Skip to main content

Full text of "Department of State bulletin"

See other formats 


BOSTON 
PUBLIC 
tlBRARY 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  office 

washington.  d.c.  20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE  AND    FCCS   PAID 
U.S.     OOVERNMENT     PRIKTINO     OPPICE 

Special   Fourlh-Closi   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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


/.3: 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1841 


October  7,  1974 


A  FRAMEWORK  OF  INTERNATIONAL  COOPERATION 

Address  by  President  Ford  Before  the  U.N.  General  Assembly     UBS 

ECONOMIC  INTERDEPENDENCE  AND  COMMON  DEFENSE 
Address  by  Deputy  Secretary  Ingersoll     Jt73 

ACTION  PROGRAM  FOR  WORLD  INVESTMENT 
Address  by  Assistant  Secretary  Enders     h77 

DEPARTMENT  DISCUSSES  PROPOSED  NUCLEAR  REACTOR  AGREEMENTS 

WITH  EGYPT  AND  ISRAEL 

Statement   by    Under  Secretary  Sisco  Before   Subcommittees 

of  the  Hov^e  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs     h8h 


THE   OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 

For  index  see   inside  back  cover     Superintendent  of  Documents 

MAR  i  2  iSTS 
DEPOSITORY. 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE   BULLETIN 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington.  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

52  issues  plus  semiannual  indexes, 

domestic  $20.80.  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.  1841 
October  7,  1974 


The  Department  of  State  BULLETIN, 
a    weekly    publication    issued    by    the 
Office   of   Media    Services,   Bureau   of 
Public  Affairs,  provides  the  public  and  k 
interested  agencies  of  the  government  I 
with   information  on   developments  in  I 
tlie  field  of  U.S.  foreign  relations  and'% 
on   tlie   worlc  of  the  Department  and 
the  Foreign  Service. 
The     BULLETIN     includes     selected 
press  releases  on  foreign  policy,  issued 
by  tlie  White  House  and  the  Depart- 
ment,     and      statements,      addresses, 
and  news  conferences  of  tlie  President 
and  the  Secretary  of  State  and  other  ^ 
officers  of  the  Department,  as  well  as 
special  articles   on   various  phases  at 
international  affairs  and  the  functions 
of    tlie    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    tlie    field    off 
international  relations  are  also  listed. 


L 

n 


A  Framework  of  International  Cooperation 


Address  by  President  Ford 


In  1946  President  Harry  Truman  wel- 
comed representatives  of  55  nations  to  the 
first  General  Assembly  of  the  United  Na- 
tions. Since  then,  every  American  President 
has  had  the  great  honor  of  addressing  this 
Assembly.  Today,  with  pleasure  and  humil- 
ity, I  take  my  turn  in  welcoming  you,  the 
distinguished  representatives  of  138  nations. 

When  I  took  office,  I  told  the  American 
people  that  my  remarks  would  be  "just  a  lit- 
tle straight  talk  among  friends."  Straight 
talk  is  what  I  propose  here  today  in  the  first 
of  my  addresses  to  the  representatives  of  the 
world. 

Next  week  Secretary  of  State  Henry  Kis- 
singer will  present  in  specifics  the  overall 
principles  which  I  will  outline  in  my  remarks 
today.  It  should  be  emphatically  understood 
that  the  Secretary  of  State  has  my  full  sup- 
port and  the  unquestioned  backing  of  the 
American  people. 

As  a  party  leader  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  as  Vice  President,  and  now  as 
President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  I 
have  had  the  closest  working  relationship 
with  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger.  I  have 
supported  and  will  continue  to  endorse  his 
many  efforts  as  Secretary  of  State  and  in  our 
National  Security  Council  system  to  build  a 
world  of  peace. 

Since  the  United  Nations  was  founded,  the 
world  has  experienced  conflicts  and  threats 
to  peace.  But  we  have  avoided  the  greatest 
danger :  another  world  war.  Today  we  have 


'  Made  before  the  29th  United  Nations  General  As- 
sembly on  Sept.  18  (text  from  Weekly  Compilation 
of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Sept.  23). 


the  opportunity  to  make  the  remainder  of 
this  century  an  era  of  peace  and  cooperation 
and  economic  well-being. 

The  harsh  hostilities  which  once  held  great 
powers  in  their  rigid  grasp  have  now  begun 
to  moderate.  Many  of  the  crises  which  dom- 
inated past  General  Assemblies  are  fortu- 
nately behind  us.  Technological  progress 
holds  out  the  hope  that  one  day  all  men  can 
achieve  a  decent  life. 

Nations  too  often  have  had  no  choice  but 
to  be  either  hammer  or  anvil — to  strike  or  to 
be  struck.  Now  we  have  a  new  opportunity — 
to  forge,  in  concert  with  others,  a  frame- 
work of  international  cooperation.  That  is 
the  course  the  United  States  has  chosen  for 
itself. 

On  behalf  of  the  American  people,  I  renew 
these  basic  pledges  to  you  today : 

— We  are  committed  to  a  pursuit  of  a  more 
peaceful,  stable,  and  cooperative  world. 
While  we  are  determined  never  to  be  bested 
in  a  test  of  strength,  we  will  devote  our 
strength  to  what  is  best.  And  in  the  nuclear 
era,  there  is  no  rational  alternative  to  ac- 
cords of  mutual  restraint  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Soviet  Union,  two  nations 
which  have  the  power  to  destroy  mankind. 

— We  will  bolster  our  partnerships  with 
traditional  friends  in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Latin 
America  to  meet  new  challenges  in  a  rapidly 
changing  world.  The  maintenance  of  such  re- 
lationships underpins  rather  than  undercuts 
the  search  for  peace. 

— We  will  seek  out,  we  will  expand  our  re- 
lations with  old  adversaries.  For  example, 
our  new  rapport  with  the  People's  Republic 


October  7,   1974 


465 


of  China  best  serves  the  purposes  of  each  na- 
tion and  the  interests  of  the  entire  world. 

— We  will  strive  to  heal  old  wounds  re- 
opened in  recent  conflicts  in  Cyprus,  the  Mid- 
dle East,  and  in  Indochina.  Peace  cannot  be 
imposed  from  without,  but  we  will  do  what- 
ever is  within  our  capacity  to  help  achieve  it. 

— We  rededicate  ourselves  to  the  search 
for  justice,  equality,  and  freedom.  Recent  de- 
velopments in  Africa  signal  the  welcome  end 
of  colonialism.  Behavior  appropriate  to  an 
era  of  dependence  must  give  way  to  the  new 
responsibilities  of  an  era  of  interdependence. 

No  single  nation,  no  single  group  of  na- 
tions, no  single  organization,  can  meet  all  of 
the  challenges  before  the  community  of  na- 
tions. We  must  act  in  concert.  Progress  to- 
ward a  better  world  must  come  through  co- 
operative efforts  across  the  whole  range  of 
bilateral  and  multilateral  relations. 

America's  revolutionary  birth  and  centu- 
ries of  experience  in  adjusting  democratic 
government  to  changing  conditions  have 
made  Americans  practical  as  well  as  idealis- 
tic. As  idealists,  we  are  proud  of  our  role  in 
the  founding  of  the  United  Nations  and  in 
supporting  its  many  accomplishments.  As 
practical  people,  we  are  sometimes  impatient 
at  what  we  see  as  shortcomings. 

In  my  25  years  as  a  member  of  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  I  learned  two  ba- 
sic practical  lessons: 

— First,  men  of  differing  political  persua- 
sions can  find  common  ground  for  coopera- 
tion. We  need  not  agree  on  all  issues  in  order 
to  agree  on  most.  Differences  of  principle,  of 
purpose,  of  perspective,  will  not  disappear. 
But  neither  will  our  mutual  problems  disap- 
pear unless  we  are  determined  to  find  mu- 
tually helpful  solutions. 

— Second,  a  majority  must  take  into  ac- 
count the  proper  interest  of  a  minority  if  the 
decisions  of  the  majority  are  to  be  accepted. 
We  who  believe  in  and  live  by  majority  rule 
must  always  be  alert  to  the  danger  of  the 
"tyranny  of  the  majority."  Majority  rule 
thrives  on  the  habits  of  accommodation,  mod- 
eration, and  consideration  of  the  interests  of 
others. 


A  very  stark  reality  has  tempered  Amer- 
ica's actions  for  decades — and  must  now  tem- 
per the  actions  of  all  nations.  Prevention  of 
full-scale  warfare  in  the  nuclear  age  has  be- 
come everybody's  responsibility.  Today's  re- 
gional conflict  must  not  become  tomorrow's 
world  disaster.  We  must  assure  by  every 
means  at  our  disposal  that  local  crises  are 
quickly  contained  and  resolved. 

The  challenge  before  the  United  States 
[Nations]  is  very  clear.  This  organization  can 
place  the  weight  of  the  world  community  on 
the  side  of  world  peace.  And  this  organization 
can  provide  impartial  forces  to  maintain  the 
peace. 

And  at  this  point,  I  wish  to  pay  tribute  on 
behalf  of  the  American  people  to  the  37 
members  of  the  U.N.  peacekeeping  forces 
who  have  given  their  lives  in  the  Middle  East 
and  in  Cyprus  in  the  past  10  months,  and  I 
convey  our  deepest  sympathies  to  their  loved 
ones. 

Let  the  quality  of  our  response  measure  up 
to  the  magnitude  of  the  challenge  that  we 
face.  I  pledge  to  you  that  America  will  con- 
tinue to  be  constructive,  innovative,  and  re- 
sponsive to  the  work  of  this  great  body. 

The  nations  in  this  hall  are  united  by  a 
deep  concern  for  peace.  We  are  united  as 
well  by  our  desire  to  insure  a  better  life  for 
all  people. 

Today  the  economy  of  the  world  is  under 
unprecedented  stress.  We  need  new  ap- 
proaches to  international  cooperation  to  re- 
spond effectively  to  the  problems  that  we 
face.  Developing  and  developed  countries, 
market  and  nonmarket  countries — we  are  all 
a  part  of  one  interdependent  economic  sys- 
tem. 

The  food  and  oil  crises  demonstrate  the  ex- 
tent of  our  interdependence.  Many  develop- 
ing nations  need  the  food  surplus  of  a  few 
developed  nations.  And  many  industrialized 
nations  need  the  oil  production  of  a  few  de- 
veloping nations. 

Energy  is  required  to  produce  food,  and 
food  to  produce  energy — and  both  to  provide 
a  decent  life  for  everyone.  The  problems  of 
food  and  energy  can  be  resolved  on  the  basis 
of  cooperation — or  can,  I  should  say,    [be] 


466 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


made  unmanageable  on  the  basis  of  confron- 
tation. Runaway  inflation,  propelled  by  food 
and  oil  price  increases,  is  an  early  warning 
signal  to  all  of  us. 

Let  us  not  delude  ourselves.  Failure  to  co- 
operate on  oil  and  food  and  inflation  could 
spell  disaster  for  every  nation  represented  in 
this  room.  The  United  Nations  must  not  and 
need  not  allow  this  to  occur.  A  global  strat- 
egy for  food  and  energy  is  urgently  required. 

The  United  States  believes  four  principles 
should  guide  a  global  approach : 

— First,  all  nations  must  substantially  in- 
crease production.  Just  to  maintain  the  pres- 
ent standards  of  living  the  world  must  al- 
most double  its  output  of  food  and  energy  to 
match  the  expected  increase  in  the  world's 
population  by  the  end  of  this  century.  To 
meet  aspirations  for  a  better  life,  production 
will  have  to  expand  at  a  significantly  faster 
rate  than  population  growth. 

— Second,  all  nations  must  seek  to  achieve 
a  level  of  prices  which  not  only  provides  an 
incentive  to  producers  but  which  consumers 
can  afford.  It  should  now  be  clear  that  the 
developed  nations  are  not  the  only  countries 
which  demand  and  receive  an  adequate  re- 
turn for  their  goods.  But  it  should  also  be 
clear  that  by  confronting  consumers  with 
production  restrictions,  artificial  pricing,  and 
the  prospect  of  ultimate  bankruptcy,  pro- 
ducers will  eventually  become  the  victims  of 
their  own  actions. 

— Third,  all  nations  must  avoid  the  abuse 
of  man's  fundamental  needs  for  the  sake  of 
narrow  national  or  bloc  advantage.  The  at- 
tempt by  any  nation  to  use  one  commodity 
for  political  purposes  will  inevitably  tempt 
other  countries  to  use  their  commodities  for 
their  own  purposes. 

— Fourth,  the  nations  of  the  world  must 
assure  that  the  poorest  among  us  are  not 
overwhelmed  by  rising  prices  of  the  imports 
necessary  for  their  survival.  The  traditional 
aid  donors  and  the  increasingly  wealthy  oil 
producers  must  join  in  this  effort. 

The  United  States  recognizes  the  special 
responsibility  we  bear  as  the  world's  largest 
producer  of  food.  That  is  why  Secretary  of 


State  Kissinger  proposed  from  this  very  po- 
dium last  year  a  World  Food  Conference  to 
define  a  global  food  policy.  And  that  is  one 
reason  why  we  have  removed  domestic  re- 
strictions on  food  productions  in  the  United 
States.  It  has  not  been  our  policy  to  use  food 
as  a  political  weapon,  despite  the  oil  embargo 
and  recent  oil  price  and  production  decisions. 

It  would  be  tempting  for  the  United  States 
— beset  by  inflation  and  soaring  energy 
prices — to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  external  appeals 
for  food  assistance  or  to  respond  with  in- 
ternal appeals  for  export  controls.  But  how- 
ever difficult  our  own  economic  situation,  we 
recognize  that  the  plight  of  others  is  worse. 

Americans  have  always  responded  to  hu- 
man emergencies  in  the  past.  And  we  re- 
spond again  here  today. 

In  response  to  Secretary  General  [of  the 
United  Nations  Kurt]  Waldheim's  appeal  and 
to  help  meet  the  long-term  challenge  in  food, 
I  reiterate : 

— To  help  developing  nations  realize  their 
aspirations  to  grow  more  of  their  own  food, 
the  United  States  will  substantially  increase 
its  assistance  to  agricultural  production  pro- 
grams in  other  countries. 

— Next,  to  insure  that  the  survival  of  mil- 
lions of  our  fellow  men  does  not  depend  upon 
the  vagaries  of  weather,  the  United  States  is 
prepared  to  join  in  a  worldwide  effort  to  ne- 
gotiate, establish,  and  maintain  an  interna- 
tional system  of  food  reserves.  This  system 
will  work  best  if  each  nation  is  made  respon- 
sible for  managing  the  reserves  that  it  will 
have  available. 

— Finally,  to  make  certain  that  the  more 
immediate  needs  for  food  are  met  this  year, 
the  United  States  will  not  only  maintain  the 
amount  it  spends  for  food  shipments  to  na- 
tions in  need,  but  it  will  increase  this  amount 
this  year. 

Thus,  the  United  States  is  striving  to  help 
define  and  help  contribute  to  a  cooperative 
global  policy  to  meet  man's  immediate  and 
long-term  need  for  food.  We  will  set  forth 
our  comprehensive  proposals  at  the  World 
Food  Conference  in  November. 

Now  is  the  time  for  oil  producers  to  define 


October  7,   1974 


467 


their  conception  of  a  global  policy  on  energy 
to  meet  the  growing  need — and  to  do  this 
without  imposing  unacceptable  burdens  on 
the  international  monetary  and  trade  system. 

A  world  of  economic  confrontation  cannot 
be  a  world  of  political  cooperation.  If  we  fail 
to  satisfy  man's  fundamental  needs  for  en- 
ergy and  food,  we  face  a  threat  not  just  to 
our  aspirations  for  a  better  life  for  all  our 
peoples  but  to  our  hopes  for  a  more  stable 
and  a  more  peaceful  world.  By  working  to- 
gether to  overcome  our  common  problems, 
mankind  can  turn  from  fear  toward  hope. 

From  the  time  of  the  founding  of  the 
United  Nations,  America  volunteered  to  help 
nations  in  need,  frequently  as  the  main  bene- 
factor. We  were  able  to  do  it.  We  were  glad 
to  do  it.  But  as  new  economic  forces  alter  and 
reshape  today's  complex  world,  no  nation  can 
be  expected  to  feed  all  the  world's  hungry 
peoples.  Fortunately,  however,  many  nations 
are  increasingly  able  to  help.  And  I  call  on 
them  to  join  with  us  as  truly  united  nations 
in  the  struggle  to  provide  more  food  at  lower 
prices  for  the  hungry  and,  in  general,  a  bet- 
ter life  for  the  needy  of  this  world. 

America  will  continue  to  do  more  than  its 
share.  But  there  are  realistic  limits  to  our 
capacities.  There  is  no  limit,  however,  to  our 
determination  to  act  in  concert  with  other 
nations  to  fulfill  the  vision  of  the  United  Na- 
tions Charter :  to  save  succeeding  genera- 
tions from  the  scourge  of  war  and  to  pro- 
mote social  progress  and  better  standards, 
better  standards  of  life  in  a  larger  freedom. 


Members  of  U.S.  Delegation 
to   IAEA  Conference  Confirmed 

The  Senate  on  September  16  confirmed  the 
nomination  of  Dixy  Lee  Ray  to  be  the  Rep- 
resentative of  the  United  States  to  the  18th 
session  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
International  Atomic  Energy  Agency. 

The  nominations  of  John  A.  Erlewine, 
Abraham  S.  Friedman,  Dwight  J.  Porter, 
and  Gerald  F.  Tape  to  be  Alternate  Repre- 
sentatives were  also  confirmed  that  day. 


Prime  Minister  Rabin   of  Israel 
Visits  Washington 

Prime  Minister  Yitzhak  Rabin  of  the  State 
of  Israel  made  a)t  official  visit  to  Washington 
September  10-13.  Folloiving  is  an  exchange 
of  remarks  between  President  Ford  and 
Prime  Minister  Rabin  at  a  ivelcoming  cere- 
mony on  the  South  Lawn  of  the  White  House 
on  September  10,  together  with  their  ex- 
change of  toasts  at  a  dinner  at  the  White 
House  on  September  12. 

EXCHANGE  OF  GREETINGS 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Sept.  16 

President   Ford 

Mr.  Prime  Minister  and  Mrs.  Rabin:  It 
is  a  very  real  pleasure  for  me  to  have  the 
opportunity  of  welcoming  both  of  you  to  the 
United  States. 

You  are  returning  as  the  leader  of  a  great 
country.  You  are  returning  to  meet  many 
of  your  friends  over  the  years  that  you  knew 
so  well  during  your  service  here  as  Ambassa- 
dor to  the  United  States. 

I  trust  that  you  and  Mrs.  Rabin  will  thor- 
oughly enjoy  this  visit  back  to  the  United 
States. 

The  United  States,  Mr.  Prime  Minister, 
has  been  proud  of  its  association  with  the 
State  of  Israel.  We  shall  continue  to  stand 
with  Israel.  We  are  committed  to  Israel's 
survival  and  security. 

The  United  States  for  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury has  had  an  excellent  relationship  with 
the  State  of  Israel.  We  have  cooperated  in 
many,  many  fields — in  your  security,  in  the 
well-being  of  the  Middle  East,  and  in  leading 
what  we  all  hope  is  a  lasting  peace  through- 
out the  world. 

Many  of  our  people  have  a  close  personal 
relationship  and  association  with  your  citi- 
zens, your  fellow  citizens  in  Israel,  and  we 
hope  and  trust  that  this  relationship  will 
grow  and  expand. 

Over  the  last  few  months,  there  has  been 
movement  in  the  Middle  East  for  a  lasting 
and  durable  peace.    Israel  has   cooperated ; 


468 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Israel  has  been  helpful.  And  we  hope  and 
trust  that  in  the  months  ahead  the  founda- 
tion which  has  been  laid  will  be  built  upon. 

We  want,  you  want,  and  others  throughout 
the  world  want  a  lasting  and  durable  peace 
in  the  Middle  East. 

The  first  steps  have  been  taken ;  others 
will  follow.  And  I  am  certain  and  positive 
that,  as  we  meet  here  during  the  next  several 
days,  we  can  contribute  to  the  building  of  a 
better  and  finer  peace  in  the  Middle  East. 

I  hope  that  you  and  Mrs.  Rabin  have  a 
delightful  and  warm  welcome,  which  you  so 
richly  deserve,  in  the  United  States. 


Prime  Minister  Rabin 

Mr.  President,  Mrs.  Ford:  I  am  grateful 
to  you  for  your  kind  invitation  to  come  to 
Washington  and  for  your  warm  words  of 
welcome. 

As  you  know,  Mr.  President,  I  am  not  a 
complete  stranger  in  this  country  nor,  in-- 
deed,  in  this  city.  But  this  is  the  first  time 
that  I  come  here  in  my  capacity  of  Prime 
Minister  of  Israel. 

You,  Mr.  President,  have  very  recently 
undertaken  new  and  awesome  responsibili- 
ties, and  I  feel  certain,  therefore,  that  you 
can  appreciate  the  weighty  load  that  rests 
on  my  shoulders. 

I  represent  a  country  which  is  faced — 
which  is  facing  manifold  problems,  great 
challenges,  but  also  great  and  new  oppor- 
tunities for  internal  progress  and  for  peace 
with  her  neighbors. 

In  the  performance  of  my  new  duties  I  am 
encouraged,  as  all  my  predecessors  have 
been,  by  their  binding  friendship  and  by  the 
ever-deepening  ties  which  bind  the  people 
of  Israel  with  the  people  of  this,  the  greatest 
democracy,  and  with  its  leaders. 

Ever  since  the  renewal  of  Jewish  inde- 
pendence in  the  land  of  our  forefathers  after 
long  generations  of  suffering  and  martyr- 
dom, Israel  has  enjoyed  generous  aid  and 
support  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 
Our  gratitude  for  this  sustenance  will  be  re- 
corded forever  in  the  annals  of  our  people. 

During  all  these  times  since  1948,  Israel 
has  seen  periods  of  trials  and  hardships.  Yet 


she  never  swerved,  even  for  a  moment,  from 
her  supreme  national  goal,  which  is  the  quest 
for  peace  with  her  Arab  neighbors. 

So  far,  to  our  nation's  deep  sorrow,  this 
goal  has  eluded  us.  Despite  the  recent  test 
of  arms,  Israel  is  prepared  to  continue  to 
seek  progress  toward  peace. 

We  have  in  recent  months  demonstrated 
that  we  have  taken  risks  for  peace  to  see 
whether  new  efforts  may  possibly  bring  us 
nearer  to  its  achievement. 

I  know,  in  this  quest  for  peace  in  our  re- 
gion, we  have  in  you,  Mr.  President,  and 
in  your  colleagues  in  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  a  strong  and  determined 
partner. 

Indeed,  you,  Mr.  Pre.sident,  pronounced  the 
commitment  of  the  United  States  to  the  quest 
of  world  peace  as  the  central  theme  in  your 
inaugural  address  only  a  few  weeks  ago. 

The  people  of  Israel  stand  united  in  the 
conviction  that  war  is  futile,  that  it  cannot 
solve  problems,  that  only  human  suffering 
is  brought  in  its  wake.  As  far  as  our  part 
of  the  world  is  concerned,  we  are  convinced 
that  there  is  no  issue,  however  complicated 
it  may  now  appear,  that  it  cannot  be  re- 
solved by  patient  negotiations. 

What  is  needed  is  an  equal  measure  of  de- 
sire and  determination  on  all  sides  to  achieve 
peace. 

Much  depends  at  this  stage  on  what  other 
governments  in  the  area  are  prepared  to  do. 
At  any  rate,  we  in  Israel  are  ready  for  the 
peacemaking  effort. 

I  must,  however,  with  a  full  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility, add  this:  As  you,  Mr.  President, 
assumed  high  office  you  conveyed  to  your 
people  and  to  the  world  the  message  that  a 
strong  America  is  a  paramount  guarantee 
for  peace  in  the  world.  This  is  true  in  the 
same  measure  as  far  as  Israel  and  her  own 
region  are  concerned.  Only  a  strong  Israel 
which  has  the  capacity  to  deter  aggression 
and  to  defend  herself  successfully  by  her  own 
strengths  has  a  chance  of  winning  peace. 

I  cannot  underline  strongly  enough  our 
conviction  that  the  constant  maintenance  of 
Israel's  strength  is  an  absolute  prerequisite 
for  the  attainment  of  solutions  to  the  prob- 
lems of  our  troubled  region. 


October  7,   1974 


469 


On  these  and  other  matters  of  common  in- 
terest and  concern,  I  shall  be  exchanging 
views  with  you,  Mr.  President,  and  your  col- 
leagues, within  the  next  few  days.  I  look 
forward  to  doing  so  in  the  spirit  of  confi- 
dence and  of  the  cultivation  of  a  good  future 
which  has  linked  our  governments  and  our 
people  for  so  many  years. 

I  am  confident  that  I  shall  return  to  Jeru- 
salem assured  of  the  United  States  deter- 
mination to  support  the  well-being  of  Israel 
within  a  Middle  East  that  we  hope  that  will 
finally  be  advancing  on  the  road  toward  a 
just  and  durable  peace  which  assures  secu- 
rity and  progress  for  all  its  people. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Sept.  16 

President  Ford 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  Mrs.  Rabin,  and 
honored  guests:  It  is  a  great  privilege  and 
honor  for  Mrs.  Ford  and  myself  to  be  host  to 
the  two  of  you  on  this  occasion  and  to  warmly 
welcome  you  back  to  the  United  States  in 
this  capacity  as  the  Prime  Minister  of  your 
great  country. 

But  I  would  also  like  to  extend  our  warm 
welcome  for  all  of  your  friends  who  are  here 
and  the  many,  many  friends  throughout  the 
whole  United  States  who  are  also  good  and 
firm  friends  of  the  two  of  you  and  to  extend 
to  you,  representing  your  country,  the  depth 
and  the  warmth  of  the  feeling  that  we  in  the 
United  States  have  for  Israel. 

As  I  was  sitting  here  chatting  with  you 
and  talking  to  Mrs.  Rabin,  I  couldn't  help 
but  note  that  1948  was  a  somewhat  signifi- 
cant year  as  far  as  your  country  is  con- 
cerned, and  it  just  happened  that  it  was 
quite  a  year  as  far  as  the  Fords  were  con- 
cerned. It  was  the  year  that  we  were 
married — 

Mrs.  Rabin:  And  the  Rabins. 

President  Ford:  Oh!  [Laughter.]  — and 
the  year  that  I  got  elected  to  Congress  but, 
more  importantly  certainly,  the  year  that 
Israel  gained  its  independence. 

And  I  am  pleased  to  note  that  our  country 

470 


was  the  first  of  all  countries  in  the  world 
at  that  time  to  recognize  Israel.  And  we 
were  proud  to  do  it  then,  and  we  are  proud 
that  it  was  done  by  America  at  that  time. 

It  is  especially  nice  to  have  the  opportunity 
of  meeting  with  you  yesterday  and  today  and 
tonight,  tomorrow — a  person  who  is  a  sol- 
dier, a  diplomat,  and  a  political  leader — and 
to  know  that  you  represent  your  country  so 
effectively  and  so  well. 

The  American  people  have  a  great  deal  of 
understanding  and  sympathy  and  dedication 
to  the  same  kind  of  ideals  that  are  represent- 
ative of  Israel.  And  therefore  I  think  we 
in  America  have  a  certain  rapport  and  un- 
derstanding with  the  people  of  Israel. 

We,  as  two  nations  who  believe  in  peace, 
have  sought  by  joint  action  in  conjunction 
with  others  a  durable  and  stable  peace  in  the 
Middle  East  which  I  think  all  of  us  agree  is 
in  the  best  interest  of  your  country  and  the 
Middle  East — the  world  as  a  whole. 

We  as  a  country  are  proud  to  be  associated 
with  Israel  in  this  mutual  efi'ort  to  move 
and  to  continue  to  move  in  the  direction  of 
an  even  better,  more  stable,  and  more  equi- 
table peace  in  the  Middle  East. 

I  can't  tell  you  how  pleased  that  we  are 
to  have  the  opportunity  of  expressing  our 
gratitude  for  all  of  the  things  that  our  coun- 
tries have  done  together  and  all  of  the  things 
that  I  hope  that  our  two  countries  can  con- 
tinue to  do  in  the  future. 

We  have  mutual  aims  and  objectives.  We 
have  a  friendship  that  is  durable  and  grow- 
ing. We  have  the  kind  of  relationship  that  I 
think,  if  expanded  worldwide,  would  be  bene- 
ficial to  all  mankind. 

And  so  if  I  may,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  I 
would  like  to  ask  all  of  our  guests  here  to- 
night to  stand  and  to  offer  a  toast  to  your 
President  and  to  you  and  Mrs.  Rabin:  To 
the  President. 


Prime  Minister  Rabin 

Mr.  President,  Mrs.  Ford,  distinguished 
guests:  In  the  name  of  my  wife  and  myself, 
I  would  like  to  thank  you  very  much  for 
inviting  us  and  taking  care  of  us  during  our 
visit  here. 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


I  remember,  Mr.  President,  meeting  you 
while  you  were  the  minority  leader  in  the 
House.  I  had  many  talks  then  with  you;  I 
learned  very  much  to  admire  you.  And  I 
know  that  by  assuming  the  responsibilities 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  you 
have  taken  upon  yourself  tremendous — tre- 
mendous role  not  only  for  this  country.  But 
I  believe  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  is  the  leader  of  the  free  world  and 
has  to  bear  in  mind,  if  you  would  allow  me 
to  say  so,  not  only  the  well-being  of  this  coun- 
try but  the  well-being  of  all  countries  that 
strive  for  freedom,  for  democracy,  because 
in  the  world  that  we  live  today,  it  is  not 
always  possible  to  a  small  country  to  do  it 
against  odds. 

The  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  Israel  started  many  years  ago.  When 
our  country  was  reborn  we  faced  many 
problems.  The  first  one  was  the  absorption 
of  many  newcomers — immigrants — the  rem- 
nants of  the  holocaust  of  Europe,  the  Second 
World  War,  the  refugees  that  came  from  the 
Arab  countries.  I  believe  that  we  were  a 
country  that  half  of  its  population  were 
refugees. 

And  then  the  United  States  offered  Israel 
economic  aid,  technical  aid,  that  made  it 
possible  to  us  to  absorb  these  people,  our 
brothers,  in  a  way  that  the  transformation 
from  refugees  to  be  part  of  our  creative 
society  was  very  much  facilitated  by  your 
help. 

During  the  years  other  problems  appeared. 
The  threat  from  outside  became  more  ap- 
parent, and  the  United  States  added  also 
military  aid  in  terms  of  supplying  us  arms  to 
be  able  to  defend  ourselves  by  ourselves. 

I  think  that  26  years  from  1948  have 
proved  that  your  support  to  us  was  used  in 
the  best  way  for  the  well-being  of  our  people 
and  for  preservation  of  a  democracy  and  the 
free  country  in  that  part  of  the  world. 

And  I  would  like  to  thank  you  and  to  thank 
everybody  in  this  country  that  has  made  it 
possible  till  today. 

I  don't  know,  Mr.  President,  if  you  have 
seen  it.  I  have  given  a  small  present  to  you. 
It  is  a  sculpture,  a  sculpture  that  describes 
the  struggle  between  David  and  Goliath.    I 


believe  it  is  not  only  a  story  from  the  Bible ; 
it  is  a  story  that  started  then  and  continues 
on  till  the  present  days. 

And  if  there  is  something  that  symbolizes 
Israel  today,  it  is  the  spirit  of  David  facing 
Goliath.  And  the  meaning  of  the  spirit  is,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  seek  peace,  to  believe  in 
peace.  We  are  a  Jewish  state,  and  we  believe 
that  part  of  being  a  Jew  means  to  seek  peace, 
to  search  peace;  but  on  the  other  hand,  to 
realize  that  peace  is  attainable  only  for  those 
who  are  ready  to  take  risks  to  dare  to  with- 
stand Goliaths. 

I  believe  that  this  is  what  is  significant  to 
Israel  today,  the  spirit  of  David  seeking 
peace  and,  at  the  same  time,  being  ready  and 
capable  to  meet  some  Goliaths. 

I  hope  and  I  believe,  Mr.  President,  that 
under  your  leadership  the  relations  between 
our  two  countries  will  continue,  will  be 
strengthened  in  the  unique  spirit  that  was 
so  significant  till  today — the  search  of  peace 
and  the  understanding  that  strength  helps  to 
achieve  peace. 

Allow  me,  Mr.  President,  to  raise  my  glass 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

President  Ford:   Thank  you  very  much. 


President  Ford's  News  Conference 
of  September   16 

Following  are  excerpts  relating  to  foreign 
policy  from  the  trmiscript  of  a  news  confer- 
ence held  by  President  Ford  in  the  East 
Room  of  the  White  House  on  September  16.^ 

Q.  Mr.  President,  recent  congressional  tes- 
timony has  indicated  that  the  CIA,  under  the 
direction  of  a  committee  headed  by  Dr.  Kis- 
singer, attempted  to  destabilize  the  Govern- 
ment of  Chile  under  former  President  Al- 
lende.  Is  it  the  policy  of  your  administration 
to  attempt  to  destabilize  the  governments  of 
other  democracies? 

President  Ford:  Let  me  answer  in  general. 
I  think  this  is  a  very  important  question. 


'  For  the  complete  text,  see  Weekly  Compilation 
of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Sept.  23. 


October  7,   1974 


471 


Our  government,  like  other  governments, 
does  take  certain  actions  in  the  intelligence 
field  to  help  implement  foreign  policy  and 
protect  national  security.  I  am  informed  re- 
liably that  Communist  nations  spend  vastly 
more  money  than  we  do  for  the  same  kind  of 
purposes. 

Now,  in  this  particular  case,  as  I  under- 
stand it  and  there  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind — 
our  government  had  no  involvement  whatso- 
ever in  the  Allende  coup.  To  my  knowledge, 
nobody  has  charged  that.  The  facts  are  we 
had  no  involvement  in  any  way  whatsoever 
in  the  coup  itself. 

In  a  period  of  time,  three  or  four  years 
ago,  there  was  an  effort  being  made  by  the 
Allende  government  to  destroy  opposition 
news  media,  both  the  writing  press  as  well 
as  the  electronic  press,  and  to  destroy  oppo- 
sition political  parties. 

The  effort  that  was  made  in  this  case  was 
to  help  and  assist  the  pre.servation  of  opposi- 
tion newspapers  and  electronic  media  and  to 
preserve  opposition  political  parties. 

I  think  this  is  in  the  best  interest  of  the 
people  in  Chile,  and  certainly  in  our  best  in- 
terest. 

Now,  may  I  add  one  further  comment.  The 
Forty  Committee  was  established  in  1948.  It 
has  been  in  existence  under  Presidents  since 
that  time.  That  committee  reviews  every 
covert  operation  undertaken  by  our  govern- 
ment, and  that  information  is  relayed  to  the 
responsible  congressional  committees  where 
it  is  reviewed  by  House  and  Senate  commit- 
tees. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  Forty  Committee 
should  continue  in  existence,  and  I  am  going 
to  meet  with  the  responsible  congressional 


committees  to  see  whether  or  not  they  want 
any  changes  in  the  review  process  so  that  the 
Congress,  as  well  as  the  President,  are  fully 
informed  and  are  fully  included  in  the  opera- 
tions for  any  such  action. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  in  the  face  of  massive 
food  shortages  and  the  prospects  of  signifi- 
cant starvation,  will  the  United  States  be 
able  to  significantly  increase  its  food  aid  to 
foreign  countries,  and  what  is  our  position 
going  to  be  at  the  Rome  conference  on  par- 
ticipation in  the  world  grain  reserves? 

President  Ford:  Within  the  next  few  days 
a  very  major  decision  in  this  area  will  be 
made.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  tell  you  what 
the  answer  will  be,  because  it  has  not  been 
decided. 

But  it  is  my  hope  that  the  United  States, 
for  humanitarian  purposes,  will  be  able  to 
increase  its  contribution  to  those  nations  that 
have  suffered  because  of  drought  or  any  of 
the  other  problems  related  to  human  needs. 

Q.  Back  to  the  CIA.  Under  what  i7iterna- 
tional  law  do  we  have  a  right  to  attempt  to 
destabilize  the  constitutionally  elected  gov- 
ernment of  another  country,  and  does  the 
Soviet  Union  have  a  similar  light  to  try  to 
destabilize  the  Government  of  Canada,  for 
example,  or  the  United  States? 

President  Ford:  I  am  not  going  to  pass 
judgment  on  whether  it  is  permitted  or  au- 
thorized under  international  law.  It  is  a  rec- 
ognized fact  that,  historically  as  well  as  pres- 
ently, such  actions  are  taken  in  the  best  in- 
terest of  the  countries  involved. 


^ 


472 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


Economic  Interdependence  and  Common  Defense 


Address  by  Deputy  Secretary  Robert  S.  Ingersoll  ^ 


I  am  delighted  to  be  the  first  speaker  on 
the  agenda.  We  are  hardly  strangers.  It  is  a 
pleasure  to  return  for  the  day  to  the  associa- 
tions and  the  issues  that  have  shaped  35 
years  of  my  business  life. 

We  have  a  joint  purpose  in  our  short  time 
together.  From  my  side,  it  is  to  put  the  is- 
sues as  we  see  them  in  the  Department  in 
the  clearest  possible  terms — to  describe  the 
connection  we  see  between  our  domestic,  for- 
eign, defense,  and  economic  policies.  Your 
purpose,  I  think,  is  to  challenge  our  premises 
and  conclusions  and  to  present  your  own.  Out 
of  this  exchange  we  should  all  learn  some- 
thing useful. 

My  own  subject  was  chosen  quite  delib- 
erately. There  is  presumptive  evidence,  for 
example  the  recent  Fortune  poll,  that  the  sup- 
port you  have  traditionally  given  to  our  de- 
fense policies  is  eroding.  We  have  a  deep 
interest  in  this  phenomenon.  We  need  to 
know  why.  What  is  the  basis  for  your  disen- 
chantment, if  in  fact  it  is  as  real  as  the  polls 
suggest? 

The  last  decade  has  been  a  difficult  one 
for  all  Americans — the  international,  racial, 
and  personal  violence  of  the  1960's,  a  series 
of  violent  international  crises — Viet-Nam, 
the  Arab-Israeli  war,  three  Cyprus  crises, 
internal  upheavals  in  Latin  America,  Af- 
rica, and  Asia.  We  have  an  energy  crisis, 
a  food  crisis,  an  inflationary  crisis,  and  a 
series  of  monetary  crises.   And  in  Watergate 


'  Made  before  the  National  Foreign  Policy  Confer- 
ence for  Senior  Business  Executives  at  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  on  Sept.  5. 


we  have  just  had  a  domestic  crisis  of  im- 
mense proportions. 

Facing  such  a  catalogue,  it  is  easy  to  lose 
heart.    But  let  us  also  recall  our  strengths: 

— We  enjoy  a  credibility  with  allies  and 
adversaries  alike  for  strength,  for  leader- 
ship, for  reliability,  enjoyed  by  no  one  else. 

—We  remain  the  largest  single  producer 
of  most  of  the  world's  most  important  things, 
tools,  energy,  capital,  and  technology. 

— We  are  uniquely  the  most  important  pro- 
ducer of  food. 

— Forty-five  percent  of  the  world's  trade 
in  wheat  and  almost  60  percent  of  its  trade 
in  feed  grain  and  oilseed  are  of  U.S.  origin. 

As  a  result,  we  have  a  very  special,  indeed 
moral,  responsibility  toward  that  two-thirds 
of  the  world  that  is  chronically  undeveloped 
and  protein-short.  It  is  a  responsibility  we 
have  discharged  well  in  the  last  quarter 
century  and  that  we  must  continue  to  dis- 
charge in  the  future.  In  short,  gentlemen, 
the  United  States  has  a  great  reputation  for 
toughness,  stamina,  and  initiative.  The 
world  expects  much  of  us — rightly,  I  think, 
for  we  expect  much  of  ourselves. 

Let  me  put  before  you  and  explain  two 
major  realities  within  which  our  policy  must 
be  formulated: 

— First,  economic  interdependence  is  a 
fact.  We  must  resolve  the  paradox  of  grow- 
ing mutual  dependence  and  growing  national 
and  regional  identities. 

— Second,  common  defense  is  a  necessity. 
We  and  our  allies  must  be  prepared  to  adjust 


October  7,   1974 


473 


it  to  changing  conditions  and  share  burdens 
equally.  We  need  a  definition  of  security  that 
our  peoples  can  support  and  that  our  adver- 
saries will  respect  in  a  period  of  lessened 
tensions. 

The  Fact  of  Economic  Interdependence 

Let  me  discuss  each  of  these  more  fully. 
You  in  this  audience  know  economic  inter- 
dependence is  a  commonplace. 

Our  exports  and  imports  comprise  some 
14  percent  of  our  national  production  of 
goods.  This  year  our  import  bill  will  run 
close  to  $100  billion;  one-third  of  this  will 
be  raw  materials— fuels,  minerals,  ores,  and 

metals. 

In  a  dozen  critical  materials  we  will  be 
almost  totally  dependent  on  foreign  sources 
—among  them,  bauxite,  mercury,  nickel, 
titanium,  manganese,  cobalt,  tin,  and  chro- 
mium. There  is  a  much  longer  list  of  critical 
materials  where  the  margin  of  independence 
is  critically  thin.  Oil  leads  the  list,  but  it  is 
by  no  means  alone.  Such  basics  as  lead,  zinc, 
and  iron  ore  already  comprise  a  large  frac- 
tion of  our  import  requirements.  Nor  is  our 
dependence  limited  to  raw  materials.  For 
years  we  were  virtually  the  only  exporter  of 
services  of  every  description  from  Peace 
Corps  or  elementary  English  teachers  to  the 
most  arcane  and  sophisticated  of  aerospace 
technological  services.  But  today,  what 
American  hospital  could  function  without 
foreign    interns,    resident    physicians,    and 

nurses? 

Looked  at  from  the  other  side,  the  free 
world  is  no  less  dependent  on  us  than  we  on 
them.  There  are  24  OECD  [Organization  for 
Economic  Cooperation  and  Development] 
countries.  Taken  together,  they  represent 
the  bulk  of  the  world's  productive  capacity. 
The  United  States  is  formally  linked  to  17 
of  them  by  mutual  security  treaties.  Last 
year  they  did  almost  60  billion  dollars'  worth 
of  business  with  us.  They  are  the  recipients 
of  some  60  billion  dollars'  worth  of  direct 
United  States  investment.  With  few  excep- 
tions, notably  Canada  and  Australia,  the 
OECD  group  is  far  more  dependent  than  we 


on  imports  to  survive — in  fuels,  in  minerals, 
and  in  food.  This  immense  traffic  in  essential 
goods  and  services  demands  that  certain 
corollary  conditions  be  met: 

There    should    be    a    reasonably   stable 

monetary  system. 

— There  should  be  some  mechanism  for 
allowing  capital  to  flow  across  international 
boundaries  to  finance  production  capacity. 

There  should  be  further   liberalization 

on  a  nondiscriminatory  basis  of  tariff"  and 
nontariff  restrictions  on  trade. 

— Finally,  there  should  be  a  regime  of  law 
governing  the  great  sea  lanes. 

The  Defense  Side  of  the  Equation 

This  leads  me  to  the  defense  side  of  the 
equation. 

Clearly,  no  military  policy  we  can  conceive 
of  today  can  breach  tariff  barriers,  impose 
monetary  reform,  or  dictate  international 
investment  regulations.  Neither,  in  truth, 
can  it  realistically  police  the  thousands  of 
miles  of  sea  lanes  of  communication.  What 
it  can  do  is  help  to  establish  an  environment 
in  which  reason  and  good  sense  can  be  ap- 
plied to  the  problems  that  face  an  inter- 
dependent international  economy. 

A  world  that  cannot  be  intimidated  by 
the  threat  or  the  use  of  force  is  a  world  that 
has  some  prospect  of  negotiating  its  eco- 
nomic and  other  differences  to  tolerable 
solutions.  Our  security  policies  and  those 
of  our  allies  are  to  this  extent  a  critical  ele- 
ment in  maintaining  efficient  and  uninter- 
rupted economic  exchange. 

As  Secretary  Kissinger  put  it  on  April  23, 
1973: 

The  political,  military,  and  economic  issues  .  .  . 
are  linked  by  reality,  not  by  our  choice  nor  for  the 
tactical  purpose  of  trading  one  off  against  the  other. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  the  military  reali- 
ties: 

— Defense  spending  this  year  is  expected 
to  be  in  the  $82  billion  range,  or  6  percent 
of  our  GNP. 

— About  $13  billion  covers  the  costs  of 
paying,  training,  and  supporting  U.S.  forces 


474 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


deployed  abroad  under  our  mutual  security 
commitments  to  NATO  and  our  six  multi- 
lateral and  bilateral  security  treaties  in  Asia. 
About  $4.5  billion  of  this  sum  enters  our 
international  balance  of  payments  account. 
The  entire  European  portion  ($2.1  billion), 
however,  is  covered  by  negotiated  offset 
agreements,  and  the  remainder  by  U.S.  sales 
of  military  equipment  worldwide. 

— Our  total  military  manpower  is  2.1  mil- 
lion, of  which  something  over  400,000  are 
abroad.  Three-fourths  of  them  are  in 
Europe. 

— Our  major  allies,  in  aggregate,  spend 
about  $45  billion  on  defense,  or  roughly  4 
percent  of  their  aggregate  GNP. 

— They  have  4-%  million  men  under  arms, 
over  twice  as  many  as  we  have. 

These  figures  represent  the  gross  dimen- 
sions of  our  joint  security  efforts.  The 
questions  now  before  us  are: 

— Are  U.S.  defense  outlays  supporting 
our  alliances  inconsistent  with  our  foreign 
policy  and  economic  interests? 

— Is  the  United  States  bearing  a  dispro- 
portionate share  of  those  costs? 

The  answer  to  both  questions,  I  believe, 
is  "No."  On  the  first  question:  Ours  is  not 
a  subsistence  economy.  Our  per  capita  in- 
come is  the  highest  of  any  developed  country 
in  the  world.  Our  personal  spending  on  auto- 
mobiles and  the  wherewithal  to  run  them 
last  year  exceeded  our  entire  defense  budget 
by  a  significant  margin.  What  we  spend 
annually  as  a  nation  on  tobacco  and  alcohol 
would  easily  cover  the  direct  cost  of  our  for- 
eign deployments.  I  cite  these  figures  not  as 
a  criticism  of  our  national  sense  of  priori- 
ties but  as  a  reminder  that  a  narrow  focus 
on  defense  spending  masks  other  large  fig- 
ures in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  our 
economy  that  no  one  thinks  to  ask  about. 

This  does  not  answer  the  question,  how- 
ever, whether  $82  billion  is  justified.  It  is 
inappropriate  for  the  Department  of  State 
to  attempt  to  defend  any  exact  figure.  It 
might  be  feasible  to  spend  somewhat  less ; 
it  might  be  prudent  to  spend  somewhat  more. 


My  concern  is  not  so  much  the  money  but, 
rather,  the  forces. 

— Money  cuts  must  be  translated  into  cuts 
in  forces,  equipment,  and  training. 

— U.S.  forces  now  in  being  are  the  smallest 
since  the  Korean  war. 

— The  Communist  forces  present  a  formi- 
dable potential  threat  to  precisely  those 
countries  in  which  we  have  the  largest  and 
most  important  trade  and  financial  interests: 
to  Germany,  to  the  European  members  of 
NATO,  to  Japan,  and  to  the  smaller  coun- 
tries of  Northeast  and  Southeast  Asia. 

The  ideological,  political,  and  other  prob- 
lems that  have  divided  the  free  and  Com- 
munist worlds  since  the  end  of  World  War  II 
have  not  been  resolved,  although  significant 
progress  has  been  made.  So  long  as  they  are 
unresolved  there  is  always  the  possibility 
that  our  adversaries  will  resort  to  threat  or 
force  to  impose  the  solutions  they  want. 

In  a  nuclear-armed  world,  this  is  unaccept- 
able. There  is  only  one  alternative:  To  fore- 
close that  option  by  making  clear  to  those 
who  would  try  it  that  the  costs  and  risks 
would  be  unbearably  high.  By  this  means, 
together  with  positive  incentives  we  can 
offer,  particularly  in  the  economic  field,  we 
hope  to  induce  the  resolution  of  differences 
through  negotiation. 

I  do  not  want  to  leave  the  impression  from 
the  foregoing  of  a  never-ending  spiral  of 
defense  spending. 

We  have  tested  and  continue  to  test  the 
negotiating  route  in  SALT  [Strategic  Arms 
Limitation  Talks],  in  MBFR  [Mutual  and 
Balanced  Force  Reductions],  and  CSCE 
[Conference  on  Security  and  Cooperation  in 
Europe],  and  the  threshold  test  ban.  Prog- 
ress is  slow,  but  this  is  to  be  expected,  as 
you  can  appreciate.  The  subject  matter  is 
enormously  complex,  and  we  are  dealing  in 
an  area  that  touches  the  most  vital  interests 
of  the  Soviets,  ourselves,  and  our  allies — 
national  security.  But  you  will  also  appre- 
ciate, I  think,  that  we  have  no  rational 
alternative  to  negotiations,  no  matter  how 
difficult  and  sensitive. 

Negotiation  is  a  never-ending  process,  not 


October  7,   1974 


475 


a  state  of  equilibrium.  It  is  a  process  that 
requires  tenacity,  clear  sight,  and  endless 
patience.  It  entails  an  investment  in  time 
and  money  and,  above  all,  ceaseless  attention 
to  maintaining  a  sturdy  defense,  a  well-func- 
tioning economy,  and  a  cohesive,  cooperative 
set  of  relationships  with  those  who  have 
joined  their  strength  and  future  with  ours 
in  the  search  for  peace. 

Burden  Sharing  and  Deterrence 

On  the  second  question,  of  fair  shares: 

—The   statistics   suggest   that,   in   aggre- 
gate, our  allies  are  doing  a  creditable  job. 

They     have     increased     their     defense 

spending  over  the  last  four  years.  NATO 
spending,  for  example,  has  increased  by 
about  28  percent;  ours  by  less  than  5  per- 
cent. 

— Total  defense  expenditure  by  NATO 
allies,  as  I  noted  earlier,  is  about  $45  billion 
per  year,  the  bulk  of  it  devoted  to  general 
purpose  forces.  This  is  approximately  the 
sum  we  spend  annually  to  maintain  our 
general  purpose  forces  deployed  worldwide 
and  the  forces  we  maintain  at  home,  as  a 
strategic  reserve  for  reinforcement  and  for 
dealing  with  less  than  general  war  contin- 
gencies. 

Individually,  some  could  undoubtedly  do 

more.   It  is  central  to  U.S.  policy  to  see  that 

they  do. 

In  the  aggregate,  our  allies  worldwide 

can  field  10  soldiers  for  each  one  we  have 
deployed  abroad.  The  basic  Nixon  doctrine 
(1969)  that  "We  shall  look  to  the  nation  di- 
rectly threatened  to  assume  the  primary  re- 
sponsibility of  providing  manpower  for  its 
defense"  is  thus  fulfilled. 

A  limit  to  burden  sharing  is  imposed  by 
two  things: 

1.  No  ally  alone  or  in  combination  can 
meet  the  formidable  nuclear  threat  posed 
by  the  U.S.S.R.  and  the  People's  Republic  of 
China,  nor  is  it  in  our  national  interest  to 
encourage  them  to  try  through  proliferation 
of  national  nuclear  forces. 


2.  In  the  event  an  ally  cannot  find  the 
necessary  resources  to  defend  himself,  it  is 
in  the  present  self-interest  of  the  United 
States  to  help. 

Deterrence,  not  burden  sharing,  is  the 
priority  objective  of  U.S.  defense  policy. 

Let  me  now  restate  my  conclusions  in  brief 
form. 

Our  economic  dependence  on  the  world 
and  its  on  us  is  already  large.  That  depend- 
ence is  irreversible  and  growing.  In  the  next 
quarter  century,  our  demand  for  such  basic 
commodities  as  iron  ore,  oil,  aluminum,  cop- 
per, and  sulfur  will  increase  enormously,  as 
indeed  will  world  demand. 

Self-sufficiency  in  the  face  of  this  expected 
growth  is  an  illusion.  This  represents  a 
threefold  increase  over  world  consumption 
of  these  commodities  today.  To  produce,  sell, 
and  transport  these  basic  commodities  and 
the  finished  goods  that  result  will  require  a 
degree  of  order,  stability,  and  sophisticated 
economic  planning  unimaginable  by  today's 
standards. 

The  free  world's  military  strength  will 
continue  to  play  an  important  role  in  the 
maintenance  of  a  peaceful  world — a  sine  qua 
non  if  the  planet's  minimum  economic,  politi- 
cal, and  social  aspirations  are  to  be  met. 

By  virtue  of  our  enormous  economic  ca- 
pacity and  our  military  strength,  we  have 
no  alternative  open  to  us  but  leadership  of 
the  most  challenging  kind.  As  President 
Ford  put  it :  - 

"Successful  foreign  policy  is  an  extension 
of  the  hopes  of  the  whole  American  people 
for  a  world  of  peace  and  orderly  reform  and 
orderly  freedom. 

"So  long  as  the  peoples  of  the  world  have 
confidence  in  our  purposes  and  faith  in  our 
word,  the  age-old  vision  of  peace  on  earth 
will  grow  brighter." 


-  For  an  excerpt  from  President  Ford's  address 
before  a  joint  session  of  Congress  on  Aug.  12,  see 
BULLETIN  of  Sept.  2,  1974,  p.  333. 


476 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Action  Program  for  World   Investment 


Address  by  Thomas  0.  Enders 

Assistant  Secretary  for  Economic  and  Business  Affairs  ^ 


In  responding  to  Secretary  Kissinger's  in- 
vitation, a  large  majority  of  you  indicated  a 
desire  to  discuss  foreign  investment. 

It  is  also  one  of  our  major  preoccupations, 
made  urgent  by  two  compelling  facts.  One  is 
the  worldwide  supply  crisis ;  the  other  is  the 
need  to  make  the  recycling  of  oil  dollars 
work  for  as  long  as  the  current  extraordinar- 
ily high  oil  prices  require. 

Let  me  take  the  supply  problem  first.  The 
starting  point  here  is  that  the  world  economy 
cannot  solve  the  double  problem  of  high  in- 
flation and  stagnation  in  output  without  a 
quantum  increase  in  and  restructuring  of  in- 
vestment. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  investment  as  a  per- 
centage of  total  output  has  been  relatively 
static  or  declining  in  the  OECD  [Organiza- 
tion for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Develop- 
ment] as  a  whole  over  a  long  period.  More- 
over, its  structure  has  been  suboptimal,  as 
shows  up  in  the  persistence  of  major  short- 
ages in  individual  industries  despite  an  over- 
all stagnation  of  demand :  basic  chemicals, 
food,  fertilizer,  capital  goods,  pulp  and  pa- 
per, iron  and  steel,  and  a  number  of  key  non- 
ferrous  metals. 

Note  also  that  cartel  action  in  oil  could  not 
have  been  attempted  had  a  strong  rising  de- 
mand for  petroleum  not  been  outrunning  in- 
vestment and  supply.  And  we  are  currently 
seeing  an  attempt  by  some  Caribbean  bauxite 
producers  to  take  advantage  of  the  conjunc- 
ture of  high  demand  and  the  close  of  an  in- 


'  Made  before  the  National  Foreign  Policy  Confer- 
ence for  Senior  Business  Executives  at  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  on  Sept.  5. 


vestment  cycle  in  the  aluminum  industry  to 
raise  prices  in  the  OPEC  [Organization  of 
Petroleum  Exporting  Countries]  manner. 

Taken  together,  sectors  in  which  there  have 
been  major  shortages  this  past  24  months 
and  the  oil  sector  account  for  a  large  share  of 
recent  price  increases.  Petroleum  products, 
chemicals,  and  metals  account  for  40  per- 
cent of  the  rise  in  wholesale  prices  from  July 
1973  to  July  1974. 

For  the  shortage  and  cartelized  sectors,  the 
basic  problem  is  thus  how  to  create  condi- 
tions in  which  the  massive  investment  re- 
quired in  new  capacity  and  in  alternative 
sources  of  supply  will  occur. 

Effective  recycling  of  oil  dollars  is  no  less 
important.  The  economies  of  the  industrial- 
ized world  will  not  be  able  to  grow  and  pros- 
per over  the  medium  term  unless  it  works; 
rather,  they  will  start  to  break  apart  in  re- 
ciprocal beggar-your-neighbor  actions. 

For  the  first  year  of  the  oil  crisis  the 
great  bulk  of  oil  dollars  were  recycled  to  the 
Euromarket  and  done  so  efl^ciently. 

However,  one  cannot  expect  the  Euro- 
market again  to  handle  in  the  next  12  months 
a  comparable  volume  of  funds  unless  there 
are  massive  new  infusions  of  capital  into  the 
banking  operations  engaged  in  intermediat- 
ing the  short-to-medium-term  deposits  of  oil- 
producing  countries  and  the  medium-to-long- 
term  borrowing  of  consuming  countries  and 
enterprises.  So  far  there  has  been  no  clear 
evidence  that  increase  in  capital  of  the  kind 
required  will  be  forthcoming.  Thus  it  is  com- 
monly predicted  that  the  great  bulk  of  fu- 
ture   recycling   will    flow    through    national 


October  7,  1974 


477 


capital  markets;  through  such  state-to-state 
loans  as  Germany  and  Italy  have  just  con- 
cluded ;  through  direct  lending  by  producing 
to  consuming  countries,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
large  Iranian  loans  to  Britain  and  France; 
or  through  the  use  of  multilateral  recycling 
facilities  such  as  the  Witteveen  fund  [the 
International  Monetary  Fund  oil  facility] . 

However,  the  mere  fact  that  the  recycling 
operation  has  worked  relatively  well  up  to 
the  present  and  that  these  alternative  mech- 
anisms are  available  does  not  permit  us  to  be 
confident  that  the  operation  will  proceed  ef- 
fectively in  the  future ;  for  we  do  not  yet 
know  what  the  impact  will  be  of  the  accumu- 
lation of  massive  debts  by  the  consuming 
countries  and  thus  what  further  institutions 
may  be  needed  to  underpin  the  system. 

Climate  for  International  Investment 

If  the  need  for  the  free  flow  of  interna- 
tional investment  has  never  been  greater,  the 
climate  in  which  it  can  occur  has  deteriorated 
both  at  home  and  abroad. 

At  home  the  acceleration  of  foreign  invest- 
ment both  in  industry  and  in  real  estate  over 
the  past  24  months  has  given  rise  to  concern 
at  the  influence  and  power  foreign  investors 
may  acquire  over  our  economy. 

The  actual  volumes  of  direct  incoming  in- 
vestment ai-e  relatively  small,  although  grow- 
ing— in  1973  incoming  was  $3.5  billion,  ver- 
sus $14  billion  outgoing — and  much  of  the 
reaction  stems  from  their  concentration  in  a 
few  states.  But  it  would  be  wrong  to  dismiss 
these  fears  which,  if  not  addressed  fully  and 
directly,  could  develop  into  a  serious  political 
problem.  Equally,  it  would  be  very  wrong  to 
take  ill-considered  or  hasty  action  on  the  ba- 
sis of  these  fears. 

Americans  are  just  beginning  now  to  ex- 
perience what  many  other  countries,  notably 
in  Europe  and  in  Latin  America,  have  experi- 
enced when  foreign  enterprise  enters  the 
economy  on  a  substantial  scale.  In  Europe 
and  Latin  America,  ways  have  been  found 
for  mutual  adjustment  between  the  foreign 
enterprise  and  the  host  country.  Similar  ad- 
justments are  and  will  be  found  in  the  United 
States. 


Overseas,  changing  attitudes  toward  the 
great  transnational  enterprises,  and  the  ris- 
ing number  of  investment  disputes,  are  pos- 
ing new  uncertainties  to  potential  investors. 

Since  the  Second  World  War,  American 
enterprise  overseas  has  been  the  most  dy- 
namic single  agent  of  economic  change  in  the 
world,  consistently  outperforming  every  na- 
tional economy,  including  Japan's.  But  the 
very  success  of  the  transnational  enterprises 
has  called  forth  reaction  to  them  of  two 
sorts : 

— The  first  Is  political,  doctrinal,  empha- 
sizing conflict  between  the  separate  jurisdic- 
tions of  the  host  country  and  the  country  of 
incorporation,  opposition  between  the  politi- 
cal power  of  the  host  country  and  the  eco- 
nomic power  of  the  enterprise,  and  the  dan- 
gers of  "business  culture."  A  few  real  abuses 
are  cited,  notably  the  grave  ITT-Chile  prob- 
lem, but  most  arguments  are  in  terms  of  po- 
tential abuses.  Characteristically,  proponents 
of  this  view  regard  transnational  enterprises 
as  very  profitable  and  driven  by  a  strong  de- 
sire to  invest.  They  see  the  problem  as  how 
to  protect  the  smaller  and  developing  coun- 
tries from  the  intended  or  unintended  power 
of  these  enterprises,  how  to  right  the  balance 
of  bargaining  between  individual  host  coun- 
tries and  transnational  enterprises  with  flex- 
ibility to  locate  in  many  countries.  In  a  word, 
they  see  the  problem  as  how  to  regulate 
transnational  enterprises  for  the  common 
good.  This  view,  which  is  set  forth  fully  and 
in  moderate  terms  in  the  report  of  the  U.N. 
Group  of  Eminent  Persons  on  Multinational 
Corporations,  is  widely  held  in  developing 
countries  and  is  common  also  in  industrial- 
ized countries.  In  both  it  corresponds  to 
deeply  held  political  concerns.  It  would  be  a 
misreading  to  expect  that  the  urge  to  regu- 
late transnational  enterprises  will  level  off 
and  wane;  on  the  contrary,  it  will  probably 
grow. 

— The  second  reaction  is  the  growth  in  the 
volume  of  investment  disputes.  The  increase 
has  not  been  as  rapid  or  as  great  as  many 
feared.  But  nonetheless  the  volume  is  sig- 
nificant. From  June  30,  1971,  through  July 
31,  1973,  American  firms  with  an  aggregate 


478 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


book  value  in  excess  of  $1.5  billion  became  in- 
volved in  87  newf  investment  disputes.  The 
statistic  is  somewhat  artificial  since  the  grav- 
ity of  the  dispute  varies  widely  from  case  to 
case.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  give  a  good  com- 
parison from  statistics  of  earlier  years.  But 
the  total  is  clearly  up  from  what  it  has  been. 

Narrowing  Areas  of  Potential  Conflict 

It  is  inefficient,  indeed  probably  impossi- 
ble, to  deal  with  these  investment  issues  in 
terms  of  principles. 

No  lawyer  is  going  to  devise  a  formula 
which  will  reconcile  the  principle  of  the  Ar- 
gentinian Carlos  Calvo,  according  to  which  a 
foreign  investor  should  renounce  the  protec- 
tion of  his  home  country,  and  the  law  of 
many  countries  under  which  their  govern- 
ments are  required  to  extend  assistance  to 
their  citizens  overseas.  Nor  is  there  any  way 
of  determining  at  a  high  level  of  generality, 
as  the  U.N.  Group  of  Eminent  Persons  would 
like  to,  what  right  package  of  services,  eq- 
uity, and  technology  transnational  enter- 
prises should  offer  developing  countries.  Nor 
can  we  expect,  at  any  early  point,  agreement 
on  what  are  good  and  what  are  bad  take- 
overs, which  seems  by  all  odds  to  be  the  most 
sensitive  issue. 

Rather,  progress  will  be  best  made  by  con- 
centrating on  individual  practical  issues. 

Some  of  the  most  significant  economic  is- 
sues can  be  handled  through  tax  treaties  pro- 
viding for  national-treatment  protection  as 
well  as  negotiations  between  the  national  tax 
authorities  on  a  case-by-case  basis  in  dis- 
putes such  as  transfer  pricing. 

By  limiting  its  ambitions,  the  current 
OECD  exercise  on  capital  movements  can 
create  a  strong,  clear  area  of  agreement  on 
the  national  treatment  of  already  existing 
enterprises. 

Additionally,  the  Working  Group  on  Trans- 
national Enterprises  set  up  at  a  meeting  of 
Foreign  Ministers  of  the  Organization  of 
American  States  at  Washington  in  April  can 
lead  to  a  new,  more  powerful  procedure  for 
factfinding  in  investment  disputes.- 

Each  of  these  actions  will  tend  to  narrow 
the  area  of  potential  conflict.  Such  partial 


and  limited  agreements  will  tend  in  turn  to 
create  the  basis  on  which  further  limited 
agreements  can  be  made.  A  sequence  can 
thus  be  engaged  by  which  the  most  intracta- 
ble problems,  which  may  in  the  end  turn  out 
to  be  largely  theoretical  in  any  case,  are 
gradually  circumscribed  and  limited. 

For  these  are  areas  in  which  progress  is 
all  important. 

The  great  outpouring  of  discourse  about 
transnational  enterprises  in  the  last  15  years 
has  shed  astonishingly  little  new  light  on 
their  economics  and  operations.  But  it  has 
sensitized  the  enterprises  themselves  to  many 
of  the  problems  they  face  in  entering  or  op- 
erating in  foreign  countries  and  enabled 
them  to  develop  new  and  often  quite  imagina- 
tive ways  of  structuring  or  executing  their 
business.  Innovative  capital  structures,  serv- 
ice contracts,  participation  arrangements, 
phaseout  and  access  agreements  have,  as  a 
result,  been  tried  and  in  certain  circum- 
stances have  proved  to  be  feasible.  At  the 
same  time  many  governments  have  become 
more  sophisticated  about  foreign  investment 
and  about  its  basic  principle — that  without 
adequate  expectations  of  return,  there  is  no 
way  to  achieve  the  desired  level  of  invest- 
ment. 

Progress  is  also  important  in  dealing  with 
the  resolution  of  individual  disputes.  The 
most  efficient  means  of  doing  so  is  to  estab- 
lish an  agreed  means  of  conciliation  and,  if 
necessary,  arbitration.  Sixty-five  nations 
have  chosen  to  do  so  by  ratifying  the  treaty 
establishing  the  International  Center  for  the 
Settlement  of  International  Investment  Dis- 
putes. ICSID  now  faces  its  first  great  test  in 
the  case  of  the  Jamaican  aluminum  con- 
tracts. 

For  other  countries,  which  do  not  accept 
the  concept  of  international  arbitration,  al- 
ternative, if  less  efficient,  procedures  can  be 
established.  The  most  useful  such  devices  are 
arrangements  for  factfinding  and  for  encour- 
aging and  sustaining  negotiations. 


"  For  text  of  a  communique  issued  at  Washington 
on  Apr.  18  at  the  conclusion  of  a  meeting  of  West- 
ern Hemisphere  Foreign  Ministers,  see  Bulletin  of 
May  13,  1974,  p.  517. 


October  7,   1974 


479 


Finally,  national  governments  can  play  a 
great  role  in  the  solution  of  investment  dis- 
putes. The  U.S.  Government  cannot  be  im- 
partial in  a  dispute  in  which  it  appears  that 
the  rights  of  American  citizens  or  enter- 
prises under  international  law  are  being  in- 
fringed. But  that  is  not  the  only  and  not 
necessarily  the  main  role  it  plays  in  such 
disputes.  Often  our  primary  concern  is  to 
help  structure  and  carry  through  a  process 
of  negotiation  that  will  lead  toward  resolu- 
tion. 

The  Insurance  Function 

But  even  with  major  progress  in  the  areas 
of  tax  agreements,  capital  movement  codes, 
conciliation  and  arbitration,  and  dispute  res- 
olution, major  uncertainties  will  inevitably 
remain  in  the  area  of  foreign  investment. 
These  uncertainties  can  be  made  manageable 
and  acceptable  by  insurance ;  this  is  the  role 
of  the  Overseas  Private  Investment  Corpora- 
tion (OPIC). 

Over  the  past  year,  with  the  renewal  of 
OPIC's  authorization,  there  has  been  much 
soul-searching  about  its  proper  role.  Some 
have  questioned  whether  it  made  sense  to 
encourage,  through  insurance,  private  in- 
vestment in  developing  countries  given  the 
greater  incidence  of  investment  disputes. 
Others  have  felt  strongly  that  the  insurance 
function  could  as  well  be  performed  by  pri- 
vate insurers  and  have  pressed  for  privatiza- 
tion of  OPIC. 

While  these  concerns  are  significant  and 
privatization  must  be  given  a  proper  trial, 
they  should  not  be  allowed  to  determine  the 
size  of  the  OPIC  program  at  a  time  when 
there  is  such  an  urgent  need  for  new  invest- 
ment, particularly  in  basic  commodities,  but 
also  in  a  range  of  key  industrial  operations. 
Thus  the  OPIC  management  must  expand  its 
insurance  operations  vigorously.  The  admin- 
istration should  be  ready  to  seek  new  author- 
ity for  OPIC  should  it  reach  insurable  limits. 

Increasing  availabilities  of  products  in 
short  supply  is  first  of  all  an  investment 
problem  worldwide — not  just  one  for  U.S. 


investment,  domestic  or  foreign.  In  this  re- 
spect, the  Export-Import  Bank  can  play  an 
important  role  in  financing  sound  projects — 
sponsored  by  foreign  as  well  as  U.S.  in- 
vestors— which  increase  production  of  short- 
supply  items. 


Strengthening  the  Worldwide  Investment  Market 

I  have  spoken  here  of  the  need  for  a  higher 
rate  of  investment,  and  of  the  climate  in 
which  it  can  occur,  in  worldwide  terms. 

It  used  to  be  that  one  could  argue  about 
foreign  versus  domestic  investment  as  if 
there  were  a  real  option  between  them.  The 
arguments  go  on,  but  the  reality  has  shifted 
behind  them.  We  still  have  the  option  of 
controls  on  outward  capital  flows,  but  our 
experience  in  the  1960's  showed  that  if  you 
could  temporarily  dam  up  outward  invest- 
ments you  cannot  really  change  their  overall 
thrust.  One  can  refuse  entry  to  transnational 
enterprises,  but  with  a  significant  percentage 
of  the  non-Communist  world's  GNP  gener- 
ated by  them — and  the  most  dynamic  part  of 
it — there  is  a  significant  penalty  to  doing  so. 
One  has  the  option  of  refusing  oil  producers' 
funds,  but  all  our  economies  need  a  greater 
flow  of  savings.  And  you  can't  have  it  both 
ways,  with  one  investment  policy  for  in- 
coming,  and  another  for  outgoing,  capital. 

In  a  very  real  sense,  there  is  a  single 
worldwide  investment  market.  It  needs 
strengthening  and  perfecting.  This,  as  we 
see  it,  is  the  action  agenda: 

— First,  we  must  sustain  free  access  to 
the  American  capital  market  both  for  bor- 
rowers and  for  investors.  The  decision  in 
January  to  end  the  decade-old  controls  and 
taxes  on  capital  outflow  constituted  a  major 
contribution  to  making  the  recycling  of  oil 
dollars  work.  There  must  be  no  return  to 
controls  on  capital  outflows  or  to  taxes  on 
them.  Equally,  we  must  continue  to  remain 
open  to  foreign  investment.  It  is  useful  to 
go  ahead  with  detailed  studies  like  the 
Tarifl"  Commission's  on  multinational  cor- 
porations and  the  Culver-Inouye  [Represent- 


480 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


ative  John  C.  Culver;  Senator  Daniel  K. 
Inouye]  proposal  for  a  detailed  survey  of 
foreign  investment  in  the  United  States. 
These  studies  will  help  sensitize  foreign  in- 
vestors to  problem  areas  and  to  practices 
that  can  usefully  be  avoided.  They  may  also 
result  in  recommendations  for  addition  of 
specific  sectors  to  those  that  have  tradition- 
ally been  reserved  for  American  investors 
only.  We  will  certainly  need  a  better  report- 
ing system. 

— Second,  we  must  be  certain  that  the  in- 
ternational banking  system  is  able  to  con- 
tinue to  play  its  part  in  the  oil  recycling 
operation.  For  that  we  will  need  to  make 
sure  that  each  banking  operation  can  have 
recourse  to  a  "lender  of  last  resort"  in  cases 
of  illiquidity;  at  present  there  are  a  range 
of  Euromarket  banking  operations,  most  of 
them  subsidiaries  of  large  banks,  that  are 
not  so  covered.  And  we  may  have  to  con- 
sider a  system  of  multilateral  guarantees  by 
governments  to  cover  oil  deficits  to  make 
sure  countries  can  borrow  what  they  need 
in  international  capital  markets. 

— Third,  we  should  continue  to  seek  full 
national  treatment  for  U.S.  investment 
abroad,  and  we  must  insist  on  prompt,  ade- 
quate, and  effective  compensation  in  the  few 
cases  of  nationalization.  Where  needed  and 
appropriate,  we  will  bring  to  bear  available 
political  and  economic  influence  to  get  a 
satisfactory  resolution,  recognizing  that  the 
basic  sanction  is  the  damage  the  host  coun- 
try does  to  its  future  investment  prospects. 

— Fourth,  at  the  same  time,  we  must  take 
every  opportunity  to  enlarge  the  area  of  non- 
legally-binding  codes,  guidelines,  and  under- 
standings in  which  both  host  country  and 
enterprise  can  have  stable  expectations  about 
each  other's  behavior.  Generalized  discourse 
on  these  issues  can  go  on  at  the  United 
Nations;  but  our  strategy  will  press  for 
progress  at  the  regional  level,  where  real 
interest  and  real  problems  in  investment  are 
more  easily  identified.  The  OECD  invest- 
ment exercise  and  the  Working  Group  on 
Transnational   Enterprises   are  particularly 


promising   in    this    regard.     We   will   press 
ahead  very  actively  in  these  two  forums. 

— Fifth,  it  is  important  for  the  companies 
to  continue  to  develop  their  sensitivity  to 
host  country  concerns  and  problems.  The 
great  American  enterprises  that  operate  in- 
ternationally have  shown  themselves  to  be 
highly  adaptive.  As  host  country  problems 
are  gradually  identified,  I  am  confident  that 
new  modes  of  investment  will  be  invented  to 
respond  to  them. 

— Sixth,  a  yet  greater  effort  can  be  de- 
ployed in  the  investment  dispute  area.  Our 
policy  cannot,  of  course,  be  designed  essen- 
tially to  avoid  investment  disputes;  clearly 
there  are  other  and  more  important  equi- 
ties in  almost  every  case.  But  the  American 
Ambassador  abroad  and  the  State  Depart- 
ment at  home  will  take  the  lead  in  seeking 
to  identify  possible  procedures  leading  to  a 
resolution  and  to  encourage  the  parties  to 
the  dispute  to  make  use  of  them. 

— Seventh,  we  need  to  expand  more  rap- 
idly the  area  of  transactions  governed  by 
tax  treaties.  At  present  we  have  treaties 
with  22  countries  and  about  10  more  are  at 
various  stages  of  negotiation.  We  shall  ac- 
tively press  to  expand  that  number.  At  the 
same  time,  the  traditional  scope  of  tax 
treaties  should  be  broadened  so  as  to  include 
provisions  for  intergovernmental  negotia- 
tions on  transfer  pricing  and  better  protec- 
tion against  domestic  taxation  that  has  a 
confiscatory  or  discriminatory  eflFect  against 
foreign  enterprise. 

— Finally,  we  must  actively  support  in- 
vestment overseas  through  OPIC's  program 
of  insurance,  expanding  the  program  as 
necessary  to  cover  the  volume  of  investment 
that  will  be  needed  to  overcome  the  major 
shortages  in  the  world  economy. 

Let  me  end  where  I  began.  The  world 
economy  needs  much  more  investment.  These 
are  the  things  we  think  we  should  be  doing 
about  it.  But  you  are  the  experts  in  the 
field.  We  would  very  much  like  to  know 
what  you  think  ought  to  be  done. 


October  7,    1974 


481 


Secretary  Kissinger  Pays  Tribute 
to  Former  Secretary  Acheson 

Following  are  remarks  made  by  Secretary 
Kissinger  on  September  17  at  a  ceremony 
marking  the  presentation  of  a  portrait  of  the 
late  Secretary  of  State  Dean  Acheson  to  the 
National  Portrait  Gallery  at  Washington. 

Press  release  365  dated  September  18 

We  come  here  this  evening  to  do  honor 
to  one  of  the  greatest  of  my  predecessors. 
We  do  so  for  many  reasons — out  of  affection, 
for  reasons  of  friendship,  and  because  of  our 
admiration  for  his  genius. 

As  a  historian  I  have  long  respected  the 
heritage  left  by  Dean  Acheson  the  public 
servant.  He  brought  unity  from  the  chaos 
that  was  the  legacy  of  war ;  he  built  a  mighty 
alliance  that  gave  hope  and  security  to  mil- 
lions; he  fashioned  an  international  struc- 
ture that  lasted  far  past  his  own  departure 
from  the  public  scene.  The  magnitude  of  his 
accomplishments  has  assured  that  ever  after- 
ward he  will  serve  as  the  standard  against 
which  his  successors  will  inevitably  be 
judged. 

But  for  me  this  ceremony  tonight  is  far 
more  than  mere  history. 

It  is,  first  of  all,  an  opportunity  to  give 
thanks  for  the  gallantry  he  displayed  toward 
me  when  I  first  came  to  Washington  almost 
six  years  ago.  I  shall  be  forever  grateful  for 
his  wise  counsel  during  those  difficult  times, 
and  I  shall  never  forget  his  concern — free  of 
partisanship — for  the  proper  governance  of 
this  nation. 

But  most  important,  this  ceremony  pro- 
vides an  opportunity  to  remind  ourselves 
that  what  Dean  Acheson  was,  what  he  stood 
for  as  a  man,  remains  vital  and  alive  today 
and  that  he  set  a  standard  against  which  all 
of  us — in  government  or  out — must  judge 
ourselves. 

He  was  a  man  of  dignity — in  his  person 
and  in  his  view  of  the  public  process.  He 
revered  the  greatness  and  majesty  of  the 
nation  he  served,  and  never  demeaned  it.  He 


felt  deeply  the  duty  his  country  demanded, 
and  never  shirked  it. 

He  was,  as  well,  a  man  of  wit  and  humor; 
life  was  fun  and  it  was  fun  to  be  around 
him.  I  shall,  for  example,  never  forget  his 
description  to  me  of  a  then  senior  statesman: 
"He  reminds  me  of  an  amateur  boomerang 
thrower  practicing  his  art  in  a  crowded 
room."  On  another  occasion,  though  as  a 
Harvard  man  I  personally  could  not  find  it 
particularly  amusing,  he  described  President 
Truman  as  "a  Yale  man  in  the  finest  sense 
of  the  word."  Finally — and  much  closer  to 
home,  given  my  former  profession — he  said 
in  one  of  his  remarkably  articulate  speeches: 

While  public  men  cannot  escape  historians,  they 
would  do  well  to  forget  them  while  they  get  on  with 
their  job.  One  cannot  even  be  sure  of  fixing  the  jury 
by  employing  its  members — though  it  may  help  tem- 
porarily— or  by  becoming  a  member  and  writing  its 
verdict.  .  .  . 

So  much,  then,  for  historians.  And  so 
much  for  any  thoughts  I  may  have  had  about 
future  employment  once  I  depart  my  current 
position. 

The  Acheson  legacy  is  nowhere  more  per- 
vasive— nowhere  more  deeply  felt — than  in 
the  institution  I  now  head.  He  will  not  pass 
from  the  hearts  and  minds  of  those  who 
worked  with  and  for  him,  for  he  gave  them 
an  understanding  of  the  great  adventure 
they  were  embarked  upon.  And  he  inspired 
hundreds  who  knew  him  only  as  a  legend. 
He  took  them  beyond  themselves,  beyond  the 
petty  concerns  that  can  stultify  and  smother 
a  bureaucracy,  and  showed  them  the  breadth 
and  scope  of  the  business  they  were  really 
about — the  peace,  the  security,  and  the  well- 
being  of  their  own  nation  and  of  all  mankind. 
In  charting  his  great  enterprise,  he  engen- 
dered a  sense  of  pride,  of  purpose  and  dedi- 
cation, that  put  the  Department  of  State  at 
the  center  of  the  policymaking  process — 
not  because  an  organization  chart  indicated 
that  it  should  be  but  because  its  quality 
demonstrated  that  it  must  be. 

It  is,  perhaps,  the  ultimate  compliment 
that  any  man  can  receive  that  more  than  20 


482 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


years  after  his  departure  from  office  his  way 
of  thought  and  action  remains  the  test  of 
quality  and  his  example  the  goal  for  which 
those  who  have  followed  after  him  still 
strive. 

As  he  was  an  inspiration  to  his  subordi- 
nates, so  was  he  devoted  to  his  chief.  As  he 
said  in  describing  himself: 

Like  General  Marshall,  his  successor  never  forgot 
who  was  President,  and  the  President  most  punc- 
tiliously remembered  who  was  Secretary  of  State. 
This  mutual  restraint  is  basic  to  a  sound  working 
relation  between  the  two. 

And  a  sound  relationship  they  did  indeed 
possess.  Nothing  so  briefly  yet  so  eloquently 
sums  up  the  depth  of  that  remarkable  rela- 
tionship as  does  the  simple  dedication  of 
"Present  at  the  Creation"— "To  Harry  S. 
Truman  'The  captain  with  the  mighty 
heart'." 

Finally,  Dean  Acheson  was  a  man  of  rare 
honor  and  integrity — a  man  who  saw  the 
human  condition,  and  the  awful  influences  of 
power,  more  clearly  than  most.  In  an  elo- 
quent statement  before  a  Senate  committee 
in  1950  he  said: 

In  the  long  days  and  years  which  stretch  beyond 
that  moment  of  decision,  one  must  live  with  one's  self; 
and  the  consequences  of  living  with  a  decision  which 
one  knows  has  sprung  from  timidity  and  cowardice 
go  to  the  roots  of  one's  life.  It  is  not  merely  a  ques- 
tion of  peace  of  mind,  although  that  is  vital;  it  is  a 
matter  of  integrity  of  character. 

The  strength,  the  humanity,  and  the  com- 
passion of  Dean  Acheson  are  found  in  those 
few  words.  They  are  a  reaffirmation  of  his 
greatness  for  all  who  loved  or  admired  him; 


they  are  a  challenge  to  all  who  treasure  his 
memory. 

Justice  Holmes  once  said,  in  a  speech  that 
Secretary  Acheson  was  fond  of  quoting: 

Alas,  gentlemen  ....  We  cannot  live  our  dreams. 
We  are  lucky  enough  if  we  can  give  a  sample  of  our 
best,  and  if  in  our  hearts  we  can  feel  that  it  has  been 
nobly  done. 

Dean  Acheson  more  nearly  lived  his 
dreams  than  any  man  I  know  of.  He  gave 
us  his  best.   And  it  was,  indeed,  nobly  done. 


Senate  Confirms  U.S.  Delegation 
to  29th  U.N.  General  Assembly 

The  Senate  on  September  17  confirmed 
the  nominations  of  the  following  to  be  Repre- 
sentatives and  Alternate  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  to  the  29th  session  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  United  Nations: 

Representatives 

John  A.  Scali 

W.  Tapley  Bennett,  Jr. 

Stuart  Symington,  U.S.  Senator  from  the  State 

of  Missouri 
Charles  H.  Percy,  U.S.  Senator  from  the  State 

of  Illinois 
Thomas  H.  Kuehel 

Alternate  Representatives 

Oliver  C.  Carmichael,  Jr. 
Joseph  M.  Segel 
William   E.   Schaufele,  Jr. 
Clarence  Clyde  Ferguson,  Jr. 
Barbara  M.  White 


October  7,   1974 


483 


THE  CONGRESS 


Department  Discusses  Proposed  Nuclear  Reactor  Agreements 
With  Egypt  and   Israel 


Statement  by  Joseph  J.  Sisco 

Under  Secretary  for  Political  Affairs  * 


It  is  a  great  pleasure  to  appear  before  you 
today  to  discuss  with  you  our  proposed  com- 
mercial nuclear  agreements  with  Israel  and 
Egypt.  Because  you  have  already  heard  from 
my  colleagues  in  the  executive  branch  and  be- 
cause you  are  already  well  informed  on  the 
basic  facts  of  these  agreements,  I  will  keep 
my  opening  remarks  as  brief  as  possible  so 
we  can  go  directly  to  your  questions. 

Let  me  explain  at  the  outset  exactly  where 
discussions  on  this  subject  with  Egypt  and 
Israel  stand.  Both  countries  were  given  draft 
agreements  in  June.  Since  that  time  the 
United  States  has  given  both  countries  modi- 
fications to  be  made  in  the  drafts,  and  the 
Egyptians  have  raised  a  number  of  ques- 
tions as  to  the  interpretation  and  intent  of 
various  of  the  provisions  in  the  drafts.  The 
most  recent  discussion  with  the  Egyptian 
representatives  was  on  August  15  in  Wash- 
ington. The  Israelis  have  not  given  us  their 
detailed  views  on  these  drafts. 

Nuclear  technology  is  a  two-edged  sword. 
The  Middle  East  is  a  volatile  and  dangerous 
area.  No  one — least  of  all  someone  like  my- 


'  Made  before  the  Subcommittees  on  International 
Organizations  and  Movements  and  on  the  Near  East 
and  South  Asia  of  the  House  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs  on  Sept.  16.  The  complete  transcript  of  the 
hearings  will  be  published  by  the  committee  and 
will  be  available  from  the  Superintendent  of  Docu- 
ments, U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washing- 
ton, D.C.  20402. 


self  who  has  been  concerned  with  Middle 
Eastern  affairs  for  many  years — could 
lightly  take  a  decision  to  sell  U.S.  nuclear 
reactors  and  fuel  there. 

I  would  like  to  make  four  general  observa- 
tions. We  believe : 

— That  an  offer  to  sell  commercial  power 
reactors  and  fuel  to  Egypt  and  Israel  will 
help  reinforce  the  momentum  toward  peace 
in  the  area; 

— That  our  offer  makes  sound  economic 
sense ; 

— That  our  offer  limits  the  possibilities  of 
adding  to  the  dangers  of  nuclear  weapons 
proliferation  in  the  area ;  and 

— That  our  offer  will  be  accompanied  by 
the  most  effective  safeguards  possible. 

Let  me  elaborate  on  these  four  points. 

We  began  with  one  key  assessment :  That 
if  the  United  States  did  not  cooperate  with 
Egypt  and  Israel  in  their  desire  to  obtain 
nuclear  power  reactors,  others — who  are  far 
less  concerned  with  nonproliferation  goals — 
would.  Only  by  taking  a  positive  stance  could 
we  help  shape  the  manner  in  which  this  tech- 
nology was  brought  into  a  geographic  area 
of  vital  concern  to  uo. 

Nuclear  technology  will  inevitably  find  its 
way  into  Egypt  and  Israel,  given  the  eco- 
nomic benefits  of  nuclear  power  plants  for 
electrical  generation.  By  selling  reactors  to 


484 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


both  countries  at  the  same  time  and  under 
comparable  conditions,  we  will  help  insure 
that  commercial-scale  nuclear  technology  en- 
ters the  region  in  a  balanced  and  symmetric 
manner — a  result  which  can  minimize  risks 
and  reduce  tensions. 

But  we  also  believed  a  positive  response 
would  add  to  the  forces  that  can  help  turn 
the  area  from  war  toward  peace. 

Since  the  signing  of  the  disengagement 
agreements  between  Israel  and  Syria  and 
Egypt,  we  have  been  moving  to  sustain  the 
momentum  of  the  progress  toward  peace  and 
to  strengthen  our  relations  with  those  coun- 
tries whose  contributions  to  its  realization 
are  indispensable.  In  August  we  had  impor- 
tant discussions  with  Arab  leaders,  and  we 
have  just  completed  significant  talks  with 
the  Prime  Minister  of  Israel. 

These  consultations  will  be  carried  on  later 
this  month  in  the  context  of  the  opening  of 
the  U.N.  General  Assembly  session.  Our  hope 
is  that  these  will  lead  to  understanding  on 
the  course  of  further  negotiations.  There 
must  be  continuing  progress  if  we  are  to 
avoid  risking  what  has  already  been  achieved. 

The  intangible  in  this  process  is  confidence. 
Our  willingness  to  sell  reactors  and  associ- 
ated fuel  to  both  countries  provides  evidence 
to  Israel  and  Egypt  of  our  interest  in  broad 
and  continuing  cooperation  with  them.  On 
their  part,  it  signifies  their  confidence  in 
American  technology  and,  more  importantly, 
in  the  stability  of  their  future  relationship 
with  the  United  States.  That  the  power 
plants  we  are  discussing  would  not  become 
operational  until  the  1980's  underlines  this 
point.  The  mutual  interest  in  friendly  rela- 
tions will  be  given  material  expression.  But 
perhaps  more  importantly,  the  element  of 
confidence — so  indispensable  to  the  peace- 
making process — will  be  reinforced. 

There  was  also  an  economic  dimension  to 
our  decision.  Nuclear  power  reactors  make 
economic  sense  in  both  countries.  With  the 
dramatic  increase  in  oil  prices,  the  World 
Bank,  for  example,  which  has  been  histori- 
cally conservative  about  this  technology,  now 


endorses   it  as  economically  viable  for  na- 
tions like  Egypt  and  Israel. 

So  there  were  foreign  policy  purposes  and 
an  economic  rationale  for  responding  favor- 
ably to  reactor  requests.  But  we  also  have 
to  be  sure  that  the  commercial  nuclear  equip- 
ment and  materials  provided  by  the  United 
States  could  be  protected  with  nuclear  safe- 
guards adequate  to  the  very  special  dangers 
that  pervade  the  Middle  East. 

Under  our  Nonproliferation  Treaty  obli- 
gation, we  are  obligated  to  insure  that  Inter- 
national Atomic  Energy  Agency  (IAEA) 
safeguards  are  placed  on  material  trans- 
ferred to  other  states  through  agreements 
for  cooperation  in  the  peaceful  nuclear  field. 
We  believe  that  in  most  areas  of  the  world 
these  IAEA  safeguards  are  adequate  to  meet 
prevailing  risks.  An  IAEA-safeguarded  re- 
actor has  never  been  used  for  peaceful  nu- 
clear explosions  or  for  diversion  of  pluto- 
nium. 

It  is  clear  to  us,  however,  that  IAEA 
safeguards  must  be  supplemented  to  meet 
the  unique  circumstances  of  the  Middle  East. 
For  example,  the  potential  for  uncertainty 
about  weapons  development  has  to  be  closed 
off,  particularly  the  potential  for  uncertainty 
on  the  part  of  nations  in  the  area.  Doubts  on 
one  side  about  what  the  other  side  might  be 
doing  with  his  plutonium  could  have  a  dev- 
astating effect  on  Middle  Eastern  peace.  It 
was  for  this  latter  reason  that  we  saw  the 
introduction  of  additional  controls  as  a  mat- 
ter of  self-interest  in  both  Egypt  and  Israel. 

Moreover,  we  were  and  are  resolved  to 
make  the  special  safeguards  on  our  nuclear 
power  agreements  not  only  adequate  to  risks 
but,  just  as  importantly,  precedent-setting  as 
to  their  nonproliferation  benefits. 

As  you  are  aware,  the  reactors  we  con- 
template supplying  are  themselves  without 
weapons  potential,  and  the  low-enriched 
uranium  fuel  cannot  be  used  for  nuclear 
explosives.  Rather,  the  threat  arises  in  three 
areas ;  we  are  determined  that  each  be  choked 
ofl': 

— First,  that  either  government  will  overt- 


October  7,   1974 


485 


ly  or  covertly  divert  the  plutonium  byproduct 
of  the  reactors  and  make  it  into  weapons. 
Against  the  risk  of  diversion,  our  agree- 
ments with  Israel  and  Egypt  will  supplement 
inspection  by  the  IAEA  by  specifying  that 
the  reprocessing  and  storage  of  the  pluto- 
nium will  be  done  outside  each  country. 

— Second,  that  either  government  will  use 
the  material  for  what  would  be  described  as 
a  peaceful  nuclear  explosion.  Our  agreement 
will  explicitly  preclude  peaceful  nuclear  ex- 
plosions. And  let  me  say  here  we  do  not  be- 
lieve that  there  is  any  technical  distinction 
between  a  peaceful  explosion  and  a  weapons 
explosion. 

— Third,  that  some  of  the  material  could 
be  stolen  or  that  the  reactors  would  be  sub- 
ject to  terrorist  attack.  Against  the  risk  of 
sabotage  or  attack,  our  agreements  will  pro- 
vide for  assurance  that  stringent  physical 
security  procedures  are  applied  by  both 
countries. 

I  summarize  here  only  because  I  know 
how  thoroughly  you  have  studied  the  details 
of  our  planned  safeguards.  Two  questions 
have  almost  certainly  occurred  to  you,  as 
they  have  to  me.  First,  how  can  we  be  sure 
that  both  or  either  of  the  countries  will  not 
violate  the  safeguards  we  are  writing  into 
the  agreements?  And  second,  why  don't  we 
insist  on  adherence  to  the  Nonproliferation 
Treaty  as  a  condition  for  supplying  the  re- 
actors?  Allow  me  to  respond  to  them. 

There  can  never  be  an  ironclad  guarantee 
that  a  country  will  not  violate  an  inter- 
national agreement,  whatever  its  nature  and 
no  matter  how  tightly  written.  But  we  think 
that  the  provisions  of  these  agreements  and 
the  interests  of  both  Israel  and  Egypt  make 
violation  extremely  unlikely.  We  start  from 
the  premise  that  a  violation  could  not  be 
kept  a  secret  from  either  the  United  States 
or  the  international  community.  Thus,  in 
case  of  a  violation: 

— The  United  States  would  have  the  option 
to  suspend  its  supply  of  fuel  for  the  reactors, 
and  the  violating  country  would  have  great 
difficulty  finding  a  new  source,  particularly 


in  circumstances  where  the  world  was  in  full 
knowledge  of  the  violation. 

— The  violation  would  alert  its  adversax-y 
to  the  fact  that  it  was  building  nuclear 
weapons. 

— A  violation  would  place  in  great  jeop- 
ardy the  offending  country's  economic,  politi- 
cal, and  diplomatic  relationships  with  the 
United  States. 

The  disincentives  to  unilateral  abrogation 
are  very  great. 

The  United  States  is  committed  to  seeking 
the  widest  possible  adherence  to  the  Non- 
proliferation  Treaty.  We  hope  that  both 
Israel  and  Egypt  will  eventually  join  us  and 
all  other  nations  in  subscribing  to  it.  The 
agreements  we  propose  to  sign  with  them 
will  reflect  faithfully  their  support  for  the 
treaty's  objectives. 

However,  it  is  clear  that  neither  Israel  nor 
Egypt  sees  its  national  interests  presently 
served  by  becoming  a  party  to  the  Nonpro- 
liferation Treaty.  Over  the  short  run  vir- 
tually nothing  is  likely  to  alter  these  percep- 
tions. 

Our  efforts  must  be  bent  to  helping  build 
the  conditions  in  which  those  perceptions  can 
change.  It  is  our  hope  that  provision  of 
peaceful  nuclear  facilities  under  strict  con- 
trols against  military  use  can  create  in  time 
a  momentum  toward  a  climate  consistent 
with  the  goal  of  nonproliferation  within  the 
region  and  between  both  nations  and  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  Chairmen,  members  of  the  subcom- 
mittee: Historians  of  a  future  age  will  un- 
doubtedly comment  on  20th-century  man's 
efforts  to  match  his  political  will  to  his 
technological  grasp.  That  struggle  is  sharply 
etched  in  the  issue  you  are  considering  today. 

The  most  modern  and  potentially  the  most 
dangerous  of  technologies  is  at  the  threshold 
of  an  area  where  there  has  been  no  lasting 
vision  of  peace  for  a  generation.  Now  such 
a  vision  is  beginning  to  take  shape.  Through 
prudently  molded  agreements  we  propose  to 
use  technology  to  hasten  progress  toward  its 
full  development. 

I  hope  that  you  can  support  us  in  this  task. 


486 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


U.S.-Bulgaria  Consular  Convention 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate 

Message  From  President  Ford  ^ 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

I  am  pleased  to  transmit  for  the  Senate's 
advice  and  consent  to  ratification  the  Con- 
sular Convention  between  the  United  States 
of  America  and  the  People's  Republic  of  Bul- 
garia, with  an  Agreed  Memorandum  and  a 
related  exchange  of  letters,  signed  at  Sofia 
on  April  15,  1974.  I  transmit  also,  for  the  in- 
formation of  the  Senate,  the  report  of  the 
Department  of  State  with  respect  to  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  signing  of  this  Convention  is  a  signifi- 
cant step  in  the  gradual  process  of  improving 
and  broadening  the  relationship  between  the 
United  States  and  Bulgaria.  Consular  rela- 
tions between  the  two  countries  have  not  pre- 
viously been  subject  to  formal  agreement. 
This  Convention  will  establish  firm  obliga- 
tions on  such  important  matters  as  free  com- 
munication between  a  citizen  and  his  consul, 
notification  to  consular  officers  of  the  arrest 
and  detention  of  their  citizens,  and  permis- 
sion for  visits  by  consuls  to  citizens  who  are 
under  detention. 


'  Transmitted  on  Sept.  12  (text  from  White  House 
press  release);  also  printed  as  S.  Ex.  H.,  93d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  texts  of  the  conven- 
tion, the  agreed  memorandum  and  related  letters, 
and  the  report  of  the  Department  of  State. 


I  welcome  the  opportunity  through  this 
Consular  Convention  to  strengthen  the  ties 
between  the  United  States  and  Bulgaria.  I 
urge  the  Senate  to  give  the  Convention  its 
prompt  and  favorable  consideration. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  September  12,  197 U. 


Congressional   Documents 
Relating  to  Foreign  Policy 

93d  Congress,  2d  Session 

Radio  Free  Europe/Radio  Liberty.  Report  to  accom- 
pany S.  3190.  S.  Rept.  93-1019.  July  17,  1974.  3  pp. 

Duty-Free  Entry  of  Telescope  and  Associated  Arti- 
cles for  Canada-France-Hawaii  Telescope  Project. 
Report  to  accompany  H.R.  11796.  H.  Rept.  9.3-1213. 
July  24,  1974.    13  pp. 

African  Development  Fund.  Report  to  accompany  S. 
2354.    S.  Rept.  93-1029.   July  25,  1974.    4  pp. 

Energy  Transportation  Security  Act  of  1974.  Report, 
together  with  minority  views,  on  H.R.  8193,  to  re- 
quire that  a  percentage  of  U.S.  oil  imports  be  car- 
ried on  U.S.-flag  vessels.  S.  Rept.  93-1031.  July 
25,  1974.   66  pp. 

Russian  Grain  Transactions.  Report  of  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Government  Operations  made  by  its 
Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations.  S. 
Rept.  93-1033.   July  29,  1974.   67  pp. 

Increased  U.S.  Participation  in  the  Asian  Develop- 
ment Bank.  Report  to  accompany  S.  2193.  S.  Rept. 
93-1040.   July  30,  1974.   11  pp. 

Overseas  Private  Investment  Corporation.  Confer- 
ence Report  to  accompany  S.  2957.  H.  Rept.  93- 
1233.   July  30,  1974.   13  pp. 

Passport  Application  Fees.  Report  to  accompany 
H.R.  15172.   H.  Rept.  93-1242.   July  31,  1974.   4  pp. 


October  7,    1974 


487 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND   CONFERENCES 


Calendar  of  International  Conferences  ^ 

Scheduled   October  Through   December 

ECE  Group  of  Experts  on  Automatic  Data  Processing Geneva Oct.  1-2 

ECAFE  Committee  on  Industry  and  Technology  and  Housing     .     .  Bangkok     ....  Oct.  1-8 

OECD  Oil  Committee Paris Oct.  2 

WIPO  Working  Group  on  Scientific  Discoveries Geneva Oct.  2-4 

OECD  Export  Credits  Group Paris Oct.  3-4 

IMCO  Maritime  Safety  Committee:  31st  Session London Oct.  3-4 

ECE  Working  Party  on  Facilitation  of  International  Trade  Proce-  Geneva Oct.  3-4 

dures. 

ILO  Preparatory  Meeting  on  Civil  Aviation Geneva Oct.  3-10 

ICAO  Legal  Subcommittee:  21st  Session Montreal     ....  Oct.  3-22 

ECE  Ad  Hoc  Meeting  on  a  New  Chemical  Study Geneva Oct.  7-8 

NATO  Civil  Defense  Committee Brussels      ....  Oct.  7-9 

FAO  Intergovernmental  Group  on  Meat:  4th  Session Rome Oct.  7-10 

FAO  Intergovernmental  Group  on  Jute,  Kenaf,  and  Allied  Fibers:  Rome Oct.  7-10 

9th  Session. 

ECE  Group  of  Rapporteurs  on  Container  Transport Geneva Oct.  7-11 

GATT  Committee  on  Budget  and  Administration Geneva Oct.  7-11 

9th  FAO  Regional  Conference  for  Europe Lausanne    ....  Oct.  7-12 

U.N.  ECOSOC  Statistical  Commission:  18th  Plenary  Meeting     .     .  Geneva Oct.  7-18 

OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee Paris Oct.  8 

ECAFE  Typhoon  Committee Manila Oct.  8-14 

ECE  Chemical  Industry  Committee Geneva Oct.  9-11 

GATT  Working  Party  on  Trade  With  Poland Geneva Oct.  10-11 

ECE  Preparatory  Meeting  for  Seminar  on  Construction  in  Seismic  Bucharest  ....  Oct.  12 

Regions  With  Difficult  Ground  Conditions. 

GATT  Balance  of  Payments  Committee Geneva Oct.  14-16 

ECE  Group  of  Experts  on  Road  Traffic  Safety Geneva Oct.  14-18 

CCC  Permanent  Technical  Committee:  85th-86th  Sessions   ....  Geneva Oct.  14-18 

ECE  Timber  Committee Geneva Oct.  14-18 

PAHO  Executive  Committee:  73d  Meeting Washington     .     .     .  Oct.  14-19 

UNHCR  Executive  Committee:  25th  Session Geneva Oct.  14-24 


'  This  schedule,  which  was  prepared  in  the  Office  of  International  Conferences  on  September  13,  lists  in- 
ternational conferences  in  which  the  U.S.  Government  expects  to  participate  officially  in  the  period  October- 
December  1974.  Nongovernmental  conferences  are  not  included. 

Following  is  a  key  to  the  abbreviations:  CCC,  Customs  Cooperation  Council;  CCITT,  International  Tele- 
graph and  Telephone  Consultative  Committee;  ECAFE,  Economic  Commission  for  Asia  and  the  Far  East; 
ECE,  Economic  Commission  for  Europe;  ECOSOC,  Economic  and  Social  Council;  FAO,  Food  and  Agriculture 
Organization;  GATT,  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade;  ICAO,  International  Civil  Aviation  Organiza- 
tion; ICEM,  Intergovernmental  Committee  for  European  Migration;  IHO,  International  Hydrological  Organi- 
zation; ILO,  International  Labor  Organization;  IMCO,  Intergovernmental  Maritime  Consultative  Organiza- 
tion; IOC,  Intergovernmental  Oceanographic  Commission;  ISVS,  International  Secretariat  for  Volunteer 
Service;  ITU,  International  Telecommunications  Union;  NATO,  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization;  OAS,  Or- 
ganization of  American  States;  OECD,  Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development;  PAHC,  Pan 
American  Highway  Congresses;  PAHO,  Pan  American  Health  Organization;  SEATO,  Southeast  Asia  Treaty 
Organization;  UNCTAD,  United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade  and  Development;  UNESCO,  United  Nations 
Educational,  Scientific  and  Cultural  Organization;  UNHCR,  United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees; 
UNICEF,  United  Nations  Children's  Fund;  UNIDO,  United  Nations  Industrial  Development  Organization; 
WHO,  World  Health  Organization;  WIPO,  World  Intellectual  Property  Organization;  WMO,  World  Meteoro- 
logical Organization. 


