heads of state in Egypt, 
Saudi Arabia, and Syria. 

The first is our great satisfaction over the 
new era of good will that is opening up be- 
tween the United States and Arab world. As 
a friend of longer standing, I may be per- 
mitted to say how gratified I am by the new 
relationship that has developed between you 
and President Sadat and between you and 
President Asad. Possibly nothing that has 
happened in these last momentous months 
will contribute more to a lasting peace in 
this area than this new understanding be- 
tween you. 

A second thought that I know has been 
presented to you in Cairo, Jidda, Damascus — 
and now in Amman — is the absolute unity of 
position of the four countries in firmly back- 
ing the implementation of the principles of 
Resolution 242 as the basis for any peaceful 
settlement. No nation, it is written into the 
United Nations Charter, shall acquire terri- 
tory of another nation by armed force; and 



that principle, among others, is given spe- 
cific interpretation in the 1967 resolution by 
calling for withdrawal of Israeli forces from 
Arab territory occupied in the war of 1967. 

Only when Israel abides by the .spirit of 
the United Nations Charter, and only when 
Israel obeys the letter of the Security Coun- 
cil resolution, can "secure and recognized" 
borders come into being. It should now be 
clear to Israel that security and territory are 
not synonymous, that true security rests on 
the recognition by her neighbors of her right 
to live in peace within those borders. So long 
as Israel continues to occupy Arab territory, 
there will neither be peace nor security in the 
Middle East. 

Third, disengagement of forces can be ar- 
ranged, truce lines can be drawn, and po- 
litical settlement can be negotiated, but there 
can be no peace until the major issue in the 
conflict between Israel and the Arab world is 
resolved and resolved justly. That is the 
problem of Palestine. There can be no peace 
until the legitimate rights of the Palestinian 
people are recognized and restored. The Pal- 
estinian problem has never been a refugee 
problem, but one of the inherent rights of a 
people to return to their homeland and to de- 
termine their own future. Once the occupied 
territory has been evacuated by the Israelis, 
only Palestinians can decide what its future 
is to be. They can choose continued union 
with Jordan, a new form of federation, or 
the creation of a separate state. The choice 
is theirs and theirs alone, and whatever 
their choice, it will enjoy our full acceptance 
and support. 

And finally, Mr. President, I would now 
like to speak in the name of all Arabs, Mos- 
lems and Christians alike, these same 
thoughts I am sure you also have heard from 
President Sadat, His Majesty King Faisal, 
and from President Asad. I want to speak of 
the City of Jerusalem. The Arab world, and 
the world of Islam, stretching far beyond the 
Arab world into Africa and Far East Asia, 
will never allow the Arab City of Jerusalem 
to remain under the control of Israel. Arab 
sovereignty over the Holy City must be rein- 
stated. This — the return of Arab sovereignty 
over the Arab City of Jerusalem — is the 



July 15, 1974 



113 



coriHTstoiio for a just and lastiiifj peace in 
the Middle East. Only thus can Jorusaleni 
become tlie city of peace for all those who 
worsliip tiie One Cod: Moslems, Christians, 
and Jews. 

Mr. President, your visit to Jordan on your 
journey for peace is an insi)irinK occasion 
for us. We hope you will taite back with you 
a memorable picture of what your great and 
dedicated leadership and the initiative that 
America has taken have done to move the 
heart and raise the hopes of the Arab world. 
As America continues — as surely it must — 
on its journey for peace, not only in the Mid- 
dle East but throughout the world, please tell 
your people that you go with the gratitude 
and confidence of the Arab people and the 
blessing of all mankind. 

My one regret, and that of the Queen, is 
that you and Mrs. Nixon will not be staying 
with us for a longer time. We sincerely hope 
that you will both come back to see us again. 

And now, ladies and gentlemen, may I a.sk 
you to rise and join me in a loast to the Pres- 
ident of the United States and to Mrs. Nixon, 
a toa.st from the ]ieoiile of Jordan to the peo- 
ple of America and to the fervent hope that 
friendship that exists between our two coun- 
tries will continue to i>rosi)er under the peace 
we are all so earnestly seeking; The Presi- 
dent and Mrs. Nixon. 

Now, Mr. President, I have the honor of 
presenting to you the Order of the Hu.s.sein 
Bin AH Kilada, the highest order in Jordan. 

Toast by President Nixon 

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, 
and all of your distinguished guests: First, 
Your Majesty, may I express my deep grati- 
tude on behalf of the nation I represent for 
the award you have just presented to me. 
And I can assure you that it will be on dis- 
play at the White House for the thousands of 
visitors to see who come through those rooms 
and who, when they see it, will recognize how 
important we in the United States consider 
friendship with Jordan to be. And I am 
grateful for the fact that this award, which 
I understand goes only to heads of state, is 



one that you have scon fit to present on this 
occasion. 

Also, I would like to tell you how touched 
Mrs. Nixon and 1 have been by the reception 
w(! hav(> received in our visit to Jordan. As 
you know, this is the first time I have been 
to this country. It is not because of a lack of 
desire on the part of either of us not to have 
come sooner, because we would have liked to, 
but it is only because our schedules did not 
permit at an earlier time. 

And I can only say that never have we had 
what we thought was a warmer reception 
from the hearts of the people as we drove 
through the .streets of Amman, a city with a 
great past and a city and a country with an 
equally great future. It is called the City of 
the Seven Hills, and I only wish that we had 
a chance to explore more than just three, 
which has been our lot to date. 

And so we will have to come back some 
day so that we can go to those many places 
of historical interest which I know attract 
tourists from all over the world, come back 
so that we can see them and perhaps again 
enjoy another visit with you. 

And let me also on behalf of your Amer- 
ican gue.^ts particularly, and I think perhaps 
all of your guests tonight in the diplomatic 
corps and your guests from Jordan, express 
appreciation for the splendid musical enter- 
tainment that we have had. As I listened to 
it, 1 could not believe my ears. I thought that 
some way we had imported the U.S. Marine 
Corps Band, which plays, as you know. Your 
Majesty, in the White House for the state 
dinners which you have attended so often 
while we have been there. And as they played 
favorites from all nations, but several from 
American musical comedies, I can assui'e you 
that their ability as musicians, but particu- 
larly their ability to play in any idiom, and 
particularly ours in a way that we under- 
stood it, was enormously impressive and you 
made us feel very much at home, and they 
did with that splendid performance, which 
incidentally we could hear, but not see, but 
it is right out that door, I understand. It was 
not a record player. [Laughter.] 

Your Majesty, you have spoken of your 



114 



Department of State Bulletin 



first visit to the United States, and I remem- 
ber it well. I have mentioned on tiie occasions 
of your visits since I have been President 
what President Eisenhower thonjrht of you 
at that time. Nineteen hundred and fifty- 
nine, 15 years a^o, when you were a very 
youn}>: kinjj; — you still are a very younfr kiuK, 
but very mature and very wise because of 
the years you have been a kin^, a kin^ all of 
your adult life, but you were only 23 then 
— and I remember that President Eisen- 
hower afterward told me — and he has been 
known to be a very good judge of men — he 
told me that he was enormously impressed 
with what he called the (|uiel inner strength 
that the King of Jordan had. Little did he 
know or did we know at that time how often 
that inner strength would be called upon to 
save this country. And I know, however, that 
before his death he saw that evaluation vin- 
dicated. 

I have .seen it vindicated, and I can .say 
tonight, looking through the pages of hi.story, 
since you have been King of this country that 
but for the strong courageous leadership of 
His Majesty the King of Jordan this country 
would not be in existence today and we in 
the free world are all proud and respectful of 
the leadership you have given. And that is 
one of the reasons why in our friendship with 
Jordan — it is one that does not ju.st begin 
now — it is one that goes back to the time 
that Jordan became the state that it presently 
is. It is one that has continued throughout 
the period of your reign as king, and it is one 
I can assure you, Your Majesty, that will 
continue now and in the future. 

Because as we travel abroad in these years 
and make what we hope will be new friends, 
new friends, foi' e.xample, in mainland China, 
People's Republic of China, Soviet Union, 
and new friends in this part of the world, in 
the Mideast, let us always remember that we 
do not forget our old friends. We remember 
that the friendship that has bound us to- 
gether has served us both well, and you can 
be sure that that friendship will always con- 
tinue as long as we have an opportunity to 
have the kind of discussions that have char- 
acterized our relationships since I have held 



this office and I am sure will characterize 
them, whoever may l)e the President in the 
years to come, when I trust you will still be 
the King of this country. 

You have spoken of the journey that we 
have taken, and Your Majesty, you have 
very properly and, I may .say, in very good 
grace have mentioned .some difficult problems 
that remain un.solved, and I wi.sh this eve- 
ning that I could have brought with me a 
briofca.se full of .solutions and I could have 
laid them out on this table, l)ecau.se there 
is nothing in my heart that I want more, 
nothing that the American people want more, 
than a solution to these problems that not 
only have brought war four times to this 
troubled area of the world in the last 30 
yoa)'s but also these problems which have 
divided the United States from many of its 
traditional friends in what is called the Arab 
world. 

And so, while I cannot tonight — and will 
not l)e ul)le tomorrow in the meetings that we 
will have to discuss tliese situations in more 
detail — offer .solutions at this time, I can tell 
you that just as you said, in every conversa- 
tion that I have had, the problems that you 
have rai.sed have been di.scus.sed with me and 
in great detail, the problems of the Pales- 
tinians, the problem of Jeru.salem, the prob- 
lems of borders, the problems that we could 
go on and list perhaps at even greater length. 

But the fact that all of the.se problems do 
not have solutions at this time is no cau.se for 
despair. What would be cause for despair 
would be if the peoples in these nations and 
the leaders of the nations in this area wei-e 
to go back to the old ways, and the old way 
was to dig in, freeze into place, and wait for 
another conflict to break loose. 

There is one thing that the last 25 years 
or 30 yeai-s have proved, and that is that 
another war will not solve the problems to 
which you have referred. That has been tried 
and it has not succeeded ; and I am not 
suggesting who tried, where or why or how 
the fault might have been, but war is not a 
solution and cannot be a solution to problems 
as intricate as this, not at this period in the 
history of this area. 



July 15, 1974 



115 



And that is why we feel on our part, and 
I know, Your Majesty, from our discussions, 
that you share this view, that we must try 
another way : we must try the path of peace. 
You have urged this upon me from the 
time you first called upon me as President 
back in 1969, and the United States, I must 
say, has not played a decisive, and in some 
cases has not played an effective, role in the 
Mideast in attempting to move on the path 
of solving these problems through peaceful 
means. 

But the new element that has been added, 
the new element that has been symbolized by 
this journey which you have referred to, the 
new element that certainly was not only 
symbolized but showed actual results in addi- 
tion, in the long negotiations which were 
undertaken by Secretary Kissinger in the 
Mideastern area, one leading to the disen- 
gagement on the Israeli-Egyptian front and 
another on the Syrian-Israeli front, the one 
new element is that the United States now 
has made a decision that we will undertake 
not to impose a settlement, because we are 
not the best ones, from the outside — no one 
from the outside knows what is best as far as 
a settlement is concerned. But we will under- 
take, where the nations in the area — and this 
seems to be the case at this time — where the 
nations in the area want us to, we will under- 
take to use our influence and use it effectively 
to bring leaders of nations who have dis- 
agreements on such critical issues as you 
have discussed tonight, bring them together 
and try to find fair and just solutions to these 
problems. 

And so tonight, I do not tell you where 
this journey will end. I cannot tell you when 
it will end. The important thing is that it 
has begun. 

You said earlier, Your Majesty, that this 
was the last stop. Let me tell you, it is the 
last stop on this trip, but it is only the be- 
ginning of the journey for peace, because 
what we have found is that despite the im- 
portant first steps that we have taken, they 
are only a beginning. We have a long way to 
go, and this trip is simply another step — a 
step in which understanding has been created 



where there was misunderstanding before, 
where new relations have been created where 
there were no relations before, and where an 
American presence, where it is desired by 
both parties concerned, or all parties con- 
cerned, is there to be used and used effec- 
tively. 

And so as I look to the future, I would say 
this is no time to be certainly PoUyannaish 
about what the future may be. These prob- 
lems are difficult. The divisions are deep, 
and some of them go back over many, many 
years. But also this is a time when there can 
and must and should be hope, hope because 
of this new element that has been brought 
into it. Not simply because it is the United 
States, but because our particular role in the 
world at this time in the world's history is 
one that I think we have demonstrated is a 
peacemaker role, whether in Asia or in Eu- 
rope or anywhere else. 

To me, the greatest challenge to American 
foreign policy — even greater than ending the 
war in Viet-Nam in an honorable way, which 
was essential for our further foreign policy 
successes, even greater than the challenge 
that was confronted when we had the open- 
ing to the leaders of those who led over one- 
fourth of all the people of the world, the 
People's Republic of China, even greater 
than opening a new dialogue with those who 
led the great superpower the Soviet Union — 
is this very complex and diflficult problem 
which we find here in the Mideast, because 
it is not one nation, it is several. It is not one 
single problem, there are several. 

And there are differences of opinions 
among the people, among the leaders, among 
the nations, and so many of these problems. 
And it is this reason, therefore. Your Majes- 
ty, that I do not talk tonight simply with that 
easy optimism that will lull everyone to a 
false sense of security but that I do talk with 
a confidence based on what I think are some 
new developments that have reason to give 
us hope. 

And I can assure you that we on our part 
will do all that we can to keep the momentum 
going, because it must continue until we 



116 



Department of State Bulletin 



come to what we might term the end of the 
journey, and the end will not be reached until 
we are satisfied that a just and durable 
peace, one that will last, has been established 
in this part of the world. 

Finally, Your Majesty, let me say that I 
look forward to our talks tomorrow. This is 
a small nation, but it is headed, as I indicated 
earlier, by a very courageous leader and also, 
I have learned, by a very wise leader. Your 
Majesty has proved to be, in every talk I have 
had with him, one who is understanding of 
the problems of those who oppose him, one 
who understands the issues of the whole 
area, one who is fair, one who sees things 
not simply from one side but from the other 
side as well. 

Sometimes the word "moderate" is used, 
and it is used in a condemning way, but I 
would say it is this kind of responsible leader- 
ship — strong, responsible, call it moderate if 
you want — that is going to lead to that peace 
that both of our nations and all the nations 
in this area seek. 

And so with that, I know that all of you 
will want to join me in responding to the 
toast which has been given by His Majesty 
by speaking first of the traditional Jorda- 
nian-American friendship, which was strong 
already and will be even stronger after our 
meetings, and speaking second of the new 
relationship of friendship which has been 
established between the United States and 
what is called the Arab world, although that 
is a statement that perhaps oversimplifies a 
more complex area than that. But there is a 
new relationship and a good and positive one 
that has developed with Egypt and with 
Syria that was not there before. 

And finally, and above all, to a man who 
has had the vision from the time he was a 
very young king, a man who has kept that 
vision even when, in the year 1970, it seemed 
that his whole world, his whole nation, was 
coming down around him, a man who had the 
vision of a permanent and just peace in the 
Mideast. I know that we would want to raise 
our glasses and drink to the health of His 
Majesty the King and to the Queen. 



DEPARTURE, AMMAN, JUNE 18 

White House press release (Amman) dated June 18 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Your Majesty : Over the past 27 years Mrs. 
Nixon and I have had the opportunity of 
visiting most of the countries of the world, 
and I want you to know that in no country 
in the world have we received what we be- 
lieve is a warmer reception, more friendly 
reception, than we have received in Jordan. 

We can also say that as we have traveled 
through the countries of the Mideast, we 
have been enormously impressed by the re- 
spect and affection for the country we repre- 
sent, the United States of America. And the 
reason that that respect and affection exists, 
I believe, is because the people that we saw, 
both the leaders and people, recognize that 
we represented a nation that was dedicated to 
peace. They recognized that the journey we 
were taking to their countries was in the 
interest of peace, and if there is one fact 
that stands out after traveling through these 
countries that we have visited, it is this: 
The leaders of the nations that we visited, 
like yourself. Your Maje.sty, are dedicated to 
finding a way to peace, and just as important, 
the people that we saw — and we saw literally 
millions of people in five nations — are dedi- 
cated to peace. 

They are dedicated to peace because they 
have seen that war solves no problems. Four 
wars in 30 years have brought nothing but 
hatred, distrust, and then more war. And 
now it is time to try a different way, a way 
that is sometimes more difficult, difficult from 
the standpoint of the statesmen, to wage 
than to wage war, and that is to try the 
way of peace, and we are embarked on that 
path. 

As far as the United States is concerned, 
we will play an active role to the extent that 
the nations in this area want us to play an 
active role, and we have found in our visit 
that each of them welcomes a U.S. role in 
attempting to find a solution to these basic 
problems that exist and which could be the 
cause for more conflict. More important, I 



July 15, 1974 



117 



believe that as we conclude this journey I 
can say that while the problems ahead are 
still enormously difficult, while the steps that 
we have taken, though important and very 
difficult because they were the first steps, 
nevertheless are only the beginning of a much 
longer journey. 

This is the last stop on a very long trip, 
but it is only the beginning of a much longer 
journey, a journey which, we trust, in the 
end will bring us to the goal of a just and 
lasting peace in this part of the world, be- 
cause that peace will serve not just your 
country. Your Majesty, not just the other 
nations who are your neighbors, but it will 
serve all nations in the world, and that is 
what we all desire. 

And finally, may I say that we, speaking in 
behalf of all your American guests, we ex- 
press appreciation for the welcome you have 
given us, and we look forward to the time 
when we can return, return to visit with you 
again. And we trust that when we do return, 
the goal that both you and I have talked 
about for so many years that we have known 
each other, the goal of a just and lasting 
peace, will have been achieved. 

Remarks by King Hussein 

Mr. President: It is a very high honor 
indeed for me to speak on behalf of all the 
people of Jordan in these moments to thank 
you, sir, for visiting with us, to salute anew 
one of the greatest men of our time, not 
only in terms of your courage and wisdom 
but particularly in terms of your dedication 
to the cause of peace, not only in this part 
of the world but in the world as a whole, 
and the betterment of mankind. 

It is an honor for me to have had the op- 
portunity to welcome you to Jordan on behalf 
of the people of Jordan as the great President 
of the United States of America. 

Our pride has been enormous over the 
years in the very close relations of friend- 
ship and cooperation that have existed be- 
tween us. It has indeed been a journey for 
peace, and may we wish you, sir, from our 
hearts, every success in your future en- 
deavors along the path of peace. 



May I assure you that we will ever be 
proud to cooperate most closely with you, 
sir, and with your government, for the even- 
tual establishment of a just, honorable, and 
durable peace in this part of the world that 
could be our present for a better life and a 
better future for the generations that will 
follow us. 

On behalf of the Queen and for myself and 
on behalf, in particular, of every member 
of our Jordanian family, we wish you con- 
tinued success, sir, in your great mission in 
leading the great people of the United States, 
and we look forward to a time when we 
might meet again in Jordan. We hope we will 
be more fortunate in terms of a longer period 
of time. So many of my countrymen through- 
out my country wish to show you our accom- 
plishments and have the opportunity to show 
their feelings toward you. 

Let's hope that in the future we will have 
another chance. It has been an honor to wel- 
come you, sir, and Mrs. Nixon. We wish you 
a safe journey home and every continued 
success, and God bless you. 



TEXT OF JOINT U.S.-JORDANIAN STATEMENT 
ISSUED AT AMMAN JUNE 18 

On the invitation of His Majesty King Hussein, 
President Richard Nixon paid the first visit of a 
President of the United States of America to the 
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on June 17 and 18, 
1974. 

During this visit President Nixon and His Majesty 
King Hussein discussed the full range of common 
interests which have long bound Jordan and the 
United States in continued close friendship and 
cooperation. 

The United States reaffirmed its continued active 
support for the strength and progress of Jordan. 
The President explained to His Majesty in detail 
the proposal he has submitted to the Congress of the 
United States for a substantial increase in .American 
military and economic assistance for Jordan in the 
coming 12 months. The President expressed his 
gratification over the efforts which Jordan is making 
under its development plan to expand the Jordanian 
economy, to give significant new impetus to the 
development of Jordan's mineral and other resources 
and production, and to raise the standard of living 
for all its people. 

The President expressed admiration for His Maj- 



118 



Department of State Bulletin 



esty's wise leadership and stated his view that 
effective and steady development would make a sub- 
stantial contribution to peace and stability in the 
Middle East. The President promised a sjjecial effort 
by the United States Government to provide support 
in a variety of ways for Jordan's development 
efforts and in this regard welcomed the recent visit 
to Washington of His Royal Highness Crown Prince 
Hassan. 

His Majesty emphasized the importance of main- 
taining Jordan's military strength if economic prog- 
ress and development are to be assured. 

His Majesty expressed the view that resources 
invested in maintaining the security and stability 
of the Kingdom are related to its economic growth, 
for without order and peace it is unrealistic to 
expect to marshal the energies and investment need- 
ed for economic progress. The President agreed with 
His Majesty and promised, in cooperation with the 
Congress, to play a strong role in maintaining 
Jordan's military strength. 

His Majesty and the President agreed that they 
will continue to give U.S. -Jordanian relations their 
personal attention. In this context, it was agreed 
that a joint Jordanian-U.S. Commission will be 
established at a high level to oversee and review 
on a regular basis the various areas of cooperation 
between Jordan and the United States in the fields of 
economic development, trade and investment, mili- 
tary assistance and supply, and scientific, social and 
cultui-al affairs. 

His Majesty and the President have long agreed 
on the importance of moving toward peace in the 
Middle East. The President discussed the steps 
which have been taken in this regard since His 
Majesty's visit to Washington in March of this 
year. His Majesty expressed Jordan's support for 
the very significant diplomatic efforts which the 
United States has made to help bring peace to the 
Middle East. His Majesty and the President discussed 
the strategy of future efforts to achieve peace, and 
the President promised the active support of the 
United States for agreement between Jordan and 
Israel on concrete steps toward the just and durable 
peace called for in United Nations Security Council 
Resolution 338 of October 22, 1973. 

The President has invited His Majesty to pay a 
visit to Washington at an early date. The purpose 
of the visit will be to hold further talks on the 
strategy of future efforts to achieve peace in accord 
with the objectives of United Nations Security Coun- 
cil Resolution 338. Further discussions of the details 
of the establishment of the Joint Commission will 
also be held. His Majesty has accepted the invita- 
tion and the date of the visit will be announced 
shortly. 

The President expressed his gratitude and that of 
Mrs. Nixon for the warm hospitality extended by 
His Majesty, by Her Majesty Queen Alia and by the 
Jordanian people. 



THE VISIT TO PORTUGAL 
ARRIVAL, LAJES FIELD, THE AZORES, JUNE 18 

Whitf Hou.se press reli-asc (Lajes) dated ,Iune 18 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. President : I am very pleased that our 
first stop after returning from the Mideast 
is in this friendly country of Portugal, and 
I look forward to the first opportunity to 
have a talk with you about our mutual rela- 
tions between two countries that have such 
a close, friendly relationship. 

Remarks by President Spinola ' 

I am also very happy to have this oppor- 
tunity to meet with the President of the 
United States, the first chief of state I meet 
after the events of the 25th of April. 

President Nixon: I am very honored. 



EXCHANGE OF REMARKS, LAJES FIELD, JUNE 19'' 

Remarks by President Spinola 

I can state that the working session that 
has .just been completed between the Presi- 
dents of the United States and Portugal took 
place in an atmosphere of the greatest cor- 
diality in which the positions of the two 
countries regarding the present situation 
were very clearly stated. 

A very important factor underlying the 
success of these talks was a total identity in 
the thinking regarding a staunch defense of 
peace, the respect for the democratic princi- 
ples, and the hallowed principles that under- 
lie the right to self-determination of peoples 
which is expressed in the free will of those 
peoples regarding the choice of their destiny. 

There was also an exchange of views re- 
garding the needs of Portugal in the areas of 
cooperation as well as technical, economic, 



■ President Spinola spoke in Portuguese on both 
occasions. 

" Made following a meeting between President 
Nixon and President Spinola (White House press 
release, Lajes, dated June 19). 



July 15, 1974 



119 



and financial support which would enable 
Portugal to be economically on a par with 
the other countries in Europe. 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. President: As you have stated, we 
have just had a very constructive exchange 
of views with regard to mutual problems 
that our two countries face. 

In coming to Portugal, I feel that I have 
had the opportunity to visit with a new 
friend and also to review an old friendship, 
the friendship between our two countries. 

A great challenge faces the President and 
his government at this time. I think that 
challenge can best be described by some sym- 
bolism : a very strong wind is blowing across 
these islands today, and the winds of politi- 
cal change have never blown stronger all 
over the world than they are today. 

What we must all understand is that 
change by itself, however, is not something 
that is necessarily good. Change that sweeps 
away what was obsolete and what may have 
been wrong in the past is of course what we 
consider beneficial. But then new institutions 
must be created, and that is often the most 
difficult problem involved when these changes 
occur — not the sweeping away of what was 
bad in the past, but the building of something 
new to take its place. 

President Spinola is one of those rare lead- 
ers who recognizes this problem and this 
challenge. And I have assured him that he 
will have not only the understanding of the 
Government of the United States but, to the 
extent that we are able, our support in meet- 
ing the challenge. Because an independent, 
free, prosperous Portugal is vital not only to 
the Atlantic alliance but vital also to the in- 
terest of the United States as well as to the 
interest of the people of Portugal. 

And I can assure all of those who are in 
this country that the United States will con- 
tinue to be a good friend and a trusted ally 
of Portugal and that we look forward to 
working with President Spinola toward the 
great goals he has set for his government. 

And Mr. President, finally, I want to ex- 
press on behalf of all the American party our 



deep appreciation of the warm hospitality 
that you and others from your government 
have extended to us as we have stopped here 
after a very long and arduous trip to the 
Mideast. 



STATEMENT ISSUED BY PRESIDENT NIXON 
ON DEPARTURE, LAJES, JUNE 19 

white House press release (Lajes) dated June 19 

I am delighted that our trip to the Middle 
East has given us the unexpected but very 
welcomed opportunity to begin a new friend- 
ship with President Spinola and to renew an 
old friendship with the nation he represents. 

Although our talks this morning were 
brief, President Spinola and I were able to 
review all of the major issues affecting rela- 
tions between the United States and Portugal 
and to touch upon many larger issues as well. 
A major topic of our discussion was the 
importance that the United States attaches 
to Portugal's contribution to NATO and to 
Western security. In addition, I was pleased 
that in our meeting President Spinola told 
us in the most convincing terms of the de- 
sires of Portugal for even stronger and closer 
ties with the United States. We welcome her 
friendship, just as we welcome the friend- 
ship of all other nations. 

This meeting has also served as a valuable 
reminder that the challenges of peace are not 
isolated to any single area of the world. A 
truly effective structure of peace must em- 
brace every area of the world, convincing 
every nation that its dreams can only be 
realized in peace and not in war. 

For the last six days we have been pre- 
occupied with the problems of the Middle 
East. I outlined to President Spinola the 
results of the trip we are now concluding 
and emphasized our irreversible commitment 
to continuing an active, constructive role 
there. 

But now, as we return to the United 
States, we will refocus our attention on two 
other crucial areas of the world : Europe and 
the Soviet Union. Next week I will travel to 
Brussels for meetings with heads of state 
from the NATO alliance. I will then go on 



120 



Department of State Bulletin 



to Moscow for our tliird summit meeting 
with Soviet leaders. Both of these visits are 
an essential part of our continuing efforts to 
reduce tensions around the world and to 
solve problems through negotiation, not con- 
frontation. 

To President Spinola and to the people of 
Portugal, we extend our grateful thanks for 
our present and fruitful visit to the Azores, 
and we pledge our continuing friendship in 
the future. 



ARRIVAL, WASHINGTON, JUNE 19 

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated June 24 

Remarks by Vice President Ford 

Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon: It is a great 
privilege and honor for me to have the op- 
portunity of welcoming both of you back on 
a very successful peace mission which you 
have accomplished with great dignity and 
distinction. When you left a few days ago, 
there was some apprehension in some quar- 
ters that this vitally important mission might 
not achieve the objectives that we all hope 
for, but I think, as we have followed your 
journeys in five countries, we have seen that 
the actions taken by you have cemented the 
great accomplishments of the Secretary of 
State during his negotiations. 

The welcome given to you and Mrs. Nixon 
in five countries is a tribute to you, Mr. 
President, to Mrs. Nixon, and I think to the 
American people. 

Over the years it has been my privilege, 
Mr. President, to welcome you back on a 
number of peace missions that you under- 
took. I was in the group that welcomed you 
when you came back from the Soviet Union 
in 1972, when you came back from that his- 
toric mission to the People's Republic of 
China. In each and every case, there have 
been solid achievements leading us and the 
world down the road of peace. 

Of course it has been wonderful to see, 
as we did, Mrs. Nixon, not only on this trip 
but other trips, where she actually charmed 
and captivated the people of all countries. 
Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that 



Mrs. Nixon could now be called the First 
Lady of the world. 

Mr. President, about 10 days ago, I was 
here with many others to wish you Godspeed. 
Our prayers were with you at that time, and 
I think it might be appropriate now to quote 
from that Biblical injunction, "Blessed is 
the peacemaker." 

Mr. President, the American people know 
that the road to peace is long and very, very 
difficult, but the Ameincan people historically 
have stood tall and strong as they met the 
conflicts on the battlefield. I am just as con- 
fident, Mr. President, that the American 
people will stand tall and strong as they now 
move forward in the eflTorts to achieve the 
peace that you have worked so strenuously 
to lay the groundwork for, not only in the 
Middle East but in Europe and in Southeast 
Asia. The American people will be united. 
They will be tall, and they will back you, as 
they have in the past, in seeking the peace 
that is sought by all. 

There is an Arabic saying that goes some- 
thing like this, and I hope I can quote it 
correctly: "May Allah make the end better 
than the beginning." 

It seems to me that this welcome here is 
indicative of the attitude that the American 
people have in all 50 states. They appreciate 
your accomplishments, they appreciate what 
you have done for America, and they are 
grateful for the foundation that you have 
laid for a lasting peace in the world as a 
whole. We welcome you back and are glad 
you are here. 



Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. Vice President, members of the Cab- 
inet, and all of you who have been so very 
kind to come out and welcome us back after 
our trip to the Mideast : It is hard to realize 
that over the past nine days that we have 
had the opportunity to meet with the leaders 
of five countries of the Mideast, as well as 
the President of Portugal and the Prime 
Minister of Austria. 

As I have said, this trip now comes to an 
end, but it is only the beginning of a much 



July 15, 1974 



121 



longer journey, a journey that will be diffi- 
cult, a journey that has many pitfalls, po- 
tentially, in it, but one that is worth taking, 
a journey on which we are embarked and 
on which we will continue, a journey toward 
a lasting peace not only in the Mideast but 
all over the world. 

Let me say, too, that with regard to the 
trip itself, at this point in our relations with 
the nations in that area, some observations 
I think can be made. 

I have over the past 21 years visited that 
area on several occasions, and I would say 
that a profound and, I believe, la.sting change 
has taken place in these respects: First, 
where there was no hope for peace, there is 
now hope. Second, where there was hostility 
for America in many parts of that part of 
the world, there is now friendship. Third, 
while we did have the opportunity to meet 
new friends in Egypt and in Syria, we were 
able to reassure old friends in Israel and in 
Saudi Arabia and in Jordan. 

What this all adds up to, of course, is not 
that we have instant peace as a result of one 
series of negotiations or just one very long 
trip, but what it does mean is that we are 
on the way, and it does mean, too, that we 
must dedicate ourselves to stay the course — 
as the Vice President has indicated, to stand 
tall until we reach our goal. 

Also, I would like to say a word with re- 
gard to those television clips I am sure many 
of you saw of literally millions of people in 
Cairo and Alexandria and Damascus and in 
Jidda, in Jerusalem, and in Amman, millions 
of people welcoming the President of the 
United States and his wife. 

What does this mean? What it really 
meant was not a welcome in a personal sense, 
but it meant something far more significant. 
It meant very simply that millions of people 
in that part of the world who have known 



nothing but poverty and war for the last 30 
years desperately want peace and they want 
progress. They believe that America wants 
peace and progress not only for ourselves but 
for them, too. They believe that we will help 
in achieving peace and progress without ex- 
acting the price of domination over them. 
In other words, what those people were say- 
ing to us, and what we convey to you, our 
fellow Americans all over this great nation, 
is that for millions and millions of people in 
that part of the world, there is trust for 
America, there is respect for America, and 
really some very strong affection for Amer- 
ica. 

I would say, as we conclude this part of 
this very long journey, we must not let these 
people down. We must help, because America 
must play and will play the crucial role in 
continuing the progress toward peace and 
continuing also to build on the foundations 
of these new relationships with nations 
where those relationships have been broken 
in times past. 

Waging peace is, in fact, more difl^cult 
than waging war because it is more complex 
— the goal sometimes one loses sight of as 
he becomes involved in the tactics that are 
necessary to achieve that goal. But while 
waging peace is more difficult than waging 
war, I think, as all of us realize, the rewards 
are infinitely greater, and I think on this day 
that every American can be proud that his 
country, in that part of the world and I 
would say in most of the world, is trusted as 
a nation which first has the responsibility to 
lead toward achieving the great goal of prog- 
ress and peace for all peoples, but also we 
can be proud of the fact that we are not 
backing away from that responsibility. 

Let us be worthy of the hopes, of the trust, 
of millions of people that most of us will 
never meet. This is a great goal. 



122 



Department of State Bulletin 



Secretary Kissinger's News Conference of June 17 at Jerusalem 



Following is the transcript of a news con- 
ference held by Secretary Kissinger at Jeru- 
salem on June 17 before his departure to 
attend a North Atlantic Council ministerial 
meeting at Ottawa. 

Press release 252 dated June 18 

Secretary Kissinger: So many of you lis- 
tening to Ron's [Ronald L. Zeigler, Assistant 
to the President and Press Secretary] brief- 
ings have gotten the idea that I had left the 
trip that it was felt useful on this last day 
for me to answer some questions. And Ron 
agreed, provided I didn't make an opening 
statement. [Laughter.] I will be glad to 
answer any questions. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, it has been almost a week 
since you made your statement about resign- 
ing unless your integrity was restored. Do 
you feel any better about it? 

Secretary Kissinger: I will answer this 
question, but then I won't answer any other 
questions on that subject. We will keep it 
there. I stick by what I said a week ago, 
and now the Senate Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee is going to look into the matter. 

Q. There is a report in the morning papers 
that President Ni.voii has instructed you to 
get 171 touch with Palestinian leaders in the 
near future. Do you have a comment on that? 

Secretary Kissinger: There is no basis to 
this report. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, how certain are the 
technicians and the scientists that informa- 
tion given to Egypt cannot be used to manu- 
facture a bomb? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think it is impor- 
tant to get this agreement into some sort of 
a perspective. We have agreements on nu- 



clear reactors, I believe, with 28 other coun- 
tries. You can check the exact number. The 
issue of diversion has never been raised in 
the face of our safeguards except in the last 
month because of the India nuclear explosion. 
The India nuclear explosion occurred with 
material that was diverted not from an 
American reactor under American safe- 
guards but from a Canadian reactor that did 
not have appropriate safeguards. 

We have always been confident that the 
safeguard agreements upon which we have 
insisted and on which we shall insist in this 
particular case are adequate to prevent the 
diversion of nuclear materials for military 
purposes. Nevertheless, we will review these 
safeguards in the negotiations that have to 
take place with Egypt or with any other 
government with which we will negotiate a 
similar agreement to make doubly sure that 
there aren't any loopholes in it. 

This reactor will take from six to eight 
years to build and in that period will of 
course provide an incentive to concentrate on, 
among others, economic development rather 
than on military purposes — a period of time 
within which we believe that the turn toward 
peace in the Middle East can be finally ac- 
complished. 

Q. Are the Israeli officials that you have 
made this explanation to satisfied with it? 
Are they confident as you are that there ivill 
be no diversion? 

Secretary Kissinger: Needless to say, for 
a country that has lived as precariously as 
Israel, anything with even a vague potential 
for aff"ecting the military situation is a 
source of some concern. I believe, however, 
that those Israeli officials with whom I had 
an opportunity to talk and with whom the 
President has had an opportunity to talk 



July 15, 1974 



123 



realize that there is no danger of military 
diversion, that they are reassured, and I be- 
lieve that this whole matter is going to blow 
over very quickly. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, has there been any dis- 
cussion in any degree of detail between you 
or the President and the Isi-aelis on the prob- 
lem of withdraival from the 1967 territories 
that were seized by the Israelis, arid xvhat is 
their reaction? 

Secretary Kissinger: There has been no 
discussion in the talks between the President 
and the Israelis on this trip, and for that 
matter between myself and the Israelis on 
any previous trip, of a specific line to which 
Israel should withdraw in the course of nego- 
tiations. 

We have deliberately adopted a step-by- 
step approach in which the United States did 
not put forward any precise idea but, rather, 
permitted the parties to crystallize their own 
thinking, and only when that had occurred 
has the United States put forward specifics. 
Those who were on trips with me know that 
we spent sometimes agonizing weeks letting 
the parties crystallize their own thinking 
before we emerged with something called the 
U.S. proposal to bridge gaps that had already 
become very narrow. 

So the United States has not talked to 
Israel either on this trip or on my previous 
trips about any particular line but only about 
the general process of withdrawal that will 
be part of a negotiation, to which Israel has 
of course always agreed. 

Q. Secretary Kissinger, two questions: 
The first one is, will the U.S. and the Israeli 
Governments formally reach some form of 
long-term military aid agreement today? 

Secretary Kissinger: Of course I shouldn't 
anticipate what may be in the joint state- 
ment that is still under discussion and, in 
fact, which I will have to be discussing right 
after the press conference. However, enough 
has been said publicly by senior officials 
about the agreement in principle by the 
United States to look at the military needs 
of Israel on a longer term basis that I don't 



think you would go overboard to speculate 
that we would agree to this. 

Q. Hoiv much? A million and a half a 
year? 

Secretary Kissinger: No. We are not talk- 
ing about either specific figures or about a 
specific time. We are talking about the prin- 
ciple of it. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what ivill the next step 
be in the Middle East negotiations? 

Secretary Kissinger: Of course, you re- 
member that in Egypt President Sadat 
pointed out that there were some further 
exchanges needed between the various Arab 
countries before the Arab countries could 
decide which would be the most appropriate 
next step. What the United States is pre- 
pared to do is to exchange informally ideas 
with all of the parties to see which course 
will crystallize, and that, in turn, will require 
that there are some prior discussions among 
the Arab countries. 

As far as the United States and Israel are 
concerned, we expect to see the Foreign 
Minister in the United States next month 
and the Prime Minister at an early date. And 
we will then discuss a common approach to 
the negotiation. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, has President Asad def- 
initely agreed to attend the Geneva Confer- 
ence? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't know whether 
that question has ever been formally put to 
him this way. But certainly all our discus- 
sions were within the framework of the the- 
ory of him attending the Geneva Conference, 
and I don't believe there is any problem about 
that. 

Q. Have you noticed any change in atti- 
tudes or concern among the leaders you dis- 
cussed because of the uncertainty you cast 
over your future because of your comments 
in Salzburg? 

Secretary Kissinger: 1 have not discussed 
the issue with any of the leaders with whom 
we have met, and I have not had that impres- 



124 



Department of State Bulletin 



sion. Of course, there is some hope in the 
State Department. [Laughter.] 

Q. Cati you give us an overvieiv of what 
you think has happened in the Arab countries 
and Israel in terms of tvhat is the situation 
now, as you see it? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think, to understand 
the situation now, one has to consider it in 
the perspective of what has occurred in the 
six or seven months since the initiative — 
which the President's trip culminated — be- 
gan. When this initiative began, the Middle 
East was polarized between the Arab world 
on the one side and Israel on the other, with 
the Arab world backed by the Soviet Union 
[and] Israel backed by the United States. 
As a result, every conflict in the Middle East 
had the insoluble quality of a superpower 
confrontation, and the U.S. role was seen as 
that of simply representing one of the sides 
in a dispute which had been festering for 25 
years. 

Last November, there began a diplomatic 
turn in which the United States, without giv- 
ing up its traditional friendship and support 
for Israel, at the same time began to move 
into a position where it could be helpful to 
all of the parties in the process of negotiation 
and where in turn the other countries in the 
Middle East began to reconsider their one- 
sided reliance on only one of the countries. 

This process leading to disengagement ne- 
gotiations culminated in the Presidential trip, 
which has to be seen on many levels — on the 
one level, as a symbolic affirmation of a dra- 
matic reversal in the whole historic evolution 
of this area, at the same time as enabling the 
United States to begin a relationship with all 
of the countries in the area not based on the 
exigencies of a particular crisis but based on 
the long-term prosperity and progress of the 
area. The President's visit and conversation 
in all of these countries has served to crystal- 
lize and to put into a focus this direction of 
the relationship between the United States 
and all of the countries in the area. 

And thirdly, it has enabled the President 
to engage in preliminary conversations, not 
about the tactics of how peace should be made 



but about the general direction of the peace 
efforts. I therefore think that the Middle 
East policy, if we can stay on this course — 
and we all recognize that this is a very tricky 
and complicated area — could mark one of the 
turning points in the postwar diplomatic his- 
tory. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, in your opinion and that 
of the United States, how can the Palestin- 
ians effectively and co7istructively be brought 
into this ivhole negotiating process that has 
just been described? 

Secretary Kissinger: Of course, the most 
efficient way for the Palestinians to be 
brought into the process is through a Jor- 
danian negotiation, in which there is the his- 
torical background and for which Israel has 
always declared its readiness in principle. 
As for other steps that might be taken, I 
think it is premature to speculate at this 
point when there are other issues, such as 
borders and territory, that require more ur- 
gent consideration. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, a few minutes ago in re- 
sponse to a question on withdrawal from the 
occupied lands, you said at the end of your 
response, "to which Israel has always 
agreed." What is it on ivithdrawal that Is- 
rael has always agreed to? 

Secretary Kissinger: Israel has always 
agreed that it did not insist on holding all the 
territories acquired or occupied in the 1967 
war. The dispute between Israel and her 
neighbors has concerned to what precise line 
Israel should withdraw. This is an issue that 
did not have to be faced in the stages of ne- 
gotiations through which we have been 
going. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, we really can't sense very 
well what the mood or the style of the talks 
is with the President and these leaders. Could 
you describe a little bit, involving ivhen you 
are in the room, what it is like and how they 
approach subjects and somewhat on the tone 
of what goes on? 

Secretary Kissinger: The President's style 
in negotiations is a very reflective style; that 



July 15, 1974 



125 



is to say, he does not go in there with 10 spe- 
cific points to bargain on a specific agree- 
ment. He believes that as President his great- 
est contribution is to set a general direction, 
to make sure the parties with which we are 
dealing understand our basic purposes, and 
then to leave it to others to fill in the details 
of the day-to-day negotiations. That is all 
the more necessary, as in a six- to four-hour 
meeting one can in any event only cover the 
main directions. Therefore, in these meet- 
ings the President always attempts to make 
sure — and in my view does so very effectively 
— to put across to a leader with whom he is 
talking what the general purposes are of the 
United States. He then elicits from them a 
statement of the directions in which they 
want to go. I want to stress, the purpose of 
this trip is not simply to design, or primarily 
to design, a negotiation process for the next 
three months but to bring about an under- 
standing which can sustain the process over 
the next few years. 

Secondly, in discussing the bilateral rela- 
tionships, we attempt to define what the long- 
term purposes are that we and the country 
which we are visiting can share, within the 
framework of which then the precise techni- 
cal arrangements can be worked out. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, there ivas an air of haste 
about the declaration of principles which ivas 
issued in Cairo. Can you tell lis ivhen prep- 
arations for that declaration began? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't know whether 
you can deduce from the typos an air of 
haste. The preparation for the declaration of 
principles began about 10 days ago on my 
last visit to President Sadat, after the com- 
pletion of the Syrian disengagement agree- 
ment ; it was agreed first to set up the Coop- 
eration Commission and, secondly, that spe- 
cific details of that commission would be 
spelled out during the course of the Presi- 
dent's visit. 

So as soon as I returned, preparations be- 
gan about spelling out the details of that as- 
pect of it. The nuclear part had been negoti- 
ated since April, I believe, by a visiting team 
of Egyptians, and it happened to crystallize 



at about the time of the Presidential visit. 
There was no long-term design to make it 
coincide with the Presidential visit. It just 
happened to coincide with the Presidential 
visit, and it was therefore included as part 
of the general package. The basic idea had 
been in preparation before the President ar- 
rived. 

It was then discussed in great detail by the 
two Presidents and was reduced into a con- 
crete statement on Thursday night. The ad- 
ministrative difficulty that existed was that 
the party was divided between Alexandria 
and Cairo and, by passing the documents 
back and forth between Alexandria and Cai- 
ro, a few lines of the communique were in- 
advertently dropped. Ziegler said he would 
take responsibility for that. [Laughter.] I 
sure as hell won't. [Laughter.] 

Q. There is a feeling here in one's conver- 
sations with Israelis that there is a mood 
which presumes that the Arab strategy right 
now is to consolidate their position prepara^ 
tory to the long-range design of continuing 
an offensive to liquidate the State of Israel. 
On the basis of your talks ivith the Arabs to 
date, what reassurance, if any, can you give 
the Israeli popidace that this is or is not in 
the long-range design or scheme of the Arab 
neighbors that surround them? 

Secretary Kissinger: People who have lived 
for 25 years with the threat of extinction, 
whose neighbors for its entire history have 
not recognized its existence, needless to say 
live with a premonition of catastrophe that 
is not true of almost any other state. There- 
fore the sense of catastrophe, partly as a re- 
sult of Jewish history, partly as a result 
of Israel's history, has to be deep in the 
souls of everybody here; and we, as Ameri- 
cans, have to understand it. 