488  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


FAO  Committee  on  Commodity  Problems Rome Oct.  14-25 

WMO  Commission  on  Agricultural  Meteorology:  6th  Session   .     .     .  Washington     .     .     .  Oct.  14-26 

FAO  Committee  on  Fisheries Rome Oct.  15-22 

18th  UNESCO  General  Conference Paris Oct.  15-Nov.  20 

IMCO  Assembly:  5th  Extraordinary   Session London Oct.  16-18 

GATT  Balance  of  Payments  Committee Geneva Oct.  21-22 

ISVS   Council:    16th   Session Geneva Oct.  21-23 

ECE  Group  of  Rapporteurs  on  General  Safety  Provisions   ....  Rome Oct.  21-25 

ECE  Group  of  Experts  on  Customs  Questions  Affecting  Transport  Geneva Oct.  21-25 

IMCO  International  Conference  on  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea   ....  London Oct.  21-Nov.  1 

NATO  Committee  on  the  Challenges  of  Modern  Society    ....  Brussels      ....  Oct.  22-23 

OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee   (High  Level  Group)    .  Paris Oct.  22-23 

GATT  Working  Party  on  Romanian  Tariffs Geneva Oct.  23-25 

OECD  Maritime  Transport  Committee Paris Oct.  23-25 

ITU/CCITT  Asian  Planning  Committee Tokyo Oct.  23-30 

ECE  Group  of  Experts  on  Long  Term  Prospects  for  the  Steel  In-  Geneva Oct.  28-29 

dustry. 

ICAO  Panel  on  Route  Facility  Cost  Accounting:  2d  Meeting   .     .     .  Montreal     ....  Oct.  28-Nov.  1 

ILO  Working  Party  on  Structure:  1st  Session Geneva Oct.  28-Nov.  1 

ECE  Steel  Committee Geneva Oct.  30-Nov.  1 

FAO  Indo-Pacific  Fisheries  Council Jakarta Oct.  30-Nov.  8 

ECAFE  Special  Meeting  for  2d  UNIDO  Conference Bangkok     ....  Oct.  31-Nov.  4 

FAO  World  Food  Program  Intergovernmental  Committee   ....  Rome October 

SEATO  Council  of  Ministers:  19th  Meeting New  York   ....  October 

U.N.  ECOSOC  Policy  and  Program  Coordination  Committee:  Inter-  New  York   ....  October 

sessional  Meeting. 

NATO  Senior  Civil  Emergency  Planning  Committee Brussels      ....  October 

NATO  Civil  Communications  Planning  Committee Brussels      ....  October 

GATT    Council Geneva October 

NATO  Expert  Working  Group  on  the  Middle  East  and  Maghreb    .  Brussels      ....  October 

NATO  Expert  Working  Group  on  Latin  America Brussels      ....  October 

NATO  Expert  Working  Group  on  the  Far  East Brussels      ....  October 

OAS/PAHC  Committee  III Caracas       ....  Nov.  4-7 

ECE  Gas  Committee Geneva Nov.  4-8 

Western  Hemisphere  Working  Group  on  Transnational  Enterprises  Washington     .     .     .  Nov.  4-8 

UNCTAD  Committee  on  Tungsten:  8th  Session Geneva Nov.  4-8 

ILO  Governing  Body  and  Its  Committees:  194th  Session    ....  Geneva Nov.  4-15 

ICAO    Special    North    Atlantic/Pacific    Regional    Air    Navigation  Montreal     ....  Nov.  4-15 

Meeting. 

U.N.  Pledging  Conference  for  UNIDO  and  U.N.  Capital  Develop-  New  York   ....  Nov.  5 

ment  Fund. 

FAO  Ad  Hoc  Consultations  on  Tobacco Rome Nov. 

ECAFE  Committee  on  Natural  Resources  Development    ....  Bangkok     ....  Nov. 

CCC  Valuation  Committee:  65th  Session Brussels      ....  Nov. 

U.N.  World  Food  Conference Rome Nov. 

OAS/PAHC  Permanent  Executive  Committee:   15th  Regular  Ses-  Caracas Nov. 

sion. 

OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee Paris Nov. 

UNICEF  Special  Pledging  Conference New  York  ....  Nov. 

ICEM   Subcommittee   on   Budget  and   Finance:   29th    Session    (re-  Geneva Nov. 

sumed). 

ECE  Group  of  Experts  on  Transport  of  Dangerous  Goods   ....  Bern Nov. 

IMCO  Legal  Committee:  24th  Session London Nov. 

UNCTAD  Intergovernmental  Preparatory  Group  on  a  Convention  Geneva Nov. 

on  International  Intermodal  Transport:  2d  Session. 

OECD  Environment  Committee:  Ministerial  Meeting Paris Nov. 

ICEM  Executive  Committee:  46th  Session Geneva Nov. 

UNESCO  Executive  Committee  of  the  International  Campaign  To  Aswan Nov. 

Save  the  Monuments  of  Nubia:  24th  Session. 

ICEM  Council:  37th  Session Paris Nov. 

ICAO  Statistical  Panel:  4th  Meeting Montreal     ....  Nov. 

IMCO  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee:  2d  Session   .     .  London Nov. 


October  7,   1974  489 


5- 

9 

5- 

11 

5- 

15 

5- 

16 

7- 

9 

8 

11 

11 

-12 

11 

-15 

11 

-15 

11 

-29 

13- 

-14 

14 

-16 

16 

18- 

-20 

18- 

-22 

18- 

-22 

Th( 


Calendar  of  International  Conferences— Continued 

Scheduled   October  Through   December — Continued 

GATT  Meeting  of  the  Contracting  Parties Geneva Nov.  18-22 

ECE  Committee  on  Electric  Power Geneva Nov.  18-22  . 

ECE  Group  of  Experts  on  Construction  of  Vehicles Geneva Nov.  18-22  U.S. 

CCC  Working  Party  of  the  Nomenclature  Committee Paris Nov.  18-23  . 

FAO  Council:  64th  Session Rome Nov.  18-29  '"'^ 

OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee Paris Nov.  19-20 

International  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of  Atlantic  Tuna    .      Madrid Nov.  20-26  Fbh 

UNESCO  Executive  Board:  96th  Session Paris Nov.  21-22 

ECAFE  Committee  on  Statistics Jakarta Nov.  21-27 

OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee Paris Nov.  22 

ECE  Committee  on  Development  of  Trade Geneva Nov.  25-29 

IMCO  Subcommittee  on  Standards  of  Training  and  Watchkeeping   .      London Nov.  25-29 

ILO  2d  Tripartite  Technical  Meeting  for  Hotels,  Restaurants,  and     Geneva Nov.  25-Dec.  6 

Similar  Establishments. 

WMO  Regional  Association  III  (South  America):  6th  Session    .     .  Buenos  Aires  .     .     .  Nov.  25-Dec.  6              [jffj 

CCC  Nomenclature  Committee:  33d  Session Brussels      ....  Nov.  25-Dec.  7           ' 

ICAO  Supersonic  Transport  Panel:  5th  Meeting Montreal     ....  Nov.  25-Dec.  13             ""^ 

Consultative  Committee  for  the   Economic  Development  in  South  Singapore  ....  Nov.  26-Dec.  5 

and  Southeast  Asia  (Colombo  Plan). 

ILO  Conference  of  American  States:  10th  Session Mexico  City    .     .     .  Nov.  26-Dec.  6 

NATO  Food  and  Agriculture  Planning  Committee Brussels      ....  November 

NATO  Industrial  Planning  Committee Brussels      ....  November 

ECE  Committee  on  Development  of  Trade Geneva November 

NATO  Civil  Aviation  Planning  Committee Brussels      ....  November 

NATO  Planning  Board  for  European  Inland  Surface  Transport   .     .  Brussels      ....  November 

U.N.  Economic  and  Social  Council:  57th  Session  (resumed)    .     .     .  New  York  ....  November 

International  Olive  Oil  Council:  31st  Session Madrid November  Mt 

NATO  Petroleum  Planning  Committee Brussels      ....  November                        j)y(j,l 

NATO  Expert  Working  Group  on  the  Soviet  Union  and   Eastern  Brussels      ....  November 

Europe. 

CCC  Extraordinary  Session  of  Finance  Committee Brussels      ....  Dec.  2-4                          Mexi( 

OECD  Financial  Markets  Committee Paris Dec.  2-5 

3d  OAS  Inter-American  Conference  on  Radio  Chemistry    ....  Rio  de  Janeiro    .     .  Dec.  2-6 

IMCO  Subcommittee  on  Fire  Protection:  16th  Session London Dec.  2-6 

ECAFE  Committee  on  Trade Bangkok     ....  Dec.  2-9 

U.N.  ECOSOC  Committee  of  Experts  on  the  Transport  of  Dan-     Geneva Dec.  2-10  regaD 

gerous  Goods. 

UNIDO  Permanent  Committee:  5th  Session,  1st  Part Vienna Dec.  2-14 

UNESCO  Meeting  of  Governmental  Experts  To  Review  the  Inter-      Paris Dec.  3-11  "fSl 

national  Standard  Classification  of  Education.  their 

Western  Hemisphere  Working  Group  on  Transnational  Enterprises  .  Washington     .     .     .  Dec.  9-13                          tv, 

ECE  Senior  Advisers  on  Science  and  Technology Geneva Dec.  9-13 

ECE  Working  Party  on  Road  Transport Geneva Dec.  9-13 

IMCO  Life  Saving  Appliance  Committee:  8th  Session London Dec.  9-13  'ta 

ECAFE  Committee  on  Economic  Planning Bangkok     ....  Dec.  9-14 

FAO/WHO  Committee  of  Experts  on  Nutrition Rome Dec.  11-20 

ECE  Group  of  Rapporteurs  on  Pneumatic  Tires Geneva Dec.  16-20 

UNESCO/IOC  International  Coordination   Group  for  Cooperative      Monaco Dec.  16-21 

Investigations  in  the  Mediterranean:  2d  Session. 

ECAFE  Transport  and  Communications  Committee Bangkok     ....  Dec.  16-23 

OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee Paris Dec.  17-18 

ICAO  Meteorological  Operational  Telecommunications  Network  in     Paris December  ''Hlle 

Europe  Regional  Planning  Group:  10th  Meeting.  ijjjjj 

IHO  Commission  on  Radio  Navigation  Warnings Monte  Carlo    .     .     .  December 

UNESCO/IOC  International  Coordination  Group  for  Cooperative     Tokyo December 

Studies  of  Kuroshio  and  Adjacent  Regions:  10th  Session. 

NATO  Defense  Planning  Committee Brussels      ....  December 

NATO:  54th  Council  Meeting  at  Ministerial  Level Brussels      ....  December 

UNESCO  Bureau  of  the  International  Coordinating  Council  on  Man     Paris December 

and  the  Biosphere  Program. 


ventK 

lier  [I 


Tobj 


*cli 


490  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


U.S.-Japan  Migratory  Bird  Convention 
Enters  Into  Force 

Press  release  367  dated  September  19 

The  Convention  Between  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
Government  of  Japan  for  the  Protection  of 
Migratory  Birds  and  Birds  in  Danger  of  Ex- 
tinction and  Their  Environment  entered  into 
force  on  September  19  when  Deputy  Secre- 
tary of  State  Robert  S.  Ingersoll  and  Ja- 
panese Ambassador  Takeshi  Yasukawa  ex- 
changed instruments  of  ratification  at  Wash- 
ington. The  convention,  which  was  signed  in 
Tokyo  on  March  4,  1972,  opens  up  a  new 
field  of  cooperation  between  the  United  States 
and  Japan. 

The  convention  is  the  third  bilateral  agree- 
ment regarding  migratory  birds  entered  into 
by  the  United  States.  The  first  was  with  Can- 
ada, signed  August  16,  1916 ;  the  second  with 
Mexico,  signed  February  6,  1936.  Both  con- 
ventions remain  in  force.  Like  the  two  ear- 
lier conventions,  the  present  convention  re- 
flects the  expansion  of  scientific  knowledge 
regarding  the  extraordinarily  long  distances 
that  certain  species  of  birds  traverse  in  the 
course  of  their  migrations  and  a  concern  for 
their  conservation. 

The  convention  marks  the  culmination  of 
international  efi'orts  dating  back  to  1960 
when  the  12th  World  Meeting  of  the  Inter- 
national Council  for  Bird  Preservation  in 
Tokyo  passed  a  resolution  proposing  that 
countries  of  the  pan-Pacific  area  conclude  a 
convention  for  the  protection  of  migratory 
birds.  Subsequently,  studies  were  undertaken 
by  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  the  Smith- 
sonian Institution,  and  their  Japanese  coun- 
terparts. After  a  meeting  of  experts  of  each 
country  in  October  1968,  U.S.  and  Japanese 
delegations  met  in  Washington  in  October 
1969  and  negotiated  a  draft  convention 
which,  with  a  few  changes,  provided  the  text 
for  the  present  convention. 


The  convention  is  designed  to  provide  for 
the  protection  of  species  of  birds  which  are 
common  to  both  countries  or  which  migrate 
between  them.  At  present  there  are  190  such 
species  listed  in  the  annex  to  the  convention. 
Included  are  such  endangered  birds  as  the 
peregrine  falcon,  the  short-tailed  albatross, 
the  Aleutian  Canada  goose,  and  the  Japanese 
crested  ibis  and  sacred  crane.  Provisions  are 
included  in  the  convention  for  review  and 
amendment  of  the  annex. 

The  convention  provides  that  each  party 
shall  endeavor  to  establish  sanctuaries  and 
other  facilities  for  the  protection  or  manage- 
ment of  migratory  birds.  Provisions  are  in- 
cluded for  special  protection  of  endangered 
species  of  birds  indigenous  to  each  country. 
Along  with  the  instruments  of  ratification, 
notes  were  exchanged  listing  such  birds.  Fi- 
nally, there  are  provisions  for  the  exchange 
of  research  data  regarding  migratory  birds 
and  endangered  species  of  birds  and  for  the 
preservation  and  enhancement  of  their  envi- 
ronment. 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Atomic  Energy 

Statute  of  the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency, 
as  amended.  Done  at  New  York  October  26,  1956. 
Entered  into  force  July  29,  1957.  TIAS  3873,  5284, 
7668. 

Acceptance  deposited:  Korea,  Democratic  People's 
Republic,  September  18,  1974. 

Automotive  Traffic 

Convention  concerning  customs  facilities  for  touring. 
Done  at  New  York  June  4,  1954.  Entered  into  force 
September  11,  1957.   TIAS  3879. 
Accession  deposited:  Chile,  August  15,  1974. 

Bills  of  Lading 

International  convention  for  the  unification  of  cer- 
tain rules  relating  to  bills  of  lading  and  protocol 
of  signature.  Done  at  Brussels  August  25,  1924. 
Entered  into  force  June  2,  1931;  for  the  United 
States  December  29,  1937.  51  Stat.  233. 
Accession  deposited:  Syria,  August  1,  1974. 

Copyright 

Universal  copyright  convention,  as  revised.  Done  at 
Paris  July  24,   1971.   Entered   into   force  July   10, 
1974.  TIAS  7868. 
Ratification  deposited:  Norway,  May  7,  1974. 


October  7,   1974 


491 


Maritime  Matters 

Convention  for  the  unification  of  certain  rules  with 
respect  to  assistance  and  salvage  at  sea.  Done  at 
Brussels   September   23,  1910.  Entered   into   force 
March  1,  1913.   37  Stat.  1658. 
Adherence  deposited:  Syria,  August  1,  1974. 

Telecommunications 

International  telecommunication  convention  with  an- 
nexes and  protocols.  Done  at  Malaga-Torremolinos 
October  25,  1973.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Mauritius,  June  8,  1974. 

Telegraph   regulations,  with  appendices,  annex  and 
final  protocol.  Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.  En- 
tered into  force  September  1,  1974." 
Notification  of  approval:  Norway,  June  27,  1974. 

Telephone  regulations,  with  appendices  and  final  pro- 
tocol. Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.  Entered  into 
force  September  1,  1974." 
Notification  of  approval:  Norway,  June  27,  1974. 

World  Heritage 

Convention  concerning  the  protection  of  the  world 
cultural  and  natural  heritage.  Done  at  Paris  No- 
vember 16,  1972.' 

Ratificatioyis   deposited:    Algeria,   June   24,    1974; 
Sudan,  June  6,  1974. 


Agreement  amending  the  annex  to  the  convention  of 
March  4,  1972,  for  the  protection  of  migratory 
birds  and  birds  in  danger  of  extinction,  and  their 
environment.  EflFected  by  exchange  of  notes  at 
Washington  September  19,  1974.  Enters  into  force 
December  19,  1974. 

Jordan 

Agreement  relating  to  payment  to  the  United  States 
of  the  net  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  defense  arti- 
cles by  Jordan.  Effected  by  exchange  of  letters  at 
Amman  May  20  and  August  24,  1974.  Entered  into 
force  August  24,  1974,  effective  July  1,  1974. 

Macao 

Parcel  post  agreement,  with  detailed  regulations  for 
execution.  Signed  at  Macao  and  Washington  Feb- 
ruary 23  and  June  8,  1973. 
Entered  into  force:  August  1,  1974. 

Switzerland 

Agreement  relating  to  the  application  of  the  rules  of 
country  of  origin  to  air  charter  traffic  between  the 
United  States  and  Switzerland.  Effected  by  ex- 
change of  notes  at  Bern  June  12  and  July  25,  1974. 
Entered  into  force  July  25,  1974. 


BILATERAL 

Cyprus 

Parcel  post  agreement,  with  detailed  regulations  for 
execution.  Signed  at  Nicosia  and  Washington  May 
7  and  June  8,  1973. 
Entered  into  force:  September  1,  1974. 

Haiti 

Agreement  modifying  the  agreement  of  October  19 
and  November  3,  1971,  as  amended  and  modified, 
relating  to  trade  in  cotton  textiles.  Effected  by 
exchange  of  notes  at  Port-au-Prince  September  12 
and  13,  1974.  Entered  into  force  September  13, 
1974. 

Japan 

Convention  for  the  protection  of  migratory  birds  and 
birds  in  danger  of  extinction,  and  their  environ- 
ment. Signed  at  Tokyo  March  4,  1972. 
Ratifications  exchanged:  September  19,  1974. 
Entered  into  force:  September  19,  1974. 


'  Not  in  force. 

■  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  September  16-22 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Subject 

Passport  application  fee  raised 
from  $2  to  $3. 

Kissinger:  remarks  at  National 
Portrait  Gallery. 

Kissinger:  Senate  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations. 

U.S. -Japan  Migratory  Bird  Con- 
vention enters  into  force. 

U.S.  journalists  tour  U.S.S.R.  un- 
der exchange  visits  program. 

U.S.-U.K.  aviation  agreement. 

Black  sworn  in  as  Ambassador  to 
Ghana  (biographic  data). 

Cooper  sworn  in  as  Ambassador 
to  the  German  Democratic  Re- 
public (biographic  data). 


No. 

Date 

*364 

9/17 

365 

9/18 

1366 

9/19 

367 

9/19 

*368 

9/19 

1369 
*370 

9/20 
9/20 

*371     9/20 


*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


492 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


INDEX     October  7,  197 U     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1841 


Agriculture.    A    Framework    of    International 

Cooperation    (Ford) 465 

American  Principles.  Secretary  Kissinger  Pays 
Tribute  to  Former  Secretary  Acheson  (re- 
marks at  National  Portrait  Gallery)    .     .     .       482 

Atomic  Energy 

Department  Discusses  Proposed  Nuclear  Re- 
actor Agreements  With  Egypt  and  Israel 
(Sisco) 484 

Members  of  U.S.  Delegation  to  IAEA  Confer- 
ence Confirmed 468 

Bulgaria.  U.S. -Bulgaria  Consular  Convention 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate  (message  from 
President   Ford) 487 

Chile.   President  Ford's   News   Conference   of 

September  16   (excerpts) 471 

Congress 

Congressional  Documents  Relating  to  Foreign 

Policy 487 

Department  Discusses  Proposed  Nuclear  Re- 
actor Agreements  With  Egypt  and  Israel 
(Sisco) 484 

Members  of  U.S.  Delegation  to  IAEA  Confer- 
ence Confirmed 468 

Senate  Confirms  U.S.  Delegation  to  29th  U.N. 

General  Assembly 483 

U.S. -Bulgaria  Consular  Convention  Trans- 
mitted to  the  Senate  (message  from  Presi- 
dent   Ford) 487 

Economic  Affairs 

Action  Program   for  World   Investment    (En- 

ders) 477 

Economic  Interdependence  and  Common  De- 
fense  (Ingersoll) 473 

A    Framework    of    International    Cooperation 

(Ford) 465 

Egypt.  Department  Discusses  Proposed  Nu- 
clear Reactor  Agreements  With  Egypt  and 
Israel    (Sisco) 484 

Energy.  A  Framework  of  International  Coop- 
eration  (Ford) .       465 

Environment.  U.S. -Japan  Migratory  Bird  Con- 
vention Enters  Into  Force 491 

Europe.  Economic  Interdependence  and  Com- 
mon Defense   (Ingersoll) 473 

Foreign  Aid.  President  Ford's  News  Confer- 
ence of  September  16  (excerpts)     ....       471 

International  Organizations  and  Conferences 

Calendar  of  International  Conferences    .     .     .       488 


Members  of  U.S.  Delegation  to  IAEA  Confer- 
ence Confirmed 468 

Israel 

Department  Discusses  Proposed  Nuclear  Re- 
actor Agreements  With  Egypt  and  Israel 
(Sisco) 484 

Prime  Minister  Rabin  of  Israel  Visits  Wash- 
ington   (Ford,   Rabin) 468 

Japan.  U.S. -Japan  Migratory  Bird  Convention 

Enters  Into  Force 491 

Military  Affairs.  Economic  Interdependence 
and  Common  Defense  (Ingersoll)     ....       473 

Presidential  Documents 

A  Framework  of  International  Cooperation     .       465 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  Septem- 
ber 16  (excerpts) 471 

Prime  Minister  Rabin  of  Israel  Visits  Wash- 
ington     468 

U.S. -Bulgaria  Consular  Convention  Trans- 
mitted to  the  Senate 487 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 491 

U.S. -Bulgaria  Consular  Convention  Trans- 
mitted to  the  Senate  (message  from  Presi- 
dent Ford) 487 

U.S. -Japan  Migratory  Bird  Convention  Enters 

Into   Force 491 

United  Nations 

A    Framework    of    International    Cooperation 

(Ford) 465 

Senate  Confirms  U.S.  Delegation  to  29th  U.N. 

General  Assembly 483 

Name  Index 

Bennett,  W.  Tapley,  Jr 483 

Carmichael,  Oliver  C,  Jr 483 

Enders,  Thomas  O 477 

Ferguson,  Clarence  Clyde,  Jr 483 

Ford,    President 465,468,471,487 

Ingersoll,  Robert  S 473 

Kissinger,  Secretary 482 

Kuchel,  Thomas  H 483 

Percy,  Charles  H 483 

Rabin,  Yitzhak 468 

Scali,  John  A 483 

Schaufele,  William  E.,  Jr 483 

Segel,  Joseph  M 483 

Sisco,   Joseph  J 484 

Symington,   Stuart 483 

White,  Barbara  M 483 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

us.  government  printing  office 

washington,  dc.  20402 


OPnCIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES  PAID 
U.S.     OOVERNMENT     PRIHTING     OFFICE 

Special   Fourth-Ciosi   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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


/3: 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1842 


October  14,  1974 


A  GLOBAL  APPROACH  TO  THE  ENERGY  PROBLEM 
Address  by  President  Ford    ABS 

AN  AGE  OF  INTERDEPENDENCE:   COMMON  DISASTER  OR  COMMUNITY 
Address  by  Secretary  Kissinger  Before  the  U.N.  General  Assembly    U98 

DETENTE  WITH  THE  SOVIET  UNION:   THE  REALITY  OF  COMPETITION 

AND  THE  IMPERATIVE  OF  COOPERATION 

Statement  by  Secretary  Kissinger    505 


Bostor.  ■^'•'•' ' 

Superinte.,  >.)cuments 

-  '375 
DEPOSnORY 
THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POUCY 

For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE    BULLETIN 


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    inde.xed    in 

the    Readers'    Guide    to    Periodical    Literature. 


Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1842 
October  14,  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 
tlie  field  of  U.S.  foreign  relations  and 
on  the  work  of  the  Department  and 
tlie  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  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. 


A  Global  Approach  to  the  Energy  Problem 


Address  by  P^-esident  Ford  ■ 


On  behalf  of  the  American  people,  on  be- 
half of  my  home  State  of  Michigan,  on  be- 
half of  the  city  of  Detroit,  it  gives  me  a  very 
great  privilege  and  pleasure  to  welcome  you 
to  the  city  which  some  blame  for  the  energy 
crisis. 

But  I  hasten  to  add  this,  if  I  might:  This 
is  also  a  city  [to]  which  we,  along  with  the 
world's  other  great  industrial  nations,  look 
for  significant  solutions  that  I  know  are  pos- 
sible. This  is  a  "can  do,"  a  problem-solving, 
city  and  state. 

It  was  here  in  Detroit  that  the  internal 
combustion  engine  was  transformed  from  a 
plaything  of  the  rich  into  basic  transporta- 
tion on  which  people  all  over  the  world  now 
depend. 

The  whole  structure  of  our  world  society 
rests  upon  the  expectation  of  abundant  fuel 
at  reasonable  prices.  I  refer  to  cities  and 
suburbs,  farms  and  factories,  shopping  cen- 
ters and  office  buildings,  schools  and  churches, 
and  the  roadways  that  connect  them  all. 

The  expectation  of  an  assured  supply  of 
energy  has  now  been  challenged.  The  reper- 
cussions are  being  felt  worldwide.  There  is 
widespread  uncertainty  and  deep  and  serious 
apprehension.  Today,  at  the  opening  of  this 
conference,  we  are  determined  to  provide 
guidance  to  a  world  in  crisis. 

Many  people  became  aware  that  there  was 
an  energy  problem  for  the  first  time  last  Oc- 
tober when  the  oil   embargo  was  imposed. 


'  Made  before  the  ninth  World  Energy  Conference 
at  Detroit,  Mich.,  on  Sept.  23  (text  from  Weekly 
Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Sept. 
30). 


But  those  who  were  well  informed  about  the 
energy  situation  had  known  for  some  time 
that  a  crisis  was  coming. 

With  burgeoning  demand  all  over  the 
world,  they  knew  that  we  could  not  forever 
expect  a  steady  supply  of  low-priced  fuel. 
The  embargo  merely  brought  to  a  head  what 
experts  had  known  for  many  years :  that  en- 
ergy sources  must  be  expanded  and  waste- 
ful use  eliminated  to  keep  pace  with  the 
needs  of  a  growing  and  modernizing  world. 

Everyone  can  now  see  the  pulverizing  im- 
pact of  energy  price  increases  on  every  as- 
pect of  the  world  economy.  The  food  prob- 
lem, the  inflation  problem,  the  monetary 
problem,  and  other  major  problems  are  di- 
rectly linked  to  the  all-pervasive  energy  prob- 
lem. 

The  American  response  to  the  oil  embargo 
and  recent  oil  price  increases,  along  with 
production  decisions,  has  taken  the  form  of 
a  program  for  action  under  the  general  title 
Project  Independence.  This  integrated  do- 
mestic energy  program  will  seek  in  many, 
many  different  ways  to  reduce  American 
consumption  and  to  increase  production  of 
energy. 

Officials  of  my  administration  will  more 
fully  describe  to  this  conference  our  deter- 
mination to  achieve  energy  independence.  We 
will  take  tough  steps  to  obtain  the  degree  of 
self-sufficiency  which  is  necessary  to  avoid 
disruption  of  our  economy. 

We  will  make  sure  there  is  heat  for  our 
homes  and  power  for  the  people  who  work  in 
our  plants.  Realistically,  this  does  not  mean 
zero  imports. 

In  the  immediate  future,  we  will  expand 


October   14,   1974 


493 


our  efforts  to  increase  our  energy  efficiency. 
This  will  reduce  the  growing  dependence  on 
foreign  petroleum.  Project  Independence 
will  also  require  us  to  increase  the  output  of 
existing  domestic  resources.  In  mobilizing 
to  achieve  long-term  goals,  we  will  fully  ex- 
ploit one  of  our  most  powerful  natural  re- 
sources— U.S.  technology.  We  are  moving  in 
this  direction. 

Last  year,  for  example,  the  U.S.  Govern- 
ment funding  for  energy  research  and  de- 
velopment was  approximately  $lVi  billion. 
This  year  we  will  spend  over  $21/4.  billion. 
These  funds,  together  with  those  provided 
by  private  industry,  will  support  a  growing 
national  effort.  In  terms  of  joint  private  and 
public  resources,  it  will  mean  a  commitment 
in  excess  of  the  successful  one  made  by  John 
F.  Kennedy  to  put  a  man  on  the  Moon  in  the 
last  decade.  I  mention  this  highly  successful 
Moon  landing  to  dramatize  the  magnitude  of 
the  energy  task  before  us,  the  dedication  with 
which  we  approach  it,  and  the  national  mo- 
bilization of  attention  and  talent  it  will  re- 
quire. 

We  are  also  moving  to  improve  the  orga- 
nization of  the  U.S.  Government  for  carry- 
ing out  our  energy  programs.  A  key  step  now 
awaiting  final  action  by  the  Congress  is  the 
creation  of  an  Energy  Research  and  Develop- 
ment Administration.  It  will  provide  coordi- 
nation and  leadership  in  cooperation  with 
private  industry  in  developing  the  necessary 
technology  to  fulfill  our  long-range  energy  re- 
quirements. 

Even  if  there  had  been  no  political  inter- 
ference in  the  production  and  distribution  of 
petroleum,  nations  today  would  still  be  fac- 
ing the  problem  of  finding  enough  fuel  at 
reasonable  prices  to  continue  the  moderni- 
zation of  our  world.  Our  needs  then  and  now 
for  energy  are  increasing  much,  much  faster 
than  our  ability  to  produce  it.  But  in  addi- 
tion, most  industrialized  nations  experienced 
the  direct  impact  of  the  oil  embargo,  which 
obviously  greatly  intensified  the  problem. 

All  nations  have  been  adversely  affected  by 
price  increases.  When  nations  use  their  re- 
sources as  political  weapons  against  others, 
the   result   is   human   suffering.    It   is   then 


tempting  to  speculate  on  how  much  better 
off  man  would  be  if  nature  had  distributed 
vital  resources  more  evenly  around  the  world, 
making  every  nation  self-sufficient.  But  per- 
haps nature  had  a  better  idea;  because  vital 
resources  are  distributed  unevenly,  nations 
are  forced  to  choose  between  conflict  and  co- 
operation. 

Throughout  history,  nations  have  gone  to 
war  over  natural  advantages  such  as  water 
or  food  or  convenient  passages  on  land  and 
sea.  But  in  the  nuclear  age,  when  any  local 
conflict  may  escalate  to  global  catastrophe, 
war  brings  unacceptable  risks  for  all  man- 
kind. Now,  more  than  any  time  in  the  history 
of  man,  nations  must  accept  and  live  peace- 
fully with  the  fact  that  they  need  each  other. 
Nations  must  turn  to  international  coopera- 
tion as  the  best  means  for  dealing  with  the 
uneven  distribution  of  resources. 

American  foreign  policy  rests  on  two  ob- 
vious new  facts:  First,  in  the  nuclear 
age,  there  is  no  rational  alternative  to  inter- 
national cooperation.  Second,  the  more  the 
world  progresses,  the  more  the  world  mod- 
ernizes, the  more  nations  need  each  other. 

As  you  know,  a  theme  of  the  foreign  policy 
of  this  administration  is  international  coop- 
eration in  an  interdependent  world,  stress- 
ing interdependence.  You  may  ask.  Why  is 
our  domestic  energy  program  called  Project 
Independence?  As  I  see  it,  especially  with  re- 
gard to  energy,  national  sufficiency  and  in- 
ternational interdependence  fit  together  and 
actually  work  together. 

No  nation  can  be  part  of  the  modern  world 
and  live  unto  itself.  No  nation  has  or  can 
have  within  its  borders  everything  necessary 
for  a  full  and  rich  life  for  all  its  people.  In- 
dependence cannot  mean  isolation. 

The  aim  of  Project  Independence  is  not  to 
set  the  United  States  apart  from  the  rest  of 
the  world ;  it  is  to  enable  the  United  States  to 
do  its  part  more  effectively  in  the  world's  ef- 
fort to  provide  more  energy. 

Project  Independence  will  seek  new  ways 
to  reduce  energy  usage  and  to  increase  its 
production.  To  the  extent  that  we  succeed, 
the  world  will  benefit.  There  will  be  much 
more  energy  available  for  others. 


494 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


As  America  expands  existing  sources  and 
develops  new  ones,  other  nations  will  also 
benefit.  We  especially  want  to  share  our  ex- 
perience and  our  technology  with  other  coun- 
tries in  efforts  to  increase  their  own  energy 
supplies.  We  are  also  aware  that  in  some  re- 
spects other  countries  are  ahead  of  us,  and 
we  will  seek  to  learn  from  them. 

Sovereign  nations  try  to  avoid  dependence 
on  other  nations  that  exploit  their  own  re- 
sources to  the  detriment  of  others.  Sovereign 
nations  cannot  allow  their  policies  to  be  dic- 
tated or  their  fate  decided  by  artificial  rig- 
ging and  distortion  of  world  commodity  mar- 
kets. 

No  one  can  foresee  the  extent  of  damage, 
nor  the  end  of  the  disastrous  consequences  if 
nations  refuse  to  share  nature's  gifts  for  the 
benefit  of  all  mankind. 

I  told  the  U.N.  Assembly  last  Wednesday, 
and  I  quote : 

The  attempt  by  any  country  to  use  one  commodity 
for  political  purposes  will  inevitably  tempt  other 
countries  to  use  their  commodities  for  their  own 
purposes. 

There  are  three  ways,  fortunately,  that  this 
danger  can  and  must  be  avoided : 

— First,  each  nation  must  resolve  not  to 
misuse  its  resources ; 

— Second,  each  nation  must  fully  utilize  its 
own  energy  resources ;  and 

— Third,  each  nation  must  join  with  others 
in  cooperative  efforts  to  reduce  its  energy 
vulnerability. 

In  doing  so,  we  emphasize  that  our  actions 
are  not  directed  against  any  other  nations, 
but  are  only  taken  to  maintain  the  conditions 
of  international  order  and  well-being. 

The  quest  for  energy  need  not  promote  di- 
vision and  discord.  It  can  expand  the  hori- 
zons of  the  world's  peoples.  I  envision  a 
strong  movement  toward  a  unifying  coopera- 
tion to  insure  a  decent  life  for  all. 

I  welcome  the  development  in  Brussels  last 
Friday  of  a  new  international  energy  pro- 
gram by  the  Energy  Coordinating  Group  of 
the  Washington  Energy  Conference.  We  were 
pleased  to  participate  in  that  meeting. 

The  12  nations  reached  an  ad  referendum 


agreement  on  a  far-reaching  cooperative  plan 
to  deal  with  such  emergencies  as  embargoes 
by  sharing  available  oil  and  by  cutting  con- 
sumption and  using  stocks  on  an  equitable 
basis. 

While  seeking  conservation,  we  and  the 
other  nations  will  work  for  expanded  produc- 
tion of  both  conventional  and  nonconven- 
tional  fuels.  The  cooperating  countries  are 
also  creating  an  international  agency  to  carry 
out  this  program. 

The  United  States  welcomes  this  demon- 
stration of  international  action  rather  than 
words.  Just  as  Americans  are  challenged  by 
Project  Independence,  the  world  faces  a  re- 
lated challenge  that  requires  a  Project  In- 
terdependence. 

No  single  country  can  solve  the  energy 
problem  by  itself.  As  President,  I  offer 
America's  partnership  to  every  other  nation 
willing  to  join  in  a  common  effort  to  expand 
the  spirit  flowing  from  the  Washington  En- 
ergy Conference. 

A  .start  has  been  made  in  Brussels.  The  mo- 
mentum must  be  continued  if  true  interde- 
pendence is  to  be  achieved. 

The  economy  of  the  world  is  facing  un- 
precedented challenges.  Old  remedies  are  in- 
adequate for  new  problems.  New  and  appro- 
priate solutions  must  be  found  without  delay, 
and  I  am  absolutely  convinced  that  they  will 
be  found. 

I  firmly  believe  that  the  unselfishness  of 
all  nations  is  in  the  self-interest  of  each  na- 
tion. We  all  depend  on  each  other  in  so  many 
ways  that  there  is  no  way  in  today's  world 
for  any  nation  to  benefit  at  the  expense  of 
others,  except  for  the  very  short  term  and  at 
a  very  great  risk. 

Without  having  planned  it,  we  find  our- 
selves in  the  strange  situation  in  which  the 
most  selfish  individual  can  figure  out  that  it 
is  profitable  to  live  by  what  we  call  the  Golden 
Rule. 

We  can  help  ourselves  only  if  we  are  con- 
siderate and  only  if  we  are  helpful  to  others. 

The  energy  crisis  is  the  clearest  example  of 
the  world's  interdependence.  The  indu.strial- 
ized  nations  need  the  oil  produced  by  a  few 
developing  nations.  And  all  developing  na- 


Oetober   14,    1974 


495 


tions  need  the  technology,  the  services,  and 
the  products  of  industrialized  nations. 

The  opportunity  for  a  great  advance  for 
the  whole  world  is  tantalizingly  apparent, 
but  so  is  the  danger  that  we  will  throw  away 
this  very,  very  rare  opportunity  to  realize 
mankind's  hopes.  Let  us  build  and  implement 
a  global  strategy  for  energy. 

If  I  may,  I  call  on  this  World  Energy  Con- 
ference and  other  international  organiza- 
tions to  accept  the  challenge  of  formulating 
Project  Interdependence,  a  comprehensive 
energy  program  for  the  world  to  develop  our 
resources  not  just  for  the  benefit  of  a  few 
but  for  all  mankind. 

This  task  is  surely  monumental.  But  the 
United  States  believes  that  it  is  possible — 
that  it  is  essential.  To  help  you  in  the  begin- 
ning to  take  the  first  steps  let  me  propose 
some  principles  that  could  guide  a  global  ap- 
proach : 

— First,  all  nations  must  seek  to  increase 
production,  each  according  to  its  resources 
and  its  level  of  technology.  Some  can  develop 
known  and  available  resources ;  others  can 
try  to  improve  methods  of  extraction  or  in- 
tensify exploration,  and  others  are  capa- 
ble of  developing  new  sources  of  energy  ap- 
propriate to  their  own  circumstances.  But 
all  nations  can  and  should  play  a  part  in  en- 
larging and  diversifying  the  sources  of  usa- 
ble energy.  Diversification  can  help  deter  na- 
tions from  resorting  to  monopolistic  prices 
or  practices. 

— Next,  the  rate  of  increase  in  consump- 
tion of  energy  must  be  reduced  and  waste 
eliminated.  Americans  will  do  their  part  in 
this  necessary  efl'ort.  But  all  nations  can  con- 
tribute to  discovering  new  ways  to  reduce 
the  energy  we  consume,  partly  through  com- 
mon sense,  partly  through  self-discipline,  and 
partly  through  new  technological  improve- 
ments. Whatever  energy-saving  methods  are 
developed  anywhere  must  be  communicated 
quickly  to  all  concerned.  Energy-saving  pos- 
sibilities are  promising,  especially  for  the 
short  term  as  production  increases. 

— Third,  a  cooperative  spirit,  a  coopera- 
tive conduct,  are  essential  to  success  in  a 
global  energy  program.  Nothing,  in  my  judg- 


ment, could  be  more  harmful  than  policies 
directed  against  other  nations.  If  we  lapse 
into  confrontation  of  exporters  on  the  one 
hand  and  consumers  on  the  other  or  an  un- 
seemly scramble  of  consumers  being  played 
off  one  against  another,  all  hopes  for  a  global 
solution  will  be  destroyed. 

— Fourth,  we  must  be  especially  attentive 
to  the  situation  of  the  poorest  nations,  which 
will  suffer  drastically  if  the  energy  problem 
does  not  come  under  control.  Actually,  they 
are  the  chief  victims,  even  now,  of  the  un- 
controlled inflation  driving  world  prices  up, 
far  beyond  their  reach,  for  all  the  goods  and 
all  the  services  they  must  import  to  survive. 

— Finally,  a  global  strategy  must  seek  to 
achieve  fuel  prices  which  provide  a  strong 
incentive  to  producers  but  which  do  not  se- 
riously disrupt  the  economies  of  the  con- 
sumer. We  recognize  the  desires  of  the  pro- 
ducers to  earn  a  fair  share  or  a  fair  price  for 
their  oil  as  a  means  of  helping  to  develop 
their  own  economies.  But  exorbitant  prices 
can  only  distort  the  world  economy,  run  the 
risk  of  a  worldwide  depression,  and  threaten 
the  breakdown  of  world  order  and  world 
safety. 

It  is  difficult  to  discuss  the  energy  problem 
without  lapsing  unfortunately  into  doomsday 
language.  The  danger  is  clear.  It  is  very  se- 
vere. Nevertheless,  I  am  very  optimistic.  The 
advantages  of  cooperation  are  as  visible  as 
the  dangers  of  confrontation  and  that  gives 
me  hope  as  well  as  optimism.  But  good  in- 
tentions will  not  be  enough.  Knowledgeable 
people,  like  all  of  you  at  this  important  con- 
ference, are  needed  to  give  understanding, 
analysis,  technical  competence,  and  solutions 
for  the  people  and  the  leaders  to  consider. 

I  call  on  all  of  you  to  respond  to  the  chal- 
lenge and  to  propose  to  the  world  your  rec- 
ommendations for  a  global  energy  strategy. 
Whether  you  call  it  Project  Interdependence, 
or  some  other  name,  is  not  the  essential  point. 
What  is  essential  is  the  challenge  be  accepted 
and  the  job  be  done  quickly  and  well. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  now  declare  the 
ninth  World  Energy  Conference  officially 
open  and  thank  you  very,  very  much. 


496 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


President  Hails  Release  of  Mr.   Kay; 
Urges  New  Efforts  on  Indochina  MIA's 

Statement  by  President  Ford  > 

With  all  Americans,  I  welcome  the  news 
that  Mr.  Emmet  Kay  has  been  released  as 
part  of  the  prisoner  exchange  in  Laos.  This 
release  marks  a  major  positive  step  in  carry- 
ing out  the  Vientiane  accords  which  ended 
the  war  in  that  country  last  year.  We  are  en- 
couraged by  this  development  and  hope  it 
will  be  followed  by  other  positive  steps  to 
achieve  peace  and  reconciliation  in  Laos. 

At  the  same  time,  I  remain  concerned 
about  the  many  Americans  still  unaccounted 
for  in  Southeast  Asia.  As  Vice  President,  and 
during  my  time  in  the  Congress,  I  had  the 
opportunity  to  meet  with  the  families  of  a 
number  of  our  missing  men.  I  have  the  high- 
est regard  for  the  strength  and  courage  these 
families  have  shown  in  the  long  period  since 
their  loved  ones  were  lost. 

It  has  now  been  more  than  18  months 
since  the  Paris  agreement  on  Viet-Nam  was 
signed  in  January  1973.  In  addition  to  the 
return  of  prisoners  that  agreement  contained 
specific  provisions  on  accounting  for  the 
missing  and  the  return  of  the  remains  of  the 
dead.  The  record  shows  that  there  has  been 
almost  no  compliance  with  these  liumani- 
tarian  provisions.  Although  the  Government 
of  North  Viet-Nam  returned  the  remains  of 
23  American  servicemen  who  died  in  captiv- 
ity, there  has  been  no  progress  on  accounting 
for  the  missing  and  no  further  arrangements 
for  the  return  of  the  remains  of  the  dead. 

The  Communist  side  has  refused  to  permit 
searches  in  areas  under  their  control  for 
crash  sites,  graves,  and  other  information  on 
the  MIA's  [missing  in  action].  We  are  pre- 
pared to  carry  out  such  searches  by  unarmed 
American  teams,  and  we  stand  ready  to  dis- 
cuss arrangements  for  the  conduct  of  such 
searches  by  teams  from  neutral  countries,  the 
International  Red  Cross,  other  humanitarian 


'  Issued  on  Sept.  18  (text  from  White  House  press 
release). 


organizations,  or  by  local  authorities.  The 
important  thing  is  that  we  get  on  with  this 
job  now. 

The  families  of  our  men  have  waited  too 
long  already,  and  I  am  sure  that  families  of 
those  of  other  nationalities  who  remain  un- 
accounted for  have  a  similar  desire  to  know 
the  fate  of  their  loved  ones.  There  should  be 
no  political  or  military  controversy  about 
this  humanitarian  problem,  and  I  call  for 
renewed  eflForts  to  resolve  it. 


AID  Donates  Additional  $3  Million 
for  U.N.   Relief  Fund  for  Cyprus 

AID  Announcement,  September  13 

AID  press  release  74-64  dated  September  13 

Daniel  Parker,  Administrator  of  the 
Agency  for  International  Development,  has 
pledged  an  additional  AID  grant  of  $3  mil- 
lion to  the  United  Nations  for  relief  for  an 
estimated  200,000  victims  of  the  conflict  on 
Cyprus. 

The  grant  is  in  response  to  a  Security 
Council  resolution  passed  unanimously  Au- 
gust 30,  urging  immediate  relief  measures 
for  the  Cypriots,  and  a  September  6  request 
from  the  U.N.  High  Commissioner  for 
Refugees. 

The  AID  grant  to  the  U.N.  relief  fund  is 
in  addition  to  a  grant,  relief  supplies,  and 
air  transport  provided  by  AID  in  recent 
weeks  and  valued  at  more  than  $3,558,000. 
Included  were  a  cash  grant  of  $725,000  to 
the  International  Committee  of  the  Red 
Cross,  tents,  blankets,  water  trailers  and 
containers,  and  cots,  as  well  as  several  air- 
lifts. 

AID  has  also  responded  to  a  request  from 
Ambassador  Crawford  in  Nicosia  for  two 
relief  specialists  from  AID.  AID's  Foreign 
Disaster  Relief  Coordinator  Russell  S.  Mc- 
Clure  and  AID  specialist  Bruno  Kosheleff 
were  to  visit  Nicosia  to  participate  in  an 
evaluation  of  additional  requirements  for 
emergency  housing,  food,  and  other  needs. 


October   14,    1974 


497 


An  Age  of  Interdependence:  Common  Disaster  or  Community 


Address  by  Secretary  Kissinger 


Last  year,  in  my  first  address  as  Secretary 
of  State,  I  spoke  to  this  Assembly  about 
American  purposes.  I  said  that  the  United 
States  seeks  a  comprehensive,  institutional- 
ized peace,  not  an  armistice.  I  asked  other  na- 
tions to  join  us  in  moving  the  world  from  de- 
tente to  cooperation,  from  coexistence  to 
community. 

In  the  year  that  has  passed,  some  progress 
has  been  made  in  dealing  with  particular 
crises.  But  many  fundamental  issues  persist, 
and  new  issues  threaten  the  very  structure  of 
world  stability. 

Our  deepest  problem — going  far  beyond 
the  items  on  our  agenda — is  whether  our  vi- 
sion can  keep  pace  with  our  challenges.  Will 
history  recall  the  20th  century  as  a  time  of 
mounting  global  conflict  or  as  the  beginning 
of  a  global  conception?  Will  our  age  of  in- 
terdependence spur  joint  progress  or  com- 
mon disaster? 

The  answer  is  not  yet  clear.  New  realities 
have  not  yet  overcome  old  patterns  of  thought 
and  action.  Traditional  concepts — of  national 
sovereignty,  social  struggle,  and  the  relation 
between  the  old  and  the  new  nations — too  of- 
ten guide  our  course.  And  so  we  have  man- 
aged but  not  advanced ;  we  have  endured  but 
not  prospered;  and  we  have  continued  the 
luxury  of  political  contention. 

This  condition  has  been  dramatized  in  the 
brief  period  since  last  fall's  regular  session. 
War  has  ravaged  the  Middle  East  and  Cy- 
prus. The  technology  of  nuclear  explosives 
has  resumed  its  dangerous  spread.  Inflation 


'Made  before  the  29th  United  Nations  General 
Assembly  on  Sept.  23  (text  from  Office  of  Media 
Services  news  release). 


and  the  threat  of  global  decline  hang  over 
the  economies  of  rich  and  poor  alike. 

We  cannot  permit  this  trend  to  continue. 
Conflict  between  nations  once  devastated  con- 
tinents ;  the  struggle  between  blocs  may  de- 
stroy humanity.  Ideologies  and  doctrines 
drawn  from  the  last  century  do  not  even  ad- 
dress, let  alone  solve,  the  unprecedented  prob- 
lems of  today.  As  a  result,  events  challenge 
habits;  a  gulf  grows  between  rhetoric  and 
reality. 

The  world  has  dealt  with  local  conflicts  as 
if  they  tvere  perpetually  manageable.  We 
have  permitted  too  many  of  the  underlying 
causes  to  fester  unattended  until  the  parties 
believed  that  their  only  recourse  was  war. 
And  because  each  crisis  ultimately  has  been 
contained  we  have  remained  complacent. 
But  tolerance  of  local  conflict  tempts  world 
holocaust.  We  have  no  guarantee  that  some 
local  crisis — perhaps  the  next — will  not  ex- 
plode beyond  control. 

The  world  has  dealt  with  nuclear  weapons 
as  if  restraint  were  automatic.  Their  very 
awesomeness  has  chained  these  weapons  for 
almost  three  decades ;  their  sophistication 
and  expense  have  helped  to  keep  constant 
for  a  decade  the  number  of  states  who  pos- 
sess them.  Now,  as  was  quite  foreseeable,  po- 
litical inhibitions  are  in  danger  of  crumbling. 
Nuclear  catastrophe  looms  more  plausible — 
whether  through  design  or  miscalculation; 
accident,  theft,  or  blackmail. 

The  world  has  dealt  with  the  economy  as 
if  its  constant  advance  were  inexorable.  While 
postwar  growth  has  been  uneven  and  some 
parts  of  the  world  have  lagged,  our  attention 
was  focused  on  how  to  increase  participation 


498 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


in  a  general  advance.  We  continue  to  deal 
with  economic  issues  on  a  national,  regional, 
or  bloc  basis  at  the  precise  moment  that  our 
interdependence  is  multiplying.  Strains  on 
the  fabric  and  institutions  of  the  world  econ- 
omy threaten  to  engulf  us  all  in  a  general  de- 
pression. 

The  delicate  structure  of  international  co- 
operation so  laboriously  constructed  over  the 
last  quarter  century  can  hardly  survive — and 
certainly  cannot  be  strengthened — if  it  is 
continually  subjected  to  the  shocks  of  politi- 
cal conflict,  war,  and  economic  crisis. 

The  time  has  come,  then,  for  the  nations 
assembled  here  to  act  together  on  the  recog- 
nition that  continued  reliance  on  old  slogans 
and  traditional  rivalries  will  lead  us  toward : 

— A  world  ever  more  torn  between  rich  and 
poor.  East  and  West,  producer  and  consumer. 

— A  world  where  local  crises  threaten  glo- 
bal confrontation  and  where  the  spreading 
atom  threatens  global  peril. 

— A  world  of  rising  costs  and  dwindling 
supplies,  of  growing  populations  and  declin- 
ing production. 

There  is  another  course.  Last  week  before 
this  Assembly,  President  Ford  dedicated  our 
country  to  a  cooperative,  open  approach  to 
build  a  more  secure  and  more  prosperous 
world.  The  United  States  will  assume  the  ob- 
ligations that  our  values  and  strength  impose 
upon  us. 

But  the  building  of  a  cooperative  world  is 
beyond  the  grasp  of  any  one  nation.  An  inter- 
dependent world  requires  not  merely  the  re- 
sources but  the  vision  and  creativity  of  us 
all.  Nations  cannot  simultaneously  confront 
and  cooperate  with  one  another. 

We  must  recognize  that  the  common  inter- 
est is  the  only  valid  test  of  the  national  inter- 
est. It  is  in  the  common  interest,  and  thus  in 
the  interest  of  each  nation : 

— That  local  conflicts  be  resolved  short  of 
force  and  their  root  causes  removed  by  po- 
litical means. 

— That  the  spread  of  nuclear  technology  be 
achieved  without  the  spread  of  nuclear  weap- 
ons. 

— That  growing  economic  interdependence 


lift  all  nations  and  not  drag  them  down  to- 
gether. 

We  will  not  solve  these  problems  during 
this  session,  or  any  one  session,  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

But  we  must  at  least  begin  to  remedy 
problems,  not  just  manage  them;  to  shape 
events,  rather  than  endure  them;  to  con- 
front our  challenges  instead  of  one  another. 

The   Political   Dimension 

The  urgent  political  responsibility  of  our 
era  is  to  resolve  conflicts  without  war.  His- 
tory is  replete  with  examples  of  the  tragedy 
that  sweeps  nations  when  ancient  enmities 
and  the  inertia  of  habit  freeze  the  scope  for 
decision.  Equally,  history  is  marked  by  brief 
moments  when  an  old  order  is  giving  way  to 
a  pattern  new  and  unforeseen;  these  are 
times  of  potential  disorder  and  danger  but 
also  of  opportunity  for  fresh  creation.  We 
face  such  a  moment  today.  Together  let  us 
face  its  realities: 

— First,  a  certain  momentum  toward  peace 
has  been  created — in  East- West  relations  and 
in  certain  regional  conflicts.  It  must  be  main- 
tained. But  we  are  only  at  the  beginning  of 
the  process.  If  we  do  not  continue  to  ad- 
vance, we  will  slip  back. 

— Second,  progress  in  negotiation  of  diffi- 
cult issues  comes  only  through  patience,  per- 
severance, and  recognition  of  the  tolerable 
limits  of  the  other  side.  Peace  is  a  process, 
not  a  condition.  It  can  only  be  reached  in 
steps. 

— Third,  failure  to  recognize  and  grasp  the 
attainable  will  prevent  the  achievement  of  the 
ideal.  Attempts  to  resolve  all  issues  at  one 
time  are  a  certain  prescription  for  stagna- 
tion. Progress  toward  peace  can  be  thwarted 
by  asking  too  much  as  surely  as  by  asking  too 
little. 

— Fourth,  the  world  community  can  help 
resolve  chronic  conflicts,  but  exaggerated  ex- 
pectations will  prevent  essential  accommoda- 
tion among  the  parties.  This  Assembly  can 
help  or  hinder  the  negotiating  process.  It  can 
seek  a  scapegoat  or  a  solution.  It  can  offer  the 


October   14,   1974 


499 


parties  an  excuse  to  escape  reality  or  sturdy 
support  in  search  of  a  compromise.  It  can  de- 
cide on  propaganda  or  contribute  to  realistic 
approaches  that  are  responsive  to  man's 
yearning  for  peace. 

The  Middle  East  starkly  demonstrates 
these  considerations.  In  the  past  year  we 
have  witnessed  both  the  fourth  Arab-Israeli 
war  in  a  generation  and  the  hopeful  begin- 
nings of  a  political  process  toward  a  lasting 
and  just  peace. 

We  have  achieved  the  respite  of  a  cease- 
fire and  of  two  disengagement  agreements, 
but  the  shadow  of  war  remains.  The  legacy 
of  hatred  and  suffering,  the  sense  of  irrec- 
oncilability, have  begun  to  yield — however 
haltingly — to  the  process  of  negotiation.  But 
we  still  have  a  long  road  ahead. 

One  side  seeks  the  recovery  of  territory  and 
justice  for  a  displaced  people.  The  other  side 
seeks  security  and  recognition  by  its  neigh- 
bors of  its  legitimacy  as  a  nation.  In  the  end, 
the  common  goal  of  peace  surely  is  broad 
enough  to  embrace  all  these  aspirations. 

Let  us  be  realistic  about  what  must  be 
done.  The  art  of  negotiation  is  to  set  goals 
that  can  be  achieved  at  a  given  time  and  to 
reach  them  with  determination.  Each  step 
forward  modifies  old  perceptions  and  brings 
about  a  new  situation  that  improves  the 
chances  of  a  comprehensive  settlement. 

Because  these  principles  were  followed  in 
the  Middle  East,  agreements  have  been 
reached  in  the  past  year  which  many  thought 
impossible.  They  were  achieved,  above  all, 
because  of  the  wisdom  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Middle  East  who  decided  that  there  had  been 
enough  stalemate  and  war,  that  more  might 
be  gained  by  testing  each  other  in  negotia- 
tion than  by  testing  each  other  on  the  battle- 
field. 

The  members  of  this  body,  both  collectively 
and  individually,  have  a  solemn  responsibil- 
ity to  encourage  and  support  the  parties  in 
the  Middle  East  on  their  present  course.  We 
have  as  well  an  obligation  to  give  our  sup- 
port to  the  U.N.  peacekeeping  forces  in  the 
Middle  East  and  elsewhere.  The  United 
States  applauds  their  indispensable  role,  as 
well  as  the  outstanding  contribution  of  Secre- 


tary General  Waldheim  in  the  cause  of  peace. 

During  the  past  year  my  country  has  made 
a  major  eff'ort  to  promote  peace  in  the  Middle 
East.  President  Ford  has  asked  me  to  reaf- 
firm today  that  we  are  determined  to  press 
forward  with  these  efforts.  We  will  work 
closely  with  the  parties,  and  we  will  cooper- 
ate with  all  interested  countries  within  the 
framework  of  the  Geneva  Conference. 

The  tormented  island  of  Cyprus  is  another 
area  where  peace  requires  a  spirit  of  compro- 
mise, accommodation,  and  justice.  The  United 
States  is  convinced  that  the  sovereignty,  po- 
litical independence,  and  territorial  integrity 
of  Cyprus  must  be  maintained.  It  will  be  up 
to  the  parties  to  decide  on  the  form  of  govern- 
ment they  believe  best  suited  to  the  partic- 
ular conditions  of  Cyprus.  They  must  reach 
accommodation  on  the  areas  to  be  adminis- 
tered by  the  Greek  and  Turkish  Cypriot  com- 
munities as  well  as  on  the  conditions  under 
which  refugees  can  return  to  their  homes  and 
reside  in  safety.  Finally,  no  lasting  peace  is 
possible  unless  provisions  are  agreed  upon 
which  will  lead  to  the  timely  and  phased  re- 
duction of  armed  forces  and  armaments  and 
other  war  materiel. 

The  United  States  is  prepared  to  play  an 
even  more  active  role  than  in  the  past  in 
helping  the  parties  find  a  solution  to  the  cen- 
turies-old problem  of  Cyprus.  We  will  do  all 
we  can,  but  it  is  those  most  directly  con- 
cerned whose  effort  is  most  crucial.  Third 
parties  should  not  be  asked  to  produce  mirac- 
ulous outcomes  not  anchored  in  reality.  Third 
parties  can  encourage  those  directly  involved 
to  perceive  their  broader  interests ;  they  can 
assist  in  the  search  for  elements  of  agree- 
ment by  interpreting  each  side's  views  and 
motives  to  the  other.  But  no  mediator  can 
succeed  unless  the  parties  genuinely  want 
mediation  and  are  ready  to  make  the  difficult 
decisions  needed  for  a  settlement. 

The  United  States  is  already  making  a 
major  contribution  to  help  relieve  the  human 
suffering  of  the  people  of  Cyprus.  We  urge 
the  international  community  to  continue  and, 
if  possible,  to  increase  its  own  humanitarian 
relief  effort. 

The   United  States  notes  with  particular 


500 


Department  of  State  Bulletin    |   Odg 


satisfaction  the  continuing  process  of  change 
in  Africa.  We  welcome  the  positive  demon- 
stration of  cooperation  between  the  old  rulers 
and  the  new  free.  The  United  States  shares 
and  pledges  its  support  for  the  aspirations 
of  all  Africans  to  participate  in  the  fruits  of 
freedom  and  human  dignity. 

The   Nuclear  Dimension 

The  second  new  dimension  on  our  agenda 
concerns  the  problem  of  nuclear  proliferation. 

The  world  has  grown  so  accustomed  to  the 
existence  of  nuclear  weapons  that  it  assumes 
they  will  never  be  used.  But  today,  technology 
is  rapidly  expanding  the  number  of  nuclear 
weapons  in  the  hands  of  major  powers  and 
threatens  to  put  nuclear-explosive  technology 
at  the  disposal  of  an  increasing  number  of 
other  countries. 

In  a  world  where  many  nations  possess 
nuclear  weapons,  dangers  would  be  vastly 
compounded.  It  would  be  infinitely  more  diffi- 
cult, if  not  impossible,  to  maintain  stability 
among  a  large  number  of  nuclear  powers.  Lo- 
cal wars  would  take  on  a  new  dimension.  Nu- 
clear weapons  would  be  introduced  into  re- 
gions where  political  conflict  remains  intense 
and  the  parties  consider  their  vital  interests 
overwhelmingly  involved.  There  would,  as 
well,  be  a  vastly  heightened  risk  of  direct  in- 
volvement of  the  major  nuclear  powers. 

This  problem  does  not  concern  one  coun- 
try, one  region,  or  one  bloc  alone.  No  nation 
can  be  indifferent  to  the  spread  of  nuclear 
technology;  every  nation's  security  is  directly 
affected. 

The  challenge  before  the  world  is  to  realize 
the  peaceful  benefits  of  nuclear  technology 
without  contributing  to  the  growth  of  nu- 
clear weapons  or  to  the  number  of  states 
possessing  them. 

As  a  major  nuclear  power,  the  United 
States  recognizes  its  special  responsibility. 
We  realize  that  we  cannot  expect  others  to 
show  restraint  if  we  do  not  ourselves  prac- 
tice restraint.  Together  with  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion we  are  seeking  to  negotiate  new  quanti- 
tative and  qualitative  limitations  on  stra- 
tegic arms.  Last  week  our  delegations  recon- 


vened in  Geneva,  and  we  intend  to  pursue 
these  negotiations  with  the  seriousness  of 
purpose  they  deserve.  The  United  States  has 
no  higher  priority  than  controlling  and  re- 
ducing the  levels  of  nuclear  arms. 

Beyond  the  relations  of  the  nuclear  powers 
to  each  other  lies  the  need  to  curb  the  spread 
of  nuclear  explosives.  We  must  take  into  ac- 
count that  Plutonium  is  an  essential  ingredi- 
ent of  nuclear  explosives  and  that  in  the  im- 
mediate future  the  amount  of  plutonium  gen- 
erated by  peaceful  nuclear  reactors  will  be 
multiplied  many  times.  Heretofore  the  United 
States  and  a  number  of  other  countries  have 
widely  supplied  nuclear  fuels  and  other  nu- 
clear materials  in  order  to  promote  the  use 
of  nuclear  energy  for  peaceful  purposes.  This 
policy  cannot  continue  if  it  leads  to  the  pro- 
liferation of  nuclear  explosives.  Sales  of  these 
materials  can  no  longer  be  treated  by  anyone 
as  a  purely  commercial  competitive  enter- 
prise. 

The  world  community  therefore  must  work 
urgently  toward  a  system  of  effective  inter- 
national safeguards  against  the  diversion  of 
plutonium  or  its  byproducts.  The  United 
States  is  prepared  to  join  with  others  in  a 
comprehensive  effort. 

Let  us  together  agree  on  the  practical  steps 
which  must  be  taken  to  assure  the  benefits  of 
nuclear  energy  free  of  its  terrors : 

— The  United  States  will  shortly  offer  spe- 
cific proposals  to  strengthen  safeguards  to 
the  other  principal  supplier  countries. 

— We  shall  intensify  our  efforts  to  gain  the 
broadest  possible  acceptance  of  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency  (IAEA)  safeguards, 
to  establish  practical  controls  on  the  transfer 
of  nuclear  materials,  and  to  insure  the  effec- 
tiveness of  these  procedures. 

— The  United  States  will  urge  the  IAEA  to 
draft  an  international  convention  for  enhanc- 
ing physical  security  against  theft  or  diver- 
sion of  nuclear  material.  Such  a  convention 
should  set  forth  specific  standards  and  tech- 
niques for  protecting  materials  while  in  use, 
storage,  and  transfer. 

— The  Treaty  on  the  Non-Proliferation  of 
Nuclear  Weapons,  which  this  Assembly  has 


October   14,    1974 


501 


endorsed,  warrants  continuing  support.  The 
treaty  contains  not  only  a  broad  commitment 
to  limit  the  spread  of  nuclear  explosives  but 
specific  obligations  to  accept  and  implement 
IAEA  safeguards  and  to  control  the  transfer 
of  nuclear  materials. 

Mr.  President,  whatever  advantages  seem 
to  accrue  from  the  acquisition  of  nuclear- 
explosive  technology  will  prove  to  be  ephem- 
eral. When  Pandora's  box  has  been  opened, 
no  country  will  be  the  beneficiary  and  all 
mankind  will  have  lost.  This  is  not  inevitable. 
If  we  act  decisively  now,  we  can  still  control 
the  future. 


The   Economic   Dimension 

Lord  Keynes  wrote: 

The  power  to  become  habituated  to  his  surround- 
ings is  a  marked  characteristic  of  mankind.  Very 
few  of  us  realize  with  conviction  the  intensely  un- 
usual, unstable,  complicated,  unreliable,  temporary 
nature  of  the  economic  organization  .... 

The  economic  history  of  the  postwar  period 
has  been  one  of  sustained  growth,  for  devel- 
oping as  well  as  developed  nations.  The  uni- 
versal expectation  of  our  peoples,  the  founda- 
tion of  our  political  institutions,  and  the  as- 
sumption underlying  the  evolving  structure 
of  peace  are  all  based  on  the  belief  that  this 
growth  will  continue. 

But  will  it?  The  increasingly  open  and  co- 
operative global  economic  system  that  we 
have  come  to  take  for  granted  is  now  under 
unprecedented  attack.  The  world  is  poised  on 
the  brink  of  a  return  to  the  unrestrained  eco- 
nomic nationalism  which  accompanied  the 
collapse  of  economic  order  in  the  thirties. 
And  should  that  occur,  all  would  suffer — poor 
as  well  as  rich,  producer  as  well  as  consumer. 

So  let  us  no  longer  fear  to  confront  in  pub- 
lic the  facts  which  have  come  to  dominate  our 
private  discussions  and  concerns. 

The  early  warning  signs  of  a  major  eco- 
nomic crisis  are  evident.  Rates  of  inflation 
unprecedented  in  the  past  quarter  century 
are  sweeping  developing  and  developed  na- 
tions alike.  The  world's  financial  institutions 
are  staggering  under  the  most  massive  and 


rapid  movements  of  reserves  in  history.  And 
profound  questions  have  arisen  about  meeting 
man's  most  fundamental  needs  for  energy 
and  food. 

While  the  present  situation  threatens  every 
individual  and  nation,  it  is  the  poor  who  suf- 
fer the  most.  While  the  wealthier  adjust  their 
living  standards,  the  poor  see  the  hopes  of  a 
lifetime  collapse  around  them.  While  others 
tighten  their  belts,  the  poor  starve.  While 
others  can  hope  for  a  better  future,  the  poor 
see  only  despair  ahead. 

It  can  be  in  the  interest  of  no  country  or 
group  of  countries  to  base  policies  on  a  test 
of  strength ;  for  a  policy  of  confrontation 
would  end  in  disaster  for  all.  Meeting  man's 
basic  needs  for  energy  and  food  and  assuring 
economic  growth  while  mastering  inflation 
require  international  cooperation  to  an  un- 
precedented degree. 

Let  us  apply  these  principles  first  to  the 
energy  situation : 

— Oil  producers  seek  a  better  life  for  their 
peoples  and  a  just  return  for  their  diminish- 
ing resources. 

— The  developing  nations  less  well-en- 
dowed by  nature  face  the  disintegration  of 
the  results  of  decades  of  striving  for  devel- 
opment as  the  result  of  a  price  policy  over 
which  they  have  no  control. 

— The  developed  nations  find  the  industrial 
civilization  built  over  centuries  in  jeopardy. 

Both  producers  and  consumers  have  legiti- 
mate claims.  The  problem  is  to  reconcile  them 
for  the  common  good. 

The  United  States  is  working  closely  with 
several  oil  producers  to  help  diversify  their 
economies.  We  have  established  commissions 
to  facilitate  the  transfer  of  technology  and 
to  assist  with  industrialization.  We  are  pre- 
pared to  accept  substantial  investments  in 
the  United  States,  and  we  welcome  a  greater 
role  for  the  oil  producers  in  the  management 
of  international  economic  institutions. 

The  investment  of  surplus  oil  revenues  pre- 
sents a  great  challenge.  The  countries  which 
most  need  these  revenues  are  generally  the 
least  likely  to  receive  them.  The  world's  fi- 
nancial institutions  have  coped  thus  far,  but 


502 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


ways  must  be  found  to  assure  assistance  for 
those  countries  most  in  need  of  it.  And  the 
full  brunt  of  the  surplus  revenues  is  yet  to 
come. 

Despite  our  best  efforts  to  meet  the  oil 
producers'  legitimate  needs  and  to  channel 
their  resources  into  constructive  uses,  the 
world  cannot  sustain  even  the  present  level 
of  prices,  much  less  continuing  increases. 
The  prices  of  other  commodities  will  inevi- 
tably rise  in  a  never-ending  inflationary 
spiral.  Nobody  will  benefit.  The  oil  producers 
will  be  forced  to  spend  more  for  their  own 
imports.  Many  nations  will  not  be  able  to 
withstand  the  pace,  and  the  poorer  could  be 
overwhelmed.  The  complex,  fragile  structure 
of  global  economic  cooperation  required  to 
sustain  national  economic  growth  stands  in 
danger  of  being  shattered. 

The  United  States  will  work  with  other 
consuming  nations  on  means  of  conservation 
and  on  ways  to  cushion  the  impact  of  mas- 
sive investments  from  abroad.  The  prelim- 
inary agreement  on  a  program  of  solidarity 
and  cooperation  signed  a  few  days  ago  in 
Brussels  by  the  major  consumer  countries  is 
an  encouraging  first  step. 

But  the  long-range  solution  requires  a  new 
understanding  between  consumers  and  pro- 
ducers. Unlike  food  prices,  the  high  cost  of 
oil  is  not  the  result  of  economic  factors — of 
an  actual  shortage  of  capacity  or  of  the  free 
play  of  supply  and  demand.  Rather  it  is 
caused  by  deliberate  decisions  to  restrict  pro- 
duction and  maintain  an  artificial  price  level. 
We  recognize  that  the  producers  should  have 
a  fair  share;  the  fact  remains  that  the  pres- 
ent price  level  even  threatens  the  economic 
well-being  of  producers.  Ultimately  they  de- 
pend upon  the  vitality  of  the  world  economy 
for  the  security  of  their  markets  and  their 
investments.  And  it  cannot  be  in  the  interest 
of  any  nation  to  magnify  the  despair  of  the 
least  developed,  who  are  uniquely  vulnerable 
to  exorbitant  prices  and  who  have  no  re- 
course but  to  pay. 

What  has  gone  up  by  political  decision  can 
be  reduced  by  political  decision. 

Last  week  President  Ford  called  upon  the 
oil  producers  to  join  with  consumers  in  de- 


fining a  strategy  which  will  meet  the  world's 
long-term  need  for  both  energy  and  food  at 
reasonable  prices.  He  set  forth  the  principles 
which  should  guide  such  a  policy.  And  he  an- 
nounced to  this  Assembly  America's  deter- 
mination to  meet  our  responsibilities  to  help 
alleviate  another  grim  reality :  world  hunger. 

At  a  time  of  universal  concern  for  justice 
and  in  an  age  of  advanced  technology,  it  is 
intolerable  that  millions  are  starving  and 
hundreds  of  millions  remain  undernourished. 

The  magnitude  of  the  long-term  problem  is 
clear.  At  present  rates  of  population  growth, 
world  food  production  must  double  by  the  end 
of  this  century  to  maintain  even  the  present 
inadequate  dietary  level.  And  an  adequate 
diet  for  all  would  require  that  we  triple 
world  production.  If  we  are  true  to  our  prin- 
ciples, we  have  an  obligation  to  strive  for  an 
adequate  supply  of  food  to  every  man,  wom- 
an, and  child  in  the  world.  This  is  a  technical 
possibility,  a  political  necessity,  and  a  moral 
imperative. 

The  United  States  is  prepared  to  join  with 
all  nations  at  the  World  Food  Conference  in 
Rome  to  launch  the  truly  massive  effort 
which  is  required.  We  will  present  a  number 
of  specific  proposals : 

— To  help  developing  nations.  They  have 
the  lowest  yields  and  the  largest  amounts  of 
unused  land  and  water;  their  potential  in 
food  production  must  be  made  to  match  their 
growing  need. 

— To  increase  substantially  global  ferti- 
lizer production.  We  must  end  once  and  for 
all  the  world's  chronic  fertilizer  shortage. 

— To  expand  international,  regional,  and 
national  research  programs.  Scientific  and 
technical  resources  must  be  mobilized  now  to 
meet  the  demands  of  the  year  2000  and  be- 
yond. 

— To  rebuild  the  world's  food  reserves. 
Our  capacity  for  dealing  with  famine  must  be 
freed  from  the  vagaries  of  weather. 

— To  provide  a  substantial  level  of  con- 
cessionary food  aid.  The  United  States  will 
in  the  coming  year  increase  the  value  of  our 
own  food  aid  shipments  to  countries  in  need. 
We  make   this   commitment,   despite  great 


October   14,   1974 


503 


pressures  on  our  economy  and  at  a  time  when 
we  are  seeking  to  cut  our  own  government 
budget,  because  we  realize  the  dimensions 
of  the  tragedy  with  which  we  are  faced.  All 
of  us  here  have  a  common  obligation  to 
prevent  the  poorest  nations  from  being  over- 
whelmed and  enable  them  to  build  the  social, 
economic,  and  political  base  for  self-suffi- 
ciency. 

The  hopes  of  every  nation  for  a  life  of 
peace  and  plenty  rest  on  an  effective  inter- 
national resolution  of  the  crises  of  inflation, 
fuel,  and  food.  We  must  act  now,  and  we 
must  act  together. 

The   Human   Dimension 

Mr.  President,  let  us  never  forget  that  all 
of  our  political  endeavors  are  ultimately 
judged  by  one  standard — to  translate  our 
actions  into  human  concerns. 

The  United  States  will  never  be  satisfied 
with  a  world  where  man's  fears  overshadow 
his  hopes.  We  support  the  U.N.'s  efforts  in 
the  fields  of  international  law  and  human 
rights.  We  approve  of  the  activities  of  the 
United  Nations  in  social,  economic,  and 
humanitarian  realms  around  the  world.  The 
United  States  considers  the  U.N.  World 
Population  Conference  last  month,  the  World 
Food  Conference  a  month  from  now,  and 
the  continuing  Law  of  the  Sea  Conference 
of  fundamental  importance  to  our  common 
future. 

In  coming  months  the  United  States  will 
make  specific  proposals  for  the  United  Na- 
tions to  initiate  a  major  international  effort 
to  prohibit  torture;  a  concerted  campaign 
to  control  the  disease  which  afflicts  and  debil- 
itates over  200  million  people  in  70  countries, 
schistosomiasis ;  and  a  substantial  strength- 
ening of  the  world's  capacity  to  deal  with 
natural  disaster,  especially  the  improvement 


of  the  U.N.  Disaster  Relief  Organization. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  long  lived  in  a 
world  where  the  consequences  of  our  fail- 
ures were  manageable — a  world  where  local 
conflicts  were  contained,  nuclear  weapons 
threatened  primarily  those  nations  which 
possessed  them,  and  the  cycle  of  economic 
growth  and  decline  seemed  principally  a 
national  concern. 

But  this  is  no  longer  the  case.  It  is  no 
longer  possible  to  imagine  that  conflicts, 
weapons,  and  recession  will  not  spread. 

We  must  now  decide.  The  problems  we 
face  will  be  with  us  the  greater  part  of  the 
century.  But  will  they  be  with  us  as  chal- 
lenges to  be  overcome  or  as  adversaries  that 
have  vanquished  us? 

It  is  easy  to  agree  to  yet  another  set  of 
pi-inciples  or  to  actions  other  nations  should 
take.  But  the  needs  of  the  poor  will  not  be 
met  by  slogans;  the  needs  of  an  expanding 
global  economy  will  not  be  met  by  new 
restrictions;  the  search  for  peace  cannot  be 
conducted  on  the  basis  of  confrontation.  So 
each  nation  must  ask  what  it  can  do,  what 
contribution  it  is  finally  prepared  to  make 
to  the  common  good. 

Mr.  President,  beyond  peace,  beyond  pros- 
perity, lie  man's  deepest  aspirations  for  a 
life  of  dignity  and  justice.  And  beyond  our 
pride,  beyond  our  concern  for  the  national 
purpose  we  are  called  upon  to  serve,  there 
must  be  a  concern  for  the  betterment  of  the 
human  condition.  While  we  cannot,  in  the 
brief  span  allowed  to  each  of  us,  undo  the 
accumulated  problems  of  centuries,  we  dare 
not  do  less  than  try.  So  let  us  now  get  on 
with  our  tasks. 

Let  us  act  in  the  spirit  of  Thucydides  that 
"the  bravest  are  surely  those  who  have  the 
clearest  vision  of  what  is  before  them,  glory 
and  danger  alike,  and  yet  notwithstanding 
go  out  to  meet  it." 


504 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


THE  CONGRESS 


Detente  With  the  Soviet  Union:  The  Reality  of  Competition 
and  the  Imperative  of  Cooperation 

Statement  by  Secretary  Kissinger  ^ 


I.  The   Challenge 

Since  the  dawn  of  the  nuclear  age  the 
world's  fears  of  holocaust  and  its  hopes  for 
peace  have  turned  on  the  relationship  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  Soviet 
Union. 

Throughout  history  men  have  sought  peace 
but  suffered  war;  all  too  often,  deliberate 
decisions  or  miscalculations  have  brought 
violence  and  destruction  to  a  world  yearning 
for  tranquillity.  Tragic  as  the  consequences 
of  violence  may  have  been  in  the  past,  the 
issue  of  peace  and  war  takes  on  unprece- 
dented urgency  when,  for  the  first  time  in 
history,  two  nations  have  the  capacity  to 
destroy  mankind.  In  the  nuclear  age,  as 
President  Eisenhower  pointed  out  two  dec- 
ades ago,  "there  is  no  longer  any  alternative 
to  peace." 

The  destructiveness  of  modern  weapons 
defines  the  necessity  of  the  task;  deep  differ- 
ences in  philosophy  and  interests  between 
the  United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union  point 
up  its  difficulty.  These  differences  do  not 
spring  from  misunderstanding  or  personali- 
ties or  transitory  factors: 

— They  are  rooted  in  history  and  in  the 
way  the  two  countries  have  developed. 

— They  are  nourished  by  conflicting  val- 
ues and  opposing  ideologies. 


'  Presented  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  on  Sept.  19  (text  from  press  release  366). 
The  complete  transcript  of  the  hearings  will  be  pub- 
lished by  the  committee  and  will  be  available  from 
the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S.  Government 
Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C.  20402. 


— They  are  expressed  in  diverging  na- 
tional interests  that  produce  political  and 
military  competition. 

• — They  are  influenced  by  allies  and  friends 
whose  association  we  value  and  whose  in- 
terests we  will  not  sacrifice. 

Paradox  confuses  our  perception  of  the 
problem  of  peaceful  coexistence:  if  peace  is 
pursued  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  goal, 
other  values  will  be  compromised  and  per- 
haps lost ;  but  if  unconstrained  rivalry  leads 
to  nuclear  conflict,  these  values,  along  with 
everything  else,  will  be  destroyed  in  the 
resulting  holocaust.  However  competitive 
they  may  be  at  some  levels  of  their  relation- 
ship, both  major  nuclear  powers  must  base 
their  policies  on  the  premise  that  neither 
can  expect  to  impose  its  will  on  the  other 
without  running  an  intolerable  risk.  The 
challenge  of  our  time  is  to  reconcile  the 
reality  of  competition  with  the  imperative 
of  coexistence. 

There  can  be  no  peaceful  international 
order  without  a  constructive  relationship  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  Soviet 
Union.  There  will  be  no  international  sta- 
bility unless  both  the  Soviet  Union  and  the 
United  States  conduct  themselves  with  re- 
straint and  unless  they  use  their  enormous 
power  for  the  benefit  of  mankind. 

Thus  we  must  be  clear  at  the  outset  on 
what  the  term  "detente"  entails.  It  is  the 
search  for  a  more  constructive  relationship 
with  the  Soviet  Union  reflecting  the  realities 
I  have  outlined.  It  is  a  continuing  process, 
not  a  final  condition  that  has  been  or  can 


October   14,   1974 


505 


be  realized  at  any  one  specific  point  in  time. 
And  it  has  been  pursued  by  successive  Amer- 
ican leaders,  though  the  means  have  varied 
as  have  world  conditions. 

Some  fundamental  principles  guide  this 
policy: 

The  United  States  cannot  base  its  policy 
solely  on  Moscow's  good  intentions.  But 
neither  can  we  insist  that  all  forward  move- 
ment must  await  a  convergence  of  American 
and  Soviet  purposes.  We  seek,  regardless  of 
Soviet  intentions,  to  serve  peace  through  a 
systematic  resistance  to  pressure  and  con- 
ciliatory responses  to  moderate  behavior. 

We  must  oppose  aggressive  actions  and 
irresponsible  behavior.  But  we  must  not 
seek  confrontations  lightly. 

We  must  maintain  a  strong  national  de- 
fense while  recognizing  that  in  the  nu- 
clear age  the  relationship  between  militai-y 
strength  and  politically  usable  power  is  the 
most  complex  in  all  history. 

Where  the  age-old  antagonism  between 
freedom  and  tyranny  is  concerned,  we  are 
not  neutral.  But  other  imperatives  impose 
limits  on  our  ability  to  produce  internal 
changes  in  foreign  countries.  Consciousness 
of  our  limits  is  recognition  of  the  necessity 
of  peace — not  moral  callousness.  The  preser- 
vation of  human  life  and  human  society  are 
moral  values,  too. 

We  must  be  mature  enough  to  recognize 
that  to  be  stable  a  relationship  must  provide 
advantages  to  both  sides  and  that  the  most 
constructive  international  relationships  are 
those  in  which  both  parties  perceive  an  ele- 
ment of  gain.  Moscow  will  benefit  from 
certain  measures,  just  as  we  will  from 
others.  The  balance  cannot  be  struck  on  each 
issue  every  day,  but  only  over  the  whole 
range  of  relations  and  over  a  period  of  time. 

II.  The  Course  of  Soviet-American   Relations 

In  the  first  two  decades  of  the  postwar 
period  U.S.-Soviet  relations  were  character- 
ized by  many  fits  and  starts.  Some  en- 
couraging developments  followed  the  Cuban 
missile  crisis  of  1962,  for  example.    But  at 


the  end  of  the  decade  the  invasion  of  Czecho- 
slovakia brought  progress  to  a  halt  and 
threw  a  deepening  shadow  over  East-West 
relations. 

During  those  difficult  days  some  were 
tempted  to  conclude  that  antagonism  was  the 
central  feature  of  the  relationship  and  that 
U.S.  policy — even  while  the  Viet-Nam  agony 
raised  questions  about  the  readiness  of  the 
American  people  to  sustain  a  policy  of  con- 
frontation— had  to  be  geared  to  this  grim 
reality.  Others  recommended  a  basic  change 
of  policy;  there  was  a  barrage  of  demands 
to  hold  an  immediate  summit  to  establish  a 
better  atmosphere,  to  launch  the  SALT  talks 
[Strategic  Arms  Limitation  Talks],  and  to 
end  the  decades-old  trade  discrimination 
against  the  Soviet  Union,  which  was  widely 
criticized  as  anachronistic,  futile,  and  coun- 
terproductive. 

These  two  approaches  reflected  the  ex- 
tremes of  the  debate  that  had  dominated 
most  of  the  postwar  period;  they  also  re- 
vealed deep-seated  differences  between  the 
American  and  the  Soviet  reactions  to  the 
process  of  international  relations. 

For  many  Americans,  tensions  and  enmity 
in  international  relations  are  anomalies,  the 
cause  of  which  is  attributed  either  to  delib- 
erate malice  or  misunderstanding.  Malice  is 
to  be  combated  by  force,  or  at  least  isolation ; 
misunderstanding  is  to  be  removed  by  the 
strenuous  exercise  of  good  will.  Communist 
states,  on  the  other  hand,  regard  tensions  as 
inevitable  byproducts  of  a  struggle  between 
opposing  social  systems. 

Most  Americans  perceive  relations  be- 
tween states  as  either  friendly  or  hostile, 
both  defined  in  nearly  absolute  terms.  Soviet 
foreign  policy,  by  comparison,  is  conducted 
in  a  gray  area  heavily  influenced  by  the 
Soviet  conception  of  the  balance  of  forces. 
Thus  Soviet  diplomacy  is  never  free  of  tacti- 
cal pressures  or  adjustments,  and  it  is  never 
determined  in  isolation  from  the  prevailing 
military  balance.  For  Moscow,  East-West 
contacts  and  negotiations  are  in  part  de- 
signed to  promote  Soviet  influence  abroad, 
especially  in  Western  Europe — and  to  gain 
formal  acceptance  of  those  elements  of  the 


•I 


506 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


status  quo  most  agreeable  to  Moscow. 

The  issue,  however,  is  not  whether  peace 
and  stability  serve  Soviet  purposes,  but 
whether  they  serve  our  own.  Indeed,  to  the 
extent  that  our  attention  focuses  largely  on 
Soviet  intentions  we  create  a  latent  vulner- 
ability. If  detente  can  be  justified  only  by  a 
basic  change  in  Soviet  motivation,  the  temp- 
tation becomes  overwhelming  to  base  U.S.- 
Soviet relations  not  on  realistic  appraisal 
but  on  tenuous  hopes :  a  change  in  Soviet 
tone  is  taken  as  a  sign  of  a  basic  change  of 
philosophy.  Atmosphere  is  confused  with 
substance.  Policy  oscillates  between  poles  of 
suspicion  and  euphoria. 

Neither  extreme  is  realistic,  and  both  are 
dangerous.  The  hopeful  view  ignores  that 
we  and  the  Soviets  are  bound  to  compete  for 
the  foreseeable  future.  The  pessimistic  view 
ignores  that  we  have  some  parallel  interests 
and  that  we  are  compelled  to  coexist.  Detente 
encourages  an  environment  in  which  com- 
petitors can  regulate  and  restrain  their  dif- 
ferences and  ultimately  move  from  competi- 
tion to  cooperation. 

A.  American  Goals 

America's  aspiration  for  the  kind  of  politi- 
cal environment  we  now  call  detente  is  not 
new. 

The  effort  to  achieve  a  more  constructive 
relationship  with  the  Soviet  Union  is  not 
made  in  the  name  of  any  one  administra- 
tion or  one  party  or  for  any  one  period  of 
time.  It  expresses  the  continuing  desire  of 
the  vast  majority  of  the  American  people 
for  an  easing  of  international  tensions  and 
their  expectation  that  any  responsible  gov- 
ernment will  strive  for  peace.  No  aspect  of 
our  policies,  domestic  or  foreign,  enjoys  more 
consistent  bipartisan  support.  No  aspect  is 
more  in  the  interest  of  mankind. 

In  the  postwar  period  repeated  efforts 
were  made  to  improve  our  relationship  with 
Moscow.  The  spirits  of  Geneva,  Camp  David, 
and  Glassboro  were  evanescent  moments  in  a 
quarter  century  otherwise  marked  by  ten- 
sions and  by  sporadic  confrontation.  What 
is  new  in  the  current  period  of  relaxation  of 
tensions   is   its   duration,   the   scope   of  the 


relationship  which  has  evolved,  and  the  con- 
tinuity and  intensity  of  consultation  which 
it  has  produced. 

A  number  of  factors  have  produced  this 
change  in  the  international  environment.  By 
the  end  of  the  sixties  and  the  beginning  of 
the  seventies  the  time  was  propitious — no 
matter  what  administration  was  in  office  in 
the  United  States — for  a  major  attempt  to 
improve  U.S.-Soviet  relations.  Contradictory 
tendencies  contested  for  preeminence  in 
Soviet  policy;  events  could  have  tipped  the 
scales  toward  either  increased  aggressive- 
ness or  toward  conciliation. 

— The  fragmentation  in  the  Communist 
world  in  the  1960's  challenged  the  leading 
position  of  the  U.S.S.R.  and  its  claim  to  be 
the  arbiter  of  orthodoxy.  The  U.S.S.R.  could 
have  reacted  by  adopting  a  more  aggressive 
attitude  toward  the  capitalist  world  in  order 
to  assert  its  militant  vigilance;  instead,  the 
changing  situation  and  U.S.  policy  seem  to 
have  encouraged  Soviet  leaders  to  cooperate 
in  at  least  a  temporary  lessening  of  tension 
with  the  West. 

— The  prospect  of  achieving  a  military 
position  of  near  parity  with  the  United 
States  in  strategic  forces  could  have  tempted 
Moscow  to  use  its  expanding  military  capa- 
bility to  strive  more  determinedly  for  expan- 
sion; in  fact,  it  tempered  the  militancy  of 
some  of  its  actions  and  sought  to  stabilize 
at  least  some  aspects  of  the  military  competi- 
tion through  negotiations. 

— The  very  real  economic  problems  of  the 
U.S.S.R.  and  Eastern  Europe  could  have  re- 
inforced autarkic  policies  and  the  tendency 
to  create  a  closed  system;  in  actuality,  the 
Soviet  Union  and  its  allies  have  come  closer 
to  acknowledging  the  reality  of  an  interde- 
pendent world  economy. 

— Finally,  when  faced  with  the  hopes  of 
its  own  people  for  greater  well-being,  the 
Soviet  Government  could  have  continued  to 
stimulate  the  suspicions  of  the  cold  war  to 
further  isolate  Soviet  society:  in  fact,  it 
chose — however  inadequately  and  slowly — to 
seek  to  calm  its  public  opinion  by  joining  in 
a  relaxation  of  tensions. 


October   14,   1974 


507 


For  the  United  States  the  choice  was  clear : 
To  pi'ovide  as  many  incentives  as  possible 
for  those  actions  by  the  Soviet  Union  most 
conducive  to  peace  and  individual  well-being 
and  to  overcome  the  swings  between  illu- 
sionary  optimism  and  harsh  antagonism  that 
had  characterized  most  of  the  postwar  pe- 
riod. We  could  capitalize  on  the  tentative 
beginnings  made  in  the  sixties  by  taking 
advantage  of  the  compelling  new  conditions 
of  the  seventies. 

We  sought  to  explore  every  avenue  toward 
an  honorable  and  just  accommodation  while 
remaining  determined  not  to  settle  for  mere 
atmospherics.  We  relied  on  a  balance  of 
mutual  interests  rather  than  Soviet  inten- 
tions. When  challenged — such  as  in  the 
Middle  East,  the  Caribbean,  or  Berlin — we 
always  responded  firmly.  And  when  Soviet 
policy  moved  toward  conciliation,  we  sought 
to  turn  what  may  have  started  as  a  tactical 
maneuver  into  a  durable  pattern  of  conduct. 

Our  approach  proceeds  from  the  convic- 
tion that,  in  moving  forward  across  a  wide 
spectrum  of  negotiations,  progress  in  one 
area  adds  momentum  to  progress  in  other 
areas.  If  we  succeed,  then  no  agreement 
stands  alone  as  an  isolated  accomplishment 
vulnerable  to  the  next  crisis.  We  did  not 
invent  the  interrelationship  between  issues 
expressed  in  the  so-called  linkage  concept ; 
it  was  a  reality  because  of  the  range  of 
problems  and  areas  in  which  the  interests  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union  im- 
pinge on  each  other.  We  have  looked  for 
progress  in  a  series  of  agreements  settling 
specific  political  issues,  and  we  have  sought 
to  relate  these  to  a  new  standard  of  inter- 
national conduct  appropriate  to  the  dangers 
of  the  nuclear  age.  By  acquiring  a  stake  in 
this  network  of  relationships  with  the  West, 
the  Soviet  Union  may  become  more  con- 
scious of  what  it  would  lose  by  a  return  to 
confrontation.  Indeed,  it  is  our  hope  that  it 
will  develop  a  self-interest  in  fostering  the 
entire  process  of  relaxation  of  tensions. 

B.  The  Global  Necessities 

In  the  late  1940's  this  nation  engaged  in 
a  great  debate  about  the  role  it  would  play 


in  the  postwar  world.  We  forged  a  biparti- 
san consensus  on  which  our  policies  were 
built  for  more  than  two  decades.  By  the 
end  of  the  1960's  the  international  environ- 
ment which  molded  that  consensus  had  been 
transformed.  What  in  the  fifties  had  seemed 
a  solid  bloc  of  adversaries  had  fragmented 
into  competing  centers  of  power  and  doc- 
trine; old  allies  had  gained  new  strength 
and  self-assurance;  scores  of  new  nations 
had  emerged  and  formed  blocs  of  their  own ; 
and  all  nations  were  being  swept  up  in  a  tech- 
nology that  was  compressing  the  planet  and 
deepening  our  mutual  dependence. 

Then  as  now,  it  was  clear  that  the  inter- 
national structure  formed  in  the  immediate 
postwar  period  was  in  fundamental  flux  and 
that  a  new  international  system  was  emerg- 
ing. America's  historic  opportunity  was  to 
help  shape  a  new  set  of  international  rela- 
tionships— more  pluralistic,  less  dominated 
by  military  power,  less  susceptible  to  con- 
frontation, more  open  to  genuine  cooperation 
among  the  free  and  diverse  elements  of  the 
globe.  This  new,  more  positive  international 
environment  is  possible  only  if  all  the  major 
powers — and  especially  the  world's  strongest 
nuclear  powers — anchor  their  policies  in  the 
principles  of  moderation  and  restraint.  They 
no  longer  have  the  power  to  dominate;  they 
do  have  the  capacity  to  thwart.  They  cannot 
build  the  new  international  structure  alone; 
they  can  make  its  realization  impossible  by 
their  rivalry. 

Detente  is  all  the  more  important  because 
of  what  the  creation  of  a  new  set  of  inter- 
national relations  demands  of  us  with  re- 
spect to  other  countries  and  areas.  President 
Ford  has  assigned  the  highest  priority  to 
maintaining  the  vitality  of  our  partnerships 
in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Latin  America.  Our 
security  ties  with  our  allies  are  essential,  but 
we  also  believe  that  recognition  of  the  in- 
terdependence of  the  contemporary  world 
requires  cooperation  in  many  other  fields. 
Cooperation  becomes  more  difficult  if  the 
United  States  is  perceived  by  allied  public 
opinion  as  an  obstacle  to  peace  and  if  public 
debate  is  polarized  on  the  issue  of  whether 
friendship  with  the  United  States  is  incon- 
sistent with  East-West  reconciliation. 


508 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


I 


One  important  area  for  invigorated  coop- 
erative action  is  economic  policy.  The  inter- 
national economic  system  has  been  severely 
tested.  The  Middle  East  war  demonstrated 
dramatically  the  integral  relationship  be- 
tween economics  and  politics.  Clearly,  what- 
ever the  state  of  our  relations  with  the 
U.S.S.R.,  the  international  economic  agenda 
must  be  addressed.  But  the  task  would  be  in- 
finitely more  complex  if  we  proceeded  in  a 
cold  war  envii-onment. 

International  economic  problems  cut  across 
political  dividing  lines.  All  nations,  regard- 
less of  ideology,  face  the  problems  of  energy 
and  economic  growth,  feeding  burgeoning 
populations,  regulating  the  use  of  the  oceans, 
and  preserving  the  environment. 

At  a  minimum,  easing  international  ten- 
sions allows  the  West  to  devote  more  intel- 
lectual and  material  resources  to  these  prob- 
lems. As  security  concerns  recede,  humane 
concerns  come  again  to  the  fore.  Interna- 
tional organizations  take  on  greater  signifi- 
cance and  responsibility,  less  obstructed  by 
cold  war  antagonisms.  The  climate  of  less- 
ened tensions  even  opens  prospects  for  broad- 
er collaboration  between  East  and  West.  It 
is  significant  that  some  of  these  global  is- 
sues— such  as  energy,  cooperation  in  science 
and  health,  and  the  protection  of  the  environ- 
ment— have  already  reached  the  U.S. -Soviet 
agenda. 

In  the  present  period  mankind  may  be 
menaced  as  much  by  international  economic 
and  political  chaos  as  by  the  danger  of  war. 
Avoiding  either  hazard  demands  a  coopera- 
tive world  structure  for  which  improved 
East- West  relations  are  essential. 


III.  The    Evolution    of    Detente — The    Balance    of 
Risks  and  Incentives 

The  course  of  detente  has  not  been  smooth 
or  even.  As  late  as  1969,  Soviet-American  re- 
lations were  ambiguous  and  uncertain.  To  be 
sure,  negotiations  on  Berlin  and  SALT  had 
begun.  But  the  tendency  toward  confronta- 
tion appeared  dominant. 

We  were  challenged  by  Soviet  conduct  in 
the  Middle  East  cease-fire  of  August  1970, 


during  the  Syrian  invasion  of  Jordan  in  Sep- 
tember 1970,  on  the  question  of  a  possible 
Soviet  .submarine  base  in  Cuba,  in  actions 
around  Berlin,  and  during  the  Indo-Paki- 
stani  war.  Soviet  policy  seemed  directed  to- 
ward fashioning  a  detente  in  bilateral  rela- 
tions with  our  Western  European  allies,  while 
challenging  the  United  States. 

We  demonstrated  then,  and  stand  ready  to 
do  so  again,  that  America  will  not  yield  to 
pressure  or  the  threat  of  force.  We  made 
clear  then,  as  we  do  today,  that  detente  can- 
not be  pursued  selectively  in  one  area  or  to- 
ward one  group  of  countries  only.  For  us  de- 
tente is  indivisible. 

Finally,  a  breakthrough  was  made  in  1971 
on  several  fronts — in  the  Berlin  settlement, 
in  the  SALT  talks,  in  other  arms  control  ne- 
gotiations— that  generated  the  process  of  de- 
tente. It  consists  of  these  elements :  An  elab- 
oration of  principles;  political  discussions  to 
solve  outstanding  issues  and  to  reach  coop- 
erative agreements ;  economic  relations ;  and 
arms  control  negotiations,  particularly  those 
concerning  strategic  arms. 

A.  The  Elaboration  of  Principles 

Cooperative  relations,  in  our  view,  must  be 
more  than  a  series  of  isolated  agreements. 
They  must  reflect  an  acceptance  of  mutual 
obligations  and  of  the  need  for  accommoda- 
tion and  restraint. 

To  set  forth  principles  of  behavior  in  for- 
mal documents  is  hardly  to  guarantee  their 
observance.  But  they  are  reference  points 
against  which  to  judge  actions  and  set  goals. 

The  first  of  the  series  of  documents  is  the 
statement  of  principles  signed  in  Moscow  in 
1972.-  It  aflirms:  (1)  the  necessity  of  avoid- 
ing confrontation ;  (2)  the  imperative  of  mu- 
tual i-estraint;  (3)  the  rejection  of  attempts 
to  exploit  tensions  to  gain  unilateral  advan- 
tages; (4)  the  renunciation  of  claims  of  spe- 
cial influence  in  the  world;  and  (5)  the  will- 
ingness, on  this  new  basis,  to  coexist  peace- 
fully and  build  a  firm  long-term  relationship. 

An  Agreement  on  the  Prevention  of  Nu- 
clear  War   based   on   these   principles   was 


•  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  June  26,  1972,  p.  898. 


October   14,    1974 


509 


signed  in  1973.'  It  affirms  that  the  objective 
of  the  policies  of  the  United  States  and  the 
U.S.S.R.  is  to  remove  the  danger  of  nuclear 
conflict  and  the  use  of  nuclear  weapons.  But 
it  emphasizes  that  this  objective  presup- 
poses the  renunciation  of  aiiij  war  or  threat 
of  war  not  only  by  the  two  nuclear  super- 
powers against  each  other  but  also  against 
allies  or  third  countries.  In  other  words,  the 
principle  of  restraint  is  not  confined  to  rela- 
tions between  the  United  States  and  the 
U.S.S.R. ;  it  is  explicitly  extended  to  include 
all  countries. 

These  statements  of  principles  are  not  an 
American  concession ;  indeed,  we  have  been 
afliirming  them  unilaterally  for  two  decades. 
Nor  are  they  a  legal  contract;  rather,  they 
are  an  aspiration  and  a  yardstick  by  which 
we  assess  Soviet  behavior.  We  have  never  in- 
tended to  "rely"  on  Soviet  compliance  with 
every  principle ;  we  do  seek  to  elaborate 
standards  of  conduct  which  the  Soviet  Union 
would  violate  only  to  its  cost.  And  if  over 
the  long  term  the  more  durable  relationship 
takes  hold,  the  basic  principles  will  give  it 
definition,  structure,  and  hope. 

B.  Political  Dialogue  and  Cooperative  Agree- 
ments 

One  of  the  features  of  the  current  phase  of 
U.S. -Soviet  relations  is  the  unprecedented 
consultation  between  leaders,  either  face  to 
face  or  through  diplomatic  channels. 

Although  consultation  has  reached  a  level 
of  candor  and  frequency  without  precedent, 
we  know  that  consultation  does  not  guaran- 
tee that  policies  are  compatible.  It  does  pro- 
vide a  mechanism  for  the  resolution  of  dif- 
ferences before  they  escalate  to  the  point  of 
public  confrontation  and  commit  the  prestige 
of  both  sides. 

The  channel  between  the  leaders  of  the  two 
nations  has  proved  its  worth  in  many  crises; 
it  reduces  the  risk  that  either  side  might  feel 
driven  to  act  or  to  react  on  the  basis  of  in- 
complete or  confusing  information.  The  chan- 
nel of  communication  has  continued  without 
interruption  under  President  Ford. 


■  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  July  23,  1973,  p.  160. 


But  crisis  management  is  not  an  end  in  it- 
self. The  more  fundamental  goal  is  the  elab- 
oration of  a  political  relationship  which  in 
time  will  make  crises  less  likely  to  arise. 

It  was  difficult  in  the  past  to  speak  of  a 
U.S. -Soviet  bilateral  relationship  in  any  nor- 
mal sense  of  the  phrase.  Trade  was  negligi- 
ble. Contacts  between  various  institutions 
and  between  the  peoples  of  the  two  countries 
were  at  best  sporadic.  There  were  no  coop- 
erative efforts  in  science  and  technology. 
Cultural  exchange  was  modest.  As  a  result, 
there  was  no  tangible  inducement  toward 
cooperation  and  no  penalty  for  aggressive 
behavior.  Today,  by  joining  our  efforts  even 
in  such  seemingly  apolitical  fields  as  medical 
research  or  environmental  protection,  we  and 
the  Soviets  can  benefit  not  only  our  two  peo- 
ples but  all  mankind ;  in  addition,  we  generate 
incentives  for  restraint. 

Since  1972  we  have  concluded  agreements 
on  a  common  effort  against  cancer,  on  re- 
search to  protect  the  environment,  on  study- 
ing the  use  of  the  ocean's  resources,  on  the 
use  of  atomic  energy  for  peaceful  purposes, 
on  studying  methods  for  conserving  energy, 
on  examining  construction  techniques  for  re- 
gions subject  to  earthquakes,  and  on  devising 
new  transportation  methods.  Other  bilateral 
areas  for  cooperation  include  an  agreement 
on  preventing  incidents  at  sea,  an  agreement 
to  exchange  information  and  research  meth- 
ods in  agriculture,  and  the  training  of  astro- 
nauts for  the  Soviet-U.S.  rendezvous-and- 
docking  mission  planned  for  1975. 

Each  project  must  be  judged  by  the  con- 
crete benefits  it  brings.  But  in  their  sum — in 
their  exchange  of  information  and  people  as 
well  as  in  their  establishment  of  joint  mech- 
anisms— they  also  constitute  a  commitment 
in  both  countries  to  work  together  across  a 
broad  spectrum. 

C.  The  Econoviic  Component 

During  the  period  of  the  cold  war,  eco- 
nomic contact  between  ourselves  and  the 
U.S.S.R.  was  virtually  nonexistent.  Even 
then,  many  argued  that  improved  economic 
relations  might  mitigate  international  ten- 
sions; in  fact,  there  were  several   congres- 


510 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


sional  resolutions  to  that  effect.  But  recur- 
rent crises  prevented  any  sustained  progress. 