On the other hand, it is our conviction that 
for the first time in the existence of Israel, 
the Arab states, even the more radical ones 
like Syria, are talking about a continuing 
State of Israel and that some of the Arab 
states seem to have made a rather crucial 
decision to seek to work out modalities of co- 
existence with the State of Israel. 



126 



Department of State Bulletin 



Now, this is an entirely new experience 
for Israel, and it is also difficult, and a pain- 
ful adjustment, for Israel to see that the po- 
larization that had been characteristic of the 
area through most of the history of Israel, 
with the United States totally on one side 
and the Soviet Union totally on the other, is 
also changing to a more complex relationship. 

In my experience, one of the more moving 
aspects of the disengagement negotiations 
has been to see the transformation of that 
fear into a sense of security which has de- 
veloped through the process that the Presi- 
dent initiated last October. And I believe that 
as a result of this trip and of the events that 
will follow this trip, Israel will understand 
that its long-term security is more surely 
guaranteed by what is now going on and in 
fact it is the only way to assure it. 

This doesn't mean, however, that as one 
goes through particular phases there may not 
be elements of uncertainty and even elements 
of pain. But we will face them with a sense 
of partnership and understanding that has 
been characteristic of our previous efforts. 

Q. Ca)t you comment on reports this viorn- 
ing that you are also about to sign an agree- 
me7it tvhereby Israel will be given assistance 
in the direction of a nuclear power plant? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, it is of course 
difficult for me to comment on things that 
will be in a joint statement, but it is reason- 
able to assume that we are prepared to make 
agreement with Israel that we have also made 
with Egypt. 

Q. You say we are? 

Secretary Kissinger: In principle. 

Q. You mean on the nuclear plants? 

Secretary Kissinger: Why don't you wait 
until we — I don't think I should answer any 
more questions on what may or may not be in 
a communique that may or may not be pub- 
lished. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, you stated that it would 
be most desirable if Jordan ivoidd be the 
spokesman for the Palestinians. However, 



both Syria and Egypt made it abundantly 
clear they regard the Palestine Liberation 
Organization (PLO), possibly some of the 
branches, as a legitimate spokesman for the 
Palestiniayis. Does the United States intend 
to deal rvith the PLO, and woidd it recognize 
them as the legitimate spokesmen of the Pal- 
estinians if Egypt and Syria insisted on this? 

Secretary Kissinger: No. What I said was 
that this is one, and perhaps the most effi- 
cient, way of doing it. We consider the ques- 
tion now premature. We will not make our 
decision ba.sed primarily on what this or that 
other state in the area may recommend. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, ivould you be willing to 
recommend as a next step in the negotia- 
tions disengagement talks bettveen Israel and 
Jordan? 

Secretary Kissinger: The United States 
has always favored, in principle, talks be- 
tween Israel and Jordan, and it is my under- 
standing that Israel is not, in principle, op- 
po.sed to talks between Israel and Jordan. 
The problem is whether one can find some 
framework within which these talks may 
take place. If the two parties agree on talks, 
the United States would be prepared to be 
helpful and to play a useful role. 



U.S. -Mexico Science and Technology 
Commission Meets at Washington 

Following is the Record of Decisions and 
Recommendations of the first meeting of the 
United States-Mexico Mixed Commission on 
Scientific and Technical Cooperation issued 
on June 7. 

Press release 238 dated June 7 

An Agreement on Scientific and Technical 
Cooperation between the United States and 
Mexico was signed in Washington, D.C. on 
June 15, 1972 during President Echeverria's 
visit to Washington. 

On June 4 through 6, 1974, the first meet- 
ing of the United States-Mexico Mixed Com- 
mission on Science and Technology, which 



July 15, 1974 



127 



was established under this agreement, took 
place in Washington, D.C. for the purpose 
of reviewing, orienting, and formulating the 
program for scientific and technological co- 
operation for peaceful purposes in areas of 
mutual interest. 

The Mixed Commission considered that the 
enlarging activity of cooperation in science 
and technology reflected the deep and friend- 
ly relations which exist between the two 
countries and observed with satisfaction and 
approval the spirit of good faith and willing- 
ness to accommodate views which had char- 
acterized this first meeting of the Mexico- 
U.S. Mixed Commission on Science. 

Reaffirming the importance of scientific and 
technological knowledge in the development 
process, as expressed at the Conference of 
Tlatelolco in February, 1974, both delega- 
tions viewed with profound satisfaction the 
progress made in joint Mexico United States 
programs since the signing of the bilateral 
Scientific and Technical Cooperation agree- 
ment in June 1972 and recommended that 
each government search for new areas of co- 
operation of mutual interest and seek to im- 
prove the existing ones so as to strengthen 
the economic and social development of both 
Mexico and the United States. 

The Mexican delegation to the Mixed 
Commission were Lie. Jose S. Gallestegui, 
Subsecretary of Foreign Relations ; Lie. 
Gerardo Bueno, Director General of the 
National Council of Science and Technology 
(CONACYT) ; Lie. Roberto Casellas, Min- 
ister-Counselor of the Mexican Embassy at 
Washington ; Lie. Santiago Meyer Picon, Di- 
rector General of International Technical 
Cooperation, Secretariat of Foreign Rela- 
tions ; and Lie. Ignacio Villasenor, Deputy 
Assistant Director of the Mexican Diplo- 
matic Service, Secretariat of Foreign Rela- 
tions. The United States representatives on 
the Mixed Commission were Mr. Jack B. 
Kubisch, Assistant Secretary of State for 
Inter-American Affairs; Mr. Herman Pol- 
lack, Director of the Bureau of International 
Scientific and Technological Affairs, Depart- 
ment of State ; Dr. Thomas B. Owen, Assist- 
ant Director, National and International 



Programs, National Science Foundation 
(NSF) ; Ambassador William G. Bowdler, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
Inter-American Affairs ; and Dr. Bodo Bar- 
tocha. Head of the Office of International 
Programs, National Science Foundation. 

A review was made of the program of the 
Mexican National Council of Science and 
Technology and the National Science Foun- 
dation for cooperative efforts including joint 
research projects, scientific visits, joint sem- 
inars and workshops, and exchange of infor- 
mation and documentation. During the first 
year of operation of the program the two 
countries had jointly selected four areas of 
research: (1) Earth Sciences; (2) Biological 
Sciences; (3) Marine Sciences; and (4) En- 
vironmental Sciences. 

During the second year (July 1, 1973 to 
June 30, 1974) an intensification of scien- 
tific and technological efforts resulted in the 
approval by the executive agencies of nine 
projects of mutual interest and of special 
significance for Mexico's priorities. 

The Mixed Commission identified the fol- 
lowing ten areas of common interest to both 
countries : 

1. Energy Research 

2. Meteorological Research 

3. Tropical Ecology 

4. Mineral Resources 

5. Marine Resources 

6. Demographic Research 

7. Tropical Agriculture 

8. Standards 

9. Information and Documentation, and 
10. Geothermal Energy 

A wide variety of scientific disciplines and 
scientific and technological institutions of 
both countries would be involved in these 
efforts. 

The Mixed Commission reviewed the ex- 
perience gained in 1973 when twenty-three 
young Mexican technicians received an aver- 
age of six months training in the United 
States in such specialized fields as electrical 
engineering, food technology, desalinization, 
livestock management, thermonuclear plant 
operation, foreign trade, communication, ma- 



128 



Department of State Bulletin 



chine technology, education, and marine bi- 
ology. U.S. technicians will be sent in 1974 
for training in such fields as geothermal 
energy, sociology, and vocational training. 
The depth and extent of ongoing bilateral 
activities in the field of science and tech- 
nology by government institutions of the two 
countries and by private institutions and 
individuals was given a comprehensive re- 
view. The Mixed Commission took satisfac- 
tion in the fact that a large number of public 
and private institutions in both counti'ies 
are now known to be active in cooperative 
scientific and technological projects. 

IMF Committee of Twenty Agrees 
on Interim Monetary Measures 

Following is the text of a communique 
issued on June 13 at the conclusion of the 
final meeting of the Committee on the Board 
of Governors of the International Monetary 
Fund on Reform of the hiternational Mone- 
tary System and Related Issues. Secretary of 
the Treasury William E. Simon headed the 
U.S. delegation to the yneeting. 

1. The Committee of the Board of Gov- 
ernors of the International Monetary Fund 
on Reform of the International Monetary 
System and Related Issues (the Committee 
of Twenty) held its .sixth and final meeting 
in Washington on June 12-13, 1974, under 
the chairmanship of Mr. Ali Wardhana, Min- 
ister of Finance for Indonesia. Mr. Johannes 
Witteveen, Managing Director of the Inter- 
national Monetary Fund, took part in the 
meeting which was also attended by Mr. 
Gamani Corea, Secretary-General of the 
UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on 
Trade and Development], Mr. Frederic 
Boyer de la Giroday, Director of Monetary 
Affairs of the EEC [European Economic 
Community] , Mr. Rene Larre, General Man- 
ager of the BIS [Bank for International 
Settlements], Mr. Emile van Lennep, Secre- 
tary-General of the OECD [Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development], 
Mr. Olivier Long, Director General of the 



GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade], and Sir Denis Rickett, Vice-Presi- 
dent of the IBRD [International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development] . 

2. The Committee concluded its work on 
international monetary reform; agreed on 
a program of immediate action ; and re- 
viewed the major problems arising from the 
current international monetary situation. 

3. The program of immediate action is as 
follows : 

(a) Establishment of an Interim Com- 
mittee of the Board of Governors of the Fund 
with an advisory role, pending establishment 
by an amendment of the Articles of Agree- 
ment of a Council with such decision-making 
powers as are conferred on it. 

(b) Strengthening of Fund procedures for 
close international consultation and surveil- 
lance of the adjustment process. 

(c) Establishment of guidelines for the 
management of floating exchange rates. 

(d) Establishment of a facility in the 
Fund to assist members in meeting the initial 
impact of the increase in oil import costs. 

(e) Provision for countries to pledge 
themselves on a voluntary basis not to intro- 
duce or intensify trade or other current ac- 
count measures for balance of payments 
purposes without a finding by the Fund that 
there is balance of payments justification for 
such measures. 

(f) Improvement of procedures in the 
Fund for management of global liquidity. 

(g) Further international study in the 
Fund of arrangements for gold in the light 
of the agreed objectives of reform. 

(h) Adoption for an interim period of a 
method of valuation of the SDR [special 
drawing right] based on a basket of curren- 
cies and of an initial interest rate on the 
SDR of 5 per cent. 

(i) Early formulation and adoption of an 
extended Fund facility under which develop- 
ing countries would receive longer-term bal- 
ance of payments finance. 

(j) Reconsideration by the Interim Com- 
mittee, simultaneously with the preparation 
by the Executive Board of draft amendments 



July 15, 1974 



129 



of the Articles of Agreement, of the possi- 
biUty and modalities of establishing a link 
between development assistance and SDR 
allocation. 

(k) Establishment of a joint ministerial 
Committee of the Fund and World Bank to 
carry forward the study of the broad ques- 
tion of the transfer of real resources to de- 
veloping countries and to recommend meas- 
ures. 

(1) Preparation by the Executive Board of 
draft amendments of the Articles of Agree- 
ment for further examination by the Interim 
Committee and for possible recommendation 
at an appropriate time to the Board of Gov- 
ernors. 

These measures are described in more 
detail in the statement attached to this com- 
munique.^ 

4. Members of the Committee expressed 
their serious concern at the acceleration of 
inflation in many countries. They agreed on 
the urgent need for stronger action to combat 
inflation, so as to avoid the grave social, eco- 
nomic and financial problems that would 
otherwise arise. They recognized that, while 
international monetary arrangements can 
help to contain this problem, the main re- 
sponsibility for avoiding inflation rests with 
national governments. They affirmed their 
determination to adopt appropriate fiscal, 
monetary and other policies to this end. In 
the discussion Members of the Committee 
urged that the multilateral trade negotia- 
tions in the framework of GATT should con- 
tinue to be regarded as a matter of priority. 
5. The Committee noted that, as a result 
of inflation, the energy situation and other 
unsettled conditions, many countries are ex- 
periencing large current account deficits that 
need to be financed. The Committee recog- 
nized that sustained cooperation would be 
needed to ensure appropriate financing with- 
out endangering the smooth functioning of 
private financial markets and to avert the 
danger of adjustment action that merely 
shifts the problem to other countries. Par- 
ticular attention was drawn to the pressing 
difficulties of the most severely affected de- 



' Not printed here. 



veloping countries. Members of the Commit- 
tee thei-efore strongly emphasized their re- 
quest to all countries with available resources 
and to development finance institutions to 
make every effort to increase the flow of 
financial assistance on concessionary terms 
to these countries. 

6. In concluding its work on international 
monetary reform, the Committee agreed to 
transmit a final Report on its work, together 
with an Outline of Reform, to the Board of 
Governors. These documents will be pub- 
lished shortly. 



U.S. Members Named to Commission 
for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries 

President Nixon announced on May 28 
(White House press release) the appoint- 
ments of two persons to be U.S. Commis- 
sioners on the International Commission for 
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. They are 
David H. Wallace, Associate Administrator 
for Marine Resources, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, Department of 
Commerce, and Charles H. W. Foster, Sec- 
retary, Executive Office of Environmental 
Aff"airs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
Boston, Mass. 

The International Commission for the 
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries is authorized 
by a convention which entered into force 
July 3, 1950. The participating countries 
(United States, Canada, France, Denmark, 
Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Italy, 
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, United 
Kingdom, Soviet Union) work cooperatively 
in a conservation management program cov- 
ering certain of the fisheries of the North- 
west Atlantic Ocean. The Commission de- 
velops and coordinates research programs 
which are undertaken by the individual mem- 
ber governments, with results reported to the 
Commission, which in turn recommends con- 
servation measures to the governments. 

The United States is authorized three 
Commissioners. Ronald W. Green, the third 
Commissioner, has served since May 26, 
1962. 



130 



Department of State Bulletin 



TREATY INFORMATION 



Current Actions 



MULTILATERAL 

Atomic Energy 

Agreement amending the agreement of July 26, 1967 
(TIAS 6306), between the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, South Africa, and the United 
States for the application of safeguards. Signed 
at Vienna June 20, 1974. Enters into force on the 
date the agreement of May 22, 1974, amending 
the agreement for cooperation on civil uses of 
atomic energy between the United States and 
South Africa enters into force. 

Coffee 

Agreement amending and extending the international 
coffee agreement 1968. Approved by the Interna- 
tional Coffee Council at London April 14, 1973. 
Entered into force October 1, 1973. TIAS 7809. 
Accessio)! deposited: Nigeria, May 28, 1974. 

Consular Relations 

Vienna convention on consular relations. Done at 
Vienna April 24, 1963. Entered into force March 
19, 1967; for the United States December 24, 1969. 
TIAS 6820. 
Accessio7i deposited: Rwanda, May 31, 1974. 

Copyright 

Protocol 1 annexed to the universal copyright con- 
vention, as revised, concerning the application of 
that convention to works of stateless persons and 
refugees. Done at Paris July 24, 1971. Entered into 
force July 10, 1974. 
Accession deposited: Senegal, April 9, 1974. 

Protocol 2 annexed to the universal copyright con- 
vention, as revised, concerning the application of 
that convention to the works of certain interna- 
tional organizations. Done at Paris July 24, 1971. 
Entered into force July 10, 1974. 
Ratification deposited: Spain, April 10, 1974. 
Accession deposited: Senegal, April 9, 1974. 

Narcotic Drugs 

Protocol amending the single convention on narcotic 
drugs, 1961. Done at Geneva March 25, 1972.' 
Accession deposited: Cameroon, May 30, 1974. 

Pollution 

International convention for the prevention of pollu- 
tion from ships, 1973, with protocols and annexes. 
Done at London November 2, 1973.' 
Signature: Sweden (subject to ratification), May 
31, 1974. 

Protocol relating to intervention on the high seas in 
cases of marine pollution by substances other than 
oil. Done at London November 2, 1973.' 



Signature: Sweden (subject to ratification). May 
31, 1974. 

Postal Matters 

Constitution of the Universal Postal Union with final 
protocol signed at Vienna July 10, 1964 (TIAS 
5881), as amended by additional protocol, general 
regulations with final protocol and annex, and the 
universal postal convention with final protocol and 
detailed regulations. Signed at Tokyo November 
14, 1969. Entered into force July 1, 1971, except 
for article V of the additional protocol, which 
entered into force January 1, 1971. TIAS 7150. 
Accession deposited: Democratic People's Republic 
of Korea, June 6, 1974. 

Racial Discrimination 

International convention on the elimination of all 
forms of racial discrimination. Done at New York 
December 21, 1965. Entered into force January 4 
1969.= 
Accession deposited: Jordan, May 30, 1974. 

Safety at Sea 

Convention on the international regulations for pre- 
venting collisions at sea, 1972. Done at London 
October 20, 1972.' 
Accession deposited: Spain, May 31, 1974. 

Telecommunications 

International telecommunication convention, with 
annexes. Done at Montreux November 12, 1965. 
Entered into force January 1, 1967; for the United 
States May 29, 1967. TIAS 6267. 
Accession deposited: The Gambia, May 27, 1974. 

Trade 

Arrangement regarding international trade in tex- 
tiles, with annexes. Done at Geneva December 20, 
1973. Entered into force January 1, 1974, except 
for article 2, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, which entered 
into force April 1, 1974. 

Acceptances deposited: Ghana, June 5, 1974; In- 
dia, May 20, 1974; Singapore, May 31, 1974. 
Signature: Austria (subject to ratification). May 
21, 1974. 

Wheat 

International wheat agreement, 1971. Entered into 
force June 18, 1971, with respect to certain provi- 
sions, July 1, 1971, with respect to other provi- 
sions; for the United States July 24, 1971. TIAS 
7144. 

Ratification of the Wheat Trade Convention de- 
posited: Italy, June 26, 1974. 
Ratification of the Food Aid Convention deposited: 
Italy, June 26, 1974. 

Protocol modifying and extending the wheat trade 
convention (part of the international wheat agree- 
ment) 1971. Done at Washington April 2, 1974. 
Entered into force June 19, 1974, with respect to 
certain provisions; July 1, 1974, with respect to 
other provisions. 

Declaration of provisional application deposited: 
Nigeria, June 20, 1974. 



' Not in force. 

' Not in force for the United States. 



July 15, 1974 



131 



BILATERAL 

Canada 

Agreement relating to the establishment of joint 
pollution contingency plans for spills of oil and 
other noxious substances. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Ottawa June 19, 1974. Entered into force 
June 19, 1974. 

Egypt 

Arrangement relating to the assistance by the 
United States in the salvage and/or removal from 
the Suez Canal of sunken vessels and certain other 
hazards to navigation. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Cairo June 11, 1974. Entered into force 
June 11, 1974. 

Haiti 

Agreement modifying the agreement of October 19 
and November 3, 1971, relating to trade in cotton 
textiles. Effected by exchange of notes at Port- 
au-Prince June 20 and 21, 1974. Entered into force 
June 21, 1974. 

Mexico 

Agreement amending the agreement of October 28, 
November 10 and 12, 1953 (TIAS 2912), on docu- 
mentation for nonimmigrants traveling between 
the United States and Mexico. Effected by ex- 
change of notes at Mexico and Tlatelolco May 29, 
1974. Entered into force June 28, 1974. 

Philippines 

Agreement relating to the relinquishment by the 
United States of certain land at Camp Wallace. 
Effected by exchange of notes at Manila May 20 
and 30, 1974. Entered into force May 30, 1974. 



PUBLICATIONS 



GPO Sales Publications 

Publications may be ordered by catalog or stock 
number from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20i02. 
A 25-percent discount is made on orders for 100 or 
more copies of any one publication mailed to the 
same address. Remittances, payable to the Superin- 
tendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 
Prices shown below, which include domestic postage, 
are subject to change. 

Consular Relations. Convention, with exchanges of 
notes, with Belgium. TIAS 7775. 112 pp. $1.50. 
(Cat. No. 89.10:7775). 

Trade — Cotton Velveteen Fabrics. Agreement with 
Italy. TIAS 7776. 3 pp. 25«;. (Cat. No. 89.10:7776). 



Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Bolivia. 
TIAS 7777. 13 pp. 25('-. (Cat. No. 89.10:7777). 

Education — Financing of Exchange Programs. 

Agreement with Germany amending the agreement 
of November 20, 1962, as amended. TIAS 7778. 6 pp. 
25(<. (Cat. No. 89.10:7778). 

Tracking Stations. Agreement with Spain extend- 
ing and modifying the agreement of April 14, 1966. 
TIAS 7799. 3 pp. 25<'. (Cat. No. 89.10:7779). 

Atomic Energy — Application of Safeguards Pur- 
suant to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Protocol with 
the Republic of Viet-Nam and the International 
Atomic Energy Agency suspending the agreement of 
September 18 and November 25, 1964. TIAS 7780. 
2 pp. 25(^. (Cat. No. 89.10:7780). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Colom- 
bia amending the agreement of April 24, 1973, as 
amended. TIAS 7781. 3 pp. 25<*. (Cat. No. 89.10: 

7781). 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with Nicaragn^a 
amending the agreement of September 5, 1972. TIAS 
7782. 2 pp. 256 (Cat. No. 89.10:7782). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam amending the agreement of No- 
vember 9, 1973, as amended. TIAS 7783. 3 pp. 25^. 
(Cat. No. 89.10:7783). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam. TIAS 7784. 5 pp. 25(f. Cat. No. 

89.10:7784). 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with the Pol- 
ish People's Republic amending and extending the 
agreement of March 15, 1967, as amended and ex- 
tended. TIAS 7785. 4 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. S9.10: 
7785). 

International Health Regulations — Additional Regu- 
lations Amending Articles 1, 21, 63 to 71, 92 and 
Appendix 2. TIAS 7786. 6 pp. 250. (Cat. No. 89.10: 

7786). 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with Singapore 
amending the agreement of January 19, 1971. TIAS 
7787. 5 pp. 256 (Cat. No. 89.10:7787). 

Trade in Wool and Man-Made Fiber Textile Prod- 
ucts. Agreement with Singapore. TIAS 7788. 9 pp. 
256 (Cat. No. 89.10:7788). 

Technical Cooperation. Agreement with Afghani- 
stan extending the agreement of June 30, 1953, as 
extended. TIAS 7789. 3 pp. 25«'. (Cat. No. 39.10: 

7789). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam amending the agreement of 
August 29, 1972, as amended. TIAS 7790. 3 pp. 25('. 
(Cat. No. 89.10:7790). 

International Cooperation in the Field of Energy. 

TIAS 7791. 4 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7791). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Afghan- 
istan. TIAS 7793. 15 pp. 30?'. (Cat. No. 89.10: 
7793). 



132 



Department of State Bulletin 



INDEX July 15, 197 J, Vol. LXXI, No. 1829 



Austria. President Nixon Visits Five Middle 
East Nations (exchanges of remarks, texts 
of joint statements) 77 

Economic Affairs 

IMF Committee of Twenty Agrees on Interim 
Monetary Measures (text of communique) 129 

U.S. Members Named to Commission for 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries 130 

Egypt. President Nixon Visits Five Middle 
East Nations (exchanges of remarks, texts 
of joint statements) 77 

International Organizations and Conferences 

IMF Committee of Twenty Agrees on Interim 
Monetary Measures (text of communique) 129 

U.S. Members Named to Commission for 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries 130 

Israel. President Nixon Visits Five Middle 
East Nations (exchanges of remarks, texts 
of joint statements) 77 

Jordan. President Nixon Visits Five Middle 
East Nations (exchanges of remarks, texts 
of joint statements) 77 

Mexico. U.S. -Mexico Science and Technology 
Commission Meets at Washington (record 
of decisions and recommendations) . . . 127 

Middle East. Secretary Kissinger's News Con- 
ference of June 17 at Jerusalem 123 

Portugal. President Nixon Visits Five Middle 
East Nations (exchanges of remarks, texts 
of joint statements) 77 

Presidential Documents. President Nixon Vis- 
its Five Middle East Nations 77 

Publications. GPO Sales Publications ... 132 

Saudi Arabia. President Nixon Visits Five 
Middle East Nations (exchanges of re- 
marks, texts of joint statements) .... 77 

Science. U.S. -Mexico Science and Technology 
Commission Meets at Washington (record 
of decisions and recommendations) . . . 127 

Syria. President Nixon Visits Five Middle 
East Nations (exchanges of remarks, texts 
of joint statements) 77 

Treaty Information. Current Actions . . . 131 



Name Index 

Asad, Hafiz . . . , 77 

King Faisal 77 

Ford, Vice President 77 

King Hussein 77 

Katzir, Ephraim 77 



Kissinger, Secretary 123 

Kreisky, Bruno 77 

Nixon, President 77 

Sadat, Anwar 77 

Spinola, Antonio de 77 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: June 24-30 

Press releases may be obtained from the 
Office of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Releases issued prior to June 24 which ap- 
pear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 
238 of June 7 and 252 of June 18. 



No. Date 

6/24 
6/24 



t260 
*261 



1262 6/24 



t263 6/24 



*264 6/25 



*265 


6/26 


*266 


6/27 


*267 


6/27 


t268 


6/27 


1269 


6/28 


1270 


6/28 


1271 


6/28 



1272 6/29 



Subiect 

Kissinger: news conference. 

Public educational corporation 
proposed to operate East-West 
Center in Hawaii. 

U.S. delegation to Western Hem- 
isphere working group on sci- 
ence and the transfer of tech- 
nology. 

Communique of the seventh U.S.- 
Japan Conference on Cultural 
and Educational Interchange, 
Tokyo, June 20. 

Alvin Alley City Center Dance 
Theater tour of Eastern Eu- 
rope. 

Hodgson sworn in as Ambassador 
to Japan (biographic data). 

Hinton sworn in as Ambassador 
to Zaire (biographic data). 

Mark sworn in as Ambassador to 
Burundi (biographic data). 

Kissinger: news conference, Brus- 
sels, June 26. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement on Co- 
operation in Housing and Other 
Construction. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. earthquake con- 
struction research project. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement on Co- 
operation in the Field of En- 
ergy. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Long-Term Agree- 
ment on Economic, Industrial, 
and Technical Cooperation: 
State-Treasury release. 



* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the BULLETIN. 



Superintendent of Documents 
U.S. government printing office 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Special Fourlh-Class Rate 
Book 




Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, OflSce 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 



/J 





THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BULLETIN 



Volume LXXI 



No. 1830 



July 22, 1974 



SECRETARY KISSINGER'S NEWS CONFERENCE 
OF JUNE 24 133 

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE 
Remarks by Vice President Ford lAo 

TESTIMONY ON THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
Statement by Assistant Secretary Kubisch 150 
Statement by Assistant Secretary Easum 153 
Statement by Assistant Secretary Buffum 157 



THE OFFICIAL WEEKLY RECORD OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 

For iiidex see inside back cover 



1 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN 



Vol. LXXI, No. 1830 
July 22, 1974 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington. D.C. 20402 

PRICE: 

52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80. foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 



The Department of State BULLETIN, i 
a weekly publication issued by the \ 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public ani 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
tfie field of U.S. foreign relations am 
on the work of the Department ant 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selectet 
press releases on foreign policy, issuet 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and othei 
officers of the Department, as well at 
special articles on various phases m 
international affairs and the functiom 
of the Department. Information h 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which tlu 
United States is or may become t 
party and on treaties of general inti 
national interest. 
Publications of the Department 
State, United Nations documents, one 
legislative material in the field ot 
international relations are also listed 



le 1 1 

M 



Secretary Kissinger's News Conference of June 24 



Pie-ss release 260 dated June 24 

Secretary Kissinger: I thought I would 
begin with some observations on the forth- 
coming summit before we go to your ques- 
tions. 

In many respects the relationship between 
the Soviet Union and the United States is 
the most crucial toward the maintenance 
of peace in the world. The United States 
and the Soviet Union are the only two coun- 
tries that have the capability of a general 
nuclear war and therefore the only coun- 
tries that can end civilized life as we know 
it. 

Moreover, the interests of the United 
States and of the Soviet Union intersect in 
many parts of the globe. There is therefore 
always a possibility that misunderstandings 
may lead to confrontation, and the confron- 
tation could escalate into conflict. 

A principal objective of the United States, 
therefore, has to be to make sure that rela- 
tions between the United States and the 
Soviet Union are based on deliberate deci- 
sions and that misunderstanding is reduced 
to a minimum and, secondly, to try to bring 
about a set of constructive and, where pos- 
sible, cooperative relationships that give both 
sides an incentive in maintaining the peace. 

This is the basic purpose of the summit. 
The summit will therefore have three prin- 
cipal parts. 

One, a general exchange between the Pres- 
ident and the Soviet leadership which will 
review the international situation, try to 
identify areas of possible disagreement, and 
attempt to minimize the consequences of 
these disagreements, as well as to identify 
areas of possible cooperative action and work 
out the means of this cooperation. 

Secondly, to deal with the most complex 



and in many respects the most serious prob- 
lem of the modern period, which is the con- 
trol of the nuclear arms race. Never before 
have political leaders had the capacity to 
destroy human life as a result of a unilat- 
eral decision — and to do it in a matter of 
days. Never before has technology been so 
at odds with the human capacity to compre- 
hend it. Never before has technology devel- 
oped a momentum of its own in such a man- 
ner that it becomes increasingly difficult to 
control it. 

Our objectives with respect to the control 
of arms are as follows : 

— Obviously, neither side should have a 
military advantage as the result of any 
agreement that may be made; 

—Secondly, neither side should be able 
to have a political advantage as a result of 
any agreements that might be made ; 

— Thirdly, neither side should believe that 
such an advantage exists, even if in reality 
it does not exist, because the perception is 
more important in many respects than the 
reality; and 

— Finally, neither side — no ally nor other 
interested country of either side — should 
have such a perception. 

To achieve this is very complicated be- 
cause the forces of both sides have been 
developed on the basis of different principles. 
There are symmetries that were deliberately 
designed in the kind of forces both sides 
have built, in the way they are based, in the 
technology they represent. 

But for the United States not to make a 
major effort in this field is something that 
no future generation could possibly under- 
stand; and the danger we see — and that we 
are trying to prevent — is to keep technology 



July 22, 1974 



133 



from driving policy, and to prevent a situ- 
ation from arising in which the inertia of 
technological decisions brings about a quali- 
tative change — first, in the nature of mili- 
tary, and secondly, in the nature of political 
relations. 

Secondly, it is not a minor decision to 
engage in an unrestricted arms race — not 
only because of the military consequences of 
such an arms race but also because the 
justifications that would have to be made 
on either side to sustain such an effort might, 
in time, become incompatible with a policy 
of relaxation of tensions and might in them- 
selves be a factor introducing confrontation. 

I say this so that you understand what 
our motivations are, and of course we recog- 
nize that serious people will differ with what 
weight is to be given to particular schemes. 
And of course any agreement we would make 
would be submitted to full congressional 
scrutiny. 

But this is the area of our concern, and 
it is one in which we plan to have serious, 
extensive, and searching talks in the Soviet 
Union. 

The third area with which we will deal 
in the Soviet Union is an attempt to give a 
more positive structure to our relationships ; 
that is to say, as in every previous summit, 
we will discuss a series of cooperative ar- 
rangements in the fields of economics, scien- 
tific exchange, and other matters of mutual 
concern. The purpose of these agreements 
or arrangements or discussions, or whatever 
the case may be, will be to draw both so- 
cieties into a more civilized relationship, to 
give each side a stake in the maintenance 
of an orderly and increasingly humane in- 
ternational system, and thereby to contribute 
to the peace of the world. 

This, then, is the purpose of the summit: 
To maintain a dialogue; to contain the dan- 
ger of nuclear confrontation; and to create 
positive incentives for a peaceful world. 

And now I will be delighted to take ques- 
tions. 

Q. Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Kissinger: Yes, sir. 



Q. With respect to the — / think it was 
ijour second one, on the nuclear — "To con- 
tain the danger of the nuclear confronta- 
tion" — there has been a great deal of dis- 
cussion, a good part of it uninformed, I 
think, about what agreements that you and 
Mr. Dobrxjnin [Anatoliy F. Dobrynin, Soviet 
Ainbassador to the United States] may have 
made or not, which went beyond the '72 
Moscow agreement. As you said at another 
point, the perception of things is much more 
important sometimes, psychologically, than 
the "things." Noiv, I realize your spokes- 
man has denied such an agreeyyient. Can 
you put this thing simply, and bluntly, for 
us? 

Secretary Kissinger: I can put it bluntly. 
I don't think I can put it simply. [Laughter.] 

There have been two points made. 

Point 1 is that as a result of a secret 
agreement between the administration and 
the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union has been 
permitted to modernize 70 missiles on the 
G-class submarines and that therefore the 
total number of modern submarine-launched 
missiles permitted to the Soviet Union is 
1,020, and not 950 as the administration 
has publicly stated and as was represented 
to Congress. 

The second argument is that the interim 
agreement permits the United States to build 
710 submarine-launched missiles but in fact 
the United States is intending to maintain 
only 656 submarine-launched missiles and 
that therefore the total for the United States 
is 54 less than has been represented to the 
Congress and to the public. So that the total 
change in the Soviet Union's favor is of 124 
missiles — brought about as the result of 
secret agreements made between the United 
States and the Soviet Union. 

Those arguments are totally false in every 
detail. They have no merit whatsoever, and 
I shall now explain why. 

First, let me deal with the G-class sub- 
marine. At the time the interim agreement 
was signed, the Soviet Union was permitted 
a total of 950 modern ballistic missiles on 
nuclear submarines. That figure of 950 was 



134 



Department of State Bulletin 



to be achieved by — or it could be achieved 
only by — the replacement of older Soviet 
missiles for any modern missile that was 
deployed on submarines beyond the figure 
of 740. In other words, the Soviet Union 
would have to retire 210 older missiles in 
order to reach the total of 950. 

This raised the issue of what missiles the 
Soviet Union would have to retire in order 
to reach the permitted total of 950. 

The United States had an interest that 
the 210 missiles that would be retired would 
be ICBM's [intercontinental ballistic mis- 
siles] — missiles of a range of 5,000 miles 
and of warheads in the six-megaton range; 
that is to say, the SS-7 and SS-8 missiles. 

We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union 
from trading in obsolescent missiles that in 
our judgment they would have to retire any- 
way; namely, the missiles that are on the 
G-class submarines. 

On the G-class submarine, the Soviet Un- 
ion possesses, we believe, 20 operational 
ones. Eleven of them have missiles of a 
range of 700 miles, and nine have missiles 
of a range of 300 miles. No G-class sub- 
marine has been on station on the Atlantic 
coast of the United States since 1967, and 
no G-class submarine has been on station 
off the Pacific coast of the United States 
since 1969. 

The G-class submarine is a diesel-powered 
submarine that can stay under water for 
only two to three days, that is extremely 
noisy and therefore extremely vulnerable. 
And moreover, the 300-mile-range missile, 
which is, as I pointed out, on nine of these 
submarines, can be fired only if the sub- 
marine surfaces — it cannot be fired from 
under water. 

Therefore it seemed to us extremely im- 
probable that the Soviet Union would main- 
tain in its force a weapon which it would 
have to carry 4,000 miles so that it could 
fire it the remaining 300 miles, when it al- 
ready possessed 1,400 weapons that it could 
fire over a range of 1,500 miles. 

We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union 
from trading in a weapon which we were 
certain they would have to retire in any 



July 22, 1974 



event for a modern weapon. Or to put it 
another way, we wanted the Soviet Union 
to trade in ICBM'.s for the modern weapon. 
And frankly, we considered it a negotiating 
achievement when, in Moscow, the Soviet 
Union agreed that the replacement for the 
210 modern submarine mi.ssiles could not 
come from the G-class submarines but would 
have to come either from the ICBM's or from 
other more modern forces that were built 
after 1965. 

In my press conference on the night of 
May 26 to May 27 [1972], I explained this 
provision in great detail. I stated specifi- 
cally — and if I may spend a minute in read- 
ing it to you- — I was asked: "How about 
the G-class?" My answer was: 

... If they are modernized, they are counted 
against the 950 .... They don't have to retire 
them. They do have to retire the H-class submarines 
if they want to go up to 950. They do not have to 
retire the G-class submarines, but if they modernize 
them they are counted against the 950. 

In other words, the Soviet Union had two 
choices. If they kept the G-class submarine 
in their force, they had that option. But 
if they put a modern missile on the old sub- 
marine, it would be counted in the 950. But 
they could not retire the obsolescent mis- 
siles on the G-class and trade them in for 
modern missiles. 

So this is what I said on May 26. On 
June 5 there was a meeting of the Verifica- 
tion Panel — on which all agencies were rep- 
resented — in which this provision was fully 
explained and received the unanimous sup- 
port of those present. The only requirement 
that was made was to make sure we would 
tie down the Soviet Union by means of an 
interpretive statement to a provision which 
we considered entirely in our interest. 

On June 15, I sent the following guidance 
to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, 
the Director of the Arms Control and Dis- 
armament Agency, the Chairman of the 
Atomic Energy Commission, and the Chair- 
man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will now 
read this. It says: 

Enclosed for your use in the SALT hearings is the 



135 



interpretation of the offensive agreement with re- 
gard to the SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic mis- 
sile] limitations and replacement provisions. You 
should follow this guidance in preparing testimony 
and in responding to questions. 

I will now read from this guidance: 

To reach 950 SLBM's on Y-class submarines will 
require the Soviets to retire H-class launchers. They 
will also have to retire SS-7 and -8 ICP.M's. They 
cannot build launchers on Y-class boats to replace 
launchers on G-class boats unless the launchers on 
such boats have been deployed with modern SLBM's. 
G-class boats are outside the agreement unless they 
are modernized by equipping them with modern 
SLBM launchers. Any modern SLBM (that is, sub- 
marine-launched ballistic missile) operationally de- 
ployed on G-class will be counted within the 950 
ceiling and above the 740 baseline must be accom- 
panied by corresponding destruction or dismantling 
of SS-7's and -8's or older nuclear-powered sub- 
marines. 

It is obvious our concern was to make 
sure that the ICBM's with the large war- 
heads would be dismantled. 

This was the guidance we gave to the 
bureaucracy and which we asked them to 
tell congressional committees. This was also 
what Ambassador Smith [Gerard Smith, 
then Director of the U.S. Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency and head of the U.S. 
delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation 
Talks] testified before the Jackson subcom- 
mittee in July 1972. 

When in carrying out the understanding 
with the Verification Panel that we would 
give an interpretive statement to the Soviet 
Union of what I had already said in the press 
conference — namely, that G-class boats 
would count only if modern missiles were 
put on them or, conversely, that they could 
not trade in G-class missiles for modern 
launchers — when we handed this interpre- 
tive statement to the Soviet Union, they dis- 
puted our interpretation and insisted that 
they should have the right to trade in these 
obsolescent missiles for new missiles. 

And this led to a month of exchanges be- 
tween us and the Soviet Union. And it then 
seemed to us that, since it was an election 
year, since there might be a change in ad- 
ministration, and since there could be a 
change of personnel even if there was no 
change of administration, that our succes- 



sors should not find themselves in the same 
position as we did and that they should not i 
have to go through the record and recon- 
struct the understanding. And, therefore, 
we asked the Soviet Ambassador to sign the 
interpretive statement that we had made — 
which I will now read — and which is almost 
verbatim what I had already said publicly 
in the press conference on May 26, the night 
the agreement was signed, and which we 
had, moreover, told every agency of the gov- 
ernment should be our public position. 

Let me read this so-called "understanding" 
which has been so much in the press : 

In clarification of interpretation of the provisions 
of the Protocol to the Interim Agreement With 
Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive 
Arms signed on May 26, the United States under- 
stands that: One, the aggregate level of ballistic 
missile launchers on submarines established by the 
protocol for the United States and the USSR, 950 for 
the USSR and 710 for the United States, includes 
ballistic missile launchers on all nuclear-powered 
submarines and launchers for modern ballistic mis- 
siles which may be deployed on diesel-powered sub- 
marines. 

There is therefore no basis whatever for 
.saying that we authorized the modernization 
of missiles on diesel-powered submarines. 

Secondly, launchers for older ballistic missiles on 
diesel-powered submarines are not included in the 
above-mentioned levels and, therefore, cannot be 
used for purposes of replacement as defined in the 
protocol. 

In other words, they had to get rid of 
ICBM's. 

Three, a modern ballistic missile on a submarine is 
a missile of the type which is deployed on nuclear- 
powered submarines commissioned in the USSR since 
1965. 

The Soviet side has indicated its agree- 
ment with this interpretation. 

In other words, the so-called "secret 
agreement" is nothing other than a state- 
ment by the United States of what we had 
already stated publicly on May 26, of what 
we had told our bureaucracy on June 5, of 
what we had sent out in guidance to every 
agency on June 15. It does not permit the 
Soviet Union to build one additional modern 
ballistic missile on submarines above the 
level of 950 that we agreed upon. And there- 



136 



Department of State Bulletin 



fore the figure given publicly and before 
eongressionai committees is correct. And 
what we are dealing with here is an attempt 
to tie down a provision of the agreement 
that was considered to the advantage of 
the United States, serving our purposes that 
we insisted on — and on that the Soviet Union 
resisted in putting into this form for six 
weeks. 

Now, let me turn to the second point — the 
fact that the United States, again allegedly 
as a result of a secret understanding, agreed 
not to build up to the total permitted level 
of 710 submarine-launched missiles on sub- 
marines. 

For this I have to explain the submarine 
issue. Before going to Moscow- — indeed, be- 
fore agreeing to specifying any submarine 
levels — at the request of the President, I 
consulted both the Chief of Naval Operations 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff with respect to our building programs. 
Both told me that they did not wish to build 
additional submarines, missile-carrying sub- 
marines, of the type that it was then possible 
to build — substantially the existing Poseidon 
boats — and that they preferred to wait with 
the building of new submarines until what 
was then called ULMS [undersea long range 
missile system], and is now called Trident, 
would be operational — after 1977. 

Therefore we knew that we had no inten- 
tion of building any additional submarines 
until after the expiration of the interim 
agreement. Nevertheless we put into the 
interim agreement a provision according to 
which we could convert 54 of our older 
ICBM's to submarine-launched missiles. We 
put it into the interim agreement, quite 
frankly, for the third and fourth reasons 
which I gave with respect to our general 
strategic policy — the perception of other 
countries of the American position. 

We did not think it was desirable to put 
into an agreement a Soviet right to convert 
old missiles into submarine-launched missiles 
without maintaining an American right to 
convert old missiles into submarine-launched 
missiles. And therefore, to maintain the 
formal symmetry of the agreement, we put 
into the agreement a right which we had 



no intention to exercise. 

Since we knew that upon return to the 
United States, we would testify on behalf 
of the Trident — what is now called the Tri- 
dent program — since while we were in Mos- 
cow, there had been articles in our news- 
papers about the possibility that the United 
States might launch a big program for Tri- 
dent boats, the President thought it desir- 
able that on the last day of the summit 
conference of 1972 to tell the Soviet Union 
what would become apparent within a mat- 
ter of weeks anyway; namely, that we had 
no intention of exercising the conversion 
right from Titan missiles to submarines dur- 
ing the period of the interim agreement. 

This, again, did not change the total 
figures. 

We testified that the United States was 
entitled to have 1,710 missiles. It did not — 
I repeat — change the total figure. It meant 
that we would maintain 1,054 ICBM's and 
656 submarine missiles. 

This was not a concession the United 
States made to the Soviet Un^on. It was a 
relatively minor gesture designed to retain 
general confidence. 

When I testified on June 15— it wasn't 
called testimony then, because I was Assist- 
ant to the President — when I spoke to the 
assembled congressional leaders in the East 
Room of the White House on June 15, ex- 
plaining our program, I said, and I quote : 
The interim agreement "will not prohibit 
the United States from continuing current 
and planned strategic offensive programs, 
since neither the multiple-warhead conver- 
sion nor the B-1 is within the purview of 
the freeze, and since the ULM's (that is, 
what is now called Trident) submarine sys- 
tem is not, nor never was, planned for de- 
ployment until after 1977." 

In every five-year projection which we 
have submitted to the Congress, we have 
shown that we planned on 41 boats and 
1,054 missiles. 

To sum up, the totals for the Soviet side 
which were submitted to the Congress, and 
which were publicly stated, have not been 
changed by any agreement, understanding, 
or clarification — public or private. The totals 



July 22, 1974 



137 



for the United States that were subirlitted 
to the Congress and stated publicly have 
not been altered by any agreement or under- 
standing — public or private. The figures 
are exactly those that have been represented 
— exactly those that have been agreed to — 
and all of the disputes arise over esoteric 
aspects of replacement provisions, and not 
about the substance of the agreement. 
I'm sorry I made such a long answer. 

Q. One loose end. You prese>ited your in- 
terpretation to the Russians. They resisted 
it. I assume tlieij finalhj sicpied it. 

Secretary Ki.ssinger: They signed it, yes. 

Q. Mr. Secretarii, perhaps another loose 
end. Tliis interpretative statement on the 
Soviet sea missiles — to what extent was 
Congress informed of this interpretative 
statement? And, secondly, if I may, why in 
your judgment is this )iou' becoming a mat- 
ter of dispute? 

Secretary Kissinger: The interpretative 
statement as such was not submitted to the 
Congress, but the interpretation was sub- 
mitted to the Congress. The interpretative 
statement was not submitted because it was 
in the channel of the General Secretary to 
the President and because there was some 
question about whether it really was proper 
to make the Soviet Union sign an American 
interpretation — involving the general ques- 
tion of faith. 

I think, however, that that sort of issue, 
whether that sort of statement should be 
submitted, is easily soluble — and we will not 
insist on retaining within Presidential chan- 
nels. 

The major point is, however, that the sub- 
stance of it — the fact of our interpretation 
and the fact that we would act accordingly — 
was submitted to the Congress both in public 
statements on our part and in testimony of 
administration witnesses. 