The  period  of  confrontation  should  have 
left  little  doubt,  however,  that  economic  boy- 
cott would  not  transform  the  Soviet  system 
or  impose  upon  it  a  conciliatory  foreign  pol- 
icy. The  U.S.S.R.  was  quite  prepared  to 
maintain  heavy  military  outlays  and  to  con- 
centrate on  capital  growth  by  using  the  re- 
sources of  the  Communist  world  alone.  More- 
over, it  proved  impossible  to  mount  an  air- 
tight boycott  in  practice  since,  over  time, 
most  if  not  all  the  other  major  industrial 
countries  became  involved  in  trade  with  the 
East. 

The  question,  then,  became  how  trade  and 
economic  contact — in  which  the  Soviet  Union 
is  obviously  interested — could  serve  the  pur- 
poses of  peace.  On  the  one  hand,  economic 
relations  cannot  be  separated  from  the  politi- 
cal context.  Clearly,  we  cannot  be  asked  to 
reward  hostile  conduct  with  economic  bene- 
fits, even  if  in  the  process  we  deny  ourselves 
some  commercially  profitable  opportunities. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  political  relations 
begin  to  normalize,  it  is  difficult  to  explain 
why  economic  relations  should  not  be  nor- 
malized as  well. 

We  have  approached  the  question  of  eco- 
nomic relations  with  deliberation  and  cir- 
cumspection and  as  an  act  of  policy,  not 
primarily  of  commercial  opportunity.  As 
political  relations  have  improved  on  a  broad 
basis,  economic  issues  have  been  dealt  with 
on  a  comparably  broad  front.  A  series  of 
interlocking  economic  agreements  with  the 
U.S.S.R.  has  been  negotiated  side  by  side 
with  the  political  progress  already  noted. 
The  25-year-old  lend-lease  debt  was  settled; 
the  reciprocal  extension  of  most-favored- 
nation  (MFN)  treatment  was  negotiated, 
together  with  safeguards  against  the  possible 
disruption  of  our  markets  and  a  series  of 
practical  arrangements  to  facilitate  the  con- 
duct of  business  in  the  U.S.S.R.  by  American 
firms ;  our  government  credit  facilities  were 
made  available  for  trade  with  the  U.S.S.R. ; 
and  a  maritime  agreement  regulating  the 
carriage  of  goods  has  been  signed. 

These  were  all  primarily  regulatory  agree- 


ments conferring  no  immediate  benefits  on 
the  Soviet  Union  but  serving  as  blueprints 
for  an  expanded  economic  relationship  if  the 
political  improvement  continued. 

This  approach  commanded  widespread  do- 
mestic approval.  It  was  considered  a  natural 
outgrowth  of  political  progress.  At  no  time 
were  issues  regarding  Soviet  domestic  politi- 
cal practices  raised.  Indeed,  not  until  after 
the  1972  agreements  was  the  Soviet  domestic 
order  invoked  as  a  reason  for  arresting  or 
reversing  the  progress  so  painstakingly 
achieved.  This  sudden  ex  post  facto  form 
of  linkage  raises  serious  questions: 

— For  the  Soviet  Union,  it  casts  doubt  on 
our  reliability  as  a  negotiating  partner. 

— The  significance  of  trade,  originally  en- 
visaged as  only  one  ingredient  of  a  complex 
and  evolving  relationship,  is  inflated  out  of 
all  proportion. 

— The  hoped-for  results  of  policy  become 
transformed  into  preconditions  for  any  pol- 
icy at  all. 

We  recognize  the  depth  and  validity  of 
the  moral  concerns  expressed  by  those  who 
oppose,  or  put  conditions  on,  expanded  trade 
with  the  U.S.S.R.  But  a  sense  of  proportion 
must  be  maintained  about  the  leverage  our 
economic  relations  give  us  with  the  U.S.S.R.: 

— Denial  of  economic  relations  cannot  by 
itself  achieve  what  it  failed  to  do  when  it 
was  part  of  a  determined  policy  of  political 
and  military  confrontation. 

— The  economic  bargaining  ability  of  most- 
favored-nation  status  is  marginal.  MFN 
grants  no  special  privilege  to  the  U.S.S.R.; 
in  fact  it  is  a  misnomer,  since  we  have  such 
agreements  with  over  100  countries.  To  en- 
act it  would  be  to  remove  a  discriminatory 
holdover  of  the  days  of  the  cold  war.  To 
continue  to  deny  it  is  more  a  political  than 
an  economic  act. 

— Trade  benefits  are  not  a  one-way  street; 
the  laws  of  mutual  advantage  operate,  or 
there  will  be  no  trade. 

—The  technology  that  flows  to  the  U.S.S.R. 
as  a  result  of  expanded  U.S.-Soviet  trade 
may  have  a  few  indirect  uses  for  military 


October   14,   1974 


511 


production.  But  with  our  continuing  restric- 
tions on  strategic  exports,  we  can  maintain 
adequate  controls — and  we  intend  to  do  so. 
Moreover,  tiie  same  technology  has  been 
available  to  the  U.S.S.R.  and  will  be  in- 
creasingly so  from  other  non-Communist 
sources.  Boycott  denies  us  a  means  of  in- 
fluence and  possible  commercial  gain ;  it  does 
not  deprive  the  U.S.S.R.  of  technology. 

— The  actual  and  potential  flow  of  credits 
from  the  United  States  represents  a  tiny 
fraction  of  the  capital  available  to  the 
U.S.S.R.  domestically  and  elsewhere,  includ- 
ing Western  Europe  and  Japan.  But  it  does 
allow  us  to  exercise  some  influence  through 
our  ability  to  control  the  scope  of  trade 
relationships. 

— Over  time,  trade  and  investment  may 
leaven  the  autarkic  tendencies  of  the  Soviet 
system,  invite  gradual  association  of  the 
Soviet  economy  with  the  world  economy,  and 
foster  a  degree  of  interdependence  that 
adds  an  element  of  stability  to  the  political 
equation. 

D.  The  Strategic  Relationship 

We  cannot  expect  to  relax  international 
tensions  or  achieve  a  more  stable  interna- 
tional system  should  the  two  strongest  nu- 
clear powers  conduct  an  unrestrained  stra- 
tegic arms  race.  Thus,  perhaps  the  single 
most  important  component  of  our  policy  to- 
ward the  Soviet  Union  is  the  effort  to  limit 
strategic  weapons  competition. 

The  competition  in  which  we  now  find  our- 
selves is  historically  unique: 

— Each  side  has  the  capacity  to  destroy 
civilization  as  we  know  it. 

— Failure  to  maintain  equivalence  could 
jeopardize  not  only  our  freedom  but  our  very 
survival. 

— The  lead  time  for  technological  innova- 
tion is  so  long,  yet  the  pace  of  change  so 
relentless,  that  the  arms  race  and  strategic 
policy  itself  are  in  danger  of  being  driven 
by  technological  necessity. 

— When  nuclear  arsenals  reach  levels  in- 
volving thousands  of  launchers  and  over 
10,000  warheads,  and  when  the  character- 


istics of  the  weapons  of  the  two  sides  are  so 
incommensurable,  it  becomes  difficult  to  de- 
termine what  combination  of  numbers  of 
strategic  weapons  and  performance  capabili- 
ties would  give  one  side  a  militarily  and 
politically  useful  superiority.  At  a  minimum, 
clear  changes  in  the  strategic  balance  can 
be  achieved  only  by  efforts  so  enormous  and 
by  increments  so  large  that  the  very  attempt 
would  be  highly  destabilizing. 

— The  prospect  of  a  decisive  military  ad- 
vantage, even  if  theoretically  possible,  is 
politically  intolerable;  neither  side  will  pas- 
sively permit  a  massive  shift  in  the  nuclear 
balance.  Therefore  the  probable  outcome  of 
each  succeeding  round  of  competition  is  the 
restoration  of  a  strategic  equilibrium,  but  at 
increasingly  higher  levels  of  forces. 

— The  arms  race  is  driven  by  political  as 
well  as  military  factors.  While  a  decisive 
advantage  is  hard  to  calculate,  the  appear- 
ance of  inferiority — whatever  its  actual  sig- 
nificance— can  have  serious  political  conse- 
quences. With  weapons  that  are  unlikely  to 
be  used  and  for  which  there  is  no  operational 
experience,  the  psychological  impact  can  be 
crucial.  Thus  each  side  has  a  high  incentive 
to  achieve  not  only  the  reality  but  the  appear- 
ance of  equality.  In  a  very  real  sense  each 
side  shapes  the  military  establishment  of  the 
other. 

If  we  are  driven  to  it,  the  United  States 
will  sustain  an  arms  race.  Indeed,  it  is  likely 
that  the  United  States  would  emerge  from 
such  a  competition  with  an  edge  over  the 
Soviet  Union  in  most  significant  categories 
of  strategic  arms.  But  the  political  or  mili- 
tary benefit  which  would  flow  from  such  a 
situation  would  remain  elusive.  Indeed,  after 
such  an  evolution  it  might  well  be  that  both 
sides  would  be  worse  off  than  before  the 
race  began.  The  enormous  destructiveness 
of  weapons  and  the  uncertainties  regarding 
their  effects  combine  to  make  the  massive  use 
of  such  weapons  increasingly  incredible. 

The  Soviet  Union  must  realize  that  the 
overall  relationship  with  the  United  States 
will  be  less  stable  if  strategic  balance  is 
sought    through     unrestrained     competitive 


512 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


programs.  Sustaining  the  buildup  requires 
exhortations  by  both  sides  that  in  time  may 
prove  incompatible  with  restrained  interna- 
tional conduct.  The  very  fact  of  a  strategic 
arms  race  has  a  high  potential  for  feeding 
attitudes  of  hostility  and  suspicion  on  both 
sides,  transforming  the  fears  of  those  who 
demand  more  weapons  into  self-fulfilling 
prophecies. 

The  American  people  can  be  asked  to  bear 
the  cost  and  political  instability  of  a  race 
which  is  doomed  to  stalemate  only  if  it  is 
clear  that  every  effort  has  been  made  to  pre- 
vent it.  That  is  why  every  President  since 
Eisenhower  has  pursued  negotiations  for  the 
limitation  of  strategic  arms  while  maintain- 
ing the  military  programs  essential  to  sti-a- 
tegic  balance. 

There  are  more  subtle  strategic  reasons 
for  our  interest  in  SALT.  Our  supreme 
strategic  purpose  is  the  prevention  of  nuclear 
conflict  through  the  maintenance  of  sufficient 
political  and  strategic  power.  Estimates  of 
what  con-stitutes  "sufficiency"  have  been  con- 
tentious. Our  judgments  have  changed  with 
our  experience  in  deploying  these  weapons 
and  as  the  Soviets  expanded  their  own  nu- 
clear forces.  When  in  the  late  1960's  it  be- 
came apparent  that  the  Soviet  Union,  for 
practical  purposes,  had  achieved  a  kind  of 
rough  parity  with  the  United  States,  we 
adopted  the  current  strategic  doctrine. 

We  determined  that  stability  required 
strategic  forces  invulnerable  to  attack,  thus 
removing  the  incentive  on  either  side  to 
strike  first.  Reality  reinforced  doctrine.  As 
technology  advanced,  it  became  apparent 
that  neither  side  could  realistically  expect 
to  develop  a  credible  disarming  capability 
against  the  other  except  through  efforts  so 
gigantic  as  to  represent  a  major  threat  to 
political  stability. 

One  result  of  our  doctrine  was  basing  our 
strategic  planning  on  the  assumption  that 
in  the  unlikely  event  of  nuclear  attack,  the 
President  should  have  a  wide  range  of  op- 
tions available  in  deciding  at  what  level  and 
against  what  targets  to  respond.  We  de- 
signed our  strategic  forces  with  a  substantial 
measure  of  flexibility,  so  that  the  U.S.  re- 


sponse need  not  include  an  attack  on  the 
aggressor's  cities — thus  inviting  the  destruc- 
tion of  our  own — but  could  instead  hit  other 
targets.  Translating  this  capability  into  a 
coherent  system  of  planning  became  a  novel, 
and  as  yet  uncompleted,  task  of  great  com- 
plexity ;  but  progress  has  been  made.  In  our 
view  such  flexibility  enhances  the  certainty 
of  retaliation  and  thereby  makes  an  attack 
less  likely.  Above  all,  it  preserves  the  capa- 
bility for  human  decision  even  in  the  ultimate 
crisis. 

Another,  at  first  seemingly  paradoxical, 
result  was  a  growing  commitment  to  nego- 
tiated agreements  on  strategic  arms.  SALT 
became  one  means  by  which  we  and  the 
Soviet  Union  could  enhance  stability  by  set- 
ting mutual  constraints  on  our  respective 
forces  and  by  gradually  reaching  an  under- 
standing of  the  doctrinal  considerations  that 
underlie  the  deployment  of  nuclear  weapons. 
Through  SALT  the  two  sides  can  reduce  the 
suspicions  and  fears  which  fuel  strategic 
competition.  SALT,  in  the  American  con- 
ception, is  a  means  to  achieve  strategic  sta- 
bility by  methods  other  than  the  arms  race. 

Our  specific  objectives  have  been: 

1.  To  break  the  momentum  of  ever- 
increasing  levels  of  armaments; 

2.  To  control  certain  qualitative  aspects — 
particularly  MIRV's  [multiple  independently 
targeted  reentry  vehicles]  ; 

3.  To  moderate  the  pace  of  new  deploy- 
ments; and 

4.  Ultimately,  to  achieve  reductions  in 
force  levels. 

The  SALT  agreements  already  signed 
represent  a  major  contribution  to  strategic 
stability  and  a  significant  first  step  toward 
a  longer  term  and  possibly  broader  agree- 
ment. 

When  the  first  agreements  in  1972  were 
signed,  the  future  strategic  picture  was  not 
bright: 

— The  Soviet  Union  was  engaged  in  a 
dynamic  program  that  had  closed  the  numer- 
ical gap  in  ballistic  missiles;  they  were  de- 
ploying three  types  of  ICBM's    [interconti- 


October   14,   1974 


513 


nental  ballistic  missiles],  at  a  rate  of  over 
200  annually,  and  launching  on  the  average 
eight  submarines  a  year  with  16  ballistic 
missiles  each. 

— The  United  States  had  ended  its  numer- 
ical buildup  in  the  late  1960's  at  a  level  of 
1,054  ICBM's  and  656  SLBM's  [submarine- 
launched  ballistic  missiles].  We  were  empha- 
sizing technological  improvements,  particu- 
larly in  MIRV's  for  the  Poseidon  and  Min- 
uteman  missiles.  Our  replacement  systems 
were  intended  for  the  late  1970's  and  early 
1980's. 

— By  most  reasonable  measurements  of 
strategic  power,  we  held  an  important  ad- 
vantage, which  still  continues.  But  it  was 
also  clear  that  if  existing  trends  were  main- 
tained the  Soviet  Union  would,  first,  exceed 
our  numerical  levels  by  a  considerable  mar- 
gin and  then  develop  the  same  technologies 
we  had  already  mastered. 

The  agreements  signed  in  1972  which  lim- 
ited antiballistic  missile  [ABM]  defenses  and 
froze  the  level  of  ballistic  missile  forces  on 
both  sides  represented  the  essential  first  step 
toward  a  less  volatile  strategic  environment.* 

— By  limiting  antiballistic  missiles  to  very 
low  levels  of  deployment,  the  United  States 
and  the  Soviet  Union  removed  a  potential 
source  of  instability;  for  one  side  to  build 
an  extensive  defense  for  its  cities  would 
inevitably  be  interpreted  by  the  other  as  a 
step  toward  a  first-strike  capability.  Before 
seeking  a  disarming  capability,  a  potential 
aggressor  would  want  to  protect  his  popula- 
tion centers  from  incoming  nuclear  weapons. 

— Some  have  alleged  that  the  interim 
agreement,  which  expires  in  October  1977, 
penalizes  the  United  States  by  permitting 
the  Soviet  Union  to  deploy  more  strategic 
missile  launchers,  both  land  based  and  sea 
based,  than  the  United  States.  Such  a  view 
is  misleading.  When  the  agreement  was 
signed  in  May  1972,  the  Soviet  Union  already 
possessed   more  land-based   intercontinental 


'  For  texts  of  the  ABM  Treaty  and  the  Interim 
Agreement  on  the  Limitation  of  Strategic  Offensive 
Arms,  see  Bulletin  of  June  26,  1972,  pp.  918  and 
920. 


ballistic  missiles  than  the  United  States,  and 
given  the  pace  of  its  submarine  construction 
program,  over  the  next  few  years  it  could 
have  built  virtually  twice  as  many  nuclear 
ballistic  missile  submarines. 

The  interim  agreement  confined  a  dynamic 
Soviet  ICBM  program  to  the  then-existing 
level ;  it  put  a  ceiling  on  the  heaviest  Soviet 
ICBM's,  the  weapons  that  most  concern  us; 
and  it  set  an  upper  limit  on  the  Soviet  sub- 
marine-launched ballistic  missile  program. 
No  American  program  was  abandoned  or 
curtailed.  We  remained  free  to  deploy  multi- 
ple warheads.  No  restraints  were  placed  on 
bombers — a  weapons  system  in  which  we 
have  a  large  advantage.  Indeed,  the  U.S.  lead 
in  missile  warheads  is  likely  to  be  somewhat 
greater  at  the  end  of  this  agreement  than 
at  the  time  of  its  signature. 

The  SALT  One  agreements  were  the  first 
deliberate  attempt  by  the  nuclear  super- 
powers to  bring  about  strategic  stability 
through  negotiation.  This  very  process  is 
conducive  to  further  restraint.  For  example, 
in  the  first  round  of  SALT  negotiations  in 
1970-72,  both  sides  bitterly  contested  the 
number  of  ABM  sites  permitted  by  the  agree- 
ment; two  years  later  both  sides  gave  up 
the  right  to  build  more  than  one  site.  In 
sum,  we  believed  when  we  signed  these 
agreements — and  we  believe  now — that  they 
had  reduced  the  danger  of  nuclear  war,  that 
both  sides  had  acquired  some  greater  interest 
in  restraint,  and  that  the  basis  had  been 
created  for  the  present  effort  to  reach  a 
broader  agreement. 

The  goal  of  the  current  negotiations  is  an 
agreement  for  a  10-year  period.  We  had 
aimed  at  extending  the  interim  agreement 
with  adjustments  in  the  numbers  and  new 
provisions  aimed  at  dealing  with  the  prob- 
lem of  MIRV's.  We  found,  however,  that  our 
negotiation  for  a  two-  or  three-year  exten- 
sion was  constantly  threatened  with  irrele- 
vance by  the  ongoing  programs  of  both  sides 
that  were  due  to  be  deployed  at  the  end  of 
or  just  after  the  period.  This  distorted  the 
negotiation  and,  indeed,  devalued  its  signifi- 
cance. We  shifted  to  the  10-year  approach 
because  the  period  is  long  enough  to  cover 


514 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


all  current  and  planned  forces  but  not  so 
long  as  to  invite  hedges  that  would  defeat 
the  purpose  of  an  arms  control  agreement. 
In  fact,  it  invites  a  slowing  down  of  planned 
deployments ;  further,  a  period  of  this  length 
will  allow  us  to  set  realistic  ceilings  that  rep- 
resent more  than  a  temporary  plateau  from 
which  to  launch  a  new  cycle  in  the  arms  race. 
Future  reductions  thus  become  a  realistic 
objective. 

With  respect  to  ceilings  on  strategic 
forces,  we  have  defined  our  goal  as  essential 
equivalence  in  strategic  capabilities.  What 
constitutes  equivalence  involves  subjective 
judgment.  Because  U.S.  and  Soviet  forces 
are  different  from  each  other — in  number 
and  size  of  weapons,  in  technological  refine- 
ment, in  performance  characteristics — they 
are  difl^cult  to  compare. 

Yet  in  the  negotiations  we  shall,  for  ex- 
ample, have  to  compare  heavy  bombers,  in 
which  the  United  States  is  ahead,  with  heavy 
missiles,  which  the  U.S.S.R.  has  emphasized. 
We  shall  have  to  decide  whether  to  insist  on 
equivalence  in  every  category  or  whether 
to  permit  trade-off's  in  which  an  advantage 
in  one  category  compensates  for  a  disad- 
vantage in  another.  The  equation  does  not 
remain  static.  We  shall  have  to  relate  pres- 
ent advantages  to  potential  development,  ex- 
isting disparities  to  future  trends.  This  is 
a  difficult  process,  but  we  are  confident  that 
it  can  be  solved. 

Numerical  balance  is  no  longer  enough.  To 
achieve  stability,  it  will  be  necessary  to  con- 
sider as  well  the  impact  of  technological 
change  in  such  areas  as  missile  throw  weight, 
multiple  reentry  vehicles,  and  missile  ac- 
curacy. The  difficulty  is  that  we  are  dealing 
not  only  with  disparate  levels  of  forces  but 
with  disparate  capabilities,  MIRV  technology 
being  a  conspicuous  example.  The  rate  of 
increase  of  warheads  is  surging  far  ahead 
of  the  increase  in  delivery  vehicles.  This  is 
why  the  United  States  considers  MIRV  limi- 
tation an  essential  component  of  the  next 
phase  of  the  SALT  negotiations.  If  we  fail, 
the  rate  of  technology  will  outstrip  our 
capacity  to  design  effective  limitations;  con- 
stantly proliferating  warheads  of  increasing 


accuracy  will  overwhelm  fixed  launchers.  An 
arms  race  will  be  virtually  inevitable. 

The  third  area  for  negotiations  is  the  pace 
of  deployments  of  new  or  more  modern 
systems.  Neither  side  will  remain  in  its 
present  position  without  change  for  another 
decade.  The  Soviets  are  already  embarked 
on  testing  an  initial  deployment  of  a  third 
generation  of  ICBM's  and  on  a  third  mod- 
ification of  submarine-launched  missiles — 
though  the  rate  of  deployment  so  far  has 
been  far  short  of  the  maximum  pace  of  the 
late  sixties. 

For  our  part,  we  are  planning  to  introduce 
the  Trident  system  and  to  replace  the  B-52 
force  with  the  B-1 ;  we  also  have  the  capa- 
bility of  improving  our  Minuteman  ICBM 
system,  adding  to  the  number  as  well  as 
capability  of  MIRV  missiles,  and  if  we 
choose,  of  deploying  mobile  systems,  land 
based  or  airborne.  Thus  our  task  is  to  see 
whether  the  two  sides  can  agree  to  slow  the 
pace  of  deployment  so  that  modernization 
is  less  likely  to  threaten  the  overall  balance 
or  trigger  an  excessive  reaction. 

Finally,  a  10-year  program  gives  us  a 
chance  to  negotiate  reductions.  Reductions 
have  occasionally  been  proposed  as  an  alter- 
native to  ceilings ;  they  are  often  seen  as 
more  desirable  or  at  least  easier  to  negotiate. 
In  fact,  it  is  a  far  more  complicated  prob- 
lem. Reductions  in  launchers,  for  example, 
if  not  accompanied  by  restrictions  on  the 
number  of  warheads,  will  only  magnify  vul- 
nerability. The  fewer  the  aim  points,  the 
simpler  it  would  be  to  calculate  an  attack. 
At  the  same  time,  reductions  will  have  to 
proceed  from  some  baseline  and  must  there- 
fore be  preceded  by  agreed  ceilings — if  only 
of  an  interim  nature.  But  a  10-year  program 
should  permit  the  negotiation  of  stable  ceil- 
ings resulting  from  the  start  of  a  process 
of  reductions. 

Detente  is  admittedly  far  from  a  modern 
equivalent  to  the  kind  of  stable  peace  that 
characterized  most  of  the  19th  century.  But 
it  is  a  long  step  away  from  the  bitter  and 
aggressive  spirit  that  has  characterized  so 
much  of  the  postwar  period.  When  linked 
to  such  broad  and  unprecedented  projects  as 


October  14,   1974 


515 


SALT,  detente  takes  on  added  meaning  and 
opens  prospects  of  a  more  stable  peace. 
SALT  agreements  should  be  seen  as  steps 
in  a  process  leading  to  progressively  greater 
stability.  It  is  in  that  light  that  SALT  and 
related  projects  will  be  judged  by  history. 

IV.  An  Assessment  of  Detente 

Where  has  the  process  of  detente  taken  us 
so  far?  What  are  the  principles  that  must 
continue  to  guide  our  course? 

Major  progress  has  been  made: 

— Berlin's  potential  as  Europe's  perennial 
flashpoint  has  been  substantially  reduced 
through  the  quadripartite  agreement  of  1971. 
The  United  States  considers  strict  adherence 
to  the  agreement  a  major  test  of  detente. 

— We  and  our  allies  are  launched  on  nego- 
tiations with  the  Warsaw  Pact  and  other 
countries  in  the  conference  on  European  se- 
curity and  cooperation,  a  conference  designed 
to  foster  East-West  dialogue  and  coopera- 
tion. 

— At  the  same  time,  NATO  and  the  War- 
saw Pact  are  negotiating  the  reduction  of 
their  forces  in  Central  Europe. 

— The  honorable  termination  of  America's 
direct  military  involvement  in  Indochina  and 
the  substantial  lowering  of  regional  conflict 
were  made  possible  by  many  factors.  But 
this  achievement  would  have  been  much  more 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  in  an  era  of 
Soviet  and  Chinese  hostility  toward  the 
United  States. 

— America's  principal  alliances  have 
proved  their  durability  in  a  new  era.  Many 
feared  that  detente  would  undermine  them. 
Instead,  detente  has  helped  to  place  our 
alliance  ties  on  a  more  enduring  basis  by 
removing  the  fear  that  friendship  with  the 
United  States  involved  the  risk  of  unneces- 
sary confrontation  with  the  U.S.S.R. 

— Many  incipient  crises  with  the  Soviet 
Union  have  been  contained  or  settled  with- 
out ever  reaching  the  point  of  public  dis- 
agreement. The  world  has  been  freer  of 
East-West  tensions  and  conflict  than  in  the 
fifties  and  sixties. 


— A  series  of  bilateral  cooperative  agree- 
ments has  turned  the  U.S. -Soviet  relation- 
ship in  a  far  more  positive  direction. 

— We  have  achieved  unprecedented  agree- 
ments in  arms  limitation  and  measures  to 
avoid  accidental  war. 

— New  possibilities  for  positive  U.S.- 
Soviet cooperation  have  emerged  on  issues 
in  which  the  globe  is  interdependent :  science 
and  technology,  environment,  energy. 

These  accomplishments  do  not  guarantee 
peace.  But  they  have  served  to  lessen  the 
rigidities  of  the  past  and  offer  hope  for  a 
better  era.  Despite  fluctuations  a  trend  has 
been  established;  the  character  of  interna- 
tional politics  has  been  markedly  changed. 

It  is  too  early  to  judge  conclusively 
whether  this  change  should  be  ascribed  to 
tactical  considerations.  But  in  a  sense,  that 
is  immaterial.  For  whether  the  change  is 
temporary  and  tactical,  or  lasting  and  basic, 
our  task  is  essentially  the  same:  To  trans- 
form that  change  into  a  permanent  condition 
devoted  to  the  purpose  of  a  secure  peace  and 
mankind's  aspiration  for  a  better  life.  A 
tactical  change  sufl!iciently  prolonged  be- 
comes a  lasting  transformation. 

But  the  whole  process  can  be  jeopardized 
if  it  is  taken  for  granted.  As  the  cold  war  re- 
cedes in  memory,  detente  can  come  to  seem 
so  natural  that  it  appears  safe  to  levy  pro- 
gressively greater  demands  on  it.  The  tempta- 
tion to  combine  detente  with  increasing  pres- 
sure on  the  Soviet  Union  will  grow.  Such  an 
attitude  would  be  disastrous.  We  would  not 
accept  it  from  Moscow ;  Moscow  will  not  ac- 
cept it  from  us.  We  will  finally  wind  up  again 
with  the  cold  war  and  fail  to  achieve  either 
peace  or  any  humane  goal. 

To  be  sure,  the  process  of  detente  raises  se- 
rious issues  for  many  people.  Let  me  deal 
with  these  in  terms  of  the  principles  which 
underlie  our  policy. 

First,  if  detente  is  to  endure,  both  sides 
must  benefit. 

There  is  no  question  that  the  Soviet  Union 
obtains  benefits  from  detente.  On  what  other 
grounds  would  the  tough-minded  members  of 
the  Politburo  sustain  it?  But  the  essential 


516 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


point  surely  must  be  that  detente  serves 
American  and  world  interests  as  well.  If 
these  coincide  with  some  Soviet  interests, 
this  will  only  strengthen  the  durability  of 
the  process. 

On  the  global  scale,  in  terms  of  the  conven- 
tional measures  of  power,  influence,  and  posi- 
tion, our  interests  have  not  suffered — they 
have  generally  prospered.  In  many  areas  of 
the  world,  the  influence  and  the  respect  we 
enjoy  are  greater  than  was  the  case  for  many 
years.  It  is  also  true  that  Soviet  influence 
and  presence  are  felt  in  many  parts  of  the 
world.  But  this  is  a  reality  that  would  exist 
without  detente.  The  record  shows  that  de- 
tente does  not  deny  us  the  opportunity  to  re- 
act to  it  and  to  offset  it. 

Our  bilateral  relations  with  the  U.S.S.R. 
are  beginning  to  proliferate  across  a  broad 
range  of  activities  in  our  societies.  Many  of 
the  projects  now  underway  are  in  their  in- 
fancy; we  have  many  safeguards  against 
unequal  benefits — in  our  laws,  in  the  agree- 
ments themselves,  and  in  plain  common 
sense.  Of  course,  there  are  instances  where 
the  Soviet  Union  has  obtained  some  partic- 
ular advantage.  But  we  seek  in  each  agree- 
ment or  project  to  provide  for  benefits  that 
are  mutual.  We  attempt  to  make  sure  that 
there  are  trade-offs  among  the  various  pro- 
grams that  are  implemented.  Americans 
surely  are  the  last  who  need  fear  hard  bar- 
gaining or  lack  confidence  in  competition. 

Seco7id,  building  a  new  relationship  with 
the  Soviet  Union  does  not  entail  any  devalu- 
ation of  traditional  alliance  relations. 

Our  approach  to  relations  with  the  U.S.S.R. 
has  always  been,  and  will  continue  to  be, 
rooted  in  the  belief  that  the  cohesion  of  our 
alliances,  and  particularly  the  Atlantic  alli- 
ance, is  a  precondition  to  establishing  a  more 
constructive  relationship  with  the  U.S.S.R. 

Crucial,  indeed  unique,  as  may  be  our  con- 
cern with  Soviet  power,  we  do  not  delude 
ourselves  that  we  should  deal  with  it  alone. 
When  we  speak  of  Europe  and  Japan  as  rep- 
resenting centers  of  power  and  influence,  we 
describe  not  merely  an  observable  fact  but 
an  indispensable  element  in  the  equilibrium 
needed  to  keep  the  world  at  peace.  The  coop- 


eration and  partnership  between  us  transcend 
formal  agreements;  they  reflect  values  and 
traditions  not  soon,  if  ever,  to  be  shared  with 
our  adver-saries. 

Inevitably,  a  greater  sense  of  drama  ac- 
companies our  dealings  with  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion, because  the  central  issues  of  war  and 
peace  cannot  be  other  than  dramatic.  It  was 
precisely  a  recognition  of  this  fact  and  our 
concern  that  alliance  relations  not  be  taken 
for  granted  that  led  to  the  American  initia- 
tive in  April  of  1973  to  put  new  emphasis 
on  our  traditional  associations.  We  sought 
political  acts  of  will  which  would  transcend 
the  technical  issues  at  hand,  symbolize  our 
enduring  goals,  and  thus  enhance  our  funda- 
mental bonds.  Much  has  been  accomplished. 
The  complications  attendant  to  adapting 
U.S. -European  relations  should  not  be  con- 
fused with  their  basic  character.  We  were 
tested  in  difficult  conditions  that  do  not  af- 
fect our  central  purposes.  Today  relations 
with  Europe  and  Japan  are  strong  and  im- 
proving. We  have  made  progress  in  develop- 
ing common  positions  on  security,  detente, 
and  energy.  The  experience  of  the  past  year 
has  demonstrated  that  there  is  no  contradic- 
tion between  vigorous,  organic  alliance  rela- 
tions and  a  more  positive  relationship  with 
adversaries;  indeed,  they  are  mutually  rein- 
forcing. 

Third,  the  emergence  of  more  normal  rela- 
tions with  the  Soviet  Union  must  not  under- 
mine our  resolve  to  maintain  our  national  de- 
fense. 

There  is  a  tendency  in  democratic  societies 
to  relax  as  dangers  seem  to  recede;  there  is 
an  inclination  to  view  the  maintenance  of 
strength  as  incompatible  with  relaxation  of 
tensions  rather  than  its  precondition.  But 
this  is  primarily  a  question  of  leadership.  We 
shall  attempt  to  be  vigilant  to  the  dangers 
facing  America.  This  administration  will  not 
be  misled — or  mislead — on  issues  of  national 
defense.  At  the  same  time,  we  do  not  accept 
the  proposition  that  we  need  crises  to  sus- 
tain our  defense.  A  society  that  needs  artifi- 
cial crises  to  do  what  is  needed  for  survival 
will  soon  find  itself  in  mortal  danger. 

Fourth,  we  must  know  what  can  and  can- 


October  14,   1974 


517 


not  be  achieved  in  changing  human  condi- 
tions in  the  East. 

The  question  of  dealing  with  Communist 
governments  has  troubled  the  American  peo- 
ple and  the  Congress  since  1917.  There  has 
always  been  a  fear  that  by  working  with  a 
government  whose  internal  policies  differ  so 
sharply  with  our  own  we  are  in  some  man- 
ner condoning  these  policies  or  encouraging 
their  continuation.  Some  argue  that  until 
there  is  a  genuine  "liberalization" — or  signs 
of  serious  progress  in  this  direction — all  ele- 
ments of  conciliation  in  Soviet  policy  must 
be  regarded  as  temporary  and  tactical.  In 
that  view,  demands  for  internal  changes 
must  be  the  precondition  for  the  pursuit  of  a 
relaxation  of  tensions  with  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion. 

Our  view  is  different.  We  shall  insist  on 
responsible  international  behavior  by  the  So- 
viet Union  and  use  it  as  the  primary  index 
of  our  relationship.  Beyond  this  we  will  use 
our  influence  to  the  maximum  to  alleviate 
suffering  and  to  respond  to  humane  appeals. 
We  know  what  we  stand  for,  and  we  shall 
leave  no  doubt  about  it. 

Both  as  a  government  and  as  a  people  we 
have  made  the  attitude  of  the  American  peo- 
ple clear  on  countless  occasions  in  ways  that 
have  produced  results.  I  believe  that  both  the 
executive  and  the  Congress,  each  playing  its 
proper  role,  have  been  effective.  With  re- 
spect to  the  specific  issue  of  emigration : 

— The  education  exit  tax  of  1971  is  no 
longer  being  collected.  We  have  been  assured 
that  it  will  not  be  reapplied. 

— Hardship  cases  submitted  to  the  So- 
viet Government  have  been  given  increased 
attention,  and  remedies  have  been  forthcom- 
ing in  many  well-known  instances. 

— The  volume  of  Jewish  emigration  has 
increased  from  a  trickle  to  tens  of  thousands. 

— And  we  are  now  moving  toward  an  un- 
derstanding that  should  significantly  dimin- 
ish the  obstacles  to  emigration  and  ease  the 
hardship  of  prospective  emigrants. 

We  have  accomplished  much.  But  we  can- 
not demand  that  the  Soviet  Union,  in  effect, 
suddenly  reverse  five  decades  of  Soviet,  and 
centuries  of  Russian,  history.  Such  an  at- 


tempt would  be  futile  and  at  the  same  time 
hazard  all  that  has  already  been  achieved. 
Changes  in  Soviet  society  have  already  oc- 
curred, and  more  will  come.  But  they  are 
most  likely  to  develop  through  an  evolution 
that  can  best  go  forward  in  an  environment 
of  decreasing  international  tensions.  A  re- 
newal of  the  cold  war  will  hardly  encourage 
the  Soviet  Union  to  change  its  emigration 
policies  or  adopt  a  more  benevolent  attitude 
toward  dissent. 


V.  Agenda  for  the  Future 

Detente  is  a  process,  not  a  permanent 
achievement.  The  agenda  is  full  and  contin- 
uing. Obviously  the  main  concern  must  be  to 
reduce  the  sources  of  potential  conflict.  This 
requires  efforts  in  several  interrelated  areas : 

— The  military  competition  in  all  its  as- 
pects must  be  subject  to  increasingly  firm  re- 
straints by  both  sides. 

— Political  competition,  especially  in  mo- 
ments of  crisis,  must  be  guided  by  the  princi- 
ples of  restraint  set  forth  in  the  documents 
described  earlier.  Crises  there  will  be,  but 
the  United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union  have 
a  special  obligation  deriving  from  the  un- 
imaginable military  power  that  they  wield 
and  represent.  Exploitation  of  crisis  situa- 
tions for  unilateral  gain  is  not  acceptable. 

— Restraint  in  crises  must  be  augmented 
by  cooperation  in  removing  the  causes  of 
crises.  There  have  been  too  many  instances, 
notably  in  the  Middle  East,  which  demon- 
strate that  policies  of  unilateral  advantage 
sooner  or  later  run  out  of  control  and  lead  to 
the  brink  of  war,  if  not  beyond. 

— The  process  of  negotiations  and  consul- 
tation must  be  continuous  and  intense.  But 
no  agreement  between  the  nuclear  superpow- 
ers can  be  durable  if  made  over  the  heads  of 
other  nations  which  have  a  stake  in  the  out- 
come. We  should  not  seek  to  impose  peace; 
we  can,  however,  see  that  our  own  actions 
and  conduct  are  conducive  to  peace. 

In  the  coming  months  we  shall  strive : 

— To  complete  the  negotiations  for  compre- 


518 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


hensive  and  equitable  limitations  on  strategic 
arms  until  at  least  1985 ; 

— To  complete  the  multilateral  negotiations 
on  mutual  force  reductions  in  Central  Eu- 
rope, so  that  security  will  be  enhanced  for  all 
the  countries  of  Europe ; 

— To  conclude  the  conference  on  European 
security  and  cooperation  in  a  manner  that 
promotes  both  security  and  human  aspira- 
tions ; 

— To  continue  the  efforts  to  limit  the 
spread  of  nuclear  weapons  to  additional  coun- 
tries without  depriving  those  countries  of  the 
peaceful  benefits  of  atomic  energy; 

— To  complete  ratification  of  the  recently 
negotiated  treaty  banning  underground  nu- 
clear testing  by  the  United  States  and 
U.S.S.R.  above  a  certain  threshold ; 

— To  begin  negotiations  on  the  recently 
agreed  efl'ort  to  overcome  the  possible  dan- 
gers of  environmental  modification  tech- 
niques for  military  purposes ;  and 

— To  resolve  the  longstanding  attempts  to 
cope  with  the  dangers  of  chemical  weaponry. 

We  must  never  forget  that  the  process  of 
detente  depends  ultimately  on  habits  and 
modes  of  conduct  that  extend  beyond  the 
letter  of  agreements  to  the  spirit  of  relations 
as  a  whole.  This  is  why  the  whole  process 
must  be  carefully  nurtured. 

In  cataloging  the  desirable,  we  must  take 
care  not  to  jeopardize  what  is  attainable.  We 
must  consider  what  alternative  policies  are 
available  and  what  their  consequences  would 
be.  And  the  implications  of  alternatives  must 
be  examined  not  just  in  terms  of  a  single  is- 
sue but  for  how  they  might  affect  the  entire 
range  of  Soviet-American  relations  and  the 
prospects  for  world  peace. 

We  must  assess  not  only  individual  chal- 
lenges to  detente  but  also  their  cumulative 
impact : 

If  we  justify  each  agreement  with  Moscow 
only  when  we  can  show  unilateral  gain. 

If  we  strive  for  an  elusive  strategic  "supe- 
riority," 

If  we  systematically  block  benefits  to  the 
Soviet  Union, 

If  we  try  to  transform  the  Soviet  system 
by  pressure, 


If  in  short,  we  look  for  final  results  before 
we  agree  to  any  results,  then  we  would  be 
reviving  the  doctrines  of  liberation  and  mas- 
sive retaliation  of  the  1950's.  And  we  would 
do  so  at  a  time  when  Soviet  physical  power 
and  influence  on  the  world  are  greater  than 
a  quarter  century  ago  when  those  policies 
were  devised  and  failed.  The  futility  of  such 
a  course  is  as  certain  as  its  danger. 

Let  there  be  no  question,  however,  that  So- 
viet actions  could  destroy  detente  as  well : 

If    the    Soviet    Union    uses    detente    to 
strengthen  its  military  capacity  in  all  fields. 
If  in  crises  it  acts  to  sharpen  tension. 
If  it  does  not  contribute  to  progress  toward 
stability. 

If  it  seeks  to  undermine  our  alliances. 
If  it  is  deaf  to  the  urgent  needs  of  the  least 
developed  and  the  emerging  issues  of  inter- 
dependence, then  it  in  turn  tempts  a  return 
to  the  tensions  and  conflicts  we  have  made 
such  efforts  to  overcome.  The  policy  of  con- 
frontation has  worked  for  neither  of  the  su- 
perpowers. 

We  have  insisted  toward  the  Soviet  Union 
that  we  cannot  have  the  atmosphere  of  de- 
tente without  the  substance.  It  is  equally 
clear  that  the  substance  of  detente  will  disap- 
pear in  an  atmosphere  of  hostility. 

We  have  profound  differences  with  the  So- 
viet Union — in  our  values,  our  methods,  our 
vision  of  the  future.  But  it  is  these  very  dif- 
ferences which  compel  any  responsible  ad- 
ministration to  make  a  major  effort  to  cre- 
ate a  more  constructive  relationship. 

We  face  an  opportunity  that  was  not  pos- 
sible 25  years,  or  even  a  decade,  ago.  If  that 
opportunity  is  lost,  its  moment  will  not 
quickly  come  again.  Indeed,  it  may  not  come 
at  all. 

As  President  Kennedy  pointed  out :  "For 
in  the  final  analysis  our  most  basic  common 
link  is  that  we  all  inhabit  this  small  planet. 
We  all  breathe  the  same  air.  We  all  cherish 
our  children's  future.  And  we  are  all  mor- 
tal." ■• 


'  For  President  Kennedy's  commencement  address 
at  American  University,  Washington,  D.C.,  on  June 
10,  1963,  see  Bulletin  of  July  2,  1963,  p.  2. 


October   14,    1974 


519 


Department  Surveys  U.S.  Policy 
and  Developments  in  South  Asia 

Following  is  a  statement  by  Alfred  L. 
Atherton,  Jr.,  Assistant  Secretary  for  Near 
Eastern  and  South  Asian  Affairs,  made  be- 
fore the  Stibcommittee  on  the  Near  East  and 
South  Asia  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs  on  September  19> 

It  has  been  18  months  since  my  predeces- 
sor, Mr.  Sisco,  now  Under  Secretary  of  State 
for'  Political  Affairs,  met  with  you  for  a 
similar  review  of  the  situation  in  South  Asia 
and  of  our  relations  with  the  nations  of  that 
region.  The  period  has  witnessed  prog- 
ress toward  regional  reconciliation  and  a 
strengthening  of  our  own  bilateral  ties  with 
individual  countries  but  also  a  distressing 
deterioration  in  South  Asian  economic  pros- 
pects, largely  because  of  factors  external 
to  the  region. 

South  Asia  is  an  area  that  has  long  in- 
volved the  concern  and  interest  of  the  United 
States.  The  record  of  our  contributions  in 
development  and  food  assistance,  and  of  re- 
lief in  the  case  of  all  too  frequent  natural 
disasters,  is  evidence  of  the  strong  humani- 
tarian regard  of  the  American  people  for  the 
people  of  South  Asia  and  their  hopes  for  de- 
velopment. While  South  Asia  is  not  central 
to  U.S.  global  strategic  concerns,  it  is  con- 
tiguous geographically  to  the  Soviet  Union 
and  China,  and  their  rivalries  have  an  im- 
portant impact  on  the  area. 

Our  principal  interest  in  a  strategic  sense 
has  been  to  keep  South  Asia  from  becoming 
an  area  of  great-power  confrontation  or  con- 
flict. We  seek  no  political  advantage,  nor  do 
we  wish  to  impose  any  economic  or  political 
system.  We  look  to  other  powers  to  exercise 
similar  restraint,  and  with  a  regard  for  the 
legitimate  interests  of  others.  Within  this 
context,  we  wish  to  see  South  Asia  develop 
as  a  region  which  is  characterized  by: 


'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. 


520 


—Peace  and  stability,  so  that  energies 
may  be  fully  devoted  to  the  urgent  tasks  of 
development ; 

—Balanced  relations  with  outside  powers, 
in  order  that  regional  problems  should  be 
settled  peacefully  in  a  regional  context; 

—Accelerating  development,  particularly 
in  the  critical  agricultural  sector  and  com- 
plemented by  effective  measures  to  reduce 
population  pressures;  and 

Over  the  longer  term,  meaningful  prog- 
ress toward  satisfactory  regional  relation- 
ships resting  on  the  secure  independence  and 
integrity  of  each  of  the  states  of  the  area. 

Against  this  background  of  what  we  seek, 
let  us  look  now  at  the  record  of  what  has 
happened.  In  the  recent  past,  regional  trends 
as  a  whole  have  seemed   to   us   reasonably 
encouraging  from  the  political  perspective, 
while  the  reverse  is  true  on  the  economic 
front.    Turning  first  to  the  good  news,  the 
process  of  peaceful  reconciliation  of  regional 
problems  initiated  by  Mrs.  Gandhi   [Prime 
Minister  of  India  Indira  Gandhi]  and  Prime 
Minister   [of  Pakistan  Zulfikar  Ali]   Bhutto 
at  Simla  in  July   1972  has  again  been  re- 
sumed. For  a  period  after  the  Indian  nuclear 
test,    the    Simla    process    was    stalled,    but 
Indian    and    Pakistani    representatives    re- 
sumed their  talks  recently  with  discussions 
in  Islamabad  September  12-14  on  ways  to 
restore  telecommunications  and  travel  links 
existing  before  1971.  Last  year,  with  the  ac- 
tive participation  of  Bangladesh,  India  and 
Pakistan  agreed  to  a  massive  exchange  of 
POW's  and  civilians  stranded  by  the  results 
of    the    1971    Indo-Pakistani    war    and    the 
breakup  of  Pakistan.    Over  300,000  people 
were  moved,  largely  in  an  airlift  supervised 
by  the  United  Nations  High  Commissioner 
for    Refugees,    to    which    this    government 
contributed  $4.55  million.  In  related  develop- 
ments, Bangladesh  agreed  not  to  try  Paki- 
stani military  personnel  charged  with  com- 
mitting   war     crimes,    and     Pakistan     and 
Bangladesh  exchanged  mutual  diplomatic  rec- 
ognition. 

Pakistan,  Bangladesh,  and  India  have  thus 
taken  decisive  steps  to  heal  the  wounds  of 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


war  and  to  adjust  to  the  new  situation  cre- 
ated by  the  events  of  1971.  The  United 
States  welcomes  these  developments.  We 
hope  that  the  steps  already  taken  foreshadow 
further  advances  toward  a  new  era  of  re- 
gional stability. 

Some  developments,  however,  have  aroused 
old  suspicions  and  have  had  an  unsettling 
effect  on  political  relations.  Among  these 
was  the  explosion  by  India  of  an  under- 
ground nuclear  device  on  May  18.  This  event 
obviously  introduced  a  new  element  into  re- 
gional calculations,  although  it  does  not  in 
itself  alter  the  balance  of  power  in  the  area. 
The  implications  for  regional  stability  and 
the  effect  on  the  wider  issues  of  nuclear  non- 
proliferation  cannot  yet  be  fully  assessed. 
Our  own  position  is  clear :  We  will  continue 
to  support  nuclear  nonproliferation  as  a 
fundamental  element  in  our  pursuit  of  world 
peace.  We  remain  opposed  to  nuclear  pro- 
liferation because  of  the  adverse  impact  on 
regional  and  global  stability. 

A  second  source  of  concern  has  been  in- 
creased tension  between  Pakistan  and  Af- 
ghanistan. From  our  perspective,  both  sides 
seem  to  desire  a  peaceful  resolution  of  their 
differences.  An  effective  and  constructive 
dialogue,  however,  has  failed  to  develop 
either  in  public  or  in  private.  The  present 
atmosphere  is  a  source  of  concern  to  this 
government  and  to  others  who  are  friends 
of  both. 

Since  the  dramatic  events  of  1971,  how- 
ever, it  has  been  the  chronic  problems  of 
poverty,  inadequate  food  supplies,  and  un- 
checked population  growth  rather  than  poli- 
tics that  have  preempted  the  attention  of 
South  Asian  governments  and  dominated 
their  relations  with  the  outside  world.  No 
region  has  been  more  seriously  affected  or 
less  capable  of  initiating  offsetting  policies 
in  the  face  of  the  unprecedented  worldwide 
price  inflation  in  basic  commodities  such  as 
petroleum,  fertilizer,  and  food  grains.  Hard- 
est hit  has  been  Bangladesh,  where  an  un- 
precedented international  relief  and  rehabili- 
tation effort  mounted  after  independence  has 
not  yet  proved  adequate  to  create  the  condi- 
tions necessary  for  the  beginning  of  solid 


development.  Another  serious  flood  this  year 
has  further  exacerbated  an  economic  crisis 
which  will  engage  the  attention  of  this  gov- 
ernment and  other  donor  nations  at  an 
IBRD-sponsored  [International  Bank  for 
Reconstruction  and  Development]  meeting 
next  month. 

A  generally  below  normal  monsoon,  cou- 
pled with  decreased  availability  of  fertilizer, 
has  also  placed  Indian  hopes  for  food-grain 
self-sufl^ciency  in  serious  jeopardy  and  con- 
tributed to  the  stagnation  and  galloping  in- 
flation that  have  dimmed  its  economic  pros- 
pects. Of  the  major  countries  of  South 
Asia,  Pakistan  has  perhaps  managed  best  to 
moderate  the  damage  of  recent  international 
economic  events.  Pakistan's  recovery  from 
the  effects  of  both  civil  war  and  last  year's 
flood  has  been  impressive,  but  continuing 
balance  of  payments  diflficulties  cause  some 
concern. 

For  both  humanitarian  reasons  and  in  the 
interests  of  promoting  a  just  and  stable  in- 
ternational economic  system,  the  United 
States  has  continued  to  be  an  important 
participant  in  international  efforts  to  en- 
courage economic  development  in  South  Asia. 
Since  1971,  new  U.S.  aid  commitments,  in- 
cluding concessional  food  sales,  to  Bangla- 
desh and  Pakistan  have  approached  $500 
million  for  each  country.  We  have  partici- 
pated in  debt-rescheduling  exercises  for  In- 
dia and  continue  to  discuss  the  framework 
for  a  cooperative  economic  relationship  with 
that  country.  We  have  small  but  important 
assistance  programs  in  Nepal,  Sri  Lanka, 
and  Afghanistan. 

Recent  developments,  however,  have 
brought  home  as  never  before  the  point  that 
this  country  on  a  bilateral  basis  cannot  sub- 
stantially alter  the  development  prospects  of 
the  nations  of  South  Asia.  There  is  a  grow- 
ing recognition  that  these  problems  are  in- 
ternational in  scope  and  require  interna- 
tional solutions.  For  this  reason  we  have  en- 
couraged global  conferences  on  both  popula- 
tion and  food  in  a  search  for  new  ideas  and 
increased  cooperation.  On  an  urgent  basis, 
however.  South  Asia  also  needs  substantial 
direct  resource  transfers  of  the  traditional 


October   14,    1974 


521 


sort,  and  in  this,  the  burden  must  be  broadly 
shared,  inckiding  by  those  who  may  possess 
surphis  capital  as  a  result  of  recent  oil  price 
increases.  The  development  of  closer  ties,  po- 
litical as  well  as  economic,  between  Iran  and 
the  nations  of  South  Asia  is  an  important 
demonstration  of  the  potential  for  mutually 
productive  relations  between  South  Asia  and 
the  Middle  East. 

U.S.  policy  toward  each  of  the  countries  of 
South  Asia  through  this  period  has  remained 
constant  and  in  accord  with  our  broad  range 
of  interests  that  I  described  at  the  outset 
above.  Thus  in  the  case  of  India,  it  should 
have  become  clear  to  all  over  the  past  18 
months  that  we  appreciate  the  importance  to 
regional  questions  which  is  imparted  by  its 
power  and  size.  No  one  should  doubt  that  we 
wish  India  well.  As  the  Secretary  said  in  his 
confirmation  hearings : 

We  recognize  India  as  one  of  the  major  forces  in 
the  developing  world  and  as  a  country  whose  growth 
and  stability  are  absolutely  essential  to  the  peace 
and  stability  of  South  Asia. 

In  this  spirit,  we  have  joined  with  the 
Government  of  India  in  a  conscious  search 
for  the  framework  of  what  has  come  to  be 
called  a  "more  mature"  relationship.  The  at- 
mosphere surrounding  Indo-American  rela- 
tions has  improved  significantly  during  this 
period.  An  important  contributing  factor  in 
this  was  the  agreement  on  disposition  of  our 
large  holdings  of  Indian  rupees  reached  ear- 
lier this  year,  a  matter  in  which  we  con- 
sulted very  closely  with  Congress.  We  are 
now  engaged  in  a  continuing  and  serious  di- 
alogue with  the  Indian  Government  which  we 
trust  and  hope  will  result  in  putting  our  re- 
lationship on  a  solid  long-range  footing  based 
on  equality,  reciprocity,  and  mutual  inter- 
ests. This  is  a  goal  which  we  are  confident 
the  Government  of  India  also  seeks. 

The  development  of  better  relations  with 
India  need  not  be  at  the  expense  of  any  other 
nation.  In  particular,  we  intend  to  retain 
and  strengthen  our  excellent  relations  with 
Pakistan.  The  warmth  and  importance  of 
these  ties  were  demonstrated  again  during 
the  successful  official  visit  to  Washington  in 


September  1973  by  Prime  Minister  Bhutto. 
As  we  made  clear  at  that  time,  the  sover- 
eignty and  territorial  integrity  of  Pakistan 
remain  an  important  concern  of  our  foreign 
policy,  as  it  should  of  all  governments  who 
wish  to  see  stability  and  tranquillity  firmly 
established  in  the  area. 

A  stable  regional  system  must  provide  for 
the  prosperity  and  security  of  all  states,  large 
or  small.  We  are  gratified  by  the  success  of 
our  eft'orts  to  develop  good  relations  with  all 
the  nations  of  South  Asia : 

— With  the  new  nation  of  Bangladesh, 
which  we  have  this  week  warmly  welcomed 
as  a  member  of  the  United  Nations,  we  have 
been  generous.  The  long-suff'ering  Bengalee 
people  can  be  assured  of  our  continuing  sym- 
pathy and  help. 

— In  Afghanistan,  our  traditional  friend- 
ship has  withstood  the  test  of  a  transition  to 
a  new  republican  regime  under  the  leader- 
ship of  President  Mohammed  Daoud. 

— We  have  maintained  our  warm  ties,  in- 
cluding a  modest  assistance  program,  with 
the  Kingdom  of  Nepal,  whose  continued  in- 
dependent national  development  we  strongly 
support. 

— We  feel  a  special  affinity  to  Sri  Lanka  in 
its  efi'orts  to  achieve  economic  development 
while  maintaining  a  vigorous  democracy.  We 
are  heartened  by  our  continuing  friendly  re- 
lations. 

Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  committee : 
I  believe  you  will  agree  that  our  policies  to- 
ward South  Asia  are  constructive.  We  are 
concerned,  we  are  realistic,  and  we  are  de- 
termined to  play  a  role  which  complements 
rather  than  impedes  the  natural  dynamics  of 
the  region  itself.  We  place  great  stock  in  a 
frank  and  open  dialogue  with  the  leaders  of 
South  Asia — a  dialogue  which  Secretary  Kis- 
singer hopes  to  pursue  when  he  makes  his 
long-planned  visit  to  South  Asia.  We  have 
every  confidence  that  this  visit  will  give  new 
meaning  and  substance  to  our  relationship 
with  what  we  hope  will  be  an  evolving  sys- 
tem of  progressive  and  peaceful  state  rela- 
tionships in  the  region. 


522 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Protocol 
to  U.S.-U.S.S.R.  ABM  Treaty 

Message  From  President  Ford  ^ 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

I  transmit  herewith  the  Protocol  to  the 
Treaty  between  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica and  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Repub- 
lics on  the  Limitation  of  Anti-Ballistic  Mis- 
sile Systems.  This  Protocol  was  signed  in 
Moscow  on  July  3,  1974.  I  ask  the  Senate's 
advice  and  consent  to  its  ratification. 

The  provisions  of  the  Protocol  are  ex- 
plained in  detail  in  the  report  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  which  I  enclose.  The  main  ef- 
fect of  the  Protocol  is  to  limit  further  the 
level  and  potential  extent  of  ABM  deploy- 
ment permitted  by  the  1972  ABM  Treaty. 
The  Protocol  furthers  fundamental  United 
States  objectives  set  forth  in  President  Nix- 
on's message  to  the  Senate  of  June  13,  1972 
transmitting  the  Agreements  reached  at 
SALT  ONE. 

The  ABM  Treaty  prohibits  the  deployment 
of  operational  ABM  systems  or  their  com- 
ponents except  at  two  deployment  areas,  one 
centered  on  a  Party's  national  capital  area 
and  the  other  in  a  separate  area  containing 
ICBM  silo  launchers.  The  Protocol  would 
amend  the  Treaty  to  limit  each  Party  to  a 
single  ABM  deployment  area  at  any  one 
time,  which  level  is  consistent  with  the  cur- 
rent level  of  deployment.  However,  each  side 
would  retain  the  right  to  remove  its  ABM 
system  and  the  components  thereof  from 
their  present  deployment  area  and  to  deploy 
an  ABM  system  or  its  components  in  the  al- 
ternative deployment  area  permitted  by  the 
ABM  Treaty.  This  right  may  be  exercised 
only  once. 

This  Protocol  represents  a  further  advance 
in  the  stabilization  of  the  strategic  relation- 
ship between  the  United  States  and  the  So- 


viet Union.  It  reinforces  the  ABM  Treaty 
provision  that  neither  Party  will  establish 
a  nationwide  ABM  defense  or  a  base  for 
such  a  defense. 

I  believe  that  this  Protocol  strengthens  the 
ABM  Treaty  and  will,  as  an  integral  part  of 
the  Treaty,  contribute  to  the  reduction  of  in- 
ternational tension  and  a  more  secure  and 
peaceful  world  in  which  the  security  of  the 
United  States  is  fully  protected.  I  strongly 
recommend  that  the  Senate  give  it  prompt 
and  favorable  attention. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  September  19,  197 Jt. 


U.S.-Australia  Extradition  Treaty 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate 

Message  From  President  Ford  ^ 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

With  a  view  to  receiving  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate  to  ratification,  I  trans- 
mit herewith  the  Treaty  on  Extradition  be- 
tween the  United  States  of  America  and  Aus- 
tralia, signed  at  Washington  on  May  14, 
1974.  I  transmit  also,  for  the  information  of 
the  Senate,  the  report  of  the  Department 
of  State  with  respect  to  the  Treaty. 

The  Treaty  will,  upon  entry  into  force, 
terminate,  as  between  the  United  States  and 
Australia,  the  Treaty  on  Extradition  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  of  De- 
cember 22,  1931,  as  made  applicable  to  Aus- 
tralia. This  new  Treaty  represents  a  sub- 
stantial modernization  with  respect  to  the 
procedural  aspects  of  extradition. 

The  Treaty  includes  in  the  list  of  extradit- 
able offenses  several  which  are  of  prime  in- 
ternational concern,  such  as  aircraft  hijack- 
ing, narcotics  offenses,  and  conspiracy  to 
commit  listed  offenses. 


"  Transmitted  on  Sept.  19  (text  from  White  House 
press  release)  ;  also  printed  as  S.  Ex.  I.,  93d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  texts  of  the  protocol  and 
the  report  of  the  Department  of  State. 


'  Transmitted  on  Aug.  22  (text  from  White  House 
press  release);  also  printed  as  S.  Ex.  F,  93d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  text  of  the  treaty  and 
the  report  of  the  Department  of  State. 


October  14,   1974 


523 


The  Treaty  will  make  a  significant  con- 
tribution to  the  international  effort  to  control 
narcotics  traffic.  I  recommend  that  the  Sen- 
ate give  early  and  favorable  consideration  to 
the  Treaty  and  give  its  advice  and  consent 
to  ratification. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  August  22,  I97i. 


Accession    deposited:     Czechoslovakia,    April     10, 

1974. 
Acceptance  deposited:  Italy,  September  10,  1974. 


BILATERAL 

Bahamas,  The 

Agreement  relating  to  pre-sunrise  operation  of  cer- 
tain standard  broadcasting  stations.  Effected  by 
exchange  of  notes  at  Nassau  January  30  and  Sep- 
tember 4,   1974.  Entered  into  force   September  4, 

1974. 

Egypt 

A^eement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of  ag- 
ricultural commodities  of  June  7,  1974  (TIAS 
7855).  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Cairo 
September  11  and  12,  1974.  Entered  into  force 
September  12,  1974. 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


Customs 

Convention  establishing  a  Customs  Cooperation 
Council,  with  annex.  Done  at  Brussels  December 
15,  1950.  Entered  into  force  November  4,  1952; 
for  the  United  States  November  5,  1970.  TIAS 
7063. 
Accession  deposited:  Bahamas,  August  16,  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:  Turkey,  September  26, 1974. 

Sea,   Exploration  of 

Protocol   to   the   convention   of   September   12,    1964 
(TIAS  7628),  for  the  International  Council  for  the 
Exploration  of  the  Sea.  Done  at  Copenhagen  Au- 
gust 13,  1970.' 
Ratified  by  the  President:  September  18,  1974. 

Seals — Antarctic 

Convention  for  the  conservation  of  Antarctic  seals, 
with  annex  and  final  act.  Done  at  London  June  1, 
1972.' 

Ratification  deposited:  United  Kingdom,   Septem- 
ber 10,  1974.- 

Tonnage  Measurement 

International  convention  on  tonnage  measurement 
for  ships,  1969,  with  annexes.  Done  at  London 
June  23,  1969.' 


'  Not  in  force. 

-  Extended  to  Channel  Islands  and  Isle  of  Man. 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:   September  23-29 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Release  issued  prior  to  September  19  which 
appears  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  is  No.  366 
of  September  19. 

Xo.  Date  Subject 

t372  9/23  "Foreign  Relations"  volume  on 
Council  on  Foreign  Ministers; 
Germany  and  Austria;  1948 
(for  release  Sept.  30). 

Kissinger:  U.N.  General  Assem- 
bly. 

Study  Group  5  of  the  U.S.  Na- 
tional Committee  for  the  CCIR, 
Boulder,  Colo.,  Oct.  18. 

Study  Group  6  of  the  U.S.  Na- 
tional Committee  for  the  CCIR, 
Boulder,  Colo.,  Oct.  18. 

Program  for  the  state  visit  of  Ital- 
ian President  Giovanni  Leone, 
Sept.  24-29. 

North  Atlantic  airfare  negotia- 
tions. 

Kissinger,  Leone:  exchange  of 
toasts,  Sept.  25. 

Study  Group  4  of  the  U.S.  Na- 
tional Committee  for  the  CCIR, 
Oct.  24. 

Regional  foreigrn  policy  confer- 
ence, Chicago,  Oct.  16. 

Habib  sworn  in  as  Assistant  Sec- 
retary for  East  Asian  and  Pa- 
cific Affairs  (biographic  data). 
t382  9/27  U.S.  and  Jordan  sign  nonsched- 
uled  air  service  agreement  (re- 
write). 

*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


373 

9/23 

*374 

9/23 

*375 

9/23 

*376 

9/24 

t377 

9/24 

t378 

9/26 

*379 

9/26 

*380 

9/27 

*381 

9/27 

524 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


INDEX     October  U,  1974-     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  18i2 


Afghanistan.  Department  Surveys  U.S.  Policy 

and  Developments  in  South  Asia  (Atherton)       520 

Africa.  An  Age  of  Interdependence:  Common 
Disaster  or  Community  (Kissinger)     .     .     .       498 

Asia 

Department  Surveys  U.S.  Policy  and  Develop- 
ments in  South  Asia  (Atherton) 520 

President   Hails   Release   of   Mr.   Kay;   Urges 

New  Efforts  on  Indochina  MIA's  (statement)       497 

Atomic  Energy.  An  Age  of  Interdependence: 

Common  Disaster  or  Community  (Kissinger)       498 

Australia.  U.S. -Australia  Extradition  Treaty 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate  (message  from 
President   Ford) 523 

Bangladesh.  Department  Surveys  U.S.  Policy 
and  Developments  in  South  Asia  (Atherton)       520 

Congress 

Department  Surveys  U.S.  Policy  and  Develop- 
ments in  South  Asia  (Atherton) 520 

Detente  With  the  Soviet  Union:  The  Reality 
of  Competition  and  the  Imperative  of  Coop- 
eration   (Kissinger) 505 

Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Protocol  to  U.S.- 
U.S.S.R.  ABM  Treaty  (message  from  Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 

U.S. -Australia  Extradition  Treaty  Transmitted 

to  the  Senate  (message  from  President  Ford)       523 

Cyprus 

An  Age  of  Interdependence:  Common  Disaster 

or  Community  (Kissinger) 498 

AID  Donates  Additional  $3   Million  for  U.N. 

Relief  Fund  for  Cyprus 497 

Disarmament 

Detente  With  the  Soviet  Union:  The  Reality 
of  Competition  and  the  Imperative  of  Coop- 
eration   (Kissinger) 505 

Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Protocol  to  U.S.- 
U.S.S.R.  ABM  Treaty  (message  from  Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 

Economic  Affairs 

An  Age  of  Interdependence:  Common  Disaster 

or  Community  (Kissinger) 498 

Detente  With  the  Soviet  Union:  The  Reality 
of  Competition  and  the  Imperative  of  Coop- 
eration   (Kissinger) 505 

Energy 

An  Age  of  Interdependence:  Common  Disaster 

or  Community  (Kissinger) 498 

A   Global   Approach  to  the   Energy  Problem 

(Ford) 493 

Extradition.  U.S. -Australia  Extradition  Treaty 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate  (message  from 
President   Ford) 523 


Food.  An   Age   of   Interdependence:   Common 

Disaster  or  Community  (Kissinger)     .     .     .       498 

Foreign  Aid.  AID  Donates  Additional  $3  Mil- 
lion for  U.N.  Relief  Fund  for  Cyprus   .     .     .       497 

India.   Department   Surveys    U.S.    Policy   and 

Developments  in  South  Asia  (Atherton)  .     .       520 

Laos.  President  Hails  Release  of  Mr.  Kay; 
Urges  New  Efforts  on  Indochina  MIA's 
(statement) 497 

Middle    East.    An    Age    of    Interdependence: 

Common  Disaster  or  Community  (Kissinger)       498 

Nepal.   Department   Surveys   U.S.  Policy  and 

Developments  in  South  Asia  (Atherton)  .     .       520 

Pakistan.  Department  Surveys  U.S.  Policy  and 

Developments  in  South  Asia  (Atherton)  .     .       520 

Presidential  Documents 

A  Global  Approach  to  the  Energy  Problem  .  .  493 
President   Hails   Release   of   Mr.   Kay;   Urges 

New  Efforts  on  Indochina  MIA's  ....  497 
Senate   Asked   To   Approve  Protocol   to  U.S.- 

U.S.S.R.   ABM  Treaty 523 

U.S.-Australia  Extradition  Treaty  Transmitted 

to  the  Senate 523 

Sri   Lanka.  Department   Surveys  U.S.   Policy 

and  Developments  in  South  Asia  (Atherton)       520 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 524 

Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Protocol  to  U.S.- 
U.S.S.R.  ABM  Treaty  (message  from  Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 

U.S.S.R. 

Detente  With  the  Soviet  Union:  The  Reality 
of  Competition  and  the  Imperative  of  Coop- 
eration   (Kissinger) 505 

Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Protocol  to  U.S.- 
U.S.S.R.  ABM  Treaty  (message  from  Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 

United  Nations 

An  Age  of  Interdependence:  Common  Disaster 

or  Community  (Kissinger) 498 

AID  Donates   Additional  $3  Million  for  U.N. 

Relief  Fund  for  Cyprus 497 

Viet-Nam.  President  Hails  Release  of  Mr. 
Kay;  Urges  New  Efforts  on  Indochina  MIA's 
(statement) 497 

Name  Index 

Atherton,  Alfred  L.,  Jr 520 

Ford,   President 493,497,523 

Kissinger,  Secretary 498,  505 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  office 

washington,  d.c.  20402 


OFFICIAL   BUSINESS 


POSTAGE    AND    FEES   PAID 
U.S.     aoVERNMENT     PRIHTING     OFFICE 

Special   Fourth-Cfast   Rote 
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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


3 


U: 


7/ 


/S^3 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1843 


October  21,  1974 


ASSISTANT  SECRETARY  ENDERS  OUTLINES  DRAFT  AGREEMENT 

REACHED  BY  ENERGY  COORDINATING  GROUP 

Transcript  of  News  Conference     525 

PRESIDENT  LEONE  OF  ITALY  MAKES  STATE  VISIT 
TO  THE  UNITED  STATES     53i 

THE  DILEMMA  OF  CONTROLLING  THE  SPREAD  OF  NUCLEAR  WEAPONS 
WHILE  PROMOTING  PEACEFUL  TECHNOLOGY 
Address  by  Fred  C.  Ikle 
Director,  U.S.  Arms  Control  and  Disarmament  Agency    5U3 


THE   OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE   BULLETIN 


Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1843 
October  21,  1974 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

WashinEton,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

52  issues  plus  semiannual  indexes, 

domestic  $29.80.  foreign  $37.26 

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, 
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 
tite  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  tlie  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. 


ks 


Assistant  Secretary  Enders  Outlines  Draft  Agreement 
Reached  by  Energy  Coordinating  Group 


The  Energy  Coordinating  Group  (ECG) 
established  by  the  Washington  Eriergy  Con- 
ference in  Febrnary  met  at  Brussels  Septem- 
ber 19-20.  Following  is  the  transcript  of  a 
news  conference  held  at  the  Department  of 
State  on  September  23  by  Thomas  0.  Enders, 
Assistant  Secretary  for  Economic  and  Bzisi- 
ness  Affairs,  who  headed  the  U.S.  delegation 
to  the  Brussels  meeting. 

I  thought  it  would  be  useful  to  come  down 
here  and  talk  very  briefly  and  then  answer 
questions  about  the  agreement  which  has 
been  reached  in  Brussels  among  the  12  ECG 
countries — that  is  to  say,  the  European  Com- 
munity less  France,  Norway,  Japan,  the 
United  States,  and  Canada — and  which  is 
now  being  submitted  to  governments  for 
their  consideration,  their  constitutional  pro- 
cedures, and  approval. 

This  is  a  far-reaching  agreement  and  a 
far-reaching  expression  of  solidarity  among 
the  consuming  countries.  If  it  is  approved  by 
governments,  as  we  expect  it  will  be,  it  will 
form  a  very  strong  basis  of  cooperation  in 
the  energy  field  among  a  wide  range  of  in- 
dustrialized countries. 

As  such,  we  regard  it  as  a  very  important 
step  forward  and  a  very  important  conse- 
quence of  the  Washington  Energy  Confer- 
ence, which  launched  this  cooperative  work. 

I  would  like  to  go  into  some  detail  on  the 
provisions  that  it  contains.  Let  me  say  a 
word  about  the  substance  and  then  a  word 
about  the  procedure. 

On  the  substance :  I  think  the  basic  per- 
ception in  this  agreement  is  that  the  consum- 
ing countries  need  first  to  express  their  soli- 
darity by  determining  what  each  would  do 
in  a  new  oil  emergency  and  how  each  would 


support  the  oil  security  of  the  group  as  a 
whole  before  they  can  fruitfully  go  on  to 
other,  more  positive — eventually  dominant — 
elements  of  the  energy  situation,  which  in- 
clude major  joint  actions  to  conserve  energy 
and  thereby  lower  the  net  imports  of  the 
group  as  a  whole ;  research  and  development ; 
the  development  of  alternative  supplies, 
thereby  increasing  the  output  of  energy  in 
the  group  as  a  whole  and  decreasing  net  im- 
ports and  therefore  vulnerability. 

This  should  create  a  situation  in  which  the 
demand  for  and  dependence  on  imported  oil 
for  the  group  as  a  whole  will  significantly 
diminish  from  what  it  is  now. 

Now,  in  contingency  planning,  the  basic 
principle  here  is  that  each  country  in  the 
group  must  share  on  an  equitable  basis  in 
the  preparation  for  a  new  emergency.  That 
means  that  everybody  must  stockpile  oil  to 
cover  their  imports  on  the  same  basis.  And 
the  agreement  sets  a  target  of  90  days.  We 
are  very  substantially  below  that  in  many 
countries  now.  This  means  a  major  commit- 
ment on  the  part  of  Japan  and  Western  Eu- 
rope— also  to  some  degree  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States — to  carry  stocks  equivalent  to 
90  days  of  imports. 

The  second  thing  is  that  all  the  countries 
agree  to  take  similar  actions  in  a  new  emer- 
gency to  curtail  oil  consumption.  This  is 
complicated,  and  I  will  be  glad  to  go  into 
it.  But  basically  what  it  says  is  that  at  cer- 
tain levels  of  shortfall  a  given  consumption 
cut  will  take  place,  and  when  the  shortfall 
gets  deeper,  another  level  of  common  con- 
sumption cutback  will  be  called  for.  Then, 
beyond  a  certain  point,  where  no  figures  are 
foreseen,  but  where  we  get  into  a  very  se- 
vere crisis  indeed,  going  toward  cutbacks  of 


October  21,   1974 


525 


30  or  40  percent  of  available  oil,  then  there 
is  a  strong  commitment  in  the  agreement  to 
take  all  necessary  further  restrictions  in  de- 
mand and  other  actions  to  assure  the  security 
of  the  group. 

So,  this  is  a  process  which  at  the  outset 
contains  a  series  of  very  specific  commit- 
ments for  the  kind  of  crisis  that  we  had  to 
face  this  past  winter  and  a  further  general 
commitment  for  more  serious  crises  should 
they  develop. 

Thirdly,  there  is  a  formula  for  sharing  oil 
which  is  constructed  as  a  function  of  the  first 
two  commitments  in  stockpiling  and  in  con- 
sumption cutbacks.  What  it  does  is  basically 
assure  that  available  oil  is  sorted  out  as  a 
function  of  the  first  two  commitments,  so 
that  all  countries  use  their  oil  stocks,  their 
security  provisions,  in  effect,  at  about  the 
same  rate  and  no  country  will  run  out  of  oil 
sooner  than  any  other. 

To  express  this  basic  contingency  plan,  the 
12  countries  have  tentatively  agreed  that  they 
should  have  a  new  institution  which  would  be 
an  international  energy  agency,  an  autono- 
mous institution  to  be  constructed  within  the 
framework  of  the  OECD  [Organization  for 
Economic  Cooperation  and  Development], 
having  its  own  governing  council  at  minis- 
terial level  and  its  own  secretariat. 

They  have  agreed  on  a  series  of  decision- 
making provisions  which  are  important  and 
represent  a  significant  innovation  in  inter- 
national decisionmaking.  They  provide,  in 
the  case  of  action  to  overcome  an  oil  contin- 
gency, a  very  strong  presumption  of  action. 
That  is  to  say,  once  a  given  shortfall  of  oil 
is  identified,  this  shortfall  would  create  a 
presumption — in  effect  would  trigger  the 
commitments  to  demand  restraint  and  to 
sharing,  unless  a  very  strong  majority  of 
the  countries  in  the  group  were  to  vote  to 
overturn  it.  That  strong  majority  must  be 
expressed  in  terms  of  both  a  large  number 
of  the  countries  involved  and  countries  rep- 
resenting a  large  majority  of  the  oil  con- 
sumption of  the  group.  It  would  take,  in  ef- 
fect, 60  percent  of  the  weighted  votes,  and 
the  weighting  is  calculated  in  such  a  manner 
that  out  of  a  total  of  136  votes  of  the  group, 


oil  votes  weighted  on  consumption  count  for 
100  with  the  remainder  allocated  three  per 
country. 

This  voting  system  is  complex  in  its  exe- 
cution but  relatively  simple  in  its  concept, 
and  the  idea  is  that  there  should  be  a  very 
strong  presumption  that  this  machinery 
comes  into  effect  in  a  crisis. 

Another  aspect  of  that  voting  machinery 
is  that  it  also  can  be  used  for  all  of  the  or- 
dinary business  of  the  group,  so  that  the 
ability  of  the  group  to  interpret  its  under- 
takings, to  act  on  what  it  thinks  its  basic 
agreement  means — and  this  is  a  carefully 
written  agreement  which  runs  now  to  82  ar- 
ticles and  is  quite  fully  laid  out — should  also 
be  very  strong. 

Now,  thirdly,  with  regard  to  the  contin- 
gency plan  itself,  there  is  provision  for  both 
protection  against  a  general  embargo  affect- 
ing the  group  as  a  whole  and  for  protection 
against  a  selective  embargo,  which  might 
target  one  or  two  countries,  as  the  United 
States  and  Holland  were  targeted  last  win- 
ter. This  pi'ovision  also  creates  a  strong  pre- 
sumption of  action,  once  the  shortfall  is  iden- 
tified. This,  too,  could  be  overturned,  but  only 
by  a  very  strong  majority  vote.  In  this  case, 
it  would  require  10  countries. 

I  should  note  that  because  of  the  structure 
of  the  American  oil  market,  with  most  of  the 
imports  coming  into  the  east  coast — and  this 
is  also  true  of  Canada — there  is  a  separate 
provision  that  this  selective  trigger  can  be 
used  in  regard  to  a  regional  market  of  a 
given  country,  as  well  as  to  the  national 
market.  So  there  is,  in  effect,  built-in  protec- 
tion for  the  east  coast  of  the  United  States 
and  the  east  coast  of  Canada. 

Now,  this  contingency  plan  is  the  heart  of 
the  international  energy  program  which  has 
been  agreed  at  this  stage,  but  does  not  ex- 
haust it  and  is  regarded  as  a  first  stage. 

The  plan  now  contains  the  following  other 
elements : 

— One,  a  broad  program  of  cooperative  re- 
search and  development  which  is  to  be  guided 
by  the  new  energy  agency  and  undertaken 
partly  on  the  basis  of  national   groupings 


526 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


with  one  individual  member  in  the  lead  and 
partly  on  the  basis  of  cooperative  research  to 
be  done  through  the  OECD  itself  by,  if  not 
by  the  whole  group,  by  any  collection  of 
countries  in  the  group. 

— Secondly,  there  will  be  a  broad  program 
of  conservation  which  is  to  be  undertaken  by 
this  group.  They  will  attempt  to  develop  in 
the  group  national  policies  which  will  assist 
conservation  in  each  country  through  an  ex- 
change of  information  and  the  identification 
of  priorities. 

— Thirdly,  we  expect  to  concentrate  on 
some  specific  problem  such  as  nuclear  en- 
richment— how  to  provide  the  nuclear  en- 
richment services  which  will  be  required  for 
the  group  as  a  whole  in  the  course  of  the 
next  15  or  20  years  by  the  location  and  de- 
velopment of  additional  nuclear  enrichment 
facilities. 

— Fourthly,  we  expect  to  have  under  this 
program  a  broad  new  eff'ort  at  predicting  the 
demand  and  supply  for  energy,  in  an  effort 
to  put  planning  on  a  surer  footing  than  it 
now  is. 

Now,  turning  to  the  procedure,  as  I  say, 
this  agreement  is  a  tentative  agreement.  It 
is,  in  technical  jargon,  an  agreement  "with- 
out brackets" — without  reservations  on  the 
part  of  national  delegations.  It  is  submitted 
now  for  formal  consideration  and  decision 
by  member  governments.  Many  of  them  will 
be  talking  to  their  parliaments.  We  have 
talked  already  quite  broadly  on  the  Hill  but 
will  expect  to  do  more  of  that  now. 

This  undertaking  will  be  open  to  new  mem- 
bers, provided  they  are  also  members  of  the 
Organization  for  Economic  Development  and 
Cooperation,  the  OECD.  And  toward  the  end 
of  October,  we  expect  to  be  initialing  this 
agreement,  bringing  it  provisionally  into 
force.  We  expect  that  in  the  course  of  No- 
vember there  will  be  a  decision  by  the  OECD 
as  to  whether  or  not  they  wish  to  accept  this 
organization  in  their  framework,  and  subse- 
quently, we  would  expect  the  organization 
to  be  created. 

I  think  the  most  important  thing  that  has 
come  out  of  this  work  is  the  beginning  of  an 


expression  by  the  consuming  countries  to 
consider  their  destiny  and  their  security  as 
energy  consumers  together.  This  is  expressed 
in  many  ways — in  the  contingency  provi- 
sions, in  the  majority  voting,  in  the  very 
strong  commitments  undertaken  to  improve 
their  security. 

Looking  toward  the  future,  though,  this  is 
an  arrangement  which  is  intended  to  be  the 
base  for  working  on  the  really  important  and 
positive  aspects  of  the  problem,  of  which  the 
most  immediate  is  conservation. 

I  think  it  is  obvious  that  the  conservation 
effort  undertaken  by  the  members  of  this 
group  of  12  countries,  or  by  any  industrial- 
ized countries,  has  been  very  limited  and 
that  the  group  remains  vulnerable  as  a  whole 
to  new  cutbacks  due  to  the  fact  that  it  has 
not  slowed  down  very  significantly  its  en- 
ergy consumption.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we 
saw  recently  in  the  case  of  the  United  States 
that  gasoline  consumption  for  the  first  time 
in  a  year  was  over  its  level  of  12  months  ear- 
lier. 

This  will  be  certainly  one  of  the  great  tasks 
for  this  winter  in  all  the  industrialized  coun- 
tries and,  we  would  expect,  in  the  organiza- 
tion created  by  this  undertaking. 

That,  in  general,  is  where  we  are  now.  Let 
me  see  whether  I  can  answer  your  questions. 

Q.  Mr.  Enders,  reports  from  Brussels, 
which  are  four  days  old  already,  mention  7 
percent  as  the  threshold.  I  don't  think  you 
mentioned  this  percentage. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  No.  If  you 
like  the  detail,  it  is  as  follows. 

The  threshold  for  either  a  selective  em- 
bargo or  for  a  general  embargo  for  the  gi'oup 
as  a  whole  is -7  percent.  When  there  is  a  7 
percent  shortfall,  there  would  be  a  commit- 
ment to  a  7  percent  curtailment  of  oil  con- 
sumption in  all  the  countries,  or  in  the  case 
of  a  selective  embargo  which  would  not  re- 
quire such  a  general  curtailment  of  demand, 
an  equivalent  sharing  mechanism  and  com- 
mitment. 

The  next  trigger  level  is  at  12  percent. 
When  the  shortfall  for  the  group  as  a  whole 
is  at  12  percent,  there  is  a  commitment  to 


October  21,    1974 


527 


take  demand  restraint  measures  at  the  10 
percent  level.  The  idea  is  that  one  would  also 
use  some  stocks  in  between  to  cover  the 
shortfall. 

There  is  a  further  general  commitment 
that  .should  the  shortfalls  exceed  12  percent 
the  group  would  take  the  actions  necessary 
to  overcome  the  situation,  including  addi- 
tional demand  restraint  as  required. 

Q.  Mr.  Enders,  is  it  the  premise  that  an 
active  and  snccessftd  conservation  program 
ivould  eventually  have  an  impact  on  driving 
down  the  price? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  I  would  put 
it  the  other  way  around,  that  if  the  price  of 
oil  remains  at  its  present  level  there  will  be — 
there  is  already — such  massive  investment 
in  alternative  sources  of  energy  that  the 
market  for  imported  oil  from  outside  this 
group  will,  10  years  from  now,  be  very  small 
indeed. 

A  conservation  effort  would  tend  to  result 
in  a  much  more  even  progression  of  prices 
and  demand.  A  major  conservation  effort 
here,  I  think,  would  convince  the  producers 
in  much  shorter  order  than  they  may  other- 
wise be  convinced  that  their  present  prices 
are  unrealistic  and  unsustainable. 

Q.  Is  it  possible  to  get  specific  at  all  about 
the  dimensions  of  conservation  approaches 
which  ivere  considered,  or  is  this  in  a  very 
generalized  form?  Is  there  any  estimation 
of  what  is  contemplated  in  terms,  say,  of  cut- 
back in  gasoline  consumption  for  automobiles 
or  oil  consumption  for  heating? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Under  this 
agreement  ? 

Q.  Yes. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  The  choice 
of  conservation  measures  would  have  to  be 
left  to  each  country  to  do.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  group  as  a  whole  would  have  to  be  satis- 
fied that  the  measures  that  were  available 
on  a  standby  basis  would  be  adequate. 

Now,  in  the  case  of  the  United  States 
there  are  two  things  to  be  said.  One  is  that 
if  the  United  States  had  to  execute  this  agree- 
ment in  the  relatively  near  future  it  would 


have  the  authority  in  the  Allocation  Act  and 
in  other  acts  to  do  it — probably  by  creating 
a  situation  like  the  one  that  prevailed  last 
winter,  using  gas  lines  as  an  informal,  and 
often  very  inequitable,  form  of  rationing. 

Therefore  we  expect  to  be  going  to  the 
Congress  at  a  point,  probably  at  the  start  of 
the  next  session  but  conceivably  later  this 
year,  to  propose  a  broad  set  of  standby  au- 
thorities in  demand  restraint  which  might  in- 
clude a  spectrum  of  things  ranging  from  al- 
location authority,  changes  in  such  demand 
restraint  measures  as  speed  limits,  thermo- 
stat regulation — a  whole  series  of  adminis- 
trative measures  of  this  kind — through  to 
emergency  tax  measures  and  rationing  to 
give  the  administration  the  kind  of  broad 
standby  authority  to  achieve  these  goals  on 
what  we  would  regard  as  a  more  equitable 
basis  than  could  be  done  at  present. 

Q.  Is  all  this  in  the  laiv  now,  this  author- 
ity for  allocation? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  The  alloca- 
tion authority  is  there  now. 

Q.  Rationing? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  No.  Or  at 
least  it's  uncertain  just  how  strong  it  is. 

Q.  What  is  the  likelihood  of  bringing 
France,  and  for  that  matter  Japan  as  well, 
into  this  agreement? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  France  has 
not  participated  in  these  talks.  The  French 
Government  has  not  given  us  its  studied, 
considered  view  on  how  it  might  relate  to 
this  work.  We  are  still  hopeful  that  some- 
time in  the  future  France  will  join  this  ef- 
fort. And  I  think  that  the  transfer  of  this 
whole  effort  from  a  separate  country  group- 
ing, the  Energy  Coordinating  Group,  toward 
the  OECD  may  be  helpful  to  France  in  com- 
ing in. 

Let  me  note  in  this  regard  that  a  number 
of  other  countries  have  expressed  an  interest 
in  this  work — Australia,  New  Zealand,  Spain, 
Switzerland,  Sweden,  Austria — so  that  we 
would  expect  that  there  will  be  at  least  sev- 
eral new  members.  It's  not  certain  whether 
France  will  be  among  them  yet. 


528 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


As  to  Japan,  again  I  don't  want  to  pre- 
judge the  Japanese  decisionmaking  proc- 
esses, but  certainly  their  attitude  toward 
these  negotiations,  toward  the  conclusion, 
and  toward  the  prospect  has  been  very  posi- 
tive. 

Q.  What  about  Norivay? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Norway.  I 
would  not,  again,  speak  specifically  to  Nor- 
way. They  have  accepted  this  draft  on  the 
same  ad  referendum  basis  as  other  coun- 
tries. Their  position  is  formally  no  different 
from  others. 

I  think  we  know  that  all  foreign  policy 
issues,  and  particularly  all  oil  issues,  have  a 
particular  importance — perhaps  a  particular 
delicacy — in  Norway  at  this  time.  They  will 
be  in  the  process  of  making  their  decision  in 
the  course  of  the  next  month. 

I  don't  think  I  .should  really  comment  on  it 
more  than  that,  other  than  to  say  that  they 
are  exactly  at  the  same  point  in  terms  of  ne- 
gotiating as  the  other  countries. 

Q.  Mr.  Enders,  coidd  you  explain  the  shar- 
ing mechanism  a  bit  further?  It's  unclear  to 
me  ivhether  it  would  be  triggered  only  in  the 
case  of  a  selective  embargo  so  that  there 
would  be  sharing  of  oil  in  the  international 
marketplace  or  ivhether  the  oil  to  be  shared 
would  include  oil  produced  from  national  re- 
sources for  national  2fses;  in  other  loords, 
U.S.  oil  which  does  not  normally  go  into  the 
international  marketplace. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Oil  to  be 
shared  would  come  from  three  sources :  one, 
oil  normally  imported  from  outside  the  group 
into  the  group;  secondly,  oil  drawn  from 
stocks  on  an  agreed  basis;  and  thirdly,  all 
domestically  produced  oil. 

Q.  And  you  have  different  percentage  lev- 
els? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  For  each? 

Q.  For  each. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  No,  they  are 
considered  as  a  pool. 

Q.  They  are  all  as  a  pool? 


Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  as  a  realistic  ^natter,  at  the  lower 
shortfall  percentages  you  ivould  not  be  going 
into  the  third  reservoir,  ivould  you?  I  mean 
that  ivould  be  more  or  less  taken  up  from  the 
oil  that's  in  the  international  marketplace, 
tvonldn't  it?  In  other  words,  at  ivhat  level 
would  you  actually  be  getting  to  a  point 
ivhere  a  yiation  that  no  longer  exports  oil  on 
a  net  basis,  such  as  the  United  States,  ivould 
have  to  sta7't  sharing  some  of  that  oil? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Well,  this 
would  occur  only  in  a  very  severe  crisis,  un- 
der the  agreed  arrangement. 

Q.  Is  there  at  present  a  set  of  percentage 
triggers  that  would  move  the  group  from 
one  level? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Only  the  ones 
that  I  have  cited.  In  other  words,  oil  is 
treated  as  one  pool  for  the  purposes  of  this 
agreement.  There  is  no  differentiation  be- 
tween domestically  produced  oil,  imported 
oil,  and  oil  drawn  from  stocks.  And  the  trig- 
gers that  are  available  are  the  ones  that  I 
have  cited  here — 7  percent,  12  percent,  the 
ones  which  are  available. 

Now,  in  point  of  fact,  in  the  sort  of  crisis 
that  we  had  last  winter,  then  of  course  one 
would  share  available  stocks  and  imported 
oil. 

During  a  very  severe  crisis,  if  there  were 
to  be  a  total  shutdown  of  OPEC  [Organi- 
zation of  Petroleum  Exporting  Countries] 
production,  then  you  would  get  some  sharing 
of  American  oil. 

Q.  It  depends  on  the  length  of  the  crisis. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  It  depends  on 
the  depth,  too. 

Q.  If  there  is  a  selective  embargo,  boycott, 
as  against,  say,  two  countries,  as  there  was 
in  October,  then  the  other  countries  involved, 
ones  engaged  in  the  sharing  of  their  oil, 
would  obviously  become  exposed  to  retalia- 
tory measures  from  the  oil  producers  in  the 
normal  course  of  events? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Oh,  I  think 
that  is  true.  I  think  the  selective  embargo  is 


October  21,   1974 


529 


by  nature  a  very  aggressive  act.  And  I  think 
one  of  the  important  aspects  of  this  is  that 
it  would  provide  group  solidarity  against 
that.  I  think  that's  a  fundamental  principle. 

Q.  Besides  group  solidarity,  I'm  under  the 
impression  that  the  agreement  doesn't  con- 
tain anything  in  the  way  of  joint  considta- 
tion,  negotiation,  or  contact  with  the  pro- 
ducers. Why? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Yes,  it  does. 

Q.  It  does? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Yes,  it  does. 
A  chapter  of  the  agreement,  one  out  of  10 
chapters  in  the  agreement,  is  devoted  to  the 
process  of  consultation  with  the  producers. 
And  it  contains  there  a  strong  commitment 
to  explore  ways  of  developing  the  dialogue 
with  producers. 

I  should  add  that  there's  another  provision 
of  it  that  I've  overlooked,  and  that  is  that 
the  international  oil  companies — and  that  in- 
cludes not  only  the  majors  but  major  na- 
tional oil  companies — are  to  provide  to  this 
new  organization  a  range  of  information  on 
their  activities  including  their  pricing  and  fi- 
nancial structure,  which  are  important  mat- 
ters of  national  policymaking. 

Q.  Well,  could  you  clarify  that  point?  Does 
it  specifically  provide  for  considtation  by  the 
consuming  nations  on  oil  pricing  per  se? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  No,  it  does 
not  provide  for  consultation  on  oil  pricing 
per  se.  The  language  is  more  broadly  drawn. 

Q.  Mr.  Enders,  on  a  question  of  the  stock- 
pile provisions — 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Yes. 

Q.  — in  terms  of  available  supplies  right 
now,  how  long  ivotdd  curreyit  stockpiles  last? 
And,  also,  how  long  would  it  take — 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  It  depends  on 
how  deep  the  cut  is. 

Q.  — how  long  woidd  it  take  to  build  tip 
stockpiles  so  that  they'd  last  for  90  days? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  It's  very  dif- 


ficult to  answer  those  questions  in  the  ab- 
stract, because  it  depends  on  what  kind  of  a 
cut  you  have.  But  I  think  you  can  get  some 
idea  from  the  following. 

A  few  Europeans  have  75  days  of  stocks; 
most  have  closer  to  60  days  of  true  emer- 
gency stocks,  or  maybe  even  less.  The  Jap- 
anese have  60  days  of  stocks  at  the  present 
time,  but  how  much  of  those  are  pure  emer- 
gency stocks  in  the  sense  that  they  could  be 
withdrawn  and  used  without  the  system 
breaking  down  in  the  sense  that  there  were 
major  stock  shortages  throughout  the  econ- 
omy is  not  entirely  clear. 

I  thirk  the  important  thing  to  say  here  is 
that  there  will  be  a  substantial  new  demand 
for  oil  in  order  to  build  those  stocks  up  to 
90  days  of  true  emergency  stocks,  and  that 
will  take  probably  several  years. 

Q.  How  large  is  the  U.S.  stock? 

Assista)it  Secretary  Enders:  On  this  basis, 
we  think  that  overall  U.S.  stocks  are  cur- 
rently about  110  days  of  imports.  However, 
the  true  emergency  element  in  that  is  sub- 
stantially smaller.  I  can't  give  you  a  specific 
figure;  but  it  is  definitely  less. 

Q.  Because  of  domestic  production? 

Assista)tt  Secretary  Enders:  Well,  of 
course,  the  fact  that  we  have  domestic  pro- 
duction means  that  we  haven't  carried  emer- 
gency stocks  in  the  same  way  other  countries 
have. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  complicated 
engineering  matter  we  still  haven't  got  a 
clear  fix  on,  as  to  just  where  the  collapse 
point  is  of  the  system.  Once  we  can  identify 
that,  we  can  answer  this  kind  of  question 
for  the  group  as  a  whole. 

Q.  Is  this  in  the  case  of  the  90-day  stocks? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  In  the  case  of 
individual  countries,  that  is  again  a  matter 
that  has  to  be  determined  for  each  country. 

Q.  In  our  case,  would  it  be  government 
stocks  or  would  it  be  oil  company  stocks? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  That  is  a  mat- 
ter in  which  we  have  yet  to  make  a  proposal. 


530 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


That   would  be  included   in   our   legislative 
package  for  this  fall. 

Q.  hi  practical  terms,  you  mean  it's  un- 
clear whether  the  naval  petroleum  reserves 
tvould  he  counted.  Is  that  ivhat  you're  say- 
ing ? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  No.  There's 
another  detail  of  it  that  I've  not  mentioned. 
And  that  is  that  standby  production  can  be 
counted  against  these  stock  totals  under  the 
terms  of  the  agreement  on  a  basis  which  has 
been  agreed — a  rather  complicated  formula — 
which  takes  account  both  of  the  lag  in  bring- 
ing in  standby  production  in  the  course  of  a 
crisis  and  of  the  fact  that  of  course  standby 
production  will  last  you  much  longer  than 
stocks  will.  So  that  standby  production  for 
a  country  like  the  United  States — Norway, 
prospectively — Great  Britain,  Canada — sure- 
ly can  count  against  the  stock  total. 

Q.  If  it  takes  several  years,  as  I  iinder- 
stood  you  to  say,  to  build  tip  to  the  90-day 
stocks  in  most  countries,  doesn't  that  also 
mean  that  it  will  be  several  years  before  the 
tisefid  impact  of  this  plan  is  felt? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Before  its 
full  impact  is  felt — yes. 

The  question  of  how  rapidly  you  go  up  on 
stocks  is  a  question  of  what  the  price  impact 
would  be.  Obviously,  a  major  new  demand 
for  oil  in  the  world  at  the  present  time,  at  a 
time  when  the  OPEC  countries  are  making 
an  effort  to  sustain  a  price  that  is  threatened 
by  an  incipient  surplus,  would  tend  to  have  a 
price-strengthening  effect — which  is  not  de- 
sired, surely,  by  the  consumers.  Therefore 
we  would  expect  that  the  stockpiling  would 
occur  over  a  certain  length  of  time. 

Q.  Is  this  agreement  in  itself  subject  to 
Senate  confirmation? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  What  we  have 
told  our  contacts  on  the  Hill  is  that  given  the 
fact  that  a  broad  program  of  legislation 
would,  we  think,  be  desirable  and  required  to 
put  it  into  effect,  we  have  proposed  that 
the  agreement  itself  be  an  executive  agree- 
ment— and  of  course  it  would  be  submitted 


to  lay  before  the  Congress  in  the  normal 
manner — and  then  we'd  come  in  with  a  pack- 
age of  implementing  legislation  which  would 
be  acted  on  in  a  normal  way. 

Q.  Do  your  contacts  on  the  Hill  under- 
stand that  the  implementing  legislation  per- 
haps ivould  involve  rationirig  authority  and 
tax  changes? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Yes,  they  do. 

Q.  And  they're  favorable  to  them? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Well,  in  prin- 
ciple. They  obviously  are  going  to  look  very 
closely  at  the  package  that  comes  up,  and 
nobody  in  advance  of  an  agreement  of  this 
kind  is  going  to  commit  himself. 

This  is  why  we  have  had  extensive  consul- 
tations so  far,  and  will  again  have,  before 
going  back  and  committing  ourselves  by  ini- 
tialing. Then  we  would  envisage  the  further 
legislative  process. 

Let  me  say  that  in  this  regard,  though,  I 
think  a  great  many  people  on  the  Hill,  in  the 
public — as  well  as  in  the  administration — 
feel  that  we  ought  to  be  doing  something 
about  this  problem.  And  I  think  that  the  no- 
tion that  we  must  diminish  our  vulnerability 
by  means  of  this  kind  and  by  means  of  con- 
servation is  a  very  widely  held  view. 

Q.  I'm  not  sure  of  the  chronology.  Are 
you  going  to  go  before  Congress  for  the  im- 
plementing legislation  before  you  sign  the 
agreement  or  what? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  No.  I  think, 
legally,  the  way  this  would  be  set  up  would 
be  to  have  an  initialing — which  is,  basically, 
a  commitment  in  principle,  or  the  equivalent, 
a  political  commitment  rather  than  a  legal 
commitment — sometime  in  the  course  of  the 
fall.  And  then  countries  would  be  asked  to 
submit  a  certification  that  they  had  under- 
taken all  necessary  ratification  and  had  all 
necessary  authority  to  execute  the  agreement 
within  a  certain  time  period. 

Q.  Is  this  proposal  intended  to  be  dis- 
cussed this  coming  weekend  when  France's 
Foreign  [and  Finance]  Minister's  are  here? 


October  21,   1974 


531 


Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  That's  an  in- 
teresting— sort  of  a  backdoor — question  on 
that!  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Really. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  I'm  sorry 
that  I  really  can't  get  into  the  question  about 
a  meeting  this  weekend — 

Q.  Why? 

Q.  Well,  there  have  already  been  public 
references  that  a  meeting  Saturday  and  Sun- 
day will  take  place. 

Assistant  Secfetary  Enders:  — other  than 
to  say  that  such  a  meeting  is  being  worked 
out.  But  as  to  whether  it  will  in  fact  occur 
and  how  it's  going  to  occur,  what  might 
happen —  [laughter]. 

Q.  You  referred  to  an  agreement  of  82 
articles.  What  is  tlie  volume  size  of  this 
agreement  here?  Is  it  something  in  30-40 
pages?  I'm  just  trying  to  get  an  approxima- 
tion of  what  it  is. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Well,  I  can't 
really  tell,  to  tell  you  the  truth,  because  I 
think  each  of  the  articles  has  been  written 
on  a  separate  page  at  this  time. 

Q.  Mr.  Enders,  what  about  the  weight  of 
the  votes?  How  many  votes  does  the  United 
States  have,  for  instance? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Each  coun- 
try would  have  three  votes  under  this  pro- 
posal, and  then  100  votes  would  be  allocated 
to  the  group  for  oil  consumption.  And  of 
that  total,  I  think  the  United  States  has  51. 
So  it  makes  the  U.S.  vote  54. 

Q.  Mr.  Enders,  is  there  anything  in  this 
program  in  a  broad,  general  sense  that  you 
think  would  help  drive  down  the  price  of  oil? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  The  purpose 
of  this  program  is,  in  the  first  instance,  de- 
fensive. The  oil  crisis — oil  embargoes  of  last 
winter — caught  the  industrial  countries  very 
much  unprepared.  And  the  result  was  an 
extraordinary  increase  in  prices  and  a  lot 
of  political  friction  and  competition  among 
them. 


The  first  objective  of  this  agreement  is  to 
create  a  situation  in  which  a  new  shortfall  in 
oil  could  be  handled  by  those  countries  with- 
out that  extraordinary  increase  in  prices, 
the  competition,  and  the  friction — to  enable 
them  to  adjust  to  it  in  a  rational  manner, 
should  it  occur. 

Beyond  that,  of  course,  this  is  an  expres- 
sion of  the  solidarity  of  the  consuming  coun- 
tries and  a  first  step  toward  their  doing 
something  about  their  basic  energy  predica- 
ment— about  the  fact  that  they  are  more 
vulnerable  than  they  would  wish  to  be,  and 
they  should  be,  to  foreign  imports. 

But  the  next  steps,  as  I  think  I  said  before, 
are  in  terms  of  changing  the  demand-supply 
balance,  getting  prices  down.  The  next  steps 
are  the  important  ones. 

Q.  I'd  like  to  ask  just  a  variation  of  a 
question  I  asked  earlier  in  terms  of  a  selec- 
tive boycott  or  embargo.  Wouldn't  the  net 
effect  of  this  be  that  if  a  selective  boycott 
ivere  attempted,  the  countries  imposing  the 
boycott  would  be  faced  with  the  probability 
that  there  would  have  to  be  a  general  boycott 
against  all  these  countries,  or  not,  because 
of  the  sharing  arrangement? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  Well,  I  think 
that  what  you  say  suggests  that  you  can't 
have  solidarity  without  facing  up  to  that 
danger.  In  effect,  what  the  solidarity  means 
is  that  producing  countries  cannot  target 
individual  countries  without  expecting  that 
their  embargo  will  be  offset  by  this  solidar- 
ity; and  it  raises  that  possibility.  As  such, 
I  would  expect  it  to  be  some  deterrent  to 
action  of  that  kind. 

Q.  I'm  not  clear  yet,  Mr.  Enders.  You  said 
something  about  the  enabling  legislation 
would  go  to  Congress  either  later  this  year 
or  early  next  year. 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  That's  right. 
A  decision  hasn't  been  made. 

Q.  Coidd  we  properly  report  then  the  Ford 
administration  is  going  to  ask  Congress  for 
rationing  authority  either  later  this  year  or 
early  next  year? 


532 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  I  use  the 
word  "rationing"  as  illustrative.  We  have 
not  yet  determined  the  kinds  of  authority  we 
wish  to  have  under  the  heading  of  demand 
restraint.  There's  a  very  broad  range  of 
possibilities.  And  one  possibility  for  the  Ford 
administration  would  be  to  ask  for  some 
standby  authority  in  each  of  the  categories 
I  mentioned.  Another,  of  course,  would  be 
to  ask  for  some  specific  authority  in  a  given 
situation. 