Why is this becoming an issue now? I 
can only assume that there was a misunder- 
standing on the part of some of the wit- 
nesses or on the part of some of the Sena- 
tors who heard testimony about what they 
were being told. 



Q. May I follow o)i that? I wonder if 
you saw in it any effort to harass you or 
harass the team this close to the summit? 
Is this coming from the same sort of people 
who have doubts about going to the summit 
on SALT now? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't really want 
to speculate about motives. I think it is im- 
portant that on issues of such importance, 
that we can discuss them calmly and in the 
long-term national interest, and I have no 
reason to doubt the sincerity of those who 
made these charges. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you have asked that 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee re- 
open its inquiry into your role in the 1969-71 
ivi)etaps, and you have offered documents 
from your office in support of the vindication 
that you seek. Wiiat will these documents 
prove, and isn't it true that the Justice De- 
partment documents are so ambiguous that 
they alone can't ever fully resolve the issue? 
And further, have you asked President Ni.v- 
on or General [Alexander M.] Haig, or will 
you ask them, to publicly explain the taped 
Nixon, statement that you asked for the 
taps and that he assumed that they had 
been do7ie? 

Secretary Kissinger: I have asked the Sen- 
ate Foreign Relations Committee to reopen 
the hearings because — or to reopen its in- 
quiry — because of my firm conviction that it 
is not possible to conduct the foreign policy 
of the United States while the moral fitness 
of the Secretary of State is in question. 

I have therefore asked Mr. [Carlyle E.] 
Maw, the head of the Legal Ofl^ce of the 
State Department, to work w'ith the Justice 
Department to make certain that every rele- 
vant document is put before the committee, 
either from departmental files or from my 
own files. And nothing will be held back that 
I have any control over. 

I do not think it would be appropriate for 
me to make any comment about an expected 
outcome. But I hope very much that the 
committee will look both into this, as well 
as into the charges with respect to the 
Plumbers that keep coming up from time to 



138 



Department of State Bulletin 



time — in which, however, there is no docu- 
mentary evidence of any kind that I have 
been able to find. And I will leave it up to 
the committee to decide where the evidence 
leads. 

With respect to the President, I believe 
he has stated his relationship to this issue 
in the statement of May 22, 1973, but 1, as 
I pointed out before, am anxious for all the 
relevant facts to be put before the committee. 

Q. Have yon a^ked tlie P)esideiit to clear 
up that one garbled sentence that seems to 
say lie assumed that yon had asked for some- 
thing and that it was done? 

Secretary Kissi}iger: I have not made a 
formal request to the President to that ef- 
fect, no. 

Q. Mr. Secreta))/, do yon feel handicapped 
under the ci)-cnmstances, relative to that 
question, in going to Moscow now? I mean, 
in your conduct of foreign affai)-s at this 
time? 

Secretary Kissi)iger: I am confident that 
when all the facts are examined by the Sen- 
ate Foreign Relations Committee that their 
conclusions are likely to be the same as they 
were last year, since, after all, last year they 
had before them Justice Department and 
FBI summaries of the total evidence. As far 
as I know, there is no substantially new 
information, but I may be wrong. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, doesn't the dispute that 
you have fust addressed yourself to at con- 
siderable length concerning the 12i missiles, 
and the fact that the President will be going 
to Moscow with the impeachment challenge 
hanging over him — doesn't that raise a 
strong likelihood that anything agreed on the 
miclear field in Moscow ivill likely be highly 
contentious in the United States, and if so, 
how do you intend to deal ivith the problem? 

Secretary Kissinger: The urgency of deal- 
ing with the nuclear problem is produced by 
the pace of technology. Time and again, in 
the nuclear period, the pace of technology has 
outstripped the capacity of man to deal with 
it. 

With respect to several aspects of the cur- 



July 22, 1974 



rent nuclear arms race, there is a very def- 
inite time pressure. What we will do is to 
negotiate according to our best conception of 
the national interest. It is clear that any 
agreement that may be made will be .subject 
to a rather contentious debate. This debate 
is, in any event, apparently unavoidable. And 
we can only hope that it will be conducted 
with realization on both sides that it in- 
volves fundamental questions of national sur- 
vival and the future of humanity, that the 
good faith of the participants on either side 
is not at issue. And on that basis, I think such 
a debate would contribute to the national 
understanding. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, two questions on SALT. 
The first one concerns your readi)tg of the 
memo of understanding tvith AMbassador 
Dobrynin. If I heard your point .} right, you 
said that a modem missile is defined as a 
missile on a submarine of the type deployed 
on a nuclear-powered submarine commis- 
sioned in the U.S.S.R. since 1965. Is that 
correct? 

Secretary Kissinger: That is correct. 

Q. Well, if that is so, the nuclear-poivered 
submarine is not a diesel submarine. 

Secretary Kissinger: That is right. 

Q. Isn't it not so that if the Soviets chose 
to develop a missile not commissioned since 
1965, not deployed on either the Delta-class 
or the Yankee-class submarine, but if they 
were tvilling to go to that expense, they could 
have added 70 modern missiles to the old 
diesel submarines? 

Secretary Kissinger: No, because it was 
also made clear that if a modern missile is 
put on the G-class submarine, then it will be 
counted in the total of 950. 

Q. But that is not clear by the definition 
of these modern missile submarines. Because 
it says, in effect, that it is not commissioned 
since '65. If they are willing to develop a 
variation, they can ptit 70 new ones in, as 
long as it is not the same as is already in 
there. 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, in the context of 



139 



all the exchanges that have taken place, in 
the context of all of our public statements, 
this is a sort of legalism that would be to- 
tally rejected by the United States. 

First of all, it is an absurdity to assume 
that the Soviet Union would develop a spe- 
cial missile for a submarine that is in itself 
obsolescent. 

Secondly, in the context of all of the ex- 
changes that have taken place, it is perfectly 
clear that if a modern missile is put on a G- 
class submarine, we will insist on counting it 
as part of the 950. And while perhaps this 
hairsplitting interpretation is possible, it is 
totally inconsistent with the negotiating rec- 
ord — it is totally inconsistent with all the ex- 
changes that took place previously. It would 
be absolutely rejected by the United States. 

Q. Mr. Secretary — 

Secretary Kissinger: There is, moreover, 
no evidence whatsoever that any such mis- 
sile is being developed and deployed by the 
Soviet Union on any vehicle, let alone on the 
G-class submarine. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, as you go off to Mos- 
cow, does the U.S. Goveryiment noio have a 
unified position regarding the SALT nego- 
tiation ? 

Secretary Kissinger: We do not have be- 
fore us a Soviet proposal which requires a 
formal American position. We have a gen- 
eral agreement on the philosophy of our ap- 
proach. I do not doubt that if we wanted to 
translate this philosophy into numbers, dis- 
agreements would emerge. But this is not the 
issue we now face. And in any event, it is 
the responsibility of the President, which I 
don't doubt he will exercise, to resolve disa- 
greements, if disagreements should still exist, 
if we ever do arrive at numbers. 

Q. Is it likely that yon would theyi come 
up with some kind of SALT agreement dur- 
ing the summit meeting? 

Secretary Kissinger: I do not expect that 
we will get a completed SALT agreement at 
the summit. But you can't exclude the pos- 
sibility of substantial progress. 



Q. Mr. Secretary, would you address your- 
self to the underground threshold test ban 
probability, sir? 

Secretary Kissinger: We are, as has been 
publicly stated, discussing at this time the 
feasibility not of a complete underground 
test ban but of an underground test ban at 
a certain threshold. There are discussions 
among experts to determine the level at which 
such a threshold should be put, the kinds of 
verification that would be desirable, and the 
time at which such a test ban should go into 
effect — all of which will of course affect the 
strategic calculations and positions of both 
sides. 

We think that progress in this field is pos- 
sible. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, would you explain ivhy 
the President felt compelled on the last day 
of the summit to tell the Soviet leaders that 
ive did not intend to build up to the 710 
level? I think you explained it by saying that 
it would become apparent anyivay. Why 
would it become apparent? 

Secretary Kissinger: Mr. Lisagor [Peter 
Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], let's be pre- 
cise what the President said. The President 
said we would not trade in the 54 Titans for 
three submarines. The President's statement 
did not in any way change the totals. The 
U.S. totals were set at 1,710, which at that 
time stood at 1,054 land-based missiles and 
656 sea-based missiles. What the President 
said was that he had no plans to convert the 
54 Titans into submarine-based missiles. 
There was no change in the total numbers. 
That is the first thing to keep in mind. 

Second, he did this because it would be- 
come apparent within a matter of weeks, as 
indeed it did become apparent in a matter of 
weeks, that an impetus would be given to a 
program which was then called ULMS and 
is now called Trident. And we did not want 
to emerge from a SALT agreement with what 
might look like a big new program of stra- 
tegic submarines. And it would become ap- 
parent to the Soviet Union very quickly, in 
any event, what the operational date of these 
new submarines would be. And therefore he 



140 



Department of State Bulletin 



pointed out that none of these Trident boats 
would become operational during the period 
of the agreement and that therefore the con- 
version option would almost certainly not be 
exercised. 

I might point out that I foreshadowed this, 
that I made this clear in my statement be- 
fore the congressional group, when I said 
that none of these boats would become op- 
erational until after 1977. And it has been 
part of every Defense Department statement 
since then. 

It was a gesture that was of no great 
significance, that leaders sometimes engage 
in for the general atmosphere of relation- 
ships. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, ou that gesture that the 
President made, if the interim agreement 
were extended, as has been suggested, either 
at this_si(mmit or sometime in the near fu- 
ture, ivould the United States be bouyid by 
that statement of the President's? 

And while I have the floor — Defense Min- 
ister [Shimon'] Peres is here, and there has 
been talk from Israel of a request for $1.5 
billion a year in military aid for a multiyear 
arms program. Does the United States have 
an intention of giving arms at that magni- 
tude? 

Secretary Kissinger: First, with respect to 
the extension of the interim agreement. If 
the interim agreement were extended, this 
statement of the U.S. plans, which is all it 
was — it was not a commitment; it was a 
statement of what the United States planned 
to do, identical to what we stated in every 
defense budget ; it was not a worldshaking 
event — that statement would obviously not 
be necessarily binding. 

And how we would handle the extension 
of an interim agreement would depend en- 
tirely on the terms that other provisions 
which would lead us to an extension of the 
interim agreement provide. In any event, 
this particular assurance was an assurance 
with respect to American plans as they then 
stood. It would not necessarily continue if 
" there were an extension of the interim agree- 
ment. 



With respect to the visit of Defense Min- 
ister Peres, I have stated on occasion before 
congressional committees that the United 
States is prepared to discuss a longer term 
arrangement. The visit of the Defense Min- 
ister is designed to begin such a discussion. 
It is not related to any pai-ticular level. 

Q. Mr. Secretary — 

Secretary Kissinger: This gentleman was 
interrupted before. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the People's Republic of 
China is also a nuclear power. There have 
been reports of late that the pace of normali- 
zation between the United States and Pe- 
king has been slowing down. Would you 
give your assessment of that? And also 
wJtether you plan to visit tJiere, and if so, 
if the nuclear question ivill be discussed? 

Secretary Kissinger: We do not believe 
that the pace of normalization is slowing 
down from the general trend that had been 
established. Obviously, in the first year, when 
a radical change in our relationship occurred, 
it was more dramatic than it has been since. 
But I believe that both sides continue to be 
committed to the general course that we have 
been pursuing. 

I have no immediate plan to visit the 
People's Republic of China. But I have been 
visiting there about once a year, so it cannot 
be excluded. What I will discuss on a visit 
that has not yet been decided, I think we 
should leave for a little later. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, are the Israeli raids on 
the Palestinian camps in Lebanon the kind 
of activity for which the United States prom- 
ised diplomatic support, or at least noninter- 
ference? And have you urged restraint on 
the Israelis in co7inection ivith the raids? 
And do you see them as possibly endangering 
the disengagement agreements? 

Secretary Kissinger: The U.S. statement 
was related to the Syrian disengagement 
plan. And we make our decision with respect 
to what stands we will take in each case. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, Mr. [Leonid /.] Brezh- 



July 22, 1974 



141 



nev has made some encouraging statements 
about the chances of MBFR [mutual and 
balanced force reductions]. Can you say any- 
thing about the prospects at the Moscow 
talks? And secondly, can you say anything 
about your travel plans after Moscow and in 
the following weeks? 

Secretary Kissinger: The statements of 
the Genei-al Secretary have been of a very 
general nature. Right now, in the MBFR 
discussions in Vienna, each side is putting 
before the other a rather full exposition of 
its point of view. The issues are extremely 
complicated because of the different natures 
of the force structures on both sides and be- 
cause of the numerical superiority of the 
Warsaw Pact in the area that is under ne- 
gotiation. 

The Soviet Union has not put before us 
any scheme other than the one that is being 
negotiated in Vienna. Therefore we would 
have no basis for making any other decisions 
as of now than the decisions that are now 
being discussed in Vienna. 

If the Soviet leaders were to put before us 
a different proposition than the one that 
now exists in Vienna, we would obviously 
have to discuss it with our NATO allies, 
since this is not a bilateral negotiation. We 
would hope that they would. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, earlier this year, on 
January 10, 197 U, Secretary of Defense 
Schlesinger announced a decision ivhich had 
been made to effect certain changes in the 
American strategic nuclear targeting doc- 
trine to facilitate flexibility iyi nuclear re- 
sponses. Was the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee consulted before this decision ivas 
made ? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't believe that it 
is necessary for the Secretary of Defense to 
consult the Senate Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee about American strategic doctrine. 
However, I have had several sessions with 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
about the relationship between American 
strategic doctrine and the conduct of foreign 
policy. And I plan, after my return, to have 
a meeting with the Muskie subcommittee of 



the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 
the relationship between American strategic 
doctrine and the conduct of foreign policy. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the context of your 
confirmatioyi hearings, there were sort of 
assurances traded back and forth about prior 
consultation, and it seems like this matter 
is something that ivoidd seriously affect our 
foreign relations. 

Secretary Kissinger: I believe that the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee has 
been fully consulted before any major deci- 
sion in foreign policy has been taken and, I 
think, has had fuller discussions with me on 
strategic doctrine than has ever been the 
case. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, is there any possibility 
that the Cuban situation will appear in the 
summit meeting i)i Moscow? And second, 
please, did you have any talk with Mr. Ra- 
basa [Emilio 0. Rabasa, Mexican Secretary 
of Foreign Relations] in your last meeting 
in Washington about Cuba? 

Secretary Kissinger: I see no possibility of 
Cuba arising at the summit, and there is no 
possibility of talking to Foreign Minister 
Rabasa without Cuba coming up. [Laughter.] 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I just want to pin down 
— do you expect that there will be an agree- 
ment announced at the summit on under- 
ground nuclear testing? Secondly, xohat is the 
likelihood of a limited agreement on SALT 
pertaining to limitations of MIRV [multiple 
independently targeted reentry vehicle]. 
And thirdly, as you knoiv, the mood of Con- 
gress toward economic agreements with the 
Soviet Union is rather lukewarm, to say the 
best. There have been reports that the ad- 
ministration has worked out with the Soviet 
Union a 10-year trade agreement. Is this so? 
And what else can you tell us about the trade 
package? 

Seoetary Kissinger: With respect to the 
limited underground test ban, it is difficult 
to predict what will come out of the summit 
because the experts' talks are still going on. 

I think it is possible that there could be an 



142 



Department of State Bulletin 



agreement in principle and an agreement on 
some of the criteria that will be used in the 
follow-on negotiations and an agreement on 
certain levels like thresholds. I say it is pos- 
sible. It is not certain. 

The details of verification, exchange of 
information of geological data and so forth, 
would have to be worked out at a subsequent 
meeting. 

With respect to SALT, in March, when I 
was there, the Soviet Union made a pro- 
posal which in concept was worth looking at, 
though its numbers have not proved accept- 
able to us. 
. Now, I think it is imperative that the 
I strategic situation be fully reviewed by Mr. 
Brezhnev and the President. Whether on the 
basis of this review they feel capable of 
giving detailed instructions to their nego- 
tiating teams, or whether they will feel that 
further exchanges are necessary before de- 
tailed instructions can be given to their ne- 
gotiating teams, cannot be decided until these 
talks have taken place. 

Was there a third part to your question? 

Q. On the economics — 

Secretary Kissinger: Oh — on the economic 
agreements. There is a possibility of an eco- 
nomic agreement that does not require the 
expenditure of public funds but would, 
rather, reflect an exchange of information 
and the facilitating of economic exchanges 
and therefore would not require the appro- 
priation of public funds. 

Our problem is that we have to continue 
the course which we believe is in the inter- 
ests of world peace, subject to the fullest 
consultation with Congress, and to engage in 
the fullest public debate. But it is not a 
trivial matter whether, on the one hand, the 
arms race is continued without restriction, 
with all the justifications that that will en- 
tail ; and secondly, whether every positive 
incentive for restrained conduct is system- 
atically closed off". And that cannot be ana- 
lyzed simply in terms of one or two situations 
but in terms of the ability and willingness of 
the United States and our allies to sustain 
it over the decade or so of confrontations 



which such a course would entail. 

So as a responsible administration — as the 
administration responsible for the conduct of 
foreign policy, we must continue on our 
best judgment which we will put fully before 
the committees of Congress. I understand 
that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
is starting at the end of July a full set of 
public hearings on the direction of East- 
West relations, a course of action which I 
strongly support. And we will put the basic 
direction of cur policy before the public for 
full discussion. 

Q. Mr. Secretary — 

Secretary Kissinger: Mr. Toth [Robert C. 
Toth, Los Angeles Times]. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, us far as the partial 
underground test ban is concerned, ivhat will 
be the practical consequences of it in terms 
of the technological advances ive have been 
talking of — what kind of testing would it 
preclude, in terms of MIRV, for example'? 

Secretary Kissinger: What it would pre- 
clude is the testing of higher yield weapons. 
And it would probably not affect the current 
generation of MIRV's, but it would aff'ect the 
next generation of MIRV's. And it would 
make more difficult the combination of im- 
proved accui-acies and larger yields, which 
may again bring about a situation in which 
a premium will be put on a fii'st strike. And 
I want to emphasize that many of the pro- 
posals that are being made to improve the 
strategic capability improve first-strike ca- 
pabilities and do not improve the vulner- 
ability of the weapons concerned, and it has 
always been understood that the greatest 
danger to stability is a growing gap betw^een 
first- and second-strike capabilities. So this 
would have a somewhat inhibiting effect on 
larger yields in 'the next generation of 
MIRV's. 

Q. Mr. Secretary — 

Secretary Kissinger: You go right ahead. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what 
the present Soviet position is on Jewish 
emigration? 



July 22, 1974 



143 



Secretary Kissinger: The question of Jew- 
ish emigration is a very delicate and sensitive 
subject in which we have talven the position 
that we would pursue our dialogue in a way 
that, in our judgment, is most likely to bring 
about the result without putting it into a 
precise legal form. I have obviously been in 
discussion with Soviet leaders on that sub- 
ject. And I have also di.scu.ssed it at consid- 
erable length with Senators [Henry M.] 
Jackson, [Jacob K.] Javits, and [Abraham 
A.] Ribicoff. I believe that to publish the 
results of the.se discussions would defeat the 
purpose we are trying to achieve. Therefore 
my reluctance to discuss it publicly is not a 
proclivity for secret negotiations but a desire 
to bring about a result in which I think there 
is no disagreement between the Senators 
and ourselves. 

Q. Mr. Seci-etajij, could you tell us what 
is the range of threshold that is now u)ider 
consideration by both sides — this is for a pa)- 
tial underground test ban pact? 

Secretary Kissingc)-: I can't discuss that, 
because that is still subject to negotiation. 
But obviously the threshold has to be suffi- 
ciently low so that with expected uncertain- 
ties of verification it doesn't turn simply into 
a cosmetic exercise. If the threshold is put at 
a very high level, and since the uncertainties 
are a percentage of the level, then the basic 
objective of preventing the further elabora- 
tion of high-yield weapons cannot be 
achieved. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, during your series of 
visits in Western Europe after the summit, 
will you be discussirig the possibility of an- 
other trip to Europe by the President this 
year? 

Secretary Kissinger: That is not on the 
agenda. The basic purpose is, first, to brief 
our allies on the results of the summit, sec- 
ondly, to discuss with our allies the next 
phase of North Atlantic policy in the light of 
the North Atlantic Declaration and in the 
light of the changes of government that have 
occurred in the governments of so many of 



our allies. In other words, it is part of our 
continuing attempt to define the purposes of 
the North Atlantic alliance. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, bearing in mind what 
happened in India, what new gimmick can 
the United States have to really assure that 
the Egyptian reactor ivill not eventually help 
Egypt produce a bomb, and has the United 
States not opened now the door for another 
nuclear power to give a nuclear reactor to 
some other A)ab countries ivithout the 
gua)-a)ttees that you xcill be asking? 

Secretary Kissi)igrr: First, the nuclear 
agreement that is being made with Egypt is 
also being made with Israel. Secondly, the 
diversion of material in India occurred in a 
reactor that did not have even the IAEA 
[International Atomic Energy Agency] 
safeguards. Thirdly, we propose to negotiate, 
with respect to both of the reactors that are 
being sold, additional safeguards with re- 
spect to the storing and disposition of the 
end product of these reactors that we believe 
are substajitially foolproof. Fourthly, the 
discussion has tended to be in terms of 
whether the United States opened the door 
to the spread of nuclear technology in the 
Middle East. There is no reason to suppose 
that other countries, and not only those of 
Eastern Europe, would have been quite pre- 
pared to engage in nuclear discussions on 
peaceful energy with Egypt or perhaps even 
other countries of the Middle East. And 
finally, our decision must be seen not only in 
the context of the particular technology but 
in terms of the six- to eight-year period of 
construction that would be involved and the 
incentives that it would provide, at least 
during that period, for moderate behavior 
and constructive action. 

Q. Mr. Secretary — 

Secretary Kissinger: Over here. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, a)iother question on the 
SALT. Since they did come at a particularly 
delicate political time, it is important to tie 
it down. You say that point 3 of the agree- 



144 



Department of State Bulletin 



)ueiit that you reached icith Soviet Ambassa- 
dor Dobrynin that could be interpreted to 
give the Soviets an additio)ial 70 modern 
launchers was a mei'e legalism. 

Did the Soviets consider it a mere legalism ? 
Was their interpretation the same as yours? 
And did members of the U.S. delegatio7i also 
consider it a mere legalism not subject to 
Soviet interpretation? And finally, was tliis 
matter all settled at the time that you readied 
this interpretative agreement ivith Ambassa- 
dor Dobrynin ? 

Secretary Kissinger: I will have to look 
at this third point again— to look at this 
particular superlegai interpretation. And I 
really wonder whether it can be in the U.S. 
interest to find legalistic loopholes for the 
Soviet Union that have never been raised 
in any discussion, that from the context of all 
previous exchanges could not po.ssibly have 
been the U.S. intention, and which would be 
totally rejected by us were the Soviet Union 
ever to raise such an issue. 

The only purpose of our discussions with 
the Soviet Union on this problem was to tie 
down the understanding achieved in Moscow, 
made public in Moscow the night of the 
agreement, distributed to our bureaucracy 
on June 15, discussed in the Verification 
Panel, and repeated in every exchange with 
the Soviet Union. 

The only purpose of it was that they could 
not trade in the G-class missiles for modern 
submarine-launched missiles ; in other words, 
to make sure that they would retire ICBM's. 

If the Soviet Union were to develop an 
entirely new missile, not seen on any exist- 
ing submarine, and put them on diesel- 
powered submarines, this would be such a 
gross violation of every previous exchange 
we have had with them, such a total lack of 
good faith, that they could not hide behind 
a superclever interpretation of a clause that 
was intended only to tie them to a previous 
one. And, I may say, never has the Soviet 
Union made such a suggestion. And it would 
be absurd for the Soviet Union to develop a 
missile for a submarine that is in itself 



obsolescent. First of all, there are only 60, 
not 70, missiles. That is another inaccuracy 
that I didn't want to get into. But for the 
Soviet Union to go through the enormous 
expense of developing 60 special missiles, 
when they already possess 2,400 long-range 
missiles, is so absurd a proposition that I 
must say that it had never occurred to us. 
And this particular clause in the interpretive 
statement, even if a lawyer could find that 
it could be interpreted that way, would be 
totally rejected by the U.S. Government. Nor 
has it ever been raised by the Soviet Union. 
Nor, am I confident, will it ever be raised by 
the Soviet Union. 

The press: Thank yon very much, Mr. 
Secretary. 



Fiftieth Anniversary 
of the Foreign Service 

Remarks by Vice President Ford i 

It is especially appropriate that we meet 
today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of 
the Foreign Service of the United States. Our 
President and Secretary of State are in the 
Soviet Union on a mission of high diplomacy 
in the service of peace. Their efforts are sup- 
ported and facilitated by the work of the 
11,000 men and women of our Foreign Serv- 
ice throughout the world. 

I am very pleased to pay tribute to a half 
century of achievement and professionaliza- 
tion of the Foreign Service. 

The United States and its diplomacy grew 
together. Today, your service is too little 
known, too much ignored, and too much 
scapegoated. 

As you celebrate 50 years as a career serv- 
ice, we look back proudly on your record of 
achievement, of courage, and of sacrifice. 
The great professionals — men like [Robert 



' Made on July 1 at an American Foreign Service 
Association luncheon marking the 50th anniversary 
of the effective date of the Rogers Act. 



July 22, 1974 



145 



D.] Murphy, [Charles E.] Bohlen, [Llewel- 
lyn E.] Thompson, and [George F.] Ken- 
nan — left their mark on our times. The head- 
lines go to a few. But countless others have 
served and continue to serve the United 
States with great distinction. 

This administration, like other administra- 
tions of the last 50 years, continues to rely 
upon the Foreign Service for the design and 
execution of foreign policy. The President 
and the Secretary of State have both engaged 
in remarkable endeavors of personal diplo- 
macy. But you in the Foreign Service have 
done the spadework which built the achieve- 
ments of the last five years. 

When I served in the Congress, I often 
heard that our Foreign Service officers spend 
so many years overseas that they tend to get 
out of touch with the home country and with 
their hometowns in Kansas, or Texas, or 
Michigan. I am suspicious of all such gen- 
eralizations. But r also believe it is essential 
for the men and women who represent us 
abroad to constantly renew their acquaint- 
ance with the constantly changing moods and 
ideas of "Hometown, U.S.A." 

A two-way flow of ideas between "Home- 
town, U.S.A." and our Foreign Service is es- 
sential. There has been a tendency of our 
people to turn inward. There is a movement 
away from the internationalist philosophy 
of American involvement with the rest of the 
world. The polls suggest that isolationism 
has doubled in just the last two years. 

Those who doubt our future as a nation 
are willing to assume less world responsibil- 
ity. I can understand the fears and anxieties 
involved. But I cannot accept a scenario of 
helplessness and hopelessness. I cannot imag- 
ine that we will withdraw from the world. 

It is my deepest faith that those ideals and 
abilities that made us the hope of the world 
will lead to an even more illustrious future. 
And I trust that the officers of the Foreign 
Service share my vision. 

Just as the foreign diplomats who tour 
the United States find inspiration and give 
inspiration, our Foreign Service could offer — 
and perhaps receive — a great boost in morale 
by renewing personal contact with our do- 



146 



mestic scene as part-time ambassadors to our 
own people. 

Just as you have told the American story 
abroad, tell it at home. Tell us about our new 
partnerships with many lands. Tell us about 
our new relationships with the Soviet Union 
and the People's Republic of China. Tell us 
how we brought the world back from the 
brink of disaster by negotiating disengage- 
ment at the Suez Canal and the Golan 
Heights. Tell us about the millions who stand 
in the world's streets to greet our President 
and the flag he represents. As we approach 
the Fourth of July, let our people know that 
new multitudes in the world are cheering 
the Stars and Stripes. 

But it is true that our nation — like all 
other nations — faces a future very different 
from the past. Not only nuclear weaponry but 
global economics and instant communications 
assure that. 

I will not venture today to predict the fu- 
ture. But success in building a stable world 
order will be measured by success in enhanc- 
ing our relationships. The great issues of this 
planet can be resolved only by peaceful co- 
operation among the nations. American in- 
volvement is essential. To exert American 
leadership, we must constantly upgrade the 
high standards of Foreign Service perform- 
ance. 

The Foreign Service officer must be reas- 
sured that we value the individuality and in- 
tegrity of his reports. Foreign relations are 
too important to be left to a corps of "yes 
men." You must report without fear or favor 
what you actually see abroad, not what we in 
Washington might want to hear. 

Let all government personnel be honest, 
whether in domestic or foreign service. Dis- 
cuss our problems frankly. But just as frank- 
ly, point out our merits as a nation. And be 
assured that the U.S. Government recognizes 
your merit. 

I am confident that the Foreign Service, in 
the next 50 years, will rise to even higher 
levels of excellence. You will represent abroad 
the best of America — our optimism, our en- 
ergy, our ideals, our good will, and our in- 
tegrity. You will personify all the virtues 



Department of State Bulletin 



that inspire the American spirit of "can do." 
You can do and you will do. We count on 
you. And we will back you. 

Your work helps determine the success of 
our policies. You have achieved great dis- 
tinction in these troubled times. During a 
period of transition and turbulence at home, 
you have acquitted yourselves with distinc- 
tion abroad. 

President Eisenhower said that "the his- 
tory of free men is written in choice — their 
choice." You have chosen — and you have 
chosen well — by identifying yourselves and 
your careers with the United States of Amer- 
ica. 



U.S. Deplores Sudanese Action 
on Confessed Murderers 

Statement by Acting Secretary Sisco ^ 



U.S. Government attached to punishment 
commensurate with the crimes committed. 

We cannot accept the virtual release of 
confessed murderers as adequate punishment. 
We have instructed our Ambassador to pre- 
sent these views to the Sudanese Govern- 
ment and, following that, to return to Wash- 
ington immediately for consultations. 



President Signs Bill To Implement 
Salinity Agreement With Mexico 

Following are remarks made by President 
Nixon on June 24- on signing H.R. 12165 
(Public Law 93-320), the Colorado River 
Basin Salinity Control Act, together ivith the 
texts of a statement by the President and a 
summary of the legislation issued by the 
White House that day. 



We have received confirmation from our 
Embassy in Khartoum that Sudanese Presi- 
dent Nimeri has commuted the terrorist sen- 
tences from life imprisonment to seven years 
from the date of their arrest [March 4, 
1973] and handed them over to the Pales- 
tinian Liberation Organization for execu- 
tion of the sentences. 

We are dismayed over this virtual release 
of these confessed murderers of Ambassador 
[Cleo A.] Noel and Embassy Counselor 
[George Curtis] Moore as well as the Bel- 
gian Charge d'Affaires, Mr. [Guy] Eid. 

We do not think that this decision lives up 
to the repeated assurances given at all levels 
of the Sudanese Government that this case 
would be handled in a just manner. 

Throughout the lengthy judicial process 
we have endeavored to avoid public state- 
ments which might be interpreted as unwar- 
ranted interference in Sudan's internal af- 
fairs. At the same time, during our private 
conversations with Sudanese officials we at- 
tempted to make clear the importance the 



REMARKS BY PRESIDENT NIXON 



White House press release dated June 24 



' Read to news correspondents on June 25 by 
Robert Anderson, Special Assistant to the Secretary 
of State for Press Relations. 



In addition to the Members of the House 
and Senate who have been responsible for 
this legislation, we have the Ambassador 
from Mexico [Jose Juan de Olloqui]. The 
Ambassador is here because this legislation 
carries out a commitment that I made with 
President Echeverria in 1972 with regard to 
trying to solve the problem that has been a 
very difficult one between the United States 
and Mexico going way back to the 1960's. 

Special Ambassador Herbert Brownell 
worked on the problem for the United States, 
and an agreement was reached. The agree- 
ment required, of course, action by the Con- 
gress, and the Congress has acted responsi- 
bly. And as a result of the action of the 
Congress, and the cooperation of both of us, 
the United States and Mexico have now 
reached an agreement which will be imple- 
mented on our side to improve the quality of 
water that Mexico receives from the Colorado 
River and which will also provide for cer- 
tain projects in the United States which will 
deal with the necessity for maintaining ade- 



July 22, 1974 



147 



quate water supplies in the Colorado River 
Basin where it does affect the United States 
of America. 

And I want to congratulate the Members 
of the House and the Senate who have worked 
on this legislation. It was extremely difficult 
and has been very controversial. When one 
goes to Arizona or Wyoming or Colorado or 
others affected by this legislation, I have 
known over the years, certainly in the sixties, 
that I have heard that there was no answer 
to it. And now we have at last found what 
we believe is a fair end to it, fair to Mexico 
and fair also to those states in the United 
States that are affected by it. 

So I shall now sign the legislation, with 
very great pleasure. This is the way inter- 
national relationships should operate. Where 
both nations act with good faith, we can 
find peaceful solutions to very difficult prob- 
lems. 

Mr. Ambassador, we usually give the origi- 
nal pen to a Member of the House or the 
Senate upon the signing of the legislation. 
But in view of the fact you are here, I would 
like to give you this pen, with which historic 
legislation was signed, for presentation to 
the President of Mexico. 



STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT NIXON 

white House press release dated June 24 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Act represents an important milestone in the 
cordial and continuing international relation- 
ship between this nation and our neighbor 
to the south, Mexico. Enactment of this 
legislation will enable the Federal Govern- 
ment to implement measures that will pro- 
vide Mexico with water of a higher quality 
than it presently receives from the Colorado 
River. 

The quality of Mexico's Colorado River 
water has been recognized as a serious prob- 
lem by both governments since the early 
1960's, when water resources development 
within the U.S. portion of the Colorado River 
Basin resulted in significant increases in 
water salinity levels at the international 



boundary. A number of measures were 
undertaken to ameliorate this problem but 
did not result in a permanent solution. 

In June 1972, during his visit to this coun- 
try, I gave President Echevern'a my personal 
commitment that every effort would be made 
to find a mutually satisfactory solution to 
this problem. I appointed Ambassador Her- 
bert Brownell as my special representative 
to study alternative ways of resolving the 
problem. The plan recommended by Ambas- 
sador Brownell and approved by me formed 
the basis of an agreement with the Mexican 
Government and would be implemented 
through those measures included in this bill. 
This permanent and definitive solution to the 
salinity problem was accepted over others 
because it represents an equitable arrange- 
ment for the water users in the Mexicali 
Valley while not creating adverse effects on 
current and planned use of the resources of 
the Colorado River by the seven basin states 
within the United States. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Con- 
trol Act demonstrates that difficult problems 
between nations can be satisfactorily solved 
if those nations are willing to negotiate in 
good faith. This has been a key concept in 
cur foreign policy. I congratulate the Con- 
gress of the United States for its expeditious 
action in passing this legislation and look 
forward to cooperation with the Congress in 
implementing this agreement. 

In addition to those measures necessary to 
carry out the international agreement with 
Mexico, the Congress has authorized several 
domestic salinity control projects for the 
Colorado River Basin. While I share the de- 
sire of the Congress to improve the water 
quality conditions of the Nation's i-ivers and 
waterways, I am concerned that authoriza- 
tion of the four U.S. desalting projects may 
be premature at this time. 

As called for by current Federal water 
pollution control legislation, the states are 
now assessing water pollution problems 
arising from natural or diffuse sources of 
pollutants. These state studies will be com- 
pleted early next year and will serve as the 
basis for consideration of a national program 



148 



Department of State Bulletin 



for combating these sources of pollution. 
These domestic Colorado River desalting 
projects are premature because they have 
been authorized before the Federal role in a 
national water pollution program could be 
properly developed on the basis of these cur- 
rent state studies. 

Also, the financial arrangement for the 
development of these projects is to a large 
extent contrary to those policies established 
by this administration and the Congress for 
placing most of the financial responsibility 
for pollution abatement on those who are 
causing the pollution problem or, in the case 
of natural pollution, placing the cost of water 
purification on the water u.sers. When a na- 
tional Federal program for controlling pol- 
lution of this kind is finally developed, I 
will recommend to the Congre.ss that these 
Colorado River projects be altered if neces- 
sary to conform with these policies. 



SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION 

White House notice to the press dated June 24 

The President has si^ed H.R. 12165— the Colorado 
River Basin Salinity Control Act. The bill authorizes 
the Secretary of the Interior to construct desalting 
facilities and to take certain other measures to 
carry out the agreement between the United States 
and Mexico to control the salinity of Colorado River 
water delivered to Me.xico; it also authorizes the 
Secretary to construct certain water resource proj- 
ects and to take additional measures to reduce the 
salinity of Colorado River water used by American 
irrigators. 

In 1972 former Attorney General Herbert Brownell 
was appointed the President's special representative 
to seek a solution to the problem of the increasing 
salinity of the Colorado River waters entering Mexi- 
co, and he concluded an agreement with Mexico, 
contained in Minute No. 242 of the International 
Boundary and Water Commis"ion, which was signed 
in August 197.3. 

Title I of the bill authorizes the programs neces- 
sary to maintain the differential in salinity called for 
in the agreement between the waters at Imperial 
Dam (the southernmost major diversion point in the 



United States) and the waters entering Mexico, 
.-^mong other things, the Secretary of the Interior 
is authorized to: 

— Construct a desalting plant capable of treating 
129 million gallons per day using advanced commer- 
cially available technology, with associated facilities 
including roads and a railroad spur; 

— Rehabilitate the existing Coachella Canal, a 
Federal irrigation project in southern California, to 
salvage water for use as an interim source of higher 
quality water until the desalting plant is built; 

— .Advance funds to the International Boundary 
and Water Commission for transfer to a Mexican 
agency for construction of a canal within Mexico to 
convey brine water from the desalting plant to 
Santa Clara Slough in Mexico; 

— .Acquire by purchase, eminent domain, or ex- 
change certain lands for specific purposes described 
in the bill and take other specified actions relating 
to rights-of-way and construction needs; and 

— Build a system of wells on some 2.3,500 acres 
to be acquired along the U.S. -Mexico boundary, for 
the purpose of counteracting the effect of a Mexican 
border well field on U.S. surface and ground waters. 

The bill authorizes the appropriation of $121.5 
million for construction of the desalting complex 
and associated actions, $34 million for the well field 
along the boundary, and such sums as may be re- 
quired to pay condemnation awards and to operate, 
modify, and maintain the works described in title I. 

The other title of the bill, title II, directs the Secre- 
tary of the Interior to carry out an extensive salinity 
control program in the Colorado River Basin, as 
described in an Interior report of February 1972. 
The bill provides that the program be carried out in 
coordination with the Department of Agriculture and 
the Environmental Protection Agency. As the initial 
stage of that program, the bill authorizes the Secre- 
tary to construct, operate, and maintain two salinity 
control units in Colorado, one in Utah, and one in 
Nevada. In addition, the Secretary is directed to ex- 
pedite planning reports on 12 other units in the basin 
and to submit such reports simultaneously to the 
President and to Congress. $125.1 million is author- 
ized for construction of the four salinity control 
works mentioned, and the Federal Government would 
pay 75 percent of the total costs of their construc- 
tion. The bill directs that power rates in the basin 
be increased to cover the remaining 25 percent. In 
addition, such sums as may be required are author- 
ized to pay condemnation awards and to operate, 
maintain, and modify the works described in this 
title. 



July 22, 1974 



149 



THE CONGRESS 



Economic Assistance and Our Evolving Relationship 
With Latin America 



Statement bij Jack B. Kubisch 

Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs 



I welcome this opportunity to appear be- 
fore your distinguished committee in support 
of our bilateral economic assistance program 
for Latin America and the Caribbean. I 
would like to discuss the broad outlines of 
our evolving relationship in the region and 
the importance of our economic assistance 
program in that relationship. Mr. Kleine 
[Herman Kleine, Assistant Administrator 
for Latin America, Agency for International 
Development] will discuss in more detail the 
specific programs we are proposing. 

Last October, just a few days after being 
sworn in as Secretary of State, Secretary 
Kissinger invited the Foreign Ministers of 
Latin America and the Caribbean to join 
with him in a new dialogue on the future 
of inter-American relations. In response to 
his initiative, the Foreign Ministers met in 
Mexico City in February and again in Wash- 
ington in April prior to the annual meeting 
in Atlanta of the OAS General Assembly. 
Out of this series of discussions is emerging 
what I believe is an important change in the 
relationship among the countries of this 
hemisphere, a change marked by a renewed 
spirit of regional cooperation. 

The purpose of this dialogue is to translate 
the relationship we seek with countries to 



^ Made before the Subcommittee on Foreign Op- 
erations of the House Committee on Appropriations 
on June 17. The complete transcript of the hearings 
will be published by the committee and will be 
available from the Superintendent of Documents, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
20402. 



150 



the south into a set of principles and actions 
on which we can mutually cooperate. It is 
based on the awareness among us that the 
growing interdependence, pai'ticularly eco- 
nomic, among nations of the world requires 
more effective regional cooperation for the 
benefit of all of our peoples. The dramatic 
rise in petroleum prices and the possibility 
of shortages of other essential raw materials 
have confronted us with the prospect of a 
frantic scramble by individual nations to 
secure for themselves the advantages of sta- 
ble sources of supply and assured markets. 
To avoid the damaging effects of such a 
scramble and to develop new institutions and 
patterns to deal with the transformed inter- 
national economy require the broader coop- 
eration of many countries on the basis of 
mutual respect and mutual interests. Such is 
the goal in our new dialogue within this 
hemisphere. 

We have long recognized that the United 
States shares many values and traditions 
with our Latin American neighbors. As new 
countries in a New World, we have had 
similar hopes and aspirations. We have 
shared a historic commitment to independ- 
ence and individual opportunity. Increasing- 
ly, we are recognizing that other common 
interests exist — in trade, monetary reform, 
economic development, the use of oceans, 
food production, et cetera — which can best I 
be pursued on a global scale with maximum 
discussion and cooperation on a regional 
level. Secretary Kissinger has made this 



Department of State Bulletin 



effort in the region as part of a worldwide 
objective of the United States to create an 
open and more harmonious world economic 
order. 

Let me now turn to the present situation 
in Latin America and the Caribbean, to the 
interests of those nations and the United 
States served by regional cooperation, and to 
the roles of this program we are proposing. 

Twelve months ago when I resumed my 
earlier association with the region, many 
countries faced longstanding stagnation ac- 
companied by staggering inflation. Their 
foreign exchange earnings were highly de- 
pendent on a few e.xports, the world demand 
•and prices for which were highly undepend- 
able. The task of significantly improving the 
quality of life for their populations often 
seemed overwhelming and hopeless. But in 
retrospect even that was progress, since only 
a few years before, economic development 
itself was by no means a universally ac- 
cepted objective by governments in the re- 
gion. Public officials often seemed insuffi- 
ciently concerned with the goals of economic 
growth or improved income distribution or 
better education or health, not to mention 
family planning services. 

Since then, the times and conditions have 
changed dramatically. Economic development 
and the improvement of the quality of life 
are now principal objectives — imperatives — 
which every government is addressing and, 
increasingly, are the basis of their foreign 
policies. Within the region and in the world, 
the preoccupation with development under- 
lies and shapes almost every major issue, 
including peace, monetary reform, world 
ecology, food, energy, et cetera. It is, in fact, 
at the top of mankind's agenda. 

As expressed by the Foreign Ministers at 
the recent series of meetings, the Latin 
American and Caribbean countries are pri- 
marily concerned with securing greater ac- 
cess of both their raw materials and manu- 
factured exports to the markets of developed 
countries. We agreed to consult as we 
formulate our positions for the multilateral 
trade negotiations. They are interested in 
more fully adapting and applying the ad- 



vances of science and technology to overcome 
critical obstacles to their development. They 
seek to develop and create new technologies 
within the region which make more efficient 
and productive use of their resources and are 
especially suited to their requirements. We 
therefore agreed to establish a Working 
Group on the Transfer of Science and Tech- 
nology to explore concrete proposals. The 
Latin Americans desire fuller cooperation in 
all aspects of development, and we agreed to 
closer regional consultation in such areas as 
the law of the sea, monetary reform, foreign 
investment, energy research, cooperation for 
development, food and fertilizer production, 
and population growth. It is clear that the 
nations of the region will measure the bene- 
fits of this renewed regional cooperation very 
much in terms of its effect on improving the 
quality of life of their populations. 

On our side, too, we have a very clear and 
growing interest in greater regional coop- 
eration, and all of these issues are also of 
great concern to us. The changes in global 
economic conditions we have witnessed in 
recent years increase U.S. economic interest 
in the region. Our own economic growth and 
stability, including control of inflation, have 
become increasingly dependent on assured 
supplies of raw materials, foodstuff's, and 
finished goods. As a principal producer of 
essential raw materials and foodstuffs, Latin 
America is an important supplier of U.S. 
needs. There is a further mutuality : We can 
provide the expertise and technology to help 
develop those resources as well as a growing 
market for them. Also, as the region in- 
creases its capacity to produce manufactured 
goods efficiently, it can contribute to the 
world supply of these products, thereby 
further increasing its capacity to finance 
development through its export earnings. 

With a present population of over 300 mil- 
lion expected to double by the end of the 
century, an increasingly prosperous Latin 
America and Caribbean represents an ex- 
tremely important market for U.S. exports 
and an opportunity for mutually beneficial 
private investment. Through the greater flow 
of capital and technology and through the 



July 22, 1974 



151 



greater availability of essential imports, the 
economies of the region benefit as well as our 
own. 

Faced with the prospect of a world food 
shortage, leaders throughout the Americas 
are realizing the tremendous potential in this 
hen]isphere for meeting larger shares of total 
world food needs. Thus, at the recent inter- 
American meetings, we have agreed to work 
cooperatively to increase food production in 
the hemisphere as well as to a.ssure freer 
trade in agricultural commodities through- 
out the world. Likewise we, as well as the 
Latin Americans, are interested in coopera- 
tion on trade and monetary reform, in joint 
discussions on environmental and population 
matters, and in establishing a new law of the 
sea which will set the standards for explora- 
tion of the oceans' wealth and for developing 
it to the benefit of all mankind, as well as 
clarifying the rights of marine transit to 
facilitate international commerce. These 
areas of cooperation are as much of concern 
to us as to our neighbors. 

The renewed efforts at regional coopera- 
tion which I have describp'^ -^'-e taking place 
against a background of a rapidly changing 
region. I have already mentioned the uni- 
versal commitment to economic development 
in the hemisphere, which is accompanied by 
growing capacity to deal with development 
problems. Overall, the performance and pros- 
pects give cause for optimism. The countries 
of the hemisphere generally are achieving 
per capita growth rates well in excess of the 
level set as the Alliance for Progress target. 
They have greatly increased and diversified 
their exports. Remarkable pi'ogress has been 
made in education. But the facts remain that 
there is still acute and widespread poverty 
in the region and that the average U.S. 
citizen is many times better off than his 
neighbors to the south. Moreover, some coun- 
tries are facing emergency conditions as a 
result of the rapid rise in petroleum prices. 

While progress in the region has been im- 
pressive and a cause for hope, the countries 
of Latin America and the Caribbean still 
face a grave challenge : how to improve the 
lives of the average citizen, many of whom 



live in conditions of poverty. We, as a coun- 
try committed to humanitarian principles, as 
a country committed to the quest for a peace- 
ful world, as a country concerned about our 
own economic future, have a stake in helping 
meet that challenge. And it is that challenge 
to which the program we are proposing today 
is directly addressed. 

We have consistently made clear our view 
that freely elected representative government 
respectful of the individual liberties of its 
citizens not only is more just than other 
systems but also offers greater hope for 
economic and social progress by mobilizing 
the energies and resources of a free people. 
We will continue to express that view, de- 
rived from our own history and traditions, 
while recognizing that no country can or 
should dictate the political institutions or 
social structure of another. 

We will continue to work energetically for 
the amicable resolution of disagreements 
arising among countries of the hemisphere. 
As you know. Secretary Kissinger, in this 
spirit, has already signed with his counter- 
part in Panama an agreement on principles 
which provides the basis for our negotiations 
on a new canal treaty. Similarly, after inten- 
sive discussions with the Peruvian Govern- 
ment, we have agreed on the settlement of 
several outstanding disputes related to U.S. 
investments in that country. Most impor- 
tantly, I hope that we and the other countries 
of the region can develop together institu- 
tions for the prevention and orderly resolu- 
tion of future disagreements that may arise. 

The program we are proposing today is an 
integral part of our entire cooperative rela- 
tion.ship with Latin America and the Carib- 
bean. It is an indispensable component of 
our regional and global foreign policy. There 
is no higher priority for our neighbors to the 
south than the development of their countries 
and the fullest possible sharing in that de- 
velopment by their populations. With the 
growth and increasing experience of the In- 
ter-American Development Bank (IDB), the 
World Bank, and the development agencies 
of the Organization of American States and 
the United Nations, our bilateral assistance 



152 



Department of State Bulletin 



program represents a decreasing percentage 
of the external assistance received by the re- 
gion. It, together with our contributions to 
the IDB and other multilateral institutions, 
responds to urgent needs and hopes. Secre- 
tary Kissinger said in his address to the con- 
ference of Foreign Ministers in Mexico : 

Nations can recognize that only in working with 
others can they most effectively work for themselves. 



.\ cooperative world reflects the imperatives of tech- 
nical and economic necessity but, above all, the sweep 
of human aspirations. 

We in this hemisphere are demonstrating 
how constructive international effort can re- 
sult in peaceful and effective problem solving 
in a world of increasing interdependence. We 
are asking here today for the support of the 
Congress, which is essential for us to play 
our proper role in that enterprise. 



Present and Future Orientation of U.S. Assistance to Africa 



Statement by Donald B. Easum 
Assistant Secretary for African Affairs ' 



I appreciate the opportunity to appear be- 
fore you in support of the request of the ad- 
ministration for appropriations to fund its 
programs in Africa during fiscal year 1975. 
This is the first occasion I have had to par- 
ticipate in congressional hearings since my 
confirmation as Assistant Secretary for Af- 
rican Affairs earlier this year. My present 
assignment follows two years as Ambassador 
in Upper Volta, during which time I wit- 
nessed the onset of the drought in West Af- 
rica and participated in the initial efforts of 
this country and others to bring emergency 
food and other relief to the stricken popula- 
tions of the region. 

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that over the 
many years during which you have presided 
over this work you have heard every possible 
justification and defense for these assistance 
programs. Let me stress, then, those partic- 
ular aspects of our assistance programs and 



' Made before the Subcommittee on Foreign Op- 
erations of the House Committee on Appropriations 
on June 13. The complete transcript of the hearings 
will be published by the committee and will be avail- 
able from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 



' 



uly 22, 1974 



our foreign policy interests which are in the 
forefront of our current thinking concerning 
present and future orientation of our assist- 
ance. 

The need for economic assistance, a fore- 
most concern of all African governments 
since their independence, has become critical 
for many countries with the unprecedented 
world inflation resulting in a rapid deteriora- 
tion of their balance of payments. Since de- 
velopment remains their primary goal, our 
continuing readiness to assist African devel- 
opment is the most concrete way in which we 
demonstrate our friendship for them and our 
desire for cooperation. 

With this in mind, we have launched an 
ambitious recovery and rehabilitation pro- 
gram in the most seriously drought-affected 
countries of the Sahel. This program consists 
of projects already identified which can be 
completed in the short run — about 18 months 
— and bring about some improvements of a 
lasting nature, mainly in water supply, food 
storage and production, transportation, and 
reforestation. Recognizing further that in the 
longer run the Sahel states need assistance in 
developing viable ongoing economies within 



153 



the limits of the delicately balanced ecology 
of that area, we are proceeding with the de- 
sign of medium-term development projects 
directly related to drought impact, which we 
intend to launch as soon as possible. In the 
Sahel drought region and in Ethiopia, it is 
necessary to continue emergency relief ef- 
forts at least until the fate of this year's 
crops is known. 

We recognize that the development of Af- 
rican countries is by no means solely depend- 
ent upon this country's aid contribution. The 
European donor countries, bilaterally and 
through the Common Market's Economic De- 
velopment Fund and the World Bank Group, 
continue to be the main contributors of con- 
cessional aid to Africa. 

Further, we appreciate that trade is the 
most important source of foreign exchange 
for most of the developing countries. Expan- 
sion of trade opportunities stimulates effi- 
ciency and self-sustaining growth. Given a 
choice, most developing countries prefer to 
earn foreign exchange through exports 
rather than to borrow development assist- 
ance. It is more satisfying to their national 
dignity, and it avoids adding to their grow- 
ing debt and transfer burden. 

U.S. total trade with the developing coun- 
tries of Africa increased in value last year to 
over $3 billion, up by 50 percent over the 
previous year. Much of this increase, of 
course, represents the inflation of prices of 
minerals, commodities, and manufactured 
goods. Africa is of growing importance to 
us as a supplier of the raw materials re- 
quired by our industry. Nigeria has become 
a major supplier of low-sulfur crude oil to 
the United States. Access to Africa's wealth 
of mineral resources is important to us and 
will grow more so as our dependence in- 
creases on foreign sources of supply to main- 
tain our own industries, standard of living, 
and high employment levels. Our investments 
in the developing countries of Africa had 
climbed to more than $3 billion as of the end 
of 1972, almost three-quarters of it in ex- 
tractive industries. 

We are particularly concerned this year 



154 



about the African Development Bank 
[AFDB]. The AFDB has grown in size and 
efficiency as a development lending institu- 
tion. Technical assistance grants from AID 
[Agency for International Development] 
have helped the Bank to finance studies nec- 
essary to bring proposed projects to a stage 
where the Bank can arrange for their financ- 
ing. We hope that before the end of the year 
Congress will authorize the United States to 
participate in the Bank's soft-loan facility, 
the African Development Fund. The Fund is 
already in existence, and 16 other major do- 
nors have contributed and are participating 
in it. 

I wish especially to endorse AID's request 
for $1.5 million for our self-help program. 
Having had the personal experience of ad- 
ministering such a program in Upper Volta, 
I can assure the committee that this is one of 
the most useful elements of the AID program 
in Africa. With only a few thousand dollars, 
our Ambassadors are able to lend encourage- 
ment to voluntary execution of numerous 
people-to-people-type projects out in the vil- 
lages and countryside which respond to the 
basic needs of the local populations. In this 
way, we believe the program is responsive to 
the Congress's growing concern that assist- 
ance activities have a direct impact on peo- 
ple and their daily lives. 

We all know that change and adjustment 
to it is a law of life. It applies in our inter- 
national relations as well as in our domestic 
conditions. The Congress last year took note 
of some of the major changes in approaches 
to development by including in the foreign 
assistance legislation new and important 
statements of policy. I would like to recall 
some of the main features of these state- 
ments and discuss them in regard to our re- 
lationship with African countries. 

The Congress realized that development is 
primarily the responsibility of the people of 
the developing countries and that the first 
aim of our assistance programs should be to 
support the efforts of these countries them- 
selves to meet the fundamental needs of their 
people. The Congress also states that our re- 



Department of State Bulletin 



lations with developing countries should re- 
flect "the new realities." Bilateral develop- 
ment aid, we were told, should concentrate 
less on large-scale capital transfers. This 
concept appears to have been translated 
through the appropriations process into a 
limitation on funds for infrastructure-type 
projects. The worldwide total for this type 
of activity was limited to $53 million for each 
fiscal year 1974 and 1975. Congress asked us 
to focus through bilateral assistance on crit- 
ical problems in those areas which affect the 
lives of the majority of the people. We are 
also asked to administer our program in a 
collaborative style to support development 
goals chosen by each country receiving as- 
sistance. 

I certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, with 
these objectives and policies and especially 
with the emphasis which was placed in the 
congressional policy statement on the impor- 
tance of utilizing our resources for the im- 
provement in the lives of the poorest people 
and supporting increased agricultural pro- 
duction. Already, two years before the new 
act, the Africa Bureau in AID was shifting 
its priorities in this direction. 

In Africa, Mr. Chairman, when we speak 
of the poorest, it is difficult to make distinc- 
tions. We can talk about the poorest 20 per- 
cent of the population, or the poorest 40 per- 
cent of the population. We can talk about 
the rural poor as opposed to the urban poor. 
However one approaches the problem, one 
realizes that there is very little distinction 
that can be made when we use the word 
"poorest." This term means 90 to 95 percent 
of the population in many African countries. 

The design of an aid program therefore has 
to take into account this basic fact : That the 
problem of poverty is so overwhelming that 
AID and other organizations providing as- 
sistance are not going to have the resources 
to change in the short run in marked degree 
the relative position of one sector of a soci- 
ety as opposed to another. There is no policy 
of income distribution or employment crea- 
tion which is going to effect rapid changes 
in the fundamental scarcity of the human 



July 22, 1974 



and material resources on which economic 
progress and social betterment ultimately de- 
pend. 

It is a good thing that we are doing more 
and more to help improve the productivity of 
agriculture in these countries, since most of 
the population is engaged in agriculture. Im- 
provement in incomes and in quality of life 
for the rural populations will indirectly as- 
suage the problem which afflicts so many of 
the African countries; that is, the rapid ur- 
banization and development of large num- 
bers of urban unemployed. 

I strongly believe that, compared with 
other parts of the developing world, infra- 
structure deficiencies in Africa are relatively 
more important and that they are intimately 
related to the problems of rural development. 
An abrupt deemphasis of aid for infrastruc- 
ture development in Africa is not consistent 
with the needs in this sector. I am not sug- 
gesting it should have the highest priority, 
but there should be a greater recognition of 
the particular problem in Africa and more 
flexibility in provision of assistance to deal 
with it. 

In their own development plans and pri- 
orities, African countries necessarily give a 
very high priority to remedying this lack. 
Unless we — that is, the United States and 
other donor countries — can find an appro- 
priate response to Africa's infrastructure 
needs, especially as they relate to agricul- 
ture, we are risking failure in eff'orts in de- 
velopment in other sectors. 

In recent years all of the major suppliers 
of foreign economic assistance have tended, 
just as the Congress, to move away from in- 
frastructure while continuing to emphasize 
agricultural development and improvement 
in the quality of life. I am not arguing 
against these new approaches. Let me speak 
to this point from my own experience in Af- 
rica. 

The Congress has responded magnificently 
to help us alleviate the terrible problem of 
human sufi'ering in the drought-stricken 
areas, primarily in western Africa, known 
as the Sahel. When I was the U.S. Ambassa- 



155 



dor to Upper Volta, our Embassy helped 
sack U.S. grain for the starving population 
in that area and organized and coordinated 
the airlift of this grain to remote areas where 
it had to be parachuted or f reedropped from 
these planes. 

I know from firsthand experience, Mr. 
Chairman, that one of the constant bottle- 
necks we have encountered in the adminis- 
tration of relief programs in that area of the 
world has concerned transportation and in- 
frastructure. A road here, an airstrip there, 
sometimes a bridge over what looks like a 
dry riverbed — all these are key elements in 
the ability to move supplies. Goods must 
move in both directions if production is to 
be encouraged in the rural areas of Africa. 
People must be able to market their prod- 
ucts and must be able to receive cloth, cook- 
ing utensils, and other elements essential to 
their daily life which mean a great deal to 
the standard of living of people moving from 
a subsistence to a market economy. 

Mr. Chairman, there are bright spots in 
the development of African states for which 
we in the United States can share some of 
the credit. But Africa's needs for develop- 
ment capital and technical assistance are 
still enormous, accentuated now more than 
ever by the disastrous effect of inflation on 
the poorer states. While we cannot alone 
meet Africa's requirements, we can and we 
must continue to cooperate with other do- 
nors in providing a substantial share of as- 
sistance to African development. 



Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

93d Congress, 2d Session 

Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy. U.S. 
Scientists Abroad: An E.xamination of Major 
Programs for Nongovernmental Scientific Ex- 
change. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Na- 
tional Security Policy and Scientific Developments 
of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by 
the Science Policy Research Division, Congres- 
sional Research Service, Library of Congress, as 
part of an extended study of the interactions of 
science and technology with U.S. foreign policy. 
April 1974. 163 pp. 

Background Materials Relating to the U.S. -Soviet 
Union Commercial Agreements. Prepared by the 
Staff' for the Senate Committee on Finance. April 
2, 1974. 100 pp. 

Report of Special Study Mission to Japan, Taiwan, 
and Korea, February 15-25, 1974. Submitted to 
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by Rep- 
resentatives Clement J. Zablocki and William S. 
Broomfield. April 10, 1974. 13 pp. 

The Politics of the Poppy. Report of a study mis- 
sion to Turkey March 14-16, 1974. Submitted to 
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by Rep- 
resentative Lester L. Wolff. May 1974. 12 pp. 

Old Problems — New Relationships. Report of a study 
mission to the Middle East and South Asia Feb- 
ruary 7-March 3, 1974. Submitted to the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs by Representative 
Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen. May 1974. 40 pp. 

A Documentary History of Petroleum Reser\-es Cor- 
poration, 1943-44. Prepared for the Subcommittee 
on Multinational Corporations of the Senate Com- 
mittee on Foreign Relations. May 8, 1974. 119 pp. 

Means of Measuring Naval Power With Special 
Reference to U.S. and Soviet Activities in the In- 
dian Ocean. Prepared for the Subcommittee on 
the Near East and South Asia of the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs by the Foreign 
Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, 
Library of Congress. May 12, 1974. 16 pp. 



156 



Department of State Bulletin 



Department Discusses Fiscal Year 1975 Appropriation Request 
for Voluntary Contributions to International Programs 



Statement by William B. Buffum 

Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs ' 



I have come before this committee today to 
express my support for the President's ap- 
propriation request of $208,450,000 in fiscal 
year 1975 for voluntary contributions to 16 
international programs. Of these, the pro- 
grams for which my Bureau has responsibil- 
ity total $193,750,000. Most of the programs 
are well known to the committee. Among 
them are : 

— The United Nations Children's Fund — 
UNICEF — an organization whose prompt 
and effective response in providing food, 
clothing, and shelter in all types of emer- 
gency situations has earned it universal re- 
spect ; 

— The World Food Program, which pro- 
vides vital food aid both to meet emergency 
situations and to aid long-term development ; 

— The United Nations Fund for Popula- 
tion Activities, a rapidly growing program 
engaged in combating rampant population 
growth around the globe; 

— The United Nations Fund for Drug 
Abuse Control, which is working in such 
fields as crop substitution, police controls, 
and addict rehabilitation to eliminate both 
the supply of and the demand for illegal 
drugs ; 

— The United Nations Environment Pro- 



' Made before the Subcommittee on Foreign Oper- 
ations of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
on June 17. The complete transcript of the hearings 
will be published by the committee and will be avail- 
able from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 



gram, which has begun work on systems for 
international pollution monitoring and ex- 
change of environmental information; 

— The World Meteorological Organiza- 
tion's voluntary assistance program, which 
enables developing countries to participate 
directly in programs for global monitoring 
of weather and atmospheric pollution ; and 

— The International Atomic Energy Agen- 
cy's operational program, which provides 
technical assistance to developing countries 
to advance the peaceful uses of atomic en- 
ergy. 

Along with these programs, which are 
playing an important role in such areas of 
immediate and global concern as food, pop- 
ulation, environment, and energy, are three 
others which for many years have played a 
vital role in furthering political stability in 
the Middle East and South Asia. They are : 

— The United Nations Relief and Works 
Agency, which is providing essential food, 
housing, schooling, and health services to 
some 1.5 million Palestinians displaced as a 
result of the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli con- 
flicts ; 

— The United Nations Force in Cyprus, 
which has been a necessary factor in avoid- 
ing war among both the residents of the is- 
land and the other parties directly con- 
cerned ; and 

— The Indus Basin Development Fund, 
through which eight governments are financ- 
ing construction of facilities to control the 



let July 22, 1974 



157 



waters of the Indus River system and to 
provide irrigation and power to millions of 
residents of India and Pakistan. The Indus 
Basin loans and grants are the only program 
in this group for which my Bureau does not 
have direct responsibility. 

Funds are also requested for such impor- 
tant programs as the United Nations Insti- 
tute for Training and Research, the Interna- 
tional Secretariat for Volunteer Service, and 
the United Nations Fund for Namibia. This 
year we are also requesting, for the first 
time, funds for a contribution to the World 
Heritage Trust Fund. Proposed by President 
Nixon in 1971 and ratified by the Senate on 
December 7, 1973, this Fund aims at pro- 
tecting, preserving, and restoring cultural 
sites and natural areas of outstanding sig- 
nificance to all mankind. 

Chief among the programs for which we 
are requesting funds is the United Nations 
Development Program — the UNDP — which, 
along with its predecessor organizations, the 
Expanded Program of Technical Assistance 
and the United Nations Special Fund, has 
been engaged for nearly a quarter century in 
providing countries with the technical as- 
sistance essential to their development. 

Providing technical assistance is the major 
ongoing activity of the United Nations in the 
economic development field, and the primary 
channel for that assistance is the UNDP. 
With programs in over 150 countries and ter- 
ritories and annual expenditures approaching 
$400 million, the UNDP has become the 
world's largest and most widespread pro- 
gram of grant technical assistance. 

The measure of the UNDP is not its size, 
however, but the contribution it is able to 
make to development. Providing aid which is 
more universal in character and scope than 
any bilateral donor could possibly provide on 
its own, the UNDP has facilitated a broad 
interchange of technology, expertise, and 
equipment and has furthered followup invest- 
ment of benefit to recipients and donors 
alike. 

In the 1973 foreign assistance legislation, 
Congress expressed the belief that primary 



158 



emphasis should be placed on assistance in 
agriculture, population, education, and hu- 
man resources development and on assisting 
the neediest countries. These are also the 
goals of the UNDP. 

Of the funds expended by UNDP, more 
than one-quarter are in the field of agricul- 
ture. Of those funds, 25 percent are utilized 
in the area of applied research. Within the 
framework of an international consortium 
known as the Consultative Group on Inter- 
national Agricultural Research, the UNDP 
is helping to finance major research centers 
such as the Maize and Wheat Improvement 
Center, in Mexico, and the International 
Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid 
Tropics, in Hyderabad. Research undertaken 
at these global research institutes and at oth- 
ers established in cooperation with single 
governments, such as the Research Institute 
for Cereals and Technical Plants at Fundu- 
lea, Romania, is benefiting not only the de- 
veloping countries but the developed coun- 
tries as well. Scores of UNDP projects 
concerned with soil fertility and fertilizer 
use, plant protection, animal health, and fish- 
eries development are also helping to combat 
the threat of worldwide food shortages. 

The development of human resources is an- 
other major field of UNDP activity. Apart 
from the provision made in virtually every 
project for the training of counterpart per- 
sonnel, a considerable share of UNDP as- 
sistance is directed toward the establishment 
of institutions for the training of youth — as 
well as teachers — for work in such fields as 
public service, agriculture, industry, and 
health. There has also been emphasis on ed- 
ucational planning, and increasing attention 
is being given to educational reform. 

In 1973, in recognition of the vital link be- 
tween population control and development, 
the United Nations Fund for Population Ac- 
tivities (UNFPA) was brought under the 
administrative and policy direction of the 
UNDP and of its Governing Council. This is 
a move which was advanced by the United 
States and supported by the vast majority of 
U.N. members. Our efforts to stimulate the 



Department of State Bulletin 



growth of the Fund have also met with broad 
support. Contributions have grown dramati- 
cally, and UNFPA projects are now under- 
way in 78 countries. 

Over the past few years, in accordance 
with the aims of the Second Development 
Decade, the UNDP has been engaged in an 
effort to provide assistance to the least de- 
veloped countries which would be greater in 
terms of both volume and effectiveness. New 
methods have been devised, UNDP staffing 
in these countries has been strengthened, and 
additional resources are being allocated for 
their benefit. Moving toward a goal of 25 
percent of country program resources by 
1977, resources currently allocated for the 
least developed countries now represent 22.5 
percent of such funding — approximately four 
times the ratio for our own bilateral pro- 
gram. 

I might add another field of UNDP activ- 
ity which is of particular importance — that 
of natural resources and energy. The total 
value of mineral deposits located through 
UNDP-assisted projects is now estimated to 
have surpassed $20 billion. Followup invest- 
ment in the natural resources field in 1973 
alone totaled over $1.2 billion, primarily for 
new sources of power. To give some idea of 
what this will mean to the developing world, 
the UNDP has reported that these new 
sources of power will surpass the currently 
installed capacity of India. 

In an effort to increase UNDP capability 
in the natural resources field, the United 
States has also led a successful effort to link 
the newly created United Nations Revolving 
Fund for Natural Resource Exploration to 
the UNDP in basically the same manner as 
the United Nations Fund for Population Ac- 
tivities. By plowing a portion of the receipts 
derived from natural resource discoveries 
back into the program, it is hoped that U.N. 
mineral resource surveys will have a multi- 
plier effect. 

As the committee is aware, the United 
States and other major donors have been 
engaged for a number of years in furthering 
the ability of the UNDP to handle a sub- 
stantially increased volume of technical as- 



July 22, 1974 



sistance. Evaluation reports on U.N. assist- 
ance programs prepared by 95 Foreign Serv- 
ice posts this year give clear evidence that 
the reforms initiated in 1971 as a result of 
the Jackson Capacity Study, and other meas- 
ures initiated since 1972 by the new Admin- 
i.strator, Rudolph Peterson, are bearing fruit. 

Country programs have now been ap- 
proved for 100 countries, and plans are be- 
ing made in many countries for the second 
cycle. Annual reviews of these country pro- 
grams are resulting in continuing modifica- 
tion of ongoing and planned assistance, with 
greater concentration on priority areas. All 
external assistance — including that of the bi- 
lateral donors — is being more closely coor- 
dinated, and several U.N. agencies not di- 
rectly involved in the UNDP are participat- 
ing in UNDP country programing exercises. 

We are also encouraged by the extent to 
which the various U.N. agencies are increas- 
ingly pooling their talents to work together 
on such problems as drought and river blind- 
ness in Africa, eai'thquakes in Latin Amer- 
ica, and floods in Asia. 

Indications of the specific amounts of as- 
sistance which will be available during each 
multiyear period and a ceiling on assistance 
to relatively well-off countries are encourag- 
ing recipient governments to eliminate proj- 
ects of lesser priority, to give greater consid- 
eration to regional projects and to projects 
undertaken jointly by the UNDP and other 
donors, and to initiate arrangements for cost 
sharing. 

Under the latter arrangements, govern- 
ments share in the foreign currency costs of 
projects — a cost normally borne by the 
UNDP alone. Iran, for example, has agreed 
to provide $12 million during the period 
1973-76 to pay a portion of the cost of 51 
new projects in that country, thus supple- 
menting $16 million available during this 
four-year period from the UNDP. Such hard 
currency inputs are, of course, in addition 
to the counterpart contributions which are 
made in local currency by all recipient gov- 
ernments. Similar arrangements, multiply- 
ing the impact of UNDP assistance, have 
been undertaken in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and 



159 



the United Arab Emirates. Funds provided 
by the latter three states under cost-sharing 
arrangements now exceed the amount pro- 
vided by the UNDP, and these three countries 
also contribute more to the UNDP through 
voluntary contributions than they receive 
from the program. Similar cost sharing is 
contemplated for Venezuela and a number of 
other countries in the coming year. 

I should restate here, Mr. Chairman, a po- 
sition that we have enunciated in several 
meetings of intergovernmental bodies ; name- 
ly, that despite their continuing need for 
technical assistance, the oil-rich countries 
should all be at least net contributors to 
these international programs. The Admin- 
istrator of the UNDP has just reported to 
the UNDP Governing Council that the Gov- 
ernments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Ven- 
ezuela have expressed readiness to become, 
in fact, net contributors. We consider net- 
contributor status only the first step required 
of the wealthier recipients and will continue 
to press for major contributions from them. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detract 
in any way from the im;" ■"':"nt role which 
our bilateral assistance program has played 
during the past quarter century and which it 
is continuing to play. As Secretary Kissinger 
stated in his confirmation hearings last year, 
however : 

It has been the experience of foreign aid, and I 
believe it is the sense of many Members of the 
Congress, that American aid can now be more fruit- 
fully channeled through multilateral institutions in 
many categories rather than through bilateral pro- 
grams. 

In response to a statement by Senator 
[Hugh] Scott that the Foreign Relations 
Committee was "very much interested in 
pursuing an expansion of the multilateral 
approach wherever possible," Secretary Kis- 
singer responded that this was consistent 
with his views. 

While exerting great effort during the past 
several years to enable the United Nations 
Development Program to handle an increased 
volume of development aid, we have increased 
our contribution to that program by only 4 
percent. Other governments, on the other 



hand, have shown their confidence in the 
program by increasing their contributions by 
96 percent. Time and again in recent years 
Presidential commissions and task forces and 
congressional committees have recommended 
expanded utilization of international institu- 
tions for the delivery of U.S. development 
assistance. To accomplish this objective 
would clearly require an increase in the U.S. 
contribution. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my presen- 
tation of the President's request for volun- 
tary contributions to international organiza- 
tions and programs in fiscal year 1975. I be- 
lieve, sir, it is worthy of your support. 



TREATY INFORMATION 



U.S. To Provide Helicopters to Burma 
for Narcotics Control 

Following is a Department announcement 
issued on July 1, together ivith the text of a 
U.S. note dated June 29 signed by David L. 
Osborn, U.S. Ambassador to Burma, ad- 
dressed to U Ohn-Kyi, Director-General of 
the Burmese Police. 



DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT 

Press release 274 dated July 1 

The U.S. Government signed an agreement 
on June 29 with the Burmese Government to 
provide six civilian-model utility helicopters 
(Bell 205A) for assistance in its narcotics 
control program. These helicopters will be 
used for narcotics suppression purposes such 
as attacking heroin refineries and heavily 
armed caravans engaged in narcotics traf- 
ficking. The helicopters are expected to be 
delivered in Bui-ma sometime in 1975. The 
agreement provides for additional helicopters 
to be delivered at a later date dependent on 



160 



Department of State Bulletin 



appropriated funds, the continuing nature of 
the requirement, and the operational utility 
(if the helicopters for narcotics suppression 
purposes. No U.S. Government personnel 
will be involved in operation or maintenance 
of the helicopters. As in many other coun- 
tries where illicit production or international 
trafficking of narcotics occurs, the United 
States is a.ssisting Burma to bring the nar- 
cotics problem under control. 



3. The Government of the Socialist Repuhlic of 
the Union of Burma agrees to provide the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America necessary in- 
formation on the specific efforts undertaken in rela- 
tion to the purposes and ohjectives of this agreement 
as and when required. 

If the foregoing is acceptable to the Government 
of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, 
this Note and your Excellency's reply ' shall con- 
stitute an agreement between our two governments. 



TEXT OF U.S. NOTE 



Current Treaty Actions 



Press release 278 dated July 2 

Excellency: I have the honor to refer to the 
discussions which have recently taken place between 
representatives of our two governments concerning 
the problem of suppressing the illegal cultivation, 
processing, production, and trafficking of narcotic 
drugs, and international cooperation to this end. In 
order to assist the program of the Government of 
the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma for 
such suppression, the Government of the United 
States of America is prepared to provide, on a grant 
basis, six commercial Bell 205 utility helicopters 
together with initial spare parts, auxiliary equip- 
ment, and funds for related expenses, at a cost of 
up to $4.8 million, to be delivered as production 
schedules permit during the period July-December 
1975. Subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds, to agreement between the two governments 
on the continuing nature of the requirement, and 
to the established operational utility of such aircraft 
for narcotics suppression purposes, the United States 
Government is prepared subsequently to provide an 
additional twelve helicopters, together with spare 
parts and auxiliary equipment, to be delivered dur- 
ing fiscal years 1976-1977. 

1. The Government of the Socialist Republic of 
the Union of Burma will provide the aircrew and 
ground personnel, maintenance and operational fa- 
cilities, and any additional spare parts and auxiliary 
equipment, POL [petroleum-oil-lubricants], and ord- 
nance necessary for the suppression of illegal cul- 
tivation, processing, production and trafficking of 
narcotics drugs; and the Government of the Socialist 
Republic of the Union of Burma agrees to utilize 
the helicopters primarily for the purposes for which 
they are provided, and any additional use would be 
incidental to this primary purpose. 

2. The Government of the Socialist Republic of 
the Union of Burma will not sell or transfer any 
af the helicopters, spare parts or auxiliary equip- 
ment provided by the United States Government to 
iny other government or individual without the prior 
ipproval of the United States Government. 



MULTIl^TERAL 

Atomic Energy 

Protocol terminating the agreement of September 30, 
1964 (TIAS 5861), between the International 
-Atomic Energy Agency, Thailand, and the United 
States, for the application of safeguards and 
terminating the protocol of .May 16, 1974 (TIAS 
7833), suspending that agreement, and providing 
for the application of safeguards pursuant to the 
nonproliferation treaty of July 1, 1968 (TIAS 
6839). Signed at Vienna June 27, 1974. Entered 
into force June 27, 1974. 

Consular Relations 

Vienna convention on consular relations. Done at 
Vienna ."^pril 24, 1963. Entered into force March 
19, 1967; for the United States December 24, 
1969. TIAS 6820. 
Accession deposited: Oman, May 31, 1974. 

Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on con- 
sular relations concerning the compulsory settle- 
ment of disputes. Done at Vienna April 24, 1963. 
Entered into force March 19, 1967; for the United 
States December 24, 1969. TIAS 6820. 
Accession deposited: Oman, May 31, 1974. 

Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on con- 
sular relations concerning the acquisition of na- 
tionality. Done at Vienna April 24, 1963. Entered 
into force March 19, 1967." 
Accession deposited: Oman, May 31, 1974. 

Diplomatic Relations 

Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Done at 
Vienna April 18, 1961. Entered into force April 
24, 1964; for the United States December 13, 1972. 
TIAS 7502. 
Accession deposited: Oman, May 31, 1974. 

Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on diplo- 
matic relations concerning the acquisition of na- 
tionality. Done at Vienna April 18, 1961. Entered 
into force April 24, 1964.- 
Accession deposited: Oman, May 31, 1974. 

Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on diplo- 
matic relations concerning the compulsory settle- 



July 22, 1974 



^ Not printed here; for text, see press release 278. 
■ Not in force for the United States. 



161 



ment of disputes. Done at Vienna April 18, 1961. 
Entered into force April 24, 1964; for the United 
States December 13, 1972. TIAS 7502. 
Accession deposited: Oman, May 31, 1974. 

Finance 

Articles of agreement of the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development, as amended. 
Done at Washington December 27, 1945. Entered 
into force December 27, 1945. TIAS 1502, 5929. 
Signature and acceptance : Western Samoa, June 
28, 1974. 

Weather Stations — North Atlantic 

Agreement on North Atlantic Ocean stations, with 
two annexes, as amended. Dated at Paris Feb- 
ruary 25, 1954. Entered into force February 1, 
1955. TIAS 3186, 5283, 6812, 7163, 7679. 
Withdra7val: United States, June 30, 1974. 



BILATERAL 

Brazil 

Agreement extending the agreement of May 9, 1972, 
as extended (TIAS 7603, 7770), concerning 
shrimp. Effected bv exchange of notes at Brasilia 
June 24, 1974. Entered into force June 24, 1974. 

Burma 

Agreement relating to the provision of helicopters 
and related assistance by the United States to 
help Burma in suppressing illegal narcotic drug 
production and traffic. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Rangoon June 29, 1974. Entered into 
force June 29, 1974. 

Canada 

Agreement relating to the operation of the Pacific 
Ocean weather station program. Effected by ex- 
change of notes at Ottawa June 4 and 28, 1954. 
Entered into force June 28, 1954. TIAS 3132. 
Terminated: June 30, 1974. 

Chile 

Memorandum of understanding regarding the con- 
solidation and rescheduling of certain Chilean 
debts owed to, guaranteed or insured by the U.S. 
Government and its agencies. Signed at Wash- 
ington June 17, 1974. Entered into force June 17, 
1974; effective May 15, 1974. 

Denmark 

Treaty on extradition. Signed at Copenhagen June 
22, 1972. 

Ratifications exchanged: July 1, 1974. 
Enters into force: July 31, 1974. 

Egypt 

Agreement for sales of agricultural commodities. 
Signed at Cairo June 7, 1974. Entered into force 
June 7, 1974. 

Guinea 

Agreement amending the agreement for sales of 
agricultural commodities of May 8, 1974 (TIAS 



7835). Effected by exchange of notes at Conakry 
June 13 and 14, 1974. Entered into force June 
14, 1974. 

India 

Agreement regarding the consolidation and resched- 
uling of certain debts owed to the U.S. Govern- 
ment and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at 
Washington June 7, 1974. Entered into force 
June 7, 1974. 

Khmer Republic 

Agreement amending the agreement for sales of 
agricultural commodities of July 25, 1973 (TIAS 
7703). Effected by exchange of notes at Phnom 
Penh May 16, 1974. Entered into force May 16, 
1974. 

Agreement amending the agreement for sales of 
agricultural commodities of July 25, 1973 (TIAS 
7703). Effected by exchange of notes at Phnom 
Penh May 24, 1974. Entered into force May 24, 
1974. 

Korea 

Amendment to the agreement of November 24, 1972 
(TIAS 7583), for cooperation concerning civil 
uses of atomic energy. Signed at Washington 
May 15, 1974. 
Entered into force: June 26, 1974. 

Mexico 

Agreement relating to the provision of support by 
the United States for a multi-spectral aerial photo- 
graphic system capable of detecting opium poppy 
cultivation, with annexes. Effected by exchange of 
letters at Mexico June 10 and 24, 1974. Entered 
into force June 24, 1974. 

Agreement amending the agreement of December 3, 
1973, as amended, concerning the provision of four 
helicopters and related assistance by the United 
States to help Mexico in curbing traffic in illegal 
narcotics. Effected by exchange of letters at Mexico 
June 24, 1974. Entered into force June 24, 1974. 

Agreement supplementing the agreement of Febru- 
ary 1, 1974, providing additional helicopters and 
related assistance to Mexico in support of its 
efforts to curb production and traffic in illegal 
narcotics. Effected by exchange of letters at Mexi- 
co June 24, 1974. Entered into force June 24, 1974. 

Panama 

Agreement amending the agreement of June 21 and 
October 5, 1972 (TIAS 7482), for the prevention 
of foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest in Pana- 
ma. Effected by exchange of notes at Panama May 
28 and June 12, 1974. Entered into force June 12, 
1974. 

Portugal 

Agreement for cooperation concerning civil uses of 

atomic energy. Signed at Washington May 16, 

1974. 

Entered into force: June 26, 1974. 
Agreement for cooperation concerning civil uses of 

atomic energy. Signed at Washington July 3, 1969. 

Entered into force July 19, 1969. TIAS 6717. 

Terminated: June 26, 1974. 



162 



Department of State Bulletin 



Spain 

Agreement for cooperation concerning civil uses of 

atomic energy. Signed at Washington March 20, 

1974. 

Entered into force: June 28, 1974. 
Agreement for cooperation concerning civil uses of 

atomic energy, as amended. Signed at Washington 

August 16, 1957. Entered into force February 12, 

1958. TIAS 3988, 5990. 

Terminated: June 28, 1974. 

South Africa 

Amendment to the agreement of July 8, 1957, as 
amended (TIAS 3885, 5129, 6312), for cooperation 
concerning civil uses of atomic energy. Signed at 
Washington May 22, 1974. 
Entered into force: June 28, 1974. 

Sweden 

Amendment to the agreement of July 28, 1966, as 
amended (TIAS 6076, 7000), for cooperation con- 
cerning civil uses of atomic energy. Signed at 
Washington May 10, 1974. 
Entered info force: June 27, 1974. 

Thailand 

Agreement for cooperation concerning civil uses of 

atomic energy. Signed at Washington May 14, 

1974. 

Entered into force: June 27, 1974. 
Agreement for cooperation concerning civil uses of 

atomic energy, as amended. Signed at Bangkok 

March 13, 1956. Entered into force March 13, 1956. 

TIAS 3522, 3842, 5122, 5765. 

Terminated: June 27, 1974. 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

Agreement on cooperation in the field of housing and 
other construction. Signed at Moscow June 28, 
1974. Entered into force June 28, 1974. 

Agreement on cooperation in the field of energy. 
Signed at Moscow June 28, 1974. Entered into 
force June 28, 1974. 

Agreement on cooperation in artificial heart research 
and development. Signed at Moscow June 28, 1974. 
Entered into force June 28, 1974. 

Long term agreement to facilitate economic, indus- 
trial and technical cooperation. Signed at Moscow 
June 29, 1974. Entered into force June 29, 1974. 

Treaty on the limitation of underground nuclear 
weapon tests, with protocol. Signed at Moscow 
July 3, 1974. Enters into force on the day of the 
exchange of instruments of ratification. 

Protocol to the treaty of Ma> 26, 1972 (TIAS 7503), 
on the lim.itation of anti-ballistic missile systems. 
Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974. Enters into force 
on the day of the exchange of instruments of rati- 
fication. 

Protocol of procedures governing replacement, dis- 
mantling or destruction, and notification thereof, 
for strategic offensive arms, with attachment. 
Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974. Entered into force 
July 3, 1974. 

Protocol on procedures governing replacement, dis- 
mantling or destruction, and notification thereof, 
for ABM systems and their components, with at- 



tachment. Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974. Entered 
into force July 3, 1974. 

Viet-Nam, Republic of 

Amendment to the agreement of April 22, 1959, as 
amended (TIAS 4251, 5622), for cooperation con- 
cerning civil uses of atomic energy. Signed at 
Washington May 14, 1974. 
Entered into force: June 29, 1974. 



PUBLICATIONS 



GPO Sales Publications 

Publications may be ordered by catalog or stock 
number from the Superintendeyit of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20A02. 
A 2.5-percent discount is made on orders for 100 or 
more copies of any one publication mailed to the 
same address. Remittances, payable to the Super- 
intendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 
Prices shown below, which include domestic postage, 
are subject to change. 

Background Notes: Short, factual summaries which 
describe the people, history, government, economy, 
and foreign relations of each country. Each contains 
a map, a list of principal government officials and 
U.S. diplomatic and consular officers, and a reading 
list. (A complete set of all Background Notes cur- 
rently in stock — at least 140 — $16.35; 1-year sub- 
scription service for approximately 77 updated or 
new Notes— $14.50; plastic binder— $1.50.) Single 
copies of those listed below are available at 25(' each. 



Burma 


. Cat. No. S1.123:B92 




Pub. 7931 8 pp. 


Burundi 


. Cat. No. S1.123:B95 




Pub. 8084 8 pp. 


Republic of China 


. Cat. No. S1.123:C44/2 




Pub. 7791 8 pp. 


Hong Kong .... 


. Cat. No. S1.123:H75 




Pub. 8126 4 pp. 


Macao 


. Cat. No. S1.123:M11 




Pub. 8352 4 pp. 


Mali 


. Cat. No. S1.123:M29/5 




Pub. 8056 4 pp. 


Martinique .... 


. Cat. No. S1.123:M36 




Pub. 8320 4 pp. 


Spanish Sahara . . . 


. Cat. No. S1.123:SP1 




Pub. 7905 4 pp. 



International Educational and Cultural Exchange. 

Publication prepared by the Department of State's 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Aff'airs describ- 
ing highlights of U.S. exchanges in 1972. Appendices 
contain comparative tables on exchanges from 1949 
to 1972. Pub. 8757. International Information and 
Cultural Series 106. 44 pp. 95^. (Cat. No. 81.67:106). 



July 22, 1974 



163 



Military Mission to Iran. Agreement with Iran ex- 
tending the agreement of October 6, 1947, as amend- 
ed and extended. TIAS 7765. 4 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 
89.10:7765). 

Settlement of Certain Claims. Agreement with Peru. 
TIAS 7792. 18 pp. 30('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7792). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Sri 
Lanka amending the agreement of November 2.3, 
1973. TIAS 7794. 2 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7794). 

Certificates of Airworthiness for Imported Glider 

Aircraft and .Aircraft Appliances. Agreement with 

Finland. TIA5 7795. 4 pp. 25<'-. (Cat. No. 89.10: 
7795). 

Surplus Property — Off-Shore Sales Facility. Agree- 
ment with Singapore extending the agreement of 
May 5, 1972, as amended. TIAS 7797. 1 p. 25(*. 
(Cat. No. 89.10:7797). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Jordan 
amending the agreement of May 20, 1973, as amend- 
ed. TIAS 7798. 3 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7798). 

Continental Radar Defense System — Closing of Cer- 
tain Stations. Agreement with Canada. TI.AS 7799. 
2 pp. 25c. (Cat. No. 89.10:7799). 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with Malta ex- 
tending the agreement of June 14, 1967, as extended. 
TIAS 7800. 3 pp. 25('. (Cat. No. 89.10:7800). 

.Aviation — Preclearance for Entry Into the United 

States. -Agreement with Bermuda. TI.A.S 7801. 5 pp. 
25f. (Cat. No. 89.10:7801). 

-Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam amending the agreement of 
January 21, 1974. TIAS 7802. 2 pp. 25'-. (Cat. No. 
89.10:7802). 

-Military Mission. -Agreement with Iran extending 
the agreement of November 27, 1943, as amended and 
extended. TIAS 7803. 3 pp. 25r'-. (Cat. No. S9.10: 

7803). 

-Air Charter Services. -Agreement with the Federal 
Republic of Germany amending the agreement of 
April 13, 1973. TIAS 7804. 4 pp. 25f. (Cat. No. 
89.10:7804). 



Trade in Cotton Textiles. .Agreement with Portugal 
odifying the agreement of November 17, 1970, as 



amended. 
7805) 



TIAS 7805. 2 pp. 25<'-. (Cat. No. 89.10: 



Scientific and Technical Cooperation. -Agreement 
with New Zealand. TIAS 7806. 3 pp. 25c. (Cat. No. 
89.10:7806). 

-Agricultural Commodities. -Agreement with Bangla- 
desh amending the agreement of August 6, 1973, as 
amended. TLAS 7807. 2 pp. 25i:'-. (Cat. No. 89.10: 
7807). 

Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phono- 
grams -Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their 
Phonograms. TLAS 7808. 70 pp. 70^^-. (Cat. No. 89.10: 
7808). 



DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE 



Confirmations 

The Senate on June 19 confirmed the following 
nominations: 

James D. Hodgson to be Ambassador to Japan. 
David E. Mark to be Ambassador to the Repub- 
lic of Burundi. 

The Senate on June 20 confirmed the nomination 
of Thomas O. Enders to be an Assistant Secretary 
of State [for Economic and Business Affairs]. 

The Senate on June 27 confirmed the following 
nominations: 

Robert Stephen Ingersoll to be Deputy Secretary 
of State. 

Carlyle E. Maw to be Under Secretary of State 
for Coordinating Security Assistance Programs. 