Let  me  just  repeat  that  certainly  tax  au- 
thority, standby  authority  to  raise  the  prices 
of  petroleum  products — which  would  have  a 
similar  effect — administrative  measures  such 
as  changing  speed  limits,  limits  on  thermo- 
stat settings,  as  well  as  rationing,  are  all 
potential  possibilities.  And  these  would  be 
on  a  standby  basis. 

Q.  I'm  interested  in  the  ivhole  question  of 
conservation  and  ivhether  there  is  unanimity 
of  view  about  the  need  to  think  seriously 
about  it  throughout  the  government.  And 
my  question  is  really  based  on  the  publicly 
expressed  attitudes  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  who  has  been  going  around  talk- 
ing about  oil  surpluses  and  prices  going 
doivn  and  "Don't  worry  too  much  about  this, 
fellows.  It  ivill  all  go  away."  Now,  are  you 
speaking  today  for  the  ivhole  government  or 
for  part  of  it? 

Assistant  Secretary  Enders:  With  all  due 
respect,  you've  set  up  a  strawman  whom  I 
can't  recognize  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury. I  could  not  answer  to  that.  For  his 
views,  you  can  ask  him  his  views  now.  But 
they  don't  in  my  view,  as  I  understand 
him,  correspond  to  what  you  said. 

As  to  the  question  of  conservation,  that 
clearly  is  one  of  the  major  items  that  must 
be  included  and  which  is  under  serious  study 


in  Project  Independence.  I'm  not  attempt- 
ing to  prejudge  what  measures  the  adminis- 
tration will  adopt  to  accomplish  that  goal; 
but  I  think  its  goal  is  very  clear,  has  been 
very  clear,  from  the  start  of  Project  Inde- 
pendence— that  this  must  be  a  major  part  of 
reducing  our  dependence  on  imported  oil. 


United   States   Extends   Recognition 
to  Republic  of  Guinea-Bissau 

Following  is  the  text  of  a  letter  from  Pres- 
ident Ford  sent  on  September  10  to  Luis  de 
Almeida  Cabral,  President  of  the  Council  of 
State  of  the  Republic  of  Guinea-Bissau. 

Dear  Mr.  President  :  I  am  pleased  to  in- 
form you  that  the  United  States  Government 
extends  recognition  to  the  Republic  of  Guin- 
ea-Bissau. It  is  our  hope,  with  your  agree- 
ment, that  diplomatic  relations  can  be  estab- 
lished between  our  countries. 

We  congratulate  your  leaders  and  their 
Portuguese  colleagues  on  the  wise  statesman- 
ship, patience  and  depth  of  vision  they  have 
demonstrated  in  their  negotiations. 

In  extending  the  congratulations  of  my 
country,  I  speak  for  a  people  who  share  with 
the  people  of  Guinea-Bissau  the  knowledge 
that  hard-won  individual  liberty  and  inde- 
pendence can  be  preserved  only  by  unremit- 
ting labor  and  great  sacrifice. 

In  the  coming  days  we  wish  to  strengthen 
and  multiply  our  bonds  of  friendship  with 
the  Government  and  people  of  Guinea-Bissau. 
I  am  confident  of  a  future  in  which  our  two 
peoples  shall  work  together  in  the  cause  of 
freedom,  peace  and  the  welfare  of  mankind. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 


October  21,    1974 


533 


President  Leone  of  Italy  Makes  State  Visit  to  the  United  States 


Giovanni  Leone,  President  of  the  Italian 
Republic,  made  a  state  visit  to  the  United 
States  September  25-29.  He  met  with  Presi- 
dent Ford  and  other  government  officials  in 
Washington  September  25-26.  Following  are 
an  exchange  of  greetings  between  President 
Ford  and  President  Leone  at  a  welcoming 
ceremony  on  the  South  Lawn  of  the  White 
Honse  on  September  25,  their  exchange  of 
toasts  at  a  dimmer  at  the  White  Hotise  that 
evening,  and  an  exchange  of  toasts  between 
Secretary  Kissinger  and  President  Leone  at 
a  luncheon  that  day,  together  with  the  text 
of  a  joint  statement  issued  September  26. 


REMARKS  AT  WELCOMING  CEREMONY 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Sept.  30 

President  Ford 

Mr.  President,  and  ladies  and  gentlemen: 
Mr.  President,  I  warmly  welcome  you  to  the 
United  States  of  America.  I  warmly  welcome 
you  on  behalf  of  all  Americans  who  are 
deeply  grateful  for  the  gifts  of  genius  and 
beauty  your  country  has  given  to  all  man- 
kind. On  behalf  of  the  millions  and  millions 
of  Americans  who  are  proud  to  claim  Italy  as 
their  ancestral  homeland,  I  welcome  you 
with  a  very  special  family  affection. 

You,  Mr.  President,  are  an  honored  leader 
of  one  of  America's  truest  allies.  In  the  past 
three  decades,  America  has  been  very,  very 
proud  to  have  been  associated  with  Italy  in 
your  successful  efforts  to  build  a  democratic 
industrial  society.  I  assure  you,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, of  America's  continued  commitment  to 
a  stable,  free,  and  democratic  Italy. 

I  also  wish  to  restate  most  emphatically 
our  intention  to  work  closely  with  your  coun- 


try in  strengthening  Atlantic  cooperation 
and  Atlantic  security.  I  think  we  must  all 
admit  that  the  road  will  not  be  easy.  The 
problems  of  inflation  and  of  assuring  equita- 
ble access  to  fairly  priced  resources,  for  ex- 
ample, threaten  the  stability  of  every  econ- 
omy and  the  welfare  of  people  in  developed 
as  well  as  in  developing  countries  alike.  The 
very — very  nature  of  these  problems  defies 
solution  by  unilateral  measures. 

Mr.  President,  I  look  forward  to  our  dis- 
cussions over  the  next  two  days.  I  am  confi- 
dent that  our  talks  will  contribute  to  our  mu- 
tual efforts  to  secure  peace  for  all  nations  of 
the  world.  There  is  no  doubt  that  they  will 
serve  to  reinforce  the  ties  that  have  bound 
our  friendship  over  the  many  years. 

Mr.  President,  you  are  most  welcome  to 
America. 

President   Leone  ^ 

Mr.  President :  I  thank  you  for  the  invita- 
tion that  you  extended  to  me  immediately  af- 
ter taking  over  your  high  office  as  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  thus  con- 
firming an  invitation  I  had  received  last 
year.  Thank  you  for  the  warm  welcome  you 
have  given  me  and  for  the  kind  words  of 
welcome  that  you  have  just  spoken. 

It  is  a  great  honor  for  me  to  represent 
Italy  on  this  official  visit  to  this  great  coun- 
try, which  is  striking  in  its  vitality  and  crea- 
tive capacity,  which  is  in  the  vanguard  of 
progress,  which  is  strong  in  its  democratic 
institutions  which  date  back  to  the  birth  of 
a  free  nation. 

And  it  is  precisely  to  celebrate  with  just 
pride  the  birth  of  a  free  nation  that  you  are 


■  President  Leone  spoke  in  Italian  on  all  occasions. 


534 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


about  to  celebrate  the  bicentennial  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  which  also  car- 
ries the  signature  of  an  Italian,  Guglielmo 
Paca. 

It  is  an  historic  and  solemn  document 
which  prepared  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  among  whose  in- 
spirers  may  I  recall  with  pride  the  name  of 
a  great  Neapolitan  lawyer,  Gaetano  Filan- 
gieri. 

The  relations  between  our  two  nations  have 
deep  and  longstanding  roots  embodied  by 
those  millions  of  Italians  who  at  all  times  in 
every  capacity,  with  their  work  and  their  in- 
telligence and  their  thought,  have  made  sub- 
stantial contribution  to  the  well-being  and 
progress  of  this  country. 

Those  relations  are  sustained  by  our  com- 
mon dedication  to  the  principles  of  democ- 
racy and  freedom  and  to  the  cause  for  peace. 

Our  common  efforts,  within  the  purview  of 
our  respective  possibilities,  are  aimed  at  a 
constant  quest  for  peace.  The  Atlantic  alli- 
ance is  conceived  and  experienced  by  the 
United  States,  by  Italy,  and  by  all  its  mem- 
bers as  an  instrument  for  security  and  peace. 

The  commitment  that  Italy  is  pursuing 
with  constancy,  energy,  and  firmness  is  to 
achieve  a  unity  that  is  not  only  economic  but 
also  political,  so  as  to  convey  and  channel 
the  considerable  resources  of  the  old  conti- 
nent, in  the  light  of  its  great  traditions,  to 
the  service  of  the  well-being  of  nations  and 
the  consolidation  of  peace.  The  work  of  de- 
tente that  Italy,  like  the  United  States  and 
other  countries,  has  been  pursuing  for  years 
with  constancy  and  firmness  in  close  coopera- 
tion with  its  allies,  knowing  that  we  have 
the  will  of  the  peoples  of  the  world  behind  us. 

And  it  is  in  the  same  spirit  that  we  think 
we  must  study  and  tackle  the  great  economic 
problems  which  beset  the  world  and  the  even 
greater  problems  posed  by  modern  civiliza- 
tion, problems  which  affect  very  closely  our 
social  and  private  lives. 

The  vastness  and  urgency  of  the  task  and 
the  importance  of  the  resources  that  it  re- 
quires are  such  as  to  call  for  a  global  answer 
resulting  from  the  joint  efforts  of  all. 

I  feel  certain,  Mr.  President,  that  our  talks 


will  consolidate  the  friendship  between  the 
people  of  America  and  of  Italy  and  that  they 
will  develop  our  already  excellent  relations. 

And  I  should  like  to  extend  to  you  also,  on 
behalf  of  the  Italian  Government  represented 
here  by  our  Foreign  Minister  Signor  Moro, 
my  warmest  greetings  and  my  good  wishes 
to  you  for  your  Presidency,  and  I  should  like 
also  to  extend  those  greetings  on  behalf  of 
my  wife  to  Mrs.  Ford  and  to  your  children. 

And  in  conclusion,  Mr.  President,  it  is  with 
great  pride  that  I  bring  the  fraternal  greet- 
ings of  the  people  of  Italy  to  the  great  and 
generous  people  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 


TOASTS  AT  WHITE   HOUSE  DINNER 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Sept.  30 

President  Ford 

Mr.  President :  It  is  wonderful  to  have  you 
and  Mrs.  Leone  and  your  three  sons  with  us 
this  evening.  As  I  said  this  morning  at  the 
time  you  came  and  joined  us,  the  United 
States  has  a  great  debt  of  gratitude  and  a 
great  sense  of  friendship  for  Italy  because 
of  the  many,  many  people  in  this  United 
States  who  have  an  ancestral  background 
from  Italy. 

As  I  read  and  listen  and  look  around  our 
country,  some  10  percent  of  our  people  have 
a  background  from  Italy.  We  have  superb 
artists,  we  have  outstanding  individuals  in 
science,  we  have  some  very  renowned  ath- 
letes, we  have  many,  many  people  in  public 
life  who  have  had  a  background  from  your 
country.  And  we  are  proud  of  them  and  their 
contributions  to  our  country. 

But  I  think,  Mr.  President,  the  broadest  re- 
lationship that  we  have  is  what  Italy  has 
contributed  to  the  United  States,  without 
personal  identification,  in  the  field — in  those 
areas  that  one  could  describe  as  grace,  hu- 
manity, tolerance,  and  an  awareness  of  beau- 
ty. 

We  have  a  great  American  writer  by  the 
name  of  Mark  Twain  who  once  wrote — and 
he  wasn't  very   complimentary  to  foreign- 


October  21,   1974 


535 


ers — but  one  of  his  nicer  moments,  he  wrote, 
"The  Creator  made  Italy  from  the  designs  of 
Michelangelo."  And  that  was  a  nice  com- 
ment. It  was  probably  the  best  he  ever  made 
about  any  foreigners. 

But  to  be  .serious,  Mr.  President,  in  all  of 
the  time  that  I  had  the  privilege  of  serving 
in  the  Congress,  the  United  States  and  Italy 
were  building  together.  We  were  building  in 
the  process  of  reconstruction  following  the 
war.  We  were  building  in  the  process  of  Eu- 
rope as  a  whole  in  the  reconstruction  period. 

This  25-year  span  led,  of  course,  to  our  al- 
liance, where  we  have  developed  a  friendship 
and  an  agreement  for  diplomatic,  military, 
economic,  and  cultural  expansion  and  reci- 
procity. 

We  dealt  with  Italy  on  a  personal  basis, 
and  we  have  worked  together  in  our  rela- 
tionships with  our  allies  in  Western  Europe. 
And  the  net  result  has  been  a  better  relation- 
ship between  us  as  people  and  our  govern- 
ments on  behalf  of  our  people. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  was  a  pleasure  for 
me  to  meet  you  this  morning  and  to  be  re- 
assured of  your  willingness  to  talk  in  a  frank 
and  candid  way  about  our  mutual  problems. 
And  from  one  who  spent  a  good  share  of  his 
life  in  the  political  arena  in  the  United 
States,  I  was  greatly  impressed  with  your 
wise  statesmanship  and  your  great  knowledge 
of  the  problems  in  Europe  and  the  rest  of  the 
world. 

And  so  it  was  a  privilege  and  a  pleasure 
for  me  to  meet  you  and  to  discuss  these  mat- 
ters with  you  and  to  help  in  the  process  of 
building  a  better  relationship  between  Italy 
and  the  United  States. 

And  if  I  might,  may  I  ask  all  of  you  to 
stand  and  join  with  me  in  a  toast  to  the 
President  of  the  Republic  of  Italy. 

President  Leone 

For  the  second  time  today,  Mr.  President, 
I  take  my  set  speech  and  I  set  it  aside.  I  am 
putting  it  back  into  my  pocket  because  I  want 
to  speak  from  my  heart.  The  set  speech,  the 
written  paper,  will  remain.  It  will  perhaps  go 


into  the  archives  of  state,  but  my  speech  will 
spring  from  my  heart. 

You,  Mr.  President,  have  said  some  very 
nice  things  about  me  and  about  my  country. 
Now,  the  things  you  said  about  me,  I  am 
sure,  were  totally  undeserved,  and  they  mere- 
ly stemmed  from  your  very  great  kindness. 
But  what  you  said  about  my  country  makes 
me  very  proud  indeed. 

You  recalled  the  contribution  that  Italy 
has  made  to  arts  and  to  civilization.  We  pre- 
sent this  heritage  to  you,  which  is  the  heri- 
tage of  centuries.  We  present  it  to  you  as  our 
friendly  ally,  not  with  pride — which  might 
perhaps  be  justified — but  as  a  sort  of  visit- 
ing card  for  you  to  understand  us  better. 

Italy  has  inherited  the  greatest  legal  tra- 
dition of  all  times  and  Italy  is  the  mistress 
of  the  arts.  It  can  therefore  only  pursue 
ideals  of  democracy  and  freedom  for  all.  And 
what  other  nation  can  better  support  us  in 
these  ideals  than  the  United  States. 

Your  Constitution,  Mr.  President,  the  first 
written  constitution  that  ever  existed,  has 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  free  world.  And 
we  are  making  this  visit  to  this  great  coun- 
try with  the  Foreign  Minister,  Mr.  Moro, 
who  is  an  authoritative  representative  of  my 
government,  to  reassert  four  things. 

The  first  is  the  faithful,  loyal,  and  constant 
friendship  between  our  two  nations,  which  is 
based,  as  you  said,  in  part  also  on  our  com- 
mon ancestry. 

The  second  point  is  the  Atlantic  alliance. 
That  is  the  second  point  we  want  to  reassert. 
As  I  said  this  morning,  it  is  seen  by  Italy,  by 
the  United  States,  and  by  all  the  member 
countries,  as  an  instrument  for  detente  and 
peace. 

And  we  want  to  reassert,  thirdly,  our  firm 
belief  in  the  need  to  build  a  united  Europe 
which  will  be  complementary  to  the  Atlantic 
alliance  and  which  will  not  be  against  Amer- 
ica, but  with  the  United  States  of  America. 

And,  fourthly,  we  want  to  tell  you  how 
very  much  we  support  your  policy  of  de- 
tente, in  which  you  have  the  great  coopera- 
tion of  your  Secretary  of  State,  which  policy 
of  detente  expresses  the  will  of  the  peoples 


536 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


of  the  woi'ld  that  thirst  for  peace  and  justice. 

Now,  if  these  four  points  are  confirmed — 
and  they  have  already  been  confirmed  indeed 
by  our  talks  this  morning  with  you,  Mr. 
President,  and  this  afternoon  with  your  Sec- 
retary of  State,  and  I  am  sure  they  will  be 
reconfirmed  again  in  the  meeting  you  were 
kind  enough  to  arrange  with  me  tomorrow — 
if  they  are  reconfirmed,  Mr.  President,  then 
I  can  only  say  that  I  thank  God  for  allowing 
me  to  represent  Italy  in  this  great  country. 

And,  Mr.  President,  you  were  good  enough 
to  extend  your  greetings  to  my  whole  family, 
and  this  is  somewhat  unusual,  because  in 
Italy  we  tend  to  hide  our  families  away.  And 
I  have  broken  away  from  this  tradition;  I 
have  brought  my  wife  and  children  with  me 
to  present  to  you  a  typical  Italian  family, 
one  that  is  a  sound  family,  that  is  respectful 
of  moral  values,  and  that  is  united. 

Mr.  President,  may  I  take  this  opportunity 
to  say  how  satisfied  I  am  with  the  talks  that 
we  have  had  and  how  very  glad  I  am  that  you 
have  accepted  my  invitation  to  come  and 
visit  us  in  Italy.  This  has  already  made  a 
favorable  impression  outside. 

And  I  hope  that  the  burden  that  is  now 
weighing  on  your  shoulders — but  you  have 
very  square  shoulders,  indeed ;  I  know  that 
you  are  an  athlete ;  I  am  not  referring  only 
to  your  physical  strength — I  hope  that  bur- 
den will  yet  give  you  some  time  to  come  to 
Italy  where  I  can  assure  you  of  a  very  warm 
and  aff'ectionate  welcome  from  the  people  of 
my  country.  And  I  hope  that  Mrs.  Ford  will 
be  able  to  come  with  you. 

And  so  I  say  to  you,  God  bless  you.  And  I 
invoke  the  blessings  of  God  upon  you  as  I  do 
upon  my  own  family. 

And  so  I  want  to  say  now,  thank  you  to  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  thank  you 
very  much  for  the  music  that  you  provided 
tonight.  It  was  a  touch  of  sentiment  that  I 
very  much  appreciated.  I  appreciated  the  Ne- 
apolitan song  that  was  played. 

I  told  you,  Mr.  President,  in  our  private 
talk  that  Naples  is  my  hometown.  It  is  very 
beautiful,  generous,  and  poor.  And  many 
parts  of  Italy  are  poor,  and  that  causes  us 


some  concern.  I  am  mentioning  this  not  with 
cup  in  hand  at  all  but  merely  as  a  matter  of 
interest. 

And  so  now,  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gen- 
tlemen, I  give  you  the  toast :  The  health  and 
prosperity  of  President  Ford  and  his  family, 
and  the  success  and  well-being  of  the  people 
of  America,  and  the  consolidated  friendship 
of  the  peoples  of  Italy  and  the  United  States 
of  America. 

TOASTS  AT  LUNCHEON   HOSTED 
BY  SECRETARY  KISSINGER 

Press  release  378  dated  September  26 

Secretary  Kissinger 

Mrs.  Leone,  ladies  and  gentlemen :  I  speak 
here  with  some  nervousness,  not  only  because 
of  the  natural  timidity  which  you  all  so  fre- 
quently have  seen  in  me,  but  also  because  I 
know  I'm  going  to  be  followed  by  one  of  the 
great  orators  that  I  am  familiar  with.  So  if 
I  prolong  my  remarks,  it  is  to  postpone  the 
moment  of  truth.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  President,  you  are  here  at  a  time  when 
many  American  institutions  are  under  at- 
tack. But  there  is  one  American  institution 
that  seems  to  survive  all  trials,  and  that  is 
your  Ambassador  to  the  United  States. 
[Laughter.]  I  have  had  occasion  at  the  lunch 
you  so  kindly  arranged  for  me  at  the  Quiri- 
nale  to  see  whether  my  requirement  to  report 
to  him  could  be  reduced  from  twice  to  once 
a  week,  and  I  want  to  say  that  of  course  I'm 
delighted  to  report  to  him  regularly,  but  I 
wonder  whether  it  is  really  required  that  he 
gives  a  gi'ade  to  my  secretary  as  he  leaves 
the  office.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  President  and  Mrs.  Leone,  it  is  al- 
ways a  great  joy  to  meet  with  you.  You  rep- 
resent a  country  that  has  grown  wise  with 
many  battles  fought  on  its  soil  and  skeptical 
with  many  ideas  that  proved  to  be  not  all 
that  were  presented — but  also  grown  pro- 
found by  the  knowledge  that  ultimately 
everything  depends  on  the  quality  of  human 
relations.  So  we  deal  with  you  not  only  as  po- 
litical but  as  personal  friends. 


October  21,    1974 


537 


We  have  often  spoken  about  the  interde- 
pendence of  the  modern  world.  There  is  no 
country  in  Europe  and  few  countries  in  the 
world  which  have  experienced  at  such  close 
hand  the  difficulties  and  the  opportunities  of 
the  contemporary  period.  Italy  is  a  country 
which  has  prospered  enormously  since  the 
war,  despite  the  absence  of  natural  resources, 
because  of  the  diligence  of  its  population  and 
the  inventiveness  of  its  leadership.  In  recent 
months,  as  a  result  of  circumstances  outside 
the  control  of  Italy,  many  of  these  conditions 
have  changed,  and  Italy  faces  economic  diffi- 
culty. When  Italy's  friends,  therefore,  at- 
tempt to  work  out  cooperative  arrangements, 
it  is  not  something  that  they  do  for  Italy;  it 
is  something  they  do  for  themselves  and  for 
the  structure  of  the  modern  world.  It  is  no 
longer  possible  to  conduct  affairs  on  a  na- 
tional basis.  It  is  a  duty  for  all  nations  to 
attempt  to  face  the  fact  that  we  are  living 
in  a  period  of  enormous  transformations  of 
the  nature  of  the  economy,  of  the  nature  of 
political  relations,  and  we  in  the  West  can- 
not possibly  cope  with  our  problems  unless 
we  develop  a  new  feeling  of  creativity  and  a 
new  spirit  of  cooperation. 

That  spirit  always  has  existed  in  the  rela- 
tionship between  Italy  and  the  United  States, 
and  in  all  the  great  issues  that  confront  us 
we  have  seen  matters  very  much  alike.  We 
have  supported  Italy's  participation  in  a 
united  Europe  because  we  in  turn  knew  that 
Italy's  attitude  toward  the  United  States 
would  make  such  a  Europe — if  it  depended 
on  Italy — a  partner  and  a  friend  of  the 
United  States.  Our  guest  today  has  played  a 
very  noble  role  in  these  efforts. 

Beyond  all  the  political  and  economic  mat- 
ters that  concern  us,  there  is  a  very  impor- 
tant gift  that  Italy  has  bestowed  on  all  of  its 
friends.  We  hear  so  much  about  the  danger 
of  conformity  in  the  modern  world  and  the 
loss  of  individualism.  But  who  can  speak  of 
a  lack  of  individualism  in  Italy?  And  what- 
ever problems  Italy  has,  conformity  happily 
isn't  one  of  them. 

And  so  we  welcome  you,  Mr.  President  and 


Mrs.  Leone,  as  old  associates,  as  friends  in 
the  field  of  politics,  and  as  personal  friends. 
I'd  like  to  propose  a  toast  to  President  and 
Mrs.  Leone,  to  the  friendship  of  Italy  and 
the  United  States. 

President  Leone 

Dr.  Kissinger  has  set  a  trap  for  me.  He 
sent  me  a  beautiful  speech  in  which  he  even 
quoted  Cicero,  in  the  hope  that  I  would  fol- 
low the  written  outline  that  he'd  prepared. 
And  that  is  what  we  call  in  English  a  dirty 
trick;  in  Neapolitan  we  say  "priest's  trick." 
[Laughter.]  So  I'm  going  to  counter  that  by 
setting  aside  my  written  speech,  and  fully 
respecting  the  political  outline,  the  political 
policy,  and  guidelines  of  the  Italian  Govern- 
ment, which  is  authoritatively  represented 
here  by  its  Foreign  Minister,  Signor  Moro, 
I  shall  now  ad  lib. 

First  of  all,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  should  like  to 
thank  you  very  much  for  the  cordial  invita- 
tion that  you  extended  to  me  to  come  to  this 
luncheon,  which  is  attended  by  exponents  of 
the  U.S.  political,  economic,  and  journalistic 
worlds  and  also  by  my  delegation  and  by  some 
outstanding  Italian  representatives  of  the 
press.  I  should  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to 
thank  you  very  much  for  your  words  of 
praise  for  our  Ambassador,  Signor  Ortona. 
You  had  already  told  me  how  much  you  ap- 
preciated him  in  Rome,  and  I'm  only  sorry 
that  I  cannot  vote  on  the  retirement  law  now. 
I  would  like  to  do  it  at  once  so  as  to  have  Mr. 
Ortona  at  home. 

Also,  on  behalf  of  the  Foreign  Minister  of 
Italy,  I  would  like  to  say  how  much  we  appre- 
ciate the  work  that  has  been  done  by  your 
Ambassador,  Mr.  Volpe,  who  succeeds  in 
combining  a  complete  and  untiring  dedication 
to  the  interests  of  the  United  States  with  his 
affection  for  the  country  that  his  family  came 
from  originally.  So  I  want  to  salute  him  here 
as  a  servant  of  the  United  States  in  his 
capital  city  and  to  thank  him  for  what  he 
does  to  further  Italian-American  relations. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I  agree  with  all  that  you 


538 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


have  just  said.  First  of  all,  I  share  your 
global  view  of  the  economic  drama  that  is 
being  enacted  on  the  world  stage  now  and 
that  we  might  consider  to  be  a  Biblical 
scourge  that  has  hit  humanity.  There  is,  as 
you  said,  even  more  than  ever  before  a  great 
need  for  international  cooperation  and  soli- 
darity shown  to  the  weaker  nations  by  those 
nations  that  are  privileged  either  because  of 
their  geographical  position  or  because  of 
their  natural  resources.  Italy's  most  vital 
interests  are  at  stake. 

But  it  is  not  only  of  that  that  I  want  to 
speak  now  but  also  of  the  human  solidarity 
that  you  are  displaying.  We  have  a  poet  in 
Italy  who  said  that  the  life  of  man  is  mystery 
and  only  he  who  aids  his  brothers  makes  no 
mistake.  This  human  solidarity,  this  realiza- 
tion, this  understanding  of  the  need  for 
global  cooperation,  was  expressed  not  only 
by  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  but  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States.  I  am  happy  to  turn  my 
thoughts  to  him  now. 

In  any  global  vision  of  human  affairs  there 
are  certain  details,  some  more  particular 
aspects  that  must  be  considered  and  which 
we  are  here  to  emphasize  before  you.  They 
need  your  understanding,  and  it  is  in  that 
spirit  that  we  have  come  here.  We  have  come 
here  to  reassert  a  century-old  friendship  with 
your  country.  We  have  only  looked  at  each 
other  in  enmity  across  the  ocean  once  in  the 
course  of  history  in  the  cause  of  the  war  that 
the  Italian  nation  neither  wanted  nor  de- 
cided. Our  friendship  was  then  reconfirmed 
in  the  Atlantic  alliance,  which  was  then  re- 
asserted in  the  Ottawa  Declaration.  As  I 
said  this  morning,  we  consider  that  alliance 
to  be  an  instrument  of  security,  detente,  and 
peace. 

But  there  is  a  second  aspect  involved  in 
the  Atlantic  alliance,  and  that  is  solidarity 
from  the  economic  point  of  view.  As  I  said 
this  morning  to  President  Ford,  we  in  Italy 
are  well  aware  of  the  need  for  European 
unity  to  foster  the  well-being  of  the  peoples 
of  Europe,  many  of  which  provided  you  with 
many  of  your  ancestors.   You  here  who  have 


originated  from  Europe,  many  of  you,  repre- 
sent a  seed  of  culture  and  civilization  which 
must  be  safeguarded.  The  Ottawa  Declara- 
tion showed  that  European  unity  can  be 
complementary  to  the  Atlantic  alliance. 

We  have  also  come  here,  Mr.  Secretary,  to 
show  you  the  true  face  of  Italy.  We  thank 
you  for  saying  so  openly,  so  unreservedly, 
that  you  recognize  that  our  problems  were 
not  generated  entirely  by  ourselves.  After 
all,  Italy  is  a  country  which  only  25  years 
ago  lived  on  an  outmoded  and  obsolete  form 
of  agriculture.  A  hundred  years  ago  our  best 
people  used  to  come  to  the  United  States, 
seeking  for  jobs.  Then  there  was  the  economic 
miracle,  but  we  hardly  dare  speak  of  that 
nowadays;  that's  all  over  because  Italy  has 
been  affected  by  the  economic  hurricane  that 
has  swept  through  the  world.  Now,  we  recog- 
nize, of  course,  that  we  have  made  mistakes, 
that  there  are  shortcomings  on  our  part, 
and  we  must  be  the  first  to  put  our  house  in 
order.  We  have  taken  at  home  what  many 
considered  to  be  extremely  stringent  meas- 
ures to  try  and  do  that. 

But  Italy  is  here  to  say  to  you  that  it  does 
not  want  to  hide  its  difficulties ;  and  through 
its  President,  it  wants  to  say  to  you  that  it 
feels  its  difficulties  can  be  overcome  if  Italy 
can  be  certain  of  the  staunch  support  of  the 
great  nations  of  this  world. 

You  said,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  the  United 
States  of  America,  this  great  and  generous 
country,  is  prepared  to  look  with  sympathy 
on  our  problems.  And  so  I  say  to  you,  we 
shall  overcome.  I  should  like  to  express  to 
you  here,  Mr.  Secretary,  my  personal  friend- 
ship and  also  for  Mrs.  Kissinger.  Unfor- 
tunately, I  shall  be  away  when  you  come  to 
Rome,  but  one  of  these  days  I  hope  to  wel- 
come you  there  again. 

I  should  like  now  to  thank  all  of  the 
American  guests  who  are  here  for  having  at- 
tended this  luncheon.  I  give  you  the  toast 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the 
well-being  of  your  country,  and  the  friend- 
ship between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  Italy. 


October  21,    1974 


539 


TEXT  OF  U.S.-ITALIAN   JOINT  STATEMENT 

President  Giovanni  Leone  of  Italy  made  a  State 
visit  to  the  United  States  of  America  September 
25-29,  1974,  at  the  invitation  of  President  Gerald 
R.  Ford  of  the  United  States  of  America.  Accom- 
panying the  President  were  Mrs.  Leone,  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  Aldo  Moro,  and  other  Italian 
officials. 

During  the  visit.  President  Leone  and  President 
Ford  held  extensive  and  cordial  discussions  on  a 
wide  variety  of  international  questions  in  which 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  Aldo  Moro  and  Secre- 
tary of  State  and  Assistant  to  the  President  for 
National  Security  Affairs  Henry  A.  Kissinger  par- 
ticipated. Minister  Moro  and  Secretary  Kissinger 
also  held  detailed  talks  on  current  issues  of  mutual 
interest. 

President  Ford  and  President  Leone  expressed 
their  mutual  satisfaction  with  the  results  of  the  talks. 
It  was  agreed  that  frequent  consultations  in  the  spirit 
of  the  Atlantic  Declaration  signed  in  Brussels  on 
June  26  were  a  most  desirable  means  of  achieving 
better  understanding  of  problems  of  common  interest 
and  possible  solutions.'  They  were  in  full  agree- 
ment that  such  consultations  should  in  no  way 
prejudice  other  existing  obligations.  As  a  result  of 
their  exchanges  of  views,  the  two  Presidents  noted 
the  broad  agreement  between  them  with  respect  to 
their  policies  in  numerous  areas: 

1.  They  noted  that  their  policies  will  continue  to 
be  guided  by  their  desire  for  the  maintenance  of 
peace,  adherence  to  the  principles  of  the  United 
Nations  Charter,  and  promotion  of  a  stable  structure 
of  peace  which  reflects  the  diverse  nature  and  needs 
of  the  nations  of  the  world.  In  this  connection,  both 
sides  emphasized  their  commitment  to  overcoming 
the  sources  of  tension  and  conflict  which  are  divisive 
factors  in  the  international  community. 

2.  There  was  full  agreement  on  the  importance 
of  the  North  Atlantic  Alliance  as  an  instrument 
which  has  guaranteed  the  security  of  its  members, 
strengthened  international  stability,  enhanced  confi- 
dence among  peoples,  and  thus  has  permitted  them 
growing  and  fertile  contacts  with  all  the  peoples  of 
the  world  and  provided  the  indispensable  basis  for 
the  process  of  detente. 

3.  They  reemphasized  in  this  connection  the  im- 
portance they  attach  to  the  Atlantic  Declaration  and 
their  determination  to  seek  the  fulfillment  of  the 
principles  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  in  concert 
with  their  other  NATO  allies.  President  Ford  under- 
lined the  importance  the  United  States  attaches  to 


-  For  text  of  the  Declaration  on  Atlantic  Relations 
adopted  by  the  North  Atlantic  Council  in  ministerial 
session  at  Ottawa  on  June  19  and  signed  by  NATO 
heads  of  government  at  Brussels  on  June  26,  see 
Bulletin  of  July  8,  1974,  p.  42. 


Italy's     continuing    valuable     contributions     to     the 
Alliance. 

4.  They  recognized  the  importance  attached  by 
the  Nine  members  of  the  European  Community  to 
their  efforts  toward  European  union,  and  welcomed 
the  reciprocal  undertaking  by  the  members  of  the 
Community  and  the  United  States  to  strengthen 
their  relations  on  the  basis  of  enhanced  consultations 
within  the  broad  framework  of  Atlantic  coopera- 
tion. President  Ford  welcomed  particularly  the  con- 
structive role  played  by  Italy  in  strengthening  this 
cooperation. 

5.  They  noted  their  determination  that  current 
negotiations  in  furtherance  of  detente  on  matters 
related  to  security  and  cooperation  in  Europe  must 
result  in  enhanced  stability  in  the  relationships 
among  all  nations  concerned.  They  also  emphasized 
their  continuing  commitment  to  achieving  balanced 
and  effective  international  arms  control  agreements 
resulting  in  undiminished  security  for  all  nations. 

6.  They  noted  their  concern  with  developments 
in  the  Mediterranean  Basin  and  pledged  their  efforts 
to  achieve  equitable  solutions.  The  United  States 
noted  in  this  connection  that  it  looks  to  Italy,  as  a 
Mediterranean  nation  which  has  made  a  signal  con- 
tribution to  world  civilization,  to  play  a  leading 
role  in  the  common  pursuit  of  lasting  peace  in 
that  area. 

7.  They  expressed  their  conviction  that  only  inter- 
national cooperative  efforts  can  overcome  the  trade 
and  financial  problems  confronting  the  nations  of  the 
world.  They  recognized  that  the  solutions  to  national 
problems  have  their  impact  on  the  international 
community  as  a  whole.  While  individual  nations  have 
primary  responsibility  for  their  own  problems,  the 
two  Presidents  recognize  that  the  solutions  re- 
quired in  a  modern  and  complex  interdependent 
world  may  go  far  beyond  individual  capabilities  and 
require  cooperation  among  members  of  the  interna- 
tional community.  In  this  regard,  the  United  States 
has  taken  careful  note  of  Italy's  major  efforts  to 
meet  its  own  domestic  economic  and  financial  prob- 
lems and  the  responsiveness  of  the  international 
community  to  these  efforts.  President  Ford  stated 
that  the  United  States  is  prepared  to  play  an  appro- 
priate, constructive  and  responsible  role  in  a  return 
to  economic  equilibrium  in   Italy. 

8.  They  recognized  the  great  importance  of  in- 
dustrial, technical,  and  cultural  cooperation  among 
all  nations  and  the  imperative  need  for  the  equitable 
distribution  of  world  resources  among  all  nations. 
They  agreed  to  facilitate  initiatives  in  this  regard 
in   appropriate  forums. 

9.  Finally,  the  two  Presidents  particularly  noted 
the  extraordinarily  broad  human  ties  between  Italy 
and  the  United  States  of  America,  and  the  shared 
values  and  goals  which  bind  together  the  Italian 
and  American  peoples. 

10.  President  Leone  extended  to  President  Ford 
an  invitation  to  visit  Italy  in  the  near  future. 
President  Ford  accepted  with   pleasure. 


540 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Dinner  at  the   National   Gallery 
Honors  French   Foreign  Minister 

Following  is  an  exchange  of  toasts  between 
Secretary  Kissinger  and  Jean  Sauvagnar- 
giies,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
French  Republic,  at  a  dinner  at  the  National 
Gallery  of  Art  at  Washington  on  September 
27. 


Press  release  383  dated  September  30 

SECRETARY  KISSINGER 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  Madame  Sauva- 
gnargues,  ladies  and  gentlemen:  My  staff 
had  prepared  some  remarks  for  me  of  really 
devastating  profundity  but  impossible  to 
read  by  candlelight.  So  I  will  have  to  im- 
provise a  few  remarks.    [Laughter.] 

As  I  was  sitting  at  the  table  I  thought  of 
a  reception  I  attended  this  afternoon.  I 
was  invited  to  a  retirement  party,  and  hav- 
ing read  the  New  York  Times  for  the  last 
few  weeks,  I  thought  perhaps  something  had 
happened  that  I  hadn't  been  officially  in- 
formed of  yet.  So  on  the  one  hand  I  was 
reassured  when  I  came  to  the  reception  to 
find  out  it  was  a  retirement  for  Senator 
Fulbright.  But  on  the  other  [hand]  I  was 
extremely  sad.  And  I  reflected  about  the 
special  role  that  Senator  Fulbright  has 
played  in  our  national  life. 

It  occurred  to  me  that  the  relationship 
that  France  has  had  with  the  United  States 
has  some  similarity  to  the  relationship  that 
Senator  Fulbright  has  had  with  the  State 
Department.  [Laughter.]  There  have  been 
occasional  criticisms,  all  the  more  irritating 
because  they  usually  turned  out  to  be  right. 
But  there  also  has  been  at  the  basis  of 
the  relationship  an  understanding  that  real 
friends  are  meaningful  only  if  they  have 
opinions  of  their  own. 

The  great  problem  of  our  contemporary 
world  is  to  know  how  much  unity  we  need 
and  how  much  diversity  we  can  .stand.  In 
a  period  of  great  revolutionary  change,  there 
is  the  great  danger  on  the  one  hand  that 


countries  may  lose  their  identity  but  on  the 
other  hand  the  problem,  the  danger,  that  one 
may  not  be  able  to  find  the  basis  for  co- 
operative efl'ort. 

In  the  last  year  the  United  States  and 
France  have  had  some  different  perspectives. 
But  on  our  side — and  I  know  on  the  side  of 
France  as  well — we  have  always  understood 
that  we  belong  to  the  same  family  and  that 
we  have  common  interests.  We  respect 
France's  efforts  to  build  Europe  as  a  con- 
tribution to  the  cooperation  on  a  larger  scale 
that  is  an  inevitable  requirement  of  the 
present  world.  And  we  understand,  too,  that 
the  insistence  on  achieving  one's  own  identity 
can  in  the  long  run  provide  the  basis  for  the 
best  form  of  cooperation. 

Foreign  Minister  Sauvagnargues  and  I 
have  known  each  other  only  for  a  ferw 
months.  In  that  period,  I  believe  I  can  say 
that  many  of  the  misunderstandings  have 
been  worked  out  and  also  that  we  are  meet- 
ing tomorrow  to  look  at  one  of  the  deepest 
problems  that  faces  the  world  today,  the 
problem  of  achieving  a  cooperative  approach 
to  the  big  alteration  in  economic  relation- 
ships that  threatens  to  engulf  us  all.  On  our 
side,  we  are  confident  that  France,  in  the 
position  of  leadership  of  Europe  to  which  its 
history  entitles  it  and  in  cooperation  with 
the  United  States,  will  continue  to  play  the 
role  of  a  good  friend,  occasional  critic,  but 
always  a  steady  partner. 

We  are  delighted  that  we  can  welcome 
Foreign  Minister  Sauvagnargues,  and  Ma- 
dame Sauvagnargues  on  her  first  visit  to 
Washington.  I  would  like  to  propose  a  toast 
to  the  Foreign  Minister  and  to  the  friendship 
between  the  United  States  and  France. 


FOREIGN  MINISTER  SAUVAGNARGUES 

Mr.  Secretary,  Mrs.  Kissinger,  ladies  and 
gentlemen:  I  am,  of  course,  rather  over- 
whelmed by  this  grand  reception  by  this 
gathering  of  what's  best  in  Washington 
[in]  politics,  science,  arts,  press,  and  even 
outer  space.  I  can  hardly  find  words,  so  I 
choose   English   because   I've   found   in   my 


October  21,    1974 


541 


experience  that  when  you  are  at  a  loss  to 
say  anything  you  must  choose  English.  That 
doesn't  mean  that  I  won't  say  anything  now ; 
I'll  try,  although  I  just  read  [in]  the  Herald 
Tribune  a  nice  anecdote  about  the  head  of 
government  who  suddenly  found  he  had 
nothing  to  say  to  the  United  Nations  and  so 
said  he  would  renounce  his  address,  and  of 
course  the  Foreign  Minister  had  to  speak  for 
him.  [Laughter.] 

This  doesn't  mean  that  foreign  ministers 
don't  have  anything  to  say,  because  the 
Secretary  of  State  just  told  us  fundamental 
things  about  the  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  France.  And  he  told  them 
with  the  simple  words,  without  high-flown 
rhetoric,  without  any  rhetoric  as  is  apt  to 
that  kind  of  subject.  That  is  also  the  lesson 
which  is  taught  us  by  another  messenger 
from  France,  the  picture  of  the  Magdalen 
de  la  Tour — a  picture,  I  think,  which  we  shall 
see  a  few  minutes  from  now.^ 

Of  course  the  relations  between  France 
and  the  United  States  is  something  that, 
when  you  talk  about  them  you  tend  to  invoke 
Lafayette,  two-centuries-old  traditions,  et 
cetera.  This  is  true,  but  it's  also  sort  of  en- 
grained habit,  and  it's  sort  of  family  senti- 
ment— a  sort  of  belonging  together,  a  sort  of 
deeply  engrained  trust  and  confidence  in  each 
other  which  permits  big  fights  and  big  quar- 
rels as  in  families  where  quarrels  are  at 
their  bitterest  and  yet  the  feeling  of  to- 
getherness is  not  touched. 

In  our  relations  we  had  and  we  may  still 
have — although  if  it's  up  to  Secretary  of 
State  Kissinger  and  myself  it  won't  happen — 
artificial  quarrels.  Thank  God,  they  have 
been  disposed  of,  and  now  we  are  faced  with 
the  real  problems,  and  these  real  problems 
are  bad  enough.    They  are  bad  enough. 

We  are  facing,  as  you  said,  Mr.  Secretary, 


'  "The  Repentant  Magdalen,"  by  Georges  de  la 
Tour  was  acquired  by  the  National  Gallery  on 
Sept.  26. 


revolutionary  times ;  the  balance  of  the  world 
has  been  deeply  disturbed  and  disturbed  for 
a  long  time  to  come.  We  will  have  to  adjust 
to  a  new  set  of  things,  to  this  reshuffle  of 
cards,  where  the  industrialized  nations  will 
have  to  live  up  to  the  fact  that  they  got 
poorer  and  they'll  have  to  tighten  their  belts 
somehow.  So  that  speaks  for,  certainly,  for 
solidarity,  even  if  it  doesn't  speak  for  con- 
frontation, and  on  that  I  know  you  are  in 
full  agreement,  Mr.  Secretary,  contrary  to 
what  the  New  York  Times  had  to  report 
yesterday  or  the  day  before  yesterday. 

But  let's  not  attack  the  press,  because  the 
press  is  a  very  important  power  in  this 
country  and  also  in  mine.  Let's  only  wish 
that  the  press  could  now  make  news  of  the 
very  important  news,  which  is  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  the  United  States  and  the 
Foreign  Minister  of  France  are  not  fighting 
with  each  other.    [Laughter.] 

Well,  I  won't  go  on  much  longer  on  that. 
I'm  convinced  that  the  working  relation- 
ship we  have  established,  Mr.  Secretary,  will 
enable  our  governments  to  work  together 
more  closely  as  they  should  and  deal  with 
the  very  complex  problems  that  are  facing 
us.  And  I  trust  that  this  mutual  effort  will 
lead  to  a  good  result. 

I  again  want  to  express  the  thanks  and 
the  gratitude  of  my  wife  for  this  grand  recep- 
tion. It's  really  the  first  time  since  I  became 
Foreign  Minister  of  France  that  I  do  feel 
not  only  the  burden  of  this  office  but  also 
its  honor  and  its  advantages,  its  joys.  I 
understand  this  is  one  of  the  first  occasions 
where  dinner  is  given  in  this  National  Gal- 
lery I  knew  very  well  20  years  ago  in  Wash- 
ington— I  haven't  been  here  to  20  years,  you 
see;  it's  like  Alexander  Dumas  remarked: 
vingt  ans  apres.  But  this  is  really,  truly  a 
grand  occasion.  I  want  to  thank  the  Secretary 
of  State  and  Mrs.  Kissinger  for  that.  We 
will  cherish  that  memory. 

I  want  to  raise  my  glass  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  his  wife. 


i 


542 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


The  Dilemma  of  Controlling  the  Spread  of  Nuclear  Weapons 
While  Promoting   Peaceful  Technology 


Address  by  Fred  C.  Ikle 

Director,  U.S.  Arms  Control  and  Disarmament  Agency  ^ 


The  U.S.  Congress  and  successive  admin- 
istrations have  had  to  grapple  with  the  con- 
trol of  nuclear  technology  for  almost  three 
decades.  The  essence  of  the  difficulty  lies 
in  the  dual  nature  of  this  technology.  From 
the  very  beginning  there  have  been  high  ex- 
pectations concerning  peaceful  uses  of  the 
atom.  If  nuclear  power  served  only  destruc- 
tive purposes,  we  would  not  have  had  the 
ambivalence  that  has  bedeviled  all  our  at- 
tempts to  control  the  spread  of  nuclear 
technology. 

It  is  as  if  mankind  had  been  burdened 
with  a  Biblical  curse.  The  fruit  of  the  tree 
of  knowledge — the  great  accomplishment  of 
our  nuclear  scientists — holds  both  promise 
and  threat;  it  can  help  keep  alive  our  civili- 
zation and  it  can  destroy  it. 

It  is  hardly  surprising  that,  historically, 
our  ways  of  dealing  with  the  nuclear  pres- 
ence on  earth  have  pulled  in  two  inconsistent 
directions.  We  have  tried  by  one  means  and 
then  another  to  reconcile  the  dichotomy  of 
nuclear  power. 

In  November  1945,  some  three  months 
after  Hiroshima  and  Nagasaki,  President 
Harry  Truman  set  a  policy  for  the  United 
States  when  he  joined  the  Prime  Ministers 
of  Great  Britain  and  Canada  in  signing  a 
declaration  among  the  three  powers  whose 
nuclear  scientists  and  resources  had  been 
united  during  the  war  to  build  the  first 
atomic     bombs.      The     declaration     argued 


'  Made  before  the  Duke  University  Law  Forum  at 
Durham,  N.C.,  on  Sept.  18  (text  from  ACDA  press 
release). 


against  the  disclosure  of  information  even 
about  "the  practical  industrial  application 
of  atomic  energy"  before  an  international 
system  of  control  was  set  up. 

The  following  year  Bernard  Baruch,  Pres- 
ident Truman's  representative,  made  the 
American  proposal  to  the  United  Nations 
for  which  he  is  still  remembered.  It  called 
for  placing  the  nuclear  resources  of  the 
world  under  the  ownership  and  control  of  an 
independent  international  authority.  That  is 
to  say,  the  Baruch  plan  provided  for  strict 
international  control  of  all  nuclear  technol- 
ogy that  might  be  diverted  to  destructive 
purposes.  You  doubtless  know  the  rest  of 
the  story:  The  Soviet  Union  did  not  find 
this  proposal  acceptable,  and  it  was  subse- 
quently learned  that  the  Soviets  had  in  fact 
been  working  on  the  development  of  an  atom- 
ic bomb  since  the  middle  of  World  War  II. 

The  first  legislation  passed  by  Congress 
to  control  the  atom  was  in  the  spirit  of  the 
1945  three-power  declaration  in  that  it 
placed  major  emphasis  on  maintaining  nu- 
clear secrecy.  Ironically,  it  went  so  far  in 
this  direction  as  to  terminate  nuclear  collab- 
oration with  the  other  two  signers  of  the 
declaration,  Canada  and  Great  Britain. 

The  promotion  of  peaceful  uses  was  thus 
relegated  to  a  distinctly  secondary  position, 
while  full  attention  was  given  to  preventing 
the  spread  of  nuclear-weapons  technology.  In 
1951  the  Atomic  Energy  Act  was  amended 
but  not  with  a  view  to  promoting  peaceful 
uses.  It  was  amended  so  that  military 
nuclear    information    could    be    shared    to 


October  21,    1974 


543 


strengthen  the  North  Atlantic  alliance.  In 
practical  terms  this  meant  nuclear  assistance 
to  Great  Britain. 

The  "Atoms  for  Peace"  Program 

Meanwhile,  however,  the  potentialities  for 
peaceful  uses  of  atomic  energy  became  in- 
creasingly evident,  particularly  the  use  of 
reactors  for  generating  electric  power.  And 
as  these  new  possibilities  opened  up,  a  new 
American  policy  began  to  take  shape.  In 
part  it  was  a  policy  of  exploiting  the  in- 
evitable— or  so  it  must  have  been  viewed  by 
its  proponents — but  it  was  clothed  in  very 
appealing  language:  The  program  was  called 
"Atoms  for  Peace." 

More  importantly,  the  promotion  of  peace- 
ful commercial  uses  had  now  come  to  be 
regarded  as  a  means  of  actually  exorcising 
the  evil  side  of  nuclear  energy,  of  reversing 
the  trend  toward  acquisition  of  nuclear 
weapons.  In  addition,  we  had  a  commercial 
interest  in  reactor  exports.  Possibly,  too,  we 
were  eager  to  demonstrate  to  the  world  that 
the  United  States  had  let  loose  a  benevolent 
genie,  not  an  evil  one. 

In  the  hearings  on  this  new  program, 
held  by  the  Joint  Committee  on  Atomic 
Energy  in  1954,  Secretary  Dulles  said  that 
knowledge  in  this  field  was  developing  in  so 
much  of  the  world  that  we  could  not  hope  to 
set  up  an  effective  "dam  against  the  flow  of 
information,  and  if  we  try  to  do  it  we  will 
only  dam  our  own  influence  and  others  will 
move  into  the  field  with  the  bargaining 
that  that  involves."  In  general,  these  crucial 
hearings  showed  a  tolerant  attitude  toward 
the  proliferation  of  nuclear  technology,  or 
so  it  would  seem  to  us  today.  The  resultant 
Atomic  Energy  Act  of  1954  called  for  mak- 
ing available  to  cooperating  nations  the  bene- 
fits of  peaceful  applications  of  atomic  energy 
"as  widely  as  expanding  technology  and  con- 
siderations of  the  common  defense  and  se- 
curity would  permit."  The  act  authorized 
the  Atomic  Energy  Commission  to  negotiate 
cooperation  agreements  without  Senate 
approval. 

Based  on  this  act,  the  U.S.  Government 
facilitated  the  participation  of  American  in- 


dustry in  atomic  power  activities  abroad. 
Eventually,  26  American  research  reactors 
were  installed  in  other  countries.  We  orga- 
nized large  conferences  to  transmit  technical 
know-how.  We  licensed  foreign  firms  to  pro- 
duce and  sell  our  reactors.  And  we  shipped 
materials  abroad  to  help  other  countries 
move  ahead  in  nuclear  technology.  For  ex- 
ample, in  1955,  with  the  encouragement  of 
Congress,  we  sold  10  tons  of  heavy  water  to 
India  for  her  research  reactor.  All  told,  we 
spent  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  on 
spreading  nuclear  technology  abroad  (exclu- 
sive of  weapons  assistance  to  our  allies  but 
including  the  interest  subsidy  on  Export- 
Import  Bank  loans) . 

The  Eisenhower  administration  also  took 
practical  steps  to  build  an  international  in- 
stitution that  could  facilitate  cooperation  in 
peaceful  nuclear  technology  with  safeguards 
against  diversion  for  military  purposes.  In 
his  "Atoms  for  Peace"  address  at  the  United 
Nations,  President  Eisenhower  had  proposed 
the  creation  of  an  international  atomic  ener- 
gy organization;  and  notwithstanding  early 
Soviet  objections  to  this  idea,  it  finally  was 
carried  out.  In  1957,  the  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency,  with  headquarters 
in  Vienna,  was  established,  and  the  U.S. 
Senate  adopted  a  resolution  approving  its 
statute.  Today,  this  Agency  is  a  viable  or- 
ganization making  a  substantial  contribu- 
tion toward  the  separation  of  peaceful  from 
military  uses  of  nuclear  technology. 

From  hindsight,  we  might  regard  this 
Agency  and  the  network  of  international 
agreements  supporting  it  as  the  quid  pro 
quo  that  the  United  States  obtained  in  ex- 
change for  its  very  generous — perhaps  over- 
ly generous — assistance  in  nuclear  technol- 
ogy to  a  great  many  countries  throughout 
the  world. 

The  Problem  of  Peaceful  Nuclear  Explosives 

In  the  1960's  Congress  maintained  its  in- 
terest in  the  peaceful  application  of  nuclear 
technology.  But  now  it  showed  renewed  con- 
cern with  the  risk  of  spreading  weapons 
technology.  It  took  initiatives  of  its  own 
to   pave  the  way  for  the   Nonproliferation 


544 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Treaty  of  1968.  Particularly  important  was 
the  Pastore  resolution  in  1966,  urging  the 
government  to  negotiate  a  nonproliferation 
agreement. 

As  for  the  Nonproliferation  Treaty  itself, 
although  there  have  been,  and  continue  to  be, 
some  important  holdout  countries,  the  fact 
remains  that  it  has  been  a  successful  arms 
control  measure.  Eighty-three  countries  have 
ratified  it,  another  23  have  signed  it,  and 
there  are  prospects  for  additional  adherences 
in  the  not  too  distant  future. 

This  treaty  obligates  all  parties  not  to 
facilitate  the  acquisition  of  nuclear  explo- 
sives— whether  called  bombs  or  peaceful  de- 
vices— by  countries  not  possessing  nuclear 
weapons.  This  obligation  implies  that  the 
transfer  of  materials  and  know-how  ought 
to  be  controlled  or  curtailed.  At  the 
same  time,  the  treaty  obligates  the  nuclear- 
weapons  states  that  are  party  to  it  to  pro- 
vide assistance  to  all  other  parties  on  peace- 
ful nuclear  technology,  including  explosives 
for  peaceful  purposes.  Thus  this  legal  in- 
strument incorporates  the  very  dilemma  that 
has  troubled  international  control  of  nuclear 
technology  from  the  first  day. 

The  idea  of  using  nuclear  explosives  for 
peaceful  purposes  has  been  around  for  some 
time.  As  early  as  1949,  after  the  first  Soviet 
nuclear  test,  Andrei  Vyshinsky  told  the 
United  Nations  that  the  Soviet  purpose  in 
developing  nuclear  explosives  was  to  "blow 
up  mountains  and  change  the  course  of 
rivers."  Little  was  heard  of  this  idea  until 
the  mid-1950's,  when  American  scientists 
promoted  the  Plowshare  program — the  use 
of  nuclear  devices  for  excavation.  There- 
after the  United  States  stressed  the  possible 
benefits  of  this  technology,  while  the  Soviet 
Union  had  turned  skeptical.  The  program 
found  considerable  support  in  Congress  in 
the  1960's.  But  the  American  interest  in 
peaceful  nuclear  explosives  has  since  de- 
clined, and  this  year  Congress  explicitly  pro- 
hibited the  use  of  energy  R&D  funds  for 
field  testing  such  explosives.  Now,  in  the 
meantime,  some  nuclear  experts  in  the  Soviet 
Union  have  become  eager  about  exploring 
this  technology.    Hence  it  was  at  Soviet  in- 


sistence that  the  recent  Threshold  Test  Ban 
Treaty  left  open  the  question  of  peaceful 
explosives  for  subsequent  negotiations. 

How  can  one  distinguish  "peaceful"  from 
"military"  explosives?  The  U.S.  Government 
has  gone  on  record  many  times  to  insist  that 
the  technology  of  making  nuclear  explosives 
for  peaceful  purposes  is  indistinguishable 
from  the  technology  of  making  nuclear 
weapons. 

The  Indian  explosion  dramatized  this  di- 
lemma. In  the  wake  of  the  Indian  explosion 
and  the  subsequent  U.S.  off'er  to  sell  nuclear 
reactors  to  Egypt  and  Israel,  there  has  been 
very  intense  congressional  interest  in  the 
problem  of  nonproliferation,  as  is  evidenced 
by  the  number  of  bills  and  resolutions  which 
have  been  generated.  Of  two  bills  providing 
for  more  stringent  requirements  in  nuclear 
cooperation  agreements  and  increased  con- 
trol by  Congress,  one  has  already  been 
signed  into  law  this  year,  and  the  other  has 
been  through  conference;  and  a  series  of 
other  bills,  in  somewhat  similar  vein,  has 
been  under  consideration. 


Avoidance  of  Further  Proliferation 

Turning  now  to  the  future  prospects,  I 
would  stress  to  this  audience  that  the  avoid- 
ance of  further  nuclear  proliferation  is  in- 
creasingly a  matter  of  political  restraint, 
which  has  to  be  reinforced  by  laws.  The 
technical  barriers  to  nuclear  proliferation 
are  gradually  crumbling;  and  while  export 
controls  are  now  helpful  and  even  essential, 
we  have  to  assume  that  their  effectiveness 
will  diminish  in  the  years  ahead.  Hence,  the 
only  dike  to  hold  back  the  flood  is  the  politi- 
cal self-interest  of  sovereign  countries.  And 
the  political  inhibitions  can  be  greatly  re- 
inforced through  international  legal  instru- 
ments— treaties  and  agreements — that  will 
spell  out  and  codify  the  mutual  obligations. 

Whether  or  not  a  country  turns  to  nuclear 
weapons  depends,  of  course,  on  a  combina- 
tion of  capability  and  intent.  Capability  is 
governed  by  two  factors:  access  to  nuclear 
explosion  technology,  the  principles  of  which 
are   widely   known,    and   access   to   nuclear 


October  21,   1974 


545 


materials  such  as  plutonium  or  enriched 
uranium,  over  which  there  are  some  controls. 

In  the  matter  of  nuclear  fuels,  it  has  been 
widely  assumed  that  a  country  wishing  to 
take  the  nuclear-weapons  road  would  use 
plutonium,  which  is  produced  as  a  byproduct 
in  electric  power  reactors  and  can  then  be 
reprocessed  into  plutonium  usable  for  nu- 
clear explosives.  There  is,  however,  another 
possibility — that  of  enriching  uranium.  A 
relatively  new  technique,  using  centrifuges, 
may  make  this  a  more  feasible  route.  The 
centrifuge  process  has  proven  to  be  effective, 
although  the  economics  are  not  yet  proven. 
A  centrifuge  plant  is  much  smaller  and  less 
visible  than  the  huge  gaseous  diffusion  plant 
that  we  have  used  to  enrich  uranium  in  large 
quantities.  Finally,  we  hear  about  a  new 
possibility,  involving  the  use  of  lasers  to  en- 
rich uranium. 

It  is  apparent  that  several  of  the  industrial 
countries,  like  West  Germany,  Italy,  Japan, 
and  Canada,  could  produce  nuclear  arsenals 
of  great  power  within  a  relatively  short  time. 
These  countries  with  the  greatest  capabilities 
have  taken  clear  political  action,  however, 
to  indicate  that  they  do  not  intend  to  pursue 
that  course,  by  signing  or  ratifying  the  Non- 
proliferation  Treaty  and  in  other  statements 
of  their  policies. 

What  is  the  United  States  doing  to  pre- 
vent the  further  spread  of  nuclear  weapons  ? 
First  of  all,  we  are  strong  supporters  of  the 
International  Atomic  Energy  Agency  in  the 
application  of  its  safeguards  inspection  pro- 
gram, which  seeks  to  prevent  the  diversion  of 
nuclear  fuels  from  peaceful  uses  to  weapons 
manufacture.  We  give  them  technical  ad- 
vice and  help  them  in  devising  instrumenta- 
tion to  make  their  safeguards  more  effective. 
We  also  use  our  influence  in  the  Agency  to 
make  its  agreements  with  other  countries  as 
effective  as  possible. 

On  the  diplomatic  front,  we  are  naturally 
talking  to  some  countries  which  have  not 
ratified  the  Nonproliferation  Treaty,  point- 
ing out  the  advantages  of  their  doing  so. 

We  are  also  preparing  for  the  Nonpro- 
liferation Treaty  Review  Conference  called 
for  by  the  treaty,  to  be  held  by  the  parties  in 


May  1975.  The  outcome  of  this  conference 
could  be  important  for  the  future  of  the 
treaty.  It  is  very  much  to  be  hoped — and  it 
seems  possible — that  by  the  time  the  review 
conference  is  held,  a  substantial  portion  of 
the  key  industrial  states  will  be  parties  to 
the  treaty.  If  this  indeed  happens  and  if  the 
review  conference  evokes  an  impressive  de- 
gree of  solidarity  among  them  in  support  of 
preferential  treatment  for  treaty  parties, 
then  the  Nonproliferation  Treaty  will  be 
given  a  new  lease  on  life.  Like  any  interna- 
tional treaty,  this  one  has  to  accord  with 
the  self-interest  of  the  parties.  For  the 
countries  that  decided  to  forgo  nuclear  weap- 
ons, it  is,  in  essence,  a  mutual  pledge  among 
many  neighbors  in  many  regions.  It  ex- 
presses the  national  self-interest  of  these 
countries  not  to  initiate  a  nuclear  arms  com- 
petition at  their  doorstep. 

There  are  a  few  lines  of  policy  and  em- 
phasis which  I  would  like  to  suggest: 

— We  should  provide  more  money  for  the 
safeguards  regime  of  the  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency.  I  think  Congress 
would  now  be  receptive  to  this  idea. 

— More  emphasis  should  also  be  placed  on 
measures  of  physical  security  against  theft 
and  sabotage.  We  have  already  briefed  Con- 
gress on  this  subject,  in  connection  with  our 
nuclear  assistance  agreements  with  Egypt 
and  Israel.  While  physical  security  is  in- 
herently a  national  problem,  the  Internation- 
al Atomic  Energy  Agency  can  help  in  this 
respect  by  drawing  up  guidelines  and  insist- 
ing that  agreements  take  physical  security 
into  account. 

— There  is  an  obvious  relationship  between 
what  the  United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union 
do  in  restraining  their  "vertical  prolifera- 
tion" and  the  willingness  of  other  countries 
to  give  up  their  own  nuclear  option.  It  is 
clearly  important  that  the  United  States  and 
the  Soviet  Union  be  able  to  demonstrate  to 
these  other  countries  that  they  can  accom- 
plish effective  limitations  and  reductions  in 
their  massive  nuclear  arsenals. 

— Many  countries  are  now  keenly  inter- 
ested in  nuclear  reactors,  particularly  since 


546 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


the  increase  in  the  cost  of  oil.  In  responding 
to  this  interest,  we  can  seek  to  encourage 
multinational  cooperation  so  as  to  strengthen 
the  acceptability  and  reliability  of  safe- 
guards. Particularly,  the  processing  of  nu- 
clear fuel  can  best  be  done  in  cooperative 
arrangements. 

For  the  longer  run,  new  efforts  will  be 
needed  to  cope  with  the  worldwide  diffusion 
of  nuclear  technology.  We  can  slow  down 
the  spread  of  nuclear  materials  suitable  for 
destructive  purposes,  but  we  cannot  stop  it. 
We  can  rely  on  international  safeguards  to 
help  us  detect  diversion  of  material  from 
peaceful  uses  to  destructive  ones,  but  we 
cannot  rely  on  these  safeguards  to  prevent 
such  diversion  altogether.  We  can  give  full 
support  to  the  Nonproliferation  Treaty,  but 
we  cannot  expect  this  treaty  to  cover  all 
countries  or  all  the  risks  inherent  in  the 
spread  of  nuclear  technology. 

Thus,  within  a  decade  or  two,  nuclear  ex- 
plosives might  be  acquired  by  a  much  larger 
number  of  governments  than  today — even 
by  subnational  groups.  Our  strategic  forces, 
on  which  we  now  rely  to  deter  deliberate  at- 
tack from  a  major  nuclear  power,  are  not 
designed  to  protect  the  security  of  the  United 
States  in  such  a  world.  A  more  diffused  avail- 
ability of  nuclear  explosives  could  lead  to 
terrifying  threats  against  the  American 
people  or  disastrous  destruction  in  our  coun- 
try. At  such  a  time,  the  pressures  on  Con- 
gress and  the  administration  for  the  most 
drastic  action  would  be  enormous. 

Preventing  a  new  dark  age  of  unprece- 
dented violence  will  depend  on  the  determi- 
nation and  foresight  we  show  today.  We  must 
not  become  disheartened.  Our  government 
had  the  courage  to  propose  the  Baruch  plan ; 
it  had  the  vision  to  create  the  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency ;  in  had  the  farsight- 
edness to  promote  the  Nonproliferation 
Treaty.  There  seems  no  reason  why  we 
should  not  be  able  to  create  the  additional 
international  institutions  and  to  advance  the 
necessary  arms  control  measures  which  will 
enable  us  to  live  in  a  world  of  widespread 
nuclear  technology. 


1973   Report  on   U.S.   Participation 
in  the  U.N.  Transmitted  to  Congress 

Message  From  President  Ford  ^ 

To  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

I  am  pleased  to  send  to  the  Congress  the 
28th  annual  report  on  United  States  partici- 
pation in  the  work  of  the  United  Nations. 

This  report,  covering  Calendar  Year  1973, 
encompasses  the  wide  range  of  activities  car- 
ried on  by  the  United  Nations  and  its  sub- 
sidiary organizations.  It  demonstrates  the 
growing  conviction  of  United  Nations  mem- 
bers that  many  problems  of  international 
concern  are  best  resolved  through  multilat- 
eral action,  utilizing  the  machinery  of  mature 
international  institutions. 

In  the  fall  of  1973  the  United  Nations  dem- 
onstrated once  again  its  ability  to  foster  peace 
by  the  crucial  role  it  played  in  the  Middle 
East.  Following  the  outbreak  of  war,  the  Se- 
curity Council  arranged  a  ceasefire  and  de- 
ployed United  Nations  troops  to  supervise 
disengagement  agreements  between  Israel 
and  Egypt  and,  later,  between  Israel  and 
Syria.  We  cannot  know  what  might  have 
happened  in  the  absence  of  such  United  Na- 
tions action.  However,  it  is  clear  that  the  ef- 
forts of  the  United  Nations,  combined  with 
bilateral  diplomacy,  are  still  crucial  to  pro- 
moting a  just  and  lasting  settlement  of  the 
Middle  East  dispute. 

One  area  of  increasing  concern  is  the  pro- 
duction and  distribution  of  adequate  supplies 
of  food.  Our  concern  with  feeding  the  world 
can  no  longer  be  limited  to  relief  activities  in 
aid  of  victims  of  natural  disasters.  Popula- 
tion growth  and  better  living  standards  have 
increased  the  total  demand  for  food  which 
in  turn  has  increased  the  demand  for  energy 
sources  and  fertilizer.  The  pressure  of  these 
interlocking  demands  has  pushed  against  lim- 
ited supplies  and  caused  spiraling  prices. 
This  is  a  worldwide  problem  requiring  world- 


'  Transmitted  on  Sept.  19  (text  from  White  House 
press  release);  also  printed  as  H.  Doc.  93-360,  93d 
Cong.,  2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  text  of  the  report. 


October  21,    1974 


547 


wide  action  for  its  solution.  Secretary  Kis- 
singer proposed  to  the  United  Nations  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  September  1973  that  the 
organization  sponsor  a  World  Food  Confer- 
ence. The  General  Assembly  acted  favorably 
on  this  proposal  and  the  Conference  will  be 
held  in  Rome  in  November  1974.  The  United 
States  also  took  an  active  participation  in  the 
preparation  for  the  first  United  Nations  Con- 
ference on  World  Population,  convened  in 
Bucharest  in  August  1974. 

The  Third  United  Nations  Conference  on 
the  Law  of  the  Sea,  which  convened  an  orga- 
nizational session  in  December  1973,  is  an- 
other example  of  how  the  United  Nations  can 
be  utilized  to  attack  contemporary  world 
problems.  The  goal  of  the  Law  of  the  Sea 
Conference  is  a  comprehensive  international 
convention  to  govern  man's  use  of  the  oceans. 
We  need  new  understandings  to  govern  in- 
ternational navigation,  rational  management 
of  the  ocean's  living  and  non-living  resources, 
and  the  protection  of  the  life-sustaining  proc- 
esses of  the  marine  environment.  Success  in 
the  efforts  to  resolve  conflicting  claims  over 
ocean  jurisdiction  would  remove  a  major  and 
growing  source  of  conflict  from  the  interna- 
tional arena. 

The  regular  economic  and  social  activities 
of  the  United  Nations'  family  of  organiza- 
tions continued  to  absorb  over  90  percent  of 
its  funds  and  personnel  during  1973.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  traditional  operational  programs, 
many  special  conferences  during  the  year 
provided  opportunities  for  nations  to  enlarge 
their  understanding  of  and  work  toward  con- 
sensus on  such  major  international  economic 
and  social  issues  as  development  assistance, 
the  role  of  multinational  corporations,  com- 
modity agreements,  and  the  economic  rights 
and  duties  of  states.  Perhaps  the  most  im- 
portant series  of  negotiations  were  those  held 
to  carry  out  the  first  biennial  review  and  ap- 
praisal of  the  progress  toward  the  goals  of 
the  Second  United  Nations  Development  Dec- 
ade. In  these  negotiations  delegations  from 
all  parts  of  the  world  worked  for  months  to 
formulate  a  report  that  refined  the  broad 
measures  necessary  to  improve  the  world's 
economic   and  social   situation.   The   United 


States  played  a  leading  role  in  these  nego- 
tiations. 

Unfortunately,  not  all  international  prob- 
lems dealt  with  by  the  United  Nations  were 
successfully  approached  in  1973.  For  exam- 
ple, it  is  generally  believed  in  the  United 
States  that  terrorism  against  innocent  third 
parties,  including  the  hijacking  of  aircraft, 
is  a  matter  of  international  concern  that  calls 
for  international  solutions.  The  divergence 
of  political  views  among  member  states,  how- 
ever, has  made  it  impossible  to  agree  on 
either  a  general  definition  of  terrorism  or  a 
remedy  for  it.  Despite  the  limit  thus  placed 
on  the  effectiveness  of  the  United  Nations 
forum  in  dealing  with  the  problem,  a  start 
was  made  in  1973  with  the  adoption  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Convention  on  the 
Prevention  and  Punishment  of  Crimes 
Against  Internationally  Protected  Persons, 
Including  Diplomatic  Agents.  On  the  other 
hand,  neither  the  International  Conference 
on  Air  Law  nor  the  Assembly  of  the  Interna- 
tional Civil  Aviation  Organization,  which 
met  simultaneously,  made  progress  on  meas- 
ures to  improve  security  for  aircraft  passen- 
gers. 

An  important  part  of  the  United  Nations 
record  in  1973  was  the  admission  to  member- 
ship of  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany,  the 
German  Democratic  Republic,  and  The  Ba- 
hamas— admissions  the  United  States  sup- 
ported. The  United  Nations  has  thus  become 
still  more  representative  of  the  world  com- 
munity. 

Our  participation  in  the  United  Nations 
reflects  our  fundamental  belief  that  to  assure 
a  peaceful  world  it  is  necessary  to  cooperate 
with  other  nations  in  a  multilateral  frame- 
work on  mutually  agreed  upon  activities.  This 
report  records  the  successes  and  failures,  the 
hopes  and  frustrations  of  many  of  those  ac- 
tivities. Above  all  it  records  what  we  tried  to 
accomplish  through  the  United  Nations  to 
further  the  many  interests  that  our  citizens 
and  our  country  share  with  the  world  com- 
munity. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  September  19,  I97h. 


548 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


President   Ford   Establishes 
Economic   Policy   Board 

Following  are  texts  of  a  White  House 
announcement  issued  on  September  28  and 
an  Executive  order  signed  by  President  Ford 
on  September  30. 

WHITE   HOUSE  ANNOUNCEMENT 

White  House  press  release  dated  September  28 

President  Ford  announced  on  September 
28  the  formation  of  a  new  Economic  Policy 
Board,  which  will  oversee  the  formulation, 
coordination,  and  implementation  of  all 
economic  policy,  and  named  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  William  E.  Simon  as  Chairman. 

Secretary  Simon  will  act  as  the  principal 
spokesman  for  the  executive  branch  on  mat- 
ters of  economic  policy.  The  new  Board  will 
be  the  focal  point  for  economic  policy  deci- 
sionmaking, both  domestic  and  international. 
Secretary  Simon  will  also  chair  an  Executive 
Committee  of  the  Board,  which  will  meet 
daily. 

The  President  also  announced  the  appoint- 
ment of  L.  William  Seidman  as  Assistant 
to  the  President  for  Economic  Affairs.  In 
addition  to  a  wide  range  of  other  duties, 
Mr.  Seidman  will  serve  as  a  member  and 
Executive  Director  of  the  Economic  Policy 
Board  and  its  Executive  Committee.  In  his 
new  roles,  Mr.  Seidman  will  be  responsible 
for  coordinating  the  implementation  of  eco- 
nomic policy  and  providing  liaison  with  the 
Presidential  staff  and  with  other  govern- 
mental activities. 

Secretary  Simon  and  Mr.  Seidman  will 
have  responsibility  for  insuring  that  there 
is  adequate  coordination  among  existing  and 
proposed  committees  relating  to  economic 
policy.  Secretary  Simon  will  serve  as  Chair- 
man, and  Mr.  Seidman  as  Deputy  Chairman, 
of  the  Council  on  Wage  and  Price  Stability 
as  well  as  the  Council  on  International  Eco- 
nomic Policy,  the  National  Advisory  Council 
on  International  Economic  Policy,  the  Na- 
tional   Advisory    Council    on    International 


Monetary  and  Financial  Policies,  and  the 
President's  Committee  on  East-West  Trade 
Policy. 

The  other  members  of  the  Economic  Policy 
Board  will  be: 

Secretary  of  State  Henry   A.   Kissinger 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  Rogers  C.  B.  Morton 
Secretary  of  Agriculture  Earl  L.   Butz 
Secretary  of  Commerce  Frederick  B.  Dent 
Secretary  of  Labor  Peter  J.  Rrennan 
Secretary  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare  Caspar 

W.  Weinberger 
Secretary     of     Housing     and     Urban     Development 

James  T.  Lynn 
Secretary  of  Transportation  Claude  S.  Brinegar 
Director  of  the   Office   of   Management   and   Budget 

Roy  L.  Ash 
Chairman  of  the  Council  of  Economic  Advisers  Alan 

Greenspan 
Executive   Director  of  the  Council   on   International 

Economic  Policy  William  D.  Eberle 

Mr.  Greenspan,  Mr.  Eberle,  and  a  senior 
member  of  the  Office  of  Management  and 
Budget  will  serve  as  members  of  the  Execu- 
tive Committee.  Dr.  Arthur  F.  Burns,  Chair- 
man of  the  Federal  Reserve  Board,  will 
attend  both  Board  and  Executive  Committee 
meetings  when  appropriate. 


TEXT  OF  EXECUTIVE  ORDER   11808  1 

Establishing   the    President's    Economic    Policy 
Board,  and   for  Other   Purposes 

By  virtue  of  the  authority  vested  in  me  by  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  it  is 
hereby  ordered  as  follows: 

Section  1.  There  is  hereby  established  the  Presi- 
dent's Economic  Policy  Board  (hereinafter  referred 
to  as  the  Board). 

Sec.  2.  The  Board  shall  consist  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  who  shall  be  its  Chairman,  the 
Assistant  to  the  President  for  Economic  Affairs, 
the  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  the  Secretary  of 
Commerce,  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  the  Secretary 
of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare,  the  Secretary  of 
Housing  and  Urban  Development,  the  Secretary  of 
Transportation,  the  Director  of  the  Office  of  Man- 
agement and  Budget,  the  Chairman  of  the  Council 
of  Economic  Advisors,  and  the  Executive  Director 
of  the  Council  on  International  Economic  Policy. 
The   Chairman   of   the    Board   of   Governors   of   the 


•  39  Fed.  Reg.  35563. 


October  21,    1974 


549 


Federal  Reserve  System  is  invited  to  attend  meetings 
of  the   Board. 

Sec.  3.  The  Economic  Policy  Board  shall  provide 
advice  to  the  President  concerning  all  aspects  of 
national  and  international  economic  policy,  will  over- 
see the  formulation,  coordination,  and  implementa- 
tion of  all  economic  policy  of  the  United  States,  and 
v^'ill  serve  as  the  focal  point  for  economic  policy 
decision-making.  The  Chairman  of  the  Board  shall 
act  as  the  principal  spokesman  for  the  Executive 
Branch  on  matters  of  economic  policy. 

Sec.  4.  (a)  There  is  hereby  established  the  Execu- 
tive Committee  of  the  Board.  The  Executive  Com- 
mittee shall  consist  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
who  shall  be  its  Chairman,  the  Assistant  to  the 
President  for  Economic  Affairs,  the  Director  of  the 
Office  of  Management  and  Budget,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Council  of  Economic  Advisers,  and  the  Executive 
Director  of  the  Council  on  International  Economic 
Policy.  The  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Governors 
of  the  Federal  Reserve  System  is  invited  to  attend 
meetings  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

(b)  The  Executive  Committee  shall  meet  daily  to 
consider  matters  involving  responsibilities  of  the 
Board. 

Sec.  5.  The  Assistant  to  the  President  for  Eco- 
nomic Affairs  shall  be  the  Executive  Director  of  the 
Board  and  of  the  Executive  Committee,  and,  as  such, 
shall  be  responsible  for  coordinating  the  imple- 
mentation of  economic  policy  and  providing  liaison 
with  the  Presidential  staff  and  with  other  Govern- 
mental activities. 

Sec.  6.  (a)  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall 
be  a  member  of  the  Council  on  Wage  and  Price 
Stability  and  be  its  Chairman.  The  Assistant  to  the 
President  for  Economic  Affairs  shall  be  a  member 
of  the  Council  and  be  its  Deputy  Chairman. 

(b)  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  be  the 
Chairman  of  the  Council  on  International  Economic 
Policy.  The  Assistant  to  the  President  for  Economic 
Affairs  shall  be  a  member  of  that  Council  and  be  its 
Deputy  Chairman. 

(c)  Section  1(b)  of  Executive  Order  No.  11269, 
as  amended  (prescribing  the  composition  of  the 
National  Advisory  Council  on  International  Mone- 
tary and  Financial  Policies),  is  further  amended  by 
inserting  after  "the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who 
shall  be  Chairman  of  the  Council,"  the  following 
"the  Assistant  to  the  President  for  Economic  Affairs, 
who  shall  be  Deputy  Chairman  of  the  Council,". 

(d)(1)  Section  1(1)  of  Executive  Order  No.  11789 
(prescribing  the  composition  of  the  President's  Com- 
mittee on  East-West  Trade  Policy)  is  amended  to 
read  as  follows: 

"(1)  The  Assistant  to  the  President  for  Economic 
Affairs." 

(2)  Section  2  of  that  Order  is  amended  to  read 
as  follows: 

"Sec.  2.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  be 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  the  Assistant 


to  the   President  for  Economic   Affairs   shall  be   its 
Deputy  Chairman." 

Sec.  7.  All  departments  and  agencies  shall  co- 
operate with  the  Board,  including  the  Executive 
Committee  thereof,  and  shall,  to  the  extent  permitted 
by  law,  provide  it  with  such  assistance  and  infor- 
mation as  the  Chairman  or  the  Executive  Director  of 
the  Board  may  request. 


^^ndU  ^9.    ^^ 


The  White  House,  September  30,  1974. 


Department   Urges  Prompt  Action 
on   North   Atlantic  Air  Fares 

Department  Statement,  September  2U 

Press  release  377  dated  September  24 

The  Department  welcomes  the  positive  ac- 
tion of  the  Civil  Aeronautics  Board  (CAB) 
in  undertaking  to  expedite  consideration  of 
the  recent  International  Air  Transport  As- 
sociation (lATA)  agreement  on  North  At- 
lantic scheduled  fares  before  expiration  of 
the  old  agreement  November  1.  The  Board's 
action  was  in  the  form  of  a  letter  from  CAB 
Chairman  [Robert  D.]  Timm  sent  September 
24  to  the  President  of  the  European  Civil 
Aviation  Conference  (ECAC).  An  ECAC 
resolution  had  called  on  governments  to  ap- 
prove these  agreements  on  scheduled  and 
nonscheduled  (charter)  prices  without  undue 
delay.  In  view  of  the  serious  financial  prob- 
lems confronting  our  international  air  car- 
riers, the  Department  believes  it  imperative 
that  governments  move  promptly  to  insure 
that  there  is  no  lengthy  period  of  uncertainty 
regarding  the  establishment  this  winter  of 
cost-related  North  Atlantic  air  fares. 

The  CAB's  announcement  that  it  will  move 
promptly  toward  a  final  decision  on  the  fare 
package  submitted  September  5  for  the 
Board's  approval  by  the  carriers  of  the  Inter- 
national Air  Transport  Association  should 
make  it  clear  that  U.S.  Government  action 
will  be  prompt  and  effective. 

We  also  note  that  the  proposed  lATA 
package  is  dependent  on  an  agreement  being 


550 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


reached  by  the  North  Atlantic  scheduled  and 
charter  carriers  establishing  a  minimum 
charter  price  (charter  floor).  Discussions 
have  been  underway  to  this  end  for  several 
months,  but  full  agreement  has  not  yet  been 
reached.  Failure  to  agree  on  the  charter 
floor  would  threaten  the  agreement  already 
reached  on  scheduled  services.  We  would 
urge  the  carriers  participating  in  the  sched- 
uled-charter  negotiations  to  resume  their  dis- 
cussions and  try  to  move  without  further  de- 
lay toward  a  final  agreement.  If  the  charter 
talks  were  to  break  down  or  if  the  partici- 
pants were  unable  to  resolve  their  difl'erences 
within  a  reasonable  time  before  expiration  of 
the  present  lATA  fares,  the  Department  is 
prepared  to  initiate  direct  consultations  or 
negotiations  with  foreign  governments  as  a 
means  of  removing  remaining  obstacles  to 
the  early  institution  for  the  winter  season  of 
a  rational  airfare  system  on  the  North  At- 
lantic. 


U.S.  and  U.K.  Agree  To  Reduce 
Excess  Airline  Capacity 

Rejyreseyitatives  of  U.S.  and  U.K.  Govern- 
ment agencies  met  at  Washington  September 
17-19.  Following  are  texts  of  a  Department 
announceynent  and  a  joint  U.S.-U.K.  press 
statement  issued  September  20. 

Press  release  369  dated  September  20 

DEPARTMENT  ANNOUNCEMENT 

The  Department  of  State  welcomes  the 
agreement  reached  between  U.S.  and  U.K. 
aviation  delegations  this  week  which  will  re- 
sult in  the  improvement  of  the  economic  cli- 
mate for  U.S.  airlines  operations  in  the  North 
Atlantic  by  cutting  down  excess  airline  ca- 
pacity between  the  United  States  and  the 
United  Kingdom. 

This  agreement  has  been  undertaken  in 
accordance  with  the  U.S.  action  plan  ap- 
proved by  President  Ford  on  September  18 
to  improve  the  competitive  climate  in  which 
Pan  Am  and  our  other  international  air  car- 


riers operate.  The  Department  of  State  is 
initiating  early  consultations  with  other  Eu- 
ropean governments  to  achieve  the  elimina- 
tion of  capacity  excess  to  market  demand  on 
services  to  these  countries. 


JOINT  U.S.-U.K.   PRESS  STATEMENT 

Aviation  delegations  representing  the 
United  Kingdom  and  United  States  Govern- 
ments reached  agreement  this  week  on  the 
need  for  vigorous  action  to  restore  profitable 
airline  operations  in  the  North  Atlantic  mar- 
ket by  eliminating  excess  capacity  and  es- 
tablishing a  cost-related  fare  structure. 

Traffic  demand  across  the  North  Atlantic 
for  the  coming  winter  season  is  expected  to 
decline  by  some  10-20  percent  over  last  win- 
ter. 

In  accordance  with  the  objective  agreed  by 
the  two  governments,  U.S.  and  British  air- 
lines providing  scheduled  services  between 
the  two  countries  have  agreed  to  capacity  re- 
ductions for  the  winter  season  November 
1974  through  April  1975  of  some  20  percent 
compared  with  the  equivalent  period  of  last 
year.  This  covers  services  between  London 
and  New  York,  Boston,  Washington,  Phila- 
delphia, Detroit,  Miami,  Chicago,  and  Los 
Angeles.  Despite  these  substantial  reduc- 
tions, the  airlines  are  confident  that  their 
services  this  winter  will  fully  meet  the  pub- 
lic need.  Consideration  will  be  given  later  on 
to  appropriate  measures  to  rationalize  ca- 
pacity between  the  two  countries  for  next 
summer. 

During  the  consultations  the  two  delega- 
tions expressed  their  full  support  for  the  cur- 
rent efi'orts  of  the  North  Atlantic  airlines  to 
develop  an  improved  airline  fare  structure, 
taking  account  of  the  increased  costs,  par- 
ticularly for  fuel,  being  encountered  by  the 
industry.  They  welcomed  the  substantial 
progress  already  made  towards  establishing 
cost-related  fares  and  minimum  charter 
prices. 

These  actions  reflect  the  determination  of 
both  governments  to  return  the  North  Atlan- 
tic market  to  profitable  conditions. 


October  21,    1974 


551 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND   CONFERENCES 


General  Conference  of  the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency 
Holds   18th   Session  at  Vienna 


The  18th  session  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Internatio7ial  Atomic  Energy 
Agency  (IAEA)  was  held  at  Vienyia  Sep- 
tember 16-20.  Following  is  a  statement  made 
before  the  conference  on  September  17  by 
Dr.  Dixy  Lee  Ray,  Chairman  of  the  U.S. 
Atomic  Energy  Commission,  who  was  chair- 
man of  the  U.S.  delegation. 

U.S.  AEC  press  release  dated  September  17 

Mr.  President  [Gen.  (ret.)  Fernando  Me- 
dina, of  the  Philippines]  :  It  is  a  great  pleas- 
ure to  congratulate  you,  on  behalf  of  my 
government,  upon  your  election  as  our  pre- 
siding officer.  And  for  my  part,  once  again 
I  am  proud  to  represent  the  United  States 
at  the  Agency's  General  Conference.  It  has 
been  a  pleasure  to  renew  personal  acquaint- 
ances with  many  of  you  and  to  meet  dele- 
gates whom  I  had  not  known  before. 

Director  General  [A.  Sigvard]  Eklund  and 
the  staff  of  the  Secretariat  deserve  high 
praise  and  commendation  for  their  responses 
to  the  difficult,  urgent,  and  complex  demands 
made  upon  them  during  the  year  just  over. 
The  initiative,  imagination,  and  professional 
competence  of  the  Agency  probably  will  be 
tested  even  more  in  the  years  ahead.  As  his 
address  clearly  indicated,  the  Director  Gen- 
eral knows  full  well  that  these  challenges 
must  be  faced  and  surmounted. 

It  is  my  privilege  now  to  read  the  follow- 
ing message  from  President  Ford : 

On  this,  my  first  occasion  to  address  the  General 
Conference  of  the  International  Atomic  Energy 
Agency,  I  want  to  emphasize  the  strong  and  affirm- 
ative role  the  United  States  has  played  in  support 
of  the  IAEA.  Our  policy  was  initiated  under  Presi- 
dent Eisenhower,  sustained  under  succeeding  Presi- 
dents and  will  continue. 


The  IAEA  helps  all  nations  in  promoting  world- 
wide peaceful  development  of  nuclear  energy,  meet- 
ing the  challenge  of  increased  energy  requirements, 
protecting  both  man  and  his  environment  and  pro- 
viding assurance  against  diversion  of  this  resource 
for  nuclear  explosives. 

The  Agency  exercises  important  responsibilities 
in  carrying  out  safeguards  in  accordance  with  the 
Treaty  on  the  Non-Proliferation  of  Nuclear  Weap- 
ons, which  I  regard  as  one  of  the  pillars  of  United 
States  foreign  policy.  I  wish  to  reaffirm  my  Govern- 
ment's offer  to  permit  the  application  of  IAEA 
safeguards  to  any  U.S.  nuclear  activity  except  those 
of  direct  national  security  significance.  This  offer 
will  be  implemented  when  safeguards  are  being 
broadly  applied  under  the  Treaty  in  other  industrial 
states.  Our  offer  was  made  in  order  to  encourage 
the  widest  possible  adherence  to  the  Treaty  by  dem- 
onstrating to  other  nations  that  they  would  not  be 
placed  at  a  commercial  disadvantage  by  reason  of 
the  application  of  safeguards  under  the  Treaty. 

I  have  become  increasingly  aware  of  the  world- 
wide expectation  that  nuclear  energy  should  provide 
a  far  greater  portion  of  power  needs  and  of  the 
world-wide  concern  about  nuclear  safeguards.  The 
Member  States  of  the  IAEA  and  Agency  staff  face 
important  challenges  in  simultaneously  expanding 
nuclear  power  production  and  safeguarding  its  fuel 
cycle. 

We  in  the  United  States  look  forward  to  continu- 
ing, and  in  fact  increased,  IAEA  contributions  in 
bringing  the  benefits  of  the  peaceful  atom  to  all 
mankind  and  in  bringing  about  closer  collaboration 
among  the  nations  of  the  world. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  extend  to  all  delegates  to  this 
Conference  my  warmest  greetings  and  best  wishes 
for  a  successful  meeting. 

President  Ford  has  clearly  reaffirmed  the 
strong  support  we  give  to  the  Agency's  pro- 
gram. 

As  many  of  you  may  recall,  the  U.S. 
Atoms  for  Peace  program  and  the  establish- 
ment of  this  great  international  Agency 
were  proposed  by  President  Eisenhower  in 
his  historic  message  before  the  U.N.  General 


552 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Assembly  in  December  1953.  The  develop- 
ment of  peaceful  uses  of  atomic  energy  dur- 
ing the  subsequent  20  years  has  been  char- 
acterized by  an  impressive  record  of  interna- 
tional cooperation. 

The  ability  of  many  countries  to  enter  the 
nuclear  age  has  been  facilitated  by  the  work 
of  this  Agency.  There  are  104  member  na- 
tions in  IAEA.  There  are  nearly  50  countries 
who  are  actively  probing  the  nature  of  mat- 
ter and  investigating  the  many  effects  and 
applications  of  radioactivity  with  research 
reactors.  By  the  end  of  this  year,  the  Agency 
has  estimated  that  there  will  be  121  opera- 
tional power  reactors  in  17  IAEA  member 
countries  other  than  the  United  States,  with 
a  total  installed  capacity  of  nearly  32,000 
megawatts  electric.  And  similar  Agency  pro- 
jections this  year  show  that  by  1980  these 
figures  will  have  risen  to  244  power  reactors 
in  25  member  countries,  with  a  total  in- 
stalled capacity  of  over  125,000  megawatts 
electric. 

The  significant  role  of  the  IAEA  in  foster- 
ing dissemination  of  nuclear  knowledge  and 
encouraging  the  responsible  use  of  the  tech- 
nology that  arises  from  it  has  been  a  remark- 
able accomplishment  in  the  short  period  of 
20  years.  The  importance  of  the  IAEA  cer- 
tainly will  increase  in  the  years  to  come. 

U.S.  Support  for  IAEA  Activities 

Now,  what  does  lie  ahead?  The  Director 
General  has  provided  us  with  a  carefully 
conceived  and  thought-provoking  analysis  of 
the  problems  facing  nuclear  energy  through- 
out the  world. 

The  United  States  strongly  supports  a 
broad  review,  as  described  by  the  Director 
General,  of  the  prospects  and  problems  of 
nuclear  power  in  a  world  energy  situation 
that  is  increasingly  complex.  As  the  availa- 
bility of  nuclear  power  for  generating  elec- 
tricity expands  in  both  developed  and  devel- 
oping countries,  problems  of  safety,  fuel 
supply,  and  waste  management  will  grow. 
They  will  require  cooperation  and  exchange 
of  information  on  an  ever-broadening  scale. 

The  United  States  supports  the  Agency's 


expanded  program  in  the  safety  field.  As  you 
know,  we  have  just  published  in  draft  form 
results  of  a  two-year  independent  study  of 
safety  in  U.S.  commercial  nuclear  power 
plants,  referred  to  as  the  Rasmussen  study. 
This  definitive  analysis  finds  the  risks  of  se- 
rious accidents  to  be  extremely  low.  Further- 
more, even  if  an  improbable  accident  should 
occur,  the  likelihood  of  deaths  or  illness  or 
financial  losses  is  far  smaller  than  from  sev- 
eral types  of  non-nuclear  accidents  to  which 
people  are  already  commonly  exposed.  The 
main  report  and  a  summary  have  been  dis- 
tributed to  atomic  energy  organizations 
throughout  the  world,  and  a  full  set  of  the 
14  volumes  still  in  draft  form  has  been  pro- 
vided to  the  Agency.  We  invite  your  review 
and  comments.  Detailed  attention  to  safe  de- 
sign, construction,  and  operation  of  nuclear 
plants  is  essential  everywhere  because  an  ac- 
cident in  any  nation  would  be  of  concern  to 
all. 

The  less  developed  countries  should  bene- 
fit considerably  from  expanded  IAEA  activi- 
ties in  providing  assistance  in  planning  for 
nuclear  power  projects.  The  IAEA  guidebook 
being  circulated  in  draft  at  this  General  Con- 
ference, and  the  advi.sory  services  that  the 
Agency  provides,  make  this  Agency  the  lead- 
ing international  body  for  assistance  in  eval- 
uating an  introduction  of  nuclear  power  in 
less  developed  countries. 

With  regard  to  fuel  supply  and  fuel  cycle 
services,  the  United  States,  as  a  major  sup- 
plier of  enriched  uranium,  views  its  respon- 
sibility in  this  area  very  seriously.  The  U.S. 
Atomic  Energy  Commission  has  recently 
contracted  up  to  the  present  limit  of  its  au- 
thority to  meet  the  needs  of  approximately 
355  domestic  and  foreign  power  reactors 
(representing  about  320,000  megawatts). 
These  contracts  cover  reactors  that  will  re- 
quire initial  fuel  deliveries  through  June  30, 
1982.  We  are  also  examining  the  methods  we 
will  employ  to  extend  our  capacity  so  that 
we  continue  to  serve  the  international  market 
reliably  for  decades  to  come. 

We  recognize  the  need  for  much  better 
data  on  uranium  resources  and  enrichment 
capacity,  and  we  fully  support  the  Director 


October  21,    1974 


553 


General's  call  for  a  major  international  con- 
ference in  1977  on  prospects  and  problems 
for  nuclear  energy.  We  will,  of  course,  par- 
ticipate actively  in  such  a  conference  that 
will  deal  broadly  with  many  issues  in  the  nu- 
clear field. 

High-level  radioactive  wastes  continue  to 
pose  long-term  problems.  We  welcome  the 
Board  action  on  September  13  to  define  the 
kinds  of  wastes  that  are  unsuitable  for  dump- 
ing at  sea,  pursuant  to  the  London  Conven- 
tion. I  can  see  the  Agency  playing  a  signifi- 
cant role  in  the  development  of  standards 
and  safety  criteria  and  perhaps  also  of  meth- 
odology for  the  handling  of  these  wastes. 

Technical  Assistance  Programs 

The  technical  assistance  programs  of  the 
IAEA  have  long  been  of  great  value  to  many 
countries.  We  continue  to  support  and  par- 
ticipate in  the  Agency's  multifaceted  pro- 
grams. For  example,  as  an  important  early 
step  in  helping  to  prepare  the  less  developed 
countries  to  use  nuclear  power,  the  United 
States  has  proposed  to  cosponsor  with  the 
IAEA  a  two-  to  three-week  course  in  the 
principles  and  techniques  of  regulating  nu- 
clear power  for  public  health,  safety,  and  en- 
vironmental protection.  This  course,  pro- 
posed to  be  held  at  the  U.S.  Atomic  Energy 
Commission  headquarters,  would  assist  rep- 
resentatives of  perhaps  20-30  countries  to 
organize  and  administer  eff'ective  national 
energy  regulatory  programs.  U.S.  experi- 
ence in  this  area  has  been  wide  ranging  and 
intense  and  should  be  of  considerable  inter- 
est and  utility  to  those  member  states  plan- 
ning to  embark  on  nuclear  power  programs. 
We  fully  recognize  the  essential  role  of  spe- 
cialized manpower  training  in  this  relatively 
new  area  as  well  as  those  in  which  the  IAEA 
has  been  engaged  for  some  time. 

In  the  same  connection,  it  is  most  gratify- 
ing that  the  Agency  has  reached  agreement 
on  its  program  for  the  preparation  of  a  set 
of  standards,  in  the  form  of  codes  of  prac- 
tice and  safety  guides,  for  nuclear  power 
reactors.  Ambassador  Tape  [Gerald  F.  Tape, 


U.S.  Representative  to  the  IAEA]  made 
clear  at  the  time  the  Board  approved  this 
program  last  Friday  the  great  importance 
which  my  government  attaches  to  this  activ- 
ity. The  program  will  have  the  strong  sup- 
port of  the  U.S.  Atomic  Energy  Commission 
and  we  hope  that  it  will  receive  similar  sup- 
port from  appropriate  organizations  in  other 
member  states.  We  are  prepared  to  make  im- 
portant contributions,  including  expert  serv- 
ices without  cost  to  the  Agency,  to  help  ac- 
complish the  objectives  of  this  program. 

Also,  may  I  suggest  a  possible  new  empha- 
sis for  IAEA,  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
World  Health  Organization,  to  bring  to  de- 
veloping countries  the  full  benefits  of  nu- 
clear medicine.  Adequately  trained  medical 
personnel  exist  already  in  many  countries, 
and  the  requisite  radioactive  materials  can 
be  shipped  with  modern  air  transportation. 
What  appear  to  be  lacking  are  sturdy,  reli- 
able, low-cost,  yet  sensitive  instruments  for 
diagnostic  and  therapeutic  uses  in  a  wide 
variety  of  facilities  and  environmental  con- 
ditions. We  suggest  that  the  IAEA  prepare 
an  inventory  of  the  potential  world  market 
for  such  equipment  as  a  stimulus  to  manu- 
facturers. 

The  United  States  renews  its  pledge,  for 
the  16th  consecutive  year,  to  donate  up  to 
50  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  special  nuclear 
materials  for  use  in  Agency  projects.  As  an- 
nounced at  the  June  Board  of  Governors 
meeting,  parties  to  the  Nonproliferation 
Treaty  (NPT),  will  be  given  preferential 
consideration  in  the  donation  of  these  mate- 
rials. 

We  continue  to  support  the  financing  by 
voluntary  contributions  of  the  technical  as- 
sistance program.  We  are  confident  that  vol- 
untary contributions  bring  more  funds  and 
more  in-kind  assistance  than  can  assess- 
ments. The  U.S.  cash  and  in-kind  assistance  i 
last  year  amounted  to  about  $2  million.  For 
the  coming  year,  subject  to  governmental  ap- 
propriations, my  government  intends  to  con- 
tribute generously  to  the  cash  target  and  to 
make  additional  in-kind  grants.  Beginning 
in  1975  we  intend  to  give  preference  in  allo- 


554 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


cation  of  in-kind  grants  to  developing  coun- 
tries that  are  parties  to  the  NPT.  We  con- 
sider both  of  these  actions  consistent  with 
our  obligations  under  article  IV  of  the  NPT.' 

Safeguarding  Nuclear  Materials 

Events  of  the  past  year  have  caused  a  dra- 
matic and  renewed  interest  in  nuclear  en- 
ergy as  all  nations  reassess  their  require- 
ments for  energy  supplies.  And  so  I  wish  now 
to  focus  discussion  upon  what  I  believe  is 
the  most  serious  challenge  facing  this  Agency 
and  all  of  us  interested  in  nuclear  energy: 
The  need  to  design  and  apply  even  more  ef- 
fective safeguards  to  nuclear  materials  and 
facilities  in  order  to  deter  proliferation  of 
nuclear-weapon  capability  and  to  provide  ad- 
ditional measures  to  prevent  the  theft  of  nu- 
clear materials. 

Director  General  Eklund  has  taken  the  lead 
in  addressing  safeguards  and  proliferation 
issues  at  this  General  Conference.  I  am  hope- 
ful that  my  remarks  will  generate  additional 
comments  from  other  delegates.  These  re- 
marks reflect  policy  developments  in  my  own 
country,  bilateral  discussions  with  other  na- 
tions, and  a  desire  to  share  these  views  with 
all  of  you  here. 

Nations  that  export  and  nations  that  pur- 
chase nuclear  technology,  equipment,  and 
fuels  both  have  much  to  gain  by  making  the 
international  nuclear  situation  more  secure. 
We  are  concerned  about  export  practices,  rea- 
sonable control  of  the  entire  fuel  cycle,  physi- 
cal security  of  nuclear  materials,  safeguards 
accountability  for  nuclear  materials,  clearly 
defined  international  responses  to  acts  or 
threats  of  nuclear  terrorism,  and  implica- 
tions of  peaceful  nuclear  explosions  for  nu- 
clear proliferation. 

We  continue  to  endorse  fully  the  Nonpro- 
liferation  Treaty  and  urge  that  nations  which 
still  have  not  become  parties  to  the  treaty  do 
so  as  soon  as  is  feasible  for  them.  We  also 
hope  that  nonparties,  as  well  as  parties  to 


'For  text  of  the  treaty,  see  Bulletin  of  July  1, 
1968,  p.  8. 


the  NPT,  can  join  here  at  the  IAEA  in  a 
concerted  effort  to  enhance  security  and  safe- 
guards for  nuclear  plants  and  materials 
throughout  the  world.  Let  us  examine  a  few 
aspects  of  this  situation  in  a  bit  more  detail : 

1.  Conditions  for  export.  Some  of  the  ma- 
jor nuclear-exporting  countries,  including  the 
United  States,  have  reached  agreement  on 
procedures  and  criteria  that  serve  as  mini- 
mum common  standards  for  implementation 
of  the  requirements  of  article  III.2  of  the 
NPT,  which  calls  for  IAEA  safeguards  in 
connection  with  nuclear  materials  and  equip- 
ment exported  to  non-nuclear-weapon  states. 
Furthermore,  the  United  States,  United 
Kingdom,  and  U.S.S.R.  have  agreed,  begin- 
ning October  1,  to  report  to  the  IAEA  de- 
tailed information  on  their  export  and  im- 
port of  nuclear  materials  to  and  from  non- 
nuclear-weapon  states. 

We  recognize  that  many  nations  have  well- 
trained  scientists  and  engineers  capable  of 
applying  or  developing  sophisticated  nuclear 
technology  for  military  as  well  as  for  peace- 
ful purposes.  It  is  to  their  great  credit  that 
so  many  of  these  nations  have  chosen  not  to 
develop  nuclear  weapons.  As  Ambassador 
Tape  emphasized  at  the  June  Board  of  Gov- 
ernors meeting,  the  use  in  or  for  any  nuclear 
explosive  device  of  any  material  or  equip- 
ment subject  to  an  agreement  with  the  United 
States  for  cooperation  for  civil  uses  of  atomic 
energy  is  precluded.  We  intend  to  maintain 
this  policy,  and  we  believe  that  other  export- 
ing countries  share  the  view  that  explicit 
agreements  and  effective  verification  are  es- 
sential. 