164 



Department of State Bulletin 



INDEX Jiily 22, 197U Vol. LXXI, No. J 830 

Africa. Present and Future Orientation of 

U.S. -Assistance to Africa (Easum) .... 153 

Burma. U.S. To Provide Helicopters to Burma 
for Narcotics Control (Department an- 
nouncement, U.S. note) 160 

China. Secretary Kissinger's News Confer- 
ence of June 24 133 

Congress 

Confirmations (Enders, Hodgson, Ingersoll, 

Mark, Maw) 164 

Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

Policy 156 

Department Discusses Fiscal Year 1975 Ap- 
propriation Request for Voluntary Contribu- 
tions to International Programs (Buffum) . 157 

Economic Assistance and Our Evolving Rela- 
tionship With Latin America (Kubisch) . . 150 

Present and Future Orientation of U.S. Assist- 
ance to Africa (Easum) 153 

Department and Foreign Service 

Confirmations (Enders, Hodgson, Ingersoll, 

Mark, Maw) 164 

Fiftieth Anniversary of the Foreign Service 

(Ford) 145 

Disarmament. Secretary Kissinger's News 

Conference of June 24 133 

Europe. Secretary Kissinger's News Confer- 
ence of June 24 133 

Foreign Aid 

Department Discusses Fiscal Year 1975 Ap- 
propriation Request for Voluntary Contribu- 
tions to International Programs (Buff'um) . 157 

Economic Assistance and Our Evolving Rela- 
tionship With Latin America (Kubisch) . . 150 

Present and Future Orientation of U.S. As- 
sistance to Africa (Easum) 153 

Latin America. Economic Assistance and Our 
Evolving Relationship With Latin America 
(Kubisch) 150 

Mexico. President Signs Bill To Implement 
Salinity Agreement With Mexico (remarks, 
statement, summary of legislation) . . . 147 

Middle East. Secretary Kissinger's News Con- 
ference of June 24 133 

Narcotics Control. U.S. To Provide Helicop- 
ters to Burma for Narcotics Control (De- 
partment announcement, U.S. note) . . . 160 

Presidential Documents. President Signs Bill 
To Implement Salinity Agreement With 
Mexico 147 

Publications. GPO Sales Publications ... 163 

Sudan. U.S. Deplores Sudanese Action on 
Confessed Murderers (Sisco) 147 

Terrorism. U.S. Deplores Sudanese Action on 

Confessed Murderers (Sisco) 147 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 161 

U.S. To Provide Helicopters to Burma for 
Narcotics Control (Department announce- 
ment, U.S. note) 160 

U.S.S.R. Secretary Kissinger's News Confer- 
ence of June 24 133 



United Nations. Department Discusses Fiscal 
Year 1975 .Appropriation Request for Vol- 
untary Contributions to International Pro- 
grams (Buffum) 1.57 

Name Index 

Bufl'um, William B 157 

Easum, Donald B 15;^ 

Enders, Thomas 164 

Ford, Vice President 145 

Hodgson, James D 164 

Ingersoll, Robert Stephen 164 

Kissinger, Secretary is?, 

Kubisch. Jack B 150 

Mark, David E 164 

Maw, Carlyle E 164 

Nixon, President 147 

Sisco, Joseph J 147 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: July 1-7 

Press releases may be obtained from the 
Office of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Release issued prior to July 1 which appears 
in this issue of the Bulletin is No. 260 of 
June 24. 

Subject 

Paganelli sworn in as Ambassador 
to Qatar (biographic data). 

Announcement of U.S. -Burma 
agreement on supply of heli- 
copters for narcotics suppres- 
sion. 

U.S.-EC cooperation in environ- 
mental control activities. 

Wolle sworn in as Ambassador to 
Oman (biographic data). 

Kissinger: message to Argentini- 
an Foreign Minister on the 
death of President Peron, 
July 1. 

Text of U.S.-Burma agreement, 
June 29. 

Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. statement 
on environmental modification 
techniques for military pur- 
poses. 

Protocol to U.S.-U.S.S.R. ABM 
treatv. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. treaty on the limi- 
tation of underground nuclear 
weapon tests. 

Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. communique. 

Kissinger: news conference, Mos- 
cow. 

Kissinger: news conference, Brus- 
sels, July 4. 

Kissinger: arrival, Paris, July 4. 

Kissinger: departure, Paris. 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 



No. 


Date 


*273 


7/1 


274 


7/1 


t275 


7/2 


*276 


7/2 


1277 


7/2 


278 


7/2 


t279 


7/3 


t280 


7/3 


1281 


7/3 


t282 
t283 


7/3 
7/3 


1284 


7/5 


*285 
*286 


7/5 
7/5 



Superintendent of Documents 
U.S. government printing office 

WASHINGTON. DC. 20402 



OFFICIAI. BUSINESS 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Special Fourth-Class Rate 
Book 




Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
sei-vice, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 





THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BULLETIN 



Volume LXXI 



No. 1831 



July 29, 1974 



PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT TO NATO AND THE SOVIET UNION 

Remarks by President Nixon and Foreign Leaders 
and Texts of U.S.-U.S.S.R. Statement and Communique 165 

News Conferences Held by Secretary Kissinger 196 

Texts of Agreements Signed at Moscow 21 6 



THE OFFICIAL WEEKLY RECORD OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 



For index see inside back cover 



'ublic Labi 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN 



Vol. LXXI, No. 1831 
July 29, 1974 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documentfl 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

PRICE: 

52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literatore. 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the worlc of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the Wliite House and the Depart 
ment, and statements, addressi 
and news conferences of the Presidei 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of tlie Department, as well a^m 
special articles on various phases dH 
international affairs and the functions ' 
of the Department. Information is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become u 
party and on treaties of general Intel 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department 
State, United Nations documents, ai 
legislative material in the field 
international relations are also listet 



■trt-j 



to 



President Nixon Visits NATO Headquarters and the Soviet Union 



President Nixon left Washington on June 25 for a visit 
to Belgium and the Soviet Union. While in Brussels June 
25-27, he met with NATO heads of government and signed the 
Declaration on Atlantic Relations. In the Soviet Union June 
27-July 3, he met with Soviet leaders, signed several agree- 
meyits, and addressed the Soviet people on television and radio. 
Following are his remarks upon departure on June 25, his 
exchanges of remarks with foreign leaders, his address to the 
Soviet people, his report to the Nation upon his arrival in the 
United States on July 3, and remarks to the press at Brussels 
by Presidential Assistant and Press Secretary Ronald L. Zieg- 
ler, together ivith the texts of a joint U.S.-Soviet statement on 
dangers of military use of environmental modification tech- 
niques and a joint communique signed at Moscow on Jidy 3. 



PRESIDENT NIXON'S DEPARTURE REMARKS, 
ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, JUNE 25 

White House press release dated June 25 

Members of the Cabinet, members of the 
diplomatic corps, and ladies and gentlemen: 
I first want to express my appreciation to 
all of you for taking the time to come off 
to see us as we take off on another journey 
for peace. This time we go first to Brus- 
sels, as you know, and then to Moscow. 

Our purpose in Brussels will be to meet 
with old friends and to renew our support 
of the great NATO alliance, which for 25 
years has been responsible for and indis- 
pensable for keeping th" peace in Europe. 
We expect to give new purpose and new di- 
rection to that alliance on the occasion of 
visiting with the heads of government of 
most of the NATO countries. 

From Brussels, we go on to Moscow. 
There we shall have the opportunity to meet 
again with General Secretary Brezhnev and 
his colleagues. The purpose of this summit 



meeting, as was the purpose of the other 
two — the first in Moscow two years ago, 
and in Washington and in other pr.rts of the 
United States last year — is threefold: 

— First, we expect to strengthen the bi- 
lateral relations between the two strongest 
nations in the world ; 

— Second, we hope to develop areas of 
cooperation to displace confrontation in other 
critical areas of the world that might be 
those places where conflict could develop 
between the two great powers ; and 

— Third, we hope to make more progress 
on a goal that we began to achieve and 
move forward toward in 1972, of limiting 
both the burden and also the threat of nu- 
clear arms over our two nations and over 
the world generally. 

These are very great goals, and like all 
great goals they are very diflUcult to achieve, 
just as was the case of the goals we sought 
to achieve on our first trip to the Mideast. 
But we are confident that when we look at 



July 29, 1974 



165 



these goals, not only must we seek to achieve 
them but we believe that we can achieve 
them, because when we speak of the two 
strongest nations, the Soviet Union and the 
United States, cooperation between these 
two great peoples is indispensable if we are 
to build a structure of peace in the world 
that will last. 

And we know that with American strength, 
American resolve, and above all, American 
determination and dedication, that we will 
be able to make progress on this long but 
vitally important journey for peace, not only 
for America but for all mankind. 

And we have appreciated particularly the 
messages that we have received before each 
of these trips from people all over America, 
because your prayers, your good wishes for 
our success, means that the American people, 
the great majority, are united behind the 
efforts we are making to attempt to resolve 
differences that otherwise would lead to a 
runaway arms race, that otherwise would 
lead to confrontation not only between two 
great povvers but all over the world, that 
otherwise would dash all the hopes and the 
ideals that Americans have had from the 
beginning of this country — the ideal of a 
world of peace so that we can devote the 
energies of all great peoples to the works 
of peace and not simply to preparing for 
war. 

Thank you. 



THE VISIT TO BELGIUM 



ARRIVAL, BRUSSELS, JUNE 25 

White House press release (Brussels) dated June 25 

Remarks by King Baudouin 

Mr. President: Because Belgium has for 
several years been the headquarters of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dur- 
ing which time it has also been the host of 
the European Communities, it is my duty 
and pleasure to welcome you again this eve- 
ning on the soil of my country. 

You have just completed a tour in the 

166 



Middle East in the course of which the 
happy results of untiring diplomacy have 
been confirmed. We all hope that the efforts 
made will be the prelude to final peace in 
that region. 

In two days' time you will be in Moscow, 
where you will carry on conversations the 
outcome of which is important for us all. 
Before starting them, you have desired not 
only to come here to sign the Ottawa Dec- 
laration of Atlantic Relations, which again 
precisely states our convergent objectives, 
but also to make confident contacts with the 
heads of the governments of friendly and 
allied nations in order to explain your views 
and obtain their opinions. 

We are delighted with the action you have 
taken. It shows once more that however 
much times may change, there is still be- 
tween our peoples the same fundamental 
understanding based on so many common 
memories, and so many peaceful contests 
or deplorably cruel battles waged side by 
side, and on faith in the same essential 
values. 

Mr. President, throughout the world all 
men feel increasingly bound together by the 
same destiny. We know that they eagerly 
wish hostilities to cease, tensions to be re- 
duced, and a just and lasting peace to be 
established. 

We wish you and Mrs. Nixon a cordial 
welcome and express our hopes for the suc- 
cess of the work we shall carry out to- 
gether. 

Remarks by Presidenf Nixon 

Your Majesty, Mr. Secretary, and all of 
our distinguished guests: Your Majesty, I 
wish to express our grateful appreciation for 
your gracious welcome and also for your 
eloquent words with regard to the hopes we 
all share for building a structure of peace 
in the world. 

And it is indeed an honor for me to join 
with my colleagues in the Atlantic alliance 
in tomorrow reaffirming our dedication to 
the great principles of that alliance. What 
we must all recognize is that the Atlantic 
alliance has been indispensable in keeping 

Department of State Bulletin 



the peace in Europe for the past 25 years. 

As you have noted, this visit to Brussels 
comes midway between two other visits, the 
first to the Mideast and the next to the 
Soviet Union. It is significant that this is 
the case, because this symbolizes the central 
role that the Atlantic alliance plays in pur- 
suing our goal of a lasting peace in the 
world. Without the alliance, it is doubtful 
that the detente would have begun, and 
without continuing a strong alliance, it is 
doubtful if the detente would continue. 

It is also very significant that this meet- 
ing will take place in Brussels, now the 
capital of Europe, and in Belgium, a nation 
which has suffered so much in two world 
wars. And I am sure that all of those at- 
tending the meeting tomorrow will have in 
their hearts these sentiments that we wish 
that whatever we do there and whatever 
decisions we make and whatever we say 
may contribute to the goal we seek, not 
only for each of our own countries, but for 
all nations in the world, a peace that will 
last. 

Remarks by Joseph Luns, 
Secretary General of NATO 

Your Majesties, Mr. President: It is with 
very great pleasure that I welcome you, Mr. 
President, on your arrival in Brussels for 
the forthcoming high-level meeting of the 
North Atlantic Council. 

It is five years since you last sat in the 
Council that was in Washington. Then you 
spoke of entering into negotiations with the 
Soviet Union on a wide range of issues on 
the basis of full consultation and coopera- 
tion with American allies. 

In the five intervening years, aided by 
your distinguished Secretary of State, you 
have given dramatic effect to that policy. 

As His Majesty has just remarked, you 
come from the Middle East, where your 
journey has opened new prospects for the 
future in that area and for the world at 
large. You go on to Moscow to take one 
more step along the road of negotiation 
with the Soviet Union. 

Tomorrow you will consult with your 



friends and allies and sign with them the 
Declaration on Atlantic Relations. Your 
visit will once again mark a page in the 
history of the Council and of our alliance. 



LUNCHEON HONORING NATO LEADERS, 
BRUSSELS, JUNE 26 

White House press release (Brussels) dated June 26 

Toast by King Baudouin ' 

Mr. President, Your Excellencies the heads 
of governments, and gentlemen : It is a great 
pleasure for me cordially to welcome you to 
Brussels, the headquarters of the North At- 
lantic Treaty Organization. 

You have this morning signed the impor- 
tant declaration which the Atlantic Council 
approved a few days ago at Ottawa and 
have thus, on the occasion of its 25th anni- 
versary, drawn attention to the youth and 
vigor and cohesion of the alliance. 

On April the 4th, 1949, President Truman 
declared when the Washington treaty was 
signed that: 

For us, war is not inevitable. We do not believe 
that there are blind tides of history which sweep 
men one way or the other. . . . Men with courage 
and vision can still determine their own destiny. 

We today, who no longer feel afraid, can 
estimate how much the situation has 
changed. What was happening 25 years ago 
now appears to be as far behind us as 
would the events of a period we had not lived 
through. 

The panic in which our defense was hast- 
ily set up so that we might survive has 
given way to a feeling of security which goes 
so far as to make us skeptical about the 
existence of any danger. 

By their determination and by the choices 
they made, the men with vision of whom 
Mr. Truman spoke have allowed our younger 
people to have no experience of war. They 
have also rejected the old rules of political 
action, under which fixed purpose often took 
the place of law and power that of ethics. 



' King Baudouin began his toast in French and 
concluded in English. 



July 29, 1974 



167 



By entering into a system of collective 
defense, Belgium has made a fundamental 
option in order to avoid a recurrence of the 
wars which twice within 35 years had rav- 
aged the country, to participate in the quest 
for a lasting peace, and to foster the con- 
struction of a united Europe. 

Owing to the safeguard provided by the 
solidarity and indivisibility of our defense, 
it is possible to conduct a policy whose pri- 
mary objective is peace and, more particu- 
larly in Europe, the pursuit of understand- 
ing and cooperation with all the countries 
of the continent. 

To be sure, the alliance is not altogether 
identical with defense; since a few years 
ago, a correlation has been established be- 
tween the notions of defense and detente. 
They had until then been separate. 

Defense, for its own sake, seemed to ex- 
clude detente. The outcome of detente seemed 
to be to destroy defense. Since then, the 
delicate threads which bind them together 
and strengthen the significance of them both 
have been grasped. 

Without defense, there can be no equilibri- 
um of forces, and no coexistence is possible. 
Without detente, there can be no progress 
toward peaceful solutions. The Atlantic 
Treaty, which is an instrument of security, 
thus appears as a combination of forces 
tending to peace. 

Belgium, moreover, has always hoped that, 
in the spirit of friendship and solidarity 
which ought to mark the relations between 
allies, the progress made as regards the po- 
litical unification of Europe should favor 
the establishment of a transatlantic dialogue 
between two equal partners. 

The idea is, in any case, recognized by 
all, since in the Ottawa Declaration we wel- 
comed the beneficial effect that the further 
stages toward unity which the member states 
of the European Community are determined 
to pass through will have for the Atlantic al- 
liance. 

From Belgium's point of view the two 
choices — European and Atlantic — are com- 
plementary. Without the achievement of a 
genuine European union on the political level, 



the European states and the European Com- 
munity will be unable to assume the respon- 
sibility imposed on them by their economic 
success. 

Unless they speak with one voice, how 
can they play a part in diplomacy, make 
original contributions to more equitable re- 
lations between the industrialized states and 
those that are trying to develop, and finally, 
uphold the essential democratic values? 

The assertion of that European identity 
will foster more thorough cooperation and 
will give the transatlantic dialogue the na- 
ture of a conversation between equal part- 
ners who take care to show respect for each 
other and are united in a joint venture. 

The alliance is permanently confronted 
with the internal problems of states, the 
loosening of bonds, and the weariness of 
efforts. But, due to Western solidarity and 
to the habit of living together, it may be 
stated — and seems rather paradoxical — that 
after adding up the problems before it the 
alliance has always been in better health 
than might have been feared. 

Of course, the alliance is challenged, and 
if it were not, anxiety would have to be felt 
about its vitality. No viable and active in- 
stitution fails to make headway botween the 
pressures of opposing forces. 

Twenty-five years after its establishment, 
the governments have confirmed the com- 
mitments entered into and have placed them 
in the context of the new requirements. After 
having justified its existence in the past, 
the alliance remains one of the guarantees 
of our future. 

It is with a thought to that future that I 
request you to join me in raising your glasses 
to our continued cooperation. 

Toast by President Nixon 

Your Majesty, my colleagues from the At- 
lantic community and distinguished guests: 
Your Majesty, we are all most grateful for 
your eloquent remarks, and we can think 
of no more appropriate place or time in 
which to celebrate what in effect is an an- 
niversary. 



168 



Department of State Bulletin 



As I stand in this place, I think back five 
years when you so graciously hosted a lunch- 
eon on my first visit to NATO. I think back 
over what has happened over those five 
years. It is perhaps safe to say that more 
profound changes have occurred in the world 
in those five years than have occurred in 
any peacetime period in this century. 

There has been the opening of a dialogue 
between the United States, as well as other 
nations, but between the United States, and 
the People's Republic of China, where one- 
fourth of all the world's people live. We 
have substituted for a period of confronta- 
tion with the Soviet Union a period of nego- 
tiation, and other nations as well in the 
European and Atlantic community have done 
so. 

The very long and difficult war in Viet- 
Nam has ended, and most recently, develop- 
ments have occurred in the Mideast which, 
while only a first step, are nevertheless a 
most hopeful step toward a goal that every 
nation around this table represented has 
an interest in — the goal of a permanent and 
just peace in that critically important part 
of the world. 

And as we look over those five years of 
developments, we of course can see how much 
the world has changed. We also can see 
how much the world can change and be 
changed in the future, provided we continue 
the strength, the purpose, of this great al- 
liance without which most of these great 
initiatives could not have been undertaken 
and would not have succeeded. 

Today in the brief talks I have had with 
some of my colleagues in the Atlantic com- 
munity and also in the meeting this morning 
— the plenary session — I have heard raised, 
very justifiably, the issues that are on the 
minds of every leader in the industrial, more 
advanced nations of the world today: the 
problem of inflation, the problem of energy, 
the problem of international monetary mat- 
ters, balance of payments, economic prob- 
lems generally. 

And, of course, all of us are recognizing 
the fact that in various nations, in addition 
to economic problems, there are the continu- 



July 29, 1974 



ing political problems which will always be 
present in free societies. 

If we look at those problems that we pres- 
ently confront, by themselves — and at the 
moment — they seem overwhelming. But to- 
day, around this table, we can be thankful 
that the problems we face today, as dis- 
tinguished from five years ago, are primarily 
the problems of peace rather than the prob- 
lems of war. And this is progress. 

It is progress, although it does not mean 
that the task we have as leaders is easier, 
because in fact it is more difficult — more 
difficult because peace is not something that 
is achieved at a certain time and then signed 
and sealed by a treaty which brings it into 
being. 

Peace is a process in which agreements 
and treaties and understandings must con- 
tinually be made and continually be reaf- 
firmed, whereas in the case of war, once it 
ends then peace in the sense of absence of 
war begins as the result of the signing of 
a document or some other kind of agreement. 

And so to those gathered here on this 
historic occasion, I recognize, as all of you 
recognize, that the challenges that we con- 
front today in building a structure of peace 
are as great in their way and in some ways 
more great, because they are more complex, 
than the challenges of leading nations in 
war. 

This is an anniversary, a 25th anniver- 
sary, and usually we think of an anniver- 
sary as an end of an era ; this, I think, we 
would all rather think of as the beginning 
of an era. This great alliance in its first 
25 years came into being and was indis- 
pensable for the purpose of saving freedom 
and preserving the peace in Europe. This 
alliance for the next 25 years will have a 
greater goal and a broader one of preserv- 
ing freedom wherever it exists but also of 
building a structure of peace not only for 
Europe and the Atlantic community but 
for all the world. This is a great goal for 
an alliance, and it is a great goal to which 
all of us as leaders can be proud that we are 
dedicated to it. 

I think, for example, back 15 years when 



169 



a very young, but very wise, king addressed 
a joint session of the Congress of tiie United 
States, when I was then — I thought I was — 
a young Vice President presiding along with 
the Speaker over that session. And I re- 
member well what he said. He said that it 
takes 20 years of peace or more to make 
a man. It takes only 20 seconds of war 
to de.stroy him. 

And so when we think of peace we are 
thinking not only of ourselves — looking back 
on the years we have been privileged to 
serve our nations — but we are thinking of 
generation upon generation of young people 
all over this world, young people who have 
not known a full generation of peace in this 
century, young people who live in nations 
who share totally different philosophies from 
ours, but young people with the idealism, 
with the hopes, with the drive that is so 
characteristic of youth wherever they are in 
whatever nation anyplace in the world. 

And we, in this great community of ours, 
can be proud that for the past 25 years we 
have served the cause of preserving peace. 
For the next 25 years we can broaden that 
cause, as I have indicated, to serve the 
cause of peace not only for Europe and 
the Atlantic community but for aJl mankind. 

When I spoke at the beginning of the 
new relationships that have been developed 
between the People's Republic of China and, 
for example, the United States, between the 
Soviet Union, where I will be tomorrow, and 
the United States, I did not intend to leave 
with this distinguished company, or any 
others who may listen to these words, any 
illusions. 

We live in a world where there are still 
deep and basic differences about philosophy. 
We live in a world, however, where whatever 
those differences are, statesmen must find 
ways to solve them without resorting to the 
use of force that could destroy civilization 
as we know it. 

When we negotiate, for example, with the 
Soviet leaders, we can and will negotiate 
on such matters as arms control, on troops, 
on European security, on trade, on health, 
on the environment, on energy. But there 



is one thing that is not negotiable, and that 
is the great principles that are the founda- 
tion of the Atlantic community, principles of 
freedom, of justice, principles which we have 
inherited in many instances, and some have 
acquired, but principles which we deeply 
believe in, must be defended and, we trust, 
preserved for generations to come. 

That does not mean to suggest that those 
we negotiate with will not have the same 
determination to stand by their philosophies 
and their principles as we will by ours. 

What it simply does mean is this : that in 
the world in which we live, with the nuclear 
power that overhangs it, there is no alter- 
native to peace, there is no alternative to 
negotiation. 

And you can be sure that, as far as we 
are concerned, we not only will consult with 
our allies in this great alliance before but 
also afterward, to make sure that our nego- 
tiations serve not only the cause of peace 
but also the cause of freedom and every- 
thing it means to those who are privileged 
to be members of this great alliance. 

Your Majesty, we are grateful for the 
hospitality that you have extended to all of 
us who are members of this community, and 
consequently, it is for me a very great honor 
on behalf of all of my colleagues in the At- 
lantic community to respond to your remarks 
and to propose a, toast. But before doing 
so, I should like to add one word about the 
sometimes unsung heroes in this whole area 
of negotiations, communiques, declarations, 
and the rest. 

When history is written many years from 
now, it may well be said — it probably will 
be said — that the leaders of nations were 
the architects of peace. That may be true; 
it may not be true. But of this I am sure, 
and every one of my colleagues in a position 
of head of a government I am sure will 
agree: While the leaders ajid the heads of 
government may be the architects of peace, 
the buildei-s of peace are their ministers, the 
foreign ministers, and all of the others 
around this table who devote their lives to 
the art of diplomacy, to carrying out what- 
ever programs or policies will contribute to 



170 



Department of State Bulletin 



a goal of peace for not only our time but 
for all times to come. 

And so then, on behalf not only of my 
colleagues the architects, but also on behalf 
of all those who are here, the builders of 
this new world which we trust will be a 
world of peace, I ask you to raise your 
glasses to our host, His Majesty the King: 
To the King. 



REMARKS BY PRESS SECRETARY ZIEGLER - 

The President was pleased and impressed 
this morning with the discussions of the 
North Atlantic Council. All of the delegates 
in various ways spoke of the vitality of the 
alliance, of the continued need of a strong 
common defense while we pursue better 
East-West relations. 

President Nixon found the general har- 
mony of views expressed in the NATO Coun- 
cil this morning most gratifying. He wel- 
comed the support around the table to full 
and frank consultation on all issues in which 
the interest of the allies are involved. 

President Nixon also noted with interest, 
as did others who attended the meeting this 
morning, the remarks of Chancellor [of the 
Federal Republic of Germany Helmut] 
Schmidt regarding the importance of eco- 
nomic problems that the NATO countries are 
facing. The President, incidentally, also re- 
ferred to this matter, which I will get into 
in a moment, in his own remarks. 

President Nixon appreciated the positive 
comments around the table as each represen- 
tative spoke concerning the role that he 
had played and that Secretary Kissinger 
played in the Middle East negotiations and 
also the expressions of confidence and sup- 
port for our policies in East-West issues on 
the eve of the Moscow summit. 

The President began his remarks follow- 
ing Secretary Luns' opening comments at 
about 10 minutes after 10. He spoke for 
about 25 minutes. We will not provide a 



text of the President's remarks, because this 
was of course a consulting session and a 
private session, but I will provide to you 
at this time the general framework of what 
the President said to the NATO Council and 
generally the President's views regarding 
the declaration that was signed today.^ 

In President Nixon's remarks to the Coun- 
cil, the President, of course, welcomed the 
signing of the declaration in this 25th anni- 
versary year of the alliance, stating to the 
Council that it lays the groundwork for an- 
other quarter century of Atlantic coopera- 
tion, solidarity, and security. And the Pres- 
ident pointed out that the declaration forms 
the foundation for even a brighter future. 

The President pointed out that the dec- 
laration signifies that as NATO enters its 
second quarter century, the alliance stands 
stronger and more united than ever before. 

In his opening remarks to the Council, 
the President made the point, which has 
been made before, that the world we face 
in 1974 is, of course, very different from 
the world of 1949. At that time, the Presi- 
dent said, peace was in serious jeopardy and 
the sovereignty of many of the nations of 
Europe was in jeopardy. The prime need, 
the President went on to say, was for unity 
in the common defense so that a period of 
rebuilding could go forward. 

Today, he said that the very success of 
NATO over the last 25 years provides the 
security for the pursuit of national, regional, 
and global interest but there is no less a 
need for security and no less a need for 
unity in pursuing our common objectives. 

Indeed, the President pointed out, it is 
more important than ever to keep before us 
the recognition of our common objectives, re- 
ferring to the alliance, as to reconcile our 
interests as individual nations with our in- 
terests as allies. 

Again, referring to the document signed 
today, the President pointed out that it 
demonstrates recognition by all members 



^ Made at a news conference at Brussels on June 
26 (text from Weekly Compilation of Presidential 
Documents dated July 8). 



' For text of the Declaration on Atlantic Relations 
adopted by the ministerial meeting of the North 
Atlantic Council at Ottawa on June 19, see Bulletin 
of July 8, 1974, p. 42. 



July 29, 1974 



171 



that if we are to successfully pursue our in- 
dividual national interests, again referring 
to the alliance, then we must do so in essen- 
tial harmony and, above all, remain united 
in the common defense of every member of 
the alliance. 

The President also discussed the signifi- 
cance of the declaration signed today in the 
context both of his forthcoming visit to the 
Soviet Union and his recent visit to the 
Middle East. 

The President, again referring to the dec- 
laration, noted that the declaration reaffirms 
the foremost purpose of the alliance: that 
of assuring the common defense. He em- 
phasized the importance of each alliance 
member devoting the efforts and resources 
necessary to maintain NATO forces at the 
proper strength. 

He said that, for the U.S. part, that he 
would again, and did, renew our pledge that 
the United States will maintain and improve 
our forces in Europe if there is a similar 
effort by our allies and the United States 
will not reduce forces unless there is a recip- 
rocal action by the other side. 

The President pointed out that reductions 
in conventional forces in Europe can have 
repercussions far out of proportion to the 
number of men involved and the amount 
of money saved. They can set into motion, 
the President said, a chain of reductions 
whose consequences could be tragic, and went 
on to make the point that the price of peace 
is continued strength. 

He said that defense and detente are es- 
sential to each other and that only by 
strengthening detente can we eventually re- 
duce the defense burden our people must now 
support, of course, addressing the NATO 
conference and referring to the nations in- 
volved. 

Beyond that, he said the United States is 
encouraged by the direction and pace of 
recent efforts, as reflected in the declaration, 
to give fresh impetus to NATO's partner- 
ship. 

In particular, he cited the recognition 
given to the importance of meaningful con- 
sultations to the work of the alliance, and 
he indicated the U.S. full preparedness to 



consult on matters of alliance interest. 

He pointed out and reiterated the position 
that Secretary Kissinger stated in Ottawa, 
and again recently in his press conference: 
that consultation should not be viewed as 
a legally binding obligation. 

That is not the purpose of the declaration ; 
rather, it is to symbolize a spirit of coopera- 
tion within the alliance which the United 
States hopes will grow into a recognition 
that no member of the alliance should con- 
sider taking any actions or action affecting 
the alliance without seeking the support and 
understanding of its members. 

He went on to point out — and I am not 
directly quoting the President, but para- 
phrasing — that while it is true that the legal 
obligations of the alliance are confined geo- 
graphically, events that occur outside the 
formal area of obligations can affect us 
all. 

This is a point that Secretary Kissinger, 
as you recall, made in Ottawa, and the 
United States recognizes this reality and 
affirms today our determination to consult 
fully on all matters which affect the intei'est 
of the allies. I call your attention again to 
Secretary Kissinger's comments and also the 
pool report last night where reference was 
made to this point. 

The President also said — and this is recog- 
nized in the declaration of our common de- 
fense and political association — that these 
elements of the common defense and political 
association must be sustained by cooperative 
and constructive economic relations. 

He said that the United States will ap- 
proach economic issues in a spirit of friend- 
ship and in the conviction that the common 
goal is to benefit all peoples and those of 
the world at large, including the less devel- 
oped countries. 

A few more concluding comments — the 
President in his remarks emphasized the im- 
portance of the alliance to the efforts being 
made toward greater international peace and 
stability, and in this context he cited the 
importance of the new declaration to the 
current efforts being made to ease East-West 
tensions and to improve relations with the 
Soviet Union. 



172 



Department of State Bulletin 



Western cohesion, the President said, pro- 
vides the basis on which the policy of de- 
tente can be conducted in the common in- 
terest. He noted, for example, the oppor- 
tunities to bring the arms race under control 
and to build a network of East-West coop- 
erative agreements contributing to mutual 
restraint and expanded contacts between 
peoples and said that the meeting today of 
the NATO Council provides significant evi- 
dence of Western solidarity and forms a 
vital backdrop for the upcoming summit in 
Moscow. 

In discussing the upcoming Moscow sum- 
mit, the President made reference, of course, 
to the extensive briefing that Secretary of 
State Kissinger provided to the Foreign Min- 
isters in Ottawa and spoke in general and 
long-range terms about the summit. Ad- 
dressing the summit specifically, the Presi- 
dent told the Council that he felt there were 
three aspects to the Moscow summit. He said 
that we will exchange views on, of course, 
the major international issues and that we 
will have an extensive review of the entire 
state of our bilateral relations. He said that 
he expects that a number of agreements will 
be signed in various cooperative areas and 
that there was difficult negotiating ahead 
in relation to arms control, but that he hoped 
there would be progress also in that area. 

He discussed each of these categories, of 
course, in more detail than I am provid- 
ing. 

In reference to detente and what detente 
means to the alliance and what detente 
means to the United States, he said that it 
gives us a chance to try to bring the nuclear 
arms race under control before it can get 
out of hand. 

Secondly, he said it creates an environ- 
ment in which problems ranging from enei'- 
gy to peace can be addressed outside the 
context of bipolar confrontation, and third, 
it builds up a network of East-West trade 
and cooperative agreements that should re- 
enforce mutual restraint and may gradually 
ameliorate conditions in the East. 

In discussing also the upcoming Soviet 
talks, the President assured the NATO Coun- 
cil that the United States would continue 



to consult fully and again made reference 
to the fact that Secretary Kissinger will 
return to Brussels on July 4 to consult with 
our allies. 

In discussing the Conference on Security 
and Cooperation in Europe and the mutual 
balanced force reduction and all other issues 
in which the interests of our allies are en- 
gaged, such as strategic arms limitation 
talks, he said that American positions will 
continue to be developed in full consulta- 
tion and in concert with our allies. He made 
a point of emphasizing that we will never 
sacrifice the interest of our allies to achieve 
agreements. 

He talked then, in concluding his remarks, 
about the Middle East and the recent Mid- 
dle East trip. He pointed out that the recent 
crisis there and the first tentative steps 
toward its resolution have provided the clear- 
est possible demonstration that all of us have 
a stake in maintaining peace outside our own 
boundaries, of course referring to the coun- 
tries present in the NATO Council. 

He said that because of its unique posi- 
tion — referring to the United States — and 
the desires of the parties in the area, the 
United States must continue to play a cen- 
tral role and will continue to play a central 
role in the process of seeking realistic diplo- 
matic alternatives to war. 

He went on to say that at the same time 
there is no American intention of attempt- 
ing to exclude anyone from the area, that 
we, the United States, recognize that our 
European allies have vital interests there 
and will wish to play substantial roles of 
their own, and we hope that our activities 
in the area, he said, can be coordinated so 
that we can work together for peace and 
economic progress. 

Then, finally, in summing up, the Presi- 
dent feels that this morning's session of the 
North Atlantic Council provided the Presi- 
dent with the occasion to express the very 
great satisfaction of the United States with 
the new Declaration on Atlantic Relations, 
which underlines the continuing strength, 
spirit, and unity of purpose of NATO at a 
time when the nations of the alliance are 
facing major challenges and opportunities. 



July 29, 1974 



173 



THE VISIT TO THE SOVIET UNION 

DINNER HONORING PRESIDENT NIXON, 
MOSCOW, JUNE 27 

White House press release (Moscow) dated June 27 

Toast by General Secretary Leonid I. Brezhnev * 

Esteemed Mr. President, esteemed Mrs. 
Nixon, ladies and gentlemen, comrades: We 
are glad once again to greet here in the 
Kremlin as guests of the Soviet Union the 
President of the United States of Am.erica 
and Mrs. Nixon, as well as the American 
statesmen accompanying the President. 

This is already the third meeting between 
the leaders of our countries in just a little 
over two years since a cardinal turn be- 
came evident in Soviet-American relations 
toward normalization and the development 
of peaceful cooperation. 

On the firm basis of the fundamental 
agreements which were signed in 1972 and 
1973 and are known all over the world, we 
have made tangible progress. Probably never 
before have ties and contacts between the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the 
United States in different areas of political, 
economic, and cultural activity been as lively 
as they are today. 

Nowadays thousands of people annually 
travel from America to the Soviet Union and 
from the Soviet Union to America. Mutual 
visits of ministers, contacts among business- 
men, meetings between scientists and public 
figures, concert tours, various exhibitions, 
and tourist trips have become customary 
events. Parliamentary ties are beginning to 
develop. 

We have been glad to welcome in the 
U.S.S.R. Senators and Congressmen belong- 
ing to the two biggest parties of the United 
States, and a delegation of the U.S.S.R. Su- 
preme Soviet recently visited America. 

The material foundation of our good rela- 
tions is becoming stronger as well. The 
volume of trade has increased several times 



* General Secretary Brezhnev spoke in Russian. 



over during the last two years, and several 
important long-term contracts have been 
signed. 

At the same time, we all know that much 
remains to be done here both in the sense 
of making economic ties more balanced and 
stable and in the sense of clearly establish- 
ing the principles of equality and respect 
for each other's interests in this area of 
relations. Credit is certainly due to those 
farsighted members of the business com- 
munity of the United States who correctly 
understood the mutually advantageous na- 
ture of the development of economic ties 
between our countries and their importance 
for both our peoples and who actively sup- 
port their government's line in this matter. 
The biggest contribution, however, which 
we, Soviet and U.S. statesmen of the seven- 
ties of the 20th century, can make to the 
cause of greater well-being and happiness 
for our peoples and for all mankind is un- 
doubtedly the reduction and subsequently the 
complete removal of the possibility of war 
between our two states. 

To insure stable peace between the 
U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. is the chief task 
in the development of Soviet-American re- 
lations, and the leaders of both countries 
are continuing to devote unflagging attention 
to its solution. For all the useful things 
that we can achieve in this direction, future 
generations will remember us with kind 
words. 

If we fail to solve this task, however, all 
other achievements in the development of 
mutual relations may lose their significance. 
The new Soviet-American summit meet- 
ing, as it is usually called, is a new step 
in the great endeavor which we jointly ini- 
tiated with you, Mr. President, two years 
ago and which we resolutely intend to pur- 
sue, for it meets the fundamental interest 
of the peoples of the two countries and the 
interests of world peace. 

Experience shows that progress along this 
path requires effort — sometimes quite a bit 
of it. The relaxation of tension in Soviet- 
American relations, as in international rela- 



174 



Department of State Bulletin 



tions generally, comes up against rather ac- 
tive resistance. There is no need for me 
to dwell on this subject, since our American 
guests know better and in more detail than 
we about those who oppose international 
detente, who favor whipping up the arms 
race and returning to the methods and pro- 
cedures of the cold war. 

I just want to express my firm conviction 
that the policy of such individuals — whether 
they themselves know it or not — has nothing 
in common with the interests of the people. 
It is a policy that attests most likely to the 
unwillingness or inability of its proponents 
to take a sober look at the realities of the 
present-day world. 

We are confident, however, that the peo- 
ple also will support those who seek to as- 
sure their peaceful future and a tranquil 
life for millions of people, not those who 
sow enmity and distrust. That is why we 
believe that the good results it has proved 
possible to achieve in Soviet-American rela- 
tions in the last two years shall not be 
erased, pr.rticularly since their improvement 
has already justified itself and has in many 
respects given practical proof of its useful- 
ness for both sides and for the world as 
a whole. 

Today the task, as we see it, is to con- 
solidate the successes already achieved and 
to advance further along the main road 
that we have jointly chosen to follow. The 
third round of Soviet-American summit talks 
has begun. We shall be discussing both the 
further development of bilateral relations 
and a number of international problems. 

Although we have different viewpoints on 
several matters, we shall seek — and I feel 
not unsuccessfully — agreed ways toward the 
further consolidation of peace and mutually 
advantageous cooperation. I believe it can 
definitely be said that our talks will proceed 
in a businesslike and constructive spirit. We, 
for our part, express the hope that this 
time, as well, our meeting will be as fruit- 
ful as the preceding meetings in Moscow 
and Washington. 

Esteemed Mr. President, I do hope that 



you and Mrs. Nixon feel well on Moscow 
soil in the Kremlin residence with which you 
are already familiar. Soon you will be see- 
ing the southern coast of the Crimea where, 
on the Black Sea shores, hundreds of thou- 
sands and even millions of our country's 
workers, farmers, and ofiice employees an- 
nually spend their vacations at health re- 
sorts. I do hope you like the Crimea. We 
certainly love it. 

For my part, I shall be glad to recipro- 
cate to some extent the hospitality that 
was accorded to us last summer on the Pa- 
cific coast in San Clemente. I trust that in 
the Crimea there will be no less comfortable 
conditions for quiet and productive discus- 
sions. 

I also hope that the visit to the Hero City 
of Minsk, the capital of Soviet Byelorussia, 
will also be interesting for you, Mr. Presi- 
dent. This title of honor has been conferred 
upon the Byelorussian capital for its out- 
standing feat of arms in the years of our 
joint struggle against the Hitlerite aggres- 
sors. 

Of course we would have liked you to 
see more of the Soviet Union and to travel 
around our country, but since you have 
not been able to make your visit a longer one, 
I should like to express the wish that it 
should prove to be at least as useful and 
pleasant as po.ssible. 

May I propose a toast to the health of 
the President of the United States, Mr. 
Richard Nixon, and Mrs. Nixon. To the 
health of all the American guests present 
in this hall. To peace and friendship be- 
tween the peoples of the Soviet Union and 
the United States of America. To lasting 
peace all over the world. 

Toast by President Nixon 

Mr. General Secretary Brezhnev, Presi- 
dent Podgorny, Premier Kosygin, all dis- 
tinguished guests: To you, Mr. General Sec- 
retary, on behalf of all of your American 
guests, I express our grateful appreciation 
for not only the hospitality you have ex- 



July 29, 1974 



175 



tended to us tonight but for the very gener- 
ous words of friendship you have just 
spoken. 

And I am very gratified that I shall have 
the opportunity to see more of your great 
country on this visit, and I trust that on 
your next visit to the United States, next 
year, you will be able to see more of our 
country as well. 

All of us gathered here tonight are for- 
tunate to be present at a moment of great 
historical significance. Two years ago, in 
this place, we began the process which has 
resulted in a profound change in the rela- 
tions between the two strongest nations in 
the world. 

We have moved in those two years from 
confrontation to coexistence to cooperation. 
And while — as the General Secretary has 
correctly pointed out — we have many prob- 
lems yet to negotiate on, the success of 
our negotiations to date gives a good indica- 
tion of the progress we can and will make in 
this third summit meeting. 

To see the extent of the progress that 
has been made, we can point to the fact that 
over the past two years more agreements 
have been negotiated and signed between 
our two countries — in those two years — than 
in the entire history of the relations of our 
two countries up to that period. 

And it is significant to note the charac- 
ter of those agreements. In part, they have 
dealt with the concern that both of our na- 
tions have with regard to the need to avoid 
war. And motivated by that desire — the 
desire to avoid war — we have begun the 
process of limiting nuclear arms. 

And in 1973, we negotiated and signed the 
historic agreement with regard to the pre- 
vention of nuclear war. But that is only 
one side of the equation as far as our agree- 
ments are concerned. We both seek peace, 
but we seek peace that is more than simply 
the absence of war. We seek peace because 
of the positive progress it can bring to both 
of our peoples. 

And that is why we have negotiated a 
number of agreements in the areas of peace- 
ful progress. They are too numerous to men- 
tion, but they cover all fields of human en- 



deavor — health, science, the environment, 
the peaceful exploration of space, agricul- 
ture. Many others could be added, but to- 
gether, what they mean is that both our 
great peoples now have a stake in peace 
from a positive standpoint. 

We must still do everything we can to 
negotiate those agreements that will lessen 
the burden of armaments and reduce the 
danger of war. But we must go further and 
add to this and to give to every individual 
in each of our countries a positive stake in 
peace. Becaues it is in this way that two peo- 
ples with diff"erent systems of government 
can establish relationships that will not be 
broken in the future, and it is also, I think, 
very worthwhile to note how these agree- 
ments were negotiated. 

They were possible because of a personal 
relationship that was established between 
the General Secretary and the President of 
the United States. And that personal rela- 
tionship extends to the top officials in both 
of our governments. 

It has been said that any agreement is 
only as good as the will of the parties to 
keep it. Because of our personal relation- 
ship, there is no question about our will to 
keep these agreements and to make more 
where they are in our mutual interests. 

And also, we both can say that this new 
relationship between our two nations is over- 
whelmingly supported by the people of the 
Soviet Union and overwhelmingly supported 
by the people of the United States. 

And now, looking to the future, we wonder 
how history will judge the leaders of these 
two nations and their people during this 
period. Too often in the past, history has 
judged those nations to be great which were 
engaged in aggressive war and in conquest. 
But what we are doing is establishing a 
record where the two strongest nations in 
the world and their leaders will seek great- 
ness not by what they might accomplish in 
war but greatness by what they accomplish 
in the works of peace. 

And without the cooperation of these two 
strongest nations in the world, the coopera- 
tion of both their leaders and their people, 
there can be no lasting peace in the world. 



176 



Department of State Bulletin 



And consequently we believe that these meet- 
ings that we have had and those that we will 
have in the future will lead to our meeting 
the challenge of history for a strong nation 
to be remembered as a peacemaking nation 
rather than as a warmaking nation. 

Let this be our legacy for the generations 
ahead. And that is why I say that we should 
raise our glasses to our host, the General 
Secretary, and his colleagues, to peace be- 
tween the Soviet Union and the United States 
of America, and to peace for all peoples in 
the world, the peace to which the relations 
between our two nations can make such 
an enormous contribution. 



LUNCHEON HONORING PRESIDENT NIXON, 
MINSK, JULY 1 

white House press i-elease (Minsk) dated July 1 

Toast by Fedor A. Surganov '' 

Esteemed Mr. President, esteemed Mrs. 
Nixon, ladies and gentlemen, comrades : Per- 
mit me on behalf of the Presidium of the 
Supreme Soviet and the Government of the 
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic to 
welcome you, Mr. President, in the capital 
of our Republic. 

We hope that your stay on Byelorussian 
soil will be pleasant and that it will give 
you an opportunity to get some idea about 
our people and their life, about their history 
and present-day successes. 

Your visit to the Byelorussian Republic 
is coinciding with the celebration of a date 
that is very dear to us, the 30th anniversary 
of the liberation of Byelorussia from the 
German Fascist invaders, and today we re- 
call the grim days when the peoples of the 
Soviet Union and of the other countries of 
the anti-Hitler coalition fought courageously 
against the common foe, nationalism, which 
threatened the freedom of the peoples and 
indeed civilization itself. 

The Byelorussian people are well aware 
and remember what war means, and they 



■^ Mr. Surganov, who is Chairman of the Presidium 
of the Supreme Soviet of the Byelorussian Soviet 
Socialist Republic, spoke in Russian. 



cherish the benefits of peace and creative 
efiort. 

Every fourth citizen of this Republic per- 
i.shed in the heroic struggle against fascism, 
about nine and one-half thousand towns and 
villages were de.stroyed, and our capital, 
Minsk, was almost totally devastated, about 
3 million people remaining homeless. 

In the past 30 years, thanks to the self- 
less labor of our people and the paternal as- 
sistance of all the peoples of the Soviet 
Union, we have not only rehabilitated the 
war-ravaged economy but have also achieved 
significant new successes in economics and 
in the development of culture, science, and 
health and in raising the living .standards 
of the people. 

Like other towns and cities in this Re- 
public, the Hero City of Minsk has been 
reborn out of ruins and is today vigorously 
developing. Having defended their freedom 
and independence, the Soviet people, engaged 
in peaceful creative labor, are vitally inter- 
ested in preventing war and in strengthening 
international peace and security. 

And that is why they wholeheartedly wel- 
come the favorable changes that are taking 
place in the international arena and the car- 
dinal turn that has become discernible of 
late in relationships between the United 
States and the Soviet Union. 

The constructive development of Soviet- 
American relations, in our firm conviction, 
meets the interests not only of the Soviet 
and American peoples but also the interests 
of the peaceful future of all mankind. The 
joint desire of the peoples of the Soviet 
Union and of the United States to live at 
peace with one another has already found 
its practical embodiment in concrete deeds 
which have been registered in a series of 
joint documents, and this has indeed become 
an important factor of international rela- 
tions. 

Your new visit to the Soviet Union, Mr. 
President, and your new meetings and dis- 
cussions with the General Secretary of the 
Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union, Comrade Leonid Brezh- 
nev, and with other Soviet leaders, are re- 
garded by the Byelorussian people, as they 



July 29, 1974 



177 



are by all the peace-loving people, as a new 
and important landmark in Soviet-American 
relations and as the further concrete em- 
bodiment of the line aimed at insuring peace 
and establishing in international practices 
the principles of peaceful coexistence and 
mutually advantageous and equal coopera- 
tion of states. 

We are confident that this is the line of 
the future, regardless of all the efforts made 
by the forces of the past to reverse the proc- 
ess of international detente. 

Permit me to propose a toast to the health 
of the President of the United States of 
America and Mrs. Nixon, to the health of 
all the members of the President's party, to 
peace and cooperation between the Soviet 
and American peoples, and to the consolida- 
tion of peace and international security. 

Toost by Presidenf Nixon 

Mr. President of the Republic, Mr. Chair- 
man of the Council of Ministers, and Mr. 
Secretary of the Party : And for those Amer- 
icans who are here, that translated in terms 
of Byelorussian means Mr. Podgorny, Mr. 
Brezhnev, and Mr. Kosygin. [Laughter.] On 
behalf of all our American guests, I wish 
to express our appreciation for this beautiful 
luncheon. And I want all of you to know 
that when the General Secretary, Mr. Brezh- 
nev, picked the city and the Republic in 
which we would come, I now know why he 
picked Minsk. 

I thought first it might be because Minsk 
and Byelorussia is famous the world over 
for a tiny girl, a pretty girl, Olga Korbut. 
[Laughter.] But I have found in my con- 
versations with my friends from the right 
and left seated here that not only are the 
women of Byelorussia beautiful but they are 
strong and courageous. 

It is difficult to know the meaning of war 
until one has an opportunity to come in 
contact with it on an individual basis. And 
I find that both the Secretary on my right 
and the President on my left have come 
into contact with war as fighters in the 
war, but also who know war because they 



have close relatives and, in their case, their 
own mothers who were killed in the war. 

And the question is why has this city been 
designated a hero city for the Soviet Union? 
First, because it suffered so much, along 
with the whole Republic of Byelorussia. 
Second, because not only the men but the 
women fought and were courageous through- 
out the war. And third, despite the long 
years of occupation, the city and the Re- 
public has come back, until now it is on 
the way to its greatest years in the period 
ahead. 

And so, this is truly a hero city and a hero 
Republic. And I think General Secretary 
Brezhnev wanted Mrs. Nixon and me to 
visit this city in order to help you celebrate 
this great day in which you complete 30 
years since liberation. 

How do we best celebrate such a day? 
With a magnificent luncheon like this, with 
fine food, good wines, and good company, by 
a parade yesterday and by visits to memo- 
rials that we will be privileged to make later 
in the afternoon. 

But the best way to celebrate a day which 
marks the ending of a war is to build peace. 
And the greatest and best memorial that 
we can build to the one-fourth of all the 
citizens of this Republic who were killed in 
World War II is to build a structure of peace 
so that their children and grandchildren will 
not die in another war. 

As I saw these fine-looking young men 
who served us, this thought crossed my 
mind: What we who served in World War 
II have on our hands is the responsibility 
of determining whether these young men will 
grow up in a period of peace or whether they, 
too, will have to go through the horrors of 
war, and I can assure you that in our first 
two meetings — the first in Moscow, the next 
in Washington and other parts of the United 
States — and the third here in the Soviet 
Union, that the General Secretary and his 
colleagues and the members of our party 
have been devoting our full time toward the 
great goal to see to it that the two strongest 
peoples and the two strongest nations in the 
world will not devote their efforts and waste 



178 



Department of State Bulletin 



their young men in war but will work to- 
gether for peace between themselves and for 
all people in the world. 

And it is very appropriate that in this 
city and in this Republic that has known 
war for so many centuries that today we 
speak in terms of peace and friendship for 
all people. 

May Minsk in the future not be remem- 
bered simply where virtually every genera- 
tion a battle is fought, but as a great city 
which contributed to prosperity and peace 
for all the people in this Republic. 

So, therefore, I will propose that we rai.se 
our glasses to our hosts, the President, the 
Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the 
Secretary of the Party, to the Hero City of 
Minsk, to all of those brave men and women 
who died and suffered during World War II 
and to the new generation which will grow 
up in peace because of what we are able 
to do. 



PRESIDENT NIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE 
OF THE SOVIET UNION, JULY 2 ' 

Dohryy vecher. [Good evening.] Two years 
ago, at the first of these summit meetings, 
your government gave me the opportunity 
to speak directly with you, the people of 
the Soviet Union. Last year, at our second 
meeting, General Secretary Brezhnev spoke 
on radio and television to the people of the 
United States. And now, tonight, I appre- 
ciate this opportunity to continue what has 
become a tradition, a part of our annual 
meetings. 

In these past two years there has been a 
dramatic change in the nature of the rela- 
tionship between our two countries. After a 
long period of confrontation, we moved to 
an era of negotiation, and now we are learn- 
ing cooperation. We are learning to coop- 
erate not only in lessening the danger of 
war but in advancing the work of peace. 



" Broadcast on television and radio from the Krem- 
lin: broadcast to the United States via satellite 
(text from White House press release, Moscow). 



We are thereby helping to create not only 
a safer but also a better life for the people 
of both of our countries. By reflecting on 
how far we have advanced, we can better 
appreciate how strong a foundation we have 
laid for even greater progress in the future. 

At our first summit meeting two years 
ago, we signed the first agreement ever 
negotiated for the limitation of strategic 
nuclear arms. This was a historic milestone 
on the road to a lasting peace and to man- 
kind's control over the forces of his own 
destruction. 

We have many difficulties yet to be over- 
come in achieving full control over strategic 
nuclear arms. But each step carries us 
closer and builds confidence in the process 
of negotiation itself. 

Our progress in the limitation of arms 
has been vitally important. But it has not 
been the only product of our work at the 
summit. We have also been steadily building 
a new relationship that over time will reduce 
the causes of conflict. 

In the basic principles for our mutual re- 
lations, agreed to in Moscow in 1972, and 
in the agreement on prevention of nuclear 
war signed last year in Washington, we have 
establi-shed standards to guide our actions 
toward each other in international aff'airs 
generally so that the danger of war will 
be reduced and the possibility of dangerous 
confrontations will be lessened. 

What is particularly significant is that our 
negotiations have been far wider than the 
reduction of arms and the prevention of 
wars and crises. The pattern of agreements 
reached between us has opened new avenues 
of cooperation across the whole range of 
peaceful relations. 

For example, we are working together in 
programs which will bring better health, 
better housing, a better environment, as well 
as in many other fields. Trade between our 
two countries totaled a record $1.4 billion 
in 1973. That is more than twice the level 
of the previous year. This means more goods 
and a greater choice available for the people 
of both of our countries. 

It was exactly 15 years ago next month, 



July 29, 1974 



179 



when I was here in Moscow as Vice Presi- 
dent, that I first spoke to the people of the 
Soviet Union on radio and television. In that 
speech I said: 

Let our aim be not victory over other peoples 
but the victory of all mankind over hunger, want, 
misery, and disease, wherever it exists in the world. 

The agreements we have reached at these 
summit meetings on health, for example, 
including this year's agreement on artificial 
heart research, will help us toward that great 
victory. At the same time, they will give 
the people of both of our countries a posi- 
tive stake in peace. 

This is crucially important. Traditionally, 
when peace has been maintained, it has been 
maintained primarily because of the fear of 
war. Negotiators have been spurred in their 
efforts either by the desire to end a war or 
by the fear that their failure would begin 
a war. 

The peace we seek now to build is a 
permanent peace. And nothing permanent 
can be built on fear alone. By giving both 
of our nations a positive stake in peace — by 
giving both of our peoples hope, something 
to look forward to as the results of peace — 
we create a more solid framework on which 
a lasting structure of peace can be built 
and on which it then can stand strong 
through the years. 

The peace we seek to build is one that is 
far more than simply the absence of war. 
We seek a peace in which each man, woman, 
and child can look forward to a richer and 
a fuller life. This is what the people of 
the Soviet Union want. This is what the 
people of America want. And this is what 
the people of all nations want. 

Our two nations are great nations. They 
are strong nations, the two strongest nations 
in the world. 

Too often in the past, the greatness of 
a nation has been measured primarily in 
terms of its success in war. The time has 
come to set a new standard for the measure 
of greatness of a nation. Let our measure 
of greatness be not by the way we use our 
strength for war and destruction, but how 
we work together for peace and for progress 



for ourselves and for all mankind. 

Let us recognize that to be great, a strong 
nation need not impose its will on weaker na- 
tions. A great nation will establish its place 
in history by the example it sets, by the 
purposes for which its power is used, by the 
respect that it shows for the rights of others, 
by the contribution it makes toward building 
a new world in which the weak will be as 
safe as the strong. 

In these meetings, we have been seeking 
to insure that the power of both of our na- 
tions will be used not for war and destruc- 
tion but, rather, for peace and for progress. 

Our two nations will continue to have dif- 
ferences. We have different systems, and 
in many respects we have different values. 
Inevitably our interests will not always be 
in accord. But the important thing is that 
we are learning to negotiate where we have 
differences, to narrow them where possible, 
and to move ahead together in an expanding 
field of mutual interests. 

One of the most important aspects of our 
developing new relationship might be stated 
this way: Just as a cloth is stronger than 
the threads from which it is made, so the 
network of agreements we have been weav- 
ing is greater than the sum of its parts. 
With these agreements we have been creat- 
ing a pattern of interrelationships, of habits 
of cooperation and arrangements for consul- 
tation — all of which interact with one an- 
other to strengthen the fabric of the new 
relationship. Thus, each new agreement is 
important not only for itself but also for 
the added strength and stability it brings 
to our relations overall. 

We have been weaving this fabric of co- 
operation not just because we are idealistic 
about peace — and we are — but because we 
are practical about peace. The words of the 
agreements we sign are important. Even 
more important is how we carry them out 
in practice — how we translate the ideal of 
peaceful cooperation into the practice of 
peaceful cooperation. In this growing net- 
work of agreements, of exchanges, of pat- 
terns of cooperation, we are demonstrating 
not just the ideal of peace but the practice of 
peace. 



180 



Department of State Bulletin 



In the course of many years I have visited 
memorials to the dead of many wars, in 
many countries. Yesterday, I laid a wreath 
at one of the most moving memorials I have 
ever seen — the Khatyn Memorial, outside 
Minsk. A huge bronze statue of Joseph 
Kaminsky, the village blacksmith, carrying 
his 15-year-old dead son in his arms, stands 
today above the graves of what was the 
village of Khatyn. 

Chimneys stand where the houses were, 
with a memorial bell in each chimney tolling 
for the dead, not only for Khatyn but also 
for the hundreds of other villages that were 
destroyed and the millions of others who 
died — a stark reminder to all nations, and 
for all time, of the terrible cost of war. 

As I laid the wreath, I thought of the 
people of Khatyn, and I thought especially 
of the children of Khatyn. I reflected on the 
fact that our efforts now must be directed 
not against any one nation or group of 
nations but against the evil of war itself. 

And I also thought of the living memorial 
that we today must build — the living memo- 
rial of a lasting peace, so that the children 
of those who sacrificed in war, and their 
children's children, can be spared the tra- 
gedy of Khatyn and can know instead the 
security of a human brotherhood that reaches 
across the boundaries of all nations. 

When we first met at the summit two 
years ago, both sides were venturing into 
the untried waters of something new. And 
we were perhaps a bit uncertain, even ap- 
prehensive, about where it would lead. 

But now we and the leaders of the Soviet 
Union have come to know one another. Each 
of us has a much fuller understanding of the 
policies of the other country, even where 
those policies diff'er. 

Thus we have been able to meet this year, 
as we will meet again next year in the 
United States, not in an atmosphere of crisis 
but, rather, in an atmosphere of confidence — 
confidence that the work we have embarked 
on is going forward. 

In fact it might be said that the most 
remarkable thing about this summit meet- 
ing is that it is taking place so routinely, 
so familiarly — as a part of a continuing 



pattern that would have seemed inconceiv- 
able just a few years ago. 

Peace is not only a condition; if it is to 
last, it mu.st also be a continuing process. 
And these meetings are an example of that 
process in action. 

As allies in World War II, we fought side 
by side in the most terrible war in all human 
history. And together with our allies we 
won the victory. In winning that victory, 
the people of the Soviet Union and the people 
of the United States shared a common hope 
that we also had won a lasting peace. That 
hope was frustrated ; but now we have a 
new opportunity. 

Winning victory in war is difficult. It 
requires extraordinary courage, stamina, and 
dedication from every individual citizen in 
the nation. But in some ways, the building 
of a lasting peace is even more difficult than 
waging war because it is more complex. We 
must bring to the task of building that peace 
the same kind of courage, of stamina, of 
dedication that inspired us in our struggle 
for victory in war. 

And the fact that our task of building 
peace is more complex does not mean that 
we cannot succeed. 

Let me give a striking example which dem- 
onstrates that point. In the whole field of 
modern technology, no mission is more com- 
plex than the mission of sending men into 
space. The joint Soviet-American space mis- 
sion planned for next year, the joint Soyuz- 
Apollo mi-ssion, is in many ways symbolic 
of the new relationship we are building be- 
tween our two nations. 

It is symbolic for several reasons, reasons 
which carry important lessons about that 
new relationship. 

For one thing, the rocket technology de- 
veloped for war is being used for peace. 
And for another, Soviet and American space- 
men starting from their separate countries 
will find their way toward one another and 
join with one another — just as we are doing 
and must continue to do across the whole 
range of our relationship. 

By standardizing their docking techniques 
they will make international rescue missions 
possible in case future space missions en- 



July 29, 1974 



181 



counter trouble in space; thus they will make 
space safer for the astronauts and cosmo- 
nauts of both of our countries — just as our 
new relationship can make life on earth 
safer for the people of both of our countries. 

Finally, and perhaps more important, this 
joint mission — for which our astronauts are 
now here in the Soviet Union training along- 
side your cosmonauts — is being made pos- 
sible by careful planning, by precise engi- 
neering, by a process of working and build- 
ing together step by step to reach a goal 
that we share. And this is the way that 
together we can build a peace, a peace that 
will last. 

One of the greatest of your writers, Leo 
Tolstoy, once told this story. A very old 
man was planting apple trees. He was asked : 
"What are you planting apple trees for? 
It will be a long time before they bear fruit, 
and you will not live to eat a single apple." 
The old man replied, "I will never eat them, 
but others will, and they will thank me." 

Our two nations bear a shared responsi- 
bility toward the entire world. And we, too, 
must plant now so that future generations 
will reap a harvest of peace — a peace in 
which our children can live together as 
brothers and sisters, joining hands across 
the ocean in friendship and ushering in a 
new era in which war is behind us and in 
which together, in peace, we can work to- 
ward a better life for our people and for 
all people. 

Spasibo i do svidaniye. [Thank you and 
goodby.] 



DINNER HONORING SOVIET LEADERS, 
SPASO HOUSE, MOSCOW, JULY 2 

white House press release (Moscow) dated July 2 

Toast by President Nixon 

Mr. General Secretary Brezhnev, Presi- 
dent Podgorny, Prime Minister Kosygin, and 
all of our distinguished guests from the 
Soviet Union and our guests from the United 
States: Mr. General Secretary, it is difficult 



to express in words how much we have ap- 
preciated the hospitality, the boundless hos- 
pitality, you have extended to all of us from 
our American party. And we are honored 
to have you in this house tonight. 

As we look back over the last five days, 
we have many unforgettable memories- — the 
magnificent dinner the first night in the 
Kremlin, the superb performance at the Bol- 
shoi Theater, which in effect allowed us 
through music, through dance, and through 
song to visit virtually all of the Soviet 
Union, and then the first opportunity that 
most of us have had, and certainly the first 
opportunity I have had, to go to the Crimea, 
to Oreanda, and then yesterday the visit to 
Minsk. 

The difficulty with our position at this 
point is that your hospitality has been so 
great we do not know how to equal it when 
you make your next visit to the United States 
just a year from now. But I can assure you 
that you will be received warmly and that 
we expect next year to continue on the path 
of progress which began just two years ago 
on my first visit as President to Moscow 
in 1972. 

Tomorrow we will sign the final docu- 
ments of our meetings. Altogether, with the 
ether documents that we have agreed to, 
they will add up to a very significant prog- 
ress in Soviet-American relations, progress 
toward our common goals of reducing the 
danger of war and increasing the hopes for, 
and actually the products of peace, the ben- 
efits of peace, for all of our people. 

Yesterday, when I visited the famous 
memorial at Minsk, many thoughts went 
through my head. I referred earlier, in the 
television address, to the village blacksmith, 
Kaminsky, holding his dead 15-year-old son 
in his hands. 

I thought of many things — but above all, 
what that young boy whose life was snuff"ed 
out at such an early age might have been 
if he lived. Possibly there was a great sci- 
entist, one who could possibly have composed 
great music or created beautiful works of 
art, or one who in the field of medicine 



182 



Department of State Bulletin 



might have found an answer to the prob- 
lem of cancer or one of the other dread 
diseases which afflict all of mankind. 

And as I think of our work together with 
you and your colleagues, I realize that we 
are working for the future of our children, 
our grandchildren, and for all of those who 
live throughout the world. 

Our goal will not be accomplished in one 
meeting or two or even three. But by con- 
tinuing our close consultation, by continuing 
our meetings, we will make definite progress 
toward our goal of a permanent peace be- 
tween our two nations and for all people. 

None of this would have been possible in 
the past, or will be possible in the future, 
unless it was supported, as it is, by a ma- 
jority of our people. I know from my visit 
to the Soviet Union that your policies are 
supported by the great majority of the So- 
viet people, your policies looking toward the 
reduction of the dangers of war and increas- 
ing the opportunities for peace, and I can 
assure you, Mr. General Secretary, that our 
policies, looking toward closer relations and 
friendship, not only with the Soviet people 
but with the leaders of this government, has 
the support of the great majority of the 
American people. 

And finally, I would say that the progress 
that we have made and will make in the 
future not only was possible and will be pos- 
sible because of the support of our people, 
it is possible and will be possible because 
of the initiative taken by the leaders of 
both countries. 

And all of us who have had the oppor- 
tunity to meet with you and members of 
your government have valued the personal 
relations and the personal friendship that 
has been established by these meetings. And 
whatever our differences, we must recognize 
they could never be solved unless we met 
as friends. 

And so, tonight, in proposing the health 
of the General Secretary, the President, 
President Podgorny, Prime Minister Ko- 
sygin, and to all of our Soviet guests, I 
do so in the spirit of friendship that has 



developed over these past two years. 

We raise our glasses to you because of 
your official capacities, but more important, 
we raise our glasses to you because we are 
friends and because we know that that 
friendship and that personal relationship 
that we have at all levels will continue to- 
ward the lasting peace that the peoples of 
both of our countries want so much. 

And so, to the health of General Secretary 
Brezhnev and all of our other distinguished 
Soviet guests, to friendship between the So- 
viet people and the American people, and 
to peace for all peoples which that friendship 
can help create, I ask all of you to rise and 
raise your glasses. 

Toast by General Secretary Brezhnev ' 

Esteemed Mr. President, esteemed Mrs. 
Nixon, ladies and gentlemen, comrades: 
First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. 
President, for your friendly words and 
wishes addressed to our country and its peo- 
ple. The Soviet people, on their part, enter- 
tain feelings of respect and friendship for 
the American people. We are sure that these 
mutual good feelings will grow and strength- 
en as the relations between our countries 
develop further along the road of peace and 
cooperation. 

Your visit, Mr. President, as well as our 
talks, are drawing to a close. You and we 
already have every reason to say that the 
results of this meeting, like the outcome of 
the two previous ones, can be described as 
constructive and weighty. I am referring 
first of all to the new steps in a field which 
may rightfully be called central in Soviet- 
American relations, the field of lessening 
the risk of war and restraining the arms 
race. 

The signing of several important agree- 
ments and of the joint communique on the 
talks between the leaders of the U.S.S.R. 
and the U.S.A. is still to come. Without 
anticipating the concrete content of those 



' General Secretary Brezhnev spoke in Russian. 



July 29, 1974 



183 



documents, I should just like to stress that 
agreement on such matters as a new, con- 
siderable limitation of the antiballistic mis- 
sile system of the two countries, the agreed 
limitation of underground nuclear tests, new 
efforts aimed at the further limitation of 
strategic offensive arms, and several other 
measures all mean a substantial advance 
along the jointly charted path of consolidat- 
ing peace and mutual confidence. 

This complex could perhaps have been 
still broader, but what has been agreed upon 
this time tangibly strengthens and deepens 
the relaxation of international tension and 
serves the cause of peace throughout the 
world. 

A further progressive development of So- 
viet-American relations is also betokened by 
the agreements on expanding commercial 
and economic and scientific and technological 
cooperation between the U.S.S.R. and the 
U.S.A. signed during our meetings. 

Ahead lie new horizons and new spheres 
of cooperation to the benefit of both our 
great peoples and of peace-loving people in 
the entire world. In large-scale economic 
projects and in the development of new 
sources of energy, on transportation lines, 
in scientists' laboratories, and in architects' 
designing rooms — everywhere new shoots of 
a, fruitful, mutually beneficial cooperation 
between our countries will spring forth in 
the name of peace and a better life for man. 

I trust you will agree with me, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that these days have once more con- 
vincingly proved the significance that meet- 
ings at the highest level have for the devel- 
opment of Soviet-American relations in a 
good constructive direction. They facilitate 
the possibility of approaching on a broader 
basis and with due account of the historical 
perspective and the lasting interests of the 
peoples, the solution of many problems, in- 
cluding the most difficult and complicated 
ones, and they give an impetus to all the 
links of state machinery and to the repre- 
sentatives of both sides at different levels. 

In this connection, I feel we should express 
our gratitude to all the officials of our diplo- 
matic, foreign trade, and other departments, 



agencies, and organizations who on the in- 
structions of their superiors took part in 
the great and painstaking work to prepare 
this meeting and the appropriate agree- 
ments. 

I would like to say a few words more 
about our talks on international problems. 
As during our previous meetings with Pi'es- 
ident Nixon, they were thorough, quite 
frank, and useful. Given all the differences 
of views and positions of our two countries 
on a number of specific questions, both the 
Soviet and, evidently, the American partici- 
pants in the talks have treated and continue 
to treat as a matter of paramount impor- 
tance joint or parallel efforts by the Soviet 
Union and the United States to strengthen 
universal peace and ci'eate conditions for 
the peaceful cooperation of all states in the 
spirit of the well-known principles of peace- 
ful coexistence and the provisions of the 
U.N. Charter. 

The last two years have already shown 
the useful influence that the improvement 
of Soviet-American relations may have in 
this sense. It has certainly played a posi- 
tive role in ending the war in Viet-Nam and 
in creating conditions for certain progress 
toward a peaceful settlement in the Middle 
East and in convening the European con- 
ference. 

Now the task, as we see it, is successfully 
to complete what has been started and to 
insure that the development of Soviet-Amei'i- 
can relations continues to be beneficial for 
universal peace and for the security of na- 
tions. 

I feel it will be no exaggeration to say 
that the political results of our talks will 
be a new confirmation of the determination 
of both sides to go on developing and deep- 
ening ties and cooperation between our two 
countries in many fields and to act on the 
international scene in favor of detente and 
peace. This is exactly what we expected 
from the talks, and that is why we express 
our satisfaction with their results. 

We appreciate the contribution that you 
have made, Mr. President, to the achieve- 
ment of these results, and we wish you and 



184 



Department of State Bulletin 



the entire administration and the Congress 
of the United States every success in giv- 
ing effect to the good initiatives of peace, 
growing mutual confidence, and useful co- 
operation embodied in the documents signed 
in the days of this meeting, as well as in 
those Soviet-American documents that were 
signed last year and the year before last. 

You may rest assured that the leadership 
of the Soviet Union, fully supported by the 
entire Soviet people, will do all in their 
power in this direction. We are glad, Mr. 
President, that Mrs. Nixon and you have 
returned from your trip to the Crimea and 
to Byelorussia with good impressions. 

For my part, I want to say that I remem- 
ber with gratification my stay in the United 
States last summer, and I thank you, Mr. 
President, for the invitation to pay a new 
visit to the United States next year. 

Availing myself of this occasion, I wish to 
congratulate you, Mr. President, on the com- 
ing national day of the United States, In- 
dependence Day, and to wish the American 
people peace, happiness, and well-being. 

I propose a toast to the health of the 
President of the United States of America, 
Richard Nixon, and Mrs. Nixon, to the fur- 
ther development of relations of friendship 
and cooperation between the Soviet and 
American peoples, to a lasting peace between 
all people. 



STATEMENT ON DANGERS OF MILITARY USE 
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION, JULY 3 

Joint Statement 

The United States of America and the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics: 

Desiring to limit the potential danger to mankind 
from possible new means of warfare; 

Taking into consideration that scientific and tech- 
nical advances in environmental fields, including 
climate modification, may open possibilities for using 
environmental modification techniques for military 
purposes; 

Recognizing that such use could have widespread, 
longlasting, and severe effects harmful to human 
welfare; 

Recognizing also that proper utilization of sci- 
entific and technical advances could improve the 
inter- relationship of man and nature; 



1. Advocate the most effective measures possible 
to overcome the dangers of the use of environmental 
modification techniques for military purposes. 

2. Have decided to hold a meeting of United 
States and Soviet representatives this year for the 
purpose of exploring this problem. 

3. Have decided to discuss also what steps might 
be taken to bring about the measures referred to 
in paragraph 1. 



For the United States 
of America : 

Richard Nixon 

The President of the 

United States of 

America 



Moscow, July .3, 1974 

For the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics: 

L. Brezhnev 

General Secretary of the 

Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



TEXT OF JOINT COMMUNIQUE, JULY 3 

Joint US-Soviet Communique 

In accordance with the agreement to hold regular 
US-Soviet meetings at the highest level and at the 
invitation, extended during the visit of General 
Secretary of the Central Committee of the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union L. I. Brezhnev 
to the USA in June 1973, the President of the 
United States of America and Mrs. Richard Nixon 
paid an official visit to the Soviet Union from June 
27 to July 3, 1974. 

During his stay President Nixon visited, in ad- 
dition to Moscow, Minsk and the Southern Coast 
of the Crimea. 

The President of the United States and the Soviet 
leaders held a thorough and useful exchange of 
views on major aspects of relations between the 
USA and the USSR and on the present international 
situation. 

On the Soviet side the talks were conducted by 
L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central 
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union; N. V. Podgomy, Chairman of the Presidium 
of the USSR Supreme Soviet; A. N. Kosygin, Chair- 
man of the USSR Council of Ministers; and A. A. 
Gromyko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. 

Accompanying the President of the USA and 
participating in the talks was Dr. Henry A. Kis- 
singer, US Secretary of State and Assistant to the 
President for National Security Affairs. 

Also taking part in the talks were: 

On the .American Side: Walter J. Stoessel, Jr., 
American Ambassador to the USSR; General Alex- 
ander M. Haig, Jr., Assistant to the President; Mr. 
Ronald L. Ziegler, Assistant to the President and 
Press Secretary; Major General Brent Scowcroft, 
Deputy Assistant to the President for National 
Security Affairs; Mr. Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Counselor 



July 29, 1974 



185 



of the Department of State; and Mr. Arthur A. 
Hartman, Assistant Secretary of State for European 
Affairs. 

On the Soviet Side: A. F. Dobrynin, Soviet Am- 
bassador to the USA; A. M. Aleksandrov, Assistant 
to the General Secretary of the Central Committee, 
CPSU; L. M. Zamyatin, Director General of TASS; 
and G. M. Korniyenko, Member of the Collegium 
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. 

The talks were held in a most businesslike and 
constructive atmosphere and were marked by a 
mutual desire of both Sides to continue to strengthen 
understanding, confidence and peaceful cooperation 
between them and to contribute to the strengthening 
of international security and world peace. 

I. Progress in Improving US-Soviet Relations 

Having considered in detail the development of 
relations between the USA and the USSR since 
the US-Soviet summit meeting in May 1972, both 
Sides noted with satisfaction that through their 
vigorous joint efforts they have brought about over 
this short period a fundamental turn toward peace- 
ful relations and broad, mutually beneficial coopera- 
tion in the interests of the peoples of both countries 
and of all mankind. 

They emphasized the special importance for the 
favorable development of relations between the USA 
and the USSR of meetings of their leaders at the 
highest level, which are becoming established prac- 
tice. These meetings provide opportunities for ef- 
fective and responsible discussion, for the solution 
of fundamental and important bilateral questions, 
and for mutual contributions to the settlement of 
international problems affecting the interests of 
both countries. 

Both Sides welcome the establishment of official 
contacts between the Congress of the US and the 
Supreme Soviet of the USSR. They will encourage 
a further development of such contacts, believing 
that they can play an important role. 

Both Sides confirmed their mutual determination 
to continue actively to reshape US-Soviet relations 
on the basis of peaceful coexistence and equal se- 
curity, in strict conformity with the spirit and the 
letter of the agreements achieved between the two 
countries and their obligations under those agree- 
ments. In this connection they noted once again 
the fundamental importance of the joint documents 
adopted as a result of the summit meetings in 
1972 and 1973, especially of the Basic Principles 
of Relations Between the USA and the USSR, the 
Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, the 
Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Systems, and the Interim Agreement on Certain 
Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strate- 
gic Offensive Arms. 

Both Sides are deeply convinced of the impera- 
tive necessity of making the process of improving 
US-Soviet relations irreversible. They believe that. 



as a result of their efforts, a real possibility has 
been created to achieve this goal. This will open 
new vistas for broad mutually beneficial coopera- 
tion, and for strengthening friendship between the 
American and Soviet peoples, and will thus con- 
tribute to the solution of many urgent problems 
facing the world. 

Guided by these worthy goals, both Sides decided 
to continue steadfastly to apply their joint efforts 
— in cooperation with other countries concerned, as 
appropriate — first of all in such important fields as: 

— removing the danger of war, including particu- 
larly war involving nuclear and other mass-destruc- 
tion weapons; 

— limiting and eventually ending the arms race 
especially in strategic weapons, having in mind as 
the ultimate objective the achievement of general 
and complete disarmament under appropriate inter- 
national control; 

— contributing to the elimination of sources of 
international tension and military conflict; 

— strengthening and extending the process of re- 
laxation of tensions throughout the world; 

— developing broad, mutually beneficial coopera- 
tion in commercial and economic, scientific-technical 
and cultural fields on the basis of the principles of 
sovereignty, equality and non-interference in in- 
ternal affairs with a view to promoting increased 
understanding and confidence between the peoples 
of both countries. 

Accordingly, in the course of this summit meet- 
ing both Sides considered it possible to take new 
constructive steps which, they believe, will not only 
advance further the development of US-Soviet rela- 
tions but will also make a substantial contribution 
to strengthening world peace and expanding inter- 
national cooperation. 

II. Further Limitation of Strategic Arms and 
Other Disarmament Issues 

Both Sides again carefully analyzed the entire 
range of their mutual relations connected with the 
prevention of nuclear war and limitation of strategic 
armaments. They arrived at the common view that 
the fundamental agreements concluded between them 
in this sphere continue to be effective instruments 
of the general improvement of US-Soviet relations 
and the international situation as a whole. The 
USA and the USSR will continue strictly to fulfill 
the obligations undertaken in those agreements. 

In the course of the talks, the two Sides had a 
thorough review of all aspects of the problem of 
limitation of strategic arms. They concluded that 
the Interim Agreement on offensive strategic weap- 
ons should be followed by a new agreement between 
the United States and the Soviet Union on the 
limitation of strategic arms. They agreed that such 
an agreement should cover the period until 1985 
and deal with both quantitative and qualitative limi- 



186 



Department of State Bulletin 



tations. They agreed that such an agreement should 
be completed at the earliest possible date, before 
the expiration of the Interim Agreement, 

They hold the common view that such a new 
agreement would ser\'e not only the interests of 
the United States and the Soviet Union but also 
those of a further relaxation of international ten- 
sions and of world peace. 

Their delegations will reconvene in Geneva in 
the immediate future on the basis of instructions 
growing out of the summit. 

Taking into consideration the interrelationship be- 
tween the development of offensive and defensive 
types of strategic arms and noting the successful 
implementation of the Treaty on the Limitation of 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems concluded between 
them in May 1972, both Sides considered it de- 
sirable to adopt additional limitations on the de- 
ployment of such systems. To that end they con- 
cluded a protocol providing for the limitation of 
each Side to a single deployment area for ABM 
Systems instead of two such areas as permitted to 
each Side by the Treaty. 

.\t the same time, two protocols were signed en- 
titled "Procedures Governing Replacement, Disman- 
tling or Destruction and Notification Thereof, for 
Strategic Offensive Arms" and "Procedures Govern- 
ing Replacement, Dismantling or Destruction, and 
Notification Thereof for ABM Systems and Their 
Components." These protocols were worked out by 
the Standing Consultative Commission which was 
established to promote the objectives and imple- 
mentation of the provisions of the Treaty and the 
Interim Agreement signed on May 26, 1972. 

The two Sides emphasized the serious importance 
which the US and USSR also attach to the realiza- 
tion of other possible measures — both on a bilateral 
and on a multilateral basis — in the field of arms 
limitation and disarmament. 

Having noted the historic significance of the 
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the At- 
mosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, con- 
cluded in Moscow in 1963, to which the United 
States and the Soviet Union are parties, both Sides 
expressed themselves in favor of making the cessa- 
tion of nuclear weapon tests comprehensive. Desir- 
ing to contribute to the achievement of this goal 
the USA and the USSR concluded, as an important 
step in this direction, the Treaty on the Limitation 
of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests providing 
for the complete cessation, starting from March 31, 
1976, of the tests of such weapons above an ap- 
propriate yield threshold, and for confining other 
underground tests to a minimum. 

The Parties emphasized the fundamental impor- 
tance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
Nuclear Weapons. Having reaffirmed their mutual 
intention to observe the obligations assumed by 
them under that Treaty, including Article VI there- 
of, they expressed themselves in favor of increasing 
its effectiveness. 



\ joint statement was also signed in which the 
US and USSR advocate the most effective measures 
possible to overcome the dangers of the use of 
environmental modification techniques for military 
purposes. 

Both Sides reaffirmed their interest in an effec- 
tive international agreement which would exclude 
from the arsenals of States such dangerous instru- 
ments of mass destruction as chemical weapons. 
Desiring to contribute to early progress in this di- 
rection, the USA and the USSR agreed to consider 
a joint initiative in the Conference of the Commit- 
tee on Disarmament with respect to the conclusion, 
as a first step, of an international Convention deal- 
ing with the most dangerous, lethal means of chem- 
ical warfare. 

Both Sides are convinced that the new important 
steps which they have taken and intend to take 
in the field of arms limitation as well as further 
efforts toward disarmament will facilitate the relax- 
ation of international tensions and constitute a 
tangible contribution to the fulfillment of the his- 
toric task of excluding war from the life of human 
society and thereby of ensuring world peace. The 
US and the USSR reaffirmed that a world disarma- 
ment conference at an appropriate time can play a 
positive role in this process. 

III. Progress in the Settlement of International 
Problems 

In the course of the meeting detailed discussions 
were held on major international problems. 

Both Sides expressed satisfaction that relaxation 
of tensions, consolidation of peace, and development 
of mutually beneficial cooperation are becoming in- 
creasingly distinct characteristics of the develop- 
ment of the international situation. They proceed 
from the assumption that progress in improving the 
international situation does not occur spontaneously 
but requires active and purposeful efforts to over- 
come obstacles and resolve difficulties that remain 
from the past. 

The paramount objectives of all states and peoples 
should be to ensure, individually and collectively, 
lasting security in all parts of the world, the early 
and complete removal of existing international con- 
flicts and sources of tension and the prevention of 
new ones from arising. 

The United States and the Soviet Union are in 
favor of the broad and fruitful economic coopera- 
tion among all states, large and small, on the basis 
of full equality and mutual benefit. 

The United States and the Soviet Union reaffirm 
their determination to contribute separately and 
jointly to the achievement of all these tasks. 

Europe 

Having discussed the development of the situa- 
tion in Europe since the last American-Soviet sum- 
mit meeting, both Sides noted with profound satis- 



July 29, 1974 



187 



faction the further appreciable advances toward 
establishing dependable relations of peace, good- 
neighborliness and cooperation on the European con- 
tinent. 

Both Sides welcome the major contribution which 
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe is making to this beneficial process. They 
consider that substantial progress has already been 
achieved at the Conference on many significant 
questions. They believe that this progress indicates 
that the present stage of the Conference will pro- 
duce agreed documents of great international sig- 
nificance expressing the determination of the partic- 
ipating states to build their mutual relations on a 
solid jointly elaborated basis. The US and USSR 
will make every effort, in cooperation with the other 
participants, to find solutions acceptable to all for 
the remaining problems. 

Both Sides e.xpressed their conviction that success- 
ful completion of the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe would be an outstanding 
event in the interests of establishing a lasting peace. 
Proceeding from this assumption the US.A. and the 
USSR expressed themselves in favor of the final 
stage of the Conference taking place at an early 
date. Both Sides also proceed from the assumption 
that the results of the negotiations will permit the 
Conference to be concluded at the highest level, 
which would correspond to the historic significance 
of the Con^'erence for the future of Europe and lend 
greater authority to the importance of the Con- 
ference's decisions. 

Both Sides reaffirmed the lasting significance for 
a favorable development of the situation in Europe 
of the treaties and agreements concluded in recent 
years between European states with different social 
systems. 

They expressed satisfaction with the admission 
to the United Nations of the Federal Republic of 
Germany and the German Democratic Republic. 

Both Sides also stressed that the Quadripartite 
Agreement of September 3, 1971, must continue to 
play a key role in ensuring stability and detente 
in Europe. The US and USSR consider that the 
strict and consistent implementation of this Agree- 
ment by all parties concerned is an essential condi- 
tion for the maintenance and strengthening of mu- 
tual confidence and stability in the center of Europe. 

The USA and the USSR believe that, in order 
to strengthen stability and security in Europe, the 
relaxation of political tension on this continent 
should be accompanied by measures to reduce mili- 
tary tensions. 

They therefore attach great importance to the 
current negotiations on the mutual reduction of 
forces and armaments and associated measures in 
Central Europe, in which they are participating. 
The two Sides expressed the hope that these nego- 
tiations will result in concrete decisions ensuring 
the undiminished security of any of the parties 
and preventing unilateral military advantages. 



Middle East 

Both Sides believe that the removal of the danger 
of war and tension in the Middle East is a task 
of paramount importance and urgency, and there- 
fore, the only alternative is the achievement, on the 
basis of UN Security Council Resolution 338, of a 
just and lasting peace settlement in which should 
be taken into account the legitimate interests of 
all peoples in the Middle East, including the Pales- 
tinian people, and the right to existence of all 
states in the area. 

As Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Peace Conference 
on the Middle East, the US.\ and the USSR consider 
it important that the Conference resume its work 
as soon as possible, with the question of other 
participants from the Middle East area to be dis- 
cussed at the Conference. Both Sides see the main 
purpose of the Geneva Peace Conference, the 
achievement of which they will promote in every 
way, as the establishment of just and stable peace 
in the Middle East. 

They agreed that the USA and the USSR will 
continue to remain in close touch with a view to 
coordinating the eff'orts of both countries toward 
a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. 

Indochina 

Both Sides noted certain further improvements in 
the situation in Indochina. In the course of the 
exchange of views on the situation in Vietnam both 
Sides emphasized that peace and stability in the 
region can be preserved and strengthened only on 
the basis of strict observance by all parties con- 
cerned of the provisions of the Paris Agreement of 
January 27, 1973, and the Act of the International 
Conference on Vietnam of March 2, 1973. 

As regards Laos, they noted progress in the nor- 
malization of the situation as a result of the forma- 
tion there of coalition governmental bodies. Both 
Sides also pronounced themselves in favor of strict 
fulfillment of the pertinent agreements. 

Both Sides also stressed the need for an early 
and just settlement of the problem of Cambodia 
based on respect for the sovereign rights of the 
Cambodian people to a free and independent devel- 
opment without any outside interference. 

Strengthening the Role of the United Nations 

The United States of America and the Soviet 
Union attach great importance to the United Na- 
tions as an instrument for maintaining peace and 
security and the expansion of international cooper- 
ation. They reiterate their intention to continue 
their eff"orts toward increasing the eflfectiveness of 
the United Nations in every possible way, includ- 
ing in regard to peacekeeping, on the basis of strict 
observance of the United Nations Charter. 

IV. Commercial and Economic Relations 

In the course of the meeting great attention was 



188 



Department of State Bulletin 



devoted to a review of the status of and prospects 
for relations between the USA and the USSR in 
the commercial and economic field. 

Both Sides reaffirmed that they regard the broad- 
ening and deepening of mutually advantageous ties 
in this field on the basis of equality and non-discrim- 
ination as an important part of the foundation on 
which the entire structure of US-Soviet relations is 
built. An increase in the scale of commercial and eco- 
nomic ties corresponding to the potentials of both 
countries will cement this foundation and benefit the 
American and Soviet peoples. 

The two Sides noted with satisfaction that since 
the previous summit meeting US-Soviet commercial 
and economic relations have on the whole shown an 
upward trend. This was expressed, in particular, in 
a substantial growth of the exchange of goods be- 
tween the two countries which approximated $1.5 
billion in 1973. It was noted that prospects were fa- 
vorable for surpassing the goal announced in the 
joint US-USSR communique of June 24, 1973, of 
achieving a total bilateral trade turnover of $2-3 
billion during the three-year period 1973-1975. The 
Joint US-USSR Commercial Commission continues 
to provide an effective mechanism to promote the 
broad-scale growth of economic relations. 

The two Sides noted certain progress in the de- 
velopment of long-term cooperation between Amer- 
ican firms and Soviet organizations in carrying out 
large-scale projects including those on a compensa- 
tion basis. They are convinced that such cooperation 
is an important element in the development of com- 
mercial and economic ties between the two countries. 
The two Sides agreed to encourage the conclusion 
and implementation of appropriate agreements be- 
tween American and Soviet organizations and firms. 
Taking into account the progress made in a number 
of specific projects, such as those concerning truck 
manufacture, the trade center, and chemical fertiliz- 
ers, the Sides noted the possibility of concluding ap- 
propriate contracts in other areas of mutual inter- 
est, such as pulp and paper, timber, ferrous and non- 
ferrous metallurgy, natural gas, the engineering in- 
dustry, and the extraction and processing of high 
energy-consuming minerals. 

Both Sides noted further development of produc- 
tive contacts and ties between business circles of the 
two countries in which a positive role was played by 
the decisions taken during the previous summit meet- 
ing on the opening of a United States commercial of- 
fice in Moscow and a USSR trade representation in 
Washington as well as the establishment of a US- 
Soviet Commercial and Economic Council. They ex- 
pressed their desire to continue to bring about fa- 
vorable conditions for the successful development of 
commercial and economic relations between the USA 
and the USSR. 

Both Sides confirmed their interest in bringing 
into force at the earliest possible time the US-Soviet 
trade agreement of October 1972. 



Desirous of promoting the further expansion of 
economic relations between the two countries, the 
two Sides signed a Long-Term Agreement to Facili- 
tate Economic, Industrial and Technical Coopera- 
tion between the USA and the USSR. They believe 
that a consistent implementation of the cooperation 
embodied in the Agreement over the ten-year period 
will be an important factor in strengthening bilat- 
eral relations in general and will benefit the peoples 
of both countries. 

Having reviewed the progress in carrying out the 
Agreement Regarding Certain Maritime Matters 
concluded in October 1972 for a period of three years, 
and based on the experience accumulated thus far, 
the two Sides expressed themselves in favor of con- 
cluding before its expiration a new agreement in 
this field. Negotiations concerning such an agree- 
ment will commence this year. 

V. Progress in Other Fields of Bilateral Rela- 
tions 

Having reviewed the progress in the implementa- 
tion of the cooperative agreements concluded in 1972- 
1973, both Sides noted the useful work done by joint 
American-Soviet committees and working groups es- 
tablished under those agreements in developing reg- 
ular contacts and cooperation between scientific and 
technical organizations, scientists, specialists and 
cultural personnel of both countries. 

The two Sides note with satisfaction that joint 
efforts by the USA and the USSR in such fields of 
cooperation as medical science and public health, 
protection and improvement of man's environment, 
science and technology, exploration of outer space 
and the world ocean, peaceful uses of atomic energy, 
agriculture and transportation create conditions for 
an accelerated solution of some urgent and compli- 
cated problems facing mankind. 