2.  Control  of  the  fuel  cycle.  With  the  pro- 
posed and  planned  sale  of  reactors  to  coun- 
tries in  regions  throughout  the  world,  includ- 
ing areas  that  are  politically  troubled,  ques- 
tions have  been  raised  about  the  impact  of 
such  sales  on  proliferation.  If  each  country 
that  moves  into  nuclear-generated  electricity 
is  faced  with  the  necessity  to  develop  its  own 
means  of  handling  the  spent  fuel,  then  each 
country  will  have  to  develop  the  technology 
for  this  purpose.  As  an  alternative,  the  es- 


October  21,    1974 


555 


tablishment  of  internationally  approved  fa- 
cilities to  handle  all  the  spent  fuel  arising 
from  power  reactors  may  be  helpful  to  par- 
ticipating countries.  It  may  also  be  reassur- 
ing to  the  rest  of  the  world. 

Attention  must  be  directed  to  the  different 
types  of  fuel  cycles  as  well.  In  the  United 
States  our  e.xperience  has  been  mainly  with 
the  light  water  reactor  using  low-enriched 
uranium.  Cycles  using  natural  uranium  and 
heavy  water  moderation,  uranium  and  thor- 
ium, highly  enriched  uranium,  or  uranium 
and  plutonium  each  will  require  careful  anal- 
ysis to  provide  the  best  safeguarding  meth- 
ods and  most  efficient  handling.  Each  fuel 
cycle  has  different  degrees  of  vulnerability 
and  should  be  analyzed  from  that  point  of 
view  also.  In  such  analyses  the  member 
states  and  the  staff  of  the  IAEA  could  make 
great  contributions.  The  United  States  is 
committed  to  such  efforts  on  a  national  basis 
and  will  be  pleased  to  participate  in  interna- 
tional activities  in  this  area. 

3.  Physical  security.  In  the  face  of  terror- 
ist activity  in  many  places  around  the  world, 
we  have  taken  action  in  the  United  States  to 
enhance  significantly  the  physical  security  at 
AEC  and  AEC-licensed  facilities  and  for  ma- 
terials during  transport.  We  encourage  other 
nations  to  do  the  same.  Widespread  publicity 
concerning  details  of  security  plans  would  be 
unwise,  but  through  appropriate  technical 
working  groups  we  would  be  pleased  to  share 
useful  aspects  of  our  approaches  to  greater 
physical  security. 

In  addition  to  improving  conditions  at  ex- 
isting locations,  we  anticipate  that  impor- 
tant changes  can  be  incorporated  into  con- 
struction designs  to  enhance  physical  secu- 
rity in  new  facilities.  The  booklet  "Recom- 
mendations for  the  Physical  Protection  of 
Nuclear  Materials,"  published  by  the  IAEA 
in  1972,  provides  useful  guidelines  and  a  ba- 
sis for  further  IAEA  recommendations. 

We  support  the  Director  General's  sugges- 
tion that  prospects  for  an  international 
agreement  on  minimum  standards  for  physi- 
cal security  be  explored.  Further,  we  agree 
with  his  recommendation  that  the  Agency 
prepare  itself  to  serve  as  a  source  for  advice 


and  assistance  to  those  nations  that  recog- 
nize the  desirability  of  improving  their  ca- 
pability in  physical  security  systems. 

4.  Safeguards  accountability  for  nuclear 
materials.  The  IAEA  has  taken  the  lead  for 
many  years  in  safeguards  accountability. 
Further  improvements  in  methods  can  be  an- 
ticipated and  increased  attention  must  be 
paid  to  correction  of  deficiencies  identified  in 
the  process.  As  President  Ford  has  reaf- 
firmed, we  are  prepared  to  implement  our 
offer  to  permit  the  Agency  to  apply  its  safe- 
guards to  any  of  the  nuclear  activities  in 
the  United  States  other  than  those  with  di- 
rect national  security  significance.  We  have 
offered  to  permit  such  safeguards  when  they 
are  applied  broadly  in  non-nuclear-weapon 
countries,  in  order  to  demonstrate  our  belief 
that  there  is  no  risk  to  proprietary  informa- 
tion and  no  danger  of  suffering  commercial 
disadvantage  under  NPT  safeguards. 

5.  Peaceful  nuclear  explosions  (PNE's). 
The  use  of  PNE's  is  a  highly  complicated 
matter,  with  ramifications  under  the  Limited 
Test  Ban  Treaty  in  the  case  of  surface  exca- 
vation, and  with  importance  to  the  defining 
of  thre.shold  and  complete  test  ban  treaties. 
The  IAEA  has  taken  important  actions  to 
facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  and  to 
anticipate  the  needs  for  services.  At  the 
Board  of  Governors  meeting  last  Friday,  ini- 
tial procedures  were  approved  for  Agency 
response  to  requests  from  members  for  such 
services.  Also  the  Board  authorized  the  Di- 
rector General  to  establish  within  the  Secre- 
tariat, at  a  suitable  time,  a  separate  organi- 
zational unit  for  implementing  an  interna- 
tional service  for  nuclear  explosions  for 
peaceful  purposes  under  appropriate  inter- 
national control. 

I  would  like  to  emphasize  the  need  for  in- 
depth  studies  to  establish  the  feasibility  and 
desirability  of  using  peaceful  nuclear  explo- 
sions in  any  project  under  consideration. 
The  United  States  stands  ready  to  contribute 
to  the  planning  and  performance  of  such 
feasibility  studies.  Where  these  studies  dem- 
onstrate the  practicability  of  conducting  a 
peaceful  nuclear  explosion  project  consistent 
with  the  provisions  of  pertinent  treaties  or 


556 


Department  of   State   Bulletin 


agreements,  we  are  prepared  to  meet  our  ob- 
ligations under  article  V  of  the  NPT  to  pro- 
vide PNE  services  at  prices  that  will  exclude 
any  charges  for  research  and  development. 

In  closing,  let  me  say  that,  clearly,  the  role 
of  nuclear  power  is  being  accepted  increas- 
ingly around  the  world  and  that  significant 
progress  has  been  made  in  enhancing  reactor 
safety.  I  am  confident  that  cooperative  in- 
ternational eff'ort  will  meet  the  serious  chal- 
lenge of  safeguarding  nuclear  materials  and 
facilities  as  the  benefits  of  nuclear  energy 
are  brought  to  many  more  countries. 

Let  us  resolve  to  attack  these  problems 
with  all  the  good  will  and  intelligence  of 
which  mankind  is  capable. 


U.S.  Calls  for  Worldwide  Commitment 
To  Assist  Poorer  Nations 

Following  is  a  statement  by  John  Scali, 
U.S.  Permaneni  Representative  to  the  United 
Natio7is,  made  oyi  September  27  before  the 
first  ministerial  m,eeting  of  potential  con- 
tribntors  to  the  United  Nations  Emergency 
Program,  established  by  the  sixth  special 
session  of  the  General  Assembly. 

USUN  press  release  120  dated  September  27 

I  am  pleased  to  reaffirm  what  President 
Ford  said  in  addressing  the  U.N.  Assembly 
last  week :  That  our  government  will  not  only 
maintain  but  increase  the  amount  of  funds 
we  will  spend  for  food  shipments  to  other 
countries. 

The  exact  sum,  as  well  as  the  quantities  of 
food  to  be  provided,  is  still  being  reviewed 
at  the  highest  levels  of  my  government  in  an 
eff'ort  to  maximize  our  response  despite  the 
new  weather  problems  which  have  affected 
our  late  harvests. 

The  final  figures  will  depend  on  coopera- 
tion by  our  Congress,  the  weather,  and  assist- 
ance in  holding  back  the  tide  of  inflation 
which  threatens  all.  It  is  only  too  evident 
that  recent  rises  in  the  price  of  oil,  food, 
and  fertilizer  have  created  severe  hardships 
for  all  nations. 


The  richer  nations,  however,  can  cut  their 
consumption  of  food  or  fuel ;  and  more  im- 
portantly, they  can  pay  the  new,  higher 
prices  by  increasing  their  exports  or  their 
borrowing.  For  the  poorer  nations,  on  the 
other  hand,  reduced  consumption  can  mean 
mass  starvation  and  economic  collapse.  These 
countries  cannot,  for  the  most  part,  increase 
their  exports  significantly  in  the  short  run, 
nor  do  they  have  the  credit  to  finance  even 
minimum  consumption  at  the  new  and  higher 
prices. 

Clearly  the  only  long-term  solution  is  to 
increase  the  supply  of  critically  needed  com- 
modities and  lower  their  prices  sufficiently  to 
put  them  within  the  reach  of  all.  Such  a 
policy  is  in  the  real  interests  of  not  only 
the  consuming  nations,  but  of  those  who  are 
the  major  producers.  Fast  profits  may  be 
made  by  temporary  restrictions  on  produc- 
tion, but  over  the  long  run  only  a  prosperous, 
dependable,  and  expanding  market  can  pro- 
tect the  producer  against  equally  dramatic 
losses  in  the  future. 

The  United  States  is  committed  to  a  policy 
of  expanding  supply  to  meet  legitimate  de- 
mand. We  are  going  all  out  to  increase 
American  food  production.  We  are  seeking 
to  plant  every  acre  which  can  produce  food 
for  a  hungry  world,  and  every  planted  field 
is  now  being  harvested. 

Unhappily,  however,  inflation  is  a  global 
problem,  and  it  requires  a  global  response. 
Thus,  in  about  a  month  the  United  States 
will  join  with  other  nations  in  Rome  to 
determine  what  steps  we  can  take  in  common 
to  dramatically  increase  global  food  supplies 
and  to  put  the  price  of  bread  within  the 
reach  of  every  man. 

Just  as  no  single  nation  can  hope  to  con- 
tend with  the  force  of  global  inflation,  so  no 
price  i-eduction  of  any  single  commodity  will 
be  able  to  reverse  the  current  trend. 

We  believe  therefore  that  oil  producers  and 
oil  consumers  must  cooperate  in  the  same 
way  that  food  producers  and  consumers  are 
doing  to  meet  legitimate  world  demand  for 
fuel  at  prices  which  the  poor,  as  well  as  the 
rich,  can  aff"ord. 

We  are  meeting  here  today,  however,  not 


October  21,   1974 


557 


to  focus  on  the  long-range  solution  of  the 
current  world  economic  crisis  but,  rather, 
to  determine  what  immediate  steps  can  be 
taken  to  prevent  the  world's  poorest  nations 
from  being  overwhelmed  even  as  we  talk. 

The  United  States  believes  that  the  pri- 
mary responsibility  for  helping  those  nations 
whose  economies  are  being  devastated  by 
higher  oil  prices  rests  with  the  oil-producing 
states.  Nevertheless,  we  will  not  turn  a  deaf 
ear  to  the  appeals  of  those  in  real  need. 
In  the  12-month  period  which  ended  in  June 
1974,  U.S.  aid  to  the  countries  which  Secre- 
tary General  Waldheim  has  listed  as  the 
"most  seriously  affected"  amounted  to  $714 
million.  During  that  same  period,  the  United 
States  provided  another  $2  billion  in  aid  to 
other  countries,  many  of  which  have  also 
suffered  greatly  as  the  result  of  higher  oil 
and  other  prices. 

For  the  next  12  months — that  is,  through 
June  of  1975 — the  U.S.  Government  has 
asked  Congress  for  nearly  $1  billion  in  aid 
for  those  countries  on  the  Secretary  Gen- 
eral's list  of  most  seriously  affected.  We 
have  taken  this  step  to  increase  our  already 
substantial  assistance  to  these  countries  at 
a  time  when  we  are  trying  to  cut  our  Federal 
budget  and  economize  in  the  face  of  inflation. 

The  American  people  and  the  American 
Congress  have  responded  generously  to  ap- 
peals for  help  in  the  past.  I  believe  that  they 
will  continue  to  do  so,  even  at  a  time  when 
our  ability  to  help  is  increasingly  limited. 
But  we  cannot  be  expected,  nor  should  we  be 
asked,  to  shoulder  this  burden  alone. 

My  government  welcomes  the  statements 
from  a  number  of  oil-producing  countries 
announcing  various  forms  of  aid.  We  believe, 
however,  that  far  more  can  and  must  be 
done.  We  encourage,  therefore,  further  com- 
mitments from  all  states  in  a  position  to 
contribute,  and  particularly  from  those  na- 
tions whose  new  wealth  is  growing  so  rapid- 
ly that  it  challenges  their  ability  to  spend  it 
productively. 

As  the  single  largest  provider  of  aid  in 
the  world  for  so  many  years,  the  United 
States  has  already  established   various   bi- 


lateral and  multilateral  channels  for  assist- 
ance to  countries  on  the  Secretary  General's 
list.  We  believe  that  our  assistance  will  be 
most  effective  if  it  continues  to  flow  through 
these  channels.  We  recognize,  however,  that 
donors  who  have  not  yet  established  aid  pro- 
grams may  find  the  new  United  Nations 
Emergency  Program,  or  the  proposed  Special 
Fund  of  the  Secretary  General,  to  be  a  use- 
ful and  effective  means  for  channeling  their 
new  aid. 

In  speaking  frankly,  as  President  Ford 
and  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger  have  done, 
about  the  need  to  control  inflation,  the  United 
States  seeks  to  draw  world  attention  to  the 
grim  facts.  We  wish  not  to  force  confronta- 
tion, but  to  generate  constructive  coopera- 
tion. We  believe  that  only  by  working  to- 
gether can  the  world  community  stop  infla- 
tion, increase  economic  development,  and 
create  the  more  just  world  order  which  we 
all  seek.  We  are  calling,  therefore,  on  others 
to  join  us  in  this  effort.  Let  us  go  forward 
together  in  a  spirit  of  friendship,  in  an  at- 
mosphere of  mutual  respect,  and  with  a 
genuine  belief  that  the  interests  of  all  na- 
tions can  best  be  reconciled  in  a  more  pros- 
perous and  stable  world. 


U.S.  Welcomes  Bangladesh,  Grenada, 
and  Guinea-Bissau  to  the  U.N. 

Following  is  a  statevient  made  in  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  by  U.S.  Representative  W. 
Tapley  Bennett,  Jr.,  on  September  17. 

USUN  press  release  H6  dated  September  17 

Mr.  President  [Abdelaziz  Bouteflika,  of 
Algeria]  :  I  would  like  to  offer  my  sincere 
congratulations  and  those  of  the  United 
States  to  you  as  you  assume  the  Presidency 
of  this  29th  session  of  the  General  Assembly. 

As  the  Representative  of  the  host  country, 
I  have  the  great  honor  of  welcoming  three 
new  members  to  this  parliament  of  the  world. 
Although  Bangladesh,  Grenada,  and  Guinea- 


558 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Bissau  are  located  in  three  very  different  re- 
gions of  this  planet,  they  jointly  share  a  de- 
sire to  participate  in  this  organization.  Noth- 
ing could  symbolize  more  dramatically  the 
universality  of  man's  aspirations  for  which 
the  United  Nations  stands. 

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.  Consequent- 
ly the  U.S.  Government  has  taken  particular 
satisfaction  in  the  development  of  the  friend- 
ly bilateral  relations  which  now  exist  be- 
tween our  two  countries. 

The  American  and  Grenadan  peoples  have 
had  warm  and  cooperative  relations  through 
the  years.  We  share  a  deep  interest  in  the  af- 
fairs of  the  Caribbean  region.  We  have  been 
and  will  continue  to  be  good  neighbors.  On 
February  7  of  this  year  my  government  wel- 
comed Grenada  into  the  family  of  independ- 
ent nations,  and  we  wish  Grenada  well  as 
she  travels  the  road  of  independence. 

Now  Guinea-Bissau  joins  this  world  body 
as  the  culmination  of  a  major  historical 
process.  As  President  Ford  stated,  the  U.S. 
Government  looks  forward  to  a  productive 
and  friendly  relationship  with  the  Republic 
of  Guinea-Bissau,  which  we  recognized  on 
September  10.  In  the  months  and  years 
ahead,  the  United  States  hopes  to  broaden 
and  strengthen  the  bonds  between  the  gov- 
ernments and  peoples  of  our  two  countries. 
We  look  forward  to  the  constructive  contri- 
bution Guinea-Bissau  will  make  to  the  im- 
portant work  of  the  United  Nations. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  will 
speak  to  this  Assembly  tomorrow,  and  I 
would  at  this  time  like  to  express  the  hope 
of  my  government  that  the  29th  session  of 
the  General  Assembly  will  be  a  productive 
one  where  we  will  take  new  steps  to  move 
from  ideological  confrontation  toward  re- 
solving of  differences  among  nations. 


Agenda  of  the  29th   Regular  Session 
of  the   U.N.   General  Assembly  ^ 


9. 
10. 

11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 


21. 


2.3. 


Opening  of  the  session  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
delegation  of  Ecuador. 
Minute  of  silent  prayer  or  meditation. 
Credentials   of   representatives  to  the   twenty- 
ninth  session  of  the  General  Assembly: 

(a)  Appointment   of  the   Credentials   Commit- 
tee; 

(b)  Report  of  the  Credentials   Committee. 
Election  of  the  President. 

Constitution  of  the  Main  Committees  and  elec- 
tion of  officers. 

Election  of  the  Vice-Presidents. 
Notification    by    the    Secretary-General    under 
Article  12,  paragraph  2,  of  the  Charter  of  the 
United  Nations. 
Adoption  of  the  agenda. 
General  debate. 

Report  of  the   Secretary-General  on   the   work 
of  the  Organization. 
Report  of  the  Security  Council. 
Report  of  the  Economic  and  Social  Council. 
Report  of  the  Trusteeship  Council. 
Report  of  the  International  Court  of  Justice. 
Report    of    the    International    Atomic    Energy 
.Agency. 

Election  of  five  non-permanent  members  of  the 
Security  Council. 

Election  of  eighteen  members  of  the  Economic 
and  Social  Council. 

Election  of  fifteen  members  of  the  Industrial 
Development  Board. 

Election  of  nineteen  members  of  the  Governing 
Council  of  the  United  Nations  Environment 
Programme. 

Strengthening  of  the  role  of  the  United  Nations 
with  regard  to  the  maintenance  and  consolida- 
tion of  international  peace  and  security,  the 
development  of  co-operation  among  all  nations 
and  the  promotion  of  the  rules  of  international 
law  in  relations  between  States:  report  of  the 
Secretary-General. 

Co-operation  between  the  United  Nations  and 
the  Organization  of  African  Unity:  report  of 
the  Secretary-General. 

Admission  of  new  Members  to  the  United 
Nations. 

Implementation  of  the  Declaration  on  the 
Granting  of  Independence  to  Colonial  Countries 
and  Peoples:  report  of  the  Special  Committee 
on  the  Situation  with  regard  to  the  Implemen- 
tation of  the  Declaration  on  the  Granting  of 
Independence  to  Colonial  Countries  and  Peoples. 


'  Adopted  by  the  Assembly  on  Sept.  21  (U.N.  doc. 
A/9751). 


October  21,   1974 


559 


24.  Reduction  of  the  military  budgets  of  States 
permanent  members  of  the  Security  Council  by 
10  per  cent  and  utilization  of  part  of  the  funds 
thus  saved  to  provide  assistance  to  developing 
countries: 

(a)  Report  of  the  Special   Committee   on  the 
Distribution  of  the   Funds  Released  as   a 
Result     of     the     Reduction     of     Military  39. 
Budgets; 

(b)  Report  of  the  Secretary-General. 

25.  Restoration  of  the  lawful  rights  of  the  Royal 
Government  of  National  Union  of  Cambodia  in  40. 
the  United  Nations. 

26.  Third  United  Nations  Conference  on  the  Law  of 

the  Sea.  41. 

27.  Napalm  and  other  incendiary  weapons  and  all 
aspects  of  their  possible  use:  report  of  the 
Secretary-General.  42. 

28.  Chemical  and  bacteriological  (biological) 
weapons:  report  of  the  Conference  of  the 
Committee  on  Disarmament.  43. 

29.  Urgent  need  for  cessation  of  nuclear  and  ther- 
monuclear tests  and  conclusion  of  a  treaty 
designed  to  achieve  a  comprehensive  test  ban: 
report  of  the  Conference  of  the  Committee  on 
Disarmament. 

30.  Implementation  of  General  Assembly  resolution 
3079  (XXVIII)  concerning  the  signature  and 
ratification  of  Additional  Protocol  II  of  the 
Treaty  for  the  Prohibition  of  Nuclear  Weapons 
in  Latin  America  (Treaty  of  Tlatelolco):  report 
of  the  Secretary-General. 

31.  Implementation  of  the  Declaration  of  the  In- 
dian Ocean  as  a  Zone  of  Peace:  report  of  the 
Ad  Hoc  Committee  on   the  Indian  Ocean. 

32.  International  co-operation  in  the  peaceful  uses 
of  outer  space:  report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space. 

33.  Preparation  of  an  international  convention  on 
principles  governing  the  use  by  States  of  artifi- 
cial earth  satellites  for  direct  television  broad- 
casting: report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Peace- 
ful Uses  of  Outer  Space. 

34.  World  DisaiTiiament  Conference:  report  of  the 
Ad  Hoc  Committee  on  the  World  Disarmament 
Conference. 

35.  General  and  complete  disarmament:   report  of  46. 
the  Conference  of  the  Committee  on  Disarma- 
ment. 

36.  Implementation  of  the  Declaration  on  the 
Strengthening  of  International  Security:  re- 
port of  the   Secretary-General. 

37.  Policies  of  apartheid  of  the  Government  of 
South  Africa: 

(a)  Reports    of    the     Special    Committee    on  47. 
Apartheid; 

(b)  Report  of  the  Secretary-General. 

38.  United  Nations  Relief  and  Works  Agency  for  48. 
Palestine  Refugees  in  the  Near  East: 

(a)     Report  of  the   Commissioner-General;  49. 


44. 


45. 


(b)  Report  of  the  Working  Group  on  the 
Financing  of  the  United  Nations  Relief 
and  Works  Agency  for  Palestine  Refugees 
in  the  Near  East; 

(c)  Report  of  the  United  Nations  Conciliation 
Commission  for  Palestine; 

(d)  Report  of  the   Secretary-General. 
Comprehensive  review  of  the  whole  question  of 
peace-keeping  operations  in   all   their  aspects: 
report    of    the    Special    Committee    on    Peace- 
keeping  Operations. 

Report  of  the  Special  Committee  to  Investigate 
Israeli  Practices  Affecting  the  Human  Rights 
of  the  Population  of  the  Occupied  Territories. 
Effects  of  atomic  radiation:  report  of  the 
United  Nations  Scientific  Committee  on  the 
Effects  of  Atomic  Radiation. 
United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade  and 
Development:  report  of  the  Trade  and  Develop- 
ment Board. 

United  Nations  Industrial  Development  Organi- 
zation: 

(a)  Report  of  the  Industrial  Development 
Board ; 

(b)  Second  General  Conference  of  the  United 
Nations  Industrial  Development  Organiza- 
tion: report  of  the  Executive  Director; 

(c)  Establishment  of  a  L'nited  Nations  indus- 
trial development  fund:  report  of  the 
Secretary-General ; 

(d)  Confirmation  of  the  appointment  of  the 
Executive  Director  of  the  United  Nations 
Industrial  Development  Organization. 

United  Nations  Institute  for  Training  and  Re- 
search:  report  of  the  Executive   Director. 
Operational   activities  for  development: 

(a)  United  Nations  Development  Programme; 

(b)  United  Nations  Capital  Development 
Fund; 

(c)  Technical  co-operation  activities  under- 
taken by  the  Secretary-General; 

(d)  United  Nations  Volunteers  programme; 

(e)  United  Nations  Fund  for  Population  Ac- 
tivities; 

(f)  United  Nations  Children's  Fund; 

(g)  World  Food  Programme. 

United  Nations  Environment  Programme: 

(a)  Report  of  the  Governing  Council; 

(b)  United  Nations  Conference-Exposition  on 
Human  Settlements:  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary-General; 

(c)  Criteria  governing  multilateral  financing 
of  housing  and  human  settlements:  report 
of  the   Secretary-General. 

Reduction  of  the  increasing  gap  between  the 
developed  countries  and  the  developing  coun- 
tries 

Charter    of    Economic    Rights    and    Duties    of 
States. 
Economic  co-operation  among  developing  coun- 


560 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


54. 


55. 


tries:  report  of  the   Secretary-General. 

50.  Quantification  of  scientific  and  technological 
activities  related  to  development,  including  the 
definition  of  the  quantitative  targets  contem- 
plated in  paragraph  63  of  the  International 
Development  Strategy  for  the  Second  United 
Nations   Development   Decade. 

51.  United  Nations  University:  report  of  the  Uni- 
versity Council. 

52.  Human  rights  in  armed  conflicts:  protection  of 
journalists  engaged  in  dangerous  missions  in 
areas  of  armed  conflict. 

53.  Elimination  of  all  forms  of  racial  discrimina- 
tion: 

(a)  Decade  for  Action  to  Combat  Racism  and 
Racial   Discrimination; 

(b)  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Elimina- 
tion   of    Racial    Discrimination; 

(c)  Status  of  the  International  Convention  on 
the  Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Racial 
Discrimination:  report  of  the  Secretary- 
General. 

Elimination  of  all  forms  of  religious  intoler- 
ance. 

Importance  of  the  universal  realization  of  the 
right  of  peoples  to  self-determination  and  of 
the  speedy  granting  of  independence  to  colonial 
countries  and  peoples  for  the  efl'ective  guaran- 
tee and  obsei-vance  of  human  rights:  report  of 
the   Secretary-General. 

56.  Human  rights  and  scientific  and  technological 
developments:  report  of  the  Secretary-General. 

57.  Freedom   of  information: 

(a)  Draft  Declaration  on  Freedom  of  Informa- 
tion; 

(b)  Draft  Convention  on  Freedom  of  Informa- 
tion. 

58.  Status  of  the  International  Covenant  on  Eco- 
nomic, Social  and  Cultural  Rights,  the  Interna- 
tional Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights 
and  the  Optional  Protocol  to  the  International 
Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights:  report 
of  the  Secretary-General. 

Report  of  the  United  Nations  High  Commis- 
sioner for  Refugees. 

Assistance  in  cases  of  natural  disaster  and 
other  disaster  situations: 

(a)  Office  of  the  United  Nations  Disaster  Re- 
lief Co-ordinator:  report  of  the  Secretary- 
General; 

(b)  Aid  to  the  Sudano-Sahelian  populations 
threatened  with  famine:  report  of  the 
Secretary-General. 

61.  United  Nations  conference  for  an  international 
convention  on  adoption  law. 

62.  National  experience  in  achieving  far-reaching 
social  and  economic  changes  for  the  purpose 
of  social  progress. 

63.  Unified  approach  to  development  analysis  and 
planning. 


59. 


60. 


64.  Information  from  Non-Self-Governing  Terri- 
tories transmitted  under  Article  73  e  of  the 
Charter  of  the  United  Nations: 

(a)  Report  of  the  Secretary-General; 

(b)  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  on  the 
Situation  with  regard  to  the  Implementa- 
tion of  the  Declaration  on  the  Granting  of 
Independence  to  Colonial  Countries  and 
Peoples. 

65.  Question  of  Namibia: 

(a)  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  on  the 
Situation  with  regard  to  the  Implementa- 
tion of  the  Declaration  on  the  Granting 
of  Independence  to  Colonial  Countries  and 
Peoples; 

(b)  Report  of  the  United  Nations  Council  for 
Namibia; 

(c)  Report  of  the  Secretary-General; 

(d)  United  Nations  Fund  for  Namibia:  reports 
of  the  United  Nations  Council  for  Namibia 
and  of  the   Secretary-General; 

(e)  Appointment  of  the  United  Nations  Com- 
missioner for  Namibia. 

66.  Question  of  Territories  under  Portuguese  domi- 
nation : 

(a)  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  on  the 
Situation  with  regard  to  the  Implementa- 
tion of  the  Declaration  on  the  Granting 
of  Independence  to  Colonial  Countries  and 
Peoples; 

(b)  Report  of  the  Commission  of  Inquiry  on 
the   Reported    Massacres   in   Mozambique; 

(c)  Report  of  the   Secretary-General. 

67.  Question  of  Southern  Rhodesia:  report  of  the 
Special  Committee  on  the  Situation  with  re- 
gard to  the  Implementation  of  the  Declaration 
on  the  Granting  of  Independence  to  Colonial 
Countries  and  Peoples. 

68.  Activities  of  foreign  economic  and  other  in- 
terests which  are  impeding  the  implementation 
of  the  Declaration  on  the  Granting  of  Inde- 
pendence to  Colonial  Countries  and  Peoples  in 
Southern  Rhodesia,  Namibia  and  Territories 
under  Portuguese  domination  and  in  all  other 
Territories  under  colonial  domination  and 
efforts  to  eliminate  colonialism,  apartheid  and 
racial  discrimination  in  southern  Africa:  report 
of  the  Special  Committee  on  the  Situation  with 
regard  to  the  Implementation  of  the  Declara- 
tion on  the  Granting  of  Independence  to 
Colonial  Countries  and  Peoples. 

69.  Implementation  of  the  Declaration  on  the 
Granting  of  Independence  to  Colonial  Coun- 
tries and  Peoples  by  the  specialized  agencies 
and  the  international  institutions  associated 
with  the  United  Nations: 

(a)  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  on  the 
Situation  with  regard  to  the  Implementa- 
tion of  the  Declaration  on  the  Granting  of 


October  21,    1974 


561 


Independence    to    Colonial    Countries    and 
Peoples; 
(b)    Reports  of  the  Secretary-General.  83. 

70.  United  Nations  Educational  and  Training  Pro- 
gramme   for   Southern    Africa:    report   of    the  84. 
Secretary-General. 

71.  Offers  by  Member  States  of  study  and  training 
facilities  for  inhabitants  of  Non-Self-Governing 
Territories:  report  of  the  Secretary-General.  85. 

72.  Financial    reports    and   accounts   for   the    year 

1973  and  reports  of  the  Board  of  Auditors:  86. 

(a)  United  Nations; 

(b)  United  Nations  Development  Programme;  87. 

(c)  United  Nations  Children's  Fund; 

(d)  United  Nations  Relief  and  Works  Agency  88. 
for  Palestine  Refugees  in  the  Near  East; 

(e)  United  Nations  Institute  for  Training  and 
Research; 

(f)  Voluntary     funds     administered     by     the  89. 
United    Nations    High    Commissioner    for 
Refugees; 

(g)  Fund  of  the  United  Nations  Environment  90. 
Programme. 

Programme  budget  for  the  biennium  1974-1975. 
Review    of   the   intergovernmental   and    expert  91. 

machinery  dealing  with  the  formulation,  review 
and  approval  of  programmes  and  budgets. 
Administrative  and  budgetary  co-ordination  of 
the  United  Nations  with  the  specialized  agen- 
cies and  the  International  Atomic  Energy 
Agency:  report  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on 
Administrative  and  Budgetary  Questions. 
Joint  Inspection  Unit: 

(a)  Reports  of  the  Joint  Inspection   Unit; 

(b)  Report  of  the  Secretary-General.  92. 
Pattern  of  conferences: 

(a)  Report  of  the  Joint  Inspection  Unit;  93. 

(b)  Report   of   the   Secretary-General. 
Publications  and  documentation  of  the  United  94. 
Nations:  report  of  the  Secretary-General. 
Scale  of  assessments  for  the  apportionment  of  95. 
the  expenses  of  the  United  Nations:  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Contributions. 

Appointments  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  member-  96. 

ship     of    subsidiary    organs    of    the     General 
Assembly:  97. 

(a)    Advisory    Committee    on    Administrative 

and  Budgetary  Questions; 
Committee  on  Contributions; 
Board   of   Auditors; 

Investments    Committee:    confirmation    of 
the  appointments  made  by  the  Secretary- 
General  ;  98. 
United    Nations   Administrative    Tribunal. 

81.  Personnel  questions:  99. 

(a)  Composition  of  the  Secretariat:  report  of 
the  Secretary-General; 

(b)  Other  personnel  questions:  reports  of  the 
Secretary-General.  100. 

82.  United  Nations  salary  system: 

(a)    Report   of  the   Secretary-General; 


73. 
74. 


75. 


76. 


77. 


79. 


80. 


(b) 
(c) 
(d) 


(e) 


(b)    Report  of  the   International  Civil   Service 

Advisory  Board. 
Report    of    the    United    Nations    Joint    Staff 
Pension  Board. 

Financing  of  the  United  Nations  Emergency 
Force  and  of  the  United  Nations  Disengage- 
ment Observer  Force:  report  of  the  Secretary- 
General. 

United  Nations  International  School:  report  of 
the   Secretary-General. 

Report  of  the  Special  Committee  on  the  Ques- 
tion of  Defining  Aggression. 
Report  of  the  International  Law  Commission 
on  the  work  of  its  twenty-sixth  session. 
Participation  in  the  United  Nations  Conference 
on  the  Representation  of  States  in  Their  Re- 
lations with  International  Organizations,  to  be 
held  in  1975. 

Report  of  the  United  Nations  Commission  on 
International  Trade  Law  on  the  work  of  its 
seventh  session. 

United  Nations  Conference  on  Prescription 
(Limitation)  in  the  International  Sale  of 
Goods:  report  of  the  Secretary-General. 
Measures  to  prevent  international  terrorism 
which  endangers  or  takes  innocent  human  lives 
or  jeopardizes  fundamental  freedoms,  and 
study  of  the  underlying  causes  of  those  forms 
of  terrorism  and  acts  of  violence  which  lie 
in  misery,  frustration,  grievance  and  despair 
and  which  cause  some  people  to  sacrifice  human 
lives,  including  their  own,  in  an  attempt  to 
effect  radical  changes:  report  of  the  Ad  Hoc 
Committee  on  International  Terrorism. 
Respect  for  human  rights  in  armed  conflicts: 
report  of  the  Secretary-General. 
Review  of  the  role  of  the  International  Court 
of  Justice. 

Report  of  the  Committee  on  Relations  with  the 
Host  Country. 

Need    to    consider    suggestions    regarding    the 
review  of  the  Charter  of  the  United  Nations: 
report  of  the  Secretary-General. 
Declaration  on  Universal   Participation   in   the 
Vienna  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties. 
Question  of  issuing  special  invitations  to  States 
which  are  not  Members  of  the  United  Nations 
or  members  of  any  of  the  specialized  agencies 
or  of  the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency 
or  parties  to  the  Statute  of  the   International 
Court    of    Justice    to    become    parties    to    the 
Convention  on  Special  Missions. 
Programme  of  Action  on  the  Establishment  of 
a  New  International  Economic  Order. 
Question   of  the    establishment,    in   accordance 
with  the  Convention  on  the  Reduction  of  State- 
lessness, of  a  body  to  which  persons  claiming 
the  benefit  of  the  Convention  may  apply. 
Implementation    of   General    Assembly    resolu- 
tion 2286  (XXII)  concerning  the  signature  and 
ratification    of    Additional    Protocol    I    of    the 


562 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


101. 


102. 


103. 


104. 


105. 
106. 


107. 

108. 
109. 
110. 


Treaty  for  the  Prohibition  of  Nuclear  Weapons 
in   Latin   America    (Treaty  of  Tlatelolco). 
Establishment   of   a   nuclear-weapon-free    zone 
in  the  region  of  the   Middle  East. 
Status  of  the  European  Economic  Community 
in  the  General  Assembly. 

Prohibition  of  action  to  influence  the  environ- 
ment and  climate  for  military  and  other 
purposes  incompatible  with  the  maintenance 
of  international  security,  human  well-being  and 
health. 
Question  of  Korea : 

(a)  Withdrawal  of  all  the  foreign  troops  sta- 
tioned in  South  Korea  under  the  flag  of 
the  United  Nations; 

(b)  Urgent  need  to  implement  fully  the  con- 
sensus of  the  twenty-eighth  session  of 
the  General  Assembly  on  the  Korean 
question  and  to  maintain  peace  and 
security  on  the  Korean  peninsula. 

Diplomatic  asylum. 

Translation   of  some  official   documents  of  the 
General    Assembly    and    of   resolutions    of   the 
Security  Council  and  the  Economic  and  Social 
Council  into  the  German  language. 
Declaration    and    establishment    of    a    nuclear- 
free  zone  in  South  Asia. 
Question  of  Palestine. 
The  situation  in  the  Middle  East._ 
Question  of  Cyprus. 


TREATY  INFORAAATION 


United  States  and  Japan  Sign 
New  Textile  Agreement 

The  Department  of  State  announced  on 
October  2  (press  release  389)  that  in  refer- 
ence to  article  4  of  the  Arrangement  Regard- 
ing International  Trade  in  Textiles,  the 
United  States  and  Japan  had  entered  into  a 
new  bilateral  agreement  covering  trade  in 
cotton,  man-made  fiber,  and  wool  textiles  by 
exchange  of  notes  in  Washington  on  Septem- 
ber 27.  (For  texts  of  the  exchange  of  notes 
and  related  letters,  see  press  release  389). 
The  new  agreement  supersedes  two  previous 
agreements. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  new  agreement, 
which  runs  from  October  1,  1974,  through 


December  31,  1977,  Japan  will  limit  its  ex- 
ports of  all  textiles  to  the  United  States  in 
the  first  agreement  year  to  1,691,272,000 
square  yards  equivalent.  The  new  agreement 
also  provides  inter  alia  for  a  higher  rate  of 
annual  growth  and  increased  inter-  and  in- 
tra-fiber  flexibility,  pursuant  to  the  provi- 
sions of  the  Arrangement  Regarding  Interna- 
tional Trade  in  Textiles. 


Current  Actions 


MULTIUTERAL 

Biological  Weapons 

Convention  on  the  prohibition  of  the  development, 
production  and  stockpiling  of  bacteriological  (bio- 
logical) and  toxin  weapons  and  on  their  destruc- 
tion. Done  at  Washington,  London,  and  Moscow 
April  10,  1972.' 
Ratification  deposited:    Pakistan,  October  3,  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:     Haiti,    October    3,    1974. 

Wheat 

Protocol  modifying  and  extending  the  wheat  trade 
convention  (part  of  the  international  wheat  agree- 
ment) 1971  (TIAS  7144).  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. 
Ratification  deposited:  United  Kingdom,  Septem- 
ber 30,  1974.' 


BILATERAL 


Czechoslovakia 

Consular  convention,  with  agreed  memorandum  and 
related  notes.    Signed  at  Prague  July  9,   1973.' 
Senate  advice  and  consent  to  ratification:  Septem- 
ber 30,  1974. 


'  Not  in  force. 

"  Including  Dominica,  Saint  Christopher-Nevis- 
Anguilla,  Saint  Vincent,  The  Bailiwick  of  Guernsey, 
The  Isle  of  Man,  Belize,  Bermuda,  The  British 
Virgin  Islands,  Gibraltar,  The  Gilbert  and  EUice 
Islands  Colony,  Hong  Kong,  Montserrat,  Saint 
Helena  and  Dependencies,  and  Seychelles. 


October  21,   1974 


563 


Jordan 

Nonscheduled  air  service  agreement,  with  annexes. 
Signed  at  Amman  September  21,  1974.  Entered 
into  force  September  21,  1974. 

Khmer  Republic 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of 
agricultural  commodities  of  August  10,  1974. 
Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Phnom  Penh 
September  17,  1974.  Entered  into  force  September 
17,  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,  B.C. 
20102.  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  Super- 
intendent of  Documents,  must  accompany  orders. 
Prices  shown  below,  tvhich  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. 


Austria  .  .  . 
Czechoslovakia 
Indonesia  .  . 
Iran  .  .  .  . 
Israel  .     .     .     . 


Cat.  No.  S1.123:AU7 
Pub.  7955  8  pp. 

Cat.  No.  S1.123:C99 
Pub.  7758  8  pp. 

Cat.  No.  S1.123:IN2 
Pub.  7786  8  pp. 

Cat.  No.   S1.123:IR1 
Pub.  7760  5  pp. 

Cat.  No.   S1.123:IS7 
Pub.  7752  8  pp. 


Sample  Questions  From  the  Written  Examination 
for  Foreign  Service  Officers.  This  booklet  describes 
the  written  examination  and  presents  samples  of  the 
kinds  of  questions  that  are  asked  in  the  written  ex- 
amination for  selection  of  Foreign  Service  officers. 
Available  free  of  charge  from  the  Board  of  Exam- 
iners for  the  Foreign  Service,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Space  Laboratory — Cooperative  Program.  Agree- 
ments with  certain  governments,  members  of  the 
European  Space  Research  Organization.  TIAS  7722. 
45  pp.   55<'.    (Cat.  No.  89.10:7722). 

Use  of  Veterans  Memorial  Hospital — Grants-in-Aid 
for  Medical  Care  and  Treatment  of  Veterans  and 
Rehabilitation  of  the  Hospital  Plant.  Agreement  with 
the  Philippines.  TIAS  7814.  9  pp.  25(-.  (Cat.  No. 
S9.10:7814). 

Single  Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs,  1961 — Addi- 
tion of  Difenoxin  to  Schedule  I  and  Amendment  of 
Schedule  III.  TIAS  7817.  2  pp.  25('.  (Cat.  No.  S9. 
10:7817). 

Reciprocal  Fishing  Privileges.  Agreements  with  Can- 
ada extending  the  agreement  of  June  15,  1973.  TIAS 
7818.   5  pp.   25('-.  (Cat.  No.  89.10:7818). 

Economic,  Technical  and  Related  Assistance.  Agree- 
ment with  the  Yemen  Arab  Republic.  TIAS  7820. 
5  pp.   25<:  (Cat.  No.  89.10:7820). 

Trade  in  Textiles.  Agreement  with  the  Republic  of 
China.  TIAS  7821.  3  pp.  25(*.  (Cat.  No.  89.10:7821). 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  the  Phil- 
ippines. TIAS  7822.  9  pp.  25(-.  (Cat  No.  89.10:7822). 

Whaling — International  Observer  Scheme.  Agree- 
ment with  Japan.  TIAS  7823.  16  pp.  30<'.  (Cat.  No. 
89.10:7823). 

Air  Transport  Services.  Agreement  with  Canada 
amending  the  agreement  of  January  17,  1966.  TIAS 
7824.   15  pp.   30f.  (Cat.  No.  89.10:7824). 

Aviation — Preclearance.  Agreement  with  Canada. 
TIAS  7825.   24  pp.   35C.    (Cat.  No.  89.10:7825). 

Nonscheduled  Air  Services.  Agreement  with  Canada. 
TIAS  7826.   57  pp.   60('.  (Cat.  No.  89.10:7826). 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Sudan. 
TIAS  7827.   6  pp.   25('.  (Cat.  No.  89.10:7827). 

Air   Charter   Services.   Agreement  with   the   United 
Kingdom    of    Great    Britain    and    Northern    Ireland  | 
amending  the  agreement  of  March  30,  1973.    TIAS 
7832.    5  pp.    25('.  (Cat.  No.  89.10:7832). 


564 


Department  of  State  Bulletir 


INDEX     October  21,  197 U     Vol  LXXI,  No.  18i3 


Atomic  Energy 

The  Dilemma  of  Controlling  the  Spread  of 
Nuclear  Weapons  While  Promoting  Peace- 
ful Technology   (Ikle) 543 

General  Conference  of  the  International  Atom- 
ic Energy  Agency  Holds  18th  Session  at  Vi- 
enna  (Ray) 552 

Aviation 

Department  Urges  Prompt   Action  on  North 

Atlantic  Air  Fares  (Department  statement)       550 

U.S.  and  U.K.  Agree  To  Reduce  Excess  Airline 
Capacity  (Department  announcement,  joint 
U.S.-U.K.  press  statement) 551 

Bangladesh.  U.S.  Welcomes  Bangladesh,  Gre- 
nada, and  Guinea-Bissau  to  the  U.N.  (Ben- 
nett)        558 

Congress.  1973  Report  on  U.S.  Participation  in 
the  U.N.  Transmitted  to  Congress  (message 
from  President  Ford) 547 

Economic  Affairs.  President  Ford  Establishes 
Economic  Policy  Board  (White  House  an- 
nouncement. Executive  order) 549 

Energy.  Assistant  Secretary  Enders  Outlines 
Draft  Agreement  Reached  by  Energy  Coor- 
dinating Group  (transcript  of  news  confer- 
ence)       525 

Foreign  Aid.  U.S.  Calls  for  Worldwide  Com- 
mitment To  Assist  Poorer  Nations  (Scali)    .       557 

France.  Dinner  at  the  National  Gallery  Hon- 
ors French  Foreign  Minister  (Kissinger, 
Sauvagnargues) 541 

Grenada.  U.S.  Welcomes  Bangladesh,  Grenada, 

and  Guinea-Bissau  to  the  U.N.  (Bennett)     .       558 

Guinea-Bissau 

United  States  Extends  Recognition  to  Repub- 
lic of  Guinea-Bissau  (letter  from  President 
Ford  to  President  of  Guinea-Bissau)    .     .     .       533 

U.S.     Welcomes     Bangladesh,     Grenada,     and 

Guinea-Bissau  to  the  U.N.  (Bennett)    .     .     .       558 

International  Organizations  and   Conferences. 

General  Conference  of  the  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency  Holds  18th  Session 
at  Vienna  (Ray) 552 

Italy.  President  Leone  of  Italy  Makes  State 
Visit  to  the  United  States  (Ford,  Leone,  Kis- 
singer, text  of  joint  U.S.-Italian  statement)       534 

Japan.  United   States   and  Japan    Sign    New 

Textile  Agreement 563 

Presidential  Documents 

1973  Report  on  U.S.  Participation  in  the  U.N. 
Transmitted  to  Congress 547 

President   Ford   Establishes   Economic   Policy 

Board  (Executive  order) 549 

President  Leone  of  Italy  Makes  State  Visit  to 

the  United  States 534 

United  States  Extends  Recognition  to  Repub- 
lic of  Guinea-Bissau 533 

Publications.  GPO  Sales  Publications  ....      564 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 563 

United  States  and  Japan  Sign  New  Textile 
Agreement 563 

United  Kingdom.  U.S.  and  U.K.  Agree  To  Re- 
duce Excess  Airline  Capacity  (Department 
announcement,  joint  U.S.-U.K.  press  state- 
ment)      551 


United  Nations 

Agenda  of  the   29th   Regular   Session   of  the 

U.N.  General  Assembly 559 

1973  Report  on  U.S.  Participation  in  the  U.N. 
Transmitted  to  Congress  (message  from 
President   Ford) 547 

U.S.  Calls  for  Worldwide  Commitment  To  As- 
sist Poorer  Nations  (Scali) 557 

U.S.     Welcomes     Bangladesh,     Grenada,     and 

Guinea-Bissau  to  the  U.N.  (Bennett)    ...       558 

Name  Index 

Bennett,  W.  Tapley,  Jr 558 

Enders,  Thomas  O 525 

Ford,  President 533,534,547,549 

Ikle,  Fred  C 543 

Kissinger,  Secretary 534,  541 

Leone,  Giovanni 534 

Ray,  Dixy  Lee 552 

Sauvagnargues,   Jean 541 

Scali,  John 557 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 

Press  Releases:  September  30-October  6 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the 
Office  of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  September  30  which 
appear  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos. 
369  of  September  20,  377  of  September  24,  and 
378  of  September  26. 

Subject 

Kissinger,  Sauvagnargues:  ex- 
change of  toasts,  Sept.  27. 

Ocean  Affairs  Advisory  Commit- 
tee, Miami,  Fla.,  Oct.  24. 

Overseas  Schools  Advisory  Coun- 
cil, Oct.  22. 

Government  Advisory  Committee 
on  International  Book  and 
Library   Programs,  Oct.  24. 

Study  Group  5  of  U.S.  National 
Committee  for  CCITT,  Oct.  30. 

Kissinger,  Naff  a';  exchange  of 
toasts.  New  York,  Sept.  30. 

U.S.  and  Japan  sign  textile  agree- 
ment  (rewrite). 

Kissinger,  Molina:  exchange  of 
toasts.  New  York,  Oct.  2. 

Program  for  the  official  visit  of 
the  First  Secretary  of  the  Cen- 
tral Committee  of  the  Polish 
United  Workers'  Party,  Edward 
Gierek,  Oct.  6-13. 

Secretary's  Advisory  Committee 
on  Private  International  Law 
Study  Group  on  Hotelkeepers' 
Liability,    New    York,    Nov.    8. 

Secretary's  Advisory  Committee 
on  Private  International  Law 
Study  Group  on  Matrimonial 
Matters,  New  York,  Nov.  7. 

Advisory  Committee  on  "Foreign 
Relations  of  the  United  States," 
Nov.  8. 


No. 

Date 

383 

9/30 

*384 

9/30 

*385 

9/30 

*386 

9/30 

*387 

9/30 

1388 

10/1 

389 

10/2 

t390 

10/3 

*391 

10/4 

*392     10/4 


*393     10/4 


*394     10/4 


*  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.     aOVERNMCMT     PRIHTIHO     OFFICE 

Special   Fourth-Clasi   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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


I 


: 


/ 


'3: 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1844 


October  28,  1974 


SECRETARY  KISSINGER'S  NEWS  CONFERENCE 
OF  OCTOBER  7     565 

ANNUAL  MEETINGS  OF  IMF  AND  IBRD  BOARDS  OF  GOVERNORS 

HELD  AT  WASHINGTON 

Welcoming  Remarks  by  President  Ford 
and  Statement  by  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Simon    57U 

COOPERATIVE  ACTIONS  TO  SOLVE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

Statement  by  Senator  Charles  H.  Percy 

U.S.  Representative  to  the  U.N.  General  Assembly     589 


-,it? 


»  ih74 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE    B  U  L  L  E  T  1 1 


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.  1844 
October  28,  1974 


The  Department  of  State  BULLETL 
a  weekly  publication  issued  by  tl 
Office  of  Media  Services,  Bureau 
Public  Affairs,  provides  tlie  public  at 
interested  agencies  of  tfie  governmei 
witfi  information  on  developments 
tfie  field  of  U.S.  foreign  relations  ah 
on  tfie  work  of  tfie  Department  an 
tfie  Foreign  Service. 
Tfie  BULLETIN  includes  select* 
press  releases  on  foreign  policy,  issiu 
by  tfie  Wfiite  House  and  tfie  Depart 
ment,  and  statements,  address^ 
and  news  conferences  of  tfie  Presidei 
and  tfie  Secretary  of  State  and  otfit 
officers  of  tlie  Department,  as  well  t 
special  articles  on  various  pfiases 
international  affairs  and  tfie  function 
of  tlie  Department.  Information 
included  concerning  treaties  and  intei 
national  agreements  to  wliicli  th 
United  States  is  or  may  become 
party  and  on  treaties  of  general  intei 
national  interest. 
Publications  of  tfie  Department 
State,  United  Nations  documents,  an 
legislative  material  in  tfie  field 
international  relations  are  also  listet 


iKie 


tfpi 


Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference  of  October  7 


Press  release  395  of  October  7 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Before  we  go  to  ques- 
tions, I  would  like  to  welcome  20  Polish 
journalists  who  are  here  to  cover  the  visit 
of  Mr.  Gierek  [Edward  Gierek,  First  Secre- 
tary of  the  Polish  United  Workers'  Party]. 
I  would  like  to  say  that  we  attach  great 
importance  to  this  visit  in  further  improving 
our  relationship  with  Poland.  And  I  am  sure 
what  you  will  see  here  will  remind  you  of 
some  of  the  deliberations  in  the  Polish  Diet 
of  previous  centuries. 

Q.  A  tivo-part  question,  Mr.  Secretary,  on 
your  trip.  Will  you  he  emphasizing  an  Israeli- 
Egyptian  settlemeyit,  an  Isr'aeli-Jordan  set- 
tlement, or  both?  And  do  you  plan,  or  are 
there  any  possibilities  to  meet  with  [Yasir] 
Arafat  or  any  other  Palestinian  leader  while 
you  are  in  the  Middle  East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  With  respect  to  the 
second  question,  there  is  no  possibility  that 
I  will  see  Arafat  or  any  other  Palestinian 
leader  while  I  am  in  the  Middle  East. 

As  for  the  content  of  the  negotiations,  we 
have  attempted,  in  discussion  with  both 
Israeli  and  Arab  leaders,  to  determine  what 
would  be  the  most  suitable  next  stage  of 
the  negotiations. 

It  has  always  been  understood  that  prog- 
ress in  one  area  would  have  to  be  linked  with 
progress  in  other  areas.  And  therefore  we 
are  talking  about  timing  and  the  particular 
stages  that  look  most  promising. 

So  I  am  not  going  with  any  fixed  ideas, 
and  I  will  discuss  again  with  all  of  the 
leaders  involved.  And  then  one  can  form  a 
common  judgment. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  that  there  will  be 
no  concrete  results  in  terms  of  agreements 


or  dramatic  announcements  that  can  be  ex- 
pected out  of  this  trip.  The  primary  purpose 
is  to  give  concreteness  to  the  negotiating 
process  and  perhaps  to  agree  on  some  timing. 
As  long  as  we  are  talking  about  the  trip,  I 
would  like  to  add  that  I  will  also  visit  Saudi 
Arabia  in  connection  with  the  negotiations 
and  on  the  way  home  I  will  stop  in  Algeria 
and  Morocco.  And  I  will  be  back  on  the 
15th.' 

Peaceful  and  Military  Nuclear  Explosions 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  there  have  been  pub- 
lished reports  this  morning,  sir,  that  the 
agreement  reached  last  slimmer,  I  believe,  by 
President  Nixon  with  the  Soviets  to  limit 
underground  testing  may  be  broadened  to 
include  peaceful  nuclear  tests.  Are  these 
stories  accurate? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  am  reaching  the 
point  now  where  before  I  read  my  cables  I 
read  the  newspapers,  because  they  have  a 
better  selection.  [Laughter.] 

This  one  is  not  correct  in  all  respects. 
There  was  an  agreement  at  the  time  of  the 
negotiation  of  the  threshold  test  ban  that  the 
threshold  test  ban  would  not  be  ratified  un- 
less there  was  also  an  agreement  for  the 
handling  of  peaceful  nuclear  explosions. 

This  had  two  aspects:  peaceful  nuclear 
explosions  below  the  threshold  and  peaceful 
nuclear  explosions  above  the  threshold.  "Be- 
low the  threshold"  presented  no  particular 
problem  because  explosions  were  permitted 
anyway,  and  it  was  primarily  an  issue  of  the 
site  at  which  the  explosion  would  take  place. 


'The  Department  had  previously  announced  that 
Secretary  Kissinger  would  visit  Egypt,  Syria,  Jor- 
dan, and  Israel  Oct.  9-14. 


October  28,   1974 


565 


"Above  the  threshold"  required  special  nego- 
tiations for  the  development  of  criteria  to 
distinguish  a  peaceful  explosion  from  a  mili- 
tary explosion  and  also  to  determine  the 
compatibility  of  the  explosion  with  a  limited 
test  ban. 

These  negotiations  are  now  starting  in 
Moscow,  and  the  outcome  will  depend  on 
how  we  can  proceed  with  the  ratification 
issue.  But  this  has  always  been  understood, 
so  there  is  no  new  decision  involved.  What 
is  involved  is  a  clearer  specification  of  the 
criteria  by  which  these  distinctions  might  be 
established. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  if  I  may  folloiv  that  tip. 
When  India  exploded  a  peaceful  nuclear  de- 
vice last  May,  I  think  the  U.S.  position  was 
that  there  was  no  distinction  between  a 
peaceful  device  and  a  military  one.  The 
technology  is  the  same.  Is  there  now  a  dis- 
tinction being  drawn  in  this  country? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  one  has  to 
make  a  distinction  between  countries  that 
have  not  previously  had  access  to  nuclear 
explosive  technology  and  those  countries  that 
have  elaborated  nuclear  explosive  technology. 

In  the  case  of  a  new  nuclear  country,  the 
mere  fact  of  an  explosion  is  of  significance 
because  that  is  what  enters  it  into  the  club 
of  those  who  have  set  off  nuclear  explosions. 
And  therefore  in  the  early  stages  of  nuclear 
development,  the  distinction  between  mili- 
tary uses  and  civilian  uses  may  be  in  the 
mind  of  those  that  set  off  the  explosion,  but 
it  is  very  difficult — in  fact  it  is  impossible — 
to  establish  a  distinction. 

In  the  case  of  elaborated  nuclear  tech- 
nology, there  are  at  least  some  cases  in  which 
criteria  can  be  defined  by  which  the  explo- 
sion is  either  of  a  more  rudimentary  tech- 
nology than  has  already  been  tested  for 
military  purposes  or  is  of  a  nature  that  can 
be  clearly  demonstrated  as  not  useful  for 
military  purposes. 

So  the  distinction  can  be  made  only  in 
cases  of  advanced  nuclear  countries.  It  can- 
not be  made  with  respect  to  countries  enter- 
ing the  nuclear  club. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  is  your  rationale 
for  continuing  as  chairman  on  the  JfO  Com- 


mittee on  covert  activities  and  clandestine 
operations  overseas?  And  isn't  this  compro- 
mising to  your  role  as  Secretary  of  State  and 
the  relatively  open  diplomacy  of  your  other 
hat? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  40  Committee, 
in  one  form  or  another,  has  existed  since 
1948.  The  Department  of  State  has  always 
been  represented  on  the  40  Committee. 

The  role  of  the  40  Committee  is  to  review 
covert  operations  in  order  to  determine  their 
compatibility  with  the  national  security  and 
foreign  policy  objectives  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  not  to  operate  the  covert  actions 
and  not,  for  that  matter,  to  design  them.  It 
is  to  give  policy  guidance  and  policy  review. 

So,  in  one  form  or  another,  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  is  a  participant  in  the  decision, 
and  the  final  approval  is  in  every  case  given 
by  the  President  in  any  event. 

Measures  To  Deal  With  Oil  Prices 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  have  repeatedly  said 
that  yoii  do  not  desire  confrontation  with 
the  oil  producers.  I  would  like  to  ask  two 
questions  about  that.  If  you  do  not  want 
confrontation,  tvhy  did  you  and  the  President 
use  such  harsh  rhetoric  in  addressing  your- 
self to  the  problem,  rhetoric  that  apparently 
you  can't  back  2ip  with  action?  And,  two, 
tvhy  a  ftdl  year  after  the  energy  crisis  really 
hit  have  you  not  made  any  serious  moves  to 
get  together  ivith  the  producers? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Do  you  want  me  to 
agree  with  your  conclusions,  or  can  I  state 
some  of  my  own?    [Laughter.] 

First  of  all,  the  definition  of  "harsh  rhet- 
oric" is  of  course  quite  a  subjective  one.  The 
President  and  I  stated  that  we  are  dealing 
with  a  very  serious  problem.  If  you  look  at 
my  statements  on  the  subject,  you  will  find 
that  I  used  substantially  the  same  rhetoric 
in  my  Pilgrims  speech  last  December  in 
London,  in  the  opening  speech  to  the  Wash- 
ington Energy  Conference  in  February,  in 
the  speech  to  the  U.N.  special  session  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  April,  and  now  again 
in  September. 

We  have  stated,  and  I  repeat,  that  present 
oil  prices  are  putting  a  strain  on  the  world 


566 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


economy  that  will,  over  a  period  of  time, 
create  an  intolerable  situation.  It  was  the 
intention  to  emphasize  these  points. 

Now,  whether  or  not  it  can  be  backed  up, 
again,  is  a  question  that  requires  some  ex- 
amination. Ever  since  the  first  speech  last 
December  we  have  made  a  systematic  effort 
to  bring  about  greater  cohesion  among  the 
consumers,  to  protect  them  against  emer- 
gencies, to  bring  about  conservation,  to  bring 
about  cooperation  on  alternative  sources  of 
energy  and  in  research  and  development,  and 
ultimately  a  greater  degree  of  financial  soli- 
darity, at  least  with  respect  to  the  recycling 
problem. 

These  measures  are  required  whether  or 
not  oil  prices  come  down,  especially  if  oil 
prices  do  not  come  down.  They  also  will 
provide  a  basis  for  further  discussion  with 
the  producers. 

Until  there  is  a  degree  of  a  common  view 
among  the  consumers,  discussions  with  the 
producers  are  simply  going  to  repeat  all  the 
debates  with  which  we  are  familiar.  We 
have  been  talking  with  the  producers.  The 
Europeans  have  been  talking  with  the  pro- 
ducers. The  only  new  element  could  be  a 
greater  degree  of  cohesion  among  the  con- 
sumers, and  that,  at  this  point,  we  are  in 
the  process  of  forming. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  could  I  follow  that  up? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes. 

Q.  There  have  been  statements  by  Arab 
spokesmen  in  the  past  couple  of  weeks  draw- 
ing a  clear  link  between  the  oil  crisis  and 
future  Middle  East  negotiations.  In  your 
statement  just  a  moment  ago,  when  you 
talked  about  your  upcoming  trip  to  the  Mid- 
dle East,  you  didn't  talk  about  the  oil  crisis, 
but  just  the  negotiation.  Is  there  any  real- 
istic way  of  separating  the  two? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  major  dynamics 
of  the  oil  crisis — well,  first  of  all,  I  wouldn't 
like  the  word  "oil  crisis" — of  the  impact  of 
the  high  oil  prices  is  not  inevitably  linked 
to  the  Arab-Israeli  negotiations.  And  we  are 
negotiating  these  two  issues  separately  be- 
cause the  high  oil  prices  affect  many  nations 
on  a  global  basis  that  do  not  have  the  re- 


motest   connection    with    the    Arab-Israeli 
conflict. 

We  believe  that  to  some  extent  these  nego- 
tiations should  be  conducted  in  separate 
forums,  and  we  are  conducting  them  in 
separate  forums. 

Improvement  of  U.S.-Polish  Relations 

Q.  If  I  may  ask  you,  on  Mr.  Gierek's  visit, 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Polish  Diet,  woidd  you 
care  to  elaborate  on  this  visit  in  a  more 
general,  wider  context  of  the  East-West 
detente,  if  you  may? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  you  know, 
the  improvement  of  relations  between  the 
East  and  West  has  been  one  of  the  cardinal 
goals  of  our  foreign  policy. 

We  have  always  held  the  view  that  this 
is  not  confined  to  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union  but  it 
must  include  some  of  our  traditional  friends 
in  Eastern  Europe.  And  therefore  we  expect 
during  the  visit  of  the  First  Secretary  to 
discuss  and  to  agree  on  a  number  of  co- 
operative projects  in  a  variety  of  fields,  eco- 
nomic and  technological. 

We  I'ealize  of  course  the  facts  of  geography 
and  the  realities  of  existing  political  rela- 
tionships. But  we  believe  that  a  considerable 
improvement  in  relations  between  Poland  and 
the  United  States  is  possible  and  that  this 
will  contribute  to  the  general  easing  of  ten- 
sions and  improvement  of  relations  on  an 
East-West  basis. 

Grain  Sales;  Emigration  From  Soviet  Union 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  Soviet-American  re- 
lations, over  the  weekend  the  Soviets  have 
lost  a  major  grain  purchase.  Can  you  say 
how  this  in  your  mind  affects  Soviet-Amer- 
ican relations;  and  was  the  U.S.  Government 
properly  informed  about  the  Soviet  inten- 
tions? And,  two,  can  you  bring  U3  up  to  date 
on  the  status  of  your  discussions  with  the 
Senators  on  the  Jackson  amendment,  which 
now  seem  to  have  run  into  some  trouble? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  With  respect  to  the 
grain  purchase,  this  grew  out  of  an  attempt 


October  28,   1974 


567 


by  the  United  States  to  contact  major  im- 
porters of  grain  and  to  discuss  with  them 
a  general  level  which  we  thought  was  con- 
sistent with  maintaining  American  grain 
prices  and  also  with  our  ability  to  fulfill  it. 

In  the  process,  I  believe  that  a  strong  pos- 
sibility exists  that  we  may  have  misled  the 
Soviet  Union  as  to  what  we  thought  we  could 
deliver  over  a  period  of  time.  And  when  a 
trading  monopoly  is  given  a  certain  level,  it 
then  may  assume  that  it  has  the  right  to 
place  orders  for  the  whole  amount  imme- 
diately. This  is  where  a  disproportionate 
impact  occurred.  And  therefore  we  ascribed 
the  events  of  last  weekend  to  a  misunder- 
standing between  bureaucracies. 

Secretary  [of  the  Treasury  William  E.] 
Simon  will  be  in  the  Soviet  Union  at  the 
end  of  the  week  and  will  discuss  with  respon- 
sible Soviet  officials  the  grain  exports  which 
we  believe  we  are  able  to  make  which  are 
consistent  with  our  attempt  to  fight  inflation 
and  with  our  other  obligations  on  a  global 
basis.  So  we  are  confident  that  this  can  be 
worked  out  on  a  constructive  and  coopera- 
tive basis. 

With  respect  to  the  second  question,  the 
negotiations  between  the  Senators  and  my- 
self, the  difficulty,  such  as  it  is,  arises  from 
the  fact  that  there  are  some  assurances  that 
have  been  given  to  me  that  I  can  defend  and 
which  I  can  transmit.  There  are  some  inter- 
pretations of  these  assurances  which  some 
of  the  Senators  would  like  to  make.  And  that 
is  their  privilege.  And  we  understand  that 
they  would  apply  their  interpretations  as  a 
test  of  Soviet  good  faith. 

What  I  cannot  do  is  to  guarantee  things 
that  have  not  been  told  to  me.  And  so  the 
question  is  whether  we  can  work  out  some- 
thing which  makes  clear  that  we  take  the 
Senators'  views  very  seriously  but  which 
does  not  put  us  into  a  position  of  having  to 
guarantee  something  beyond  what  has  been 
discussed. 

Now,  the  difficulty  arose  at  a  meeting  with 
the  congressional  leadership  in  which  we  pre- 
sented what  had  been  discussed  and  pointed 
out  what  we  could  guarantee  in  the  area  in 
which  we  were  not  sure  of  what  in  fact  would 
happen.  And  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
congressional  leadership  was  that  if  we  could 

568 


not  be  sure  about  certain  aspects,  then  some 
of  the  formulations  that  had  been  used 
might  lend  themselves  to  misinterpretation 
later  on. 

We  have  every  intention  on  our  side  of 
working  this  out  with  good  will.  We  have  no 
intention  of  having  any  debate  with  the 
Senators  concerned.  We  share  their  objec- 
tives. And  we  believe  that  a  reasonable  solu- 
tion can  be  found  among  honorable  men. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  was  the  figure  of  60,000 
or  any  other  figure  understood  in  your  dis- 
cussions loith  the  Soviet  Union? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  always  made 
clear  that  I  could  not  guarantee  any  figure. 
How  you  interpret  certain  administrative 
agreements  into  figures,  I  have  always  made 
clear,  could  not  be  guaranteed  by  us. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  ivould  you  recommend 
Presidential  intervention  in  the  event  that 
any  of  the  oil-rich  countries  tried  to  make  a\ 
ivheat  deal  or  a  grain  deal  similar  to  the  one 
that  was  blocked  over  this  past  iveekend? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  there  has  been 
a  meeting  in  the  Department  of  Agriculturei 
this  morning  in  order  to  work  out  a  program 
of  voluntary  restraints  and  voluntary  co- 
operation between  agricultural  exporters  and 
the  Department  of  Agriculture.  That  pro- 
gram will  be  announced  this  afternoon.  And 
I  believe  that  it  represents  a  satisfactory 
compromise  between  the  operation  of  a  free 
economy  and  the  overall  global  responsibili- 
ties of  the  United  States. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  in  reference  to  your 
earlier  comments  about  the  negotiations  on 
the  underground  nuclear  test  ban,  would  you 
agree  that  the  agreement  has  to  be  renego- 
tiated fundamentally  in  order  to  get  through 
the  Senate,  namely,  that  peaceful  nuclear  ex- 
plosions also  have  to  be  limited  to  150  kilo- 
tons?  And  secondly,  also  because  it  relates 
to  U.S.  negotiations  with  the  Soviet  Union, 
would  you  agree  that  the  dispute  concerning 
negotiations  over  emigration  with  members 
of  the  Senate  represents  a  diminution  of 
their  willingness  to  agree  ivith  you  on  many 
of  tliese  issues  ivhich  are  in  controversy  re- 
cently? 

Department   of  State   Bulletin 


I 


I 


S(frf(( 
4  [L 

I  5..V» 

mi  kI 

li!-wei 

|H(,(ll( 


Seagrt 
lat  we 


Bter 
Stiiate, 


Sterm 
tiattbe 
*  sou 
site,  I 
fcays 


Uii 


Secretary  Kissinger:  "They"  meaning  the 
Senators  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

Secretary  Kissinger:    Or  the  Soviets? 

Q.  No,  speaking  of  the  mood — /  tvas  par- 
ticularly referring  to  the  mood  in  Congress 
as  reflected  recently.  I  am   trying  to  get — 


Secretary  Kissinger 
tide.    [Laughter.] 


To  confirm  your  ar- 


Q.  No — yoK  are  entitled  to  a  rebuttal  if 
you  wish.  What  I  am  trying  to  ascertain 
is — we  have  discussed  here  tivo  neiv  issues: 
one,  the  emigration  concept — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  understand  the 
question.  I  think  I  get  the  drift  of  its  import. 
But  first  let  me  deal  with  the  first  part  of 
the  question. 

I  do  not  agree,  nor  is  it  the  opinion  of  the 
President  or  of  the  government,  that  the 
threshold  test  ban  has  to  be  renegotiated. 
We  agreed  with  the  Soviet  Union  in  June 
that  we  would  make  a  good-faith  effort  to 
develop  criteria  for  nuclear  explosions,  for 
peaceful  nuclear  explosions,  recognizing  the 
difficulty  of  defining  criteria  for  explosions 
above  150  kilotons.  We  will  nevertheless  en- 
gage in  these  negotiations  in  good  faith.  And 
the  judgment  of  whether  it  is  possible  to 
develop  these  criteria  can  be  made  only  after 
the  negotiations  have  been  completed.  It  has 
not  been  affected  by  any  consultations  in  the 
Senate.  It  will  be  determined  entirely  on 
the  basis  of  the  negotiations  that  are  now 
opening  in  Moscow. 

With  respect  to  the  second  question,  we 
are  here  in  an  area  of  ambiguity,  in  which 
I  have  to  say,  in  fairness  to  the  Senators 
concerned,  they  have  always  held  the  view 
that  there  should  be  a  fixed  number.  This  is 
not  something  new  caused  by  recent  discus- 
sions, but  it  is  something  that  they  have 
always  held.  And  I  have  always  held  the 
view  that  I  could  not  guarantee  something 
that  has  not  been  told  to  me.  The  question 
now  is  whether  we  can  formulate  a  criterion 
that  can  be  applied  as  a  test  without  putting 
the  administration  into  the  position  of  hav- 
ing misled  them.    This  has  nothing  to   do 


with  any  recent  debate  that  has  gone  on  in 
the  Congress. 

But  since  you  obviously  also  want  an  an- 
swer to  the  implication  of  your  question,  I 
believe  it  was  inevitable  that  during  the 
Watergate  period,  when  much  of  the  public 
attention  and  congressional  attention  was 
on  domestic  aff"airs,  that  there  was  a  great 
reluctance  to  have  a  challenge  to  foreign 
policy.  As  we  now  have  a  more  normal  gov- 
ernmental process,  it  is  also  inevitable  that 
there  will  be  a  more  normal  debate  on  the 
subject  of  foreign  policy.  And  I  consider 
that  inevitable  and,  in  the  long  term,  de- 
sirable. 


Attitudes  Toward  Foreign  Policy  Issues 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  is  the  Nixon  doctrine 
still  an  ongoing  policy  of  the  neiv  adminis- 
tration, and  if  so,  do  you  have  the  support 
of  the  Congress  in  seeing  that  it  is  imple- 
mented? 

Seo-etary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  the 
Nixon  doctrine,  defined  as  strengthening  the 
capability  of  countries  to  defend  themselves, 
is  .still  the  policy  of  the  administration.  It 
is  also  true,  as  a  result  of  the  war  in  Viet- 
Nam  and  of  a  generation  of  involvement  in 
international  aff"airs,  that  the  general  atti- 
tude of  much  of  the  American  public  toward 
foreign  aid  in  general  has  become  much  more 
skeptical.  And  therefore  the  administration 
has  greater  difficulties  than  used  to  be  the 
case  a  decade  or  two  ago  in  its  general  ability 
to  convince  Congress  to  appropriate  these 
sums,  especially  at  a  period  when  we  have 
severe  domestic  economic  strains. 

We  believe  that  it  is  our  obligation  to  put 
before  the  Congress  what  we  believe  is  in 
the  national  interest,  just  as  it  is  the  Con- 
gress' right  to  make  its  own  judgment. 

Q.  Sir,  to  clarify  your  earlier  remarks 
about  the  iO  Committee,  has  the  recent  con- 
troversy about  Chile  caused  any  change  in 
policy  with  regard  to  covert  political  activi- 
ties? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  As  I  pointed  out,  the 
covert  political  activities  have  been  carried 
out  since  1948  under  the  general  supervision 


October  28,   1974 


569 


of  the  40  Committee  under  various  names. 
These  operations  are  also  briefed  to  the 
Congress  by  whatever  procedures  are  estab- 
lished between  the  CIA  and  its  oversight 
committees,  and  these  procedures  are  not  de- 
termined either  by  the  40  Committee  or  by 
the  White  House.  They  are  left  entirely  to 
the  arrangements  between  the  CIA  and  the 
oversight  committees. 

Recently  there  has  been  an  expansion  of 
briefing  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee  of 
the  House  as  to  those  activities  that  have 
foreign  policy  implications;  that  is,  a  small 
subcommittee  of  this  [Foreign  Affairs  Com- 
mittee]. 

I  do  not  think  it  would  be  appropriate  for 
me,  in  the  nature  of  what  is  a  covert  opera- 
tion, to  go  into  the  scale,  but  I  believe  that 
if  one  compares  the  scale  now,  or  the  scale 
even  from  the  late  sixties  onward,  to  the 
previous  period,  one  would  find  that  the  polit- 
ical direction  has  been  tightened  up  and  the 
number  has  decreased. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  before  you  became  Sec- 
retary of  State,  you  maintained  that  it  ivas 
the  job  of  the  National  Security  Adviser  to 
assure  that  the  President  got  as  ivide  as 
possible  a  range  of  foreign  policy  options 
and  thinking  ivithin  the  government.  Why 
do  you  believe  now,  as  you  apparently  do, 
that  your  holding  of  both  jobs,  Secretary  of 
State  and  the  National  Security  Adviser,  is 
not  inconsistent  with  that  function? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Contrary  to  what  I 
have  read  in  the  press,  I  have  not  entered 
this  debate.  I  did  not  request  the  President 
to  make  the  statement  that  he  made  in  New 
York,  nor  did  this  issue  come  up  between 
the  President  and  me  until  he  had  already 
written  that  statement.  The  operation  of  the 
national  security  machinery  depends  on  the 
President,  and  it  must  be  organized  in  such 
a  way  that  he  feels  comfortable  in  making 
those  decisions.  It  is  not  a  subject  that  any 
Cabinet  officer  can  or  should  negotiate  with 
the  President.  And  therefore  this  is  a  matter 
that  should  be  more  properly  addressed  in 
another  forum  than  by  me. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  feel  that  the 
criticiS7n  that  has  been  leveled  against  you 


570 


in  the  past  month  on  a  jvhole  variety  of 
issues  is  fair,  and  do  you  believe  that  that 
criticism  has  to  any  degree  affected  your 
capacity  to  run  foreign  policy? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  it  is 
fair  to  say  that  my  own  estimate  of  myself 
may  be  at  variance  with  that  of  some  of  the 
critics.  [Laughter.]  But  then  I  can't  expect 
my  critics  to  be  right  a  hundred  percent  of 
the  time.    [Laughter.] 

I  think  the  fact  of  criticism  is  certainly 
fair  and  was  certainly  inevitable.  I  think 
that  there  may  have  been  a  period,  as  I 
pointed  out,  in  which  there  may  have  been 
excessive  restraint,  and  this  may  be  counter- 
balanced now  by  finding  the  more  critical 
aspects.  I  assume  that  it  will  even  out  over 
a  period  of  time.  I  don't  think  it  has  affected 
my  effectiveness. 


Cyprus  Negotiations 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  sir,  you  have  in  the  past 
week  met  ivith  the  Turkish  and  the  Greek 
Foreign  Ministers  several  times  in  New 
York.  Could  you  now  tell  us  as  to  what  are 
the  prospects  for  resuming  the  negotiations 
in  Geneva;  and,  also,  what  are  the  prospects 
for  peace  in  Cypnis? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  progress  in  the 
negotiations  on  Cyprus  depends  on  many 
factors.  It  depends  on  the  domestic  situa- 
tion in  both  Greece  and  Turkey.  Greece  has 
elections  scheduled,  and  Turkey  is  attempt- 
ing to  form  a  new  government  and  may  have 
elections  scheduled.  It  depends  on  the  status 
of  the  communal  talks  in  Cyprus. 

The  attempt  in  the  talks  in  New  York  with 
the  Greek  and  Turkish  Foreign  Ministers 
was  to  see  whether  some  basis  could  be  found 
by  which  negotiations  could  ultimately  start 
in  a  manner  that  was  also  compatible  with 
the  domestic  necessities  of  each  of  the  par- 
ties. 

I  do  not  have  the  impression  that  the  re- 
sumption of  the  Geneva  forum  is  imminent, 
and  I  don't  think  it  would  serve  a  useful 
purpose  by  making  a  prediction  about  when 
other  talks  will  start.  The  United  States 
strongly  supports  the  communal  talks  which 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


are  now  going  on  and  will  in  every  other  way- 
do  its  utmost  to  enable  the  parties  to  reach 
a  conclusion  that  is  consistent  with  their 
dignity  and  self-respect. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  have  been  reported 
widely  as  expressing  concern  that  the  eco- 
nomic crisis  or  the  oil  crisis  might  cause 
political  upheaval  toward  Western  Europe. 
Do  you  find  that  the  Western  allies  with 
ivhom  you  met  last  week  agree  with  your 
analysis,  and  do  you  think  that  you  have  now 
made  progress  toward  some  conseyisus  on 
dealing  with  the  oil  crisis? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  been  reported 
correctly  as  believing — indeed,  I  stated  so 
publicly — that  the  continuation  of  these 
enormous  balance  of  payments  deficits  will 
force  governments,  and  especially  those  of 
Western  Europe,  into  decisions  that  will, 
over  a  period  of  time,  have  significant  do- 
mestic or  international  consequences. 

I  believe  that  this  general  analysis  is 
shared,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  by  most 
of  the  countries  with  which  we  have  talked. 
Therefore  I  am  basically  optimistic  that  we 
are  making  progress  in  the  objectives  we 
have  set  ourselves — which  is  to  enable  the 
consuming  nations  to  withstand  the  impact 
of  the  economic  situation  in  which  they  find 
themselves. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  coidd  I  follow  that  up? 
Would  it  be  useful  then  for  the  major  con- 
suming nations  to  cooperatively  rediice  their 
consumption  of  oil  by  a  specific  amount,  re- 
gardless of  what  that  amount  is? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  As  I  pointed  out  in 
the  opening  of  the  Washington  Energy  Con- 
ference in  February,  a  restraint  on  demand 
is  essential  if  progress  is  to  be  made  in  the 
solution  of  the  oil  problem. 

Now,  whether  this  restraint  is  achieved 
by  international  agreement  or  whether  in- 
ternational discussions  provide  the  impetus 
for  essentially  national  decisions  is  not  a 
major  point.  But  a  restraint  on  demand,  in 
one  form  or  another,  is  an  essential  compo- 
nent of  the  policy  that  we  have  sketched. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  the  $50,000  gift  to 
you  from  Nelson  Rockefeller,  is  there  any 


reason  ivhy  yon  did  7iot  disclose  that  when 
you  were  confirmed  as  Secretary  of  State? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  When  Governor 
Rockefeller  made  this  proposal  to  me,  I  asked 
the  counsel  to  the  President-elect  to  give  me 
a  legal  opinion  in  terms  of  existing  statutes 
and  in  terms  of  propriety.  He  gave  me  a 
written  letter,  a  written  statement,  in  which 
he  pointed  out  that  it  was  neither  contrary 
to  any  law  or  statute  nor  involved  any  im- 
propriety. And  only  after  I  had  that  written 
statement  did  I  proceed,  and  then  I  put  the 
money  in  trust  for  my  children  and  did  not 
benefit. 

Q.  Who  was  that  counsel,  Mr.  Secretary? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  it  was  Mr. 
[Edward  L.  ]  Morgan.  We  will  have  this 
letter  available  this  afternoon. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  the  Middle  East, 
some  Israelis  have  been  insisting  that  the 
next  stage  should  be  the  final  stage.  Is  that 
now  just  out  of  the  question? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  is  not  my  im- 
pression of  what  other  Israelis  have  told  me, 
and  I  don't  want  to  speculate  what  the  next 
stage  will  be ;  but  it  is  not  the  impression  that 
I  have  gained  from  my  talks  with  all  the 
parties. 

Q.  Coidd  you  tell  us  from  your  assessment 
of  the  visit  to  Cuba  of  Sermtors  [Jacob  K.^ 
Javits  and  [Claiborme]  Pell  ivhether  you  re- 
gard the  reception  they  got  as  a  kind  of 
signal  to  the  U.S.  Government;  and  if  so, 
how  you  might  respond  to  such  a  signal? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have,  I  think,  a 
rather  clear  understanding  of  the  attitude 
of  the  Cuban  Government  to  the  problem 
of  normalization  of  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  Cuba.  We  are  also  discuss- 
ing this  matter  in  inter-American  forums; 
and  there  will  be  a  meeting  of  Foreign  Min- 
isters in  Quito  early  in  November  to  discuss 
the  problem  of  OAS  sanctions.  We  will  pro- 
ceed, first,  in  the  inter-American  forums  to 
discuss  the  views  of  our  colleagues,  and  then 
we  will  form  a  judgment  as  to  how  to  pro- 
ceed thereafter. 


October  28,    1974 


571 


Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  why  didn't  the  United 
States  accept  an  aqr cement  on  the  nuclear 
cooperation  ivith  Israel  and  Egypt?  And, 
second,  do  you  hope  to  sign  this  agreement 
during  the  visit  of  President  Sadat  next 
month  in  Washington? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  haven't  reached 
an  agi-eement  because  some  of  the  parties 
have  not  responded  yet  to  our  suggestions 
for  additional  safeguards.  When  the  agree- 
ment will  be  signed — we  do  not  have  a  fixed 
timetable,  and  we  have  not  come  to  an  un- 
derstanding with  anybody  as  to  a  specific 
time  to  sign  the  agreement. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  that  question,  would 
you  be  prepared  to  give  the  nuclear  plants 
only  to  those  countries  that  ivill  agree  to  the 
additional  safeguards,  even  if  some  other 
countries  did  not  agree  to  them? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  we  have  not 
faced  that  question  yet,  and  we  expect  that 
the  countries  concerned  will  accept  the  addi- 
tional safeguards. 


President  Ford's  News  Conference 
of  October  9 

Follotving  are  excerpts  relating  to  foreign 
policy  from  the  transcript  of  a  news  con- 
ference held  by  President  Ford  in  the  Rose 
Garden  at  the  White  House  on  October  9.^ 

I  do  have  one  business  announcement.  I 
am  pleased  to  announce  this  afternoon  that 
President  Echeverria  of  Mexico  and  I  have 
agreed  to  hold  a  meeting  on  the  U.S.-Mexican 
border  on  Monday,  October  21. 

I  am  very  much  looking  forward  to  this 
opportunity  to  meet  with  President  Eche- 
verria in  the  Nogales  area,  and  we  plan  to 
visit  both  sides  of  the  border.  The  United 
States  and  Mexico  have  a  long  tradition 
of  friendly  and  cooperative  relations.  It 
is  my  hope  that  our  meeting  will  contribute 
to    maintaining    that    relationship    and    to 


^For  the  complete  text,  see   Weekly  Compilation 
of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Oct.  14. 


strengthen  the  good  will  between  our  coun- 
tries over  the  years  to  come.  At  this  meet- 
ing, we  will  discuss,  obviously,  a  wide  range 
of  subjects  of  interest  to  both  countries. 

Q.  I  am  sure  you  have  other  questions  on 
economics,  but  let  me  ask  just  one  on  inter- 
national affairs.  There  are  reports  that  you 
are  planning  some  sort  of  a  suminit  confer- 
ence ivith  Chairman  Brezhnev  of  the  Soviet 
Union.  Cayi  you  give  us  some  details  on  that? 

President  Ford:  When  I  took  the  oath  of 
office,  I  indicated  that  I  would  continue  our 
country's  efforts  to  broaden  and  to  expand 
the  policies  of  detente  with  the  Soviet  Union. 

Since  I  have  been  in  office,  I  have  had  a 
number  of  discussions  with  responsible  lead- 
ers in  the  Soviet  Union.  About  10  days  ago, 
I  met  with  their  Foreign  Minister,  Mr. 
Gromyko. 

Dr.  Kissinger  is  going  to  the  Soviet  Union 
the  latter  part  of  this  month  to  continue 
these  discussions. 

Now,  as  you  well  know,  Mr.  Brezhnev  has 
been  invited  to  come  to  the  United  States  in 
1975.  If  there  is  a  reason  for  us  to  meet 
before  that  meeting  in  the  United  States,  I 
will  certainly  consider  it. 

Q.  To  folloiv  up  a  little,  do  you  expect  the 
United  States  to  have  any  kind  of  a  proposal 
on  arms  to  present  to  the  Soviet  Union  before 
the  end  of  the  year? 

President  Ford:  We  are  resolving  our 
position  in  this  very  important  and  very 
critical  area.  When  Dr.  Kissinger  goes  to 
the  Soviet  Union  the  latter  part  of  this 
month,  we  will  have  some  guidelines,  some 
specific  guidelines,  for  him  to  discuss  in  a 
preliminary  way  with  the  Soviet  Union. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  in  your  recent  U.N. 
spec'ch,  you  added  some  last-minute  remarks 
praising  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger,  and 
last  night  you  made  an  extraordinary  move 
of  going  out  to  Andrews  Air  Force  Base  to 
see  him  off  on  his  trip  abroad.  Are  you  upset 
by  the  criticism  that  Secretary  Kissinger  is 
receiving  from  the  press,  the  public,  and 
Congress? 


572 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


President  Ford:  I  would  put  it  this  way, 
Mr.  Jones  [Phil  Jones,  CBS  News].  I  am 
very  fond  of  Dr.  Kissinger  on  a  personal 
basis.  I  have  tremendous  respect  and  admira- 
tion for  the  superb  job  that  he  has  done  since 
he  has  been  the  director  of  the  National  Se- 
curity Agency  (Council)  and  also  as  Secre- 
tary of  State. 

I  think  what  he  has  done  for  peace  in  the 
world,  what  he  is  continuing  to  do  for  peace 
throughout  the  world,  deserves  whatever 
good  and  appropriate  things  I  can  say  about 
him  and  whatever  little  extra  effort  I  can 
make  to  show  my  appreciation.  And  I  intend 
to  continue  to  do  it. 

Q.  Sir,  do  you  feel  that  his  effectiveness  is 
being  undermined  by  this  criticism? 

President  Ford:  I  haven't  seen  any  adverse 
effects  so  far.  We  are  making  headway,  and 
I  think  constructively,  in  all  of  the  areas 
where  I  think  and  he  thinks  it  is  important 
for  us  to  do  things  to  preserve  peace  and 
build  a  broader  base  for  peace. 


Letters  of  Credence 

Barbados 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  Bar- 
bados, Cecil  B.  Williams,  presented  his  cre- 
dentials to  President  Ford  on  August  19. 
For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's  remarks  and 
the  President's  reply,  see  Department  of 
State  press  release  dated  August  19. 

Costa  Rica 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Republic  of  Costa  Rica,  Rodolfo  Silva,  pre- 


sented his  credentials  to  President  Ford  on 
Augu.st  19.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's 
remarks  and  the  President's  reply,  see  De- 
partment of  State  press  release  dated  Au- 
gust 19. 

Ghana 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Republic  of  Ghana,  Samuel  Ernest  Quarm, 
presented  his  credentials  to  President  Ford 
on  August  19.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's 
remarks  and  the  President's  reply,  see  De- 
partment of  State  press  release  dated  August 
19. 

Spain 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  Spain, 
Jaime  Alba,  presented  his  credentials  to 
President  Ford  on  August  19.  For  texts  of 
the  Ambassador's  remarks  and  the  Presi- 
dent's reply,  see  Department  of  State  press 
release  dated  August  19. 

Syria 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Syrian  Arab  Republic,  Sabah  Kabbani,  pre- 
sented his  credentials  to  President  Ford  on 
August  19.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's 
remarks  and  the  President's  reply,  see  De- 
partment of  State  press  release  dated  Au- 
gust 19. 

Venezuela 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Republic  of  Venezuela,  Miguel  Angel  Burelli- 
Rivas,  presented  his  credentials  to  President 
Ford  on  August  19.  For  texts  of  the  Am- 
bassador's remarks  and  the  President's  reply, 
see  Department  of  State  press  release  dated 
August  19. 


October  28,    1974 


573 


Annual  Meetings  of  IMF  and  IBRD  Boards  of  Governors 
Held  at  Washington 


Tlie  Boards  of  Governors  of  the  Interna- 
tional Monetary  Fund  (IMF)  and  the  In- 
ternational Bank  for  Reconstruction  and 
Development  (IBRD)  and  its  affiliates  held 
their  regular  anmial  meetings  at  Washington 
September  30-October  It.  Following  are  re- 
marks made  by  President  Ford  before  the 
Boards  of  Governors  on  September  30  and  a 
statement  made  on  October  1  by  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  William  E.  Simon,  U.S.  Gov- 
ernor of  the  Fund  arid  Bank. 


REMARKS  BY  PRESIDENT  FORD 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  October  7 

It  is  a  very  great  privilege  and  a  very  high 
honor  to  have  the  opportunity  of  making 
some  preliminary  remarks  on  this  gathering 
here  in  the  Nation's  Capital  of  our  country. 

I  extend  to  each  and  every  one  of  you  a 
very,  very  warm  welcome.  I  and  all  Amer- 
icans want  your  continuing  friendship,  and 
we  welcome  your  constructive  and  thought- 
ful observations  and  recommendations.  And 
I  assure  you  at  the  outset  that  we  will  recip- 
rocate in  every  way  in  order  to  make  prog- 
ress in  this  very  vital  area  for  each  and  every 
one  of  us. 

We  come  together  at  an  unprecedented 
time  of  challenge  in  our  world's  economy. 
But  that  makes  my  welcome  to  all  of  you — 
those  of  you  who  must  solve  these  serious 
problems — an  even  warmer  welcome.  The 
serious  problems  that  confront  us  today  are 
extremely  complex  and,  I  presume,  in  some 
respects  controversial. 

We  do  this  at  a  time  of  worldwide  infla- 
tion at  a  rate  far,  far  in  excess  of  what  any 
one  of  us  can  tolerate. 


We  come  here  today  at  a  time  of  unparal- 
leled disruptions  in  the  supply  of  the  world's 
major  commodity.  We  are  here  today  at  a 
time  of  severe  hindrances  to  the  real  grovvi;h 
and  the  real  progress  of  many  nations,  in- 
cluding in  particular  some  of  the  poorest 
and  most  unfortunate  among  us. 

We  in  America  view  these  problems  very 
soberly  and  without  any  rose-tinted  glasses. 
But  we  believe  at  the  same  time  the  spirit 
of  international  cooperation  which  brought 
about  the  Bretton  Woods  agreement  a  gen- 
eration ago  can  resolve  the  problems  today 
effectively  and  constructively. 

My  very  capable  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, Bill  Simon,  will  speak  in  greater  detail 
on  how  we,  the  United  States,  view  these 
problems  and  how  we  think  they  can  be 
solved.  But  I  think  I  can  sum  up  in  general 
our  thinking  quite  briefly. 

We  in  this  country  want  solutions  which 
serve  very  broad  interests  rather  than  narrow 
self-serving  ones.  We  in  America  want  more 
cooperation,  not  more  isolation.  We  in 
America  want  more  trade,  not  protectionism. 
We  in  America  want  price  stability,  not  in- 
flation. We  in  America  want  growth,  not 
stagnation.  We  want  for  ourselves,  as  you 
want  for  yourselves,  and  we  all  want  for  the 
world  a  better  life  for  ourselves  and  for  those 
generations  that  follow. 

You  will  help,  and  I  am  sure  you  will  come 
forth  with  the  kind  of  recommendations  that 
will  be  beneficial.  We  want  help  to  decide 
how  this  can  best  be  done.  The  United  States 
is  fully  prepared  to  join  with  your  govern- 
ments and  play  a  constructive  leadership 
role. 

I  say  as  I  close,  as  I  said  at  the  outset,  we 
want  your  friendship,  your  cooperation,  and 


574 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


we,  as  a  country,  will  maximize  to  reciprocate 
in  every  way  possible. 

Again,  welcome  to  our  Capital,  Washing- 
ton, D.C.,  and  the  very,  very  best  in  this 
period  of  serious  deliberation. 


STATEMENT  BY  TREASURY  SECRETARY  SIMON 

Department  of  the  Treasury  press  release  dated  October  1 

Our  recent  annual  meetings  have  reflected 
encouraging  changes  in  the  international  eco- 
nomic scene.  Three  years  ago  our  attention 
was  focused  on  the  new  economic  policy  in- 
troduced by  the  United  States  to  eliminate  a 
longstanding  imbalance  in  the  world  econ- 
omy. Two  years  ago  we  launched  a  major 
reform  of  the  international  trade  and  pay- 
ments system.  Last  year  we  developed  the 
broad  outlines  of  monetary  reform. 

This  year  circumstances  are  different.  We 
face  a  world  economic  situation  that  is  the 
most  difficult  since  the  years  immediately 
after  World  War  II. 

Our  predecessors  in  those  early  postwar 
years  responded  well  to  the  great  challenges 
of  that  period.  I  am  confident  we  can  also 
respond  appropriately  to  the  challenges  of 
our  day.  But  first  we  must  identify  the  issues 
correctly. 

Let  me  declare  myself  now  on  three  of 
these  key  issues : 

— First,  I  do  not  believe  the  world  is  in 
imminent  danger  of  a  drift  into  cumulative 
recession,  though  we  must  be  alert  and  ready 
to  act  quickly  should  the  situation  change 
unexpectedly.  I  do  believe  the  world  must 
concentrate  its  attention  and  its  efforts  on 
the  devastating  inflation  that  confronts  us. 

— Second,  I  do  not  believe  the  international 
financial  market  is  about  to  collapse.  I  do 
believe  that  situations  can  arise  in  which 
individual  countries  may  face  serious  prob- 
lems in  borrowing  to  cover  oil  and  other 
needs.  For  that  reason  we  must  all  stand 
prepared  to  take  cooperative  action  should 
the  need  arise. 

— Third,  I  firmly  believe  that  undue  re- 
strictions on  the  production  of  raw  materials 
and  commodities  in  order  to  bring  about  tem- 
porary increases  in  their  prices  threaten  the 


prosperity  of  all  nations  and  call  into  ques- 
tion our  ability  to  maintain  and  strengthen 
an  equitable  and  effective  world  trading 
order. 

With  respect  to  the  first  of  these  issues, 
it  is  clear  that  most  countries  are  no  longer 
dealing  with  the  familiar  trade-off  of  the 
past — balancing  a  little  more  or  less  inflation 
against  little  more  or  less  growth  and  em- 
ployment. We  are  confronted  with  the  threat 
of  inflationary  forces  so  strong  and  so  per- 
sistent that  they  could  jeopardize  not  only 
the  prosperity  but  even  the  stability  of  our 
societies.  A  protracted  continuation  of  in- 
flation at  present  rates  would  place  destruc- 
tive strains  on  the  framework  of  our  present 
institutions — financial,   social,   and  political. 

Our  current  inflation  developed  from  a 
combination  of  factors.  In  addition  to  pres- 
sures emanating  from  cartel  pricing  prac- 
tices in  oil,  we  have  suflfered  from  misfortune 
including  bad  weather  affecting  crops  around 
the  world;  bad  timing  in  the  cyclical  con- 
vergence of  a  worldwide  boom;  and  bad 
policies  reflected  in  years  of  excessive  gov- 
ernment spending  and  monetary  expansion. 
As  financial  officials,  we  cannot  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  weather,  but  we  must 
accept  responsibility  for  government  policies, 
and  we  must  recommend  policies  that  take 
fully  into  account  the  circumstances  of  the 
world  in  which  we  find  ourselves. 

In  today's  circumstances  in  most  countries 
there  is,  in  my  view,  no  alternative  to  policies 
of  balanced  fiscal  and  monetary  restraint.  We 
must  steer  a  course  of  firm,  patient,  persist- 
ent restraint  of  both  public  and  private  de- 
mand, and  we  must  maintain  this  course  for 
an  extended  period  of  time,  until  inflation 
rates  decrease.  We  must  restore  the  confi- 
dence of  our  citizens  in  our  economic  future 
and  our  ability  to  maintain  strong  and  stable 
currencies. 

Some  are  concerned  that  a  determined  in- 
ternational attack  on  inflation  by  fiscal  and 
monetary  restraint  might  push  the  world 
into  a  deep  recession,  even  depression.  I 
recognize  this  concern,  but  I  do  not  believe 
we  should  let  it  distort  our  judgment. 

Of  course  we  must  watch  for  evidence  of 
excessive  slack.    The  day  is  long  past  when 


October  28,   1974 


575 


the  fight  against  inflation  can  be  waged  in 
any  country  by  tolerating  recession.  We  must 
remain  vigilant  to  the  danger  of  cumulative 
recession.  But  if  there  is  some  risk  in  moving 
too  slowly  to  relax  restraints,  there  is  also  a 
risk — and  I  believe  a  much  greater  risk — in 
moving  too  rapidly  toward  expansive  policies. 
If  we  fail  to  persevere  in  our  anti-inflation 
policies  now,  with  the  result  that  inflation  be- 
comes more  severe,  then  in  time  countermeas- 
ures  will  be  required  that  would  be  so  drastic 
as  to  risk  sharp  downturns  and  disruptions 
in  economic  activity. 

There  is  a  tendency  to  lay  much  of  the 
blame  on  the  international  transmission  of 
inflation.  Certainly  with  present  high  levels 
of  world  trade  and  investment,  developments 
in  any  economy,  be  they  adverse  or  favor- 
able, are  quickly  carried  to  other  economies. 
But  that  does  not  absolve  any  nation  from 
responsibility  to  adapt  its  financial  policies 
so  as  to  limit  inflation  and  to  shield  its 
people  from  the  ultimate  damage  which  in- 
flation inflicts  on  employment,  productivity, 
and  social  justice  in  our  societies. 

Financial  Mechanisms  To  Recycle  Oil  Funds 

In  addition  to  inflation,  public  concern  has 
centered  on  methods  of  recycling  oil  funds 
and  on  whether  we  need  new  institutions  to 
manage  those  flows. 

So  far,  our  existing  complex  of  financial 
mechanisms,  private  and  intergovernmental, 
has  proved  adequate  to  the  task  of  recycling 
the  large  volumes  of  oil  monies  already 
moving  in  the  system.  Initially,  the  private 
financial  markets  played  the  major  role, 
adapting  in  imaginative  and  constructive 
ways.  More  recently,  government-to-govern- 
ment channels  have  increasingly  been  opened, 
and  they  will  play  a  more  important  role  as 
time  goes  by.  New  financing  organizations 
have  also  been  established  by  OPEC  coun- 
tries [Organization  of  Petroleum  Exporting 
Countries].  Our  international  institutions, 
and  specifically  the  IMF  and  World  Bank, 
have  redirected  their  efi'orts  to  provide  addi- 
tional ways  of  shifting  funds  from  lenders 
to  borrowers.  The  IMF  responded  rapidly  in 
setting  up  its  special  oil  facility. 


In  our  experience  over  the  period  since 
the  sharp  increase  in  oil  prices,  three  points 
stand  out: 

— -First,  the  amount  of  new  investments 
abroad  being  accumulated  by  the  oil-export- 
ing countries  is  very  large;  we  estimate  ap- 
proximately $30  billion  thus  far  in  1974. 

— Second,  the  net  capital  flow  into  the 
United  States  from  all  foreign  sources,  as 
measured  by  the  U.S.  current  account  deficit, 
has  been  small,  about  $2  billion  so  far  this 
year.  During  the  same  period  our  oil  import 
bill  has  been  about  $12  billion  larger  than  it 
was  in  the  comparable  period  last  year. 

— Third,  markets  in  the  United  States  are 
channeling  very  large  sums  of  money  from 
foreign  lenders  to  foreign  borrowers.  Our 
banks  have  increased  their  loans  to  for- 
eigners by  approximately  $15  billion  since 
the  beginning  of  the  year,  while  incurring 
liabilities  to  foreigners  of  a  slightly  larger 
amount.  This  is  one  kind  of  effective  re- 
cycling. And  while  some  have  expressed  con- 
cern that  excessive  oil  funds  would  seek  to 
flow  to  the  United  States  and  would  require 
special  recycling  eff"orts  to  move  them  out, 
the  picture  thus  far  has  been  quite  different. 

No  one  can  predict  for  sure  what  inflows 
of  funds  to  the  United  States  will  be  in  the 
future.  But  it  is  our  firm  intention  to  main- 
tain open  capital  markets,  and  foreign  bor- 
rowers will  have  free  access  to  any  funds 
which  come  here.  The  U.S.  Government 
offers  no  special  subsidies  or  inducements  to 
attract  capital  here;  neither  do  we  place 
obstacles  to  outflows. 

Nonetheless  some  have  expressed  concern 
that  the  banking  structure  may  not  be  able 
to  cope  with  strains  from  the  large  financial 
flows  expected  in  the  period  ahead.  A  major 
factor  in  these  doubts  has  been  the  highly 
publicized  difl^culties  of  a  small  number  of 
European  banks  and  one  American  bank, 
which  have  raised  fears  of  widespread  finan- 
cial collapse. 

The  difficulties  of  these  banks  developed  in 
an  atmosphere  of  worldwide  inflation  and  of 
rapid  increases  in  interest  rates.  In  these 
circumstances,  and   in  these  relatively  few 


i 


Is 


576 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


instances,  serious  management  defects 
emerged.  These  difficulties  were  in  no  way 
the  result  of  irresponsible  or  disruptive  in- 
vestment shifts  by  oil-exporting  countries. 
Nor  were  they  the  result  of  any  failure  in 
recycling  or  of  any  general  financial  crisis 
in  any  country. 

The  lesson  to  be  learned  is  this :  In  a 
time  of  rapid  change  in  interest  rates  and 
in  the  amounts  and  directions  of  money  flows, 
financial  institutions  must  monitor  their 
practices  carefully.  Regulatory  and  super- 
visory authorities,  too,  must  be  particularly 
vigilant.  We  must  watch  carefully  to  guard 
against  mismanagement  and  speculative  ex- 
cesses, for  example,  in  the  forward  exchange 
markets.  And  we  must  make  certain  that 
procedures  for  assuring  the  liquidity  of  our 
financial  systems  are  maintained  in  good 
working  order.  Central  banks  have  taken 
major  steps  to  assure  this  result. 

Although  existing  financial  arrangements 
have  responded  reasonably  well  to  the  strains 
of  the  present  situation — and  we  believe  they 
will  continue  to  do  so — we  recognize  that 
this  situation  could  change.  We  should  remain 
alert  to  the  potential  need  for  new  depar- 
tures. We  do  not  believe  in  an  attitude  of  lais- 
sez-faire, come  what  may.  If  there  is  a  clear 
need  for  additional  international  lending 
mechanisms,  the  United  States  will  support 
their  establishment. 

We  believe  that  various  alternatives  for 
providing  such  supplementary  mechanisms 
should  be  given  careful  study.  Whatever 
decision  is  made  will  have  profound  conse- 
quences for  the  future  course  of  the  world 
economy.  We  must  carefully  assess  what  our 
options  are  and  carefully  consider  the  full 
consequences  of  alternative  courses  of  action. 
The  range  of  possible  future  problems  is  a 
wide  one,  and  many  problems  can  be  en- 
visaged that  will  never  come  to  pass.  What 
is  urgently  needed  now  is  careful  preparation 
and  probing  analysis. 

We  must  recognize  that  no  recycling  mech- 
anism will  insure  that  every  country  can 
borrow  unlimited  amounts.  Of  course,  coun- 
tries continue  to  have  the  responsibility  to 
follow   monetary,   fiscal,   and   other   policies 


such  that  their  requirements  for  foreign  bor- 
rowing are  limited. 

But  we  know  that  facilities  for  loans  on 
commercial  or  near-commercial  terms  are  not 
likely  to  be  sufficient  for  some  developing 
countries  whose  economic  situation  requires 
that  they  continue  to  find  funds  on  conces- 
sional terms.  Traditional  donors  have  con- 
tinued to  make  their  contributions  of  such 
funds,  and  oil-exporting  countries  have  made 
some  commitments  to  provide  such  assist- 
ance. Although  the  remaining  financing  prob- 
lem for  these  countries  is  small  in  compari- 
son with  many  other  international  flows,  it 
is  of  immense  importance  for  those  countries 
aft'ected.  The  new  Development  Committee 
which  we  are  now  establishing  must  give 
priority  attention  to  the  problems  confront- 
ing these  most  seriously  afi^ected  developing 
countries. 

Trade  in  Primary  Products 

For  the  past  two  years,  world  trade  in 
primary  commodities  has  been  subject  to  ab- 
normal uncertainties  and  strains.  Poor  crops, 
unusually  high  industrial  demand  for  raw 
materials,  transport  problems,  and  limited 
new  investment  in  extractive  industries  have 
all  contributed  to  tremendous  changes  in 
commodity  prices.  Unfortunately,  new  forms 
of  trade  restraint  have  also  begun  to  appear. 

In  the  past,  efforts  to  build  a  world  trad- 
ing system  were  concentrated  in  opening 
national  markets  to  imports.  Clearly  we 
need  now  also  to  address  the  other  side  of 
the  equation,  that  of  supply. 

The  oil  embargo,  and  the  sudden  and 
sharp  increase  in  the  price  of  oil,  with  their 
disruptive  efi'ects  throughout  the  world  econ- 
omy, have  of  course  brought  these  problems 
to  the  forefront  of  our  attention. 

The  world  faces  a  critical  decision  on 
access  to  many  primary  products.  In  the 
United  States  we  have  sought  in  those  areas 
where  we  are  exporters  to  show  the  way  by 
maximum  efforts  to  increase  production. 
Market  forces  today  result  in  the  export  of 
many  items,  from  wheat  to  coal,  which  some 
believe   we  should  keep  at  home.    But   we 


October  28,    1974 


577 


believe  an  open  market  in  commodities  will 
provide  the  best  route  to  the  investment  and 
increased  production  needed  by  all  nations. 
We  believe  that  cooperative,  market- 
oriented  solutions  to  materials  problems  will 
be  most  equitable  and  beneficial  to  all  na- 
tions. We  intend  to  work  for  such  coopera- 
tive solutions. 

Prospects  for  the  Future 

In  the  face  of  our  current  difficulties — 
inflation,  recycling,  commodity  problems — I 
remain  firmly  confident  that  with  commit- 
ment, cooperation,  and  coordination,  reason- 
able price  stability  and  financial  stability 
can  be  restored. 

The  experience  of  the  past  year  has  dem- 
onstrated that  although  our  economies  have 
been  disturbed  by  serious  troubles,  the  inter- 
national trade  and  payments  system  has 
stood  the  test. 

Flexible  exchange  rates  during  this  period 
have  served  us  well.  Despite  enormous  over- 
all uncertainties  and  sudden  change  in  the 
prospects  for  particular  economies,  exchange 
markets  have  escaped  crises  that  beset  them 
in  past  years.  The  exchange  rate  structure 
has  no  longer  been  an  easy  mark  for  the 
speculator,  and  governments  have  not  been 
limited  to  the  dismal  choice  of  either  financ- 
ing speculative  flows  or  trying  to  hold  them 
down  by  controls. 

Another  encouraging  fact  is  that  the 
framework  of  international  cooperation  has 
remained  strong.  Faced  with  the  prospect 
of  severe  balance  of  payments  deterioration, 
deficit  countries  have,  on  the  whole,  avoided 
shortsighted  eff"orts  to  strengthen  their  cur- 
rent account  positions  by  introducing  restric- 
tions and  curtailing  trade. 

In  the  longer  run,  we  look  forward  to  re- 
inforcing this  framework  of  cooperation 
through  a  broad-gauged  multilateral  negotia- 
tion to  strengthen  the  international  trading 
system.  In  the  Tokyo  round,  we  hope  to 
reach  widespread  agreement  both  on  trade 
liberalization  measures — helping  all  coun- 
tries to  use  resources  more  efficiently  through 
greater  opportunities  for  exchange  of  goods 


and  services — and  on  trade  management 
measures — helping  to  solidify  practices  and 
procedures  to  deal  with  serious  trade  prob- 
lems in  a  spirit  of  equity  and  joint  endeavor. 
It  is  gratifying  that  more  and  more  govern- 
ments have  recognized  the  opportunities  and 
the  necessity  for  successful,  creative  negotia- 
tions on  trade. 

We  in  the  U.S.  Government  recognize  our 
own  responsibility  to  move  these  negotia- 
tions along.  Early  last  year  we  proposed  to 
our  Congress  the  Trade  Reform  Act  to  per- 
mit full  U.S.  participation  in  the  trade  nego- 
tiations. It  is  clear  that  in  the  intervening 
months  the  need  for  such  negotiations  has 
become  all  the  more  urgent.  We  have  there- 
fore been  working  closely  with  the  Congress 
on  this  crucial  legislation,  and  we  shall  con- 
tinue to  work  to  insure  its  enactment  before 
the  end  of  this  year. 

In  the  whole  field  of  international  economic 
relations,  I  believe  we  are  beginning  to 
achieve  a  common  understanding  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  problems  we  face.  There  is 
greater  public  recognition  that  there  lies 
ahead  a  long,  hard  worldwide  struggle  to 
bring  inflation  under  control.  Inflation  is  an 
international  problem  in  our  interdepend- 
ent world,  but  the  cure  begins  with  the 
policies  of  national  governments. 

Success  will  require  on  the  part  of  gov- 
ernments uncommon  determination  and  per- 
sistence. There  is  today  increasing  aware- 
ness that  unreasonable  short-term  exploita- 
tion of  a  strong  bargaining  position  to  raise 
prices  and  costs,  whether  domestically  or  in- 
ternationally, inevitably  intensifies  our  prob- 
lems. 

Finally,  I  am  encouraged  that  our  several 
years  of  intensive  work  to  agree  on  improve- 
ments in  the  international  monetary  system 
have  now  begun  to  bear  fruit.  The  discus- 
sions of  the  Committee  of  Twenty  led  to 
agreement  on  many  important  changes,  some 
of  which  are  to  be  introduced  in  an  evolu- 
tionary manner  and  others  of  which  we  are 
beginning  to  implement  at  this  meeting. 

For  the  immediate  future,  the  IMF's  new 
Interim  Committee  will  bring  to  the  Fund 
structure   a    needed    involvement   of   world 


578 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


financial  leaders  on  a  regular  basis,  provid- 
ing for  them  an  important  new  forum  for 
consideration  of  the  financing  of  massive  oil 
bills  and  the  better  coordination  of  national 
policies.  The  Interim  Committee  should  also 
increasingly  exercise  surveillance  over  na- 
tions' policies  aff'ecting  international  pay- 
ments, thereby  gaining  the  experience  from 
which  additional  agreed  guidelines  for  re- 
sponsible behavior  may  be  derived. 

Moreover,  discussions  in  the  Interim  Com- 
mittee can  speed  the  consideration  of  needed 
amendments  to  the  Fund's  Articles  of  Agree- 
ment. These  amendments,  stemming  from 
the  work  of  the  Committee  of  Twenty,  will 
help  to  modernize  the  IMF  and  better  equip 
it  to  deal  with  today's  problems. 

For  example,  the  articles  should  be 
amended  so  as  to  remove  inhibitions  on  IMF 
sales  of  gold  in  the  private  markets,  so  that 
the  Fund,  like  other  official  financial  institu- 
tions, can  mobilize  its  resources  when  they 
are  needed.  In  order  to  facilitate  future  quota 
increases,  the  package  of  amendments  should 
also  include  a  provision  to  modify  the  present 
requirement  that  25  percent  of  a  quota  sub- 
scription be  in  gold.  Such  an  amendment 
will  be  a  prerequisite  for  the  quota  increase 
now  under  consideration.  And  the  amend- 
ment will  be  necessary  in  any  event  for  us 
to  achieve  the  objectives  shared  by  all  the 
participants  in  the  Committee  of  Twenty  of 
removing  gold  from  a  central  role  in  the 
system  and  of  assuring  that  the  SDR  [special 
drawing  right]  becomes  the  basis  of  valua- 
tion for  all  obligations  to  and  from  the  IMF. 

Preparation  of  an  amendment  to  embody 
the  results  of  the  current  quinquennial  re- 
view of  quotas  off'ers  us  still  another  oppor- 
tunity to  reassess  the  Fund's  role  in  helping 
to  meet  the  payments  problems  of  member 
nations  in  light  of  today's  needs  and  under 
present  conditions  of  relative  flexibility  in 
exchange  rates. 

The  trade  pledge  agreed  by  the  Committee 
of  Twenty  provides  an  additional  frame- 
work for  cooperative  action  in  today's  trou- 
bled economic  environment.  It  will  mitigate 
the  potential  danger  in  the  present  situation 
of  self-defeating   competitive  trade   actions 


and  bilateralism.  The  United  States  has  noti- 
fied its  adherence  to  the  pledge,  and  I 
urge  other  nations  to  join  promptly  in  sub- 
scribing. 

The  new  Development  Committee,  still  an- 
other outgrowth  of  the  work  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Twenty,  will  give  us  an  independ- 
ent forum  that  will  improve  our  ability  to 
examine  comprehensively  the  broad  spec- 
trum of  development  issues.  We  look  forward 
to  positive  results  from  this  new  committee's 
critical  work  on  the  problems  of  the  coun- 
tries most  seriously  aff'ected  by  the  increase 
in  commodity  prices  and  on  ways  to  insure 
that  the  private  capital  markets  make  a 
maximum  contribution  to  development. 

The  World  Bank  and  Its  Affiliates 

International  cooperation  for  development 
is  also  being  strengthened  in  other  ways, 
notably  through  the  replenishment  of  IDA 
[International  Development  Association].  A 
U.S.  contribution  of  $1.5  billion  to  the  fourth 
IDA  replenishment  has  been  authorized  by 
Congress,  and  we  are  working  with  our  con- 
gressional leaders  to  find  a  way  to  complete 
our  ratification  at  the  earliest  possible  date. 
A  significant  new  group  of  countries  has 
become  financially  able  to  join  those  extend- 
ing development  assistance  on  a  major  scale. 
We  would  welcome  an  increase  in  their 
World  Bank  capital  accompanied  by  a  com- 
mensurate participation  in  IDA. 

The  United  States  is  proud  of  its  role  in 
the  development  of  the  World  Bank  over  the 
past  quarter  century.  We  are  confident  that 
the  Bank  will  respond  to  the  challenges  of 
the  future  as  it  has  so  successfully  responded 
in  the  past. 

One  of  these  challenges  is  to  concentrate 
the  Bank's  resources  to  accelerate  growth  in 
those  developing  countries  with  the  greatest 
need. 

A  second  challenge  is  to  continue  the 
Bank's  annual  transfer  of  a  portion  of  its 
income  to  IDA.  The  recent  increase  in  in- 
terest rates  charged  by  the  Bank  is  not 
sufllicient  to  enable  the  Bank  to  continue 
transfers  to  IDA   in   needed  amounts.    We 


October  28,    1974 


579 


urge  that  the  Bank's  Board  promptly  find  a 
way  to  increase  significantly  the  average  re- 
turn from  new  lending. 

A  third  challenge  is  that  the  Bank  find 
ways  to  strengthen  its  commitment  to  the 
principle  that  project  financing  makes  sense 
only  in  a  setting  of  appropriate  national  eco- 
nomic policies,  of  effective  mobilization  and 
use  of  domestic  resources,  and  of  effective 
utilization  of  the  private  capital  and  the 
modern  technology  that  is  available  inter- 
nationally on  a  commercial  basis. 

I  should  mention  also  that  we  are  con- 
cerned about  the  Bank's  capital  position.  We 
should  encourage  the  Bank  to  seek  ways  to 
assist  in  the  mobilization  of  funds  by  tech- 
niques which  do  not  require  the  backing  of 
the  Bank's  callable  capital. 

Within  the  Bank  Group,  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  thinking  mainly  of  the  IFC  [Inter- 
national Finance  Corporation]  in  consider- 
ing private  capital  financing.  While  now 
small,  the  IFC  is,  in  my  view,  a  key  element 
in  the  total  equation  and  should  be  even  more 
important  in  the  future.  But  the  Bank  itself 
needs  to  renew  its  own  commitment  to  stimu- 
lation of  the  private  sectors  of  developing 
countries. 

Finally,  let  me  emphasize  that  the  capable 
and  dedicated  leadership  and  staff  of  the 
World  Bank  have  the  full  confidence  and  sup- 
port of  the  United  States  as  they  face  the 
difficult  challenges  of  the  current  situation. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  most  prosperous 
period  in  the  history  of  mankind  was  made 
possible  by  an  international  framework 
which  was  a  response  to  the  vivid  memories 
of  the  period  of  a  beggar-thy-neighbor  world. 
Faced  with  staggering  problems,  the  found- 
ers of  Bretton  Woods  were  inspired  to  seek 
cooperative  solutions  in  the  framework  of 
a  liberal  international  economic  order.  Out 
of  that  experience  evolved  an  awareness  that 
our  economic  and  political  destinies  are  in- 
extricably linked. 

Today,  in  the  face  of  another  set  of  prob- 
lems, we  must  again  shape  policies  which 
reflect  the  great  stake  each  nation  has  in 


the  growth  and  prosperity  of  others.  Because 
I  believe  that  interdependence  is  a  reality — 
one  that  all  must  sooner  or  later  come  to 
recognize — I  remain  confident  that  we  will 
work  out  our  problems  in  a  cooperative 
manner. 

The  course  which  the  United  States  will 
follow  is  clear.  Domestically,  we  will  manage 
our  economy  firmly  and  responsibly,  resign- 
ing ourselves  neither  to  the  inequities  of 
continued  inflation  nor  to  the  wastefulness  of 
recession.  We  will  strengthen  our  produc- 
tive base;  we  will  develop  our  own  energy 
resources;  we  will  expand  our  agricultural 
output.  We  will  give  the  American  people 
grounds  for  confidence  in  their  future. 

Internationally,  let  there  be  no  doubt  as 
to  our  course.  We  will  work  with  those 
who  would  work  with  us.  We  make  no  pre- 
tense that  we  can,  or  should,  try  to  solve 
these  problems  alone,  but  neither  will  we 
abdicate  our  responsibility  to  contribute  to 
their  solution.  Together,  we  can  solve  our 
problems.  Let  me  reaffirm  our  desire  and 
total  commitment  to  work  with  all  nations 
to  coordinate  our  policies  to  assure  the  last- 
ing prosperity  of  all  of  our  peoples. 


U.S.  and  Jordan  Sign  Agreement 
on   Nonscheduled  Air  Services 

The  Department  of  State  announced  on 
September  27  (press  release  382)  the  United 
States  and  Jordan  had  signed  on  September 
21  at  Amman  a  nonscheduled  air  service 
agreement  between  the  two  governments. 
Ambassador  Thomas  R.  Pickering  signed  for 
the  United  States  and  Nadim  Zarou,  Minister 
of  Transportation,  for  Jordan.  The  agree- 
ment will  provide  the  framework  for  charter 
operations  between  the  two  countries  and 
will  facilitate  charter  flights  to  the  Holy 
Land  and  to  historic  religious  sites  in  the 
Middle  East.  (For  text  of  the  agreement,  see 
press  release  382.) 


580 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


Secretary  Kissinger   Hosts   Dinner 
for  Members  of  Arab   League 

Following  is  an  exchange  of  toasts  be- 
twee7i  Secretary  Kissinger  and  Lebanese  For- 
eign Minister  Fu'ad  Naffa',  Chairman  of  the 
Council  of  the  League  of  Arab  States,  at  a 
dinner  at  the  U.S.  Mission  to  the  United  Na- 
tions at  New  York  on  September  30. 

Press  release  388  dated  October  1 

SECRETARY  KISSINGER 

Mr.  Secretary  General,  Excellencies, 
friends :  I  first  of  all  want  to  make  clear  that 
this  is  not  the  beginning  of  a  confrontation 
about  oil  prices  [laughter  and  applause]  — 
especially  as  long  as  you  all  outnumber  me 
here.  [Laughter.] 

I  tried — I've  seen  so  many  of  you  over  the 
past  year  so  many  times;  in  fact,  I've  seen 
more  Arab  leaders  than  any  other  part  of 
the  world — that  I  tried  to  promote  my  par- 
ticipation at  the  Arab  summit  later  this 
month.  [Laughter.]  I  must  say  the  Foreign 
Minister  of  Morocco,  who  is  very  elegant 
and  very  subtle,  did  not  speak  English  when 
the  subject  was  raised.  [Laughter  and  ap- 
plause.] So  maybe  next  year. 

But  we  met  here — many  of  us — about  this 
time  last  year,  and  I  had  the  impression  that 
one  or  two  of  you  had  some  slight  reserva- 
tions about  my  appointment  as  Secretary  of 
State.  And  it  is  true,  leaving  aside  any  par- 
ticular individuals,  that  for  a  period  of  many 
years  the  situation  in  the  Middle  East  had 
become  frozen. 

I  spoke  to  my  friend  Umar  [Umar  al- 
Saqqaf,  Saudi  Arabian  Minister  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs]  two  weeks  before  the  Oc- 
tober war  began,  and  I  told  him  that  we 
would  try  to  make  a  major  diplomatic  effort 
in  order  to  promote  peace  in  the  Middle 
East.  And  then  there  was  the  war,  and  since 
then  we  have  had  an  opportunity  to  talk  to- 
gether about  many  problems. 

I  think  great  changes  have  occurred  in  the 


Middle  East.  I  think  the  peoples  in  the  Mid- 
dle East  have  realized  that  they  should  make 
a  very  serious  effort  to  move  toward  peace 
which  is  based  on  the  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  all  peoples  in  the  area.  And  the 
United  States  has  understood  that  a  condi- 
tional stalemate  in  the  Middle  East  creates 
a  constant  source  of  tensions,  and  the  eco- 
nomic consequences  that  flowed  from  this 
war  have  taught  the  whole  world  what  was 
probably  not  intended ;  for  instance,  that  our 
global  economy  is  interdependent  in  a  way 
that  few  of  us  had  realized  and  that  pro- 
ducers and  consumers — consumers  among 
you  gentlemen — depend  on  an  understanding 
of  each  other's  necessities  that  has  made 
the  world  a  global  community. 

We  have  had  the  opportunity  to  meet 
many  of  you  and  to  understand  the  aspira- 
tions for  peace  that  exist  in  the  area,  and  a 
beginning  has  been  made  toward  a  just 
and  lasting  peace.  We  recognize  that  it  is 
only  beginning.  And  in  my  speech  to  the 
General  Assembly,  I  expressed  the  deter- 
mination of  the  United  States  to  use  all  its 
influence  to  continue  the  process  that  was 
started  on  a  basis  that  takes  care  of  the 
aspirations  of  all  of  the  countries  in  the  area 
and  that  encompasses  the  concerns  of  the 
parties. 

I  will  be  going  to  the  Middle  East  next 
week  to  see  whether  this  negotiating  process 
can  be  started,  and  we  will  spare  no  effort. 
With  your  understanding,  your  support,  I 
am  confident  that  we  will  make  progress. 
That,  at  any  rate,  is  what  we  have  dedicated 
ourselves  to. 

We  also  have  started,  as  you  all  know,  a 
discussion  on  the  nature  of  the  interdepend- 
ence of  the  global  economy.  This  is  not  the 
place  to  go  into  it.  And  my  friend  Umar  has 
already  told  me  that  he  has  prepared  a 
crushing  reply  to  be  made  public  very  soon. 
[Laughter.] 

I  want  to  say  that  as  far  as  the  United 
States  is  concerned,  we  are  not  going  to 
enter  these  discussions  in  a  spirit  of  con- 
frontation.    It   is    our   profound   conviction 


October  28,    1974 


581 


that  what  we  are  trying  to  convey  to  all  of 
our  friends  is  that  it  is  impossible  to  achieve 
unilateral  benefit  and  that  it's  peculiarly  a 
situation  where  what  is  in  the  common  bene- 
fit is  also  for  the  individual  gain  of  every- 
body. 

How  that  will  be  worked  out  in  time  de- 
pends on  many  discussions,  but  on  our  side 
we  approach  these  discussions  in  a  spirit  of 
good  will  and  with  the  certainty  that  a 
reasonable  solution  that  is  just  to  all  can  be 
found. 

I  want  to  take  this  opportunity,  on  a 
personal  basis,  to  express  my  gratitude,  the 
gratitude  of  the  U.S.  Government,  to  all  of 
you  who  have  welcomed  my  colleagues  and 
me  over  the  past  year,  on  our  many  travels, 
with  the  proverbial  Arab  hospitality. 

We  are  engaged  in  a  very  difficult  process 
— all  of  us  together — and  I  have  appreciated 
your  understanding  of  our  friendship.  And 
I  am  confident  that  the  problems  before  us 
will  be  solved  in  a  manner  that  all  of  us  in 
this  room  can  be  proud  to  have  worked  to- 
gether. 

In  this  spirit  I'd  like  to  propose  a  toast 
to  the  friendship  between  the  Arab  peoples 
and  the  people  of  the  United  States. 


AMBASSADOR  NAFFA' 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  I  will  thank  you 
first  because  you  didn't  want  to  make  con- 
frontation with  Arabs  here  about  the  oil 
problem,  because — as  you  said — it's  not  here 
that  we  can  discuss  it,  and  on  the  other  hand, 
it  would  have  been  a  little  difficult  for  me, 
with  my  weak  English,  to  discuss  this  prob- 
lem.  [Laughter  and  applause.] 

Anyway,  we  conceive  interdependence  of 
the  nations  and  the  economies  as  a  global 
community,  but  we  conceive  that  in  the 
global  community  right  and  justice  will  have 
their  word  to  say  and  to  be  applied. 

About  your  participation  at  the  confer- 
ence— the  summit  conference — we  cannot 
decide  it  here  too.    [Laughter.]    You  have  to 


apply  [laughter  and  applause]  and  to  see  who 
will  sponsor  your  application.  [Laughter.] 
Maybe  I  will. 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  I  would  like  to 
express  to  you  on  my  behalf  and  on  that  of 
my  colleagues,  the  Foreign  Ministers  of  the 
other  Arab  states,  our  thanks  and  apprecia- 
tion for  your  gesture  of  inviting  us  this  eve- 
ning. We  find  this  gesture  an  expression  of 
your  desire  to  establish  friendly  relations 
with  us  on  a  personal  level,  to  continue  the 
dialogue,  and  to  strengthen  the  relations  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  our  countries. 

I  would  like  to  assure  you  that  we  wel- 
come this  gesture  very  much ;  for  we  all  are 
open  to  dialogue,  desirous  to  strengthen  the 
good  relations  between  us  and  to  exchange 
views  in  honesty  and  frankness.  Our  hope 
is  to  be  able  to  develop  friendly  relations 
with  your  country  on  the  basis  of  under- 
standing and  cooperation  in  an  atmosphere  of 
mutual  confidence  and  that  these  relations 
would  serve  real  peace  which  is  founded  on 
the  respect  of  the  principle  of  right  and 
justice. 

I  am  confident  that  I  am  expressing  the 
opinion  of  all  my  colleagues  when  I  praise 
the  great  efforts  which  you  have  made  dur- 
ing the  past  few  months  and  the  positive 
results  which  you  have  been  able  to  achieve. 
I  am  also  expressing  their  belief  when  I  say 
that  the  present  circumstances  require  in- 
tensification of  these  efforts,  for  the  stage 
which  we  have  reached  today  in  cooperation 
with  you  has  been  necessary  and  useful. 
However,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  achieve  peace. 
It  is  only  a  preliminary  stage  which  has 
opened  the  door,  provided  that  the  intentions 
are  sincere,  to  implement  the  basic  require- 
ments of  achieving  peace. 

You  know  these  requirements  very  well, 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  and  you  also  un- 
doubtedly know  that  the  real  chance  for  peace 
depehds  to  a  great  extent  on  the  position 
which  the  United  States  takes  in  the  next 
few  months  because  of  the  great  influence 
which  she  enjoys  and  the  big  potentials  she 
has  in  her  possession. 


582 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


For  this  reason,  I  can  say  that  our  expec- 
tations from  you  are  as  great  as  the  responsi- 
bilities which  you  share. 

I  raise  my  glass  to  wish  you  health  and 
prosperity. 


Secretary  Kissinger  Hosts  Luncheon 
for  Latin  American  Foreign  Ministers 

Following  is  an  exchange  of  toasts  be- 
tween Secretary  Kissinger  and  Adolf o  Mo- 
lina, Foreign  Minister  of  Guatemala,  at  a 
luncheon  for  Latin  Americayi  Foreign  Min- 
isters and  Permanent  Representatives  to  the 
United  Nations  at  the  Center  for  Inter- 
American  Relations  at  Netv  York  on  October 
2. 

Press  release  390  dated  October  3 

SECRETARY  KISSINGER 

Excellencies  and  friends :  I  speak  before 
this  group  always  with  considerable  hesita- 
tion, knowing  the  high  quality  of  oratory 
that  is  assembled  in  this  room  and  the  judg- 
ments that  will  be  made  on  my  effort — not  to 
speak  of  the  replies  that  will  be  given  either 
while  I'm  in  the  room  or  to  the  press  after 
we  all  leave. 

We  met  in  this  room  just  about  a  year  ago 
today,  and  it  isn't  often  that  one  attends 
lunch  and  one  can  say  it  makes  a  difference 
in  the  affairs  of  nations.  But  I  like  to  think 
that  the  new  dialogue  which  we  started  in 
this  room  last  year  has  already  made  a  dif- 
ference and,  if  we  carry  out  the  promise  that 
it  contains,  that  it  will  make  an  even  more 
important  difference  in  the  years  ahead. 

I  told  you  then,  and  still  believe,  that  rela- 
tionships in  the  Western  Hemisphere  had 
been  too  long  neglected  and  that  if  the  United 
States  could  not  establish  a  constructive  and 
creative  relationship  on  the  basis  of  equality 
and  mutual  respect  with  its  friends  to  the 
south,  with  so  many  historic  ties  connected 


to  it,  then  how  can  we  speak  of  a  world 
structure  or  expect  to  be  creative  in  other 
parts  of  the  world?  The  Foreign  Minister  of 
Costa  Rica  replied,  and  so  did  the  Foreign 
Minister  of  Colombia;  and  out  of  this  de- 
veloped a  series  of  meetings  that  we  have  had 
since  then. 

I  believe  that  the  new  dialogue  has  already 
removed  some  misunderstandings;  it  has  al- 
ready identified  some  common  problems ;  and 

it  has  already  created  some  working  groups 

on  science  and  technology,  on  the  multina- 
tional corporations — that  deal  with  some  of 
our  specific  aspirations  and  with  our  partic- 
ular grievances. 

But  we  are  only  at  the  very  beginning  of 
this  process.  All  of  our  countries  face  prob- 
lems which  have  become  global  in  nature.  We 
all  face  the  problem  of  inflation.  Some  of  us 
are  commodity  exporters,  some  of  us  are  com- 
modity importers,  and  some  of  us  are  both. 
But  we  all  realize  that  we  have  become  part  of 
an  interdependent  world  community  and  that 
none  of  us — not  the  United  States  nor  any- 
body else — can  solve  these  problems  by  purely 
national  policies.  So  the  question  isn't  really 
whether  they  should  be  dealt  with  in  a  larger 
forum — about  that  we  have  no  choice — but 
with  what  group  we  should  discuss,  in  what 
manner,  and  to  what  purpose. 

In  this  respect,  as  I  have  said  to  you  in  our 
several  meetings  over  the  past  year,  the 
United  States  attaches  extraordinary  impor- 
tance to  its  Western  Hemisphere  relation- 
ships. In  Mexico  City  I  used  the  word  which 
was  criticized  by  one  or  two  of  you  with 
great  eloquence  when  I  spoke  of  "commu- 
nity" in  the  Western  Hemisphere.  And  in 
fact  I  told  my  friend  the  Foreign  Minister 
of  Jamaica  if  we  could  only  have  excluded 
the  Caribbeans  we  would  have  a  happy  meet- 
ing. [Laughter.]  And  as  our  influence  grows, 
I  don't  exclude  the  possibility.  [Laughter  and 
applause.] 

But  we  do  not  insist  on  any  particular 
phrase  in  the  name  of  which  we  work  to- 
gether. We  recognize  several  countries  here 
have  attended  meetings  of  the  nonaligned. 


October  28,    1974 


583 


and  we  realize  that  all  countries  here  want 
to  pursue  foreign  policies  that  reflect  their 
own  national  interests  and  their  own  regional 
concerns. 

What  we  propose  is  that  those  problems 
which  we  identify  as  "common"  we  should 
deal  with  in  a  spirit  of  cooperation  and  on 
the  basis  of  equality  and  thereby  set  an  ex- 
ample to  many  other  parts  of  the  world  of 
how  problems  must  be  dealt  with.  Nor  is 
this  proposed  in  any  spirit  of  exclusivity, 
because  eventually  the  problems  I  have  enu- 
merated can  be  dealt  with  only  on  a  global 
basis. 

The  United  States  hopes  that  in  the  next 
year  we  can  translate  the  dialogue  into  con- 
crete achievement.  We  believe  that  the  work- 
ing groups  that  already  exist  can  lead  to 
tangible  results.  We  hope,  and  are  quite  con- 
fident, that  our  own  Trade  Reform  Act  will 
pass  so  that  the  systems  of  preferences — 
which  we  have  talked  about  for  too  long — 
can  finally  be  instituted. 

And  beyond  this,  we  are  prepared  to  dis- 
cuss the  political  relationships  in  the  West- 
ern Hemisphere,  the  restructuring  of  the 
OAS,  with  an  open  mind  and  paying  careful 
heed  to  the  predominant  views  of  our  friends 
in  the  Western  Hemisphere,  both  within  the 
OAS  and  at  the  forthcoming  Foreign  Minis- 
ters meeting  in  Argentina. 

We  will  work  toward  a  concrete  solution  of 
our  common  problems.  Within  the  United 
States,  we  will  make  an  effort  to  anchor  the 
Western  Hemisphere  relationship  not  only 
in  the  consciousness  of  our  government  but 
in  the  hearts  of  the  people.  And  we  believe 
that  all  of  us  have  an  obligation  to  contribute 
to  this  in  our  countries  as  much  as  we  can. 

I'm  glad  to  say  that  our  new  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State  for  Latin  American  Af- 
fairs, Mr.  William  Rogers,  who  is  here  with 
us,  has  accepted  this  position,  because  he  has 
had  a  long  history  of  dedication  to  Western 
Hemisphere  relationships.  You  have  in  him  a 
guarantee  that  what  we  will  do  together  will 
not  be  done  by  one  country  for  others  nor 
will  it  be  done  in  a  spirit  of  bureaucracy,  but 


with  an  attitude  of  friendship,  with  a  feeling 
of  humanity,  and  with  a  hope  that  what  we 
do  here  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  is  of 
significance  not  just  for  us  ourselves  but  for 
a  world  that  needs  a  demonstration  of  how 
free  people  working  together  can  master 
their  own  future. 

It's  in  this  spirit  that  I  would  like  to  pro- 
pose a  toast  to  progress  in  the  Western  Hemi- 
sphere and  to  our  close  and  growing  friend- 
ship. 


FOREIGN   MINISTER  MOLINA 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  Your  Excellencies, 
and  ladies  and  gentlemen :  It  is  indeed  a 
great  pleasure — coincidentally,  because  of 
the  fact  that  Guatemala  is  at  present  presid- 
ing at  the  Latin  American  group  of  na- 
tions— that  I  have  been  singled  out  for  the 
specific  honor  of  acting  here  as  spokesman 
for  the  Latin  American  Foreign  Ministers  as 
well  as  for  the  Latin  American  Ambassadors 
to  the  United  Nations  to  respond  to  the  invi- 
tation to  this  banquet. 

In  the  first  place,  I  should  state — and  I 
must  state — that  I  want  to  thank  you  for 
your  invitation  to  share  bread  and  wine  here 
with  all  of  your  colleagues  in  this  spirit 
of  friendship  with  the  countries  of  Latin 
America  and  in  the  spirit  of  a  continuous 
dialogue. 

As  was  stated  one  year  ago,  when  we  held 
this  meeting  that  has  been  referred  to  here, 
the  dialogue  is  based  on  the  basis  of  equality, 
as  has  been  mentioned  by  Secretary  Kissin- 
ger, as  well  as  the  principles  of  dignity  of 
the  members  of  the  various  countries  of 
our  hemisphere.  It  is  because  of  this  dia- 
logue that  started  here — ^that  we  continued 
in  Bogota,  Mexico  City,  Washington,  D.C., 
and  Atlanta — that  we  have  been  able  to 
broach  sudden  problems  in  a  practical  man- 
ner with  the  practicalities  that  characterize 
Secretary  Kissinger's  approach,  which  can  be 
summarized  in  use  of  few  words  and  decisive 
action,  in  order  to  state  that  we  here  have  a 


584 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


responsibility  to  deal  with  the  problems  of 
the  economic  development  of  our  countries, 
the  problems  that  have  been  mentioned  of 
transfer  of  technology,  the  problems  of  the 
transnational  corporations,  and  also  other 
points  that  are  related. 

We  have  a  number  of  study  groups  that 
have  met  both  in  conferences.  We  have  had 
working  groups  that  have  worked  on  all  of 
the  subjects  that  have  been  referred  to  as 
well  as  some  of  the  others  incorporated  in 
the  Declaration  of  Tlatelolco.  It  is  in  this 
spirit  of  Tlatelolco  that  the  new  dynamics  of 
the  relationships  in  the  hemisphere  toward 
greater  economic  development  have  been  con- 
ducted. 

This  new  year  of  the  dialogue  is  one  that 
brings  with  it  numerous  problems,  as  Secre- 
tary Kissinger  has  suggested,  and  reflects 
ominous  clouds  on  the  horizon  in  which  the 
policies  of  the  different  countries  will  have  to 
be  defined.  We  have  noted  problems,  such  as 
the  unbalance  in  the  balance  of  payments 
that  exists  between  our  respective  countries 
and,  as  has  sometimes  been  also  stated  by  the 
Secretary  at  the  United  Nations,  the  prob- 
lems that  come  forth  with  diff'usion  of  knowl- 
edge— specifically,  with  reference  to  nuclear 
technology — as  well  as  the  problems  relating 
to  the  inflationary  spirit  which  is  aff'ecting 
most  countries  in  the  world. 

The  history  of  the  world  confirms  the 
fable  of  Nemesis — one  that  really  rules  the 
destiny  of  man,  one  of  providing  man  with 
the  type  of  abundance  that  he  desires — that 
he  might  be  led  to  the  type  of  nuclear  tech- 
nology which  could  destroy  humanity,  one 
in  which  an  excess  in  the  amount  of  money 
or  funds  available  could,  in  fact,  engulf 
humanity  in  a  situation  as  we  conceived  it. 

With  respect  to  the  concept  of  interdepend- 
ence, this  is  one  that,  I  would  like  to  point 
out,  has  both  a  positive  and  negative  conno- 
tation. It  is  positive  in  the  sense  that  the 
peoples  of  the  world  can  no  longer  live  in 
isolation.  We  all  need  from  one  another  in 
order  to  help  ourselves.  But  it  also  has  a 
negative  side  in  the  sense  that  problems  of 


the  world  now  aflfect  everybody  in  the  world 
and  therefore  we  need  joint  solutions. 

For  the  Latin  Americans  and  Latin  Amer- 
ican countries,  the  question  of  economic 
security  is  of  great  importance,  and  that  is 
why  we  attach  special  significance  to  the 
charter  of  duties  and  obligations  of  member 
states  in  the  realm  of  economic  relationships 
— in  order  to  guarantee  our  mutual  economic 
security.  We  find  a  twofold  problem  that  we 
are  facing,  and  this  is  one  that  I  was  spe- 
cifically facing  when  I  started  to  address  this 
group.  In  the  first  place,  I  was  not  in- 
formed or  aware  of  the  points  that  Secretary 
Kissinger  might  bring  up  in  his  speech.  And, 
secondly,  I  am  not  aware  of  the  points  of 
view  that  my  colleagues  in  this  room  share 
with  us. 

I  believe  therefore  that  in  order  to  fulfill 
the  mission  that  was  specifically  assigned  to 
me  I  should  express  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
on  behalf  of  all  of  you,  our  great  interest  in 
all  of  the  issues  that  he  has  raised.  The 
matters  that  have  been  raised  here  will  be 
studied  by  our  respective  governments.  They 
will  be  considered  and  reflected  upon.  And 
in  the  future  we  will  be  able  to  come  to  other 
meetings  with  specific  proposals  and  recom- 
mendations to  deal  with  them. 

I  believe  that  I  express  the  gratification 
that  we  all  share  here  at  the  appointment  of 
William  Rogers,  who  has  always  been,  and  is 
considered,  a  great  friend  of  Latin  America. 

It  is  in  this  context  that  we  want  to  point 
to  our  hopes  that  we  will  be  able  to  carry 
forth  in  the  extraordinary  program  and 
tasks  that  we  have  set  for  us  and  that  Secre- 
tary Kissinger  so  well  understands  in  our 
own  hemisphere  and  also  the  extraordinary 
hope  that  we  have  because  we  know  how  well 
Secretary  Kissinger  is  familiar  and  aware 
with  the  problems  that  confront  all  of  the 
countries  of  the  world  and  the  repercussions 
that  those  world  problems  have  on  the  West- 
ern Hemisphere. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  express  a  great 
appreciation  to  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  for  the 
special  hospitality,  understanding,  and  soli- 


October  28,   1974 


585 


darity  that  has  been  reflected  here  with  all 
our  friends  of  the  Western  Hemisphere,  and 
I  would  like  to  express  our  hope  that  we 
may  be  able  to  continue  this  spirit  of  friend- 
ship and  progress  among  our  countries. 


Department  Discusses  Decolonization 
of  Portuguese  African  Territories 

Statement  by  Donald  B.  Easum 
Assistant  Secretary  for  African  Affairs  ^ 

My  appearance  before  you  today  is  partic- 
ularly significant  and  timely  in  the  light  of 
the  important  changes  that  are  taking  place 
in  southern  Africa  as  the  result  of  recent 
developments  in  Portugal  and  Portuguese- 
speaking  Africa. 

In  March  of  this  year,  when  a  representa- 
tive of  my  Bureau  last  appeared  before  this 
subcommittee,  we  stated  that  the  then  re- 
cently published  book  by  General  [Antonio] 
Spinola  presaged  possible  changes  in  the 
Portuguese  territories.  The  book  has  now 
become  history,  and  General  Spinola  has  re- 
signed from  public  office.  But  the  Portuguese 
Government  since  the  coup  in  April  has  re- 
mained dedicated  to  decolonization  in  its 
African  territories. 

We  have  been  gratified  to  observe  how 
Portuguese  decolonization  efforts  have  been, 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Lusaka  Manifesto,  met  by 
a  responsible  and  helpful  attitude  on  the  part 
of  African  nations,  a  number  of  whom 
greatly  assisted  in  the  negotiating  effort  that 
enabled  the  Portuguese  and  Portuguese  Afri- 
can nationalist  movements  to  reach  the 
agreements  which  have  given  such  impetus 
to  the  program  of  self-determination  in 
Portuguese  Africa. 


^Made  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Africa  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  on  Oct.  8. 
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. 


As  the  committee  is  aware,  the  efforts  of 
the  parties  concerned  have  brought  Portu- 
guese-speaking Africa  to  the  threshold  of 
total  independence.  On  September  10  Portu- 
gal recognized  the  independence  of  Guinea- 
Bissau,  which  is  now  a  fully  independent 
member  of  the  family  of  nations.  On  Septem- 
ber 7  Portugal  and  the  Liberation  Front  of 
Mozambique  (FRELIMO)  agreed,  in  Lu- 
saka, to  the  installation  of  a  joint  transi- 
tional government  that  would  prepare  the 
country  for  full  independence  scheduled  for 
June  25,  1975.  This  government  was  in- 
stalled in  Lourengo  Marques  on  September 
20.  The  territories  of  Angola,  Cape  Verde, 
Sao  Tome,  and  Principe  are  still  Portuguese 
dependencies,  but  Portugal  has  agreed  that 
each  has  the  right  to  independence  and  has 
taken  important  steps  toward  that  end. 

In  Angola,  however,  the  decolonization 
process  is  seriously  complicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  three  principal  liberation  movements 
remain  divided  among  themselves.  They  have 
been  unable  to  agree  on  a  common  position 
concerning  negotiations  with  the  Portuguese, 
who  have  offered  them  participation  in  a 
provisional  government. 

The  United  States  is  pleased  by  the  prog- 
ress that  has  been  made  in  the  decolonization 
of  Portuguese  Africa.  As  you  know,  the 
United  States  has  long  espoused  the  prin- 
ciple of  self-determination  for  the  peoples 
of  these  territories.  We  are  fully  aware  of 
the  difficulties  still  to  be  overcome  before 
the  achievement  of  complete  independence  in 
all  of  the  territories. 

The  United  States  was  happy  to  be  able 
to  recognize  the  new  Republic  of  Guinea- 
Bissau  on  September  10.  Earlier,  on  August 
12,  we  had  supported  its  application  to  the 
United  Nations,  in  which  it  is  now  a  full 
and  participating  member.  President  Ford's 
letter  of  recognition  contained  our  offer  to 
establish  diplomatic  relations  with  Guinea- 
Bissau.  Based  on  recent  conversations  I  have 
had  with  officials  of  the  new  Guinea-Bissau 
Government,  I  believe  that  this  offer  will  be 
accepted. 


i  anta 


586 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


The  United  States  is  also  looking  forward 
to  establishing  and  strengthening  mutual- 
ly beneficial  relations  with  each  of  the 
other  emerging  Portuguese-speaking  African 
states.  That  includes  not  only  contact  with 
new  governments  but,  we  hope,  meaningful 
dialogue  with  liberation  movements  and  po- 
litical groupings  that  continue  to  play  such 
a  vital  role  in  the  process  of  decolonization. 

While  we  are  giving  our  full  moral  support 
to  the  decolonization  process,  we  also  are 
looking  into  ways  and  means  within  con- 
gressional mandates  of  assisting  the  emerg- 
ing states,  if  they  desire  our  assistance.  In 
this  connection,  a  State/AID  [Agency  for 
International  Development]  Working  Group 
has  been  established  in  the  Department  to 
study  ways  in  which  we  might  respond  to 
requests  for  such  assistance. 

The  Working  Group  is  looking  in  partic- 
ular at  educational  needs  and  at  possibilities 
for  assisting  those  segments  of  the  societies 
that  are  under  greatest  hardship.  They  are 
also  investigating  the  possible  extension  of 
existing  regional  programs  into  Portuguese- 
speaking  Africa.  Finally,  we  have  already 
provided  modest  emergency  assistance  to 
help  alleviate  the  dislocation  resulting  from 
the  recent  disturbance  in  Lourengo  Marques. 

I  hope  that  I  have  made  clear  the  hopeful 
and  helpful  attitude  of  the  United  States 
toward  these  new  and  encouraging  develop- 
ments in  Africa.  All  of  this  must  of  course 
be  looked  at  in  the  broader  perspective  of 
southern  Africa  and  the  basic  right  of  all 
peoples  to  self-government. 

We  believe  that  a  great  deal  of  credit 
should  go  to  the  post-April  government  in 
Portugal  and  to  those  African  states  and 
individuals  who  have  played  such  a  driving 
and  dedicated  role  in  bringing  about  these 
significant  developments.  We  can  only  urge 
that  the  patience  and  good  judgment  that 
have  so  far  characterized  the  process  of  de- 
colonization continue  to  prevail  as  the  rest 
of  Portuguese-speaking  Africa  moves  toward 
independence  in  what  we  hope  will  be  a 
peaceful  and  stable  manner. 


Food  for  Peace  Report  for   1973 
Transmitted  to  Congress 

Message  From  President  Ford  ^ 

To  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

I  am  pleased  to  transmit  to  the  Congress 
the  1973  annual  report  on  agricultural  export 
activities  carried  out  under  Public  Law  480 
(Food  for  Peace) .  This  has  been  a  successful 
program.  It  has  provided  a  channel  for  hu- 
manitarian assistance,  promoted  economic 
development  and,  in  general,  supported  for- 
eign policy  objectives  of  the  United  States. 

Throughout  the  year,  the  Food  for  Peace 
program  demonstrated  its  flexibility  in  a 
changing  agricultural  situation.  Because  of 
the  tight  commodity  supply  situation  in  the 
United  States,  shipments  during  the  year 
were  somewhat  restricted.  This  was  espe- 
cially true  of  wheat  and  wheat  product  ship- 
ments. However,  our  food  contributions  to 
the  drought-stricken  African  countries,  in- 
cluding Ethiopia,  were  substantial.  In  both 
East  and  West  Africa,  United  States  food 
aid  represented  about  40  percent  of  the  total 
supplied  by  the  international  community.  The 
level  of  U.S.  contributions  to  the  World  Food 
Program  and  the  U.S.  voluntary  agencies  was 
maintained  and  the  Title  I  concessional  sales 
programs  continued  in  such  high-priority 
countries  as  Bangladesh,  Bolivia,  Cambodia, 
Israel,  Pakistan,  and  Vietnam. 

The  Food  for  Peace  program  continues  to 
be  the  primary  U.S.  food  aid  activity.  Con- 
cessional sales  programs  continued  to  en- 
courage recipient  countries  to  establish  self- 
help  objectives  and  also  support  economic 
development  projects.  The  program  retains 
its  emphasis  on  improving  the  nutrition  of 
pregnant  and  nursing  mothers,  babies,  and 
pre-school  children,  the  most  nutritionally 
significant  periods  of  human  life.  Although 
most  programs  have  aspects  of  agricultural 


'  Transmitted  on  Sept.  25  (text  from  White  House 
press  release);  also  printed  as  H.  Doc.  93-362,  93d 
Cong.,  2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  text  of  the  report. 


October  28,   1974 


587 


market  development,  specific  programs  for 
trade  expansion  have  been  limited  because 
of  strong  commercial  demand.  Such  programs 
could  be  resumed  under  changed  supply  con- 
ditions. 

As  1973  legislation  authorized  the  exten- 
sion of  the  Public  Lavi^  480  program  through 
1977,  it  will  go  on  playing  its  vital  role  in 
terms  of  development  assistance,  trade  ex- 
pansion, and  promotion  of  our  foreign  policy 
objectives. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  September  25,  197 '4. 


U.S.  Welcomes  Turkish  Decision 

To  Change  Poppy-Harvesting  Method 

Department  Announcement  ^ 

The  Turkish  Government  announced  its 
decision  July  1  of  this  year  to  authorize  the 
resumption  of  the  cultivation  of  opium  pop- 
pies. Since  that  time  there  has  been  an  on- 
going high-level  dialogue  between  our  two 
governments  during  which  we  have  made 
clear  our  concern  at  the  possibility  of  a  re- 
newed flow  of  heroin  made  from  Turkish 
opium  to  the  United  States.  We  stressed  the 
vital  need  for  eff'ective  control. 

A  special  U.N.  team  has  also  recently  held 
discussions  on  this  subject  in  Turkey.  The 
Turkish  Prime  Minister  has  repeatedly  as- 
sured us  of  his  government's  strong  deter- 
mination to  prevent  smuggling.  The  Turkish 
Government  has  informed  us  that  it  has  de- 
cided in  principle  to  adopt  a  method  of  har- 
vesting the  poppies  called  the  "poppy  straw 
process,"  which  involves  the  collection  by  the 
Turkish  Government  of  the  whole  poppy  pod 
rather  than  the  opium  gum.  Traditionally 
the  opium  gum  was  taken  by  the  farmers 
through  lancing  the  pod  in  the  field.  And  it 
was  a  portion  of  this  gum  that  was  illegally 
diverted. 


'  Read  to  news  correspondents  on  Sept.  20  by  Rob- 
ert Anderson,  Special  Assistant  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  Press  Relations. 


We  are  very  pleased  with  this  decision. 
With  eff'ective  policing  to  make  sure  that  the 
opium  gum  is  not  illegally  extracted  by  the 
farmers,  the  reflow  of  heroin  that  we  fear 
can  be  avoided. 


Congressional  Documents 
Relating  to  Foreign   Policy 

93d   Congress,   2d   Session 

Department  of  State  Appropriations  Authorization 
Act  of  1974.  Report  to  accompany  H.R.  16168.  H. 
Rept.  93-1241.  July  31,  1974.   8  pp. 

Temporary  Suspension  of  Duty  on  Certain  Forms  of 
Zinc.  Report  to  accompany  H.R.  6191.  S.  Rept. 
93-1058.  August  1,  1974.  5  pp. 

Extending  the  Temporary  Suspension  of  Duty  on 
Certain  Classifications  of  Yarns  of  Silk.  Report 
to  accompany  H.R.  7780.  S.  Rept.  93-1059.  Au- 
gust 1,  1974.  5  pp. 

Elimination  of  Duty  on  Methanol  Imported  for  Cer- 
tain Uses.  Report  to  accompany  H.R.  11251.  S. 
Rept.  9.3-1060.  August  1,  1974.  5  pp. 

Temporary  Suspension  of  Duty  on  Crude  Feathers 
and  Downs.  Report  to  accompany  H.R.  11452. 
S.  Rept.  93-1061.    August  1,  1974.    5  pp. 

Temporary  Suspension  of  Duty  on  Synthetic  Rutile. 
Report  to  accompany  H.R.  11830.  S.  Rept.  93- 
1062.   August  1,  1974.   5  pp. 

Temporary  Suspension  of  Duty  on  Certain  Carboxy- 
methyl  Cellulose  Salts.  Report  to  accompany  H.R. 
12035.   S.  Rept.  9.3-1063.   August  1,  1974.   4  pp. 

Suspension  of  Duties  on  Certain  Forms  of  Copper. 
Report  to  accompany  H.R.  12281.  S.  Rept.  93-1064. 
August  1,  1974.    5  pp. 

Temporary  Suspension  of  Duty  on  Certain  Horses. 
Report  to  accompany  H.R.  13631.  S.  Rept.  93- 
1065.   August  1,  1974.   4  pp. 

Telegraph  and  Telephone  Regulations,  1973.  Message 
from  the  President  of  the  United  States  transmit- 
ting the  telegraph  regulations  and  the  telephone 
regulations  along  with  the  appendices  thereto  and 
a  final  protocol  to  those  regulations,  done  at  Ge- 
neva, April  11,  1973.  S.  Ex.  E.  August  2,  1974. 
.33  pp. 

Ratification  of  the  Geneva  Protocol  of  1925.  Report 
to  accompany  H.  Res.  1258.  H.  Rept.  93-1257. 
August  2,  1974.    10  pp. 

World  Food  Resolution.  Report  to  accompany  S.  Res. 
329.   S.  Rept.  93-1070.   August  5,  1974.  3  pp. 

Amending  the  Export-Import  Bank  Act  of  1945,  and 
for  Other  Purposes.  Report,  together  with  supple- 
mental views,  to  accompany  H.R.  15977.  H.  Rept. 
93-1261.    August  6,  1974.    20  pp. 

Authorization  of  Icebreaking  Operation  in  Foreign 
Waters.  Report  to  accompany  S.  3308.  S.  Rept. 
93-1084.    August  12,  1974.  3  pp. 

Situation  in  Cyprus.  Report  to  accompany  S.  Res. 
381.  S.   Rept.  93-1092.  August  15,  1974.  2  pp. 


588 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


THE   UNITED   NATIONS 


Cooperative  Actions  To  Solve  Economic  and  Social  Problems 


Statement  by  Senator  Charles  H.  Percy 

U.S.  Representative  to  the  U.N.  General  Assembly  ^ 


On  this  speck  of  debris  in  the  universe 
which  we  call  earth,  no  individual,  no  nation, 
no  race  can  be  an  island  unto  itself.  The 
economic  and  social  issues  that  face  one 
face  us  all. 

Philosophically,  the  United  States  is  com- 
mitted to  improving  the  economic  and  social 
welfare  of  humanity.  The  great  difficulty  is 
to  translate  our  philosophical  commitments 
into  political  realities.  It  is  easy  to  speak 
in  platitudes,  but  much  harder  to  talk  in  the 
political  realities  of  what  can  be  done. 

Certainly  the  major  issues  facing  the  29th 
Assembly  will  be  economic.  They  will  be 
interwoven  in  the  fabric  of  virtually  every 
topic  discussed.  Without  economic  resources, 
we  cannot  realistically  move  to  solve  the  vast 
social  problems  that  beset  this  planet.  This 
does  not  mean  that  economic  and  social 
problems  are  separate.  They  are  not.  In 
fact,  many  of  the  solutions  to  the  economic 
problem  of  increasing  the  wealth  of  the  world 
are  closely  tied  to  social  conditions. 

The  state  of  humanity  necessitates  that  the 
agenda  before  us  be  broad.  The  issues  we 
must  deal  with  this  year  include  inflation, 
trade  reform,  monetary  reform,  economic 
assistance,  population  planning,  food  produc- 
tion, the  status  of  women,  and  education. 
But  as  essential  to  all  these  issues,  we  must 
resolve  through  open  discussion  and  negotia- 
tion the  lowering  of  the  price  of  interna- 
tional crude  oil. 


'Made  in  Committee  II  (Economic  and  Financial) 
of  the  U.N.  General  Assembly  on  Oct.  1  (text  from 
USUN  press  release  123). 


The  price  of  international  crude  oil  is  the 
most  destabilizing  element  in  the  world  econ- 
omy today.  Its  price  denies  the  developing 
countries  of  the  world  adequate  energy  sup- 
plies to  run  their  economies  and  fertilizer 
to  grow  their  crops.  The  most  seriously 
affected  nations  must  take  the  rise  in  price 
directly  out  of  the  very  low  standard  of 
living  of  their  populace. 

While  the  developed  countries  can  borrow 
funds  among  each  other  in  the  short  run, 
they  will  not  be  able  to  stand  the  drain  of 
funds  for  a  long  period.  No  matter  how 
effective  the  recycling  of  dollars  is  from  oil 
exporters  to  oil  importers,  regional  and  na- 
tional balance  of  payments  disparities  will 
grow  so  great  that  even  many  now-developed 
countries  will  be  faced  with  international 
insolvency. 

Such  events  could  collapse  the  trade  and 
monetary  systems  that  have  been  so  painful- 
ly constructed  since  the  end  of  World  War  II. 
This  in  turn  could  certainly  mean  economic 
catastrophe,  first  for  the  less  developed  na- 
tions of  the  world,  then  for  oil-dependent 
countries,  and  last  for  such  countries  as  the 
U.S.S.R.  and  the  United  States  who  have  oil 
resources  of  their  own.  And  further,  what 
optimism  can  there  be  in  the  long  run  for 
nations,  primarily  oil  producers,  in  such  a 
world  ? 

No  one  can  benefit  from  a  worldwide  de- 
pression. What  will  be  lost  is  years  of  eco- 
nomic growth,  resulting  in  despair  for  at 
least  a  generation  of  the  world's  people. 
What  will  be  lost  is  a  chance  to  work  on  our 


October  28,   1974 


589 


social  and  economic  interests  together.  We 
must  work  together.  There  is  no  reasonable, 
rational  alternative.  Economic  nationalism 
should  not  bring  down  the  world  economic 
system,  and  thus  social  and  political  sys- 
tems ;  nor  should  that  system  be  operated  for 
the  benefit  of  only  a  few. 

An  alternative  solution,  of  course,  to  the 
problem  of  oil  prices  is  the  development  of 
alternative  energy  sources.  All  nations  must 
work  cooperatively  on  energy  research  to 
achieve  technical  breakthroughs  to  harness 
new  sources  of  energy  and  better  develop 
existing  energy  sources. 

At  best,  however,  this  is  a  longer  term 
solution,  and  for  the  time  being  most  nations 
will  continue  to  be  heavily  reliant  on  oil.  That 
is  why  the  policy  of  certain  oil-producing 
nations  engaged  in  unilateral  price  fixing  on 
a  noneconomic  basis,  commonly  known  as 
cartels,  poses  such  severe  economic  prob- 
lems to  the  world. 

Such  practices,  whether  they  be  by  sellers 
or  buyers,  by  industrial  nations  or  less  de- 
veloped, can  be  ruinous.  Like  retaliatory 
tariff  barriers  and  competitive  devaluations, 
economic  nationalism  can  spread  through  the 
body  of  the  world  economy  and  essentially 
destroy  it.  The  world  has  come  too  far  to 
return  to  barter. 

This  body  should  further  note  that  such 
practices  are  contrary  to  the  principles  and 
objectives  of  the  General  Agreement  on  Tar- 
iffs and  Trade  (GATT)  in  that  they  are 
monopolistic,  anticompetitive,  and  distort 
flows  of  resources. 

To  be  more  specific,  three  key  international 
organizations— GATT,  the  IMF  [Interna- 
tional Monetary  Fund],  and  the  IBRD 
(World  Bank)  [International  Bank  for  Re- 
construction and  Development] — are  the  ba- 
sis for  today's  world  trade  and  payments  sys- 
tem. Thus  the  international  payments  system 
itself  is  threatened  by  these  practices. 

Unilateral  price  fixing  on  a  noneconomic 
basis  is  usually  bad  no  matter  who  does  it — 
not  just  in  oil  but  in  all  commodities.  Those 
who  decry  the  present  oil  crisis  must  also 
look  to  themselves— are  they  in  the  process 
of  fixing  other  prices? 

590 


If  these  practices  are  continued,  those 
shouldering  the  brunt  of  such  practices,  par- 
ticularly in  developing  countries,  can  take 
only  so  much.  Masses  of  unemployed  and 
starving  will  bring  a  powerful  political  and 
economic  reaction  against  those  causing  the 
problem. 

Therefore  we  must  all  consider  in  this 
forum  and  send  home  to  our  governments  the 
following  message: 

— Abandon  monopolistic  economic  prac- 
tices, wherever  they  may  exist,  that  are  now 
the  main  cause  of  distortion  in  our  world 
economy. 

— Return  to  and  reaffirm  the  open  trade 
and  free  payments  principles  of  these  orga- 
nizations—the United  Nations,  GATT,  IMF, 
and  IBRD. 

—Understand  that  the  long-term  prosper- 
ity of  each  nation  depends  to  a  degree  on 
the  prosperity  of  all  nations. 

— Understand  that  not  to  correct  these 
problems  is  to  threaten  grave  economic  dis- 
ruption worldwide. 

My  own  country  certainly  has  a  strong 
responsibility  to  help  achieve  these  ends. 
Less  developed  countries  need  more  access  to 
the  markets  of  developed  nations.  While  our 
trading  system  is  built  on  the  idea  of  com- 
parative advantage,  the  realities  of  econom- 
ics are  such  that  it  is  difficult  to  penetrate 
major  markets  and  risky  to  move  against 
established  competition. 

The  trade  reform  bill  now  before  the  U.S. 
Senate  establishes  the  principle  of  trade 
preferences  for  less  developed  countries.  It 
is  not  enough,  I  would  be  the  first  to  admit, 
but  it  is  a  start.  As  a  realist,  I  can  only  re- 
port that  it  may  be  politically  difficult  to  get 
more. 


Need  for  New  Solutions 

The  economic  problems  facing  the  world 
today  have  been  further  aggravated  by  world 
social  problems  and  demonstrate  the  need 
to  view  economic  and  social  questions  as  in- 
extricably related.  The  solution  of  one  with- 
out the  other  is  impossible. 

Department  of  Stote   Bulletin 


As  stated  by  the  U.N.  Committee  for  De- 
velopment Planning  in  its  1970  report:  - 

While  it  is  evident  that  hig-h  rates  of  growth  of 
output  and  income  have  to  be  realized  in  these 
(developing)  countries  in  order  to  eliminate  mass 
poverty,  to  generate  fuller  opportunities  all  round 
and  to  finance  some  of  the  social  measures,  the 
process  of  development  has  itself  to  be  viewed  in 
terms  of  fundamental  structural  changes  and  as 
much  with  reference  to  concepts  and  methods  appro- 
priate to  planned  social  transformation  as  those 
customary  to  economic  analysis  and  policy-making. 
.  .  .  for  this  reason,  the  distinctioii  often  made  be- 
tween economic  and  social  objectives  is  «oi  a  very 
meaningful  one  to  draw.  [Italic  added.] 

How  true.  In  the  search  for  solutions  to 
our  traumatic  economic  and  social  problems, 
we  must  find  a  rational  balance  between 
people  and  resources  so  that  the  quality  of 
human  life  worldwide  may  be  enhanced. 

If  the  problems  basic  to  human  and  na- 
tional survival — the  population  explosion, 
food  and  resource  shortages,  mass  poverty — 
are  to  be  solved,  new,  nonstereotypic  solu- 
tions are  needed. 

Central  to  the  creative  and  innovative 
processes  needed  to  produce  these  new  solu- 
tions is  education.  Education  is  the  fount  of 
knowledge  and  thus  the  basis  from  which 
civilization,  cultures,  and  humankind  have 
grown  and  advanced.  Education  has  been 
the  basis  from  which  the  world  has  made 
its  immense  advances  in  science  and  tech- 
nology. If  the  world's  acute  problems  of 
poverty,  disease,  and  hunger  are  to  be  re- 
solved, education  must  continue  to  produce 
the  breakthroughs  necessary  to  expand  agri- 
cultural, industrial,  and  technological  pro- 
ductivity. Increasing  technological  progress, 
however,  will  require  new  skills  and  re- 
sources. Only  through  education  will  the  need 
for  expanded  skills  and  resources  keep  in 
line  with  new  demands. 

That  education  is  integral  to  national  de- 
velopment goes  without  saying.  Education, 
however,  is  also  the  basis  for  personal  de- 
velopment. It  is  through  education  that 
people  seek  to  improve  themselves  and  reach 
full  potential. 

We  have  to  take  into  account  that  we  are 


=  U.N.  doc.  E/4776. 


all  committed  to  education.  The  more  educa- 
tion people  get,  the  more  dissatisfied  they 
become  with  their  lives  when  the  shackles  of 
ignorance  are  thrown  off,  if  their  rising 
expectations  are  not  met.  They  will  become 
a  destabilizing  force  within  each  nation  if 
they  have  no  hope  and  are  faced  only  with 
despair. 


Full  Utilization  of  Talents  of  Women 

The  ultimate  purpose  of  economic  growth, 
stability,  and  well-being  is  to  provide  the 
opportunities  for  a  better  life  to  all  people. 
Particularly  important  will  be  the  elimina- 
tion of  mass  poverty  and  social  injustice. 

One  of  the  greatest  economic  mistakes  and 
social  injustices  that  almost  every  nation  in 
the  world  has  at  one  time  or  another  been 
guilty  of  is  the  assignment  of  women  to  a 
second-class  role  in  society. 

Actually,  the  role  women  often  do  play 
in  contributing  to  social  and  economic  devel- 
opment has  perhaps  gone  as  unrecognized  as 
the  potential  role  they  can  play.  But,  with 
great  justification,  no  longer  are  they  going 
to  tolerate  it.  Action  must  be  taken  to  cor- 
rect both  of  these  problems  if  women  are  to 
be  fully  integrated  into  all  aspects  of  na- 
tional and  international  economic,  political, 
and  social  activity. 

Both  economic  and  social  development  re- 
quire the  full  utilization  and  recognition  of 
all  individuals  in  society — economic  develop- 
ment because  all  potential  resources  must  be 
utilized  in  this  efi'ort,  social  development  be- 
cause a  fundamental  precept  of  human  rights 
is  that  all  people  must  be  allowed  to  partici- 
pate in  the  economic  and  political  processes 
by  which  decisions  are  made  about  their 
lives. 

It  was  because  of  this  that  I  sponsored 
legislation  in  the  U.S.  Senate  requiring  the 
United  States  to  work  so  far  as  possible 
toward  the  integration  of  women  into  the 
implementation  of  our  foreign  aid  programs. 
This  requirement  is  now  law,  but  we  must 
work  to  assure  that  its  intent  is  carried  out. 

Similarly,  we  must  all  work  to  assure  that 
the  principle  of  equality  for  women  estab- 
lished in  the  original  U.N.  Charter  is  realized 


October  28,    1974 


591 


— not  only  in  the  nations  of  the  world  but  in 
the  functioning  of  the  United  Nations  itself. 
We  must  all  work,  individually  and  collec- 
tively, on  the  economic  and  social  changes 
necessary  to  bring  this  about. 

Education  and  the  avenues  for  greater 
participation  in  society  give  birth  to  rising 
expectations,  expectations  which  cannot  be 
met  without  new  economic  development. 

The  United  Nations  has  wisely  designated 
1975  as  International  Women's  Year.  But 
let  us  not  wait  until  next  year  to  develop 
programs  to  better  utilize  one-half  of  the 
world's  human  resources.  ECOSOC  [Eco- 
nomic and  Social  Council]  has  called  for  a 
World  Conference  on  the  Status  of  Women, 
which  Colombia  has  offered  to  host,  in  June 
1975.  We  fully  support  the  objective  of  the 
Year  and  the  conference  and  will  do  all  we 
can  to  insure  the  success  of  both. 


Global  Approach  to  Population  Problems 

In  another  area  involving  the  linking  of 
economic  and  social  issues,  the  United  Na- 
tions was  living  up  to  its  potential  as  a 
global  problem-solving  organization  in  nam- 
ing 1974  as  World  Population  Year  and  in 
sponsoring  the  World  Population  Conference 
in  Bucharest.  In  sponsoring  Population  Year 
and  the  conference,  the  United  Nations  has 
successfully  assumed  a  leadership  role  in 
urging  upon  the  world  community  the  need 
for  a  unified  approach  to  development  and 
the  problems  that  accompany  development. 
At  the  Bucharest  World  Population  Con- 
ference, I  was  particularly  struck  by  the 
complex  interrelationships  of  the  economic 
and  social  problems  we  face.  The  subject  of 
population  was  once  the  esoteric  realm  of 
demographers — scientists  whose  concern  was 
with  numbers  and  distributions  of  people. 
In  1974,  however,  the  population  issue  can 
no  longer  be  separated  from  the  problems  of 
agriculture,  resources,  land  use,  health,  edu- 
cation, women's  rights,  as  well  as  all  other 
aspects  of  economic  and  social  development. 
In  Bucharest,  the  global  approach  to  prob- 
lem solving  worked  well.  Candid  expressions 
of  widely  disparate  views  were  heard,  but 
they    did    not    obscure    the   real    desire    of 


participating  nations  to  reach  agreement  on 
approaches  to  population  problems.  The 
World  Plan  of  Action,  the  document  result- 
ing from  the  Conference,  is  an  outline  which 
any  nation  may  follow  in  its  search  for  im- 
proved living  conditions  and  opportunities 
for  its  people. 

The  Plan  of  Action  is  an  excellent  base 
upon  which  the  United  Nations  and  its  mem- 
ber nations  can  build.  But  the  Plan  of 
Action  must  be  recognized  as  only  an  out- 
line and  only  a  foundation  for  continuing 
efforts.  The  United  Nations  must  not  delay 
in  urging  all  nations  to  accept  as  their  own 
and  to  implement  the  far-reaching  recom- 
mendations of  the  Plan  of  Action.  At  this 
point,  the  Plan  of  Action  is  only  a  docu- 
ment. Concerted  efforts  by  us  here  in  New 
York  and  by  the  governments  of  all  nations 
can,  however,  transform  that  document  into 
a  reality  that  will  mean  a  higher  quality  of 
life  for  all  people. 

Short-Term  and  Long-Term  Food  Problems 

Finally,  no  problem  is  more  economically 
and  socially  intertwined  or  global  in  dimen- 
sion or  in  greater  immediate  need  of  U.N. 
attention  and  assistance  than  the  world  food 
situation.  During  a  recent  visit  to  South 
Asia,  I  saw  firsthand  the  magnitude  of  un- 
met nutritional  needs  the  world  faces. 

The  problem  is  that  if  food  production 
only  stays  even  with  demand  for  the  fore- 
seeable future,  then  it  will  be  impossible  to 
upgrade  the  diets  of  those  who  exist  on  sub- 
sistence or  lesser  diets  at  present.  Hundreds 
of  millions  of  persons  around  the  world  are 
undernourished  or  even  malnourished.  More- 
over, if  pi'oduction  fails  to  live  up  to  ex- 
pectations for  any  one  of  a  number  of  rea- 
sons, then  the  millions  who  are  now  mal- 
nourished because  of  subsistence  diets  will 
fall  below  this  dietary  level.  They  will 
starve. 

We  face  two  different  but  related  prob- 
lems. There  is  the  short-term  problem  of 
providing  food  aid  to  meet  existing  food 
emergencies  and  of  organizing  a  system  to 
deal  with  similar  situations  which  may  arise 
in  the  next  few  years,  and  there  is  the  longer 


592 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


range  problem  of  increasing  worldwide  pro- 
duction, particularly  in  developing  countries. 
This  latter  problem  requires  nothing  short 
of  a  revolution  in  the  countryside  of  develop- 
ing nations.  Neither  set  of  problems  will  be 
easily  solved.  For  our  part,  the  United 
States  this  year  will  increase  the  amount  of 
money  we  spend  on  food  aid  for  others. 

Such  aid,  however,  even  from  many  na- 
tions, is  not  enough  and  can  never  be  enough. 
Long-term  relief  can  only  be  accomplished 
through  increased  agricultural  production  in 
developing  countries.  As  a  U.S.  Senator  from 
a  major  agricultural  state,  I  know  that  the 
lives  of  millions  in  distant  lands  cannot  be 
allowed  to  depend  on  crop  success  or  failure 
in  another  country. 

Developing  countries  must  have  fertilizer 
production  capability  and  the  technological 
base  from  which  to  guide  their  own  growth. 
And  the  developed  nations  must  assist  them 
in  achieving  this  independent  base.  This  is 
the  main  avenue  to  economic  and  social 
growth  with  justice. 

I  find  it  encouraging  that  the  concept  of 
a  U.N.-sponsored  World  Food  Conference 
developed  simultaneously  in  the  U.S.  Govern- 
ment and  at  the  last  Nonaligned  Conference. 
The  fact  that  we  worked  together  in  the  last 
Assembly  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Coun- 
cil to  bring  this  idea  to  fruition  bodes  well. 
But  as  with  the  Population  Conference,  the 
United  Nations  has  responsibility  to  carry 
through,  and  well  beyond  the  World  Food 
Conference,  with  efforts  to  solve  the  problem 
of  production,  storage,  and  distribution  we 
all  face. 

In  summation  then,  what  the  global  com- 
munity must  do  and  what  the  United  Nations 
must  actively  encourage  are  the  following: 

1.  The  price  of  international  crude  oil 
must  be  lowered. 

2.  The  development  of  alternative  sources 
of  energy  must  be  encouraged. 

3.  Economic  nationalism  should  be  dis- 
couraged, and  we  must  return  to  the  open 
trade  and  free  payments  principles  of  the 
United  Nations  along  with  a  monetary  sys- 
tem adapted  to  our  changing  world. 


4.  Educational  opportunities  for  all  peo- 
ples must  continue  to  expand,  but  opportuni- 
ties for  economic  fulfillment  must  expand 
commensurately. 

5.  Women  mu.st  be  given  a  greater  role  in 
economic  development. 

6.  The  United  Nations  must  help  en- 
courage countries  to  deal  with  population 
problems  by  developing  plans  to  eliminate 
unrestrained  population  growth. 

7.  We  must  solve  the  world's  food  prob- 
lems through  an  international  system  of  na- 
tionally held  food  reserves  and  increased 
investments  in  research,  fertilizer  produc- 
tion, and  development  assistance. 

Only  if  we  really  work  together  on  these 
problems  and  dedicate  ourselves  to  their  so- 
lutions will  we  have  the  chance  to  actually 
benefit  all  of  humankind.  If  we  just  let 
empty  rhetoric  consume  our  days  this  fall, 
then  we  will  have  empty  stomachs.  Nations 
will  have  to  empty  treasuries,  and  eventually 
we  will  all  go  down  together.  On  the  other 
hand,  through  cooperative  action  in  the  self- 
interest  of  all  nations,  we  can  find  solutions 
to  these  problems  which  will  be  worthy  of 
the  objectives  of  this  organization. 


United  States  Makes  Contribution 
to  U.N.   Fund  for  Namibia 

USUN  press  release  124  dated  October  2 

On  October  2  the  U.S.  Mission  to  the 
United  Nations  forwarded  a  check  for 
$50,000  to  the  ofl!ice  of  Secretary  General 
Waldheim  for  the  Fund  for  Namibia.  The 
check  honored  the  U.S.  pledge  of  March  21. 
The  United  States  fully  recognizes  the  U.N.'s 
responsibility  for  Namibia  and  considers  the 
Fund  a  necessary  and  appropriate  effort  to 
aid  some  of  the  territory's  people.  It  is  the 
belief  of  the  U.S.  Government  that  the  U.N. 
Fund  for  Namibia  should  be  supported  solely 
by  voluntary  contributions.  The  U.S.  contri- 
bution was  made  subject  to  the  condition 
that  it  did  not  exceed  one-third  of  the  total 
contributions  to  the  Fund. 


October  28,    1974 


593 


U.S.  Explains  Vote  on  Resolutions 
on  South  Africa 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  by  U.S.  Representative 
John  Scali  on  September  30,  together  with 
the  text  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  As- 
sembly that  day. 

STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR  SCALI 

USUN  press  release  121  dated  September  30 

My  delegation  finds  the  policy  of  apartheid 
an  illegal  and  obnoxious  violation  of  funda- 
mental human  rights.  It  is  as  contrary  to 
that  for  which  my  government  stands  as  it 
is  to  that  for  which  the  United  Nations 
stands. 

We  understand  why  many  seek  this  oppor- 
tunity to  assert  their  moral  outrage  at  this 
heinous  policy.  We  for  our  part,  however, 
do  not  believe  the  question  of  credentials 
was  an  appropriate  one  for  this  purpose. 
The  purpose  of  evaluating  the  authenticity 
of  the  credentials  submitted  to  the  Secretary 
General  is  clearly  to  insure  that  the  indi- 
viduals representing  states  in  this  body  have 
been  authorized  to  do  so  by  the  government 
of  the  country  they  are  here  to  represent. 

The  policies  of  those  governments  are  not 
a  legitimate  consideration  in  this  context. 
There  are  other  times  and  other  contexts 
in  which  they  may  be.  But  what  is  unques- 
tionably true  is  that  here  they  are  not.  No 
one  can  reasonably  argue  with  the  facts  that 
South  Africa  is  a  member  of  the  United 
Nations,  that  the  government  which  has  sent 
representatives  to  this  Assembly  is  indeed 
the  government  in  power  in  that  country, 
that  an  appropriate  official  of  that  country 
signed  the  necessary  credential  documents, 
and  that  they  were  submitted  in  a  proper, 
timely  way. 

Since  we  do  not  regard  this  as  the  appro- 
priate item  for  expressing  the  Assembly's 
views  on  the  policy  of  apartheid  or  the  repre- 
sentative nature  of  the  Government  of  South 


Africa  or  other  members  who  do  not  elect 
governments  by  universal,  free  elections,  our 
vote  against  this  report  does  not  diminish 
our  opposition  to  these  unfortunate  prac- 
tices.^ 

My  delegation  abstained  on  the  resolution 
sending  this  matter  to  the  Security  Council. 
The  preambular  paragraphs  contained  state- 
ments of  undeniable  and  tragic  accuracy.  As 
I  said,  the  policy  of  apartheid  we  believe  is 
illegal,  immoral,  and  fundamentally  repug- 
nant. It  is  the  obligation  of  the  United 
Nations  to  be  concerned  and  to  seek  to  take 
steps  to  eliminate  such  outrages. 

We  are  not  convinced,  however,  that  the 
Security  Council  is  the  appropriate  forum 
for  discussing  such  issues.  For  this  reason 
we  did  not  believe  it  appropriate  to  cast  a 
positive  vote.  Since  others  wished  to  discuss 
this  question  in  the  Security  Council — and 
we  favor  wherever  legally  possible  the  right 
of  all  members  to  state  their  views  in  the 
forum  of  their  choice — we  did  not  believe  it 
appropriate  for  us  to  cast  a  negative  vote. 
Since  we  were  neither  in  a  position  to  vote 
in  favor  nor  of  a  mind  to  oppose,  we  have 
abstained. 

Of  course  our  abstention  is  without  preju- 
dice to  the  position  my  government  will  take 
in  the  Security  Council  when  this  matter  is 
discussed  there. 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  ^ 

The  General  Assembly, 

Recalling  its  resolutions  2636  A  (XXV)  of  13 
November  1970,  2862  (XXVI)  of  20  December  1971 
and  2948  (XXVII)  of  8  December  1972  and  its  deci- 
sion of  5  October  1973,  by  which  it  decided  to  reject 
the  credentials  of  South  Africa, 

Recalling  that  South  Africa  did  not  heed  any  of 
the   aforementioned   decisions   and   has  continued  to 


'  The  Assembly  on  Sept.  30  adopted  by  a  recorded 
vote  of  98  to  23  (U.S.),  with  14  abstentions,  Resolu- 
tion 3206  (XXIX)  approving  the  first  report  of  the 
Credentials  Committee  (U.N.  doc.  A/9779),  which 
included  a  recommendation  not  to  accept  the  creden- 
tials of  the  representatives  of  South  Africa. 

=  U.N.  doc.  A/RES/3207  (XXIX);  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  on  Sept.  30  by  a  recorded  vote  of  125  to  1, 
with  9  abstentions  (U.S.). 


594 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


L 


practise  its  policy  of  apartheid  and  racial  discrim- 
ination against  the  majority  of  the  population  in 
South  Africa, 

Reaffirming,  once  again,  that  the  policy  of  apart- 
heid and  racial  discrimination  of  the  Government 
of  South  Africa  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Charter  of  the  United  Nations  and  the 
Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights, 

Noting  the  persistent  refusal  of  South  Africa  to 
abandon  its  policy  of  apartheid  and  racial  discrim- 
ination in  compliance  with  relevant  resolutions  and 
decisions  of  the  General  Assembly, 

Calls  upon  the  Security  Council  to  I'eview  the 
relationship  between  the  United  Nations  and  South 
Africa  in  the  light  of  the  constant  violation  by  South 
Africa  of  the  principles  of  the  Charter  and  the 
Universal  Declaration  of  Human   Rights. 


United   Nations  Documents: 
A  Selected  Bibliography 

Mimeographed  or  processed  documents  (such  as 
those  listed  below)  may  be  consulted  at  depository 
libraries  in  the  United  States.  U.N.  printed  publica- 
tions may  be  purchased  from  the  Sales  Section  of 
the  United  Nations,  United  Nations  Plaza,  N.Y. 
10017. 

World   Population   Conference 

World  Population  Conference  documents: 

Recent  population  trends  and  future  prospects. 
Report  of  the  Secretary  General.  E/CONF.60/3. 
97  pp. 

Population  change  and  economic  and  social  de- 
velopment. Report  of  the  Secretary  General.  E/ 
CONF.60/4.    65   pp. 

Population,  resources  and  the  environment.  Re- 
port of  the  Secretary  General.  E/CONF.60/5. 
92  pp. 

Population  and  the  family.  Report  of  the  Secretary 
General.    E/CONF.60/6.    78  pp. 
World    Population    Conference    background    papers: 

Report  of  the  symposium  on  population  and  hu- 
man rights,  Amsterdam,  January  21-29,  1974. 
E/CONF.60/CBP/4.    March   19,   1974.    45   pp. 

World  population  and  food  supplies:  looking  ahead. 
Prepared  by  Lester  R.  Brown,  senior  fellow. 
Overseas  Development  Council,  Washington.  E/ 
CONF.60/CBP/19.     March   22,    1974.   20    pp. 

Research  needed  in  the  field  of  population.  Pre- 
pared by  the  staff  of  the  International  Union 
for  the  Scientific  Study  of  Population,  Liege. 
E/CONF.60/CBP/28.    April   3,  1974.    14   pp. 

Population  and  education.  Prepared  by  the  U.N. 
Educational,  Scientific  and  Cultural  Organiza- 
tion. E/CONF.60/CBP/20.  April  12,  1974.  21 
pp. 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Aviation 

Protocol  relating  to  an  amendment  to  the  convention 
on  international  civil  aviation,  as  amended  (TIAS 
1591,  3756,  5170,  7616).  Done  at  Vienna  July  7, 
1971.' 

Ratifications    deposited:    Romania,    September    6, 
1974;  Tunisia,  July  10,  1974. 

Patents 

Strasbourg  agreement  concerning  the  international 
patent  classification.    Done   at   Strasbourg  March 
24,1971.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Netherlands   (applicable  to 

Surinam  and  Netherlands  Antilles) ,  September 

13,1974. 

Phonograms 

Convention  for  the  protection  of  producers  of  pho- 
nograms against  unauthorized  duplication  of  their 
phonograms.  Done  at  Geneva  October  29,  1971.  En- 
tered into  force  April  18,  1973;  for  the  United 
States  March  10,  1974.  TIAS  7808. 
Notification  from  World  Intellectual  Property  Or- 
ganization that  ratification  deposited:  Monaco, 
September  2,  1974. 

United  Nations  Charter 

Charter  of  the  United  Nations  and  Statute  of  the 
International  Court  of  Justice.  Signed  at  San 
Francisco  June  26,  1945.  Entered  into  force  Oc- 
tober 24,  1945.  59  Stat.  1031. 

Admission   to  membership:  Bangladesh,  Gi-enada, 
Guinea-Bissau,  September  17,  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. 

Accession  deposited:  Dominican  Republic,  Septem- 
ber 26,  1974. 

Wills 

Convention  providing  a  uniform  law  on  the  form  of 
an  international  will,  with  annex.  Done  at  Wash- 
ington October  26,  1973.' 
Signature:  United  Kingdom,  October  10,  1974. 


'  Not  in  force. 


October  28,    1974 


595 


BILATERAL 

Austria 

Agreement  amending  and  extending  the  agreement 
of   July    11,   1909    (TIAS    6815),   for   cooperation 
concerning  civil  uses  of  atomic  energy.  Signed  at 
Washington  June  14,  1974. 
Entered  into  force:  October  8,  1974. 

Guatemala 

Agreement  relating  to  payment  to  the  United  States 
of  the  net  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  defense  arti- 
cles by  Guatemala.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes 
at  Guatemala  September  20  and  27,  1974.  Entered 
into  force  September  27,  1974,  effective  July  1, 
1974. 

Poland 

Convention  for  the  avoidance  of  double  taxation  and 
the  prevention  of  fiscal  evasion  with  respect  to 
taxes  on  income,  with  related  notes.  Signed  at 
Washington  October  8,  1974.  Enters  into  force  30 
days  after  the  exchange  of  instruments  of  ratifi- 
cation. 

Agreement  on  cooperation  in  the  field  of  health. 
Signed  at  Washington  October  8,  1974.  Entered 
into  force  October  8,  1974. 

Agreement  on  funding  of  cooperation  in  science  and 
technology.  Signed  at  Washington  October  8,  1974. 
Entered  into  force  October  8,  1974. 

Joint  statement  on  the  development  of  agricultural 
trade.  Signed  at  Washington  October  8,  1974.  En- 
tered into  force  October  8,  1974. 


DEPARTMENT  AND   FOREIGN   SERVICE 


Confirmations 

The  Senate  on  September  30  confirmed  the  follow- 
ing nominations: 

William  D.  Rogers  to  be  an  Assistant  Secretary 
of  State   [for  Inter-American  Affairs]. 

Edward  S.  Little  to  be  Ambassador  to  the  Republic 
of  Chad. 


Appointments 

George    Bush    as    Chief,    U.S.    Liaison    Oflfice,    the 
People's  Republic  of  China,  effective  September  27. 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  October  7—1 3 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Releases'issued  prior  to  October  7  which  ap- 
pear in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos. 
382  of  September  27,  388  of  October  1,  and 
390  of  October  3. 

Xo.         Date  Subject 

Kissinger:  news  conference. 

U.S.  National  Committee  for 
the  CCIR  Study  Group 
CMTT,  Oct.  31. 

Rogers  sworn  in  as  Assistant 
Secretary  for  Inter-American 
Affairs  (biographic  data). 

U.S. -Polish  agreement  on  joint 
funding  of  scientific  and 
technological  cooperation. 

U.S. -Polish  joint  statement  on 
agricultural  trade. 

U.S. -Polish  agreement  on  coal 
research. 

U.S. -Polish  income  tax  conven- 
tion. 

U.S. -Polish  agreement  on 
health. 

U.S. -Polish  agreement  on  envi- 
ronmental protection. 

Kissinger:  arrival  statement, 
Cairo. 

Claxton:  conference  on  world 
population  for  nongovern- 
mental organizations. 

Shipping  Coordinating  Commit- 
tee, Subcommittee  on  Mari- 
time Law,  Oct.  30. 

Shipping  Coordinating  Commit- 
tee, Nov.  12. 

Advisory  Committee  on  the 
Law  of  the  Sea,  Nov.  4-8. 

Lord:  Commonwealth  Club  of 
San  Francisco,  Oct.  11. 

Kissinger:  remarks  in  Cairo, 
Oct.  10. 

Little  sworn  in  as  Ambassador 
to  Chad  (biographic  data). 

Kissinger,  Sadat:  remarks  af- 
ter meeting,  Oct.  10. 

Kissinger:  departure  state- 
ment, Cairo. 

U.S.  and  Australia  delegations 
discuss  air  navigation  facility 
charges. 

St.  Paul  Chamber  Orchestra 
tours  Eastern  Europe. 

Cancellation  of  meeting  of 
Book  and  Library  Advisory 
Committee. 

Kissinger:  departure  state- 
ment, Damascus,  Oct.  11. 


395 
*396 

10/7 
10/10 

*397 

10/7 

t398A 

10/8 

t398B 

10/8 

t398C 

10/8 

t398D 

10/8 

t398E 

10/8 

t398F 

10/8 

1399 

10/9 

*400 

10/10 

*401 


10/10 


*402 

10/10 

*403 

10/10 

t404 

10/10 

t405 

10/11 

*406 

10/11 

1407 

10/11 

t408 

10/11 

t409 

10/11 

*410 

10/11 

*411 

10/11 

1412        10/12 


*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  BULLETIN. 


596 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


INDEX     October  28,1 97i     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  18ii 


I 


Africa.   Department   Discusses    Decolonization 

of  Portuguese  African  Territories   (Easum)       586 

Atomic    Energy.    Secretary    Kissinger's    News 

Conference  of  October  7 565 

Aviation.  U.S.  and  Jordan  Sign  Agreement  on 

Nonscheduled  Air  Services 580 

Barbados.  Letters  of  Credence  (Williams)    .     .       573 

Chad.  Little  confirmed  as  .'Embassador    .     .     .       596 

Chile.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference 

of  October  7 565 

China.  Bush  appointed  Chief,  U.S.  Liaison  Of- 
fice, People's  Republic  of  China 596 

Congress 

Confirmations  (Little,  Rogers) 596 

Congressional  Documents  Relating  to  Foreign 
Policy 588 

Department  Discusses  Decolonization  of  Por- 
tuguese African  Territories  (Easum)    .     .     .       586 

Food  for  Peace  Report  for  1973  Transmitted 

to  Congress  (message  from  President  Ford)       587 

Costa  Rica.  Letters  of  Credence  (Silva)    .     .     .       573 

Cuba.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference 

of  October  7 565 

Cyprus.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ence of  October  7 565 

Department  and  Foreign  Service 

Appointments   (Bush) 596 

Confirmations  (Little,  Rogers) 596 

Economic  Affairs 

Annual  Meetings  of  IMF  and  IBRD  Boards 
of  Governors  Held  at  Washington  (Ford, 
Simon) 574 

Cooperative   Actions  To   Solve  Economic   and 

Social  Problems   (Percy) 589 

Energy.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ence of  October  7 565 

Foreign  Aid 

Food  for  Peace  Report  for  1973  Transmitted 

to  Congress  (message  from  President  Ford)       587 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference  of  Oc- 
tober 7 565 

Ghana.  Letters  of  Credence  (Quarm)  ....       573 

International   Organizations  and  Conferences. 

Annual  Meetings  of  IMF  and  IBRD  Boards 
of  Governors  Held  at  Washington  (Ford, 
Simon) 574 

Jordan.  U.S.  and  Jordan   Sign  Agreement  on 

Nonscheduled  Air  Services 580 

Latin  America 

Rogers  confirmed  as   Assistant   Secretary  for 

Inter-American  Afl'airs 596 

Secretary  Kissinger  Hosts  Luncheon  for  Latin 
American  Foreign  Ministers  (Kissinger,  Mo- 
lina)         583 

Mexico.  President  Ford's  News  Conference  of 

October  9  (excerpts)  572 

Middle  East 

Secretary  Kissinger  Hosts  Dinner  for  Mem- 
bers of  Arab  League  (Kissinger,  Naflfa')     .       581 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference  of  Oc- 
tober 7 565 


Namibia.  United  States  Makes  Contribution  to 

U.N.  Fund  for  Namibia 593 

Narcotics  Control.  U.S.  Welcomes  Turkish  De- 
cision To  Change  Poppy-Har\-esting  Method 
(Department  announcement) 588 

Poland.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ence of  October  7 565 

Population.  Cooperative  Actions  To  Solve  Eco- 
nomic and  Social  Problems  (Percy)     .     .     .       589 

Presidential  Documents 

-Annual   Meetings   of   IMF   and   IBRD   Boards 

of  Governors  Held  at  Washington    ....       574 

Food  for  Peace  Report  for  1973  Transmitted 
to  Congress 587 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  October 

9  (excerpts) 572 

South  Africa 

U.S.  Explains  Vote  on  Resolutions  on  South 
Africa  (Scali,  text  of  U.N.  General  .Assem- 
bly resolution) 594 

Spain.  Letters  of  Credence  (Alba) 573 

Syria.  Letters  of  Credence  (Kabbani)     .     .     .       573 

Treaty  Information 

Current  -Actions 595 

U.S.  and  Jordan  Sign  Agreement  on  Nonsched- 
uled Air  Services 580 

Turkey.  U.S.  Welcomes  Turkish  Decision  To 
Change  Poppy-Har\'esting  Method  (Depart- 
ment announcement) 588 

U.S.S.R. 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  October 

9   (excerpts) 572 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference  of  Oc- 
tober 7 565 

United  Nations 

Cooperative   Actions   To    Solve  Economic   and 

Social  Problems   (Percy) 589 

United  Nations  Documents 595 

U.S.  Explains  Vote  on  Resolutions  on  South 
.Africa  (Scali,  text  of  U.N.  General  Assem- 
bly resolution) 594 

United    States    Makes    Contribution    to    U.N. 

Fund  for  Namibia 593 

Venezuela.  Letters  of  Credence  (Burelli-Rivas)       573 


Name  Index 

Alba,  Jaime 573 

Burelli-Rivas,  Miguel  Angel 573 

Bush,  George 596 

Easum,  Donald  B 586 

Ford,  President 572,574,587 

Kabbani,  Sabah 573 

Kissinger,  Secretary 565,  581,  583 

Little,  Edward  S 596 

Molina,  Adolfo 583 

Naff"a',   Fu'ad 581 

Percy,  Charles  H 589 

Quarm,  Samuel  Ernest 573 

Rogers,  William  D 596 

Scali,  John 594 

Silva,  Rodolfo 573 

Simon,  William  E 574 

Williams,  Cecil  B 573 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

U.S.    government   printing    OFFtCE 
WASHINGTON,    D.C.    20402 


OFFICIAL   BUSINESS 


POSTAGE  AND    FEES  PAID 
U.S.     aoVERNMEMT     PRIMTING     OFFICE 

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:  Director,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


'f.3. 


7/ 


/2^^ 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1845 


November  4,  1974 


FIRST  SECRETARY  GIEREK  OF  THE  POLISH  UNITED  WORKERS'  PARTY 

VISITS  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Rennarks  by  President  Ford  and  First  Secretary  Gierek 

and  Texts  of  Joint  Statements  and  Joint  Communique     597 

SECRETARY  KISSINGER  VISITS  SIX  ARAB  NATIONS  AND  ISRAEL     607 

AMERICA'S  PURPOSES  IN  AN  AMBIGUOUS  AGE 

Address  by  Winston  Lord 

Director  of  the  Policy  Planning  Staff     617 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


Su; 


,ry 
jineat? 


OEC  1  5 19/5 

DEPOSITORY 


i 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  B  U  L  L  E  T  I  Nl 


Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1845 
November  4,  1974 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documenta 

U.S.  Government  Printing  OfBce 

WashinKton,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

52  issues  plus  semiannual  indexes, 

domestic  $29.80,  foreign  (37.26 

Single  copy  60  eenta 

Use    of    funds    for    printing    this    publication 

approved    by    the    Director    of    the    OfBce    of 

Management  and  Budget    (January  29,   1071). 

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, 
a  weekly  publication  issued  by  the 
Office  of  Media  Services,  Bureau  of 
Public  Affairs,  provides  tlte  public  and 
interested  agencies  of  ttie  government 
with  information  on  developments  in 
tlte  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  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  ot 
international  relations  are  also  listed. 


l 


First  Secretary  Gierek  of  the  Polish  United  Workers'  Party 
Visits  the  United  States 


Edward  Gierek,  First  Secretary  of  the 
Central  Committee  of  the  Polish  United 
Workers'  Party,  made  an  official  visit  to  the 
United  States  October  6-13.  He  met  with 
President  Ford  and  other  government  offi- 
cials in  Washington  October  8-10.  Following 
are  an  exchange  of  greetings  between  Presi- 
dent Ford  and  First  Secretary  Gierek  at  a 
welcoming  ceremony  at  the  White  House  on 
October  8,  their  exchange  of  toasts  at  a 
White  House  dinner  that  evening,  and  their 
remarks  on  October  9  upon  signing  a  joint 
statement  on  principles  of  relations  and  a 
joint  statement  on  economic,  industrial,  and 
technological  cooperation,  together  with  the 
texts  of  the  joint  statements  and  a  joint  com- 
munique issued  on  October  13. 


REMARKS  AT  WELCOMING  CEREMONY 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  October  14 

President  Ford 

Mr.  First  Secretary:  It  is  a  very  distinct 
pleasure  for  me  to  welcome  you  and  Mrs. 
Gierek  to  the  United  States.  As  you  know, 
Mr.  First  Secretary,  the  family  ties  that  bind 
our  two  peoples  together  in  a  very  special 
way  are  very,  very  old,  indeed,  older  actually 
than  the  United  States  itself. 

You  have  already  visited  Jamestown,  Vir- 
ginia, where  the  first  Poles  arrived  in  1608, 
only  one  year  after  it  was  first  settled.  From 
that  day  to  this  day,  large  numbers  of  your 
countrymen  have  helped  to  build  this  country 
and  to  mold  our  great  American  traditions. 

America  treasures  these  contributions  to 
our  growth,  to  our  culture,  and  to  our  his- 
tory. During  your  stay  in  this  country,  Mr. 
First  Secretary,  you  and  Mrs.  Gierek  will  be 
able  to  see  for  yourselves  the  character  of 


our  country  and  the  role  that  men  and  women 
from  Poland  have  played  in  America's  his- 
tory. 

Our  two  nations  have  thus  a  fine  founda- 
tion upon  which  to  build.  I  have  watched 
with  very  great  interest  the  substantial 
growth  of  our  bilateral  trade  in  the  last  two 
years  since  the  establishment  of  the  joint 
Polish-American  Trade  Commission.  And 
continuing  expansion  of  contacts  between  of- 
ficials and  private  citizens  in  the  fields  of 
such  activities  as  science,  technology,  and 
the  arts  is  another  evidence  of  the  dynamic 
development  of  Polish-American  relations. 

You,  Mr.  First  Secretary,  will  surely  agree 
with  me  that  we  must  not  allow  our  satisfac- 
tion with  past  progress  to  slow  our  pace  or 
slacken  our  efforts  in  the  future.  We  must 
use  the  opportunity  your  visit  affords  to  seek 
new  avenues  of  bilateral  cooperation  in 
many,  many  fields,  including  energy  and  en- 
vironmental areas. 

In  many  other  areas  of  common  interest — 
for  example,  our  participation  in  the  Confer- 
ence on  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe 
and  our  participation  in  the  force  reduction 
talks — we  are  engaged  in  common  endeavors 
for  peace. 

Today,  economic  problems  almost  every- 
where are  very,  very  severe.  That  stability 
of  the  world  is  in  danger,  and  almost  every- 
where it  develops,  as  well  as  in  developing 
countries,  the  welfare  of  people  on  a  global 
basis  unfortunately  is  actually  threatened. 

Mr.  First  Secretary,  Poland  knows  too 
well,  perhaps  better  than  any  other  nation, 
the  fearful  experience  of  war  and  its  very 
painful  consequences.  A  thorough  review  of 
all  the  dangers  to  peace  for  ourselves  and 
the  world  must  surely  be  a  matter  of  highest 
priority. 


November  4,   1974 


597 


We  seek  a  peaceful  world  and  a  more  pros- 
perous world.  Poland  is  a  world  leader  in 
coal  production  and  coal  research.  Poland 
has  a  very  major  role,  a  role  to  play  in  con- 
tributing solutions  to  the  world  energy  prob- 
lem; and  you,  Mr.  First  Secretary,  with  a 
lifetime  of  expertise,  are  able  to  make  a  very 
important  personal  contribution  in  this  spe- 
cific area.  I  look  forward  to  exchanging  views 
with  you  on  the  energy  problem. 

Mr.  First  Secretary,  we,  all  of  us  in  Amer- 
ica, are  pleased  that  you  and  Mrs.  Gierek  are 
here.  I  am  very  confident,  Mr.  First  Secre- 
tary, that  our  meetings  will  deepen  the 
friendship  of  our  two  peoples  and  broaden 
the  cooperation  of  our  two  nations. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

Firsl  Secretory  Gierek  ' 

I  wish  to  thank  you  for  your  words  of  cor- 
diality which  you,  Mr.  President,  have  ad- 
dressed to  me,  to  Mrs.  Gierek,  and  to  mem- 
bers of  my  delegation.  I  take  these  words  of 
yours  as  being  directed  to  the  people  of  Po- 
land and  to  the  Polish  state,  on  behalf  of 
which  and  upon  your  invitation  I  am  vigiting 
the  United  States. 

I  am  pleased  to  have  made  this  visit,  as  it 
adds  new  testimony  to  the  friendly  ties  that 
have  linked  our  two  nations  since  the  times 
of  George  Washington  and  Tadeusz  Kos- 
ciuszko. 

I  rest  assured  that  it  is  the  desire  of  both 
our  peoples  not  only  to  preserve  these  tradi- 
tional relations  but  also  to  strengthen  them 
through  closer  and  broader  cooperation  in 
the  world  of  today. 

Indeed,  Socialist  Poland,  dynamically  de- 
veloping her  new  potential  and  creating  as 
she  does  new  living  conditions  for  her  peo- 
ple, is  vitally  interested  in  this.  I  trust  that 
the  talks  we  shall  hold  and  agreements  we 
shall  conclude  will  greatly  contribute  toward 
this  end,  that  they  will  open  up  a  broader 
prospect  for  cooperation  between  our  coun- 
tries. 

I  am  pleased  to  have  made  this  visit,  also, 


'  First  Secretary  Gierek  spoke  in  Polish  on  all  three 
occasions. 


because  it  represents  yet  another  reafltirma- 
tion  of  international  detente,  which  my  coun- 
try views  as  extremely  significant  and  to 
which  we  try  to  make  our  utmost  contribu- 
tion. 

That  process,  which  originates  from  the 
very  essence  of  the  contemporary  world,  from 
the  need  for  and  necessity  of  peaceful  coex- 
istence among  states  with  differing  political 
systems,  has  been  considerably  enhanced  in 
recent  years. 

We  of  Poland  can  only  welcome  it  in  our 
profound  conviction  that  it  is  in  the  interest 
of  all  nations  to  make  that  process  further 
extend,  universal  and  irreversible.  Precisely 
for  this  reason  there  is  wide  appreciation  to- 
day that  it  is  you,  Mr.  President,  who  is 
steering  the  U.S.  policy  toward  this  direc- 
tion. 

I  am  pleased  to  have  made  this  visit,  as  it 
will  enable  me  to  get  to  know  the  United 
States,  to  acquaint  myself  with  the  outstand- 
ing accomplishments  of  the  progress  of  civi- 
lization of  the  American  people,  whose  his- 
tory and  achievements  have  since  the  very 
outset  been  and  continue  to  be  so  much  en- 
riched by  the  Americans  of  Polish  extrac- 
tion. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  profoundly  convinced 
of  the  propitious  conditions  today  and  the 
right  time  for  expansion  of  Polish-American 
cooperation  in  its  new  dimensions  and  in  all 
fields  of  endeavor. 

Mine  is  also  a  firm  belief  that  we  can  work 
closer  together  for  the  great  cause  of  peace. 
That  is  the  purpose  of  my  visit  here,  and  I 
am  happy  that  you,  too,  share  these  aspira- 
tions of  ours. 

Please  accept,  Mr.  President,  the  best 
wishes  from  Poland  to  the  United  States, 
from  the  Polish  people  to  the  American  peo- 
ple. 

TOASTS  AT  WHITE   HOUSE  DINNER 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  October  14 

President  Ford 

Mr.  First  Secretary,  our  wonderful  guests : 
It  is  a  great  privilege  and  pleasure  to  have 
you  and  Mrs.  Gierek  here  with  us  this  eve- 


598 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


ning.  We  have  had  a  very  delightful  dinner, 
and  we  had  a  very  helpful  and  constructive 
discussion  during  the  day,  and  I  am  looking 
forward  to  further  discussions  tomorrow. 

Mr.  First  Secretary,  I  come  from  a  part  of 
our  country  where  we  have  roughly  30,000 
people  with  a  Polish  heritage  or  background. 
And  as  I  grew  up,  Mr.  First  Secretary,  I  had 
many  wonderful  personal  experiences  with 
families  that  had  a  Polish  background,  fam- 
ilies that  had  the  same  great  family  strength, 
families  that  had  a  tremendous  religious  ded- 
ication, individuals  with  a  Polish  heritage 
that  became  leaders  in  our  community,  out- 
standing scholars,  athletes,  public  servants. 
And  so  I  had  a  great  exposure  to  the  finest, 
the  best,  with  individuals  who  had  come 
from  your  country  to  ours. 

And  then  in  1958  or  '59,  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  go  to  Poland,  and  I  wondered  as  I 
went  to  Poland  whether  there  would  be  so 
many  comparable  wonderful  people  in  Poland 
as  I  had  known  in  my  hometown  in  Michigan 
in  the  United  States. 

And  I  found,  Mr.  First  Secretary,  that  in- 
stead of  30,000,  there  were  30  million.  And 
all  of  them  had  the  same  warmth,  friendship, 
family  dedication,  deep  conviction,  and  all  of 
them  wanted  to  uplift  their  community,  their 
state,  and  make  their  country  a  better  and 
finer  place  in  which  to  live. 

So  it  seemed  to  me,  Mr.  First  Secretary, 
that  it  was  very  easy  for  Poland  and  our 
country  to  start  building  a  foundation  some 
years  ago  which  has  now  developed  into  a 
great  relationship,  a  relationship  predicated 
on  understanding,  a  relationship  that  has  a 
far  broader  vision. 