Such cooperation makes a substantial contribution 
to the development of the structure of American- 
Soviet relations, giving it a more concrete positive 
content. 

Both Sides will strive to broaden and deepen their 
cooperation in science and technology as well as cul- 
tural exchanges on the basis of agreements concluded 
between them. 

On the basis of positive experience accumulated in 
their scientific and technological cooperation and 
guided by the desire to ensure further progress in 
this important sphere of their mutual relations, the 
two Sides decided to extend such cooperation to the 
following new areas. 

Energy 

Taking into consideration the growing energy 
needs of industry, transportation and other branches 
of the economies of both countries and the conse- 
quent need to intensify scientific and technical coop- 
eration in the development of optimal methods of 
utilizing traditional and new sources of energy, and 



July 29, 1974 



189 



to improve the understanding of the energy pro- 
grams and problems of both countries, the two Sides 
concluded an agreement on cooperation in the field of 
energy. Responsibility for the implementation of the 
Agreement is entrusted to a US-USSR Joint Com- 
mittee on Cooperation in Energy, which will be es- 
tablished for that purpose. 

Housing and Other Consfruefion 

The two Sides signed an agreement on cooperation 
in the field of housing and other construction. The 
aim of this Agreement is to promote the solution by 
joint effort of problems related to modern techniques 
of housing and other construction along such lines 
as the improvement of the reliability and quality of 
buildings and building materials, the planning and 
construction of new towns, construction in seismic 
areas and areas of extreme climatic conditions. For 
the implementation of this Agreement there will be 
established a Joint US-USSR Committee on Cooper- 
ation in Housing and Other Construction which will 
determine specific working programs. 

For the purpose of enhancing the safety of their 
peoples living in earthquake-prone areas, the two 
Sides agreed to undertake on a priority basis a 
joint research project to increase the safety of 
buildings and other structures in these areas and, in 
particular, to study the behavior of pre-fabricated 
residential structures during earthquakes. 

Artificial Heart Research 

In the course of the implementation of joint pro- 
grams in the field of medical science and public 
health scientists and specialists of both countries 
concluded that there is a need to concentrate their 
efforts on the solution of one of the most important 
and humane problems of modern medical science, de- 
velopment of an artificial heart. In view of the great 
theoretical and technical complexity of the work in- 
volved, the two Sides concluded a special agreement 
on the subject. The US-USSR Joint Committee for 
Health Cooperation will assume responsibility for 
this project. 

Cooperation in Space 

The two Sides expressed their satisfaction with 
the successful preparations for the first joint manned 
flight of the American and Soviet spacecraft, Apollo 
and Soyuz, which is scheduled for 1975 and envisages 
their docking and mutual visits of the astronauts in 
each other's spacecraft. In accordance with existing 
agreements fruitful cooperation is being carried out 
in a number of other fields related to the explora- 
tion of outer space. 

Attaching great importance to further American- 
Soviet cooperation in the exploration and use of 
outer space for peaceful purposes, including the de- 
velopment of safety systems for manned flights in 
space, and considering the desirability of consoli- 



dating experience in this field, the two Sides agreed 
to continue to explore possibilities for further joint 
space projects following the US-USSR space flight 
now scheduled for July 1975. 

Transport of the Future 

Aware of the importance of developing advanced 
modes of transportation, both Sides agreed that high- 
speed ground systems of the future, including a mag- 
netically levitated train, which can provide economi- 
cal, efficient, and reliable forms of transportation, 
would be a desirable and innovative area for joint 
activity. A working group to develop a joint research 
cooperation program in this area under the 1973 
Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Trans- 
portation will be established at the Fall meeting of 
the Joint US-USSR Transportation Committee. 

Eni'ironmcntal Protection 

Desiring to expand cooperation in the field of en- 
vironmental protection, which is being successfully 
carried out under the US-USSR Agreement signed 
on May 23, 1972, and to contribute to the implemen- 
tation of the "Man and the Biosphere" international 
program conducted on the initiative of the United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orga- 
nization (UNESCO), both Sides agreed to designate 
in the territories of their respective countries cer- 
tain natural areas as biosphere reserves for protect- 
ing valuable plant and animal genetic strains and 
ecosystems, and for conducting scientific research 
needed for more effective actions concerned with glo- 
bal environmental protection. Appropriate work for 
the implementation of this undertaking will be con- 
ducted in conformity with the goals of the UNESCO 
program and under the auspices of the previously 
established US-USSR Joint Committee on Coopera- 
tion in the Field of Environmental Protection. 

Cidtural Exchanges 

The two Parties, aware of the importance of cul- 
tural exchanges as a means of promoting mutual 
understanding, express satisfaction with the agree- 
ment between the Metropolitan Museum of Art of 
New York City and the Ministry of Culture of the 
USSR leading to a major exchange of works of art. 
Such an exchange would be in accordance with the 
General Agreement on Contacts, Exchanges and Co- 
operation signed June 19, 1973, under which the par- 
ties agree to render assistance for the exchange of 
exhibitions between the museums of the two coun- 
tries. 

Establishment of New Consulates 

Taking into consideration the intensive develop- 
ment of ties between the US and the USSR and the 
importance of further expanding consular relations 
on the basis of the US-USSR Consular Convention, 
and desiring to promote trade, tourism and coopera- 



190 



Department of State Bulletin 



tion between them in various areas, both Sides 
agreed to open additional Consulates General in two 
or three cities of each country. 

As a first step they agreed in principle to the si- 
multaneous establishment of a United States Con- 
sulate General in Kiev and a USSR Consulate Gen- 
eral in New York. Negotiations for implementation 
of this agreement will take place at an early date. 

Both Sides highly appreciate the frank and con- 
structive atmosphere and fruitful results of the talks 
held between them in the course of the present meet- 
ing. They are convinced that the results represent a 
new and important milestone along the road of im- 
proving relations between the USA and the USSR 
to the benefit of the peoples of both countries, and a 
significant contribution to their efforts aimed at 
strengthening world peace and security. 

Having again noted in this connection the excep- 
tional importance and great practical usefulness of 
US-Soviet summit meetings, both Sides reaffirmed 
their agreement to hold such meetings regularly and 
when considered necessary for the discussion and so- 
lution of urgent questions. Both Sides also expressed 
their readiness to continue their active and close 
contacts and consultations. 

The President extended an invitation to General 
Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 
L. I. Brezhnev, to pay an official visit to the United 
States in 1975. This invitation was accepted with 
pleasure. 



For the United States 
of America : 

Richard Nixon 

President of the United 
States of America 



July 3, 1974 

For the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics: 

L. Brezhnev 

General Secretary of the 

Central Coynmittee 

of the CPSU 



REPORT TO THE NATION, JULY 3 « 

Welcoming Remarks by Vice President Ford 

Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon: It is a very 
high honor and a very great privilege for me 
to w^elcome you home again and to say what 
better way could the American people cele- 
brate our 198th Fourth of July than with the 



' Broadcast on television and radio from Loring 
Air Force Base, Maine (text from White House press 
release, Loring). 



assurance that you bring our world a little 
safer and a little saner tonight than it was 
when you left. 

You know, Mr. President, that it was my 
lifelong goal to be Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, until you upset it last Oc- 
tober. The great State of Maine has given us 
two very distinguished Republican Speakers 
during the 19th century, and I would like to 
recall something Speaker Tom Reed said al- 
most prophetically here in 1885, and I quote, 
"The reason why the race of man moves so 
slowly," Speaker Reed said, "is because it 
must move all together." 

From your first mission to Moscow, Mr. 
President, in the days that you had the job 
that I now have, you have seen the global di- 
mension of peace and pursued it with pa- 
tience, preparation, and performance. 

As our President, you have not only dem- 
onstrated the truth of Speaker Reed's obser- 
vation but you have permitted us to see much 
of mankind moving slowly but perceptibly, all 
together, in the direction of peace. 

Your strategy for peace, Mr. President, 
has been bold but never rash, courageous but 
never foolhardy, tough but never rude, gen- 
tle but never soft. One by one, from China 
through Southeast Asia, through the Middle 
East, through the Soviet Union, through the 
NATO alliance, you have emplaced the build- 
ing blocks of a solid foundation for a better 
understanding of international relations than 
we have had in our lifetime and perhaps in 
the history of our country. 

Permit me to say, Mr. President, and say 
particularly to Mrs. Nixon, who has been 
your faithful partner throughout literally 
millions and millions of miles of air travel, 
and sometimes on her own, that she has 
charmed and captivated both the officials and 
the citizens of every country she has visited 
and surely is entitled to be saluted in her own 
right again as First Lady of the world. 

Mr. President, I wished you Godspeed last 
week and urged all of our countrymen to 
pray for you, for your safety and success on 
this historic mission. My prayers, and those 
of our fellow countrymen, have been an- 



Joly 29, 1974 



191 



swered manifold. I cannot escape the conclu- 
sion that the Biblical injunction, "Blessed 
are the peacemakers," has again been con- 
firmed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the 
United States. 

Remarks by President Nixon 

Mr. Vice President: I want to express ap- 
preciation not only on my own behalf but 
also on Mrs. Nixon's behalf for your very 
gracious and generous words. 

Governor Curtis and Mrs. Curtis, all of 
our friends here in Maine: I want to thank 
you for giving us such a splendid welcome as 
we return. 

I know that as I see cars parked what a 
real effort it is to come out to an airbase. It 
took a lot of time, and we appreciate that ef- 
fort and we thank you very much. 

To each and every one of you, and to per- 
haps millions who are listening on television 
and radio, I can assure you of one thing, and 
that is, it is always good to come home to 
America. That is particularly so when one 
comes home from a journey that has ad- 
vanced the cause of peace in the world. 

We left Moscow earlier today, and as we 
did there were hundreds of U.S. and Soviet 
flags flying side by side ; and I thought of the 
fact that tomorrow millions of Americans 
will be flying the flag from their homes on 
the Fourth of July, and you will be flying 
those flags proudly because of what it means 
in your own lives and in our lives and also 
because of what our flag means in the world. 
We can be very proud of the American flag 
all over the world today. 

I thought also of how much more that flag 
means to the world because of the role the 
United States has been playing in building a 
structure of peace from which all nations 
can benefit, a role which was symbolized so 
dramatically by those flags flying side by side 
in the Soviet Union. 

Our generation, which has known so much 
war and destruction — four wars in this cen- 
tury — now has an opportunity to build for 
the next generation a structure of peace in 



which we hope war will have no part what- 
ever. 

This is the great task before us, and this is 
the greatest task in which any people could 
be summoned. In the past month Mrs. Nixon 
and I have traveled over 25,000 miles, visit- 
ing nine countries in Western Europe and the 
Middle East, as well as, of course, the Soviet 
Union. The visit to each of these areas had a 
separate purpose, but in a larger sense all of 
these visits were directed toward the same 
purpose, and they are all interacted and in- 
terconnected. 

Among the nations of the Middle East, 
among those in the Western alliance, and be- 
tween the United States and the Soviet Un- 
ion, new patterns are emerging, patterns that 
hold out to the world the brightest hopes in 
this generation for a just and lasting peace 
that all of us can enjoy. 

In the Middle East a generation of bitter 
hostility punctuated by four wars is now giv- 
ing way to a new spirit in which both sides 
are searching earnestly for the keys to a 
peaceful resolution of their difl'erences. 

In the Western alliance, 25 years after 
NATO was founded, there has been given a 
new birth, a new life to that organization, 
as embodied in the Declaration en Atlantic 
Relations that we signed seven days ago in 
Brussels at the NATO heads-of-government 
meeting before going on to Moscow. In the 
series of U.S. -Soviet summits that we began 
in 1972, we have been charting a new rela- 
tionship between the world's two most pow- 
erful nations, a new relationship which is 
designed to insure that these two nations will 
work together in peace rather than to con- 
front each other in an atmosphere of dis- 
trust and tension which could lead, if it were 
not corrected, to war. 

At this year's summit we advanced fur- 
ther the relationship that we began two years 
ago in Moscow and that we continued at last 
year's summit in the United States. In the 
communique we issued earlier today in Mos- 
cow, both sides committed themselves to this 
goal : the imperative necessity of making the 
process of improving U.S.-Soviet relations 
irreversible. 



192 



Department of State Bulletin 



This sums up what the whole broad pat- 
tern of our expanding range of agreements 
is designed to achieve, to make the improve- 
ment not just a one-day headline, not just a 
one-day sensation, but a continuing, irre- 
versible process that will build its own mo- 
mentum and will develop into a permanent 
peace. 

At this year's meeting, we reached a num- 
ber of important agreements both in the field 
of arms limitation and also in the field of 
peaceful cooperation. In the field of arms 
limitation, three of the agreements we 
reached are of special note. One of those in- 
volves the exceedingly difficult question of 
offensive strategic nuclear arms, and this 
base, as we know, is involved in that partic- 
ular kind of operation. 

Two years ago we signed an interim agree- 
ment on offensive strategic weapons covering 
the five-year period until 1977. This year we 
decided that this interim agreement should 
be followed by a new agreement to cover the 
period until 1985. We agreed this should deal 
with both quantitative and qualitative as- 
pects of strategic nuclear weapons ; that it 
should be concluded well above and well be- 
fore, I should say, the expiration of the pres- 
ent agreement. 

We also agreed that the extensive work we 
have already done toward hammering out 
such a long-range agreement should go for- 
ward at Geneva in the immediate future on 
the basis of instructions growing out of our 
talks at the highest level during the past 
week. 

Now, the two sides have not yet reached a 
final accord on the terms of an agreement. 
This is a difficult and a very complex sub- 
ject, but we did bring such an accord sig- 
nificantly closer and we committed both sides 
firmly to the resolution of our remaining dif- 
ferences. 

The second important arms control agree- 
ment that we reached deals with the anti- 
ballistic missile systems. You will recall that 
two years ago we agreed that each country 
should be limited to two ABM sites. The 
agreement we signed earlier today in Moscow 
strengthens and extends the scope of that 



earlier measure by restricting each country 
to one ABM site. 

And then the third arms limitation agree- 
ment deals with underground testing of nu- 
clear weapons. It extends significantly the 
earlier steps toward limiting tests that began 
with the 1963 test ban treaty. That original 
treaty barred the signatories from conduct- 
ing tests in the atmosphere, in outer space 
and under water. Today we concluded a new 
treaty that for the first time will also cover 
tests underground. It will bar both the Soviet 
Union and the United States, after March 
31, 1976, from conducting any underground 
test of weapons above a certain explosive 
power, and it will also require both countries 
to keep tests of weapons below that power 
to the very minimum number. 

This is not only another major step to- 
ward bringing the arms race under control, 
it is also a significant additional step toward 
reducing the number of nuclear and thermo- 
nuclear explosions in the world. 

Now, arms limitations, of course, are enor- 
mously and crucially important, but the work 
of these summit meetings is much broader, 
just as the nature of the new U.S.-Soviet re- 
lationship is much broader. This year the im- 
portant new agreements we reached in the 
area of peaceful progress included new pro- 
grams for cooperation between our two coun- 
tries in energy, in housing, in health, and 
also an agreement on long-term economic co- 
operation designed to facilitate increasing 
mutually beneficial trade between our two 
countries. 

The significance of these agreements goes 
beyond the advances each will bring to its 
particular field, just as the significance of our 
summit meetings goes beyond the individual 
agreements themselves. With this growing 
network of agreements, we are creating new 
habits of cooperation and new patterns of 
consultation, and we are also giving the peo- 
ple of the Soviet Union, as well as our own 
people in the United States, not just a nega- 
tive but a positive stake in peace. 

We are creating a stable new base on 
which to build peace, not just through the 
fear of war, but through sharing the bene- 



July 29, 1974 



193 



fits of peace, of working together for a bet- 
ter life for the people of both of our coun- 
tries. 

The U.S.-Soviet agreements at the summit 
contribute importantly to the structure of 
peace we are trying to build between our 
two countries and in the world. The con- 
tinued strength of the Western alliance is 
also an essential and major element of that 
structure and so, too, is the development of 
a new pattern of relationships and a new 
attitude toward peace in areas of tension 
such as the Middle East. 

The fact that the NATO meeting in Brus- 
sels came midway between the trip to the 
Middle East and the one to the Soviet Union 
is symbolic of the central role that the 
Western alliance must play in building the 
new structure of peace. 

It is clearly understood by the leaders of 
the Soviet Union that in forging the new 
relationship between the United States and 
the Soviet Union, we will not proceed at 
the expense of traditional allies. On the 
contrary, the continued strength of the West- 
ern alliance is essential to the success and 
to the process in which we are engaged of 
maintaining and developing the new rela- 
tionship to the Soviet Union. 

The development of that new relationship 
provides an opportunity to deepen the unity 
of the Western alliance. We must not ne- 
glect our alliances, and we must not assume 
that our new relationship with the Soviet 
Union allows us to neglect our own military 
strength. It is because we are strong that 
such a relationship that we are now devel- 
oping is possible. 

In his first annual message to the Con- 
gress, George Washington said : To be pre- 
pared for war is one of the most effective 
means of preserving peace. That statement 
is true today, as it was then, and that is 
why all of you who are serving in our Armed 
Forces today are actually serving in the 
peace forces for America and the world. 
We thank you for your service. 

We are prepared, we in the United States, 
to reduce our military strength, but only 
through a process in which that reduction is 
mutual and one that does not diminish the 



security of the United States of America. 
It is to that end that we have been working. 

Twenty-five years ago when the NATO 
Treaty was signed, it was called "an act 
of faith in the destiny of Western Civiliza- 
tion." That description was prophetic as 
well as accurate, and now, 25 years later, 
we might well say the new structure of 
peace we are building in the world is an act 
of faith in the destiny of mankind. Like 
anything built to be permanent, that struc- 
ture must be built step by careful step. It 
must be built solidly ; it must be such a 
structure that those who use it will pre- 
serve it because they treasure it, because it 
responds to their needs, and because it re- 
flects their hopes. 

Two years ago in my report to the Con- 
gress on returning from the first of the U.S.- 
Soviet summits, I expressed the hope that 
historians of some future age will write of 
the year 1972, not that this was the year 
America went up to the summit and then 
down to the depths of the valley again, but 
that this was the year when America helped 
to lead the world up out of the lowlands 
of war and on to the high plateau of lasting 
peace. 

And now, two years, two summits, later, 
the realization of that hope has been brought 
closer. The process of peace is going steadily 
forward. It is strengthened by the new and 
expanding patterns of cooperation between 
the United States and the Soviet Union. It 
is reinforced by the new vitality of our West- 
ern alliance and bringing such encouraging 
results as the new turn toward peace in the 
Middle East. 

In all of our travels, to which the Vice 
President has referred, one message has 
come through more clearly than any other. 
We have seen millions and millions of people 
over these past few weeks, and from their 
faces as well as the words of those we have 
seen and the thousands we have met in 
every part of the world, this is the message, 
and that is, that the desire to end war, to 
build peace, is one that knows no national 
boundaries and that unites people every- 
where. 

Something else also comes through very 



194 



Department of State Bulletin 



loud and very clear : The people of the na- 
tions that we visited — and we saw them, 
as I have indicated, not only by the thou- 
sands but by the millions — want to be friends 
of the American people, and we reciprocate. 
We want to be their friends, too. 

In the early years of our nation's history, 
after America had won its independence, 
Thomas Jefferson said: We act not just for 
ourselves alone but for the whole human 
race. 

As we prepare tomorrow to celebrate the 
anniversary of that independence, the 198th 
anniversary, we as Americans can be proud 
that we have been true to Jefferson's vision 
and that as a result of America's initiative 
that universal goal of peace is now closer, 
closer not only for ourselves but for all 
mankind. 

Thank you very much and good evening. 



Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 



93d Congress, 2d Session 

U.S. Implementation of International Fishing Agree- 
ments. Hearings before the Subcommittee on In- 
ternational Organizations and Movements of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 93d Con- 
gress, first and second sessions, on H.R. 12597 
and H.R. 12722. May 15, 1973, and February 14, 
1974. 124 pp. 

The Inter-American Conference of Tlatelolco in 
Mexico City. Report of Senator Mike Mansfield 
to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
on the conference and congressional participation. 
March 1974. 32 pp. 

The Trade Reform Act of 1973. Hearings before 
the Senate Committee on Finance. Part 1. March 
4-5, 1974. 373 pp. 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Hearing 
before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic 
Policy of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
March 20, 1974. 73 pp. 



Japan-United States Friendship Act. Hearings be- 
fore the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
on S. 649, to provide for the use of certain funds 
to promote scholarly, cultural, and artistic activ- 
ities between Japan and the United States, and 
for other purposes; May 1-2, 1974; 115 pp. Re- 
port to accompany S. 649; S. Rept. 93-885; May 
29, 1974; 4 pp. 

.\nnual Report of the St. Lawrence Seaway Develop- 
ment Corporation. Message from the President 
of the United States transmitting the report. 
H. Doc. 93-296. May 6, 1974. 24 pp. 

The United States Role in Opening the Suez Canal. 
Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Near 
East and South Asia of the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. May 8, 1974. 49 pp. 

Freedom of Information Aci Source Book: Legis- 
lative Materials, Cases, Articles. Subcommittee 
on .Administrative Practice and Procedure of the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. S. Doc. 93-82. 
May 13, 1974. 432 pp. 

The Amateur Athletic Act of 1974. Report of the 
Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 3500, to- 
gether with additional views, to promote and co- 
ordinate amateur athletic activity in the United 
States and in international competition in which 
American citizens participate, and to promote 
physical fitness, and for other purposes. S. Rept. 
93-850. May 15, 1974. 47 pp. 

Migratory Bird Convention with Japan. Report to 
accompany H.R. 10942. S. Rept. 93-851. May 15, 
1974. 19 pp. 

Amending the Freedom of Information Act. Report 
to accompany S. 2543. S. Rept. 93-854. May 16, 
1974. 64 pp. 

Sugar Act Amendments of 1974. Report, together 
with separate views, opposing views, dissenting 
views, and additional dissenting views on H.R. 
14747. H. Rept. 93-1049. May 17, 1974. 104 pp. 

Overseas Exports Representatives Act. Report to 
accompany S. 1485. S. Rept. 93-859. May 20, 
1974. 12 pp. 

Omnibus Export Expansion Act of 1974. Report to 
accompany S. 1486. S. Rept. 93-860. May 20, 
1974. 6 pp. 

Detente and the Further Development of U.S. and 
U.S.S.R. Relations. Report by Senator Hugh Scott 
to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
on the Dartmouth VIII Conference in Tbilisi, 
Georgia S.S.R., .April 20-27, 1974. May 21, 1974. 
21 pp. 

Authorize the Secretary of the Army to Permit One 
Citizen of the Kingdom of Laos to Attend the 
United States Military Academy. Report to ac- 
company H.J. Res. 876. H. Rept. 93-1058. May 
23, 1974. 9 pp. 



July 29, 1974 



195 



Secretary Kissinger's News Conferences at Brussels and Moscow 



NEWS CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS, JUNE 26 

Press release 268 dated June 27 

Secretary Kissinger: I thought I would 
make very few comments about the forth- 
coming summit and then answer your ques- 
tions. 

Primarily I want to recapitulate what I 
said in my last press conference. The sum- 
mit has the following purposes: To enable 
the leaders of the two countries with the 
capability of destroying humanity to ex- 
change ideas and perceptions about interna- 
tional affairs ; secondly, to deal with bilateral 
issues, especially in the field of arms con- 
trol in an attempt to moderate the arms 
race; and thirdly, to seek to work out co- 
operative arrangements in various fields de- 
signed to give each side a stake in a mod- 
erate course and in a constructive foreign 
policy. 

As I pointed out, the arms control field has 
become the most controversial and we are 
following these principles: Neither side 
should gain a strategic advantage; neither 
side should be in a position where it can 
gain a political advantage; neither side 
should be in a position where it perceives 
either a political or military advantage, 
whatever the facts are; and neither side 
should be in a position where other coun- 
tries perceive a military or political advan- 
tage in the relationship that results from 
agreement. 

These principles once stated are obviously 
not automatic, and serious people have dif- 
fered and will continue to differ as to what 
constitutes an advantage, either militarily 
or politically. With respect to military ad- 
vantage, it is crucial that neither side falls 
into the trap of equating advantage simply 



with numbers. There must be some relation- 
ship between numbers and the purpose to 
which these numbers can be put. 

Moreover, the forces of the two sides 
have been designed in a manner that makes 
comparisons very difficult. The United 
States, by its own choice and not as a re- 
sult of any agreement, emphasized in the 
sixties, and continued in this administra- 
tion, weapons of relatively low throw weight 
but substantial accuracy. 

The United States, in the sixties and con- 
tinued in this administration, placed a rela- 
tively greater emphasis on bombers than 
the Soviet Union did. How to compare the 
throw weight of missiles and the effective- 
ness of such weapons, how to relate bombers 
to missiles, and how to translate all of this 
into numbers is a very complicated subject. 
We believe that the first SALT agreement 
was in the interest of the United States and 
in the interest of world peace. It at least 
limited the quantitative race at levels that 
had been achieved at that time and with 
which both sides seemed to be comfortable 
even in the absence of an agreement. 

Since then there has been an explosion 
with respect to technology. How to control 
technology and how to relate technological 
change to quantitative limits is one of the 
major problems of our period, and if we 
express concern about this and if we believe 
that it is in the national interest to pursue 
this subject, it is not only because of the 
inherent quality of the arms race, it is also 
because of the kind of justification that will 
have to be used to sustain an unlimited arms 
race. 

We are prepared to continue in the arms 
race as long as we must, and we will never 
accept a strategic disadvantage for the 



196 



Department of State Bulletin 



United States. But we do believe that we 
iiave an obligation to make a serious effort 
to explore how the technological explosion 
can be moderated and how to prevent the 
pace of deployment from driving the pace 
of diplomacy. 

These are our purposes, and how well we 
will fulfill them depends of course on the 
outcome of the negotiations, which, as I have 
pointed out before, will certainly not be com- 
pleted in the form of any permanent agree- 
ment on this visit. 

With these introductory remarks, I will 
turn to your questions. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, as we approach the 
summit, does either side have a ^nilitary 
advantage, or as you have engaged in dis- 
cussions prior to the summit, does either 
side think it has a military advantage — 
tvhere do we stand now? 

Secretary Kissinger: Where we stand now 
is that the Soviet Union has a numerical 
advantage in missiles. This numerical ad- 
vantage in missiles is substantially made up 
if you add to it the 450 long-range bombers 
we possess, and if you look at it from the 
strategic point of view and not the negoti- 
ating point of view, you will have to add to 
it also the fact that we possess weapons 
deployed elsewhere that would certainly be 
used in a general nuclear war. 

Therefore, whether you count numbers of 
vehicles that can reach each other's coun- 
tries or warheads that are deployed, the 
United States still has a substantial nu- 
merical advantage. 

If you look only at the throw weight of 
missiles, then you will have to argue that 
the Soviet Union has an advantage in mis- 
sile throw weight, though it is less clear 
what they can do with it. If you add to it 
the throw weight of our bombers, then 
you are again at a level of substantial equal- 
ity. 

I would say that these comparisons can 
be used for almost any purpose, but we are 
convinced that the United States probably 
has an advantage, but one that is not po- 
litically of any decisive importance, and it 



is our basic conviction that if the arms race 
is continued for another 10 years, it will 
not yield either a strategic or a political ad- 
vantage for either side but that it may well 
complicate the political relationships. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you refer to the fact 
that you don't expect ayi agreement in the 
form of a permanent final agreement. Will 
the President and Mr. Brezhnev be going for 
a conceptual breakthrough of the kind you 
went for in March — a statement of princi- 
ples in an effort to resolve the MIRV {mul- 
tiple independently targeted reentry vehicle] 
issue, ivith a set of directives to the nego- 
tiators? 

Will you be trying for that, and do you 
expect it ? 

Secretary Kissinger: I generally try to 
avoid making the same mistake twice. 
[Laughter.] But basically, there are two 
ways of going at the problem. 

The Soviet Union gave us an approach 
when we were in Moscow in March which, 
if the numbers were changed, could be con- 
sidered a conceptual breakthrough. We did 
not reject the approach; we reject the num- 
bers in which they expressed it. That is 
one way of going at it. 

The other way of going at it is to con- 
clude that that particular approach cannot 
be translated into appropriate numbers and 
to attempt therefore to find a new approach 
that then might perhaps deserve the label 
you gave them. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, since you last spoke to 
us in Washingtoyi at the press conference, 
what progress has been made toward an 
underground test ban pact? 

Secretary Kissinger: The experts' discus- 
sions have been suspended pending our ar- 
rival ; and where we stand now is, they have 
gone as far as they can get. We still have 
to settle the threshold. There are still a 
number of issues that have to be settled — 
the level of the threshold, there are differ- 
ences between us and the Soviet Union both 
with respect to what is permitted below the 
threshold and what is permitted above the 



July 29, 1974 



197 



threshold. So there is a great deal that re- 
mains to be done in Moscow. 

Q. / didn't iinderstand that, Mr. Secretary. 
What do you mean by ivhat would he per- 
mitted above? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, there is one 
argument that below the threshold there 
should also be a limitation on the number 
of tests that are permitted. 

Q. Above? 

Secretary Kissinger: Above the threshold 
there is the question of peaceful nuclear 
explosions, whether they should be extended. 

Q. Could you define the differences you 
have with Secretary [of Defense James R.] 
Schlesinger on this matter and also explain 
what he means by rhetorical flourishes? 

Secretary Kissinger: I didn't see his press 
conference, and that is such an inconceivable 
idea as applied to me that I am sure he was 
misquoted. [Laughter.] 

Q. Wait a minute. I would like to know 
more about that. 

Secretary Kissinger: I read about those 
differences in the newspapers. I am not con- 
scious of differences when we meet. I have 
expressed my view on counterforce strategy 
and on first-strike capabilities. I have never 
been led to believe that he differs from these 
views, so I will be glad to express my view 
on certain strategic issues. 

I do not believe that a country can rely 
politically or militarily on a first-strike ca- 
pability and I do not believe that a country 
can achieve a first-strike capability and I 
believe that the effort to do so will raise 
profound political issues, but I understand 
that he has also said that he doesn't believe 
this is possible. But this is a view that I 
have held. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, speaking of differences 
with other people, did you intend in your 
discussion of your differences with Senator 
Jackson the other day to suggest that a man 
like Paid Nitze with his long experience in 
the disarmaynent field would he incapable 
of understanding the fact that he was dis- 
cussing ? 



Secretary Kissinger: I have the highest re- 
spect for Mr. Nitze. I have not seen his 
testimony, and therefore I cannot dispute 
specifically what he said. 

The facts, as I explained them and sup- 
ported with documents, happen to be the 
correct facts, but as long as you have asked 
that question, let me point out that there 
is a very abstruse and esoteric point that 
was raised at the end of the press conference 
with which I did not adequately deal. 

When I read the formal statement of 
Senator Jackson, I understood him to say 
that the United States, by a secret agree- 
ment, had granted the Soviet Union 70 ad- 
ditional missiles. This was totally and ab- 
surdly false, and it was totally contradictory 
to the negotiating record, in which we had 
spent two nights in the Soviet Union pre- 
cisely to avoid this contingency. 

All our exchanges with the Soviet Union 
concerned the replacement provision, spe- 
cifically whether missiles on G-class subma- 
rines could be traded in for modern missiles. 
Now, at the end of the press conference 
and afterward and in newspaper articles 
that I have seen since, I understand that 
the argument that is being made now is 
a more complicated one. It isn't anymore 
that we made a secret agreement to grant 
the Soviet Union 70 missiles but that, in 
attempting to close the replacement-provi- 
sion problem, we unintentionally produced 
a loophole that might have given the Soviet 
Union the right to an additional 70 missiles. 
Let me deal with this problem also, be- 
cause I believe public confidence is involved 
if, prior to a summit meeting, one is ac- 
cused of either deliberately deceiving the 
public about the true numbers or having 
made errors of a magnitude that might have 
had that result. 

Now, the argument about this loophole. Let 
me first state flatly the following: The U.S. 
Government has never acknowledged that 
such a loophole existed. The Soviet Union has 
never claimed that such a loophole existed. 
In the entire Soviet arsenal of land-based 
and sea-based missiles, there isn't one missile 
that fits the category that that loophole al- 
legedly represents. 



198 



Department of State Bulletin 



So, by the most strained and most esoteric 
definition, one would have to say that the So- 
viet Union in the last three years of an agree- 
ment is going to develop an entirely new mis- 
sile of a kind for which we have no intelli- 
gence and no evidence and put it on 25-year- 
old submarines. 

Now let me explain the nature of this al- 
leged loophole. The phrase which allegedly 
produced that loophole was "a modern ballis- 
tic missile on a submarine is a missile of the 
type which is deployed on nuclear-powered 
submarines commissioned in the USSR since 
1965." 

Now, at first, some people argued that this 
meant that any other missile except those 
that are on Soviet nuclear-powered subma- 
rines was permitted. It was then pointed out 
that "of the type" means, obviously, some- 
thing wider, and it is obvious that the United 
States would have claimed that any missile 
on any submarine has to be of a type that 
can also be deployed on a nuclear-powered 
submarine. 

That was the purpose of this phrase. Nev- 
ertheless, the Department of Defense and the 
JCS [Joint Chiefs of Stafi"] claimed that a 
loophole existed. I may say that this never 
reached my level. All of these discussions took 
place at the middle level. The State Depart- 
ment, the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
and the National Security Council (NSC) 
consistently maintained that there was no 
loophole, and, I may say, the Russians never 
claimed that there was a loophole. It is true 
that this particular definition was not .seen by 
the bureaucracy until 1973, but in that whole 
period, neither Mr. Nitze nor the Secretary 
of Defense nor the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff ever raised this issue with me 
or the President or the then Secretary of 
State, because it was one of these innumera- 
ble debates that always go on at the middle 
level. 

When the Standing Consultative Commis- 
sion started negotiating, it was decided that, 
the issue having been raised, even though the 
overwhelming majority of the government 
disagreed with it there was no harm in try- 
ing to find a formulation that avoided the de- 



bate, and therefore the Commissioner on the 
Standing Consultative Commission was in- 
structed to try to find a formulation that 
would make it impossible to claim that eso- 
teric, preposterous interpretation — that, I re- 
peat, the Russians never claimed, that we 
would never have accepted, but that some 
people at the middle level thought could be 
used, even though they could not point to a 
single weapon in the Soviet arsenal to which 
it might apply. 

I repeat, it was an issue that was never 
raised at the policy level. It was negotiated 
for six months, and while we approved the 
new formulation, we never even looked at it 
in terms of conflict with any previous formu- 
lation. Since it was the purpose of the Stand- 
ing Consultative Commission to make specific 
and more precise a lot of the terms in the 
agreement, the precise purpose of the Stand- 
ing Consultative Commi-ssion is to bring more 
precision into the discussion. 

In May of this year, the Soviet Union, in 
the course of a lot of other agreements on 
dismantling provisions, accepted this formu- 
lation, and the principal reason they didn't 
accept it previously was because they thought 
the previous agreement covered it. 

There was no great debate over it. There- 
fore the allegation that I have seen in a news- 
paper today that this was a last-minute cover- 
up is nonsense. We didn't feel that there was 
anything to cover up. If the issue had not 
been raised in our bureaucracy, we would 
never have attempted to refine it, and it was 
not raised. 

The predominant view in our government 
was represented by the State Department, 
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, the NSC 
staff, and our Commissioner on the Standing 
Consultative Commission — that there was no 
problem. But as long as somebody claimed 
there was a problem, even though there 
wasn't the slightest evidence for it, we unan- 
imously decided to let him go ahead to do it. 

Incidentally, it never was put to us in terms 
of a loophole ; it was put to us in terms of re- 
finement of language, which happened on a 
lot of provisions on dismantling, replacement, 
and so forth. 



July 29, 1974 



199 



There are about eight or nine issues that 
we are going to sign in Moscow, each of 
which has as its specific purpose the more 
precise definition of more general clauses in 
the existing agreement. 

So, what we have here is a middle-level bu- 
reaucratic argument that has been made the 
subject of senatorial investigation. Under no 
circumstance was there ever any question of 
an additional 70 Soviet missiles, and if the 
Soviet Union had ever claimed this loophole, 
which they never did, it would have been an 
act of such overwhelming bad faith that we 
would never have stood for it, and it would 
have aff"ected their relationship with us in 
ways far beyond putting 70 missiles of a 
type that no one has yet seen or been able 
to describe on a submarine that hasn't been 
off the American coast since 1967. 

Q. Mi: Secretary, in light of the fact that 
the United States and the Soviet Union have 
been unable to find the basis for a neiv SALT 
agreement, do you think it is noiv inevitable 
that the Soviets will deploy the MIRV, and 
if so, when, and how serious is that in terms 
of the arms race ? 

Secretary Kissinger: We think that on 
some categories of missiles, the Soviet Union 
is nearly ready to deploy MIRV's. At what 
rate they will deploy them it is not yet fully 
possible to foretell. We have estimates of 
what the rate will be, with an upper and 
lower limit; and obviously it would be our in- 
tention, if an arms control agreement were to 
be meaningful, to have a ceiling that is lower 
than the estimate of what we think they are 
going to build — otherwise, the ceiling will 
not have any meaning. 

But I would say we have about a year and 
a half altogether before the decisions will 
be irrevocable, but it becomes harder with 
every passing six-month period. 

Q. Is it inevitable now that they will do 
it? 

Secretary Kissinger: It is inevitable that 
some MIRV's will be deployed. The rate of 
deployment is still subject to negotiation. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I have no desire to be- 



labor this point, but you did raise some new 
elements in the discussion of the loophole 
controversy when you referred to the disa- 
greement among the agencies. Two points I 
would like to make — Senator Jackso7i's ulti- 
mate claim was that the dispute concerned 
the withholding of information from Con- 
gress and the public, ivhich he was describ- 
ing as one of the dilemmas of the particular 
time in the American political climate, tvhich 
he regarded as a major problem. First, I 
would like to hear you on that point. Sec- 
ondly, if there were such disagreements 
among the government departments, and 
there are still disagreements among the gov- 
ernment departments on SALT, can you give 
us your appraisal of the problem involved in 
attempting to negotiate with the Soviet Un- 
ion at a time ivhen there is an unresolved 
governmentivide American position on many 
of these essential issiies involved in the SALT 
agreement? 

Secretary Kissinger: With respect to the 
first point, we were under the impression 
that in our instructions to all interested 
agencies of June 17 [1972], in my news con- 
ference of May 26, and in my appearance be- 
fore the congressional leaders on June 15, 
we had put forward all the elements of the 
agreement, including the interpretation of 
the replacement provisions ; so the only thing 
that was not available was the signed docu- 
ment, which we elicited primarily, in fact 
exclusively, in order to avoid the issue ever 
being raised again. 

I would say, however, that that part of 
Senator Jackson's comment is one that under 
current practices would not arise — under the 
current practices, every understanding that 
has been reached has been put before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Nevertheless, it is an entirely technical 
point because the essence of it was testified to 
by Ambassador [Gerard] Smith, it was cov- 
ered in my press conference, and it was cov- 
ered in the instructions to the departments of 
how they should testify before congres- 
sional committees. This was not in any sense 
an attempt to keep anything from the Con- 
gress. 



200 



Department of State Bulletin |j,l.. 

i 



With respect to the second point, when you 
have such disputes, when you have the Stand- 
ing Consultative Commission meeting, for 
example, it is normal practice to ask every 
agency for its comments, and it is not un- 
heard of that agencies raise points in which 
the various individuals prove their vigilance 
to their superiors. 

That doesn't make it a huge dispute. This 
is a normal practice. This particular dispute 
that I have just described to you was never 
raised to the policy level. It wasn't a big dis- 
pute. It wasn't a dispute that any Cabinet 
member was ever conscious of, and it was 
settled. 

What would normally happen is that you 
adopt the most extreme position because this 
keeps everyone happy, and then if you find 
resistance, then you see whether you have to 
fall back. In this case, we adopted the most 
extreme position, which was the OSD-JCS 
[Office of the Secretary of Defense-Joint 
Chiefs of Staff] position, with which no one 
else in the government agreed, and it was ac- 
cepted, so why not go along with it. 

This was not a world-shaking event. There 
are 500 disputes like this in the government 
at any moment in time, and if everyone 
takes his case then to a congressional com- 
mittee, there will be no end of investigations. 

Now, with respect to the general problem : 
how we can negotiate when there are more 
fundamental problems. This was in no sense 
an important problem, but how we can ne- 
gotiate when there are more fundamental 
problems, without going into the question of 
whether or not there are fundamental prob- 
lems, if the situation is as I described it, 
even more so if it is the perception of the 
President that the problem is as we de- 
scribed it. Then it is his duty to move 
ahead in the direction which he believes to 
be in the long-term national interest, keep- 
ing in mind the views of all of his senior 
advisers but, if necessary, choosing among 
them and realizing that, in the present cli- 
mate, if anything is achieved, a fundamental 
debate is inevitable. 

But that is the duty of government, and 
we cannot stop doing what is thought to be 



July 29, 1974 



necessary for world peace just because it 
might evoke controversy. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, might it he a problem 
in the negotiations if the House Judiciary 
Committee releases its evidence early next 
iveek while you are still in Moscow? 

Secretary Kissinger: On what? 

Q. It was announced today that the Judici- 
ary Committee will release all of its impeach- 
ment evidence, starting early next week. My 
question is: Might that create a problem 
in the negotiations if it is being released 
ivhile you are still in Moscotv? 

Secretary Kissinger: I am not familiar 
with the evidence, and foreign policy has had 
to be conducted in this atmosphere contin- 
uously, so I don't want to pass any judg- 
ment on this. I just don't know enough of 
the— 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on that point, how in- 
hibited ivill the President be in negotiating 
because of his domestic iveakness, and will 
this summit produce less because of his do- 
mestic problems and possible Soviet doubt 
about his future? 

Secretary Kissinger: The President will 
not be inhibited. He will negotiate in what 
he considers to be the national interest. It 
is obvious that in the most important areas 
any possible result will produce controversy, 
and that certainly will not help the domestic 
situation. 

So, the decisions will not be on the basis 
of domestic necessities, but on the basis of 
our judgment that the pace of technology 
will not wait for our domestic situation to 
clarify. But I have also given you my 
judgment of the probable outcome. Now, 
what more could have been achieved, no one 
will ever know. 

Q. Can you say something about the talks 
today with Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Wilson, Mr. 
Rumor? And secondly, a senior government 
official was quoted on the plane as saying 
you are going to tour Weste^'n Europe after 
Moscow to discuss the next phase of NATO 



201 



developments. Could you say something 
about that and where you are going? 

Secretary Kissinger: The talks with the 
leaders of the Federal Republic, of Britain, 
and Italy dealt with — I didn't sit in on the 
meeting with Prime Minister Rumor, except 
for the first five minutes — but they dealt 
very much with economic problems that 
Europe and the United States face, with 
some of the financial difficulties raised by 
the energy crisis, and with the means avail- 
able for cooperative solutions in those fields. 

There was an explanation by the Presi- 
dent of the American attitude at the sum- 
mit, with particular emphasis on those topics 
that the Europeans are also involved in; 
namely, the European Security Conference 
and force reductions. As to my trip after- 
ward, the senior official was well informed 
[laughter], and what I intend to do is, on 
behalf of the President, to discuss with the 
various leaders how to give effect to the 
closer consultation that is foreseen in the 
Atlantic Declaration and perhaps in some- 
what more detail some of the issues that 
were I'aised this afternoon. 

Q. Coidd you explain an apparent con- 
tradiction to me? On June H, General Sec- 
retary Brezhnev said he expected very soon 
some t%jpe of concrete result in the partial 
reduction of forces or arms, I believe he 
said, in Central Europe, and yet the Presi- 
dent today, through Mr. Ziegler, has said 
he expects the United States to maintain 
and improve our forces. 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, the position of 
the United States is that we will not reduce 
our forces unilaterally but that we are pre- 
pared to reduce them as part of the mutual 
balanced force reductions (MBFR). 

I am assuming that General Secretary 
Brezhnev gave an optimistic appraisal of 
the future of the mutual balanced force re- 
ductions. The American position is that we 
will not reduce unilaterally. 

Q. In view of the fact, Mr. Secretary, that 
you try never to make the same mistake 
twice, will your technique of disclosure in the 



202 



forthcoming summit be different than it has 
been in the past? 



Secretary Kissinger. 
the question. 



I don't understand 



Q. Well, you have an obvious hassle with 
Senator Jackson because he believed that you 
were not particidarly forthcoming. 

Secretary Kissinger: As I have said, the 
disagreement is a substantially technical one 
because all of the essential facts were put be- 
fore the Congress. Nevertheless, any agree- 
ment or understanding that would be 
achieved at the summit will be put before the 
Congress in the form in which it is achieved. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, if I may go back for a 
minute to the quest io7i of the so-called loop- 
hole in the definition. Can you say why it 
was that Mr. Nitze and others were not given 
copies of this new definition since they were 
part of the process? And I have another part 
I woidd like to follow up after this. 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, we did not be- 
lieve that a redefinition was involved. There 
had been a public statement. There had been 
a meeting of the Verification Panel. There 
had been a written instruction to the bu- 
reaucracy that, almost verbatim, held this 
interpretative statement. The Verification 
Panel was told that we would attempt to 
achieve an interpretative statement. There- 
fore we did not believe that anything new had 
been done. 

As soon as the bureaucracy needed to act 
on it, we sent them the interpretative state- 
ment; and this was not a particularly dark 
design — this was an afterthought. We had 
no intention originally of getting them to 
sign it. Originally, we had intended to make 
it as a unilateral statement, and only when 
there was some dispute about it did we add 
the signature and there was no particular 
profound reason for it since we had in- 
structed the bureaucracy along that line and 
since we obviously distributed it a year later. 