We  want  to  help  one  another,  and  we  do. 
But  we  want  to  build  from  our  relationship  a 
broader  effort  to  improve  world  relations  be- 
tween countries  that  did  not  understand  one 
another  but  who  now,  hopefully,  will — blocs 
that  did  not  understand  one  another  but, 
hopefully,  will.  And  the  net  result  is  that  be- 
cause of  our  citizens  who  came  from  Po- 
land, settled  here,  and  have  become  so  strong 
and  vital  in  our  society  and  yours,  who  are 
so  strong  and  so  vital  in  Europe,  I  hope  and 
trust  that  we  can  move  together  in  coopera- 


tion and  economic  matters,  cultural  matters, 
educational  matters,  environmental  matters, 
and  set  an  example  for  all  nations,  because 
we  do  understand  one  another  and  we  can, 
by  history,  work  together. 

And  so  I  ask  all  of  our  guests  here  tonight 
to  rise  and  join  with  me  in  offering  a  toast 
to  the  First  Secretary  and  to  Mrs.  Gierek 
and  offer  them  the  best  from  all  of  us  in  the 
United  States  to  the  First  Secretary,  to  the 
Polish  people. 

First  Secretary  Gierek 

Dear  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen : 
I  thank  you,  Mr.  President,  for  your  kind 
and  friendly  words.  I  thank  you  for  the  hos- 
pitality you  have  shown  us,  which  both  Mrs. 
Gierek  and  I  greatly  appreciate  and  sincerely 
hope  to  heartily  reciprocate. 

From  the  outset  of  our  sojourn  on  the 
American  soil,  we  have  been  accompanied  by 
a  good,  matter-of-fact,  and  friendly  atmos- 
phere. This  gladdens  us  and  reaffirms  in  our 
profound  conviction  that  my  visit  here  will 
prove  fruitful. 

Our  conversations  with  you,  Mr.  President, 
have  above  all  reassured  me  in  this.  We  have 
exchanged,  in  their  course,  views  on  the  most 
important  issues  of  Polish-American  rela- 
tions and  on  the  further  development  of  the 
process  of  international  detente. 

We  have  reached  important  conclusions 
which  will  be  set  down  on  our  joint  docu- 
ments. I  am  confident  that  the  results  of  our 
meetings  will  open  up  a  new  stage  in  the  mu- 
tual relations  between  both  our  countries 
and  nations. 

I  highly  value,  Mr.  President,  this  direct 
contact  with  you,  with  the  leader  of  the 
United  States,  who  by  his  own  deep  under- 
standing of  and  positive  approach  to  issues 
of  the  present-day  cooperation  between  our 
two  nations  confirms  the  willingness  to  de- 
velop it  further  in  the  friendly  attitude  to- 
ward Poland. 

I  am  also  satisfied  over  my  meetings  with 
the  Secretary  of  State,  Dr.  Henry  Kissinger, 
and  with  all  eminent  associates  of  yours. 

It  is  my  conviction,   Mr.   President,  that 


November  4,   1974 


599 


there  exist  very  favorable  conditions  to  a 
significant  expansion  of  Polish-U.S.  coopera- 
tion, which  is  the  common  concern  of  ours. 
These  conditions,  as  you  have  pointed  out  a 
moment  ago,  stem  from  our  longstanding  tra- 
dition of  friendly  mutual  bonds,  dating  back 
to  the  times  of  the  founding  of  the  United 
States,  began  by  the  participation  of  Tadeusz 
Kosciuszko,  Pulaski,  and  other  sons  of  the 
Polish  people  who  struggled  for  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States. 

These  bonds  were  subsequently  strength- 
ened by  the  sympathy  toward  and  interest  of 
the  democratic  forces  of  the  American  nation 
in  the  cause  of  Polish  independence.  And 
they  were  amply  reaffirmed  in  our  joint 
struggle  for  freedom,  greatest  in  history,  as 
it  were,  conducted  by  the  great  anti-Fascist 
coalition  in  the  years  of  World  War  II. 

These  traditions  have  remained  alive,  al- 
though their  early  postwar  phase  has  fortu- 
nately become  a  closed  historical  chapter. 

As  a  result  of  its  own  heroic  struggle  and 
its  cooperation  with  all  other  freedom-loving 
forces,  the  people  of  Poland  found  its  road 
to  durable  independence,  to  enviable  secu- 
rity, to  dynamic  development. 

The  people  of  Poland  found  it  in  its  new 
Socialist  homeland,  in  its  consciously  chosen 
alliance  with  the  U.S.S.R.  and  other  Socialist 
countries,  in  its  active  foreign  policy  of  in- 
ternational security  and  peaceful  coopera- 
tion. 

Modern  Poland,  Mr.  President,  with  a 
more  than  1,000-year  history  and  great  tra- 
ditions of  love  for  freedom  and  progress,  is 
proud  of  the  great  historic  achievements  of 
the  past  three  decades  which  have  essentially 
altered  the  course  of  our  nation's  tragic  past 
and  verily  transformed  the  country,  elevat- 
ing it  onto  a  new  place  in  Europe  and  the 
world  at  large. 

The  Poland  of  today,  one  of  the  world's 
top  10  industrial  producers,  is  a  country  of  a 
dynamic  economy,  of  high  cultural  and  scien- 
tific standards,  and  constantly  growing  stand- 
ards of  living. 

In  recent  years  we  have  endowed  her  de- 
velopment with  a  still  greater  dynamism  and 
higher  quality.  We  still  have  much  to  accom- 


plish. But  the  decisive  stage  is  behind  us  and 
Poland  could  now  enter  the  phase  of  accel- 
erated growth  of  her  economy.  And  the  as- 
pirations of  my  people  are  indeed  in  keeping 
with  these  vital  needs  and  aspirations  of  all. 

It  is  from  this  position  and  for  this  pur- 
pose that  we  also  desire  to  eject  new  impetus 
and  quality  to  our  cooperation  with  other 
countries  of  the  world.  We  are  delighted  to 
see  considerable  progress  achieved  in  Polish- 
American  relations,  particularly  in  recent 
years.  But  we  take  it  only  as  a  harbinger  of  a 
much  broader  cooperation. 

We  therefore  attach  special  importance  to 
development  of  economic  cooperation,  which 
establishes  most  durable  of  bonds  and  pro- 
vides for  a  material  base  of  cooperation  in 
all  other  fields. 

We  conceive  of  the  United  States  as  one  of 
our  principal  partners  in  the  West.  There 
exist  all  opportunities  that  it  be  so.  The  es- 
sential thing  is  to  create  conditions  that 
would  make  us  seize  of  all  those  opportuni- 
ties. 

I  strongly  believe  that  arrangements  we 
are  now  adopting  and  agreements  we  are 
concluding  will  be  a  decisive  contribution  to- 
ward this  end. 

In  the  overall  framework  of  relations  be- 
tween our  two  countries,  a  major  positive 
role  can  no  doubt  be  played  by  the  multimil- 
lion-strong  group  of  Americans  of  Polish  an- 
cestry as  good  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  at  the  same  time  retaining  their  emo- 
tional ties  with  tlieir  old  land.  They  have  al- 
ways been  one  of  the  important  factors  of 
mutual  rapprochement  between  our  two  na- 
tions, and  they  can  further  make  a  substan- 
tial contribution  to  their  friendly  coopera- 
tion. 

Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  our 
thoughts  constantly  turn  to  the  great  and 
common  cause  of  all  mankind,  the  cause  of 
peace. 

The  Polish  nation,  which  paid  the  highest 
price  for  its  freedom  and  is  fully  cognizant 
of  the  value  of  peace,  attaches  great  impor- 
tance to  the  process  of  detente,  which  has 
been  developing  in  recent  years.  We  see  in  it 
a  true  road  toward  the  strengthening  of  in- 


600 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


ternational  security  and  development  of  co- 
operation among  nations  on  the  basis  of 
peaceful  coexistence  of  states  with  different 
political  systems.  This  is  the  prime  need  and 
necessity  of  our  time. 

Let  me  say,  Mr.  President,  that  Poland 
fully  appreciates  the  far-reaching  and  all- 
round  significance  of  Soviet-American  agree- 
ments for  the  cause  of  world  peace  and  gen- 
eral improvement  of  international  relations. 

It  was  with  greatest  satisfaction  that  we 
welcomed  progress  already  achieved  here, 
and  together  with  other  countries  we  have 
noted  with  great  appreciation  the  promise 
that  these  propitious  trends  will  be  contin- 
ued. 

It  is  only  natural  that  Poland  should  at- 
tach particular  significance  to  progress  of 
detente  and  to  consolidation  of  the  facts  of 
nearly  three  decades  of  peace  in  Europe.  We 
have  been  actively  cooperating  to  insure  the 
success  of  the  Conference  on  Security  and 
Cooperation  in  Europe.  We  believe  that  there 
exist  very  realistic  conditions  for  its  success- 
ful conclusion  in  the  months  to  come. 

We  shall  continue  to  make  our  constructive 
contribution  to  the  Vienna  talks  on  troops 
and  arms  reduction  in  Central  Europe. 

We  are  convinced  that  the  United  States 
is  also  vitally  interested  in  a  lasting  peace  on 
our  continent  and  can  indeed  make  a  substan- 
tial and  constructive  contribution  to  that 
cause.  We  rest  assured  of  the  indivisibility 
of  and  the  universal  need  for  peace  and  of 
the  desire  common  to  all  nations  for  security, 
justice,  and  a  better  morale. 

I  trust  that  also  in  the  strivings  to  achieve 
these  great  objectives  closer  cooperation  be- 
tween both  our  countries  is  possible  and  nec- 
essary. 

My  first  day  in  V/ashington  and,  above  all, 
the  talks  I  had  with  you,  Mr.  President,  reaf- 
firm me  in  my  conviction  that  together  we 
can  open  up  new,  broader  prospects  for  the 
development  of  Polish-U.S.  cooperation.  I  am 
reassured  in  this  also  by  the  good  climate  in 
which  all  our  meetings  are  held  and  which  is 
typical  of  the  friendly  relations  obtaining 
between  our  two  peoples. 

Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  propose  a 


toast:  To  your  very  good  health  and  all  suc- 
cess in  steering  the  affairs  of  the  great 
United  States;  for  the  speediest  recovery  of 
Mrs.  Ford;  to  your  good  health,  ladies  and 
gentlemen;  to  the  development  of  friendly 
cooperation  between  our  peoples  and  states; 
to  world  peace. 


REMARKS  UPON  SIGNING  JOINT  STATEMENTS 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  October  14 

President  Ford 

Mr.  First  Secretary :  We  have  just  put  our 
signatures  on  landmark  documents. 

The  first,  on  principles  of  bilateral  rela- 
tions, recognizes  the  friendly  state  of  those 
relations.  It  underlines  our  joint  determina- 
tion to  not  only  continue  this  cooperation  but 
to  further  expand  it  for  mutual  benefit.  We 
will  make  a  joint  contribution  to  peace  and 
security  throughout  the  world. 

The  second  document  is  more  specifically 
directed  to  economic,  industrial,  and  techno- 
logical cooperation.  If  it  is  to  succeed,  coop- 
eration requires  the  careful  and  continuing 
attention  of  nations,  as  I  am  sure  you  will 
agree. 

Over  the  past  few  years  we  have  made  im- 
portant advances  in  our  economic  and  trade 
relations.  We  have  now  pledged  our  coun- 
tries to  even  further  advances  toward  reali- 
zation of  the  full  potential  for  cooperation 
that  we  both  see  and  we  desire.  Our  peoples 
will  benefit  and  the  economic  international 
community  will  likewise  benefit. 

These  documents  should  be  reassuring  to 
our  friends  and  associates  throughout  the 
world.  We  discriminate  against  no  one,  nor 
do  we  prejudice  any  commitments  we  have 
already  made  to  others.  Indeed,  the  respect 
we  show  for  each  other  and  the  cooperation 
that  we  seek  is  part  of  the  international 
spirit  v/e  see  emerging.  This  new  spirit  seeks 
to  solve  problems,  not  to  make  new  tensions. 

Mr.  First  Secretary,  my  signature  on  these 
documents  is  yet  another  expression  of  the 
deep  interest  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  in  the  well-being  of  your  nation  and 


November  4,   1974 


601 


its  deserved  place  in  the  international  com- 
munity. We  welcome  these  documents  for  the 
contributions  they  will  make  to  the  spirit  of 
cooperation  and  peaceful  endeavor  through- 
out the  world. 

First  Secretary  Gierek 

Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen:  I  do 
share,  Mr.  President,  your  appraisal  of  the 
weight  of  the  documents  we  have  just  signed, 
the  fruitful  nature  of  our  talks,  and  the  im- 
portance of  the  agreements  we  have  con- 
cluded. I  greatly  appreciate  what  you  have 
said  and  wish  to  express  my  profound  satis- 
faction over  the  headway  we  made  and  re- 
sults we  achieved  during  my  visit  to  Wash- 
ington. I  especially  enjoyed  meeting  with 
you,  Mr.  President,  which  I  shall  cherish  in 
my  memories  as  an  important,  sincere,  and 
friendly  encounter. 

We  are  opening  together  a  new  chapter  in 
relations  between  the  Polish  People's  Repub- 
lic and  the  United  States  of  America.  As  of 
now,  these  new  annals  will  be  recording  the 
future  of  our  relations  as  well  as  our  broader, 
closer,  and  more  extensive  cooperation.  We 
are  opening  that  new  chapter  aware  of  the 
entire  tradition  of  the  friendly  mutual  rela- 
tions between  the  Polish  and  American  peo- 
ples, in  the  desire  of  tightening  the  bonds 
which  we  have  inherited  from  the  past  and 
continue  to  maintain  at  present. 

In  enhancing  the  progress  made  in  our  bi- 
lateral relations  in  recent  years,  we  are  like- 
wise creating  a  groundwork  for  expanded 
economic,  scientific,  and  technical  coopera- 
tion, for  cultural  exchanges  and  various  con- 
tacts between  our  respective  peoples.  Partic- 
ularly important  in  this  regard  is  expansion 
of  reciprocally  beneficial  economic  ties,  which 
form  the  most  durable  basis  for  all  other 
mutual  relationships. 

I  firmly  believe  that  the  inauguration  of  a 
future-oriented  phase  of  Polish-American  re- 
lations concurs  with  the  interests  and  wishes 
of  our  two  peoples.  We  are  doing  it  in  ac- 
cordance both  with  the  principles  and  the 
spirit  of  peaceful  coexistence  among  states 
with  different  systems.  For  the  United  States 


and  modern  Socialist  Poland  are  precisely 
such  states.  Poland  for  30  years  has  been 
shaping  new  conditions  of  life  and  develop- 
ment of  her  people.  She  remains  faithful  to 
her  alliances,  and  in  the  best  of  her  tradi- 
tion, she  is  actively  involved  in  the  strife  for 
progress  and  peace. 

I  trust,  Mr.  President,  that  the  results  of 
our  meeting  will  also  contribute  to  the 
strengthening  of  international  detente.  This 
latter  process,  in  particular  fortified  by  the 
improvement  of  Soviet-American  relations, 
which  are  of  exceptional  significance  to  world 
peace,  has  already  brought  about  many  favor- 
able changes  in  the  international  situation.  It 
has  reduced  dangerous  tensions  and  provided 
new  vistas  for  constructive  cooperation. 

We  can  particularly  sense  this  in  Europe, 
where  the  process  has  been  advanced  most. 
Yet,  even  there,  a  great  deal  still  remains  to 
be  done  in  order  to  insure  peace  for  the  en- 
tire future  to  come.  May  we  all  move  fur- 
ther along  that  road,  to  free  mankind  com- 
pletely from  the  nuclear  threat,  to  give  the 
world  of  today  and  all  its  nations  a  feeling 
of  lasting  security,  and  to  resolve  success- 
fully the  great  socioeconomic  and  civilization 
problems  which  confront  us  now  and  are 
likely  to  emerge  in  near  future. 

I  am  happy,  Mr.  President,  that,  as  has 
been  reflected  in  our  joint  statement,  we  are 
in  agreement  as  to  the  need  for  further  action 
at  making  irreversible  the  progress  achieved 
in  peaceful  relations  among  states  with  dif- 
ferent socioeconomic  systems. 

Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  to- 
morrow morning  I  shall  be  leaving  Washing- 
ton to  visit  other  centers  of  your  great  and 
beautiful  country. 

On  behalf  of  Mrs.  Gierek  and  persons  ac- 
companying me,  as  well  as  in  my  own  name, 
I  wish  to  thank  you,  Mr.  President,  for  the 
friendly  reception  and  hospitality  accorded 
to  us. 

Permit  me  at  the  same  time  to  reiterate  my 
very  cordial  invitation  for  you  and  Mrs. 
Ford,  whom  we  wish  a  very  speedy  recovery, 
to  pay  a  visit  to  Poland.  With  the  fresh  mem- 
ories of  our  Washington  encounter,  I  shall 
be  looking  forward  to  meeting  you  again. 


602 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


this  time  in  our  capital,  the  city  of  Warsaw. 

I  should  also  like  to  say  once  more  how 
happy  I  was  to  have  met  the  prominent  rep- 
resentatives of  the  U.S.  Congress.  My  meet- 
ing with  them  has  reaffirmed  me  of  the  con- 
gressional favorable  attitude  toward  matters 
concerning  further  development  of  Polish- 
American  cooperation. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  thank  the  Sec- 
retary of  State,  as  well  as  your  other  col- 
laborators, for  their  contribution  to  the  fruit- 
ful results  of  my  visit  to  Washington.  I  thank 
all  who  helped  make  this  visit  a  success. 

Through  you,  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  con- 
vey to  the  American  nation  my  heartfelt 
greetings  and  best  wishes  which  I  am  bring- 
ing from  the  people  of  Poland. 

President  Ford 

Thank  you  very,  very  much,  Mr.  First  Sec- 
retary. I  have  enjoyed  meeting  you,  becoming 
well  acquainted  with  you,  and  I  look  forward 
to  the  opportunity  of  visiting  Poland. 

I  told  Mrs.  Ford  on  the  telephone  today  of 
your  kind  invitation,  and  she  remembers  viv- 
idly our  visit  to  Poland  some  years  ago.  She, 
as  well  as  I,  are  looking  forward  to  a  return 
to  your  nation  and  to  meet  again  the  wonder- 
ful Polish  people. 

I  can  assure  you,  Mr.  First  Secretary,  that 
as  you  travel  around  the^  rest  of  the  United 
States — and  I  wish  you  could  stay  longer 
and  visit  more  places — that  you  will  find  a 
great  warmth  on  the  part  of  the  American 
people  for  the  people  of  Poland  and  you  will 
be  welcome  wherever  you  go.  I  know  the 
warmth  of  the  welcome  here  will  be  equal 
wherever  you  visit  in  our  country. 

We  hope  you  will  come  back.  I  look  forward 
to  seeing  you  in  the  future. 

First  Secretary  Gierek 

I  wish  to  thank  you  most  heartily,  Mr. 
President,  and  we  are  expecting  you  in  War- 
saw, and  Mrs.  Ford.  We  shall  be  trying  to 
greet  you,  Mr.  President  and  Mrs.  Ford,  ac- 
cording to  the  Polish  tradition  and  our  say- 
ing, "My  home  is  your  home." 

President  Ford:  Thank  you,  sir. 


JOINT  STATEMENT  ON  PRINCIPLES  OF  RELATIONS 

Joint  Statement  on  Principles 
OF  United  States-Polish  Relations 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
Gerald  R.  Ford,  and  the  First  Secretary  of  the  Cen- 
tral Committee  of  the  Polish  United  Workers'  Party, 
Edward  Gierek, 

— having  met  in  a  cordial,  businesslike  and  con- 
structive atmosphere,  which  provided  the  opportu- 
nity for  a  useful  and  comprehensive  exchange  of 
views, 

— mindful  of  the  long-standing  and  rich  traditions 
of  relations  between  their  two  peoples  and  the  feel- 
ings of  friendship  and  respect  toward  each  other, 

— being  convinced  that  further  development  of 
American-Polish  relations  and  the  expansion  of  mu- 
tual cooperation  serves  the  interests  of  both  nations 
and  contributes  to  peace  and  security  in  the  world, 

agreed  on  a  statement  of  principles  of  friendly  re- 
lations and  cooperation  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Polish  People's  Republic. 

I 

The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  reaffirmed 
that  bilateral  relations  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Polish  People's  Republic  are  found- 
ed on  the  purposes  and  principles  of  the  United  Na- 
tions Charter  and  international  law,  and  in  partic- 
ular the  following  interrelated  principles: 

— sovereign  equality; 

— refraining  from  the  threat  or  use  of  force; 

— inviolability  of  frontiers; 

— territorial  integrity  of  states; 

— peaceful  settlement  of  disputes; 

— non-intervention  in  internal  affairs; 

— respect  for  human  rights  and  fundamental  free- 
doms; 

— equal  rights  and  self-determination  of  peoples; 

— cooperation  among  states; 

— fulfillment  in  good  faith  of  obligations  under  in- 
ternational law. 

II 

The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  expressed 
their  determination  to  develop  relations  of  the  two 
countries  in  a  spirit  of  cooperation  and  mutual  re- 
spect. 

They  resolved  to  expand  and  encourage  as  appro- 
priate the  long-range  development  of  commercial, 
economic,  cultural,  scientific  and  technical  coopera- 
tion of  the  two  countries  under  conditions  of  reci- 
procity of  advantages  and  obligations,  in  particular 
in  agriculture,  industry,  transportation,  health  and 
environment. 

They  also  resolved  to  continue  to  support  the  de- 
velopment of  cooperation  through  the  Joint  Ameri- 
can-Polish Trade  Commission,  between  organizations, 
institutions    and   firms,    as   set  forth    in   the    "Joint 


November  4,   1974 


603 


statement  on  the  Expansion  of  Economic,  Industrial 
and  Technological  Cooperation  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  Polish  People's  Republic" 
signed  on  October  9,  1974.  They  affirmed  that  mu- 
tually beneficial  economic  relations  are  conducive  to 
good  political  relations. 

They  will  facilitate  and  support,  through  all  ap- 
propriate means,  agreements  concerning  exchange  of 
experts,  students,  and  other  persons  as  well  as  ex- 
changes in  the  fields  of  science,  culture,  the  arts,  ed- 
ucation, and  other  fields,  between  their  two  govern- 
ments or  directly  between  research  organizations,  in- 
stitutions and  firms  as  well  as  people. 

Being  aware  of  the  importance  of  cultural  and  sci- 
entific cooperation  as  a  means  of  promoting  mutual 
understanding  and  trust,  they  resolve  to  promote 
the  development  of  cultural  relations  providing  op- 
portunities for  the  citizens  of  both  nations  to  learn 
the  language  of  each  other  and  to  acquire  a  better 
knowledge  of  their  respective  achievements  and  val- 
ues. 

They  will  support  the  expansion  of  contacts  be- 
tween citizens  of  the  two  countries,  including  tour- 
ism, as  well  as  contacts  between  representatives  of 
federal  and  local  authorities  and  youth  and  vocational 
organizations. 

They  reaffirmed  their  commitment  to  develop  fur- 
ther relations  between  the  two  countries  through 
frequent  consultations  at  various  levels,  on  matters 
pertaining  to  their  mutual  relations,  including  imple- 
mentation of  the  principles  contained  herein,  as  well 
as  important  international  issues  of  mutual  interest. 

Ill 

The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  welcomed 
the  progress  in  recent  years  toward  the  general  re- 
laxation of  tension  and  the  development  of  peaceful 
relations  between  countries  of  different  socio-eco- 
nomic systems.  In  this  connection  they  stressed  the 
importance  of  making  that  progress  irreversible. 
They  are  determined  to  continue  efforts  aimed  at 
strengthening  these  positive  changes  to  which  all 
countries,  irrespective  of  their  size  and  potential,  can 
and  should  contribute  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
security  of  all  nations. 

They  will  continue  to  work  toward  strengthening 
European  security,  in  particular  by  contributing  to 
the  success  of  the  Conference  on  Security  and  Coop- 
eration in  Europe  and  the  negotiations  on  Mutual 
Reduction  of  Forces  and  Armaments  and  Associated 
Measures  in  Central  Europe. 

They  stressed  the  importance  of  achieving  effective 
measures  of  disarmament  conducive  to  strengthening 
peace  and  security  in  the  world. 

They  expressed  their  willingness  to  cooperate  on 
various  international  matters  concerning  the  consoli- 
dation of  peace,  international  security  and  economic, 
social  and  cultural  progress,  with  a  view  to  making 
their  own  contribution  to  the  settlement  of  important 
international  problems  in  the  spirit  of  good  will  and 
mutual  trust. 


They  recognized  the  necessity  of  strengthening  the 
effectiveness  of  the  United  Nations  in  the  mainte- 
nance and  consolidation  of  international  p«ace,  and 
in  developing  cooperation  among  all  nations  on  the 
basis  of  the  United  Nations  Charter. 

They  acknowledged  that  this  Joint  Statement  does 
not  infringe  upon  the  obligations  of  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  Polish  People's  Republic 
with  respect  to  other  states. 


Washington,  October  9,  1974 


For  the  United  States 
of  America: 

Gerald  R.  Ford 

President  of  the 

United  States  of 

America 


For  the  Polish  People's 
Republic : 

Edward  Gierek 

First  Secretary  of  the 

Central  Committee  of  the 

Polish  United  Workers'  Party 


JOINT  STATEMENT  ON  ECONOMIC  COOPERATION 

Joint  Statement  on  the  Development  of  Eco- 
nomic, Industrul  and  Technological  Coopera- 
tion Between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  the  Polish  People's  Republic 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
Gerald  R.  Ford,  and  the  First  Secretary  of  the  Cen- 
tral Committee  of  the  Polish  United  Workers'  Party, 
Edward  Gierek, 

— having  held  talks  on  the  present  state  and  fur- 
ther development  of  economic,  industrial  and  techno- 
logical cooperation  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Polish  People's  Republic, 

agreed  on  the  following  statement: 


The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  expressed 
gratification  with  the  results  achieved  in  their  mu- 
tual economic  and  trade  relations  in  recent  years. 
They  endorsed  the  guidelines  for  their  further  de- 
velopment that  are  set  forth  in  this  Joint  Statement, 
and  affirmed  the  positive  role  of  these  guidelines  for 
the  further  development  of  mutual  economic,  indus- 
trial, and  technological  cooperation  between  the 
United  States  of  America  and  the  Polish  People's 
Republic. 

Recognizing  further  growth  of  international  trade 
as  fundamental  to  economic  development  and  im- 
proved standards  of  living,  and  guided  by  the  provi- 
sions contained  in  the  Joint  Statement  on  Principles 
of  United  States-Polish  Relations,  they  reaffirmed 
their  determination  to  seek  continued  expansion  of 
economic  and  trade  relations  pursuant  to  a  liberal  ex- 
port and  import  policy  consistent  with  the  legal  re- 
quirements of  each  country  and  with  the  principles 
of  the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade,  in- 
cluding most-favored-nation  treatment.  They  also  ex- 


604 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


pressed  confidence  that  their  two  countries'  bilateral 
trade  relations  would  be  strengthened  by  the  partici- 
pation of  their  countries  in  the  multilateral  trade  ne- 
gotiations. 

They  recognize  the  existence  of  favorable  pros- 
pects for  further  rapid  development  of  bilateral 
trade  in  the  coming  years.  They  anticipate  that  their 
trade  may  reach  $1  billion  in  1976  and  grow  to  $2 
billion  by  1980.  They  will  seek  to  ensure  the  existence 
of  proper  conditions  for  economic  relations  in  order 
that  these  goals  may  be  achieved.  Fields  offering  par- 
ticular opportunities  for  the  development  of  their 
economic  relations  include  various  light  industries, 
food-processing,  chemical  and  petrochemical  indus- 
try, construction  and  transportation  equipment,  ma- 
chinery, electronic  and  electrical  equipment  indus- 
tries, coal  mining  and  utilization  and  nonferrous 
metallurgy. 

II 

Considering  industrial  cooperation  as  a  particu- 
larly important  factor  in  the  development  of  trade 
and  the  diversification  of  its  structure,  the  President 
and  the  First  Secretary  will  facilitate  cooperation  be- 
tween American  firms  and  Polish  enterprises  and  eco- 
nomic organizations  consistent  with  applicable  laws 
and  regulations  of  each  of  the  two  countries,  includ- 
ing long-term  understandings  in  production;  con- 
struction of  new  industrial  facilities,  as  well  as  ex- 
pansion and  modernization  of  existing  facilities; 
technological  cooperation  and  research  including  ex- 
changes of  know-how,  licenses  and  patents;  training 
and  exchange  of  technicians  and  specialists;  organi- 
zation of  exhibits  and  conferences;  and  market  and 
management  research;  in  both  countries  and  in  third 
countries. 

They  affirmed  that  favorable  consideration  should 
also  be  given  to  new  forms  and  methods  of  industrial 
cooperation  suggested  by  interested  firms  and  orga- 
nizations. With  a  view  to  the  development  of  eco- 
nomic cooperation,  they  will  examine  ways  and  means 
for  the  application  of  customs  and  fiscal  facilitation 
for  goods  assigned  to,  and  resulting  from,  coopera- 
tion projects  within  the  provisions  of  customs  legis- 
lation in  force  in  the  two. countries. 

Ill 

Positively  evaluating  the  development  to  date  of 
scientific  and  technological  cooperation  between  the 
United  States  and  Poland,  including  cooperative  proj- 
ects undertaken  in  accordance  with  the  United 
States-Polish  Agreement  on  Science  and  Technology, 
the  President  and  the  First  Secretary  expressed  the 
view  that  further  cooperation  of  this  kind  in  fields 
of  interest  to  both  countries  should  be  pursued. 

With  a  view  toward  the  facilitation  of  projects  for 
industrial  and  agricultural  development,  they,  by  mu- 
tual agreement,  will  exchange  information  concern- 
ing various  fields  in  which  the  expansion  of  indus- 
trial and  technological  cooperation  is  desirable,  and, 
on  the  basis  of  such  exchange,  will  examine  areas 
appropriate  for  consideration. 


They  positively  evaluated  the  development  to  date 
of  mutual  financial  and  credit  relations,  especially 
the  cooperation  between  the  Export-Import  Bank  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Bank  Handlowy  in  War- 
saw, which  contributed  to  the  rapid  rise  of  trade  and 
economic  cooperation,  and  pledged  continued  coop- 
eration in  the  development  of  these  relations. 

Attaching  great  meaning  to  the  progress  achieved 
in  creating  reciprocal  trade  facilities,  they  will  ex- 
amine ways  of  resolving  administrative,  tax,  visa, 
and  customs  problems  which  may  arise,  and  will  fa- 
cilitate as  appropriate  access  to  information  concern- 
ing actual  and  potential  markets,  operation  of  busi- 
ness offices,  trade  promotion  and  other  endeavors 
which  contribute  to  the  development  of  trade  and 
economic  cooperation. 

Evaluating  positively  the  work  to  date  of  the  Joint 
American-Polish  Trade  Commission  in  developing 
and  coordinating  action  in  the  area  of  mutual  eco- 
nomic and  trade  relations,  they  will  continue  to  work 
through  the  Commission  to  promote  economic  coop- 
eration and  resolve  problems  arising  in  the  course  of 
their  economic,  industrial  and  technological  coopera- 
tion. 

In  issuing  this  Joint  Statement,  they  express  the 
hope  that  it  will  become  an  important  practical  con- 
tribution to  utilization  of  the  potential  for  develop- 
ment of  economic,  industrial,  and  scientific  and  tech- 
nological cooperation  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Polish  People's  Republic. 

Washington,  October  9,  1974 

For  the  United  States    For  the  Polish  People's 
of  America:  Republic: 


Gerald  R.  Ford 

President  of  the 

United  States  of 

America 


Edward  Gierek 

First  Secretary  of  the 

Central  Committee  of  the 

Polish  United  Workers'  Party 


JOINT  U.S.-POLISH  COMMUNIQUE 

White  House  press  release  dated  October  12;  for  release  October  13 

At  the  invitation  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  Gerald  R.  Ford,  and  Mrs.  Ford, 
the  First  Secretary  of  the  Central  Committee  of  the 
Polish  United  Workers'  Party,  Edward  Gierek,  and 
Mrs.  Gierek,  paid  an  official  visit  to  the  United  States 
October  8  through  13,  1974. 

The  First  Secretary  was  accompanied  by:  Mie- 
czyslaw  Jagielski,  Deputy  Chairman  of  the  Council 
of  Ministers,  and  Mrs.  Jagielski;  Stefan  Olszowski, 
Foreign  Minister,  and  Mrs.  Olszowski;  Ryszard  Fre- 
lek.  Member  of  the  Secretariat  of  the  Central  Com- 
mittee of  the  Polish  United  Workers'  Party;  Witold 
Trampczynski,  Polish  Ambassador  to  the  United 
States  of  America. 

The  First  Secretary  was  also  accompanied  by  a 
group  of  advisers  and  experts. 


November  4,   1974 


605 


The  official  party  also  visited  New  York,  Pitts- 
l)urgh,  and  Houston. 

During  his  stay  in  Washington,  First  Secretary 
Gierek  held  talks  with  President  Ford  on  the  devel- 
opment of  relations  between  Poland  and  the  United 
States  as  well  as  on  international  issues. 

He  also  met  with  Secretary  of  State  and  Assistant 
to  the  President  for  National  Security  Affairs  Henry 
A.  Kissinger,  Secretary  of  Agriculture  Earl  Butz, 
Secretary  of  Commerce  Frederick  Dent,  Secretary  of 
Health,  Education  and  Welfare  Caspar  Weinberger, 
and  Chairman  of  the  Export-Import  Bank  William 
Casey. 

The  First  Secretary  paid  a  visit  to  Congress  and 
met  with  members  of  the  Senate  and  the  House  of 
Representatives.  He  also  had  talks  with  leading 
American  businessmen  and  bankers. 

Talks  were  also  held  between  Foreign  Minister 
Olszowski  and  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger. 

The  talks  and  meetings  were  held  in  a  friendly  and 
businesslike  atmosphere  and  were  characterized  by  a 
mutual  desire  to  expand  and  strengthen  the  relations 
between  Poland  and  the  United  States. 

In  the  course  of  the  talks,  the  President  and  the 
First  Secretary  noted  with  satisfaction  the  signifi- 
cant progress  which  has  recently  been  made  in  Po- 
lish-American relations.  Both  leaders  expressed  their 
desire  to  further  develop  these  relations,  which  are 
based  on  the  long-standing  traditions  of  friendship 
and  sympathy  existing  between  the  Polish  and  Amer- 
ican peoples. 

They  agreed  that  the  "Joint  Statement  on  Princi- 
ples of  U.S.-Polish  Relations"  signed  during  the  visit 
provides  a  firm  basis  for  broad  cooperation  between 
the  two  countries  and  contributes  to  the  process  of 
strengthening  world  peace,  security,  and  interna- 
tional cooperation. 

The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  also  at- 
tached importance  to  the  "Joint  Statement  on  the 
Development  of  Economic,  Industrial  and  Techno- 
logical Cooperation  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Polish  People's  Republic,"  which 
they  signed.  They  agreed  that  the  main  directions 
and  scope  of  cooperation  stipulated  in  the  field  of 
trade,  industrial  and  technological  cooperation  should 
contribute  to  the  further  advancement  of  bilateral 
economic  relations. 

The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  noted  with 
satisfaction  the  rapid  growth  of  trade  between  the 
United  States  and  Poland  in  the  past  two  years,  ac- 
companied by  a  substantial  intensification  of  general 
economic  relations  between  the  two  countries.  They 
considered  a  mutual  trade  turnover  of  one  billion 
dollars  by  1976  and  two  billion  dollars  by  1980  to  be 
a  realistic  and  desirable  goal. 

They  also  agreed  that  the  provisions  contained  in 


the  "Joint  Statement  on  the  Development  of  Agri- 
cultural Trade  between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  the  Polish  People's  Republic"  create  possibilities 
for  a  further  expansion  of  trade  in  food  and  agricul- 
tural products  as  well  as  for  cooperation  in  various 
sectors  of  the  agricultural  economy. 

They  noted  that  the  Joint  American-Polish  Trade 
Commission  plays  an  important  role  in  the  develop- 
ment of  trade  and  economic  cooperation. 

President  Ford  and  First  Secretary  Gierek  ex- 
pressed their  deep  satisfaction  at  the  conclusion  dur- 
ing the  visit  of  agreements  in  the  fields  of:  Coal  re- 
search; Health;  Environmental  Protection;  Coopera- 
tion in  Science  and  Technology;  and  Avoidance  of 
Double  Taxation. 

They  also  welcome  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement 
on  the  establishment  of  working  relationships  be- 
tween the  U.S.  and  Polish  Chambers  of  Commerce. 

Both  leaders  stressed  the  significance  of  the  broad 
development  of  cultural  and  scientific  cooperation  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Poland  and  expressed 
their  conviction  that  this  cooperation  should  be  fur- 
ther developed. 

The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  emphasized 
the  importance  of  historical  traditions  in  strengthen- 
ing the  bonds  of  sympathy  and  friendship  between 
the  United  States  and  Poland.  A  positive  role  in  this 
strengthening  of  mutual  relations  has  been  played  by 
American  citizens  of  Polish  descent.  Both  leaders 
undertook  to  encourage  and  support  further  develop- 
ment of  those  and  other  contacts  between  the  Amer- 
ican and  Polish  people. 

The  President  and  the  First  Secretary  conducted  a 
broad  and  useful  exchange  of  views  on  the  most  im- 
portant international  issues  with  special  emphasis 
on  European  questions.  They  agreed  that  there  exist 
a  number  of  spheres  in  which  both  countries  can  con- 
tribute to  the  strengthening  of  peace  and  interna- 
tional security. 

Both  leaders  expressed  satisfaction  with  the  re- 
sults of  the  talks  they  held  and  agreed  that  consul- 
tations will  continue  between  the  two  countries  at 
various  levels  on  matters  concerning  their  mutual  re- 
lations, including  the  assessment  of  the  implementa- 
tion of  the  agreements  that  were  concluded  as  well 
as  on  important  international  issues  of  mutual  in- 
terest. 

The  First  Secretary  and  Mrs.  Gierek  expressed 
their  warm  gratitude  for  the  hospitality  and  friend- 
liness accorded  to  them  in  the  United  States. 

The  First  Secretary  extended  an  invitation  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  Mrs.  Ford  to  pay 
an  official  visit  to  the  Polish  People's  Republic  at  a 
time  convenient  to  them.  The  invitation  was  accepted 
with  pleasure. 


606 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab  Nations  and   Israel 


Secretanj  Kissinger  left  Washingtoyi  Octo- 
ber 9  for  a  trip  to  the  Middle  East  and  re- 
turned October  15.  Folloiving  is  an  exchange 
of  remarks  between  President  Ford  and  Sec- 
retary Kissinger  upon  the  Secretary's  depar- 
ture from  Andreivs  Air  Force  Base,  together 
with  exchanges  of  remarks  with  foreign 
leaders,  statements,  and  press  conferences 
by  Secretary  Kissinger  in  Egypt,  Syria,  Jor- 
dan, Israel,  Saudi  Arabia,  Algeria,  and  Mo- 
rocco. 


DEPARTURE,  ANDREWS  AIR   FORCE  BASE, 
OCTOBER  9 

white  House  press  release  dated  October  9 

President  Ford 

It  is  nice  to  see  you  all,  and  I  just  came  out 
with  all  the  Cabinet  members  and  others  in 
the  administration  to  express  our  apprecia- 
tion to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  going  on 
this  vitally  important  mission  and  to  indicate 
my  full  support  and  the  support  of  the  ad- 
ministration for  the,  I  think,  tremendous  ef- 
forts to  bring  peace  in  an  area  of  the  world 
that  has  been  so  volatile  and  controversial 
that  it  is  important  for  the  world,  as  well  as 
the  countries  involved,  that  the  maximum  ef- 
forts for  peace  be  made. 

This  country  and  this  administration  are 
going  to  work  with  the  skill  and  imagination 
of  Dr.  Kissinger  in  seeking  that  result. 

We  wish  you  the  very  best. 


Secretary  Kissinger 

I  appreciate  very  much,  Mr.  President, 
your  coming  out  to  see  me  off.  The  problem 
of  contributing  to  peace  in  the  Middle  East 
is  a  very  complicated  one ;  but  as  I  have  had 


occasion  to  say  before,  it  is  a  source  of  pride 
to  all  Americans  that  it  is  the  United  States 
that  all  parties  trust,  and  that  we  will  at- 
tempt to  make  some  progress. 

I  would  like  to  say  to  the  President  this  is 
the  first  time  in  a  long  time  that  one  can  go 
on  these  missions  with  an  America  that  is  at 
peace  with  itself. 

Thank  you  very  much. 


ARRIVAL,   CAIRO,   OCTOBER  9 

Press  release  399  dated   Octolier  9 

I  am  happy  to  be  starting  my  tour  in  Cairo 
and  to  have  this  opportunity  to  talk  to  my 
friends.  I'm  here  to  see  what  the  United 
States  can  do  to  contribute  to  progress  to- 
ward peace  in  the  Middle  East.  President 
Ford  is  committed  to  continue  the  efforts 
that  the  United  States  has  made,  and  I  will 
talk  with  my  friends  here  in  a  spirit  of  mak- 
ing constructive  progress. 

Thank  you. 


REMARKS  AT  AMERICAN   EMBASSY,   OCTOBER   9 

Press  release  405  dated  October  11 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  I've  been  coming 
here  more  often  than  I  can  remember  in  the 
last  year,  and  you've  all  been  taking  very 
good  care  of  me.  These  young  ladies  here 
have  been  bossing  me  around  in  such  a  way 
that  I'm  a  strong  supporter  now  of  women's 
liberation,  which,  as  I  understand  it,  gives 
men  equality.   [Laughter.] 

I  came  here  for  the  first  time  last  Novem- 
ber. We  had  a  very  small  Interests  Section 
here  that  had  to  kill  itself  to  help  with  the 
arrangements  that  were  made  for  me.  I  am 


November  4,    1974 


607 


particularly  conscious  of  our  Egyptian 
friends  who  worked  with  us  through  all  the 
difficult  years  when  we  had  no  formal  rela- 
tionships, who  stuck  with  us,  and  with  whom 
we  are  proud  to  be  associated  now  that  our 
relationship  has  moved  from  one  of  coolness 
to  one  of  growing  friendship. 

Since  then  we  had  an  opportunity  to  rees- 
tablish relations  and  to  contribute  to  agree- 
ments between  Israel  and  Egypt  which  we 
hope  will  mark  the  beginning  of  a  process 
toward  peace  in  the  Middle  East.  I  am  here 
today  because  President  Ford  and  I  are  com- 
mitted to  continuing  this  process  toward 
peace. 

Now,  none  of  these  efforts  are  possible 
without  the  dedication  and  support  of  those 
of  you  who  are  working  far  away  from 
Washington,  convinced  that  your  reports 
are  never  read — and  I  must  say,  if  the  State 
Department  Secretariat  had  anything  to  do 
with  it,  that  is  exactly  what  would  happen. 

But,  as  it  happens,  to  me  the  relationship 
between  Egypt  and  the  United  States  is  not 
just  an  assignment  that  goes  with  the  job  of 
Secretary  of  State,  but  one  of  the  profound 
conviction  that  the  United  States  and  the 
Arab  people  are  natural  friends.  We  have  no 
conflicting  interests.  We  have  been  separated 
for  many  years  due  to  misunderstandings  on 
both  sides.  But  now  I  think  we  have  begun  a 
new  and  lasting  period  in  which  our  rela- 
tionship will  grow  ever  closer. 

We  are  very  dependent  on  the  support  and 
the  advice  of  people  like  yourselves  in  areas 
like  the  Middle  East.  We  are  happy  the  indi- 
vidual still  counts  for  something.  The  human 
relationships  played  such  an  important  role, 
and  the  function  of  our  offices  is  decisive. 

For  a  long  time  now  I  have  wanted  an  op- 
portunity to  thank  you  all  personally  for 
what  you  have  done  and  for  the  dedication 
which  I  have  seen  on  my  trips  and  for  the 
depth  of  your  reporting.  Of  course,  I  am  a 
great  admirer  of  your  Ambassador  [Her- 
mann F.  Eilts],  and  I'd  steal  him  from  you 
and  bring  him  to  Washington  if  the  Presi- 
dent and  the  Foreign  Minister  here  would 
let  him  go.  So,  as  it  is,  I  am  afraid  you  are 
stuck  with  him  for  a  while. 

I  want  you  to  know  that  the  reporting  we 


get  from  here  is  very  much  what  I  have  in 
mind.  Usually  when  I  go  to  Embassies  I  tell 
them:  Don't  tell  me  all  the  details  of  your 
conversations;  I  want  to  know  what  the 
trends  are,  I  want  to  understand  what  the 
relationship  of  events  is,  and  I  want  to  know 
where  we  are  going.  I  don't  have  to  give  you 
that  instruction  because  that  is  what  I  get 
from  here,  and  I  want  you  to  know  that  I 
appreciate  it. 

Now,  you  may  not  know  that  your  Ambas- 
sador has  been  in  the  Foreign  Service  for 
quite  some  time.  In  fact,  U.S.-Arab  relations 
go  back  several  hundred  years,  and  I  think 
Hermann  has  been  affiliated  with  them  for 
the  greater  part  of  that  period.  [Laughter.] 
But  it  says  on  his  record,  which  I  cannot  be- 
lieve, that  he  has  been  associated  with  the 
Foreign  Service  for  only  30  years.  Since  that 
is  what  the  records  say,  I  would  like  to  take 
this  occasion  to  give  him  this  certificate  of 
official  recognition  and  appreciation  for  his 
dedicated  service  of  30  years  and  to  thank 
you  all  for  being  partners  with  us  in  Wash- 
ington in  what  I  think  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant, one  of  the  most  exciting,  trends  in 
American  foreign  policy  that  I  can  remem- 
ber— one  that  will  continue  and  grow,  and 
we  shall  all  look  back  to  it  and  remember  that 
what  we  did  made  a  difference. 

Thank  you. 


NEWS    CONFERENCE    OF    SECRETARY    KISSINGER 
AND  PRESIDENT  SADAT  OF  EGYPT,  OCTOBER  10 

Press  release  407  dated  October  11 

President  Sadat:  Dr.  Kissinger  is  going  to 
brief  you. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  was  just  waiting 
for  the  President.  The  President  and  I  have 
both  last  night  and  this  evening  reviewed  the 
entire  range  of  Egyptian-U.S.  bilateral  rela- 
tionships as  well  as  progress  toward  peace 
in  the  Middle  East.  I  repeated  to  the  Presi- 
dent, President  Ford's  interest  that  progress 
toward  peace  in  the  Middle  East  be  main- 
tained. We  reviewed  the  modalities  both  of 
procedures  and  of  various  points  of  view,  the 
various  aspects,  in  what  I  consider  a  very 


608 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


constructive  and  positive  manner  and  in  the 
usual  friendly  atmosphere. 

Q.  What  are  these  modalities,  Dr.  Kissin- 
ger? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I'm  at  the  be- 
ginning of  my  trip,  and  I  have  to  visit  many 
other  countries.  I  will  return  here  on  Mon- 
day to  review  my  conversation  with  President 
Sadat,  so  I  would  think  I  would  be  going 
through  them  then. 

Q.  President  Sadat,  what  woidd  you  hope 
would  he  the  next  stage  in  the  effort  to  se- 
cure peace  in  the  Middle  East  ? 

President  Sadat:  Well,  we  have  discussed 
this  in  broad  lines  and  there  are  many  items 
that  we  have  already  discussed.  And  as  Dr. 
Kissinger  says — the  [inaudible]  of  the  best 
relations  that  we  have  together — I  think  it 
is  premature  to  tell  you  any  details. 

Q.  Do  you  expect  further  disengagement 
or  withdrawal  of  the  Israeli  troops? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I,  of  course,  haven't 
visited,  as  I  said,  any  of  the  other  countries, 
but  the  Israeli  Prime  Minister  has  publicly 
stated  that  Israel  is  prepared  to  make  terri- 
torial concessions  in  the  proper  context.  That 
is  what  we  are  trying  to  discuss  and  explore. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  do  you  think  that  your 
trip  will  come  out  xvith  concrete  steps  toward 
peace,  toward  the  Geneva  Co7iference  and 
complete  Israeli  withdrawal  from  the  Arab 
territories  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Before  I  left  Wash- 
ington I  told  the  American  press  corps  that 
there  probably  would  not  be  any  dramatic 
announcement  on  this  trip,  and  I  never  dis- 
appoint the  American  press  corps.  But  I  do 
believe  that  this  trip  will  contribute  toward 
progress,  toward  peace  in  the  Middle  East, 
and  I  am  encouraged  by  my  talks  with  Presi- 
dent Sadat. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  a  year  ago  you  said  that 
you  thought  the  whole  matter  woidd  take 
about  a  year.  Now  that  a  year  has  passed,  do 
you  think  it  will  take  another  year? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  1  don't  think  I  should 


make  any  predictions  as  to  any  time  period 
except  what  I  have  already  pointed  out:  That 
we  reviewed  all  the  modalities  and  possible 
approaches,  that  we  are  committed  to  con- 
tributing to  peace  and  progress  toward 
peace,  and  that  I  am  encouraged  by  my  talks. 

Q.  Are  you  going  to  leave  Mr.  Sisco  [Jo- 
seph J.  Sisco,  Under  Secretary  for  Political 
Affairs]  in  the  area  or  are  you  coming  back 
yourself? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  will  take  Mr.  Sisco 
back  with  me  as  was  always  planned,  and  of 
course  I  plan  to  come  back  periodically  to  the 
area  whenever  my  coming  here  can  make  a 
contribution  toward  peace. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  after  your  talks  with 
President  Sadat,  is  the  next  step  clearer  in 
your  prospectus  toward  keeping  the  peace 
momentum  in  the  area? 


Secretary     Kissinger: 
clearer  in  my  mind. 


It     is     somewhat 


DEPARTURE,   CAIRO,   OCTOBER   11 

Press  release  408  dated  October  11 

I  just  want  to  express  my  appreciation  to 
President  Sadat  and  the  Foreign  Minister 
for  the  excellent  courtesy  that  has  been  ex- 
tended, for  the  warmth  of  the  reception.  We 
have  had  good  talks,  and  we  plan  to  continue 
them  on  Monday  when  I  come  through. 

It  is  always  a  pleasure  to  see  my  friends 
in  Egypt. 

Thank  you. 


DEPARTURE,   DAMASCUS,  OCTOBER   11 

Press  release  412  dated  October  12 

I  just  wanted  to  express  my  appreciation 
to  the  President  and  to  the  Foreign  Minister 
for  receiving  me  this  past  day.  We  had  a 
session  this  afternoon  and  a  longer  session 
this  evening.  We  reviewed  bilateral  relations 
between  Syria  and  the  United  States,  which 
are  improving  rapidly,  and  we  also  reviewed 
the  prospects  for  peace  in  the  Middle  East 
in  an  overall  perspective.  We  had  very  good, 


November  4,    1974 


609 


very  constructive  talks  in  a  friendly  atmos- 
phere. 

Q.  Are  prospects  for  peace  in  the  Middle 
East  also  improving  rapidly,  Mr.  Kissinger? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I'm  always  encour- 
aged. 

Q.  Are  you  coining  back,  Mr.  Secretary? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  plan  to  come  back 
on  Monday  for  a  few  hours. 

ARRIVAL,  AMMAN,   OCTOBER   11 

Press  release  413  dated  October  12 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Ladies  and  gentle- 
men, first  of  all  I  would  like  to  express  my 
great  pleasure  to  be  here  with  our  friends  in 
Jordan.  As  you  all  know,  I'm  taking  a  trip 
through  the  area  in  order  to  determine  what 
possibilities  exist  for  a  second  stage  of  peace 
negotiations  and  what  framework  would  be 
most  suitable.  In  that  effort,  of  course,  the 
views  of  our  friends  in  Jordan  will  be  taken 
with  the  greatest  seriousness,  and  the  United 
States  has  already  expressed  its  view  as  to  a 
manner  in  which  progress  can  be  made.  So  I 
look  forward  very  much  to  my  conversa- 
tions with  His  Majesty  and  with  the  Prime 
Minister.  I'm  sorry  I  kept  you  all  waiting  out 
here. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  don't  like  to  sound  im- 
pertinent, hut  I  really  wonder  why  you  are 
here  while  Jordan  has  frozen  its  diplomatic 
initiatives. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Because  I  was  invited 
to  come  here. 

Prime  Minister  Zaid  Rifai:  And  he's  al- 
ways most  welcome  here. 

DEPARTURE,  AQABA,  OCTOBER   12 

Press  release  414  dated  October  15 

I  just  wanted  to  thank  His  Majesty  and 
the  Prime  Minister  for  the  very  warm  recep- 
tion that  we  have  had  here.  We  reviewed,  of 
course,  bilateral  Jordanian-U.S.  relations, 
which  are  excellent. 


We  also  reviewed  the  prospects  for  peace 
negotiations  which  may  develop.  As  is  well 
known,  the  United  States  supports  Jordan 
playing  a  role  in  any  negotiations  that  may 
develop. 

Thank  you. 

ARRIVAL,    BEN    GURION    AIRPORT,    OCTOBER    12 

Press  release  415  dated  October  16 

Israeli  Foreign  Minister  Yigal  Allon 

Secretary  of  State  Dr.  Kissinger,  Honor- 
able Ambassador  of  the  United  States  in  Is- 
rael, Honorable  Ambassador  of  Israel  in  the 
United  States,  friends:  I  am  very  happy  to 
welcome  here  tonight  our  friend  Dr.  Kissin- 
ger. Dr.  Kissinger  is  a  frequent  visitor  to  the 
Middle  East  and  to  this  country,  and  usually, 
almost  every  visit  of  his  is  resulting  with 
good  news.  We  are  very  interested  that  the 
present  mission,  the  mission  of  peace,  which 
Henry  Kissinger  took  upon  himself  will  suc- 
ceed, and  the  Government  of  Israel  will  do  its 
best  to  contribute  its  share  to  keep  the  mo- 
mentum going. 

We  welcome  Dr.  Kissinger  as  a  great 
statesman  and  as  a  great  friend,  and  we  all 
hope  and  wish  him  and  all  of  us  in  this  re- 
gion satisfactory  progress  toward  our  great 
goal,  which  is  peace  in  the  area. 


Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  friends :  I  have  vis- 
ited Israel  many  times  over  the  past  year, 
and  I  have  always  come  in  pursuit  of  an  ob- 
jective that  no  people  needs  as  much  and  has 
searched  for  as  much  as  the  people  of  Israel — 
the  objective  of  peace.  We  have  often  when 
I  came  had  frank  discussions,  and  there  has 
been  speculation  in  the  press  about  this  or 
that  disagreement.  But  always  we  have 
spoken  to  each  other  as  friends  and  partners, 
and  always  we  have  achieved  results  that 
were  to  the  benefit  also  of  the  people  of  Is- 
rael. 

I  am  confident  that  the  talks  I  will  have 
with  my  friend  the  Foreign  Minister  and 
with  all  of  my  friends  in  the  Cabinet  will  be 


610 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


characterized  by  frankness  and  honesty  on 
both  sides.  But  I  am  also  positive  we  will 
come  out,  as  we  always  have,  with  agreement 
that  will  be  to  the  benefit  of  all  of  the  peo- 
ples in  this  area,  above  all,  to  our  friends 
here  in  Israel,  who  have  suffered  more  than 
anybody  from  the  absence  of  peace. 


sive  talks  yesterday  and  today  were  an  indis- 
pensable phase  in  the  process  of  peacemaking 
in  the  Middle  East  and  that  we  are  very 
grateful  to  Secretary  Kissinger  for  coming 
to  this  country  and  I'm  sure  that  this  will  be 
remembered  as  one  of  the  necessary  steps  in 
our  endeavor  to  achieve  peace  and  stability 
in  this  area. 


DEPARTURE,  BEN  GURION  AIRPORT,  OCTOBER  13 

Press  release  416  dated  October  15 

Secretary  Kissinger 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  We  have  completed 
extensive  talks  with  the  Prime  Minister,  the 
Foreign  Minister,  and  the  Defense  Minister. 
We  reviewed  the  bilateral  relationships  in  a 
harmonious  manner  with  a  constructive  out- 
come. We  discussed  what  progress  can  be 
made  toward  peace  and  a  settlement  in  the 
Middle  East.  We  agreed  on  principles  and 
procedures  that  might  be  followed,  and  the 
general  tone  and  content  of  the  discussion 
was,  as  I  pointed  out,  harmonious. 

Before  I  come  to  Israel  I  always  read  in 
the  newspapers  about  difficulties  and  possi- 
ble suspicions.  But  these  attitudes,  in  my 
experience,  have  never  survived  the  actual 
dialogue  among  friends,  because  peace  in  the 
Middle  East  is  in  everybody's  interest,  and 
as  I  said  yesterday,  in  nobody's  interest 
more  than  that  of  Israel's — which  I  have 
found  prepared  to  work  for  it  with  its  usual 
dedication  and  tenacity. 

Thank  you. 

Foreign  Minister  Allon 

When  I  came  back  from  New  Yoi-k  I  told 
the  press  that  the  Secretary  of  State  was 
about  to  pay  a  short  visit  to  the  Middle  East, 
including  Israel.  In  answering  questions,  I 
said  that  you  don't  have  to  expect  too  much 
from  a  short  visit  of  this  kind,  that  no  com- 
plete substance  may  be  already  negotiated, 
that  maybe  principles  and  procedural  prob- 
lems may  be  discussed,  exactly  as  Dr.  Kis- 
singer said  just  now. 

But  from  our  own  experience  I  can  tell 
you  that  this  short  stay  of  his  and  our  exten- 


DEPARTURE,   RIYADH,   OCTOBER   13 


Press  release  417  dated  October  15 


Secretary  Kissinger 

I  would  like  first  of  all  to  express  my  ap- 
preciation to  His  Majesty  [and]  my  friend 
Umar  Saqqaf  for  the  very  warm  and  gra- 
cious reception  we  received  here.  His  Majesty 
and  I  reviewed  the  steps  that  seemed  feasible 
toward  peace  in  the  Middle  East,  and  I  found 
His  Majesty  understanding  and  supportive. 
We  also  reviewed  our  bilateral  relationships 
expressed  in  several  of  the  joint  commis- 
sions and  in  other  matters,  and  we  found 
them  to  be  excellent.  Nevertheless  we  de- 
cided to  strengthen  the  already  close  rela- 
tionship even  further. 

I  explained  to  His  Majesty  our  view  with 
respect  to  the  price  of  oil  and  the  impact  this 
can  have  on  the  whole  structure  of  the  world 
economy  and  the  stability  of  the  whole  inter- 
national system.  His  Majesty's  attitude  was 
constructive  and  enlightened.  I  believe  the 
policy  of  the  Kingdom  will  be  in  a  construc- 
tive direction,  keeping  always  in  mind  what 
we  also  believe — that  the  ultimate  solution 
must  be  found  on  multilateral  basis  and  can- 
not be  found  by  isolated  actions. 

I  am  very  grateful  for  the  opportunity  that 
was  given  to  me  here  to  exchange  ideas  with 
my  friend  Umar  Saqqaf,  the  audience  that 
was  granted  to  me  by  His  Majesty;  and  I 
leave  here  encouraged  and  with  the  convic- 
tion that  I  am  indeed  among  friends. 


Saudi  Arabian  Foreign  Minister  Umar  al-Saqqaf 

I  will  start  where  my  friend  finished.  I 
assure  him  that  he  is  in  a  friendly  country 


November  4,   1974 


611 


and  among  friends.  We  are  proud  of  his 
friendship,  as  much  as  Saudi  Arabia  is  proud 
of  its  friendship  with  the  United  States.  We 
appreciate  the  great  efforts  which  our  great 
friend  is  exerting  toward  peace  under  the 
guidance  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  for  whom  we  have  great  appre- 
ciation and  respect. 

We  say  in  Arabic,  "Each  theologian  has  his 
own  school  of  thought."  At  the  outset,  I  used 
to  have  inhibitions  and,  I  might  even  say, 
doubts  about  the  method  followed  by  our 
friend  in  his  peacemaking  efforts.  But  with 
the  passage  of  time,  and  as  events  unfolded, 
I  began  to  be  sold  on  his  efforts  toward  solv- 
ing problems. 

I  am  not  being  a  flatterer  when  I  praise 
our  friend  Henry's  methods,  but  it  is  a  state- 
ment of  fact.  Suffice  it  to  review  a  change 
which  has  occurred  during  only  a  few  months 
in  the  way  we  used  to  be  and  are  now  re- 
ceived by  the  representatives  of  the  press. 

Still,  while  I  say  that  we  have  achieved  a 
lot,  I  must  add  that  we  are  still  at  the  bottom 
rung  of  the  ladder  in  our  efforts.  But  we 
believe  that  with  the  grace  of  God  we  shall 
achieve  peace  in  the  area,  peace  based  on 
justice  and  the  right  to  self-determination. 

At  the  same  time  we  feel  we  have  achieved 
a  wider  cooperation  on  a  bilateral  basis  be- 
tween Saudi  Arabia  and  the  United  States. 
It  is  my  belief  that  these  relations  could  not 
have  been  strengthened  and  realized  had  we 
not  discerned  a  clear  light  pointing  in  the 
direction  of  a  complete  solution  to  the  prob- 
lem of  the  Middle  East,  a  solution  based  on 
complete  withdrawal  of  Israel  from  terri- 
tories occupied  in  1967,  including  Jerusalem, 
and  the  restoration  of  the  Palestinian  people 
of  their  rights. 

My  relationship  with  my  dear  friend  has 
always  been  based  on  frankness.  Time  has 
proved  that  mutual  frankness  is  the  only  path 
leading  to  friendship  and  solutions.  Dr.  Kis- 
singer has  heard  from  His  Majesty  the  King 
the  viewpoint  of  Saudi  Arabia  and  an  expla- 
nation of  Saudi  policy  toward  world  questions 
and  toward  the  problems  of  the  area.  This 
policy  as  expounded  by  the  King  is  not  an 
overnight  policy;  it's  the  traditional  time- 
honored  policy  of  Saudi  Arabia.    I  will  con- 


tinue to  strive  to  explain  the  details  of  this 
policy  whether  here  or  over  there  during  my 
visits. 

Our  colleague  Dr.  Kissinger  spoke  about 
the  question  of  oil.  I  want  to  explain  what  the 
attitude  of  Saudi  Arabia  on  this  problem  is 
frankly  and  clearly.  It  is  there  for  everyone 
with  eyes  to  see  and  everyone  with  clean  ears 
to  hear.  Saudi  Arabia  is  following  a  policy  on 
oil  which  bespeaks  a  sense  of  responsibility 
toward  the  welfare  of  the  world  community. 
As  part  of  the  world,  we  want  to  build  the 
world  and  not  destroy  it.  And  we  hope  that 
other  members  of  the  world  community  come 
to  appreciate  the  gravity  of  this  responsi- 
bility and  the  importance  thereof. 

Oil  is  not  everything,  but  it  is  a  great  thing. 
We  will  continue  in  the  direction  of  the  con- 
structive policy  laid  down  by  His  Majesty  the 
King.  It  is  the  policy  of  cooperation,  negoti- 
ation, and  constructive  cooperation  between 
us  and  friendly  nations  of  the  world.  Dr.  Kis- 
singer has  expressed  adequately  his  govern- 
ment's attitude  toward  oil  when  he  said  that 
Saudi  Arabia  should  not  be  isolated  in  its  oil 
policy.  But  we  sincerely  hope,  and  it  is  our 
prayer,  that  all  of  the  other  oil-producing 
countries  will  come  around  to  following  the 
policy  of  Saudi  Arabia. 

I  would  like  to  welcome  our  friend  Dr.  Kis- 
singer and  assure  him  of  our  welcome  every 
time.  We  also  appreciate  the  great  efforts  to- 
ward peace  that  our  friend  is  exerting  as  well 
as  his  fathomless  knowledge  and  deep  wis- 
dom. We  wish  him  success  in  his  tremendous 
efforts  to  achieve  peace  on  the  international 
level.  All  I  wish  to  say  on  closing  [is]  that 
we  hope  he  will  take  a  few  more  days,  not 
just  a  few  hours,  on  his  coming  visit.  Bon 
voyage  and  good  luck. 


ARRIVAL,   CAIRO,   OCTOBER   14 

Press  release  418  dated  October  15 

First  of  all,  let  me  say  what  a  pleasure  it  is 
to  be  back  in  Egypt.  I  have  had  a  very  useful, 
very  interesting  trip,  in  which  I  spoke  to  all 
the  leaders  that  I  met  about  how  to  move  the 
Middle  East  toward  a  just  and  lasting  peace. 
This  is  what  I  will  really  explore  tomorrow 


612 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


also  with  President  Sadat  and  tonight  with 
Foreign  Minister  Fahmy.  I  look  forward  to 
this  talk  very  much. 
Thank  you. 


NEWS    CONFERENCE    OF    SECRETARY    KISSINGER 
AND   PRESIDENT   SADAT,   OCTOBER    14 

Press  release  419  dated  October  15 

Secretary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  I  would 
like  to  thank  the  President  for  receiving  me 
during  the  fast.  I  reported  to  the  President 
the  problems  of  the  area  and  about  the  con- 
versations that  I  have  had  with  various  lead- 
ers in  the  countries  that  I  have  visited.  I  told 
him  my  conclusions  that  there  are  positive  in- 
dications that  we  are  making  as  much  prog- 
ress toward  a  just  peace  in  the  area  as  pos- 
sible. 

The  President  told  me  that  he  would  dis- 
cuss these  with  his  colleagues,  with  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Egypt,  and  with  the  other  Arab 
leaders  after  the  summit  in  Rabat.  I  there- 
fore plan  to  return  to  the  area  during  the 
first  week  of  November,  and  we  shall  then 
attempt  to  set  the  progress  toward  peace  in 
the  Middle  East  on  a  firm  and  concrete  basis. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  do  you  expect  this  prog- 
ress to  be  made  on  more  than  one  front  or  on 
one  front  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  shall  have  to  make 
this  judgment  after  all  the  consultations 
among  all  the  leaders  have  been  completed; 
then  I'll  return  to  the  area. 

Q.  Could  we  ask  about  the  line  in  Sinai? 
Has  that  been  determined  more  or  less  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  repeat,  there  were 
no  maps  discussed  and  at  this  stage  we  are 
not  dealing  with  detailed  negotiations  but 
rather  with  the  framework  and  the  similar 
prospects  toward  peace  in  the  area,  about 
which  there  are  positive  indications. 

Q.  Does  this  mean,  Dr.  Kissinger,  that  no 
further  Israeli  withdrawal  will  take  place  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  I  said  when 
I  was  here  last,  the  negotiations  obviously 
will  concern  the  substance  of  Israeli  with- 


drawals in  the  framework  of  a  general  nego- 
tiation and  obviously  a  topic  of  concern. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  did  you  discuss  the  Ge- 
neva Conference  in  any  substance  ? 

President  Sadat:  Well,  I  have  discussed  all 
this  with  Dr.  Kissinger  and,  as  he  said,  I  am 
going  to  discuss  them  with  my  colleagues  in 
the  summit  meeting. 

Q.  To  follow  that  up,  Mr.  President,  will 
you  tell  us  how  you  see  the  Palestinians  be- 
ing represented  when  negotiations  in  Geneva 
start? 

President  Sadat:  Well,  we  have  already — 
among  us,  as  Arabs,  we  have  already  asked 
for  this  and  we  shall  always  be  asking  for 
the  Palestinians  to  be  represented  in  Geneva 
because,  as  we  have  said,  Palestine  is  the 
core  of  the  whole  problem. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  at  this  stage  what  is 
your  position  on  the  Palestinian  problem? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  pointed  out 
previously  that  we  believe  that  negotiations 
on  the  West  Bank  would  be  most  efficiently 
carried  out  between  Jordan  and  Israel,  but 
it  is  the  kind  of  decision  that  has  to  be  made 
by  all  the  parties  concerned. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  were  the  plans  made  for 
your  visit  to  the  United  States  tentatively? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  President  is  al- 
ways most  welcome,  and  we  are  now  thinking 
of  a  visit  early  in  the  new  year. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  what  are  you  prepared 
to  guarantee  Israel  in  exchange  for  a  with- 
drawal? 

President  Sadat:  Why  am  I  asked  about 
guarantees  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I've  said  the  Presi- 
dent would  be  delighted  to  negotiate  the 
whole  thing  [garbled] . 

President  Sadat:  I  need  guarantees  like  the 
Israelis.  I  myself  need  guarantees. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  how  do  you  feel  about 
the  Rabat  Conference? 

President  Sadat:  Very  optimistic. 


November  4,   1974 


613 


Q.  Mr.  President,  did  you  discuss  the  oil 
prohlem  ivith  Dr.  Kissinger? 

President  Sadat:  The  oil  problem,  well,  it 
is  part  of  the  problem  to  discuss,  but  I  am 
not  an  oil  producer. 


DEPARTURE,   CAIRO,  OCTOBER    14 

Press  release  420  dated  October  15 

I've  already  said  everything  I  think  I  can 
say,  but  I  want  to  thank  President  Sadat  and 
the  Foreign  Ministry,  Foreign  Minister  Fah- 
my,  for  the  very  warm  reception  we've  re- 
ceived. 

I'm  leaving  the  area  now;  I  think  we've 
made  some  progress.  I'll  return  early  in 
November,  and  as  I  said  before,  I  hope  then 
to  put  the  matter  on  a  concrete  and  definite 
basis. 


DEPARTURE,   DAMASCUS,   OCTOBER   14 

Press  release  421  dated  October  15 

I  would  like  first  of  all  to  express  my 
appreciation  to  President  Asad  and  to  the 
Foreign  Minister  for  receiving  me  at  the 
end  of  a  day  of  fasting  and  for  the  extra- 
ordinary courtesy  with  which  they  treated 
me  under  what  I  know  were  personally 
difficult  circumstances  for  them. 

As  I  did  this  morning  with  President 
Sadat,  I  reviewed  with  President  Asad  the 
trends  and  developments  I  found  in  the  area 
in  the  direction  of  peace  and  an  ultimate  set- 
tlement. I  pointed  out  to  him  that  I  found 
some  positive  and  encouraging  signs  and  that 
our  problem  now  was  to  put  them  into  con- 
crete focus.  As  I  pointed  out  already  this 
morning  in  Cairo,  I  intend  to  return  to  the 
area  in  the  early  part  of  November.  By  that 
time  the  Arab  summit  will  have  taken  place 
and  I  can  then  resume  consultations  with  the 
various  leaders  to  see  what  concrete  ex- 
pression can  be  given  to  this  search  for  peace 
in  the  Middle  East. 

I  note  that  we're  approaching  the  end  of 
Ramadan,  and  I'd  like  to  wish  the  people  of 
the  area  a  happy  Eid. 


ARRIVAL,  ALGIERS,   OCTOBER   14 

Press  release  422  dated  October  15 

Let  me  first  make  a  general  statement. 
This  is  my  third  visit  to  Algiers  within  a 
year,  and  it  reflects  the  very  high  regard  in 
which  President  Boumediene  is  held  in  the 
United  States.  We  recognize  his  leading  role 
among  nonaligned,  and  we  take  his  views  on 
international  affairs  and  economic  matters 
with  a  great  deal  of  seriousness. 

Therefore  I  look  forward  to  benefiting 
from  his  wisdom  and  to  bringing  him  the 
personal  greetings  of  President  Ford.  I  will 
also  discuss  with  him  our  views  in  interna- 
tional affairs,  especially  about  developments 
in  the  Middle  East.  So,  I  look  forward  to  my 
visit  here  very  much. 

As  I  have  said  earlier  in  the  day  in  Cairo 
and  Damascus,  the  purpose  of  my  visit  was 
to  determine  the  trend  and  possibilities  to- 
ward a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the  Middle 
East.  I  found  some  positive  signs  and  some 
positive  indications,  and  our  aim  now  will  be 
to  give  them  concrete  form,  perhaps  when  I 
return  to  the  Middle  East  during  Novem- 
ber. At  that  time,  the  leaders  of  the  Arab 
countries  will  have  had  an  opportunity  to 
consult  with  each  other  at  the  summit  and 
elsewhere. 

As  for  the  United  States,  President  Ford 
has  reaffirmed  our  determination  to  contrib- 
ute what  we  can  to  the  development  of  peace 
in  the  area  to  the  extent  that  the  parties  con- 
cerned want  our  contribution  and  can  agree 
on  a  course  of  procedure. 

Thank  you. 


DEPARTURE,  ALGIERS,   OCTOBER   15 

Press  release  423  dated  October  15 

Let  me  make  a  few  comments.  First  of  all, 
I  would  like  to  thank  President  Boumediene 
and  his  colleagues  for  the  very  warm  recep- 
tion I  have  received  here.  I  reviewed  with 
President  Boumediene  first  of  all  my  impres- 
sions of  my  trip  through  the  Middle  East. 

I  told  President  Boumediene  of  the  U.S. 
commitment  to  help  the  parties  make  prog- 


614 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


ress  toward  a  just  and  lasting  peace  if  they 
can  agree  among  themselves  on  principles 
and  procedures  for  the  next  stage.  I  told  him 
of  some  of  the  positive  trends  that  I  found. 
His  advice  was  very  helpful,  and  his  attitude 
was  very  understanding.  I  told  him  that  I 
would  return  to  the  area  in  November  to  at- 
tempt to  give  the  positive  trends  a  concrete 
expression  after  the  Arab  leaders  have  had  an 
opportunity  to  consult  with  each  other. 

We  also  discussed  our  differing  approaches 
to  the  question  of  oil  prices,  and  we  reviewed 
ways  and  approaches  to  reconcile  these  dif- 
ferent points  of  view  in  the  months  ahead. 

Finally,  we  reviewed  the  state  of  bilateral 
Algerian-U.S.  relationships.  We  found  that 
they  had  improved  considerably  in  recent 
months.  We  are  convinced  that  they  will  take 
a  positive  evolution  in  the  near  future. 

It  remains  for  me  to  thank  my  Algerian 
hosts  for  their  characteristic  hospitality,  to 
express  my  regret  that  my  friend  the  Foreign 
Minister  was  kept  in  New  York  by  other  du- 
ties; but  this  gave  me  the  opportunity  to 
meet  the  Minister  of  Interior. 

Thank  you. 

ARRIVAL,   RABAT,  OCTOBER   15 

Press  release  425  dated  October  15 

I  would  like  to  express  my  great  pleasure 
at  this  opportunity  of  being  able  to  visit 
Morocco  again.  It  is  less  than  a  year  ago  that 
I  visited  your  country.  It  was  the  first  Arab 
country  on  which  I  ever  set  foot. 

I  had  a  long  and  very  fruitful  conversa- 
tion with  His  Majesty  and  with  his  Ministers, 
and  the  advice  that  I  received  was  extreme- 
ly helpful  in  the  subsequent  peace  missions 
through  the  Middle  East;  and  of  course  the 
friendship  between  Morocco  and  the  United 
States  is  long  and  on  a  very  firm  basis. 

I  look  forward  very  much  to  my  conver- 
sations here  which  I  am  confident  will 
strengthen  that  friendship  and  from  which 
I  will  draw,  I'm  positive,  guidance  and  advice 
for  further  peace  efforts  in  the  Middle  East. 
I  am  also  bringing  to  His  Majesty  the  warm- 
est   greetings    of    President  Ford,  who  is 


looking  forward  to  an  opportunity  to  meet 
with  His  Majesty  at  an  early  occasion. 
Thank  you. 

DEPARTURE,   RABAT,   OCTOBER   15 

Press  release  426  dated  October  15 

His  Majesty  and  I  had  an  extended  conver- 
sation, which  was  joined  later  by  our  asso- 
ciates. We  reviewed  first  of  all  the  situation 
in  the  Middle  East  in  the  light  of  my  recent 
trip  as  well  as  the  contacts  which  His  Maj- 
esty has  had  in  preparation  for  the  Arab 
summit.  I  explained  to  His  Majesty  some  of 
the  positive  trends  which  I  have  found  in  the 
area.  We  discussed  principles  and  methods 
which  might  lead  step  by  step  to  a  solution 
of  all  of  the  problems  standing  in  the  way  of 
a  just  and  lasting  peace. 

We  hope  that  the  Arab  summit  will  make  a 
contribution  to  a  solution  of  all  of  these 
problems.  As  I  have  pointed  out  in  other  cap- 
itals, after  the  conclusion  of  the  Arab  sum- 
mit I  will  return  to  this  area  to  see  in  what 
way  and  by  what  methods  these  aspirations 
for  peace  can  be  given  concrete  context. 

His  Majesty  and  I  reviewed  bilateral  Amer- 
ican-Moroccan relations,  which  we  found  to 
be  excellent.  In  order  to  cement  further  our 
traditional  friendship,  I  extended  the  invi- 
tation of  President  Ford  to  His  Majesty  to 
visit  the  United  States  in  the  spring  of  1975. 
His  Majesty  has  accepted.  We  will  not  be 
able  to  match  Moroccan  hospitality,  but  we 
will  do  the  best  within  the  capabilities  of  a 
young  country. 

ARRIVAL,  ANDREWS  AIR   FORCE   BASE, 
OCTOBER   15 

Press  release  428  dated  October  16 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  My  colleagues  and  I 
are  delighted  to  be  back.  We  went  to  the 
Middle  East  in  order  to  see  whether  we  could 
start  a  process  toward  another  round  of 
negotiations.  We  found  a  general  receptivity 
to  a  step-by-step  approach  and  a  great  will- 
ingness for  the  United  States  to  continue  to 
play  a  role. 


November  4,   1974 


615 


Now,  as  you  know,  the  various  Arab  lead- 
ers are  consulting,  and  they  are  also  meeting 
at  a  summit  in  Morocco  in  another  couple  of 
weeks.  After  that  I  shall  return  to  the  area 
and  hope  that  we  can  continue  the  progress 
toward  peace  that  has  started  in  the  last 
11  months.  It's  a  great  pleasure  to  be  home 
again. 

Thank  you. 


President  Ford  Signs  Defense  Bill; 
Cautions  on  Viet-Nam   Funding 

Statement  by  President  Ford  ^ 

I  am  pleased  to  have  signed  H.R.  16243. 
Although  not  all  administration  recommenda- 
tions were  accepted,  I  recognize  and  appreci- 
ate bipartisan  efforts  made  by  the  House- 
Senate  conference  committee  to  produce  a 
defense  appropriations  bill  acceptable  to  both 
Houses  and  sufficient  for  our  national  secu- 
rity needs. 

The  bill  has,  however,  a  major  drawback. 
The  $700  million  funding  for  South  Viet- 
Nam  is  inadequate  to  provide  for  all  of  their 
critical  needs  if  South  Viet-Nam's  enemies 
continue  to  press  their  attacks.  It  may  there- 
fore be  necessary  to  approach  the  Congress 
early  next  year  to  work  out  some  solutions 
to  meet  critical  needs  which  arise. 

Each  year  the  President  of  the  United 
States  must  sign  into  law  an  appropriations 
bill  for  our  defense.  From  my  experience  in 
Congress,  I  know  all  too  well  the  conflicts 
this  defense  bill  can  produce  in  the  name  of 
economy  and  other  national  interests.  Thus, 
as  I  sign  such  a  bill  for  the  first  time  as 
President,  I  want  to  renew  my  pledge  to  build 
a  new  partnership  between  the  executive  and 
legislative  branches  of  our  government,  a 
partnership  based  on  close  consultation,  com- 
promise of  differences,  and  a  high  regard  for 
the  constitutional  duties  and  powers  of  both 
branches  to  work  for  the  common  good  and 
security  of  our  nation. 


'Issued  on  Oct.  9  (text  from  White  House  press 
release);  as  enacted,  the  bill  is  Public  Law  93^37, 
approved  Oct.  8. 


Annual  Meeting  of  SEATO  Council 
Held  at  New  York 

Deputy  Secretary  Ingersoll  was  the  chief 
U.S.  delegate  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
SEATO  Council  held  at  New  York  October 
3.  Following  is  a  press  statement  issued  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  meeting. 

The  Council  of  the  South-East  Asia  Treaty 
Organization  (SEATO),  comprised  of  min- 
isterial representatives  from  Australia,  New 
Zealand,  the  Philippines,  Thailand,  the 
United  Kingdom,  and  the  United  States,  held 
its  nineteenth  annual  meeting  in  New  York 
on  3  October. 

The  Secretary-General  announced  that  the 
Council  held  an  informal  and  wide-ranging 
exchange  of  views  on  the  situation  in  South- 
east Asia  and  agreed  to  continue  to  uphold 
the  objectives  of  the  Manila  Pact  and  its 
basic  purpose  of  strengthening  the  fabric  of 
peace  in  the  region. 

The  Council  affirmed  that  the  recently  re- 
organized structure  and  programmes  of 
SEATO  accorded  with  the  goal  of  the  treaty 
that  member  nations  co-operate  in  promising 
economic  progress,  social  well-being  and 
peace  in  the  treaty  area,  and  were  conso- 
nant with  the  currently  prevailing  conditions 
in  Southeast  Asia. 

Satisfaction  was  expressed  by  the  Council 
with  the  Secretary-General's  reorganization 
of  the  staff  at  SEATO  Headquarters  in  Bang- 
kok in  accordance  with  the  directives  of  the 
Eighteenth  Council  Meeting  held  last  year. 
It  agreed  that  the  integration  of  the  civilian 
and  military  staffs  of  the  organization,  which 
came  into  effect  on  1  February  1974,  facili- 
tated SEATO's  current  emphasis  upon  sup- 
porting the  internal  security  and  develop- 
ment programmes  of  the  two  regional  mem- 
bers, the  Philippines  and  Thailand. 

The  Council  also  noted  that  SEATO  as- 
sistance to  projects  in  the  social  and  eco- 
nomic fields  had  been  increased,  with  greater 
emphasis  upon  the  rural  economic  develop- 
ment and  rural  education  sectors.  Member 
countries  will  continue  multilateral  or  bilat- 
eral social  and  economic  aid  to  the  regional 
members  under  SEATO  auspices. 


8 


616 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


America's  Purposes  in  an  Ambiguous  Age 


Address  by  Winston  Lord 
Director,  Policy  Planning  Staff  ' 


For  200  years  America  has  been  confident 
of  its  purposes,  secure  in  its  stren^h,  and 
certain  of  its  growing  prosperity. 

Tiiroughout  most  of  our  history,  isolation 
made  possible  an  uncomplicated  view  of  the 
world.  In  the  period  following  World  War 
II,  our  preeminent  power  encouraged  us  to 
believe  we  could  shape  the  globe  according  to 
American  designs. 

Today,  as  we  approach  our  third  century, 
we  find — like  most  other  nations  in  history — 
that  we  can  neither  escape  from  the  world 
nor  dominate  it.  America  is  destined  to  cope 
with  a  shrinking  planet  of  dispersed  power, 
diverse  goals,  and  interdependent  economies. 

We  must  define  our  national  purposes  in  an 
ambiguous  age : 

— Our  traditional  partners  have  regained 
power  and  self-confidence.  This  can  enlarge 
our  common  capacity  for  shaping  events,  or 
it  can  result  in  tests  of  strengths  among  us. 

— Ideological  conflict  with  Communist  pow- 
ers has  diminished,  and  cold  war  tensions 
have  decreased.  But  serious  differences  re- 
main, and  a  renewal  of  confrontation  would 
be  even  more  treacherous  than  before. 

— Nuclear  superiority  has  given  way  to 
nuclear  parity  and  the  specter  of  prolifera- 
tion. These  new  dimensions  of  power  could 
compel  restraint  or  unleash  a  cataclysm. 

— National  prosperity  increasingly  must 
be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  world  economy. 
Economic  interdependence  can  enrich,  or  it 
can  impoverish. 


'  Made  before  the  Commonwealth  Club  at  San 
Francisco,  Calif.,  on  Oct.  11  (text  from  press  release 
404  dated  Oct.  10;  as  prepared  for  delivery). 


In  this  setting  the  United  States  cannot 
forfeit  leadership  out  of  weariness  or  frus- 
tration. While  we  are  more  aware  than  ever 
of  our  limits,  others  still  see  us  as  the  strong- 
est nation  in  the  world.  No  other  country  can 
evoke  the  new  sense  of  common  purpose  that 
our  partnerships  require,  balance  potential 
adversaries  so  as  to  induce  cooperation  and 
restraint,  help  mediate  conflicts  in  areas  of 
chronic  tension,  and  off"er  leadership  in  a 
world  of  economic  uncertainty. 

Thus  an  era  of  transition  ofi'ers  both  prom- 
ise and  peril.  We  must  understand  the 
changes  we  face,  or  we  will  be  crippled  by 
change  itself.  We  must  be  conscious  of  both 
the  limits  to  our  strength  and  the  responsi- 
bilities that  strength  entails.  We  must  co- 
exist with  other  ideals  without  abandoning 
our  own.  We  must  accept  complexity  without 
losing  our  way. 

In  an  era  where  we  can  no  longer  over- 
whelm our  problems  with  resources,  our  vi- 
sion may  be  the  most  crucial  resource  of  all. 

George  Kennan,  the  first  Director  of  the 
State  Department's  Policy  Planning  Staff, 
put  the  need  concisely : 

If  we  are  to  regard  ourselves  as  a  grown-up  na- 
tion— and  anything  else  will  henceforth  be  mortally 
dangerous — then  we  must,  as  the  Biblical  phrase 
goes,  put  away  childish  things;  and  among  these 
childish  things  the  first  to  go  .  .  .  should  be  self- 
idealization  and  the  search  for  absolutes  in  world  af- 
fairs: for  absolute  security,  absolute  amity,  absolute 
harmony. 

These  are  the  challenges  we  face  in  apply- 
ing this  prescription : 

— First,  with  friends :  to  reconcile  our  in- 


November  4,   1974 


617 


dependent  identities  with  continuing  collab- 
oration. 

— Second,  with  possible  adversaries:  to 
reconcile  the  reality  of  competition  with  the 
necessity  for  cooperation. 

— Third,  with  military  power :  to  reconcile 
a  strong  national  defense  with  the  control  of 
nuclear  arms. 

— Fourth,  with  economic  power :  to  recon- 
cile the  national  interest  and  the  interna- 
tional interest. 

Let  me  address  each  of  these  four  chal- 
lenges in  turn. 


Evolving  Partnerships 

Partners  in  international  politics,  as  in 
marriage,  take  each  other  for  granted  only 
at  the  risk  of  divorce.  Our  alliances  must 
grow  or  they  will  wither — adjust  to  new  con- 
ditions or  become  anachronistic. 

Our  relationships  were  molded  in  a  period 
of  American  predominance,  the  threat  of 
Communist  expansion,  and  the  presumption 
of  economic  growth.  As  the  United  States  at- 
tempts to  share  the  burdens  of  leadership,  as 
Europe  seeks  unity,  Japan  its  international 
role,  Latin  America  equality,  and  as  we  seek 
together  to  grapple  with  the  implications  of 
detente  and  interdependence,  some  pangs  of 
adjustment  must  be  expected. 

Our  central  concern  is  to  strengthen  our 
partnerships  to  deal  with  emerging  realities : 

— The  United  States  supports  Western  Eu- 
rope's historic  striving  for  unity.  But  Euro- 
pean identity  must  not  be  at  the  expense  of 
Atlantic  community,  or  both  sides  of  the 
ocean  will  suffer.  The  "Year  of  Europe"  was 
an  effort  to  give  renewed  meaning  and  in- 
spiration to  transatlantic  ties  in  a  pro- 
foundly changed  international  environment. 
It  began  a  healthy,  if  sometimes  difficult, 
process  of  clarification  and  taking  stock.  The 
air  has  now  been  cleared.  There  is  a  solid  ba- 
sis for  further  progress. 

— The  United  States  encourages  Japan's 
search  for  international  identity.  But  we 
must  maintain  a  sense  of  mutual  security  and 
common  aspirations.  Our  evolving  relation- 


ship has  been  punctuated  by  occasional  fric- 
tions; the  episodes  proved  transient  because 
our  objectives  have  remained  parallel.  Our 
partnership  is  now  on  a  sounder  footing  al- 
though it  will  deserve  constant  care. 

— The  United  States  is  helping  other  allies 
in  Asia  to  reach  greater  self-sufficiency.  But 
the  transition  should  be  gradual ;  the  man- 
ner of  the  transfer  reflects  the  motive  of  the 
transfer.  Moving  too  slowly  would  stifle  our 
friends'  incentive  for  self-defense  and  self- 
development;  moving  too  fast  would  under- 
mine their  self-confidence  and  paralyze  their 
will. 

— The  United  States  has  launched  a  new 
dialogue  with  Latin  America.  But  the  search 
for  a  more  mature  partnership  must  lead  to 
a  new  sense  of  community,  not  an  adversary 
relationship.  Our  past  policy  for  this  hemi- 
sphere has  oscillated  between  U.S.  prescrip- 
tion and  U.S.  neglect.  We  are  seeking  a  more 
stable  approach  based  on  realistic  commit- 
ments and  shared  endeavors. 

In  short,  with  our  friends  we  seek  a  bal- 
ance between  dominance  and  diffidence.  The 
world  is  too  complex,  and  our  allies  too  inde- 
pendent, for  American  blueprints.  At  the 
same  time,  there  is  the  continual  danger  that 
weary  Americans  and  wary  foreigners  will 
translate  self-reliance  into  abandonment. 
Our  friends  consider  an  active  and  creative 
American  role  essential  for  their  interests 
and  for  a  stable  peace. 

Therefore  we  must  evoke  initiatives  from 
others  while  continuing  to  take  initiatives 
ourselves.  Where  once  we  found  inspiration 
in  stewardship,  we  must  now  find  it  in  part- 
nership. Above  all,  we  and  our  allies  must 
act  on  the  belief,  once  expressed  by  Jean 
Monnet,  that  "the  inescapable  forces  which 
are  molding  the  future  bind  us  even  more 
closely  than  memories  of  the  past." 

The  Decline  of  Ideology 

For  a  generation  the  unity  of  our  alliances 
and  the  support  of  the  American  people 
were  sustained  by  the  perception  of  a  mono- 
lithic threat  from  the  Communist  powers. 
We  were  joined  in  a  struggle  which  made 


618 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


accommodation  difficult,  if  not  immoral. 

This  situation  has  profoundly  changed. 
The  fragmentation  of  the  Communist  bloc, 
the  evolving  strategic  balance,  and  economic 
incentives  suggested  the  possibilities  for 
more  constructive  East- West  relations.  Mos- 
covi^  and  Peking,  while  proclaiming  basic  So- 
cialist tenets,  have  emphasized  geopolitical 
interests.  They  are  acting  more  like  world 
powers  and  less  like  revolutionary  move- 
ments. 

We,  in  turn,  have  generally  shed  the  notion 
that  others  should  mirror  our  social  and  eco- 
nomic structures.  We  deal  with  foreign  coun- 
tries primarily  on  the  basis  of  their  foreign 
policies.  We  cannot  transform  their  domestic 
systems,  though  we  can  hope  that  relaxed  in- 
ternational tensions  will  promote  a  positive 
evolution. 

This  decline  of  ideological  struggle  is  an 
encouraging  trend.  But  it  carries  with  it 
ambiguities  and  fresh  problems. 

Are  reports  of  the  death  of  Communist  doc- 
trine greatly  exaggerated?  We  cannot  be 
sure  that  future  leaders  will  embrace  the 
more  constructive  approaches  now  being  pur- 
sued in  some  Communist  capitals.  The  Com- 
munist powers  could  once  again  act  like  rev- 
olutionary states  out  to  disrupt  the  interna- 
tional system  rather  than  nation-states  will- 
ing to  accept  its  legitimacy. 

The  United  States  will  heavily  influence 
their  course.  We  will  need  to  continue  our 
policies  of  providing  incentives  for  coopera- 
tion while  displaying  firmness  against  pres- 
sures. But  Americans  tend  to  take  for  granted 
the  improvement  in  East-West  relations  and 
the  lowering  of  global  tensions.  Some  there- 
fore assume  that  continued  progress  is  auto- 
matic; others  believe  in  hardening  our  de- 
mands. Some  would  jeopardize  the  process 
of  detente  by  removing  the  incentives ;  others 
would  ignore  the  continuing  need  for  firm- 
ness. 

We  need  to  avoid  the  poles  of  intransigence 
and  euphoria. 

For  a  generation,  brief  moments  of  im- 
proved relations  with  the  Soviet  Union  gave 
way  to  prolonged  periods  of  confrontation. 
We  must  now  build  an  irreversible  commit- 


ment to  preserving  peace.  In  the  nuclear  era 
there  is  no  rational  alternative. 

For  a  generation,  we  and  the  People's  Re- 
public of  China  were  separated  by  a  gulf  of 
isolation  and  hostility.  We  must  expand  the 
hopeful  openings  of  the  last  few  years.  In  the 
nuclear  era  there  is  no  rational  alternative. 

Can  Americans  rally  to  a  pastel  banner? 
There  is  possible  ambiguity  about  our  pur- 
poses. Whatever  its  demerits,  anti-Commu- 
nism was  at  least  a  clear-cut  rationale  for 
our  foreign  policy,  easily  understood  by 
Americans  and  allies  alike.  This  formed  a 
solid  consensus  for  a  global  foreign  policy. 
As  ideology  has  waned,  it  has  been  difficult 
to  sound  a  new  theme  to  weld  consensus  at 
home  and  cement  alliances  abroad. 

This  is  largely  a  question  of  leadership. 
We  must  derive  inspiration  from  the  long- 
term  building  of  a  more  stable  world  through 
negotiation,  accommodation,  and  restraint. 
With  friends,  we  have  the  foundation  of 
shared  values  and  ideals ;  we  can  sustain  our 
bonds  by  working  together  on  the  many  new 
problems  on  the  global  agenda.  These  posi- 
tive tasks  must  inspire  our  diplomacy  in  a 
grayer  world. 

Finally,  how  do  we  reconcile  the  prag- 
matic pursuit  of  peace  with  the  promotion  of 
our  ideals?  Concerned  Americans  have  won- 
dered whether  we  can  be  true  to  our  values 
while  dealing  realistically  with  adversaries, 
friends,  and  the  nonaligned. 

Secretary  Kissinger  described  the  tension 
between  our  goals  in  a  speech  he  made  a  year 
ago:  2 

In  a  community  of  sovereign  states,  the  quest  for 
peace  involves  a  paradox:  The  attempt  to  impose  ab- 
solute justice  by  one  side  will  be  seen  as  absolute 
injustice  by  all  others;  the  quest  for  total  security 
for  some  turns  into  total  insecurity  for  the  remain- 
der. Stability  depends  on  the  relative  satisfaction 
and  therefore  also  the  relative  dissatisfaction  of  the 
various  states.  The  pursuit  of  peace  must  therefore 
begin  with  the  pragmatic  concept  of  coexistence  .... 

We  m\ist,  of  course,  avoid  becoming  obsessed  with 
stability.  An  excessively  pragmatic  policy  will  be 
empty  of  vision  and  humanity.  It  will  lack  not  only 
direction,  but  also  roots  and  heart.  .  .  .  America  can- 


-  For  Secretary  Kissinger's  address  before  the 
Pacem  in  Terris  Conference  at  Washington  on  Oct. 
8,  1973,  see  Bulletin  of  Oct.  29,  1973,  p.  525. 


November  4,  1974 


619 


not  be  true  to  itself  without  moral  purpose.  This 
country  has  always  had  a  sense  of  mission.  Amer- 
icans have  always  held  the  view  that  America  stood 
for  something  above  and  beyond  its  material  achieve- 
ments. A  purely  pragmatic  policy  provides  no  crite- 
ria for  other  nations  to  assess  our  performance  and 
no  standards  to  which  the  American  people  can  rally. 

So,  our  foreign  policy  must  reflect  our  na- 
tional ideals.  Otherwise  it  cannot  be  sus- 
tained in  a  democracy.  But  for  the  first  time 
in  history  man  can  destroy  mankind.  In  this 
nuclear  age  the  pursuit  of  peace  is  itself  a 
profound  moral  concern.  In  this  nuclear  age 
the  loss  of  peace  could  mean  the  loss  of  all 
values  and  ideals. 


The  Redefinition  of  Power 

While  we  must  avoid  a  preoccupation  with 
power  alone,  we  must  deal  with  the  realities 
that  it  imposes.  The  need  for  a  strong  na- 
tional defense  stretches  ahead  for  as  far  as 
we  can  see.  This  nation  cannot  mortgage  its 
future  to  the  good  intentions  of  others. 

But  maintaining  national  security  is  more 
complex  than  ever  before.  For  power  is 
harder  to  define  than  ever  before.  Once,  po- 
litical, military,  and  economic  power  were 
closely  related.  But  in  the  modern  world  ad- 
ditional armament  cannot  always  be  trans- 
lated into  additional  political  leverage;  eco- 
nomic giants  can  be  politically  weak;  coun- 
tries can  exert  political  influence  without 
possessing  either  military  strength  or  eco- 
nomic might.  Power  is  spread  more  diffusely 
across  the  globe,  and  its  use  is  more  complex. 

These  conditions  are  most  dramatically 
demonstrated  by  the  nuclear  dimension.  The 
overwhelming  destructiveness  of  nuclear 
weapons  makes  it  difficult  to  relate  their  ac- 
cumulation to  specific  objectives.  Once  a  na- 
tion can  destroy  its  opponent  even  after  a 
surprise  attack,  it  is  difficult  to  know  what 
numbers  and  capabilities  would  yield  a  su- 
periority that  has  either  military  or  political 
use.  A  massive  shift  in  the  balance  would  be 
needed  to  produce  a  decisive  advantage.  And 
clearly  neither  side  will  permit  this  to  hap- 
pen. 

If  superiority  in  the  nuclear  age  is  elusive, 
the  pursuit  of  it  is  deeply  destabilizing.  Any 
course  which  conceivably  threatens  the  sur- 


vival of  an  opponent  is  bound  to  have  severe 
impact.  The  relaxation  of  political  tensions 
cannot  proceed  in  the  face  of  an  unrestrained 
arms  buildup.  Yet  to  sustain  such  a  race 
would  require,  and  perpetuate,  an  atmos- 
phere of  hostility. 

Against  this  background  we  face  two  es- 
sential challenges: 

— First,  we  must  slow,  and  ultimately  re- 
verse, the  growth  of  nuclear  weapons  among 
major  powers.  The  United  States  and  the 
Soviet  Union  are  heading  for  arsenals  in- 
volving thousands  of  launchers  and  over 
10,000  warheads.  We  will  never  accept  the 
strategic  preponderance  of  another  power. 
We  will  do  what  is  required.  But  the  political 
decisions  of  our  two  nations  must  not  be  de- 
termined by  the  pace  of  technology  and  the 
inertia  of  mutual  suspicion.  We  must  move 
decisively  to  achieve  comprehensive  and  equi- 
table limits  on  strategic  arms. 

— Second,  we  must  stop  the  spread  of  nu- 
clear weapons  to  new  nations  and  regions. 
We  had  become  accustomed  to  a  world  of 
five  nuclear  powers;  the  recent  nuclear  ex- 
plosion in  India  reminds  us  of  the  perils  of 
proliferation.  A  world  of  10  or  20  nuclear 
nations  would  clearly  be  less  tranquil  and 
secure.  Chronic  conflicts  such  as  the  Middle 
East  could  assume  a  nuclear  dimension.  Dev- 
astation in  local  wars  could  reach  levels  no 
civilized  nation  desires.  The  threat  of  major- 
power  involvement  might  increase.  Around 
the  globe  there  would  be  greater  risks  of  nu- 
clear accident  or  theft  or  blackmail. 

Last  month  at  the  United  Nations,  Secre- 
tary Kissinger  underlined  American  deter- 
mination to  work  with  others  to  halt  the 
spread  of  nuclear  explosives.  He  proposed 
strengthened  cooperation  among  the  princi- 
pal suppliers  of  nuclear  materials,  enhanced 
safeguards  and  security  for  these  materials, 
and  continuing  support  for  the  Treaty  on 
Nonproliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons. 

We  will  work  to  seal  Pandora's  box. 

Growing  Interdependence 

Even  as  we  have  dealt  with  more  tradi- 
tional problems,  a  whole  new  series  of  chal- 


620 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


lenges  have  burst  upon  us.  They  transcend 
ideological  and  geographic  boundaries.  They 
link  national  prosperity  to  international 
prosperity. 

Global  interdependence  is  no  longer  a  slo- 
gan, but  an  insistent  reality.  The  crises  of 
oil,  food,  and  inflation  cast  shadows  over  the 
future  of  developed  and  developing,  rich  and 
poor,  consumer  and  producer  nations  alike. 
Not  only  the  prospects  for  world  growth  are 
at  stake.  A  serious  economic  decline  could 
trigger  widespread  domestic  instability  and 
tear  the  fabric  of  international  political  co- 
operation upon  which  peace  itself  depends. 

President  Ford  spoke  to  these  issues  of  in- 
terdependence three  weeks  ago  in  New  York. 
He  pointed  out  that  many  developing  nations 
need  the  food  of  a  few  developed  nations, 
that  many  industrialized  nations  need  the 
oil  of  a  few  developing  nations,  that  energy 
is  needed  to  provide  food,  food  to  produce 
energy,  and  both  to  provide  for  a  decent  life. 

The  size  of  the  American  grain  crop  may 
determine  how  many  people  live  or  die  in 
South  Asia.  Long-term  climate  changes  could 
eventually  affect  food  production  here,  as 
well  as  spreading  devastation  in  the  African 
Sahel.  The  decisions  of  a  few  oil  producers 
may  ricochet  around  the  world. 

We  will  all  advance  together,  or  we  can  all 
slide  back  together.  Nations  no  longer  can 
afford  to  pursue  national  or  regional  or  bloc 
self-interest  without  a  broader  perspective. 
Countries  must  find  their  self-interest  in  the 
common  interest  and,  indeed,  recognize  that 
the  two  are  often  identical. 

The  United  States  might  do  better  on  its 
own  than  others.  But  we  could  not  prosper. 
And  we  could  never  feel  secure  in  a  sea  of 
human  misery,  rising  tensions,  and  likely  con- 
flict. 

The  time  of  easy  choices  for  this  nation  is 
gone.  Accustomed  to  relative  self-sufficiency, 
we  now  face  the  reality  which  has  confronted 
Europe,  Japan,  and  most  other  nations  for 
decades — dependence  on  an  open,  cooperative 
international  system  for  national  growth. 
America  must  reconcile  its  national  and  glob- 
al goals. 

We  no  longer  possess  a  vast  surplus  of 
food.  But  we  retain  an  enormous  productive 


capacity.  We  have  a  moral  obligation  to  help 
meet  the  world's  growing  hunger  as  well  as 
to  feed  our  own  people.  And  we  have  a  po- 
litical interest  in  tracing  a  con.structive  pat- 
tern for  other  producers  of  other  resources. 

We  no  longer  have  a  seemingly  endless  sup- 
ply of  energy.  But  we  must  join  more  vul- 
nerable friends  to  conserve,  to  explore  new 
sources,  to  share  in  emergencies — because  of 
our  interest  in  their  stability  and  well-being. 

We  no  longer  have  a  low  rate  of  inflation. 
But  we  must  move  carefully — with  others — 
to  regain  control,  lest  we  spark  a  world  de- 
pression. 

But  these  particular  issues  reflect  a  deeper 
phenomenon :  Basic  preconceptions  of  inter- 
national and  domestic  policy  are  being  rudely 
shaken.  The  structure  of  the  postwar  world 
is  being  challenged  in  ways  for  which  we  are 
not  yet  intellectually  prepared. 

Leaders  must  grasp  the  basic  forces  at 
work  in  the  world  and  impart  this  vision  to 
their  peoples.  The  public  does  not  expect  in- 
stant solutions.  But  it  must  be  confident  that 
the  problems  are  understood  and  that  they 
are  being  addressed. 

What  is  at  stake  is  mankind's  faith  that 
man  still  shapes  his  future. 

The  Domestic  Dimension 

At  a  time  when  the  world  is  in  flux  and  a 
new  American  role  emerging,  we  are  sub- 
jected as  well  to  profound  changes  at  home. 
A  nation  which  first  explored  its  own  fron- 
tiers, and  then  stretched  its  presence  around 
the  world,  now  requires  a  new  horizon.  As 
our  bicentennial  approaches,  America  must 
maintain  the  vigor  of  youth,  earn  the  wis- 
dom of  maturity,  and  shun  the  weariness  of 
old  age. 

Our  next  frontier  is  to  find  peace  within 
ourselves. 