Q. If I can follow up on the other part. 
Just to clarify in 7ny own mind, have you been 
taking the position that the Soviets have not 



Department of Stale Bulletin 



modernized any of their G-class submarine 
missiles, or have they modernized them to 
some degree? 

Secretary Kissinger: To the best of my 
knowledge — and I don't want to get hit on 
the blind side now by some intelligence in- 
formation that has been leaked that has 
never been shown to me — to the best of my 
knowledge, no G-class submarine has been 
modernized. There are two G-class subma- 
rines that are being used as test beds for 
missiles, for submarine-launched missiles. 
We obviously would consider the submarine- 
launched missiles as being of the type that 
are in.stalled on nuclear submarines. 

There has been one missile tested on one 
of these submarines that is a ship-to-ship 
missile and on which you can have a dispute 
whether that — well, as a ship-to-ship mis- 
sile it wouldn't fall under the agreement — 
whether it could be converted to a land mis- 
sile. 

Again, we consider this an absurd inter- 
pretation which we would totally resist. 
There is no operational G-class submarine 
that has been converted, and for a very good 
reason — that those G-class submarines are 
so overaged that they were never shown in 
any of our Defense Department documents 
as strategic weapons long before this dispute 
ever existed. We never showed them as stra- 
tegic weapons, and to the best of our knowl- 
edge there has been no installation of a mod- 
ern missile on a G-class submarine. 

And, I will say again for the record, if 
any modern missile were put on a G-class 
submarine, and if the Soviets attempted a 
"shyster" interpretation that it is of a type 
that cannot be used on a nuclear submarine, 
they would risk any arms control negotiation 
with us, because it is totally inconsistent with 
the intent of the document, with the content 
of the negotiation, and they have known 
much better than to try this. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, two points, please. The 
first, you ynentioned earlier on, I think, that 
there are eight or yiine issues that ive will 
sign in Moscoiv. 

Secretary Kissinger: No, I said as part of 



the Standing Consultative Commission there 
were eight or nine problems having to do 
with dismantling provisions that were set- 
tled. The Soviet Union has asked us to keep 
those provisions secret because in order to 
make them public goes into the characteris- 
tics of the weapons, but they will be put be- 
fore the appropriate congi-essional commit- 
tees. 

Q. Secondly, is there a likelihood of MBFR 
agreement at this summit? 

Secretary Kissinger: It is technically im- 
possible for us to have an MBFR agreement, 
because that negotiation is between NATO 
and the Warsaw Pact; and therefore if any 
progress were to be made or if the Soviet 
Union were to make a suggestion that in 
our view represented progress, we would 
take it back to NATO for their views. 

Q. That is ivhat I was getting at. There 
isn't at tliis poitit something that the Soviet 
Union and the United States have close to 
an agreement? 

Secretary Kissinger: No. There is nothing 
before us that is different from what exists 
at Vienna. 

Q. May I ask a philosophical qtiestion on 
the basis of certain considtative acts and 
pieces of paper that were signed last year. 
About a year ago at the Washington summit, 
a statement of principles was issued which 
in fact called on both parties to help bank 
the fires of international disputes tvhen they 
arose. But a short yiumber of months later, 
the Soviets were rushing arms in Antonov 
transports to the Middle East. There was 
also a consultative NATO assembly on ener- 
gy, out of ivhich emerged a scramble bilat- 
erally and every man for himself scrambled 
for available oil surplus. On this basis, do 
you at all feel concerned that the credibility 
of the documents and actions that emerge 
from rushes to summits and consultative 
assemblies may be losing credibility as far 
as public opinion is concerned? 

Secretary Kissinger: Their credibility is 
not as important as their effectiveness. Now, 



July 29, 1974 



203 



first with respect to the Washington Energy 
Conference. The principal result of the 
Washington Energy Conference has been to 
set up a coordinating group in which the 
Western nations and Japan — that is, the 
major oil-consuming nations — have worked 
together to exchange information on re- 
search and development and to develop an 
emergency procedure, to develop a procedure 
for emergencies, and to develop alternative 
supplies. 

This coordinating group has worked ex- 
tremely effectively, and we expect to com- 
plete an interim report to the governments 
by the end of July or early August, and I 
think it will represent a major step forward 
and a substantial fulfillment of many of the 
goals of the Washington Energy Conference. 
We will then see what the next phase of 
cooperation will bring. 

With respect to bilateral oil deals, in fact, 
there have been vei-y few, if any, since the 
Washington Energy Conference, and those 
bilateral economic deals that exist we hope 
to coordinate through the consultative mech- 
anisms that we are now setting up. 

With respect to the first problem, the role 
of the Soviet Union in the Mideast conflict, 
it is clear that detente will not stop either 
country under conditions when it believes 
its vital interests are involved, and there- 
fore it is important to prevent situations 
in which either country believes that its 
vital interests are threatened. 

But the position of the Soviet Union in 
the Middle East is at least ambiguous, be- 
cause we have the public statements of 
Sadat and other Arab leaders that claim that 
the bad relations between them and the So- 
viet Union are caused by the fact that the 
Soviet Union placed the requirements of 
detente over the interests of their Arab 
allies and tried to hold them back from cer- 
tain military action. 

So, I would say that the record on this 
is ambiguous. The Soviet Union did not 
behave well during the crisis, and when they 
did not, we resisted very strenuously. But 
prior to the crisis, one can describe the So- 
viet actions as ambiguous. 



Q. Mr. Secretary, it has been reported 
that you. have been trying to equitably re- 
solve the problems of free emigration and 
harassment that the Jackson amendment ad- 
dresses itself to. I have a three-part ques- 
tion. Firstly, has there been any progress; 
secondly, do you intend to raise these mat- 
ters in the forthcoming meetings; and 
thirdly, 21 Senators, as well as the leaders 
of the American Jewish community, have 
appealed to the President to raise the issue 
of the imprisoned Jewish activists when 
he arrives in Moscow. Could you address 
yourself to these questions, please? 

Secretary Kissinger: I addressed myself 
to this question at my last press conference, 
and I can add very little to it. The United 
States is profoundly concerned about the 
issues which you raise, and we are attempt- 
ing to deal with them. 

We are attempting to deal with them in 
a manner that in our judgment is most likely 
to produce results. We have had discussions 
on these subjects with the Soviet leaders 
as well as with Senator Jackson, Senator 
Ribicoff, and Senator Javits as well as with 
the Jewish community, and when matters 
have reached a certain point, we will talk 
to other Senators. 

Our concern is to bring about results. We 
have no interest in "defeating" Senator 
Jackson. We are prepared to grant that 
his pressures have had an influence, just as 
we believe that our detente policy has pro- 
vided the framework within which discus- 
sions could take place. 

So we are conducting those discussions 
with the primary purpose of bringing about 
the results in which there is no difi'erence 
as to objectives. But no useful purpose is 
served by my spelling out numbers and de- 
tails, because my doing so might prevent 
the achievement of the result. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, if a permanent agree- 
inent on nuclear arms control cannot occur 
in the Moscoiv summit, should we anticipate 
an extension of the interim agreement of 
1972? 

Secretary Kissinger: It is impossible that 



204 



Department of State Bulletin 



there will be an extension of the interim 
agreement unless it is tied to some sub- 
stantial agreement on multiple warheads, 
and that probably will also not be fully 
achieved at the summit. 



NEWS CONFERENCE AT MOSCOW, JULY 3 

Press release 283 dated July 3 

Secretary Kissinger: Mr. Ziegler said I 
should entitle this briefing "The View From 
Ten Feet Behind." [Laughter.] They don't 
read the pool reports. 

I thought I would give you a brief sum- 
mary of the summit as we see it, and I think 
the best way to start is to look at it in terms 
of the press conference in which I tried to 
explain the purposes of the meeting. 

I pointed out that there are three funda- 
mental purposes in these summit meetings ; 
one, for the leaders of the Soviet Union and 
the United States to exchange ideas and to 
check assessments about international af- 
fairs in general. The necessity for this arises 
because, as the two nations capable of de- 
stroying humanity, they have a special obli- 
gation to prevent conflicts caused by inad- 
vertence, by miscalculation, by misassess- 
ment of each other's motives, examples of 
which history is replete. The second is to see 
whether they can, by meeting the needs of 
their peoples and of mankind, construct a 
network of positive relationships that will 
provide an incentive for moderation and for 
a beneficial and humane conduct of foreign 
policy. 

The second large objective is to prevent 
the nuclear arms race and the arms race in 
general from dominating international af- 
fairs, and I want to stress again that this 
objective is no mean goal and one that will 
occupy American administrations in the ab- 
sence of comprehensive agreements for as 
far into the future as we can see. It is not 
only the complexity of the weapons and their 
destructiveness, it is also the justifications 
that will have to be used in each country to 
sustain large armament programs that will, 
over a period of time, present a major ob- 



stacle to the humane or even safe conduct 
of foreign policy. 

And the third general goal is to identify 
those areas of common interests, either pro- 
duced by the nonmilitary aspects of technol- 
ogy or by others or by the nature of modern 
life, in which the Soviet Union and the 
United States can cooperate and thereby cre- 
ate a perspective on world affairs that rec- 
ognizes the interdependence of events and the 
fact that isolation and confrontation are, over 
a period of time, inimical to progress and in- 
consistent with human aspirations. 

Now, in terms of these three objectives, 
a great deal of time was spent by the two 
leaders in reviewing the international situ- 
ation, and I will get into details when I go 
through the various documents. 

They were the most extensive discussions 
at that level of the arms race that have ever 
taken place, and with a frankness that 
would have been considered inconceivable 
two years ago, indeed with an amount of 
detail that would have been considered vio- 
lating intelligence codes in previous periods. 

So, on the issue of SALT, for example, on 
which I will have more to say in a few 
minutes, the words of the communique, that 
far-reaching and deep conversations took 
place, are of very profound significance. 
And in the next phase of discussions, diffi- 
culties cannot be caused by misapprehen- 
sions about each other's general intentions 
and general perceptions of the nature of 
the strategic environment. 

And thirdly, there were a series of agree- 
ments, about most of which you have already 
been briefed, in the field of cooperative re- 
lationships. 

Now, let me speak for myself about the 
two areas of arms control and the general 
review of the international situation. 

With respect to arms control, let me cover 
first the agreements that have been made 
and then let me talk about the strategic 
arms limitation talks. 

With respect to the agreements that have 
been made, there are three: the agreement 
that neither side will build the second ABM 
site, the agreement on the limited thresh- 



Joly 29, 1974 



205 



old test ban, and thirdly, the agreement to 
begin negotiations on environmental war- 
fare. 

With respect to the first agreement, in 
which both sides forgo the second ABM 
site, you remember that the permanent 
agreement on defensive weapons signed in 
Moscow in 1972 permitted each of the two 
countries to maintain two ABM sites, one 
to defend its capital, the second to defend 
an ICBM field, provided that field was no 
closer than 1,300 kilometers to the capital. 

The United States at that time opted for 
a defense of an ICBM field. The Soviet 
Union opted for a defense of its capital. 
There were provisions of the number of 
interceptors and radars that could be main- 
tained at each site, but there is no point in 
going through these. 

The United States and the Soviet Union 
have now decided to forgo that second ABM 
site and to maintain only the one ABM site 
that each currently has, which is Moscow 
for the Soviet Union and an ICBM field for 
the United States. However, because it was 
thought desirable to keep some flexibility 
with respect to which area could be defended, 
each side is permitted at one time during 
the course of the agreement, and once in a 
five-year period, to alter its original deci- 
sion. 

In other words, if the United States should 
decide that it would prefer to defend Wash- 
ington rather than the ICBM site, we have 
the option once in a five-year period to 
move from the ICBM site to Washington, 
and equally the Soviet Union has the option 
of moving once in that five-year period from 
Moscow to an ICBM site. That option, hav- 
ing once been exercised, cannot be exercised 
the second time. In other words, countries 
cannot shuttle their ABM sites back and 
forth between the capital and an ICBM field. 
Each side, in short, has the option once to 
reverse its original decision and it may 
do so in any five-year period when the treaty 
comes up for automatic review. 

The significance of this agreement is that 
it reinforces the original decision implicit 
in 1972— in fact, explicit in 1972— that 



neither side would maintain ABM defenses. 
It makes it even more diflficult, if not im- 
possible, to break out of the agreement rap- 
idly, and in turn, the decision to forgo ABM 
defenses has profound strategic consequences 
which are sometimes lost sight of. 

You must remember that the original im- 
petus for the multiple warheads derived from 
the desire or the necessity to overcome ABM 
defenses and to make sure that the required 
number of missiles would get through. 

In the absence of ABM defenses, the ex- 
traordinary number of foreseeable multiple 
warheads will create a situation in which 
such terms as "superiority" should not be 
lightly thrown around because they may be 
devoid of any operational meaning. 

The notion of nuclear sufficiency, of what 
is necessary under conditions of no ABM de- 
fenses, requires careful correlation with the 
number of available warheads. For present 
purposes, I want to say that any idea that 
any country can easily achieve strategic su- 
periority is almost devoid, under these con- 
ditions, of any operational significance and 
can only have a numerical significance. 

The ABM agreement reinforces the ele- 
ment of strategic stability that was inherent 
in the original ABM agreement made in 
1972. The second agreement, on the threshold 
test ban, prohibits underground nuclear ex- 
plosions above 150 kilotons and will there- 
fore have the tendency to concentrate com- 
petition in the ranges of the lower yield 
weapons. The date for its going into effect 
has been put into the future because a num- 
ber of additional agreements remain to be 
worked out. 

There remains to have an agreement on 
the peaceful uses of nuclear explosions in 
which adequate assurance will be given that 
they will not be used to circumvent the in- 
tention of the agreement, and there is an 
agreement in principle that the inspection of 
peaceful nuclear explosions, among other 
things, will involve prior notification, precise 
definition of the time and place, and the 
presence of observers, which is a major step 
forward in our discussions. 

The second subject that will require fur- 



206 



Department of State Bulletin 



ther discussion is the exchange of geological 
information which is needed for the adequate 
verification of this threshold test ban. 

The third area in which an agreement was 
reached was to begin discussions on the dan- 
gers of environmental warfare from the 
point of view of overcoming these dangers. 
This is a form of warfare that is in its in- 
fancy, the nature of which is not properly 
understood, and which obviously, by defini- 
tion, can have profound consequences for the 
future of mankind. The United States and 
the Soviet Union, in the near future, will 
open discussions on this problem of environ- 
mental warfare. 

In addition to these three agreements, two 
protocols will be signed on the Standing Con- 
sultative Commission, and we will certainly 
make diplomatic history, because it will be 
the first time that secret agreements are pub- 
licly signed. The agreements are being kept 
secret at the request of the Soviet Union, be- 
cause they involve dismantling procedures 
for replacement missiles under the interim 
agreement and the ABM agreement. How- 
ever, they will be submitted to the appropri- 
ate congressional committees upon our re- 
turn to the United States. 

Let me say a word about the Standing 
Consultative Commission. The Standing Con- 
sultative Commission was created in the 1972 
agreement, in order to implement the provi- 
sions for replacement or destruction of weap- 
ons under the two agreements on defensive 
and off"ensive weapons. 

There is a protocol for defensive weapons 
because the United States will have to dis- 
mantle some deployments that have taken 
place at a site which under the agreement 
we can no longer maintain and the Soviet 
Union will have to di-smantle 15 ABM launch- 
ers and associated radars on their test ranges. 

Secondly, there is a protocol for off'ensive 
weapons, which discusses dismantling and 
replacement procedure under the provisions 
of the interim agreement where all land- 
based missiles can be traded in for modern 
sea-based missiles and where older, subma- 
rine-launched nuclear missiles can be traded 
in for newer submarine-launched sea-based 



July 29, 1974 



missiles. These are the two protocols that 
have been the subject of an illuminating ex- 
change that took place just before I left the 
United States. 

It must be understood that it was the as- 
signment from the beginning of the Standing 
Consultative Commission to work out precise 
provisions for replacement and dismantling, 
that for that purpose they had to go into 
greater technical detail than was the case in 
the agreement, and that two protocols will 
be signed — one to implement the defensive 
provisions, the other to implement the offen- 
sive provisions. 

They break no new ground, they change no 
provisions. If I may say so, they close no loop- 
holes, they deal only with the technical imple- 
mentation of agreements previously reached. 
They will be submitted to congressional com- 
mittees. They are not policy documents. They 
are technical documents in implementation 
of the 1972 agreement, and they are being 
signed now as a result of work extending 
over a period of 18 months, because it is only 
now that the replacement provisions are be- 
coming efi'ective due to the fact that the mis- 
siles, the ICBM's, did not have to be disman- 
tled until the submarines containing the 741st 
missile on the Soviet side underwent sea trial. 

Now these are the agreements that have 
been reached. 

Now let me say a word about strategic 
arms limitation talks. As I pointed out prior 
to our coming here, the administration con- 
siders the problem of strategic arms limita- 
tion one of the central issues of our time. 
It is one of the central issues, because if 
it runs unchecked, the number of warheads 
will reach proportions astronomical com- 
pared to the time — when Armageddon 
seemed near — when there were something 
less than 1,000 warheads on both sides. 

It is important because a perception may 
grow that these warheads will provide a 
capability which will not be sustained by 
any systematic analysis, but because in any 
event they bring about a gap between the 
perceived first- and second-strike capabilities 
which in itself will fuel a constantly accel- 
erating arms race. 



207 



Now, the problem we face in these dis- 
cussions is that under the interim agree- 
ment the Soviet Union possesses more mis- 
siles — though if you add together the total 
number of launchers, that is to say, stra- 
tegic bombers, there is no significant gap, 
and after all, it was not the Soviet Union 
that made us build bombers, that was our 
own decision — and therefore an attempt has 
been made to establish a correlation between 
the number of MIRV missiles and the num- 
bers of launchers in which perhaps to some 
extent the larger numbers of missiles on 
one side can be offset by a larger number 
of MIRV's on the other. 

The difficulty with this approach has been 
the limited time frame within which it was 
attempted to be implemented, so that during 
the maximum deployment period it would 
not be clear whether any of these limitations 
would not simply be to provide a base for 
a breakout when the agreement lapsed. 

Therefore the two leaders have decided 
that the principal focus of the discussions 
would not be on a brief extension of the 
interim agreement tied to an equally brief 
MIRV agreement, but to see whether the 
three factors — time, quantity of launchers, 
and quantity of warheads — cannot be related 
in a more constructive and stabilizing fash- 
ion over a longer period of time; that is 
to say, by 1985. 

And in that context, some of the difficulty 
of relating the various asymmetries in num- 
ber can be taken care of and a stability can 
be perhaps achieved in deployment rates that 
would remove, to a considerable extent, the 
insecurities inherent in an unchecked arms 
race. 

As the communique says, the two sides 
will reconvene their delegations in Geneva 
on the basis of this approach and on the 
basis of instructions growing out of the 
summit meeting. 

With respect to the review of the inter- 
national situation implicit in the communi- 
que, I think I will confine myself to a few 
observations and primarily answer your 
questions. 

The basic purpose of this review was, as 



I have pointed out, to attempt to avoid mis- 
calculation and, where possible, bring about 
cooperative action. 

In Europe, the principal focus was on two 
subjects: the European Security Conference 
and the mutual balanced force reductions. 

With respect to the European Security 
Conference, the United States repeated its 
position, which is that we are prepared to 
have that security conference end at the 
summit level if the results of the conference 
warrant it, and that we would believe that 
such a conference, with adequate results, 
could make a contribution to European se- 
curity. 

That phrase has been used by Western 
statesmen now for two years, and it will 
not in itself advance matters until we can 
define for ourselves what results we consti- 
tute justifying a summit conference. We 
have put that question to our European al- 
lies at Ottawa, discussions of it have begun 
in Brussels, and we hope to be able to have 
at least a Western answer to this in the 
relatively near future. 

With respect to the Middle East, I will 
read the part you don't have: 

Both Sides believe that the removal of the danger 
of war and tension in the Middle East is a task 
of paramount importance and urgency, and there- 
fore, the only alternative is the achievement, on 
the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 338, 
of a just and lasting peace settlement in which 
should be taken into account the legitimate inter- 
ests of all peoples in the Middle East, including 
the Palestinian people, and the right to existence 
of all states in the area. 

As Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Peace Conference 
on the Middle East, the USA and the USSR con- 
sider it important that the Conference resume its 
work as soon as possible, with the question of 
other participants from the Middle East area to 
be discussed at the Conference. Both Sides see 
the main purpose of the Geneva Peace Conference, 
the achievement of which they will promote in 
every way, as the establishment of just and stable 
peace in the Middle East. 

They agreed that the USA and the USSR will 
continue to remain in close touch with a view to 
coordinating the efforts of both countries toward 
a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. 

This is the extent of the Middle East sec- 
tion, which will be distributed to you as 



208 



Department of State Bulletin 



soon as this briefing is over. 

Finally, the communique lists the areas of 
bilateral relations that have already been 
covered in previous briefings on which sep- 
arate agreements were signed. In addition 
to the ones that have been signed, there will 
be additional cooperation in space and tech- 
nology of high-speed transportation and in 
the area of environmental protection, where 
both sides will create biosphere areas ; that 
is, areas which are kept free of the en- 
croachment of modern technology to use 
for purposes of comparison with areas in 
which major environmental problems are 
posed. 

Now, these are the main outlines of the 
conference and of the agreements that have 
been signed. They should be seen in the 
context of what is now, and what will re- 
main for the decades ahead, the problem of 
preserving the peace; namely, that the 
United States and the Soviet Union make 
every honorable effort to avoid the catas- 
trophe of war and every endeavor to improve 
the lot of humanity, and that for this pur- 
pose the regular meeting of their leaders — 
which the communique points out can be 
supplemented for special occasions between 
the yearly intervals that have been set — 
performs an essential role. 

I would be glad to answer questions now. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, doesn't yovr Middle East 
section suggest a change in U.S. policy, and 
doesn't it now advocate the seating of the 
Palestinians at the Geneva Peace Conference 
as the Soviets wanted? 

Secretary Kissinger: Absolutely not. 

Q. What does it mean then? 

Secretary Kissinger: What it means is 
that this sentence about the problem of the 
participation of others from the Middle East 
is verbatim, drawn from the original letter 
of invitation to the Geneva Conference, and 
it adds not one word to the original letter 
in which the invitation was extended to the 
parties that are now at the Geneva Con- 
ference. Indeed, it is a slight reduction from 
it where it was said that this problem would 



be discussed in the first stage, and here it 
simply says it will be discussed at the Ge- 
neva Peace Conference. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, tivo questions. One, how 
did you arrive at the date 1985 on the SALT 
business as a concluding date or terminating 
date? 

Secretary Kissinger: Because we couldn't 
pick 1984. [Laughter.] 

Q. That is what I thought, but I know 
you will give a more serious answer in a 
miyiute. And secondly, what is the nature 
of the instructioyi that ivill be going out to 
the delegation that will reconvene in Geneva, 
and approximately when will they start? 

Secretary Kissinger: We would expect 
them to start around August 1, give or take 
two weeks. The date 1985 was picked for 
the following reasons. 

We had been thinking in terms of extend- 
ing the interim agreement by perhaps two or 
three years and at the same time coupling 
with it some MIRV limitations. This pre- 
sented a number of e.xtraordinarily difficult 
problems because we would be pressed in 
terms of quantity, since a number of our new 
programs, such as Trident, are going to be 
deployed starting around 1978, 1979, and on 
the other hand, the Soviet Union would be 
pressed in terms of quality because their de- 
ployment of MIRV's is only now starting. 
And the difficulty of making an agreement 
with a cutoff date of 1979 is, when you have 
gone through all the agony, you have not put 
a cap on the rate of deployment, most of 
which will be occurring after 1978, 1979. 

So, it seemed to us that by picking a pe- 
riod of 1985, one could take into account the 
projected programs and put on limitations 
that would have some operational signifi- 
cance and which, in any event, would intro- 
duce some stability into deployment rates in 
such a way that it was not each side's per- 
ception of the other that would be driving it 
into an ever-accelerating spiral. 

As we were discussing on Sunday the 
various ways of tackling the problem, it 
became apparent that one of the big obstacles 



July 29, 1974 



209 



was the short time frame which we were 
considering and that for what we had in 
mind it was really necessary to look at it 
in a longer time frame. 

On the other hand, when you talk of a 
permanent agreement, you get yourself fro- 
zen into situations in which the technology 
is so unpredictable that it is very difficult 
to make reasonable judgments, and this is 
why the period 1985 was chosen. 

It was chosen in the hope, not the assur- 
ance, that if such an agreement were reached 
next year, we would be talking of a 10-year 
agreement. This is one of the factors. 

Q. Could I follotv that, because it seems 
important. You talked about the technolog- 
ical explosion in Brussels, I think. Does 
this not suggest that in the period between 
noiv and 1985 you will have one hell of an 
arms race going on ? 

Secretary Kissinger: No. It depends when 
the agreement is made. As I said in Brus- 
sels, and I maintain, that we have about 
18 months to gain control of the multiple 
warheads — control not in the sense of elim- 
inating it, but by introducing some stability 
into the rate and nature of their deployment. 

If an agreement is reached within that 
time frame, more or less — that doesn't mean 
down to the last month — then it can make 
a major contribution to turning down the 
arms race, to including the problem of re- 
duction to which we attach importance, and 
to bringing stability into the strategic equa- 
tion. 

With every six-month period that it is 
delayed, the problem becomes more compli- 
cated, but the point is precisely to avoid 
what you called the hell of an arms race, 
and the difficulty, as you analyze the prob- 
lem with cutoff dates of 1977, 1979, is that 
both sides will be preparing for the break of 
the agreement while they are negotiating 
the agreement, and it became clear that one 
of the obstacles was that both sides, while 
negotiating limitations, were also putting 
themselves into the position of the agree- 
ment lapsing and therefore having to develop 
programs that would be pressing against 



limits of the agreement at the edge of its 
time period and for that very reason have 
another vested interest not to have an agree- 
ment. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, General Secretary Brezh- 
nev said last night that these accords coidd 
have been still broader than they were. First, 
I would like your comments on that and also 
whether it is not correct then from your 
interpretation that one could not say there 
are agreed guidelines on the MIRV warhead 
negotiations. Secondly, on the question of 
the underground nuclear test ban, could you 
clarify with some figures what I believe is 
a fact — that the limit of 150 kilotons woidd 
permit all continuing underground testing 
of MIRV's currently conducted by the United 
States, which are considerably below that 
range — and ivoxdd that not allow the con- 
tinuance even beyond the target date here 
of all the projectable multiple warheads 
likely to be produced by both sides? 

Secretary Kissinger: First, the degree of 
cooperation between the Soviet Union and 
the United States has not yet reached the 
point where the General Secretary shows 
me the text of his speeches before he makes 
them. [Laughter.] And therefore I am not 
the best witness of what he may have had 
in mind. 

My impression from what I have observed 
is that both sides have to convince their 
military establishments of the benefits of 
restraint, and that is not a thought that 
comes naturally to military people on either 
side. 

New, by definition, the limitations could 
have been broader. On the one hand, as you 
know, the Soviet Union has been proposing 
a complete test ban, but under provisions 
that are unverifiable and with escape clauses 
which would make it directed clearly against 
other countries. And therefore we have 
deferred a further discussion of the test 
ban, which we are not rejecting in principle 
— which, indeed, we are accepting in prin- 
ciple — for a later occasion. So I am assum- 
ing this is one thing the General Secretary 
had in mind. 



210 



Department of State Bulletin 



The second is, from my description of 
the SALT discussions, obviously a broader 
agreement is conceivable. With respect to 
your question, are there agreed guidelines 
for Geneva, the idea of extending the time 
frame arose really only on Monday, and it 
wasn't possible to work out detailed agreed 
guidelines in the interval. 

On the other hand, certain basic principles 
do exist, and I believe we have made a major 
step forward in the approach to the problem. 

With respect to the testing, it is not 
true that all the projected MIRV develop- 
ments are in the category below 150. In- 
deed, the enthusiasm seems to run more 
in the categories above 150, coupled with 
improved accuracies, but whenever I link 
these two I get a rebuttal. So I must be 
cautious. So if we are concerned that one 
of the threats to stability is the combination 
of accuracy and higher yields, then in the 
next phase of the MIRV warhead race this 
ban will make a major contribution. 

Clearly, for the existing multiple war- 
heads, the testing has been substantially 
completed on both sides. We are concerned 
with the next generation of warheads, not 
this generation of warheads, and with re- 
spect to those, it will play a very significant 
role. 

Q. May I follotv that, Dr. Kissinger? 

Secretary Kissinger: Yes. 

Q. On this question of the 150 threshold, 
just if you can get a little more specific, 
what ivill it preve7it ms fro7n doing that ive 
had planned to do, planned to test, and what 
will it prevent the Soviets from doing that 
ive know they had planned to test? 

Secretary Kissinger: To tell you what we 
know about what the Soviets are planning 
to do would present major problems of hos- 
pitality. [Laughter.] 

Q. We have had some already. [Laughter.] 

Secretary Kissinger: You are supposed to 
laugh at my jokes, not top them. [Laughter.] 

I cannot, obviously, go into what we were 
planning to do and what the Soviet Union 



was planning to do. It is obvious that, if 
one of the concerns is the elaboration of 
strategies that rely on first strikes, and if, 
to put it another way, the concern of each 
side is that the proliferation of warheads 
might make it subject to a first strike, then 
it stands to reason that with the hardening 
of silos, it is the increase in the explosive 
power of warheads together with improved 
accuracy that becomes of greatest concern 
and therefore, to the extent those strategies 
become possible, conceivable, or dominant 
on each side, whatever its previous ap- 
proach, each side will be driven toward the 
elaboration of larger warheads on its 
MIRV's. 

So I repeat, this is adressed to the next 
generation of warheads, not to the present 
generation of warheads. 

Q. What I was getting at there, as I binder- 
stood it — and I could he wrong — we test in 
miniature, or do to some extent, wouldn't 
that put us well helow 150, below 100 in 
fact, and do the Soviets do the same kind 
of testing in miniature or not? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't think this is 
the place — nor can I think of many more 
convenient places [laughter] — to go in detail 
into our methods of testing or what we 
know about the Soviet methods of testing. 

It is my understanding that miniature 
testing is very rarely done, never done with 
operational weapons, and the concern that 
has been expressed to us, as we were dis- 
cussing this within our government, was 
precisely the necessity of full-scale tests of 
those categories of weapons of principal sig- 
nificance. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, will they be able to test 
MIRV's on the SS-9 under that 150-kiloton 
limitation? 

Secretary Kissinger: Whenever I describe 
the characteristics of Soviet weapons to 
Soviet colleagues, their self-control evapo- 
rates. I don't know how they feel when I 
describe them to American journalists. 

It is our understanding that no MIRV's 
are being put on SS-9's, that they are de- 



Joly 29, 1974 



211 



veloping a missile of comparable size which 
will have a MIRV capability. I am not 
making a hairsplitting point. The warhead 
of that missile which we call the SS-18 and 
on which our judgment is that the testing 
of the MIRV's is in its very early stage, 
those warheads, in our judgment, would be 
considerably larger than 150 kilotons and, 
indeed, if those warheads could be driven 
below 150 kilotons, we would consider it 
a considerable success. 

Q. Do you interpret this limitation as in 
effect to preventing them from MIRV'ing 
on SS-9's or SS-18's? 

Secretary Kissinger: As I said, they are 
not MIRV'ing the SS-9's. In order to get 
MIRV's on a large missile, they would have 
to replace the SS-9 with an SS-18, but that 
is just a refinement. 

Quite honestly, I believe they have prob- 
ably tested the warheads they would want 
to put on the SS-18 already. However, these 
have always to be calculated in terms of 
weight-to-yield ratio; that is to say, at the 
present state of their technology, there may 
be a limit to the number of warheads of 
large yield they can put on the SS-18, 
while with continued testing, the number of 
warheads could be multiplied very consider- 
ably and still maintain the same explosive 
power, but I don't want to go beyond that. 
But you have to look at it both in terms 
of numbers of warheads that can be carried 
on an individual missile as well as in terms 
of the explosive power of each warhead 
and both of them are a function of testing, 
because testing determines the packaging, 
which is to say the size of the warhead, as 
well as the yield of the warhead. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, will you be presenting 
to Members of the Congress any indications 
of a lessening of tensions and the problems 
with respect to emigration and harassment 
and have you found any further understand- 
ing and receptivity on the part of the Soviet 
leaders in this field? 

Secretary Kissinger: There was a discus- 
sion of the subject — and I will have to main- 



212 



tain the position that we have previously, 
which is to say that we believe that the 
objective which we think we share with 
those who have other approaches can, in our 
judgment, be realized more effectively with- 
out making it a public government-to-gov- 
ernment confrontation. 

Q. Can't you tell us if anything new has 
arisen — not ivhat it is, but if anything new 
has arisen? 

Secretary Kissinger: I will discuss the 
subject with those who are interested in 
the Congress after I return, but I will not 
discuss it publicly, as I have stated con- 
sistently. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, you sound as though 
you have, at least for the time being, given 
up hope for getting a comprehensive SALT 
agreement with the Soviet Union. Is that 
correct ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Not a comprehensive, 
but a permanent, and this is not a question 
of giving up hope, it is a question of look- 
ing at the realities of how to move matters 
forward. We have been operating up to 
now within the constraint of either a very 
short term or a sort of permanent agree- 
ment. 

Now, permanent would have to have re- 
view clauses every five to ten years anyway. 
So when you talk of 1985, that is about 
as permanent as you can realistically be- 
come under present circumstances. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, what is the vieiv of the 
Government of the United States of the ef- 
fect on the good will and spirit that this 
agreement and the others seek to create of 
Soviet efforts to interfere with American 
television transmissions last night? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't know the de- 
tails of the interference with the television 
transmission, but we certainly don't approve 
of it. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I thought I heard you 
say at the outset that the underground test- 
ing ban — / may have misheard you — but 
I thought I heard you say the underground 



Department of State Bulletin 



ban included soyne provision for observers. 
I can't find it. Can yon elaborate on that? 

Secretary Kissinger: No, the negotiations 
with respect to the verification of peaceful 
nuclear explosions included an understand- 
ing which is not part of the agreement, 
that the verification of the underground ex- 
plosions would involve, among other things, 
the specification of time and place, and the 
presence of observers. 

That in itself is not enough, however. It 
is not written in the document, and you are 
quite correct in not finding it — because this 
is, I believe, article III, and article III simply 
says it will be negotiated in the earliest 
time, and I am simply indicating that we did 
discuss some of the substance of this article 
III, even now. 

The difficulty with peaceful nuclear explo- 
sions, or the inspection difficulty or verifica- 
tion difficulty, is on two levels. Below the 
threshold level of 150 kilotons, it does not 
present a problem of magnitude, but it pre- 
sents a problem of location. 

As you know from the agreement, the lo- 
cation of military test sites is specified and 
geological information is exchanged, and also 
there is provision, as you can see in the 
protocol, for calibration shots. 

Therefore, we have a substantial degree 
of confidence within a factor that is very 
tolerable for military purposes that we will 
know violations of the threshold test ban 
as long as the testing takes place at known 
sites. 

A peaceful nuclear explosion obviously will 
almost never take place at military test 
sites. Therefore, we will have less geological 
information ; therefore, special verification 
procedures will have to be used. 

This is below 150 kilotons. If the peaceful 
nuclear explosion should be above 150 kilo- 
tons, even more stringent requirements ex- 
ist to make sure that peaceful nuclear ex- 
plosions do not hide military testing; and 
those provisions, frankly, have not been 
worked out, but there is an understanding 
that they will include the presence of ob- 
servers. 



Q. For those of us without a deep back- 
ground in the arms negotiations, is this then 
the first time the Soviet Uyiion has — leaving 
aside what kind of tests these are — agreed 
to on-site inspection? 

Secretary Kissinger: That is correct. But 
agreed in the form of an unwritten under- 
standing. This does not exist yet. 

Q. Sir, does this understanding specify as 
to whether these observers will be principals 
of both coimtries or whether they will be 
third-nation observers or perhaps observers 
from an international body? 

Secretary Kissinger: This has not been 
worked out. In the context of the discus- 
sions, it was from the two countries, which, 
incidentally, is much more reassuring to the 
two countries than to bring in outsiders, 
but that is a question that has not been 
refined. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, are we or the Russians 
currently testing any warheads larger than 
150 kilotons? 

Secretary Kissinger: I can't go into great 
detail about it, but as I said, the trend is 
clearly in that direction. 

Q. I didn't quite understand that. What I 
tvanted to get out ivas, does this merely 
freeze the tests at the current level, or is 
it actually cutting the size of it? 

Secretary Kissinger: As I pointed out, be- 
cause there is no sense in misleading any- 
body, obviously the warheads for the cur- 
rent generation have been substantially 
tested almost certainly by both sides. What 
will be affected is the improved packaging 
of new generations or the improved yield 
of new generations, not of missiles neces- 
sarily, but of warheads. 

In that sense, without going into the test- 
ing programs, I think it is correct to say 
that the trend of the arms race is in the 
direction of the higher yields, for reasons 
which I gave you. 

Q. What about the problem of decoupling? 

Secretary Kissinger: The problem of de- 



Joly 29, 1974 



213 



coupling, I think has been, insofar as it 
can be, taken care of by the exchange of 
geological information and by the calibration 
shots. 

Q I am kind of puzzled how you can take 
what happened here on SALT as anything 
less than a setback. If you have changed from 
searching for a permanent agreement to 
searching for one in a finite time period, and 
you postponed the time you have given your- 
self or you have put hack the time you have 
given yourself to find that agreement, it 
seems to me there are two setbacks there, 
and I don't see how you can say this hasn t 
been a failure at the sim7nit. 

Q. We couldn't hear the question. 

Secretary Kissinger: It is just as well. 
[Laughter.] The question is how we can con- 
strue SALT as anything other than a set- 
back because we extended the time period 
for negotiation and we shortened the time 
period of the agreement to be reached. Is that 
correct? 
Q. Yes. 

Secretary Kissinger: If you approach it in 
a formalistic way, then these are valid argu- 
ments. If you approach it from the point of 
view of what will in fact contribute to slow- 
ing down the arms race, then I believe that 
we have found an approach in which the 
factors that have inhibited progress can be 
hopefully overcome. 

The difficulty with the previous negotia- 
tions has been that it has proved extremely 
difficult to reconcile the various asymmetries 
that exist in the design of the forces, in the 
locations of the forces, and in the relative 
deployment rates of the forces. And the time 
limits we have been talking about until this 
visit created a situation in which both sides 
would be pressing against the limits of the 
agreement at the precise moment of its expi- 
ration date— the Soviet Union from the point 
of view of quality, the United States from 
the point of view of quantity— and therefore 
there was a great danger that the mere ex- 
piration date might fuel, especially in its fi- 
nal phases, a race. 



And as a result of the discussions that 
took place Sunday, where for the first time, I 
believe, at least where the concerns and the 
perceptions of both sides were put before 
each other in what I considered an unusually 
frank way, and in which it turned out that 
the perception by each side of the other really 
was remarkably close— the only difference 
being that each side of course has to take the 
worst case of what the other one might do ; I 
think this was the major gap that existed— 
it became apparent that the time pressure 
was a greater factor than had been com- 
monly understood by either side. 

So I don't want to do this in terms of set- 
back. We are not running a race with our- 
selves. This is a problem which, I have been 
stressing, will be with us for a long time, and 
it shouldn't be seen in terms of hitting a 
home run on any one occasion. 

Q. You, at the Brussels briefing, said there 
ivas only 18 months before their decisions 
were irrevocable and each six months made 
it worse in terms of the rate of deployments. 

Secretary Kissinger: That is right, and I 
have reaffirmed that here. 

Q. But what I mean is ijou introduced the 
time pressure, as you call it. 

Secretary Kissinger: There are two time 
factors, the time factor available for negotia- 
tion and the time factor involved in the 
length of the agreement. I have reaffirmed 
here that, in my judgment, the time frame 
in which the problems that I have identified 
can be constructively settled is in the 18- 
month range— 24 months, 18 months, in that 
range— and one of the reasons for 1985 is 
that if this agreement were to be concluded 
in 1975, it would then take care of the next 
decade. This was one of the reasons behind 
it. So that time factor still exists, and that 
time factor will press on us and must press 
on us, if we are serious. 

Q. Can I follow up that, sir? What would 
you envision will happen then, if the interim 
agree^nent expires or is alloived to expire in 
1977 but you have not yet reached a replace- 
ment agreement— what will happen between 



214 



Department of State Bulletin 



1977 and 1985 in terms of the arms race psy- 
chology? 

Secretarij Kissinger: If we have not 
reached an agreement well before 1977, then 
I believe you will see an explosion of tech- 
nology and an explosion of numbers at the 
end of which we will be lucky if we have 
the present stability, in which it will be im- 
possible to describe what strategic superi- 
ority means. And one of the questions which 
we have to ask ourselves as a country is : 
What in the name of God is strategic su- 
periority? What is the significance of it, 
politically, militarily, operationally, at these 
levels of numbers ? What do you do with it ? 

But my prediction would be that if we 
do not solve this problem well before, in 
my judgment, the end of the expiration of 
the agreement, we will be living in a world 
which will be extraordinarily complex, in 
which opportunities for nuclear warfare ex- 
ist that were unimaginable 15 years ago 
at the beginning of the nuclear age, and that 
is what is driving our concern, not the dis- 
putes that one reads in the day-to-day — 

Q. One last point, on the iveather modifica- 
tion, sir, could you clarify? You only re- 
ferred to it very briefly. Weather modifica- 
tion techniques, as I understand, proved a 
failure in the Viet-Nam war. Could you 
explain why the issue is regarded as sig- 
nificant in arms control? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well. The issue is 
significant because the problem exists and 
it is not a problem, frankly, that we have 
completely understood. We have just started 
our studies on the subject. How significant 
it is, frankly, will become apparent only as 
time goes on. It is significant for the deter- 
mination of the two sides to try to limit new 
areas of arms competition. 

The press: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 



World Environment Day, 1974 

A PROCLAMATION' 

On May 4, 1974, I had the pleasure of helping to 
inaugurate EXPO '74, a six-month long- exhibition 
in Spokane, Washington, dedicated to the improve- 
ment of the human environment. This exposition is 
one of many examples of a deepening concern for 
the quality of life in America. 

While much remains to be done, all Americans 
can be gratified by the substantial success which 
has already occurred with respect to a number of 
environmental concerns. Air quality is improving 
in most of our urban areas as harmful emissions 
have been reduced. Water quality is similarly im- 
proving. In the Great Lakes game fish are return- 
ing to areas from which they had long been absent, 
due in large measure to the cooperative work which 
we have undertaken with our Canadian neighbors 
under the terms of an agreement which I signed 
with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada on April 
15, 1972, in Ottawa. We ai-e working with other na- 
tions to deal effectively with a variety of environ- 
mental problems, and thei-e will be continued prog- 
ress. 

June 5 will mark the second anniversary of World 
Environment Day. This date was established by the 
United Nations as a day on which the peoples of 
the world can undertake activities reaffirming their 
concern for the preservation and enhancement of 
the human environment. 

Now, Therefore, I, Richard Nixon, President 
of the United States of America, do, in support 
of the action of the United Nations General Assem- 
bly, call on the people of the United States and 
United States Government agencies to observe once 
again June 5 as World Environment Day with appro- 
priate ceremonies and activities emphasizing the 
concern of Americans for a better environment in 
which to live. 

In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand 
this fourth day of June in the year of our Lord 
nineteen hundred seventy-four, and of the inde- 
pendence of the United States of America the one 
hundred ninety-eighth. 



(^^zjL/^-^K:/^ 



"No. 4296; 39 Fed. Reg. 20051. 



July 29, 1974 



215 



TREATY INFORMATION 



Agreements Signed at Moscow During President Nixon's Visit 



Following are texts of the protocol to the 
treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic tnis- 
sile systems, the treaty and protocol on the 
limitation of underground nuclear weapon 
tests, the long term agreement to facilitate 
ecoywmic, industrial, and technical cooper- 
ation, the agreement on cooperation in the 
field of energy, the agreement on cooperatioyi 
in the field of housing and other construction, 
and the agreement on cooperation in arti- 
ficial heart research and development. 



PROTOCOL TO TREATY ON THE LIMITATION 
OF ANTI-3ALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS 

Protocol to the Treaty Between the United 
States of America and the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti- 
Ballistic Missile Systems 

The United States of America and the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred 
to as the Parties, 

Proceeding from the Basic Principles of Relations 
between the United States of America and the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed on May 
29, 1972, 

Desiring' to further the objectives of the Treaty 
betvireen the United States of America and the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limita- 
tion of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems signed on 
May 26, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, 

Reaffirming their conviction that the adoption of 
further measures for the limitation of strategic 
arms would contribute to strengthening interna- 
tional peace and security, 

Proceeding from the premise that further limi- 
tation of anti-ballistic missile systems will create 
more favorable conditions for the completion of 
work on a permanent agreement on more complete 
measures for the limitation of strategic offensive 
arms. 

Have agreed as follows: 

Article I 
1. Each Party shall be limited at any one time 



to a single area out of the two provided in Article 
III of the Treaty for deployment of anti-ballistic 
missile (ABM) systems or their components and 
accordingly shall not exercise its right to deploy 
an ABM system or its components in the second of 
the two ABM system deployment areas permitted 
by Article III of the Treaty, except as an exchange 
of one permitted area for the other in accordance 
with Article II of this Protocol. 

2. Accordingly, except as permitted by Article II 
of this Protocol: the United States of America shall 
not deploy an ABM system or its components in 
the area centered on its capital, as permitted by 
Article III (a) of the Treaty, and the Soviet Union 
shall not deploy an ABM system or its components 
in the deployment area of intercontinental ballistic 
missile (ICBM) silo launchers as permitted by Arti- 
cle III (b) of the Treaty. 

Article II 

1. Each Party shall have the right to dismantle 
or destroy its ABM system a