Let  us  begin  by  restoring  our  self-confi- 
dence. In  the  past  dozen  years,  we  have  lost 
one  President  through  murder,  another 
through  Viet-Nam,  and  another  through  scan- 
dal. We  have  agonized  through  our  longest 
and  most  inconclusive  war.  Our  once-predom- 
inant strength  has  been  challenged  and  our 
once-predominant  dollar  battered.  We  have 


November  4,   1974 


621 


endured  riots,  assassinations,  racial  and  gen- 
erational confrontations,  a  cultural  revolu- 
tion, and  Watergate. 

Yet  we  have  surmounted  these  traumas, 
showing  a  resiliency  that  inspires  the  envy 
of  others.  Our  democratic  institutions  have 
come  through  unprecedented  trials  with 
fresh  vitality.  We  have  recorded  historic  in- 
ternational achievements  even  as  we  tailor 
our  role  to  new  conditions.  We  are  still  the 
most  advanced  nation  in  the  world,  on  the 
frontiers  of  the  most  important  revolutions 
of  our  era — in  technology,  agriculture,  com- 
munications, health.  America  can  go  forward 
if  Americans  can  again  reach  for  shared  per- 
ceptions and  exult  in  shared  purposes. 

Alexis  de  Tocqueville,  the  19th-century  ob- 
server of  the  American  scene,  once  wrote, 
".  .  .  it  is  especially  in  the  conduct  of  their 
foreign  relations  that  democracies  appear  to 
me  decidedly  inferior  .  .  .  ."  There  is,  he  said, 
a  "propensity  that  induces  democracies  to 
obey  impulse  rather  than  prudence,  and  to 
abandon  a  mature  design  for  the  gratifica- 
tion of  a  momentary  passion." 

I  believe  we  can  prove  De  Tocqueville 
wrong. 

To  do  so,  we  must  live  comfortably  with 
both  our  limits  and  our  possibilities.  A  people 
torn  between  excessive  pride  and  excessive 
pessimism,  a  nation  torn  between  expecting 
too  much  of  power  and  being  ashamed  of  it, 
cannot  flourish  in  a  world  of  competing  val- 
ues and  linked  destinies. 

For  most  of  our  history  we  believed  that 
America  was  good  for  the  world.  Recently 
we  have  reined  in  the  excess  involvement 
that  flowed  from  this  perspective. 

But  we  must  not  now  yield  to  the  view 
that  America  is  bad  for  the  world.  We  need 
a  steadier  course. 

As  a  mature  nation  we  must  learn  that 
success  is  a  process  and  not  a  final  condition, 
that  exertion  is  perpetual  and  must  be  an 
end  in  itself. 

In  this  way  America  can  thrive  in  an  age 
of  ambiguity. 

In  this  way  America  can  rediscover  peace 
at  home  and  fully  contribute  to  peace  in  the 
world. 


U.S.  Opposes  Participation  of  PLO 
in  U.N.  General  Assembly  Debate 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  on  October  H  by  U.S. 
Representative  John  Scali,  together  with  the 
te.rt  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Assembly 
that   day. 


STATEMENT   BY  AMBASSADOR  SCALI 

USUN  press  release  135  dated  October  14 

It  should  be  clear  from  many  statements 
by  my  government  over  the  past  months  and 
years  that  our  vote  today  in  no  way  reflects 
a  lack  of  understanding  or  sympathy  for  the 
very  real  concerns  and  yearning  for  justice 
of  the  Palestinian  people.  Rather,  it  reflects 
our  consistent  conviction  that  the  justice 
they  seek  will  come  only  as  part  of  a  peace 
that  is  just  for  all  the  parties.  This  just 
peace  must  be  negotiated  with  utmost  care 
and  must  lead  to  an  overall  settlement  of  the 
Arab-Israeli  conflict,  at  the  heart  of  which 
we  all  recognize  lies  the  Palestinian  problem. 

Our  vote  also  reflects  a  deep  concern  that 
the  resolution  before  us  could  be  interpreted 
by  some  as  prejudging  that  negotiating  proc- 
ess and  make  a  durable  settlement  more 
difficult  to  achieve.  In  that  sense,  the  reso- 
lution could  have  the  ultimate  efl^ect  of  work- 
ing against  the  interests  of  a  Palestinian 
settlement. 

The  world  knows  how  tirelessly  we  have 
sought  to  move  the  Middle  East  from  the 
scourge  of  war  to  the  path  of  peace.  For 
us  to  have  voted  other  than  we  did  would 
be  inconsistent  with  and  harmful  to  our 
eff"orts  to  help  promote  a  just  and  lasting 
peace  that  takes  into  account  the  legitimate 
needs  of  all  the  states  and  peoples  in  the 
Middle  East. 

I  should  also  like  to  express  my  govern- 
ment's profound  concern  over  the  resolution's 
departure  from  the  longstanding  precedent 
that  only  representatives  of  governments 
should  be  allowed  to  participate  in  plenary 
deliberations.  Have  we  created  a  dangerous 


622 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


precedent  which  may  return  to  haunt  this 
organization — perhaps  cripple  its  effective- 
ness? 

Mr.  President,  I  want  to  make  clear  that 
the  only  basis  for  a  just  negotiated  settlement 
is  and  must  remain  Security  Council  Resolu- 
tions 242  and  338.  The  resolution  passed 
today  cannot  alter  the  basis,  and  our  efforts 
will  go  forward  in  that  established  and  widely 
accepted  framework. 


U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agreements 
During  Visit  of  First  Secretary 

Following  are  Department  announcements 
issued  October  8  concerning  agreements  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Poland  signed 
that  day. 


INCOME  TAX   CONVENTION 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  > 

The  General  Assembly, 

Considering  that  the  Palestinian  people  is  the 
principal  party  to  the  question  of  Palestine, 

Invites  the  Palestine  Liberation  Organization,  the 
representative  of  the  Palestinian  people,  to  partici- 
pate in  the  deliberations  of  the  General  Assembly 
on  the  question  of  Palestine  in  plenary  meetings. 


United  Nations  Documents: 
A  Selected  Bibliography 

Mimeographed  or  processed  documents  (such  as  those 
listed  below)  may  be  consulted  at  depository  libraries 
in  the  United  States.  U.N.  printed  publications  may 
be  purchased  from  the  Sales  Section  of  the  United 
Nations,  United  Nations  Plaza,  N.Y.  10017. 

World  Population  Conference 

World    Population    Conference    background    papers: 

Fertility  trends  in  the  world.  Prepared  by  the 
U.N.  Secretariat.  E/CONF.60/CBP/16.  April 
3,   1974.    28  pp. 

Demographic  trends  in  the  world  and  its  major 
regions,  1950-1970.  Prepared  by  the  U.N.  Sec- 
retariat. E/CONF.60/CBP/14.  April  16,  1974. 
35  pp. 

World  and  regional  population  prospects.  Pre- 
pared by  the  U.N.  Secretariat.  E/CONF.60/ 
CBP/15.     April    16,    1974.     33    pp. 

International  migration  trends,  1950-1970.  Pre- 
pared by  the  U.N.  Secretariat.  E/CONF.60/ 
CBP/18.    May  22,   1974.    28   pp. 

The  availability  of  demographic  statistics  around 
the  world.  Prepared  by  the  Statistical  Office 
of  the  United  Nations.  E/CONF.60/CBP/27. 
May  22,  1974.    28  pp. 


'U.N.  doc.  A/RES/3210  (XXIX);  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  on  Oct.  14  by  a  vote  of  105  to  4  (U.S.), 
with  20  abstentions. 


Press  release  398D  dated  October  8 

Secretary  of  State  Kissinger  and  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Polish  People's  Re- 
public Stefan  Olszowski  signed  on  October  8 
at  Washington  an  income  tax  convention  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  Polish  Peo- 
ple's Republic. 

The  tax  convention  seeks  to  promote  eco- 
nomic and  cultural  relations  between  the  two 
countries  by  removing  tax  barriers  to  the 
flow  of  investment. 

The  new  treaty  is  similar  to  other  recent 
U.S.  tax  conventions.  It  incorporates  the 
same  basic  principles  with  respect  to  the  tax- 
ation of  business  income,  personal  service 
income,  and  income  from  investments  and  in- 
cludes provisions  for  nondiscriminatory  tax 
treatment  and  for  reciprocal  administrative 
cooperation. 

Under  the  new  convention,  profits  derived 
by  a  resident  of  either  country  would  be  sub- 
ject to  tax  by  the  other  country  only  to  the 
extent  that  the  profits  are  attributable  to  a 
"permanent  establishment"  in  that  other 
country.  Employees  would  not  be  taxable  by 
the  other  country  on  their  personal  service 
income  unless  the  services  were  performed 
there  during  a  stay  lasting  longer  than  six 
months  of  the  year.  The  rates  of  tax  imposed 
on  dividends,  interest,  and  royalties  derived 
by  residents  of  the  other  country  would  be 
reciprocally  limited  to  15  percent  on  port- 
folio dividends,  5  percent  on  dividends  from 
a  shareholding  of  10  percent  or  more,  zero 
(exemption)  on  interest,  and  10  percent  on 
royalties  and  film  rentals.  In  the  absence  of 
the  convention,  the  U.S.  tax  rate  would  be  30 
percent  of  the  gross  amount,  and  the  Polish 


November  4,   1974 


623 


tax,  imposed  at  graduated  rates,  also  reaches 
30  percent  of  the  gross  amount. 

The  tax  convention  is  subject  to  approval 
by  the  U.S.  Senate.  It  would  take  effect  as  of 
Januai-y  1,  1974,  and  would  remain  in  force 
for  a  minimum  of  five  years.  It  then  would 
continue  in  force  indefinitely,  unless  termi- 
nated by  either  nation. 


AGREEMENT  ON   FUNDING   OF  COOPERATION 
IN   SCIENCE  AND  TECHNOLOGY 

Press  release  398A  dated  O'^tober  8 

Secretary  of  State  Kissinger  and  Deputy 
Prime  Minister  of  the  Polish  People's  Repub- 
lic Dr.  Mieczyslaw  Jagielski  signed  on  Oc- 
tober 8  at  Washington  an  agreement  between 
the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and 
Poland  providing  for  joint  funding  of  their 
cooperative  program  in  science  and  technol- 
ogy. 

The  agreement  grew  out  of  discussions 
held  by  President  Nixon  and  Secretary  of 
State  Rogers  in  Warsaw  in  1972  and  is  in 
furtherance  of  the  U.S.-Polish  agreement  on 
cooperation  in  science  and  technology  signed 
on  October  31,  1972. 

The  new  agreement  provides  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Marie  Sklodowska  Curie 
Fund.  The  U.S.  share  in  the  Fund,  most  of 
which  was  previously  allocated  for  research 
in  Poland,  will  be  558  million  zlotys  (one  of- 
ficial exchange  rate  is  $1.00  =  19.92  zlotys). 
While  most  of  this  sum  has  already  been  ear- 
marked, this  total  includes  new  zlotys  for 
joint  energy  research.  Under  this  agreement, 
the  Government  of  Poland  will  match  this 
558  million  zlotys,  which  we  own  from  ear- 
lier U.S.  Public  Law  480  programs,  with  an 
equal  sum.  Before  the  new  agreement,  the 
research  was  funded  entirely  by  U.S.-owned 
zlotys.  The  joint  funding  agreement  will  ex- 
tend to  December  31,  1981.  A  joint  U.S.- 
Polish Board  will  establish  the  broad  areas 
of  research  to  be  financed  by  the  Fund. 

At  least  one-third  of  the  amount  is  to  be 
used  to  finance  energy  and  energy-related  re- 
search. The  Fund  will  also  be  used  to  finance 
ongoing  and  new  research  projects  in  medi- 
cine, health,  environmental  protection,  agri- 


culture, transportation,  and  other  fields.  Some 
of  these  projects  are  also  the  subject  of  the 
agreement  for  cooperation  in  coal  research, 
the  agreement  on  cooperation  in  the  field  of 
health,  and  the  agreement  on  environmental 
protection,  all  signed  October  8. 

The  agreement  strengthens  the  basis  of 
the  cooperative  efforts  of  the  scientists  of  the 
two  countries  which  have  been  underway 
since  the  early  1960's.  Some  examples  of  on- 
going research  include  investigations  relat- 
ing to  brain  damage,  evaluation  of  soybean 
protein  concentrate  additives,  development  of 
frost-  and  drought-resistant  hybrid  plants, 
reclamation  of  alkaline  ash  piles  to  reduce 
pollution  while  producing  a  usable  product, 
and  further  research  relating  to  important 
Polish  contributions  to  the  theory  of  grav- 
ity. The  most  important  new  research  will 
be  in  the  fields  of  coal  utilization  and  coal 
extraction. 


AGREEMENT  ON   COOPERATION   IN   HEALTH 

Press  release  398E  dated  October  8 

Secretary  of  Health,  Education,  and  Wel- 
fare Caspar  Weinberger  and  Deputy  Prime 
Minister  of  the  Polish  People's  Republic  Dr. 
Mieczyslaw  Jagielski  signed  on  October  8  at 
Washington  an  agreement  between  the  Gov- 
ernments of  the  United  States  and  Poland  to 
promote  cooperation  in  the  field  of  health. 
Attending  the  ceremony  were  Polish  United 
Workers'  Party  First  Secretary  Edward  Gie- 
rek  and  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger. 

The  agreement  established  a  Joint  Com- 
mittee for  Cooperation  in  the  Field  of  Health 
to  determine  the  mechanisms  and  policy  for 
the  program  under  the  agreement.  The  Joint 
Committee  will  serve  to  direct  an  expanded 
program  of  cooperative  activities,  including 
the  exchange  of  junior  and  senior  scientists, 
the  facilitation  of  direct  institute-to-institute 
relationships,  the  exchange  of  scientific  and 
technical  publications,  the  organization  of 
joint  scientific  symposia  and  conferences,  and 
the  exchange  of  equipment,  drugs,  and  bio- 
logicals. 

This  agreement  is  a  reaffirmation  and 
strengthening  of  the  successful  bilateral  co- 


624 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


operation  which  has  been  ongoing  less  for- 
mally for  the  last  12  years.  Since  1962,  U.S. 
and  Polish  scientists  have  undertaken  nu- 
merous cooperative  research  programs  in  a 
broad  range  of  health  areas,  including  those 
related  to  maternal  and  child  health,  cardio- 
vascular diseases,  cancer,  alcoholism,  occu- 
pational and  environmental  health,  neuro- 
logic and  psychiatric  disorders,  rehabilita- 
tion, and  infectious  diseases.  There  are  now 
89  ongoing  research  projects,  of  which  16 
were  approved  this  past  June. 

Joint  research  activities  have  served  to  in- 
crease direct  exchange  and  information  shar- 
ing between  scientists  of  the  two  countries 
and  have  resulted  in  some  significant  medi- 
cal advances.  One  notable  example  is  a  proj- 
ect in  which  HE W's  Social  and  Rehabilitation 
Service  collaborated  with  doctors  at  the  Kon- 
stancin  Rehabilitation  Center  near  Warsaw, 
leading  to  the  development  at  that  center  of  a 
technique  for  immediate  postsurgical  fitting 
of  artificial  legs  which  thereby  makes  it  pos- 
sible for  a  patient  to  walk  within  a  short  pe- 
riod of  time  after  surgery.  This  technique 
has  subsequently  been  adopted  in  the  United 
States.  This  medical  cooperation  also  recently 
included  the  development  of  the  Krakow  hos- 
pital for  mothers  and  children,  now  consid- 
ered one  of  the  most  dynamic  of  such  institu- 
tions in  Poland. 


JOINT  STATEMENT  ON   DEVELOPMENT 
OF  AGRICULTURAL  TRADE 

Press  release  398B  dated  October  8 

Assistant  Secretary  of  Agriculture  Clayton 
Yeutter  and  First  Deputy  Minister  of  Trade 
and  Maritime  Economy  of  the  Polish  Peo- 
ple's Republic  Henryk  Kisiel  signed  on  Oc- 
tober 8  at  Washington  a  joint  statement  on 
the  development  of  agricultural  trade  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Poland.  Attend- 
ing the  ceremony  were  Polish  United  Work- 
ers' Party  First  Secretary  Edward  Gierek 
and  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger.  The  state- 
ment was  negotiated  at  the  fourth  session 
of  the  U.S.-Polish  Joint  Commission  for 
Trade,  which  took  place  in  Washington  Sep- 
tember 9-10. 


Under  provisions  of  the  joint  statement, 
the  two  countries  have  agreed  to  exchange 
agricultural  economic  information — includ- 
ing forward  estimates  of  supply  and  de- 
mand— to  facilitate  the  growth  of  bilateral 
trade,  to  encourage  the  signing  of  long-term 
purchasing  agreements  between  Polish  for- 
eign trade  enterprises  and  private  U.S.  ex- 
porters, to  develop  further  the  cooperation 
between  veterinary  services  which  has  as- 
sisted the  two  countries  in  increasing  trade 
turnover,  and  to  continue  to  treat  imports  in 
each  country  in  accordance  with  the  most- 
favored-nation  principle  under  the  General 
Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade. 

The  two  countries  also  agreed  to  form  a 
permanent  working  group  within  the  frame- 
work of  the  Joint  Trade  Commission  to  ex- 
change views  on  economic  and  trade  matters 
and  to  explore  areas  for  possible  cooperation 
in  various  fields  of  agriculture.  In  addition, 
both  countries  expressed  support  of  the  up- 
coming multilateral  trade  negotiations  and 
agreed  that  the  joint  statement  will  in  no 
way  prejudice  or  modify  existing  undertak- 
ings under  the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs 
and  Trade. 

The  statement  notes  that  U.S.-Polish  agri- 
cultural trade  spans  a  period  of  some  50 
years  and  has  benefited  the  economies  of 
both  countries.  In  fiscal  year  1974,  U.S.  ag- 
ricultural exports  to  Poland  reached  the  rec- 
ord level  of  $306  million.  Polish  agricultural 
exports  to  the  United  States  include  hams 
and  canned  beef.  Poland  is  America's  largest 
agricultural  trading  partner  in  Eastern  Eu- 
rope. 


AGREEMENT  ON   COOPERATION   IN 
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION 

Press  release  398F  dated  October  S 

The  United  States  and  Poland  concluded 
on  October  8  at  Washington  an  agreement 
to  expand  and  intensify  cooperation  between 
the  two  countries  in  environmental  protec- 
tion and  pollution  abatement.  Russell  E. 
Train,  Administrator  of  the  Environmental 
Protection  Agency,  and  Professor  Witold 
Trampczynski,    Polish    Ambassador    to   the 


November  4,    1974 


625 


United  States,  representing  the  Polish  Min- 
istry of  Land  Economy  and  Environmental 
Protection,  signed  the  agreement.  Attending 
the  ceremony  were  Polish  United  Workers' 
Party  First  Secretary  Edward  Gierek  and 
Secretary  of  State  Kissinger. 

The  new  agreement  implements  a  more 
general  accord  signed  in  October  1972  which 
established  a  policy  of  cooperation  in  many 
fields  of  science  and  technology.  The  new 
agreement  provides  for  future  cooperation  in 
a  wide  range  of  matters  related  to  protect- 
ing and  improving  the  environment.  Of  spe- 
cial interest  are  water  and  air  pollution,  pre- 
vention of  further  environmental  degrada- 
tion, the  effects  of  pollutants  on  human, 
plant,  and  animal  life,  noise  abatement,  con- 
trolling pollution  associated  with  transpor- 
tation, radiation,  and  municipal  and  indus- 
trial wastes.  The  agreement  calls  for  joint 
scientific  and  technical  research,  the  exchange 
of  specialists,  data,  and  documents,  and  the 
organization  of  conferences  and  symposia. 

Administrator  Train  hailed  the  agreement 
as  both  an  environmental  and  a  political  mile- 
stone. "It  represents  an  irresistible  process 
now  underway  to  systematize  and  implement 
a  multilateral  and  global  approach  to  man's 
stewardship  of  the  Earth,"  Mr.  Train  said. 
He  added  that  the  agreement  also  "marks 
the  high  point  of  cordial  relations  that  have 
developed  between  the  United  States  and  Po- 
land over  the  past  two  decades."  Mr.  Train 
stated  that  the  agreement  exemplified  a  new 
spirit  of  international  cooperation  and  con- 
cern about  environmental  matters. 


AGREEMENT  FOR  COOPERATION   IN   COAL 
RESEARCH 

Press  release  3980  dated  October  8 

The  United  States  and  Poland  concluded 
on  October  8  at  Washington  an  agreement  to 
cooperate  in  energy  research  and  develop- 
ment, with  particular  emphasis  on  coal  utili- 
zation and  coal  extraction.  Kent  Frizzell, 
Solicitor,  Department  of  the  Interior,   and 


Benon  Stranz,  Deputy  Minister  of  Mining 
and  Power  of  the  Polish  People's  Republic, 
signed  the  agreement.  Attending  the  cere- 
mony were  Polish  United  Workers'  Party 
First  Secretary  Edward  Gierek  and  Secre- 
tary of  State  Kissinger. 

The  agreement  grew  from  mutual  recogni- 
tion that  both  countries  need  to  make  more 
effective  use  of  their  substantial  solid  fuel 
resources  to  meet  their  growing  energy  de- 
mands, and  in  a  manner  that  will  be  envi- 
ronmentally satisfactory.  It  is  an  important 
new  development  in  international  energy  co- 
operation. 

The  United  States  and  Poland  each  have 
intensive  research  and  development  programs 
to  extract  coal  more  efficiently  and  to  con- 
vert the  product  into  a  clean  fuel  at  reason- 
able costs.  Many  of  these  programs  have 
common  objectives.  Through  the  new  coop- 
eration agreement,  unnecessary  duplication 
of  research  efforts  will  be  avoided,  valuable 
technologies  will  be  shared,  and  new  solutions 
will  be  sought  to  meet  the  universal  demand 
for  cleaner  energy  supplies. 

As  a  first  step  toward  the  agreement,  the 
United  States  and  Poland  last  summer  ex- 
changed teams  of  coal  research  experts  to 
study  the  energy  research  programs  now  un- 
derway in  the  two  countries.  These  technical 
reviews  showed  that  fuller  cooperation  could 
profitably  be  undertaken  in  coal  liquefaction, 
coal  gasification,  magnetohydrodynamics, 
coal  preparation,  and  improved  coke  manu- 
facture. 

Coal  extraction  research  ai'eas  to  be  stud- 
ied jointly  cover  the  principles  of  mine  plan- 
ning and  design,  methane  drainage  and  utili- 
zation from  underground  workings,  subsid- 
ence prediction  and  control,  automation  of 
longwall  systems,  and  the  control  of  rock, 
coal,  and  gas  outburst  and  the  collapse  of 
mineshafts. 

This  agreement  will  be  implemented  by 
joint  research,  the  organization  of  joint  sym- 
posia and  seminars,  exchange  of  research 
scientists  and  research  results,  and  other 
forms  of  cooperation  as  needed  to  fulfill  the 
requirements  of  the  cooperation. 


626 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Current  Treaty  Actions 

MULTILATERAL 

Automotive  Traffic 

Customs   convention  on  the  temporary  importation 
of  private  road  vehicles.    Done  at  New  York  June 
4,  1954.    Entered  into  force  December  15,  1957. 
Accession  deposited:  Chile,  August  15,  1974. 

Aviation 

Convention  for  the  suppression  of  unlawful  seizure 
of  aircraft.  Done  at  The  Hague  December  16, 
1970.  Entered  into  force  October  15,  1971.  TIAS 
7192. 

Ratification  deposited:   Federal  Republic  of  Ger- 
many, October  11,  1974.' 

Containers 

International  convention  for  safe  containers  (CSC), 
with  annexes.   Done  at  Geneva  December  2,  1972.' 
Accession  deposited:  German  Democratic   Repub- 
lic,  (with  statements  and  a  declaration),  Sep- 
tember 27,  1974. 

Pollution 

International  convention  for  the  prevention  of  pol- 
lution from   ships,   1973,  with  protocols  and  an- 
nexes.  Done  at  London  November  2,  1973.'' 
Signature:  Poland  (subject  to  ratification),  Octo- 
ber 2,  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:  Poland  (subject  to  ratification),  Octo- 
ber 2,  1974. 

Telecommunications 

Telegraph  regulations,  with  appendices,  annex,  and 
final  protocol.  Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.  En- 
tered into  force  September  1,  1974.' 
Notification  of  approval:  Canada,  July  10,  1974; 
Rwanda,  July  16,  1974;  Spain,  July  8,  1974. 

Telephone    regulations,   with    appendices    and    final 
protocol.   Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.   Entered 
into  force  September  1,  1974.' 
Notification  of  approval:  Canada,  July  10,  1974; 
Rwanda,  July  16,  1974;  Spain,  July  8,  1974. 

BIUTERAL 

Bangladesh 

Loan  agreement  for  financing  manufacture  and  ac- 
quisition by  Bangladesh  of  fertilizer,  pesticides, 
and  other  agricultural  inputs,  with  annex.  Signed 
at  Dacca  September  19,  1974.  Entered  into  force 
September  19,  1974. 


International  Committee  of  the  Red  Cross 

Amendment  to  the  grant  agreement  of  November  1, 
1973,  to  provide  assistance  to  refugees,  displaced 
persons,  and  war  victims  in  the  Republic  of  Viet- 
Nam,  Laos,  and  the  Khmer  Republic.  Effected  by 
U.S.  letter  of  July  30,  1974.  Entered  into  force 
July  30, 1974. 

Agreement  amending  the  grant  agreement  of  No- 
vember 1,  1973,  to  provide  assistance  to  refugees, 
displaced  persons,  and  war  victims  in  the  Repub- 
lic of  Viet-Nam,  Laos,  and  the  Khmer  Republic. 
Signed  at  Geneva  and  Washington  August  22  and 
September  6,  1974.  Entered  into  force  September 
6,  1974. 


DEPARTMENT  AND   FOREIGN   SERVICE 


'Applicable  to   Berlin    (West),  subject  to  under- 
standings. 
'  Not  in  force. 
°  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 


Bureau  of  Oceans  and  International 
Environmental  and  Scientific  Affairs 

Press  release  424  dated  October  16 

The  Department's  establishment  of  a  Bureau  of 
Oceans  and  International  Environmental  and  Scien- 
tific Affairs  became  effective  on  October  14.  The  new 
Bureau,  which  is  conformable  with  Public  Law  93-126 
of  October  18,  1973,  will  bring  together  the  Depart- 
ment's activities  and  responsibilities  relating  to  all 
international  scientific,  technological,  and  environ- 
mental affairs  including  weather  matters,  the  oceans, 
atmosphere,  outer  space,  fisheries,  wildlife,  conser- 
vation, health,  population,  and  associated  subjects. 
It  will  be  headed  by  an  Assistant  Secretary. 

Pending  the  appointment  of  the  Assistant  Secre- 
tary, Thomas  A.  Clingan,  Jr.,  who  is  Deputy  Assist- 
ant Secretary  for  Oceans  and  Fisheries  Affairs,  will 
be  the  Acting  Assistant  Secretary.  Within  the  Bu- 
reau, John  V.  N.  Granger  will  be  Deputy  Assistant 
Secretary  for  Scientific  and  Technological  Affairs, 
and  Christian  A.  Herter,  Jr.,  will  be  Deputy  Assis- 
tant Secretary  for  Environmental  and  Population 
Affairs.  Dr.  Granger  and  Mr.  Herter  have  hitherto 
been  the  senior  officers  in  the  Bureau  of  Internation- 
al Scientific  and  Technological  Affairs. 

The  new  Bureau's  responsibilities  for  technologi- 
cal affairs  will  include  atomic  energy  and  energy- 
related  research  and  development,  space  technology, 
and  other  advanced  technological  developments  ex- 
cept those  which  are  defense  related.  Its  functions 
are  to  include  the  development  of  comprehensive  and 
coherent  U.S.  policy  in  its  designated  areas  of  con- 
cern. It  will  be  the  central  point  of  contact  on  such 
matters  with  other  U.S.  Government  agencies  and 
will  provide  foreign  policy  guidance  and  coordina- 


November  4,  1974 


627 


tion  for  the  execution  of  international  scientific  and 
technological    programs. 

In  oceans  and  fisheries  the  new  Bureau  will  as- 
sume the  responsibilities  of  the  Coordinator  of  Ocean 
Affairs  and  Special  Assistant  for  Fisheries  and 
Wildlife.  These  include  numerous  bilateral  agree- 
ments and  international  organizations  dealing  with 
fisheries  and  marine  science.  The  creation  of  the 
new  Bureau  will  give  greater  emphasis  to  the  im- 
portance of  the  difficult  problems  encountered  in 
these  areas.  The  Bureau  will  also  permit  a  greater 
focus  on  certain  wildlife,  conservation,  and  marine 
pollution  matters  which  had  been  dealt  with  by  sep- 
arate offices  and  which  will  now  be  together  within 
the    Bureau. 

By  amalgamating  the  handling  of  oceans,  environ- 
mental, scientific,  and  technological  problems  hither- 
to assigned  to  separate  units,  the  new  Bureau  is 
designed  to  give  new  weight  to  the  consideration 
and  administration  of  our  increasing  involvement 
in  science  and  environment-associated  matters  re- 
lating to  foreign  affairs. 


PUBLICATIONS 


1949  "Foreign  Relations"  Volume 
on  Germany  and  Austria  Released 

Press  release  372  dated  September  23   (for  release  September  30) 

The  Department  of  State  released  on  September 
30  "Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,"  1949, 
volume  III,  "Council  of  Foreign  Ministers;  Germany 
and  Austria."  The  "Foreign  Relations"  series  has 
been  published  continuously  since  1861  as  the  official 
record  of  American  foreign  policy.  The  volume  now 
released  is  the  first  to  be  published  of  nine  volumes 
documenting  American  foreign  policy  during  the  year 
1949. 

This  volume  of  1,324  pages  presents  documenta- 
tion— hitherto  unpublished  and  of  the  highest  classi- 
fication— on  the  problems  of  divided  Germany  and 
Austria.  Primary  emphasis  is  on  relations  among  the 
four  occupying  powers,  the  establishment  of  the  Fed- 
eral Republic  of  Germany,  resolution  of  the  Berlin 
crisis,  the  complicated  issues  of  reparations  and  res- 
titution from  Germany,  and  efforts  to  negotiate  a 
treaty  on  the  status  of  Austria.  The  volume  also  in- 
cludes comprehensive  documentation  on  the  meetings 
at  Paris  of  the  quadripartite  Council  of  Foreign  Min- 
isters as  well  as  on  efforts  to  maintain  the  independ- 
ence and  integrity  of  Austria.  President  Truman, 
Secretary  of  State  Acheson,  and  such  personages  as 

628 


Ernest  Bevin,  Robert  Schuman,  Andrei  Vyshinsky, 
Konrad  Adenauer,  John  J.  McCloy,  Lucius  D.  Clay, 
Robert  D.  Murphy,  and  Lewis  W.  Douglas  figure 
prominently  in  the  events  documented  in  the  volume. 
The  "Foreign  Relations"  volumes  are  prepared  by 
the  Historical  Office,  Bureau  of  Public  Affairs.  Vol- 
ume III  for  1949  (Department  of  State  publication 
8752;  GPO  cat.  no.  Sl.l:949/v.  Ill)  may  be  purchased 
for  $14.55  (domestic  postpaid).  Checks  or  money  or- 
ders should  be  made  payable  to  the  Superintendent 
of  Documents  and  sent  to  the  U.S.  Government  Book- 
store, Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:   October  14-20 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  October  14  which 
appear  in  this  issue  of  the  BULLETIN  are  Nos. 
372  of  September  23,  398A-398F  of  October 
8,  399  of  October  10,  404  of  October  10,  405, 
407,  and  408  of  October  11,  and  412  of  October 
12. 


Date 


Subject 

Kissinger:  departure,  Aqaba, 
Oct.  12. 

Kissinger,  Allon:  arrival,  Tel 
Aviv,  Oct.  12. 

Kissinger,  Allon:  departure,  Tel 
Aviv,  Oct.  13. 

Kissinger,  Saqqaf:  departure, 
Riyadh,  Oct.  13. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Cairo,  Oct. 
14. 

Kissinger,  Sadat:  remarks  fol- 
lowing meeting,  Oct.  14. 

Kissinger:  departure,  Cairo, 
Oct.  14. 

Kissinger:  departure,  Damas- 
cus, Oct.  14. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Algiers,  Oct. 
14. 

Kissinger:    departure,  Algiers. 

Bureau  of  Oceans  and  Interna- 
tional Environmental  and  Sci- 
entific Affairs  established,  Oct. 
14. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Rabat. 

Kissinger:  departure,  Rabat. 

Kissinger:  Alfred  E.  Smith  din- 
ner. New  York. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Washington, 
Oct.  15. 

Notice  of  time  for  filing  claims 
against  Egypt  by  U.S.  nation- 
als. 

Rush  sworn  in  as  Ambassador 
to  France  (biographic  data). 

Easum  to  visit  nine  African 
countries. 


*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


414 

10/15 

415 

10/15 

416 

10/15 

417 

10/15 

418 

10/15 

419 

10/15 

420 

10/15 

421 

10/15 

422 

10/15 

423 
424 

10/15 
10/15 

425 
426 

t427 

10/15 
10/15 
10/16 

428 

10/16 

t429 

10/18 

*430 

10/18 

*431 

10/18 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 


INDEX     November  i,l 97 i     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  18i5 


Agriculture.  U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agree- 
ments During  Visit  of  First  Secretary  (De- 
partment announcements) 623 

Algeria.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab 
Nations  and  Israel  (Ford,  Allon,  Kissinger, 
Sadat,  Saqqaf) 607 

Asia 

America's    Purposes    in    an    Ambiguous    Age 

(Lord) 617 

Annual   Meeting  of  SEATO   Council   Held   at 

New  York  (press  statement) 616 

Department  and  Foreign  Service.  Bureau  of 
Oceans  and  International  Environmental 
and    Scientific   Affairs 627 

Economic  Affairs 

America's    Purposes    in    an    Ambiguous    Age 

(Lord) 617 

First  Secretary  Gierek  of  the  Polish  United 
Workers'  Party  Visits  the  United  States 
(Ford,  Gierek,  joint  statements,  joint  com- 
munique)     597 

U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agreements  During 
Visit  of  First  Secretary  (Department  an- 
nouncements)       623 

Egypt.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab 
Nations  and  Israel  (Ford,  Allon,  Kissinger, 
Sadat,  Saqqaf) 607 

Energy.  U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agreements 
During  Visit  of  First  Secretary  (Depart- 
ment announcements) 623 

Environment.  U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agree- 
ments During  Visit  of  First  Secretary  (De- 
partment announcements) 623 

Europe.  America's  Purposes  in  an  Ambiguous 

Age   (Lord) 617 

Health.  U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agreements 
During  Visit  of  First  Secretary  (Depart- 
ment   announcements) 623 

International  Conferences   and  Organizations. 

Annual  Meeting  of  SEATO  Council  Held  at 

New  York  (press  statement) 616 

Israel.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab 
Nations  and  Israel  (Ford,  Allon,  Kissinger, 
Sadat,  Saqqaf) 607 

Jordan.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab 
Nations  and  Israel  (Ford,  Allon,  Kissinger, 
Sadat,  Saqqaf) 607 

Middle  East.  U.S.  Opposes  Participation  of 
PLO  in  U.N.  General  Assembly  Debate 
(Scali,  text  of  resolution) 622 

Military    Affairs.    America's    Purposes    in    an 

Ambiguous  Age  (Lord) 617 


Morocco.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab 
Nations  and  Israel  (Ford,  Allon,  Kissinger, 
Sadat,  Saqqaf) 607 

Poland 

First  Secretary  Gierek  of  the  Polish  United 
Workers'  Party  Visits  the  United  States 
(Ford,  Gierek,  joint  statements,  joint  com- 
munique)     597 

U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agreements  During 
Visit  of  First  Secretary  (Department  an- 
nouncements)        623 

Presidential  Documents 

First   Secretary   Gierek   of  the   Polish  United 

Workers'  Party  Visits  the  United  States     .       597 

President  Ford  Signs   Defense   Bill;   Cautions 

on  Viet-Nam   Funding 616 

Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab  Nations 

and  Israel 607 

Publications.  1949  "Foreign  Relations"  Vol- 
ume on  Germany  and  Austria  Released    .     .       628 

Saudi  Arabia.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six 
Arab  Nations  and  Israel  (Ford,  Allon,  Kis- 
singer, Sadat,  Saqqaf) 607 

Science.  U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agreements 
During  Visit  of  First  Secretary  (Depart- 
ment  announcements) 623 

Syria.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  Six  Arab 
Nations  and  Israel  (Ford,  Allon,  Kissinger, 
Sadat,  Saqqaf) 607 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Treaty   Actions 627 

U.S.  and  Poland  Sign  Agreements  During 
Visit  of  First  Secretary  (Department  an- 
nouncements)       623 

United  Nations 

United   Nations   Documents 623 

U.S.  Opposes  Participation  of  PLO  in  U.N. 
General  Assembly  Debate  (Scali,  text  of 
resolution) 622 

Viet-Nam.  President  Ford  Signs  Defense  Bill; 

Cautions  on  Viet-Nam  Funding  (statement)       616 


Name  Index 

Allon,  Yigal 610,  611 

Ford,    President 597,607,616 

Gierek,    Edward 597 

Kissinger,  Secretary 607 

Lord,   Winston 617 

Sadat,  Anwar  al- 608,613 

Saqqaf,  Umar  al- 611 

Scali,  John 622 


) 


Superintendent    of    Documents 
U.S.  government  printing  office 

WASHINGTON.    D.C.    20402 


OFFICIAL   BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES   PAID 
U.S.     OOVERNMENT     PRIKTINO     OPPICE 

Special   Fourth*Clast   Role 
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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


3 


\ 


m. 


7A 


VSH 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 

Volume  LXXI       •        No.  1846       •        November  11,  1974 


SECRETARY  KISSINGER  INTERVIEWED  FOR  NEW  YORK  TIMES     629 

THE  TESTING  OF  AMERICAN  COMMITMENT 
Address  by  Secretary  Kissinger     6Jt3 

THE  WORLD  POPULATION  CONFERENCE:  AN  ASSESSMENT 
Address  by  Philander  P.  Claxton,  Jr.     649 

Boston 
Superintendi-iii.  oi  uuLumenxs 

APR     2  1375 

DEPOSITORY 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 

For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE   BULLETIN 


Secre 


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.  1846 
November  11,  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  ani 
the  Foreign  Service. 
The  BULLETIN  includes  seleeteii 
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  't 
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. 


Sec 
pessii 
lemsl 
I  bell 
they 
areas 


lute 
eieii 
ask 
Ikk 

Sei 
a  his 


hast 


inevi 


one 


Nove 


Secretary  Kissinger  Interviewed  for  New  York  Times 


Following  is  the  transcript  of  an  interview 
with  Secretary  Kissinger  by  James  Reston 
on  October  5  and  6  as  published  in  the  New 
York  Times  on  October  13. 

Mr.  Reston:  You  have  been  sounding 
rather  pessimistic  in  the  last  few  weeks.  Are 
you  worried  about  the  state  of  the  West  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  don't  mean  to  sound 
pessimistic.  I  think  that  there  are  huge  prob- 
lems before  us,  and  I'm  trying  to  define  them. 
I  believe  that  the  problems  are  soluble,  but 
they  require  a  major  effort  and,  in  some 
areas,  new  approaches,  but  I'm  not  pessimis- 
tic about  the  ability  to  solve  them.  We  have — 

Q.  Coidd  I  interrupt  there  to  say  that  in 
reading  ivhat  you  have  written  in  the  past,  I 
have  a  sense  of  pessimism  in  your  writings, 
even  of  tragedy.  Do  you  regard  your  thought 
as  being  essentially  tragic,  when  you  look  at 
the  last  two  generations? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  of  myself  as 
a  historian  more  than  as  a  statesman.  As  a 
historian,  you  have  to  be  conscious  of  the  fact 
that  every  civilization  that  has  ever  existed 
has  ultimately  collapsed. 

History  is  a  tale  of  efforts  that  failed,  of 
aspirations  that  weren't  realized,  of  wishes 
that  were  fulfilled  and  then  turned  out  to  be 
different  from  what  one  expected.  So,  as  a 
historian,  one  has  to  live  with  a  sense  of  the 
inevitability  of  tragedy;  as  a  statesman,  one 
has  to  act  on  the  assumption  that  problems 
must  be  solved. 

Each  generation  lives  in  time,  and  even 
though  ultimately  perhaps  societies  have  all 
suffered  a  decline,  that  is  of  no  help  to  any 
one  generation,   and  the  decline  is  usually 


traceable  to  a  loss  of  creativity  and  inspira- 
tion and  therefore  avoidable. 

It  is  probably  true  that,  insofar  as  I  think 
historically,  I  must  look  at  the  tragedies  that 
have  occurred.  Insofar  as  I  act,  my  motive 
force,  of  which  I  am  conscious,  it  is  to  try  to 
avoid  them. 

Q.  Don't  we  have  to  bring  this  problem 
down  to  practical  points,  the  difference  be- 
tiveen  the  ideals  of  a  republic  and  ivhat  can 
be  done?  Is  there  a  conflict  noiv  in  America 
betiveen  the  ideals  of  foreign  policy  that  you 
see  for  the  order  of  the  world  and  what  can 
actually  be  done  in  terms  of  public  under- 
standing and  in  actual  votes  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  almost  every 
nation  right  now  has  the  problem  of  recon- 
ciling its  domestic  view  of  itself  with  the  in- 
ternational problem  because  every  nation  has 
to  live  on  so  many  levels. 

Certainly  in  every  non-Communist  na- 
tion— and  probably  even  in  Communist  na- 
tions— public  opinion  in  one  way  or  another  is 
becoming  more  and  more  important.  But 
what  public  opinion  is  conscious  of  are  the 
day-to-day  problems  of  life.  The  remoter  is- 
sues, geographically  and  in  time,  do  not  im- 
pinge on  the  average  citizen. 

In  foreign  policy,  the  most  difllcult  issues 
are  those  whose  necessity  you  cannot  prove 
when  the  decisions  are  made.  You  act  on  the 
basis  of  an  assessment  that  in  the  nature  of 
things  is  a  guess,  so  that  public  opinion 
knows,  usually,  only  when  it  is  too  late  to 
act,  when  some  catastrophe  has  become  over- 
whelming. 

The  necessity  of  the  measures  one  takes  to 
avoid  the  catastrophe  can  almost  never  be 


November   11,   1974 


629 


proved.  For  that  reason  you  require  a  great 
deal,  or  at  least  a  certain  amount,  of  confi- 
dence in  leadership;  and  that  becomes  diffi- 
cult in  all  societies. 

But,  speaking  of  the  United  States,  if  one 
looks  at  the  crises  through  which  America 
has  gone  over  the  last  decade — the  assassina- 
tions, the  Viet-Nam  war,  Watergate — it  is 
very  difficult  to  establish  the  relationship  of 
confidence. 

Then  the  United  States  also  has  particular 
problems  in  terms  of  its  historical  experience. 
We  never  had  to  face  the  problem  of  security 
until  the  end  of  the  Second  World  War,  so  we 
could  afford  to  be  very  idealistic  and  insist  on 
the  pure  implementation  of  our  maxims. 

To  the  average  countries  that  were  less 
favored,  the  problems  of  foreign  policy  have 
usually  appeared  in  a  much  more  complicated 
form ;  that  is,  their  morality  could  not  be  ex- 
pressed in  absolute  terms.  Their  morality  had 
to  give  the  sense  of  inward  security  neces- 
sary to  act  step  by  step  in  less  than  perfect 
modes. 

We  are  now  in  a  similar  position,  and 
therefore  there  is  an  almost  instinctive  re- 
bellion in  America  against  the  pragmatic  as- 
pect of  foreign  policy  that  is  security  ori- 
ented, that  achieves  finite  objectives,  that 
seeks  to  settle  for  the  best  attainable  rather 
than  for  the  best.  In  this  sense,  we  are  hav- 
ing domestic  problems. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  strain  in 
America  which  is,  curiously,  extremely  rele- 
vant to  this  world.  We  are  challenged  by  the 
huge  problems — peace  and  war,  energy,  food 
— and  we  have  a  real  belief  in  interdepend- 
ence; it  is  not  just  a  slogan. 

The  solution  of  these  problems  really  comes 
quite  naturally  to  Americans;  first,  because 
they  believe  that  every  problem  is  soluble; 
secondly,  because  they  are  at  ease  with  re- 
doing the  world,  and  the  old  frontier  men- 
tality really  does  find  an  expression,  and  even 
the  old  idealism  finds  a  way  to  express  itself. 

In  what  other  country  could  a  leader  say, 
"We  are  going  to  solve  energy;  we're  going 
to  solve  food ;  we're  going  to  solve  the  prob- 
lem of  nuclear  war,"  and  be  taken  seriously? 
So  I  think  it  is  true  that  there  are  strains  in 


630 


our  domestic  debate;  I  think  it  is  also  true 
that  there  are  many  positive  aspects  in  our 
domestic  debate  that  can  help  us  reach  these 
larger  goals. 


Situation  in  Europe  Today 

Q.  Are  you  ivorried  when  you  see  the  situ- 
ation in  Europe  today?  What's  going  on  in 
Portugal,  the  fragility  of  Italy,  the  almost 
state  of  war  between  two  members  of  the  al- 
liance, Turkey  and  Greece.  Surely,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Moscow,  this  looks  like  a 
fulfillment  of  their  prophecy  of  the  internal 
contradictions  of  the  Western  ivorld. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  One  of  the  troubles 
of  the  Western  societies  is  that  they  are  ba- 
sically satisfied  with  the  status  quo,  so  that 
when  you  have  governments  like  the  previous 
government  in  Portugal,  or  the  previous  gov- 
ernment in  Greece,  the  tendency  is  not  to 
change  it. 

I  think  that's  a  mistaken  conception.  But 
what  comes  after  is  so  uncertain — and  we 
really  lack  a  philosophy  for  how  to  shape  a 
new  political  evolution — that  one  tends  to 
leave  well  enough  alone.  In  the  process,  the 
political  base  erodes  invisibly,  and  then, 
when  the  changes  occur  suddenly,  there  is  no 
real  base  for  a  democratic,  liberal,  humane 
evolution — or  at  least  it  can  be  put  together 
only  with  great  difficulty. 

So,  in  Portugal,  after  50  years  of  authori- 
tarian rule,  the  Communist  Party  was  the 
best  organized,  most  purposeful  opposition 
and  therefore  has  a  very  large  influence  on 
Portugal's  contemporary  orientation. 

In  Greece  there  are  also  massive  domestic 
pressures.  The  problem  of  Italy  and  other 
countries  is  different,  in  that  you  have  there 
a  residual  vote  that  has  never  been  reduced 
by  prosperity  and  goes  to  the  Communists. 
This  shows  that  there  is  a  significant  per- 
centage of  the  population  that  does  not  con- 
sider itself  part  of  the  system. 

If  you  take  the  authoritarian  parties  in 
Italy  on  the  left  and  the  right,  you  have  only 
about  60  percent  of  the  spectrum  to  work 
with  for  a  democratic  policy.  When  that  is 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


split  you  have  an  inherent  weakness;  and 
it  will  be  split,  because  that's  the  nature  of 
the  democratic  process. 

Q.  When  you  came  to  Washington  in  the 
first  place  after  your  study  of  history,  it  was 
said  that  you  had  a  concept  of  how  to  achieve 
the  order  of  the  world,  and  yet  in  the  last 
years,  since  you  have  been  here,  the  tendency 
has  been  to  say  that  you  have  not  defined 
your  concept  but  that  actually  what  you  have 
been  doing  is  negotiating  pragmatic  prob- 
leyns  and  not  really  dealing  ivith  the  cojicept 
or  making  clear  the  concept.  What  is  that 
concept?  First  of  all,  is  the  criticism  correct, 
and  second,  what  is  the  concept  that  you  see? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  you  will 
find  few  officials  who  will  tell  you  that  any 
criticism  you  can  make  of  them  is  correct, 
but  I  don't  think  the  criticism  is  quite  cor- 
rect. I  do  not  have  the  choice,  in  any  position, 
between  imposing  a  theoretical  order  or  ne- 
gotiating, because  if  you  don't  solve  imme- 
diate problems  you  can  never  solve  long-term 
problems. 

If  you  act  creatively  you  should  be  able  to 
use  crises  to  move  the  world  toward  the 
structural  solutions  that  are  necessary.  In 
fact,  very  often  the  crises  themselves  are  a 
symptom  of  the  need  for  a  structural  rear- 
rangement. 

I  faced  a  number  of  problems  partly  of 
perception  and  partly  of  structure.  I  feel  it 
is  essential  that  when  the  United  States  acts 
in  foreign  policy  that  it  understand  first 
what  the  American  national  interest  is  in  re- 
lation to  the  problem.  And  to  define  that, 
America  has  to  know  what  the  world  inter- 
est is,  not  only  in  relation  to  the  specific 
problem  but  in  relation  to  the  historical  evo- 
lution from  which  any  solution  of  a  problem 
starts. 

So  I  have  tried — historians  will  have  to 
judge  with  what  success? — to  understand  the 
forces  that  are  at  work  in  this  period.  My 
associates  will  confirm  that  when  we  tackle  a 
problem  we  spend  the  greatest  part  of  our 
time  at  the  beginning  trying  to  relate  it  to 
where  America  and  the  world  ought  to  go 
before  we  ever  discuss  tactics. 


I  think  somebody  would  have  to  go  through 
my  speeches  and  press  conferences  to  see  to 
what  extent  I  have  articulated  general  prop- 
ositions. I  don't  think  I  should  be  the  judge 
of  this  here. 

Debate  Over  Nature  of  Consultation  With  Europe 

Q.  When  you  made  your  speech  at  the 
Waldorf,  I  regarded  it  at  that  time  as  some- 
thing equivalent  almost  to  the  offer  of  the 
Marshall  plan.  Yet  we  got  no  real  response 
from  Europe.  Even  ivhen  you  ivent  to  London 
and  talked  about  interdependence,  there  was 
no  respojise.  Now,  something  tvas  ivrong 
there.  Could  you  define  it? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  are  always  at 
least  two  aspects  to  any  problem.  One  is  your 
definition  of  the  problem ;  second,  how  you 
solve  it — are  you  doing  it  correctly? 

I  believe  that  the  issues  that  I've  attempted 
to  define  are  serious  issues.  Take  my  Waldorf 
speech,  the  so-called  year  of  Europe  speech. ^ 
It  came  at  a  period  when  we  had  opened  to 
China  and  opened  to  the  Soviet  Union  and 
when  we  had  ended  the  Viet-Nam  war. 

Until  we  had  accomplished  at  least  some  of 
those  objectives,  I  did  not  see  how  a  creative 
period  of  relationship  with  Europe  would  be 
possible,  because  the  disagreement  with  our 
Viet-Nam  policy  in  Europe  was  too  deep. 
The  fear  of  nuclear  confrontation  was  too 
great,  as  was  the  fear  that  the  United  States 
was  somehow  to  blame  for  this  state  of  hos- 
tility in  the  world. 

So  in  early  1973  I  thought  the  time  was  op- 
portune to  move  toward  a  serious  dialogue 
with  Europe,  and  I  thought  it  was  all  the 
more  essential  because  I  did  not  want  suc- 
cess to  become  identified  in  the  public  con- 
sciousness only  with  relations  with  adver- 
saries, and  I  felt  that  the  old  Atlantic  rela- 
tionship would  over  a  period  of  time  become 
so  much  taken  for  granted  and  so  much  the 
province  of  an  older  generation  that  the  next 
generation  would  consider  it  as  something 
not  relevant  to  itself. 


'  For  text  of  the  address,  made  at  New  York  on 
Apr.  23,  1973,  see  Bulletin  of  May  14,  1973,  p.  593. 


November   11,   1974 


631 


I  think  that  this  perception  was  essentially 
correct.  Why  did  it  lead  to  this  intense  dia- 
logue? One  reason  is  that,  at  that  particular 
moment,  Europe  was  enormously  absorbed 
with  itself.  Every  European  country,  it  soon 
became  apparent,  had  a  leadership  crisis  of 
its  own  and  was  trying  to  sort  out  its  own  do- 
mestic problems.  Beyond  that,  Europe  was 
very  much  occupied  in  forming  its  own  iden- 
tity, and  it  had  so  much  difficulty  in  doing  so 
that  any  greater  conception  seemed  a  threat 
to  whatever  autonomy  they  had  so  painfully 
wrested  from  their  deliberations. 

So  we  became  involved  in  an  abstruse  the- 
oretical debate  over  the  nature  of  consulta- 
tion, something  that  could  never  be  written 
down,  because  you  can't  wave  a  paper  at 
somebody  and  tell  him  he's  obliged  to  consult 
if  he  doesn't  want  to  consult. 

Then  the  Middle  East  war  occurred,  and 
that  had  a  tendency  to  emphasize  national 
frustrations,  so  that  the  larger  dialogue  that 
I  had  sought  took  a  long  time  to  get  started ; 
but  finally  the  end  result  was  pretty  close  to 
what  we  had  asked,  though  not  completely  in 
the  spirit  I  had  hoped  to  evoke.  We  got  the 
documents  we  wanted,  but  we  didn't  get  the 
spirit  of  creativity  that,  for  example,  the 
Marshall  offer  evoked. 

Now,  similarly,  with  the  Pilgrim  speech  in 
London.-  It  was  not  received  very  warmly, 
because,  again,  it  was  looked  at  very  much 
from  the  national  point  of  view.  Nevertheless, 
events  have  moved  us  inevitably  in  that  di- 
rection. The  emergency  sharing  program 
which  seemed  revolutionary  in  February  has 
now  been  accepted  by  all  the  countries.  Even 
France,  I  hope,  will  find  some  way  of  relat- 
ing itself  to  it. 

And  we  are  now  engaged  in  discussions 
which  will  go  far  beyond  what  we  could  talk 
about  last  year.  In  the  late  1940's  the  mere 
fact  that  the  United  States  was  willing  to 
commit  itself  was  a  tremendous  event.  Now 
this  is  probably  not  enough,  and  our  aspira- 
tions have  to  be  expressed  in  action  rather 
than  in  debate. 


'  For  text  of  the  address,  made  on  Dec.  12,  1973, 
see  Bulletin  of  Dec.  31,  1973,  p.  777. 


Need  for  a  National  Understanding 

Q.  On  that  point,  when  you  offer,  as  a  ba- 
sis for  discussion  ivith  the  Europeans  and 
the  rest  of  the  ivorld,  a  sharing  of  oil  in  a 
crisis,  do  you  believe  that  the  spirit  of  this 
country  loill  accept  it?  When  you  come  down 
to  a  question  of  producing  oil  for  other  coun- 
tries who  are  in  worse  shape  than  we  are,  is 
it  politically  possible  in  this  country  to  do  it? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  is  undoubtedly 
a  profound  disillusionment  in  America  with 
foreign  involvement  in  general.  We  have  car- 
ried the  burden  for  a  generation.  In  fact,  if 
you  go  back  to  the  beginning  of  World  War 
II,  it  doesn't  seem  to  end.  Most  programs 
have  been  sold  to  Americans  with  the  argu- 
ment that  they  would  mean  an  end  of  exer- 
tion. Now  we  have  to  convince  Americans 
that  there  will  never  be  an  end  to  exertion. 
That's  a  very  difl[icult  problem. 

And  if  you  look  at  some  of  our  recent  de- 
bates you  would  have  to  say  we  could  fail.  I 
don't  think  that  those  in  key  positions  at  this 
particular  moment  have  any  real  choice.  At 
a  minimum,  we  have  to  tell  the  American 
people  what  we  think  is  needed.  If  they  do 
not  agree,  at  least  they  will  know  10  years 
from  now,  if  there  is  a  catastrophe,  what 
happened.  And  then  there  is  a  chance  of  re- 
storing a  sense  of  direction.  But  if  10  years 
from  now  there  is  a  catastrophe  and  people 
say,  "Why  didn't  somebody  tell  us  about  this, 
and  why  didn't  they  ask  us  to  do  what  they 
should  have  foreseen?",  then  I  think  our 
whole  system  may  be  in  difficulty. 


Q.  That's  a  critical  point  because  I  don't 
think  the  country — if  one  may  presume  to 
think  about  what  the  country  thinks — has 
the  vaguest  idea  of  what  it  is  called  upon  to 
do.  We  are  complaining  about  how  the  oil- 
producing  nations  are  using  their  resources, 
and  yet  we  have  larger  reserves  of  food  in 
North  America  than  the  nations  of  the  Mid- 
dle East  have  oil  resources,  and  yet  here 
we  are  7iow  arguing  our  national  interests. 
We  are  against  high  prices  for  oil,  but  we  are 
still  a  very  gluttonous,  wasteful  country.  Can 
that  be  made  clear  ? 


I 


632 


Deportment  of  State  Bulletin 


Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  it  is  fair 
to  say  that  we  ourselves — I  say  "we,"  those 
who  have  positions  of  responsibility  at  this 
moment — we  ourselves  are  learning  the 
magnitude  of  the  challenges  as  we  go  along. 
In  1969,  when  I  came  to  Washington,  I  re- 
member a  study  on  the  energy  problem 
which  proceeded  from  the  assumption  that 
there  would  always  be  an  energy  surplus. 
It  wasn't  conceivable  that  there  would  be  a 
shortage  of  energy. 

Until  1972,  we  thought  we  had  inex- 
haustible food  surpluses,  and  the  fact  that 
we  have  to  shape  our  policy  deliberately  to 
relate  ourselves  to  the  rest  of  the  world  did 
not  really  arise  until  1973,  when  we  did  call 
for  a  world  food  conference. 

But  you  are  right.  We  have  to  tell  the 
American  people  what  they  are  called  upon 
to  do.  That  is  our  biggest  problem.  It's  our 
biggest  challenge  right  now.  And  will  they 
support  it?  I  hope  that  they  will.  I  am,  in 
fact,  confident  that  they  will. 

Q.  Can  you  define  what  those  questions 
are  that  should  be  put  to  the  country?  What 
does  the  government  want  the  responsible 
citizen  to  do?  He  hasn't  had  much  lead  from 
you  and  your  colleagues  and  the  government 
as  to  what  you  wish  him  to  do. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  am  not  sure  that  I 
agree  with  whether  he  has  received  leader- 
ship from  my  colleagues  and  me.  I  think  it  is 
also  fair  to  say  that  the  nature  of  our  debate 
for  many  years  now  has  been  so  bitter  that 
it's  hard  to  put  forward  a  conception  that 
doesn't  immediately  get  ripped  apart  by  an 
attack  on  motives. 

But  leaving  that  aside,  I  think  in  foreign 
policy  we  need  a  national  understanding  of 
what  is  needed,  what  is  meant  by  peace,  and 
an  understanding  that  we  are  living  in  a 
world  in  which  peace  cannot  be  imposed  on 
others,  which  means  that  sometimes  the  out- 
comes must  be  less  than  perfect.  I  have  been 
concerned  about  the  detente  debate  because 
so  often  the  issue  is  put  in  terms  of — did  the 
Soviets  benefit  from  a  particular  deal?  Of 
course,  they  must  benefit,  or  they  won't  feel 
a  stake  in  maintaining  the  resulting  struc- 


ture. So,  we  have  to  know  what  we  mean  by 
peace;  we  have  to  know  what  we  mean  by 
cooperation ;  and  we  have  above  all  to  under- 
stand these  big  issues  which  we  have  been 
discussing,  like  energy  and  food,  in  which 
our  actions  will  crucially  determine  what 
happens  in  the  rest  of  the  world. 

And  of  course  what  happens  in  the  rest 
of  the  world  will  play  back  to  us,  so  we 
cannot  afford  an  isolated  approach.  If  we  try 
a  solo  effort  in  energy  and  as  a  result  Italy 
collapses  or  Britain  has  a  crisis,  that  is 
going  to  bring  about  so  many  political  trans- 
formations that  within  a  very  brief  period 
of  time  we  would  be  aff"ected  in  ways  that 
even  the  average  citizen  would  feel  very 
acutely. 

On  food,  the  same  is  true  in  reverse.  We 
there  have  an  opportunity  to  demonstrate 
that  when  we  talk  interdependence,  we  are 
not  just  talking  an  American  desire  to  ex- 
ploit the  resources  of  other  nations.  What 
we  are  saying  is  for  our  own  benefit,  of 
course.  But  it  is  also  for  the  benefit  of  every- 
body else.  Now,  that  requires  many  changes 
in  our  thinking.  Of  course,  senior  officials 
are  always  so  busy  with  the  day-to-day  prob- 
lems that  they  always  seem  to  think  one  can 
wait  for  a  day  or  a  week  to  articulate  the 
bigger   issues. 

It  is  also  true  that  our  people  have  been 
so  preoccupied  with  domestic  problems  that 
it  is  not  so  easy  to  get  attention  for  the 
longer    term. 

Vision  of  the  World 

Q.  If  we  do  not  see  this  problem  of  inter- 
dependence, ivhat's  the  vision  that  you  have 
of  the  world?  What  will  happen  to  Western 
civilization  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  If  we  do  not  get  a 
recognition  of  our  interdependence,  the 
Western  civilization  that  we  now  have  is 
almost  certain  to  disintegrate,  because  it  will 
first  lead  to  a  series  of  rivalries  in  which 
each  region  will  try  to  maximize  its  own 
special  advantages.  That  inevitably  will  lead 
to  tests  of  strength  of  one  sort  or  another. 
These  will  magnify  domestic  crises  in  many 


November   11,    1 974 


633 


countries,  and  they  will  then  move  more  and 
more  to  authoritarian  models. 

I  would  expect  then  that  we  will  certainly 
have  crises  which  no  leadership  is  able  to 
deal  with  and  probably  military  confronta- 
tions. But  ^ven  if  you  don't  have  military 
confrontations,  you  will  certainly,  in  my 
view,  have  systemic  crises  similar  to  those 
of  the  twenties  and  thirties,  but  under  con- 
ditions when  world  consciousness  has  be- 
come  global. 

Q.  Well,  now,  that  is  your  nightmare. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That's  right. 

Q.  What  are  your  hopes?  We  are  halfway 
hetiveen  the  end  of  the  Uist  world  ivar,  a  lit- 
tle tnore,  and  the  end  of  the  century.  As  a 
historian,  and  not  as  a  Secretary  of  State, 
looking  back,  if  one  can,  from  the  end  of  the 
century  to  this  era,  how  can  the  nations  find 
some  way  of  living  together  or  going  beyond 
the  nation-state  to  somethiyig  else? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Looking  toward  the 
end  of  the  century,  I  would  hope  that  Western 
Europe,  Japan,  and  the  United  States  would 
have  found  a  way  of  not  just  overcoming  the 
current  economic  crisis  but  turning  it  into 
something  positive  by  understanding  the  re- 
sponsibilities they  share  for  each  other's 
progress  and  for  developing  cooperative  poli- 
cies that  are  explicitly  directed  toward  world 
interests. 

This  requires  a  degree  of  financial  solidar- 
ity, a  degree  of  equalizing  burdens,  and  a  de- 
gree of  ability  to  set  common  goals  that  can- 
not be  done  on  a  purely  national  basis.  This, 
incidentally,  requires  a  united  Europe,  be- 
cause with  a  plethora  of  nation-states  in  Eu- 
rope we'll  never  be  able  to  do  this. 

In  relation  to  the  Soviet  Union  and  Com- 
munist China,  we  should  have  achieved  a  po- 
sition, not  of  having  overcome  all  our  diffi- 
culties, but  having  reached  a  point  where  the 
solution  of  these  difficulties  by  war  becomes 
less  and  less  conceivable  and,  over  time, 
should  have  become  inconceivable. 

This  means  that  there  must  be  a  visible  and 
dramatic  downturn  in  the  arms  race.  Other- 
wise that  race  itself  is  going  to  generate  so 


many  fears  that  it  can  be  maintained  only  by 
a  degree  of  public  exhortation  that  is  incon- 
sistent over  a  historic  period  with  a  policy 
of  relaxation  and  maybe  even  with  peace. 

The  underdeveloped  nations — the  now  un- 
derdeveloped nations — should  by  then  have 
lost  their  sense  of  inferiority  and  should  feel 
not  that  they  have  to  extort,  but  that  they 
should  participate.  Thus  what  I  said  earlier 
about  the  relationship  between  Western  Eu- 
rope, the  United  States,  and  Japan  should 
have  begun  to  be  institutionalized  to  embrace 
at  least  some  of  the  key  countries,  and  the 
Soviet  Union  and  China  must  be  related  to 
that. 

Take  the  food  problem.  I  do  not  believe 
that  over  an  indefinite  future,  we  can  solve 
the  problem  of  world  food  reserves  if  the 
Soviet  Union  and  Communist  China  do  not 
accept  obligations  of  their  own  or  if  they 
simply  rely  on  the  rest  of  the  world's  produc- 
tion to  solve  their  problems  on  an  annual  ba- 
sis. 

Q.  What  should  they  be  doing? 

Secretanj  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think — and  I 
will  speak  about  that  at  the  World  Food  Con- 
ference— we  have  to  develop  over  the  next 
5  to  10  years  some  conceptions  of  the  reserves 
that  should  exist  and  the  contribution  that 
the  major  countries  should  make.  Countries 
that  will  not  participate  should  not  then  ask 
necessarily  equal  rights  to  participate  in  pur- 
chases of  reserve  stocks.  But  this  is  some- 
thing that  requires  further  study. 

Q.  Do  you  foresee  in  the  next  decade  the 
possibility  of  political  disarray  in  Europe 
and  of  enormous  human  tragedy  in  other 
parts  of  the  world? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  we  are  deli- 
cately poised  right  now.  I  genuinely  think 
that  the  next  decade  could  either  be  a  period 
that  in  retrospect  will  look  like  one  of  the 
great  periods  of  human  creativity,  or  it  could 
be  the  beginning  of  extraordinary  disarray. 

Q.  Is  it  possible — and  it  is  obviously  a 
Scottish  Calvinist  point  of  view  that  the 
greatest  hope  of  progress  is  adversity — that 


634 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


we  are  now  really  up  against  economic,  finan- 
cial, and  social  problems  of  such  magnitude 
that  we  are  suddenly  being  forced,  even  by 
inflation,  into  a  view  of  life  that  could  be 
more  hopeful? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  While  this  period  has 
more  strain  than,  say,  a  decade  ago,  it  has 
also  infinitely  more  opportunities,  because  we 
really  have  no  choice  except  to  address  our 
problems.  Who  would  have  thought  of  an  in- 
ternational food  policy  or  a  world  food  con- 
ference 10  years  ago,  or  could  have  been 
taken  seriously  if  he  had?  Today,  it  is  only  a 
question  of  time  until  we  develop  it,  and  the 
real  question  is,  will  we  develop  it  soon 
enough?  I  think  we  can. 

Q.  Is  there  a  danger  that  if  we  do  not  deal 
with  the  world  problems  that  here  at  home 
we  ivould  become  so  frustrated  that  we  xvould 
retreat,  not  into  the  oldtime  isolationism  but 
into  a  kiyid  of  chauvinism  that  would  make 
the  whole  question,  of  ivorld  order  really 
quite  impossible? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  It  is  a  big  problem. 
There  is  such  a  tendency  in  America ;  but  at 
least  part  of  our  chauvinism  is  disappointed 
idealism,  so  it's  always  a  question  of  whether 
one  can  evoke  the  idealism. 

Foreign  Policy  Decisionmaking 

Q.  The  charge  is  made,  I  think,  that  you 
have  been  so  personal  in  the  way  in  ivhich 
you've  dealt  with  the  Department  of  State 
that  you've  not  organized  it;  you've  not  put 
this  great  machine  to  work  but  actually 
you've  replaced  it  with  yourself. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  One  has  to  ask  one- 
self :  What  is  it  that  needs  to  be  done  in  the 
Department  of  State?  For  a  variety  of  rea- 
sons, one  could  make  a  case  for  the  proposi- 
tion that  since  Dean  Acheson,  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  has  really  not  been  used  as  an 
institution.  There  has  been  a  succession  of 
Secretaries  of  State,  many  of  them  outstand- 
ing individuals,  who  have  tended  to  operate 
as-  Presidential  advisers. 

When  I  came  in,  I  deliberately  set  myself 
the  task  of  trying  to  turn  the  Department  of 


State  into  an  institution  that  can  serve  suc- 
ceeding Presidents  and  succeeding  Secretar- 
ies of  State.  Now,  in  my  judgment,  this  can 
work  only  if  a  number  of  requirements  are 
met. 

First,  the  work  done  in  the  Department  of 
State  has  to  be  so  outstanding  that  the  issue 
of  who  is  the  principal  adviser  to  the  Presi- 
dent does  not  arise  as  a  bureaucratic  prob- 
lem, because  if  the  work  is  of  the  requisite 
quality  then  inevitably  the  Department  of 
State  will  be  the  organization  for  decision- 
making. 

The  second  problem  has  been  to  put  into 
the  key  positions  younger,  more  forward- 
looking,  and  more  creative  people.  That  part 
of  it,  I  believe,  has  been  substantially  accom- 
plished. 

The  third  problem  is :  How  does  the  De- 
partment think  of  itself?  What  do  the  officers 
think  their  mission  is?  And  this  is  where  the 
difficulty  has  arisen.  It  exists  on  several  lev- 
els. In  calmer  periods  of  American  history 
the  rewards,  the  incentives,  the  emphasis 
was  on  negotiating,  not  analysis.  Therefore, 
the  organization  of  the  Department  of  State 
is  more  geared  to  producing  cables  and  day- 
to-day  tactical  decisions  than  it  is  to  getting 
a  grip  on  national  policy. 

Now,  I  have  attempted  to  get  at  the  con- 
ceptual problem  first  and  not  to  bother  re- 
organizing the  operational  part  particularly. 
I  think  the  Policy  Planning  Staff"  is  in  a  more 
central  position  in  the  Department  of  State 
today  than  it  has  been  at  any  time  since 
George  Kennan.  I  believe  the  quality  of  its 
work  is  outstanding.  The  Bureau  of  Intelli- 
gence and  Research,  which  in  the  past  was  a 
sort  of  adjunct  to  policymaking,  has  been 
given  new  vitality. 

In  the  Bureaus — in  the  geographic  Bu- 
reaus— the  relationship  between  a  more  con- 
ceptual approach  and  a  more  operational  ap- 
proach has  not  yet  been  fully  balanced.  One 
of  the  results  of  having  more  power  flow  to 
the  State  Department  has  been  that  the  As- 
sistant Secretaries  have  spent  so  much  more 
time  with  me — at  least,  those  that  I've 
worked  with — that  they  have  not  had  as 
much  time  to  give  to  leading  their  Bureaus. 


November   11,    1974 


635 


So,  paradoxically,  what  some  of  the  lower 
level  people  complain  about  is  the  result  of 
the  greater  involvement  of  the  middle  and 
upper  echelons. 

Now,  I  have  had  over  the  last  two  months 
a  series  of  meetings.  I  have  a  small  group 
that  is  dealing  explicitly  with  the  problem  of 
how  the  Foreign  Service  and  the  Department 
of  State  can  be  turned  into  intellectual  lead- 
ers of  American  foreign  policy — not  bureau- 
cratic operators,  but  intellectual  and  concep- 
tual leaders. 

It  is  too  early  to  tell  what  the  legacy  will 
be.  I  feel  very  strongly  that,  partly  based  on 
my  study  of  history,  individual  tours  de  force 
by  Secretaries  of  State  can  be  counterproduc- 
tive if  they  don't  leave  a  tradition  behind, 
and  the  reason  I  have  always  admired  Dean 
Acheson  so  much  is  because  I  believe  he  left 
a  legacy  of  thought  and  of  organization. 

Q.  How  do  you  rate  the  use  of  diplomatic 
appointments  to  this  theme  of  superiority? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  if  you  look  at 
the  diplomatic  appointments  that  have  been 
made  since  I  became  Secretary  of  State,  in 
all  the  key  departmental  positions,  I  think  we 
have  outstanding  personnel.  In  the  overseas 
positions,  we  have  reduced  the  number  of  po- 
litical appointees  and,  quite  frankly,  have 
been  quite  resistant  to  purely  political  ap- 
pointees in  key  posts,  maybe  a  little  less  re- 
sistant in  more  peripheral  appointments. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  to  the  charge  that 
trying  to  be  Secretary  of  State  and  head  of 
the  National  Security  Council  (NSC)  is  doing 
too  much  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  all  of  these  po- 
sitions have  to  be  seen  also  in  relation  to  the 
history  from  which  they  evolve.  I  was  head 
of  the  NSC  staff  for  five  years  before  I  be- 
came Secretary  of  State.  I  think  the  two  posi- 
tions are  really  complementary.  The  basic 
responsibility  of  the  Assistant  to  the  Presi- 
dent for  National  Security  Affairs  is  to  make 
sure  that  the  President  receives  the  fairest 
possible  statement  of  his  alternatives.  It  is 
against  the  national  interest,  and  it  is 
against,  for  that  matter,  a  correct  percep- 


tion of  the  self-interest  of  the  Assistant  to 
load  the  dice. 

I  generally  open  an  NSC  meeting  by  pre- 
senting the  options.  The  other  heads  of  de- 
partment or  heads  of  agencies  are  there.  If 
I  loaded  the  definition  of  the  options,  they 
would  in  a  short  time  know  I  was  cheating.  I 
don't  believe  the  NSC  job  takes  too  much 
time.  I  do  believe  the  two  jobs  complement 
each  other.  But  of  course  every  President 
must  organize  the  decisionmaking  process  so 
that  he  is  comfortable  with  it. 

Contrary  to  what  has  been  written,  I  never 
expressed  to  the  President  any  particular 
view  as  to  how  he  should  organize  himself.  I 
never  talked  to  the  transition  team,  and  I 
have  always  understood  that  the  ultimate  de- 
cision has  to  be  the  President's.  He  has  to 
live  with  his  decisions,  and  he  has  to  live 
with  the  way  these  decisions  are  made. 

Implementing  Policies 

Q.  Always  there  has  been  a  problem  be- 
tween defining  policy  and  then  seeing  tfiat 
the  policy  is  actually  carried  out  doivn 
through  the  departments.  I  gather  this  is 
still  a  problem  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  problem,  I  be- 
lieve, is  that  the  difference  between  great 
policy  and  mediocre  policy  or  substantial 
policy  and  average  policy  is  usually  an  accu- 
mulation of  nuances.  The  intellectual  debate 
tends  to  be  put  in  absolutes,  but  I  believe,  in 
fact,  it  is  nuances  that  count. 

Now,  how  you  fine-tune  a  big  bureaucracy 
to  be  responsive  to  little  shifts  and  to  under- 
stand the  psychological  intangibles  on  which 
major  decisions  often  depend  is  very  hard. 

In  addition,  the  key  men  in  any  govern- 
ment are  there  because  they  usually  are  men 
of  strong  will.  Obviously,  they  believe  in 
what  they  are  proposing.  If  a  decision  goes 
against  them,  they  may  believe  they  haven't 
heard  it  right,  or  that  the  President  didn't 
understand  them  correctly.  Or  they  may  sub- 
consciously try  to  interpret  it  as  close  to 
their  convictions  as  they  can.  I  don't  say  this 
critically;  it  is  unavoidable. 

Thus,  how  you  can  have  enough  control  to 


636 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


make  sure  that  there  is  coherence  in  the  ac- 
tions, this  is  the  big  problem.  But  basically 
we  have  not  done  too  badly  in  implementing 
decisions.  I  think  in  many  respects — in  at 
least  the  key  areas  of  policymaking — we 
really  haven't  had  too  much  to  think  of  in 
getting  it  implemented. 

Q.  I  don't  know  how  many  years  ago  it 
ivas  that  Governor  Rockefeller  made  Godkin 
lectures  at  Harvard.  I  always  suspected  you 
had  something  to  do  with  it.  He  talked  then 
about  new  concepts  of  confederation  in  the 
West.  Noiv,  one  hears  nothing  about  those 
concepts.  Why  is  this? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Because  we  have 
reached  the  paradoxical  position  that  at  the 
moment  when  the  need  for  cooperative  ac- 
tion is  greatest,  the  national  and  regional 
sense  of  identity  has  also  grown.  Thus  any 
attempt  to  institutionalize  a  new  structure 
within,  for  example,  a  confederal  framework 
would  meet  resistance  out  of  proportion  to 
what  it  could  achieve. 

Indeed,  some  of  the  efforts  that  were  made 
last  year  tended  in  the  direction  of  what 
Governor  Rockefeller  was  talking  about  in 
1961  without  using  those  words.  They  were 
resisted  for  the  reason  that  they  seemed  to 
be  too  formal  and  an  intrusion  into  the  sense 
of  identity  of  others.  Nevertheless,  while  the 
organization  or  the  institution  of  a  confed- 
eration may  be  more  than  the  traffic  will 
bear,  the  need  for  cooperative  action  is  ab- 
solutely imperative. 

Soviet  Union  and  China 

Q.  When  I  ivas  in  Europe  just  a  few  weeks 
ago,  the  question  was  raised  there  about  your 
concept  of  China  and  of  the  Soviet  Union. 
The  questioyi  was  raised  whether  in  your 
mind  you  have  not  actvnlly  chosen  one  over 
the  other  and  in  the  process  were  playing 
one  up  against  the  other.  Could  you  clarify 
that? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  When  one  analyzes 
foreign  policy,  there  is  always  the  tempta- 
tion to  look  at  the  day-to-day  tactics  and  not 
at  the  underlying  reality.   Any  attempt  to 


play  oflf  the  Soviet  Union  and  Communist 
China  against  each  other  would  have  a  high 
risk  that,  at  least  for  tactical  reasons,  they 
would  combine  against  us.  The  rivalry  and 
tensions  between  the  Soviet  Union  and 
Communist  China  were  not  created  by  the 
United  States.  In  fact,  we  didn't  believe  in 
their  reality  for  much  too  long  a  time.  They 
cannot  be  exploited  by  the  United  States. 
They  can  only  be  noted  by  the  United  States. 

The  correct  policy  for  the  United  States 
is  to  take  account  of  what  exists  and  to  con- 
duct a  policy  of  meticulous  honesty  with 
both  of  them  so  that  neither  believes  we  are 
trying  to  use  one  against  the  other.  In  the 
course  of  events,  it  may  happen  that  one  may 
feel  that  it  is  gaining  benefit  against  the 
other  as  a  result  of  dealing  with  us,  but  that 
cannot  be  our  aim  or  purpose. 

We  have  meticulously  avoided  forms  of 
cooperation  with  the  Soviet  Union  that  could 
be  construed  as  directed  against  China.  We 
have  never  signed  agreements  whose  chief 
purpose  could  be  seen  as  directed  against 
China,  and  conversely  we  have  never  par- 
ticipated with  China  in  declarations  that 
could  be  seen  as  aimed  at  the  Soviet  Union. 
We  have  developed  our  bilateral  relation- 
ships with  both  and  left  them  to  sort  out 
their  relationships  with  each  other.  In  fact, 
we  have  rarely  talked  to  either  of  them  about 
the  other. 

New  International  Structure 

Q.  When  you  leave  this  office,  what  is  it 
you  want  to  have  achieved  at  the  end  of  your 
service ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  It  used  to  be  that  the 
overwhelming  concern  of  any  President  or 
Secretary  of  State  had  to  be  to  make  a 
contribution  to  peace  in  the  traditional  sense ; 
that  is  to  say,  to  reduce  tensions  among 
nations  or  regions.  That  remains,  of  course, 
an  essential  preoccupation.  History  has,  I 
think,  placed  me  in  a  key  position  at  a  time 
when  we  are  moving  from  the  relics  of  the 
postwar  period  toward  a  new  international 
structure. 

The   administration   did   not   invent  that 


November   11,   1974 


637 


structure.  It  did  have,  however,  an  oppor- 
tunity to  contribute  to  it — an  opportunity 
that  did  not  exist  10  years  earlier  and  that 
may  not  exist  10  years  later.  Now,  the  differ- 
ence between  that  structure  and  the  pre- 
vious period  is  that  there  are  more  factors 
to  consider  and  that  it  has  to  be  built  not  on 
the  sense  of  the  preeminence  of  two  power 
centers,  but  on  the  sense  of  participation  of 
those  who  are  part  of  the  global  environ- 
ment. 

This  has  required  a  change  in  the  Amer- 
ican perception  of  the  nature  of  foreign 
policy.  What  is  described  as  excessive  prag- 
matism is  really  a  rather  conscious  attempt  to 
try  to  educate  myself,  my  generation,  and  my 
associates,  insofar  as  I  can  contribute  to 
living  with  the  world  as  it  is  now  emerging. 
Pragmatism  unrelated  to  a  purpose  becomes 
totally   self-destructive. 

In  addition,  I  would  like  to  leave  at  least 
the  beginning  of  a  perception  of  a  structure 
that  goes  beyond  these  centers  of  power  and 
moves  toward  a  global  conception.  There  is 
no  question  in  my  mind  that  by  the  end  of 
the  century  this  will  be  the  dominant  reality 
of  our  time.  I  believe  we  have  to  move 
toward  it  now. 

Q.  Can  you  define  it? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Before  I  go  to  that, 
let  me  say  one  other  thing  that  I  have  been 
very  much  concerned  with.  However  long  I 
stay,  it  will  be  but  a  temporary  episode.  To 
succeed  in  these  objectives,  I  will  have  to 
leave  behind  a  public  understanding  and, 
above  all,  an  intellectual  understanding  in  the 
State  Department  that  can  carry  on  not  only 
the  detailed  policies  but  an  overall  under- 
standing of  where  America  fits  into  the 
global  scheme  of  things.  I  intend  to  give 
increasing  attention  to  this  problem. 

Q.  One  of  your  close  fHends  once  said  to 
me,  "Kissinger  has  a  weakness  for  becoming 
melancholy  and  leaving  the  job."  What  is 
your  perception  of  how  long  you  wish  to  stay 
in  this  job  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  may  have  a  predi- 
lection for  becoming  melancholy,  but  there 
are  very  few  jobs  I  believed  in  that  I  have 


actually  left.  Jean  Monnet  once  said  that  he 
isn't  interested  whether  a  man  is  ambitious ; 
the  question  is  whether  he  is  ambitious  to  do 
something  or  ambitious  to  be  something.  I 
think  the  same  is  true  of  vanity  or  many 
other  qualities  that  can  be  ascribed  to  people 
in  key  positions. 

I'd  like  to  leave  at  a  moment  when  it  is 
still  clear  that  my  ambition  and  my  vanity 
are  geared  toward  doing  something  and  when 
holding  onto  the  job  does  not  become  the  cen- 
tral preoccupation  or  the  chief  focus  of  pub- 
lic debate.  Now,  when  that  is  depends  on 
many  factors — obviously,  on  the  confidence 
of  the  President,  about  which  I  have  no  prob- 
lem ;  the  degree  of  public  support ;  the  degree 
of  congressional  support. 

I  have  felt  very  strongly  that  foreign  pol- 
icy must  be  a  national  effort  and  that  while 
of  course  disagreements  are  inevitable,  I'd 
rather  them  to  cut  across  party  lines,  just  as 
I  hope  the  support  would  cut  across  party 
lines. 

Now,  if  debate  becomes  too  partisan,  then 
I  would  have  to  look  at  the  situation  again, 
and  I  do  not  believe  anyone  is  indispensable 
or  should  develop  a  policy  that  makes  him 
indispensable,  because  that  would  contradict 
the  whole  perception  of  what  I — 

Resumption  of  Foreign  Policy  Debate 

Q.  There  has  been  a  lot  of  talk  on  the  Hill, 
since  they  cut  your  foreign  aid  bill  and  one 
or  two  other  things,  that  the  support  you  had 
on  the  Hill  and  in  the  country  has  been 
eroded  recently.  Is  that  true,  in  your  judg- 
ment? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Support  in  the  coun- 
try, I  cannot  judge.  Whenever  I  appear  in 
public,  I  seem  to  draw  large  crowds,  but  I 
am  no  expert  on  public  support. 

As  to  support  on  the  Hill,  I  think  one  has 
to  distinguish  the  very  unusual  situation  that 
existed  before  President  Nixon's  resignation 
with  what  could  reasonably  be  expected.  Be- 
fore President  Nixon's  resignation  there  was 
such  a  sense  of  horror  at  the  disintegration 
of  authority  domestically  that  everybody  had 
an  interest  in  demonstrating  that  there  was 


638 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


no  debate  on  our  foreign  policy.  There  was  a 
desire  to  preserve  one  island  of  authority  in 
this  general  disintegration. 

Therefore,  I  probably  had  an  unusually 
favorable  situation  on  the  Hill  that  no  one 
could  expect  to  preserve  in  normal  circum- 
stances. 

So  I  would  think  what  has  happened  now, 
after  President  Nixon's  resignation,  is  the 
opening  of  foreign  policy  to  normal  partisan 
debate.  Probably  in  the  excitement  the  pen- 
dulum is  swinging  a  bit  too  far  and  there  are 
intrusions  in  day-to-day  tactical  decisions 
which  Congress  really  isn't  best  equipped  to 
handle.  But  I  think  the  pendulum  will  swing 
back — not  to  where  it  was  before,  and  that 
wasn't  healthy,  anyway — but  to  a  normal 
kind  of  political  debate. 

Q.  You  mentioned  Jean  Monnet,  and  he 
once  said  to  me,  not  in  recent  years,  in  prior 
discussions  about  the  CIA:  "A  democratic 
country  as  open  as  America  can  never  really 
run  a  secret  service,  and  if  it  tries  to  do  so, 
in  the  end  probably  its  losses  are  really 
greater  than  its  gains."  What  do  you  think 
of  that? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  an  intelligence 
organization  is  essential  for  a  great  power.  I 
don't  think  there  is  much  dispute  about  the 
part  of  the  intelligence  organization  that 
collects  information,  analyzes  it,  and  tries  to 
interpret  the  world  to  political  leaders. 

The  debates  arise  where  the  intelligence 
organization  is  operational  and  attempts  to 
affect  political  events  in  other  parts  of  the 
world.  In  this  case  there  is  a  serious  problem, 
because  there  is  a  gray  area  between  the  ex- 
ercise of  diplomacy  and  the  use  of  force.  Ad- 
mittedly, you  may  create  political  realities — 
or  political  realities  may  come  about — of 
great  magnitude. 

There  is  no  question  that  insofar  as  covert 
operations  are  conducted  they  should  be  care- 
fully controlled,  first  of  all  within  the  execu- 
tive branch,  to  make  certain  there  is  no  al- 
ternative and  that  they  meet  political  goals 
and,  secondly,  to  the  degree  possible,  by  Con- 
gress. How  to  do  this,  I  think,  requires  care- 
ful study. 


A  View  of  America 

Q.  I'm  more  interested  in  the  risiyig  gen- 
eration tha)i  I  am  in  the  contemporary  prob- 
lem, and  for  that  reason  I  wanted  to  ask  you 
this:  A  colleague  of  mine  went  to  see  Willy 
Brandt  and  asked,  "What  does  the  young 
generation  in  Germany  now  think  of  Amer- 
ica?" And  Brandt  replied,  "The  magic  is 
gone."  And  when  he  was  asked  ivhat  he 
meant  by  that,  it  was  that  we  have  used 
power,  he  thought,  in  a  way  that  did  not 
comport  to  our  ideals,  particularly  in  Viet- 
Nam,  but  there  was  something  beyond  that, 
a  kind  of  sense  that  ive  were  engaged  in  a 
kind  of  disintegration.  He  mentioned  the 
drug  cidture  in  America  as  being  profoundly 
worrisome  and  that  somehow  we  had  lost 
our  ideals  in  the  way  in  which  we  approach 
the  world. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  was  told  last  year 
that  the  public  opinion  polls  in  Germany  in 
the  second  half  of  the  year  dramatically 
changed  from  showing  a  declining  image  of 
the  United  States  to  increasingly  favoring 
the  United  States.  The  explanation  I  was 
given  was  the  end  of  the  Viet-Nam  war  and 
the  decisive  handling  of  the  Middle  East 
crisis. 

The  Germans,  the  younger  Germans,  again 
saw  the  United  States  as  a  nation  that  could 
solve  problems — and  that  is  one  of  the  ele- 
ments of  the  American  appeal. 

America  has  gone  through  many  changes, 
dramatic  changes,  in  the  last  decade.  We  even 
began  to  develop  a  new  isolationism.  The  old 
isolationism  was  based  on  the  proposition 
that  we  were  too  good  for  this  world ;  the 
new  isolationism  was  based  on  the  proposi- 
tion that  we're  not  good  enough  for  it. 

When  one  looks  at  the  process  of  growing 
up,  it  is  largely  a  process  of  learning  one's 
limits,  that  one  is  not  immortal,  that  one  can- 
not achieve  everything;  and  then  to  draw 
from  that  realization  the  strength  to  set 
great  goals  nevertheless.  Now,  I  think  that 
as  a  country  we've  gone  through  this.  We 
were  immature  in  the  sense  that  we  thought 
the  definition  of  goals  was  almost  the  equiva- 
lent of  their  realization. 


November   11,    1974 


639 


Then  we  went  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and 
I  think  from  this  point  of  view  the  Kennedy 
period  is  likely  to  be  seen  as  the  end  of  an 
era,  rather  than  as  the  beginning  of  one :  the 
last  great  flowering  of  the  naive  version  of 
American  idealism.  And  I  don't  say  this  as  a 
criticism. 

I  think  now  that  the  drug  culture,  the  stu- 
dent rebellion,  are  in  that  sense  behind  us. 
Of  course,  we  still  have  the  drug  culture,  but 
as  problems  that  threaten  the  spirit  of  Amer- 
ica, I  think  they  either  are  behind  us  or  could 
be  behind  us  if  we  can  now  do  what  any  adult 
has  to  do  in  his  life.  When  you  get  to  the  rec- 
ognition of  your  limits,  then  the  question  be- 
comes whether  you  transcend  them  or  wal- 
low in  them.  That  is  a  choice  that  is  up  to  us. 

Q.  From  the  period  from  Roosevelt 
through  the  Kennedy  period,  the  central 
theme  of  this  country  ivas  that  we  could  do 
anything  in  the  world,  and  then  rve  ran  into 
some  disappointments  aiid  seemed  to  go  into 
a  phase  of  self-donbt  in  which  ive  began  to 
tvonder  ivhether  we  could  do  anything  effec- 
tively. Noiv,  do  we  have  the  self-confidence 
and  the  essential  trust  in  one  another  and  in 
our  institutions  to  support  the  kind  of  for- 
eign policy  you  want? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  to  say  this  is 
the  big  question  I  ask  myself.  In  some  strange 
way,  I  think  the  American  people  have  come 
through  these  recent  crises  in  rather  good 
shape.  I  would  not  have  thought  you  could 
have  assassinations,  the  Viet-Nam  war,  Wa- 
tergate and  all  that  went  with  it,  and  still 
have  basic  confidence  in  government. 

Among  the  intellectual  and  political  lead- 
ership groups,  I'm  not  so  sure.  But  even 
there,  as  I  said  earlier,  during  the  Watergate 
period  there  was  support  for  foreign  policy. 
There  is  still  a  remarkable  sense  of  national 
cohesion,  so  I  am  basically  optimistic.  But 
above  all,  I  don't  think  we  have  any  choice 
except  to  try,  and  in  this  respect  the  Amer- 
ican idealistic  tradition  gives  the  United 
States  a  resource  that  exists  in  no  other  coun- 
try in  the  world. 

In  this  country,  even  with  all  the  isolation- 
ism, when  you  talk  about  a  sense  of  responsi- 


bility, you  touch  the  core  of  people;  you  can 
mention  very  few  other  countries  of  the 
world  where  it  could  be  even  a  plausible  ar- 
gument. 

Q.  At  one  point  the  West  ivas  bound  to- 
gether by  certain  religions  ideals,  certain 
moral  ideals.  What  is  it  that  binds  the  free 
world  together  today,  if  anything? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  what  binds  us 
together  on  an  unsatisfactory  level  is  indus- 
trial civilization,  which  imposes  common  real- 
ities and  necessities  on  all  of  us.  We  are  also 
tied  together  by  an  approach  to  politics  in 
which  ultimately  the  fulfillment  of  human 
needs  plays  a  central  role.  Now,  the  defini- 
tion of  what  those  needs  are  can  be  disputed, 
but  that  it  does  play  a  crucial  role  is  clear. 
Indeed,  much  of  the  political  turmoil  in  the 
industrialized  world  is  caused  by  the  uncer- 
tainty as  to  precisely  what  those  deeper  needs 
are. 

We  are  tied  together,  too,  by  a  perception 
of  politics  in  which  various  groups  and  the 
individual  play  a  crucial  role.  And  the  com- 
bination of  industrial  necessity  plus  the  fact 
that  a  complicated  society  cannot  be  run  by 
direction  and  must  have  a  certain  amount  of 
consensus  will  in  time  begin  to  permeate 
even  totalitarian  regimes. 

Western  Hemisphere  Dialogue 

Q.  Do  yon  see  the  possibility  of  a  closer 
regional  understanding  and  even  structural 
development  of  regionalism  ivithin  the  hemi- 
sphere in  the  foreseeable  future? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Since  I've  become 
Secretary  of  State,  I've  spent  a  considerable 
amount  of  time  on  Western  Hemisphere  re- 
lationships. If  it  is  true  that  the  relations  be- 
tween industrialized  and  developing  nations 
are  essential  features  of  our  period,  then  in 
the  Western  Hemisphere,  where  we  are  deal- 
ing with  countries  of  similar  traditions  and, 
indeed,  similar  history — this  is  where  a  be- 
ginning must  be  made.  If  we  cannot  solve  it 
creatively  here,  it  is  hard  to  know  how  we 
can  be  creative  about  it  elsewhere. 

How  formal  that  structure  can  be,  I  don't 


640 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


know.  I  have  found  two  things:  One  is  that 
the  mere  act  of  dialogue  in  the  Western  Hem- 
isphere has  had  an  emotional  response;  and 
secondly,  I  have  been  struck  in  my  meet- 
ings— I've  now  attended  three  Foreign  Min- 
isters meetings  in  the  Western  Hemisphere — 
by  the  fact  that  if  one  read  the  records  with- 
out the  mood  of  the  meetings,  one  would  find 
in  them  a  litany  of  criticism  of  the  United 
States.  But  if  one  actually  was  at  the  meet- 
ings, one  had  the  sense  that  this  was  a  fam- 
ily quarrel ;  that  in  some  intangible  way,  one 
was  talking  as  a  member  of  the  family. 

So  I  think  that  in  the  Western  Hemisphere 
we  have  the  possibilities  of  a  creative  phase, 
provided  the  United  States  can  shed  its  tra- 
ditional predominance  and  recognize  that  the 
decisions  that  emerge  must  be  genuinely  felt 
by  our  friends  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  to 
be  theirs. 

Need  for  Sacrifice 

Q.  Is  it  reasonable  for  the  American  peo- 
ple to  go  on  assuming,  in  a  hungry  world 
where  raw  materials  are  increasingly  scarce, 
that  our  standard  of  living  each  year  can  go 
on  going  up,  or  do  ive  have  to  face  neio  re- 
sponsibilities  and  even  some  sacrifices  in  this 
country  in  order  to  bring  about  some  kind  of 
ivorld  order? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Now,  here  I'm  talking 
off  the  top  of  my  head.  I  would  think,  if  we 
look  ahead  to  the  year  2000  and  beyond,  we 
have  to  be  prepared  to  face  a  world  quite 
different  from  what  we  have  now.  We  see  it 
already  in  energy.  I  believe  that  the  day  of 
the  400-horsepower  engine  is  over,  whether 
it's  this  year  or  five  years  from  now.  You're 
going  to  see  different  types  of  automobiles, 
and  that  affects  our  style  of  life. 

We  will  have  to  develop  a  global  food  pol- 
icy. We  cannot  deal  with  issues  like  this 
week's  grain  sale  to  the  Soviet  Union  on  a 
crash  basis  every  few  months.  To  do  so  will 
affect  our  whole  perception  of  the  relation- 
ship of  agriculture  to  our  society  and  our 
foreign  policy. 

Q.  When  you  talk  about  cooperation  be- 
tween  the   Communists   and    the    capitalist 


world,  where  do  you  see  this  leading?  To  the 
domination  of  one  over  the  other,  or  to  a 
combination  of  the  two,  or  what? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  that  any  at- 
tempt at  domination  in  a  nuclear  age  is  going 
to  involve  risks  that  are  catastrophic  and 
would  not  be  tolerated.  If  we  remain  strong 
enough  to  prevent  the  imposition  of  Commu- 
nist hegemony,  then  I  believe  that  transfor- 
mations of  the  Communist  societies  are  in- 
evitable. I  believe  that  the  imposition  of  state 
control  of  the  kind  that  communism  demands 
is  totally  incompatible  with  the  requirements 
of  human  organization  at  this  moment. 

The  pressure  of  this  realization  on  Commu- 
nist systems  is  going  to  bring  about  a  trans- 
formation apart  from  any  conscious  policy 
the  United  States  pursues,  so  long  as  there  is 
not  a  constant  foreign  danger  that  can  be 
invoked  to  impose  regimentation. 

What  inherent  reason  is  there  that  keeps 
the  Communist  societies  in  Eastern  Europe 
from  achieving  the  standard  of  living  of 
those  of  Western  Europe?  The  resources  are 
about  the  same;  the  industrial  organization 
is  there.  I  think  the  reason  is  inherent  in  the 
type  of  society  that  has  been  created,  and 
that,  I  believe,  must  inevitably  change. 

Looking  Back 

Q.  Looking  back  over  these  almost  six 
years,  is  there  anything  in  the  conduct  of  our 
foreign  policy  that  you  regret,  that  yo2i  ivo^dd 
like  to  change? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I'm  quite  convinced 
that  I'll  be  much  more  reflective  a  year  or 
two  after  I  leave  here  than  I  can  be  today. 
What  I  regret  is  that  so  much  of  the  time 
had  to  be  spent  on  the  Viet-Nam  war.  If  we 
could  have  got  that  behind  us  more  rapidly, 
we  could  have  brought  the  more  positive  side 
of  our  foreign  policy  to  fruition  at  a  time 
when  attitudes  were  less  rigidly  formed. 

The  real  tragedy  was  Watergate,  because  I 
believe  that  at  the  beginning  of  President 
Nixon's  second  term  we  had  before  us — due 
to  changing  conditions — a  period  of  poten- 
tial creativity.  We  contributed  some  of  that 


November   11,    1974 


641 


potential,  but  some  of  it  was  inherent  in  the 
objective  situation. 

Instead,  we  had  to  spend  almost  all  of  our 
energy  in  preserving  what  existed,  rather 
than  building  on  the  foundations  that  had 
been  laid.  Even  the  year  of  Europe  could 
have  gone  differently  in  a  different  environ- 
ment. But  you  never  know  what  opportuni- 
ties may  have  been  lost. 

Those  are  my  big  regrets.  There  are  many 
tactical  things  I  would  in  retrospect  perhaps 
do  differently,  but  I  think  it's  premature  to 
speculate  on  those. 

Now,  what  problems  I  leave  to  my  suc- 
cessor depends,  of  course,  at  what  time  I 
leave,  and  I  don't  want  to  have  this  sound  as 
a  valedictory.  If  I  resigned  today,  he  would 
have  the  Middle  East  problem  in  mid-solu- 
tion. 

I  think  we  are  now  at  a  point  where  the 
framework  of  the  structure  exists,  if  we  can 
put  it  together.  We  have  the  raw  material, 
we  have  the  elements,  we've  identified  them, 
I  hope,  correctly.  We  are  at  the  beginning 
of  building  a  consciousness  of  the  global  com- 
munity that  must  come  after  us. 

Q.  Can  you  see  a  settlement  of  the  Middle 
East  thing  in,  say,  before  we  get  to  the  bi- 
ceyitennial,  or  the  end  of  this  administration? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Before  we  get  to  the 
bicentennial,  I  think  we  can  make  consider- 
able progress,  at  least  to  a  point  where  one 
can  see  the  settlement  emerging.  But  it  could 
also  go  very  badly.  That  is  yet  a  delicate 
point. 

Role  of  Intellectuals 

Q.  Yo2i  once  said  to  me  that  you  -were  re- 
lying very  heavily — even  when  you  were  in 
the  7niddle  of  your  service  in  Washington 
this  time — on  concepts  and  intellectual  sup- 
port you  had  got  from  your  colleagues  in 
Cambridge  ivay  back  in  '59,  and  that  you 
felt  a  lack  of  this  as  time  went  on.  Is  that 
still  true? 


I  look  back,  for  example,  at  the  area  of  stra- 
tegic arms  limitation,  most  of  the  creative 
thought  with  which  I  am  familiar  dates  back 
to  the  late  fifties  and  was  then  introduced 
into  the  government  first  in  the  Kennedy  ad- 
ministration and  then,  I  hope,  in  ours. 

Two  things  are  lacking  now :  One,  the  same 
sense  of  relationship  toward  the  government 
that  intellectuals  had  then ;  now  they  volun- 
teer less  and  participate  less.  Secondly,  there 
is  a  lack  of  relevant  intellectual  work. 

Intellectuals  are  now  divided  into  essen- 
tially three  groups — those  that  reject  the  gov- 
ernment totally,  those  that  work  on  pure, 
abstract  intellectual  models  which  are  impos- 
sible to  make  relevant,  and  a  third  group 
that's  too  close  to  power  and  that  sees  its 
service  to  the  government  as  residing  pri- 
marily in  day-to-day  tactics.  No  outsider  can 
be  very  helpful  on  the  day-to-day  business, 
because  he  doesn't  know  enough  of  the  cur- 
rent situation  to  really  make  a  contribution. 

The  best  service  intellectuals  can  render  is, 
first,  to  ask  important  questions — and  that's 
a  difficult  problem — and  second,  to  provide  a 
middle-term  perspective.  But  for  that  they 
need  to  have  some  compassion  for  the  prob- 
lems of  the  policymaker,  just  as  he  needs  an 
understanding  of  their  needs.  I  feel  the  lack, 
and  I  hope  that  now  that  our  domestic  cli- 
mate is  somewhat  better  we  can  restore  mu- 
tual confidence. 

Q.  Was  it  not  a  great  mistake  to  wipe  out 
the  Office  of  the  Science  Adviser,  who  was 
bringing  in  objective  thought?  I  felt  that 
lack  of  it,  for  example,  on  the  whole  question 
of  oil  and  other  raw  materials. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  it's  a  pity.  I 
hope  that  some  focal  point  is  created  which 
will  look  upon  the  intellectual  community  as 
its  constituency,  and  that  they  will  be  lis- 
tened to. 

Q.  Just  one  last  point:  I  take  it  that  you 
are  saying  that  yotc  don't  want  this  to  be  in- 
terpreted as  a  swan  song? 


Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  it  is  true.  As  Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes. 


642 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


The  Testing   of  American   Commitment 


Address  by  Secretary  Kissinger 


I  am  for  several  reasons  deeply  honored  to 
address  this  gathering — first,  because  of  the 
many  distinguished  men  who  have  spoken 
from  this  podium  in  years  past;  second,  be- 
cause I  know  and  admire  the  humanitarian 
work  which  this  dinner  helps  support;  and 
most  important,  because  we  pay  tribute  to- 
night to  a  man  who  represented  the  best  of 
America  and  embodied  human  qualities  which 
are  an  inspiration  to  us  still. 

Al  Smith's  America  was  an  optimistic 
country — a  land  that  never  doubted  its  abil- 
ity to  solve  the  problems  before  it,  regardless 
of  magnitude.  We  were  a  people  confident  in 
the  worth  of  our  moral  values  and  the  decency 
of  our  purposes. 

Al  Smith  epitomized  the  irrepressible  spirit 
of  his  time  and  his  country.  He  never  flinched 
from  a  battle,  but  he  never  let  the  battle  con- 
sume him.  His  compassion  and  his  dreams 
sustained  him  because  he  knew  that  all  great 
achievements  begin  as  ideals. 

Our  America,  regrettably  perhaps,  has  lost 
some  of  that  innocence.  We  have  learned  that 
we  are  not  omnipotent,  and  now  we  face  the 
true  test  of  maturity:  Having  learned  our 
limits,  are  we  prepared  to  marshal  our 
strengths?  Or  will  we  shrink  in  frustration 
from  our  new  challenges?  It  is  a  crucial 
question,  for  the  world  needs  our  optimism, 
our  faith,  and  our  creativity  as  never  before. 

Cardinal  Cooke  [Terence  Cardinal  Cooke, 
Archbishop  of  New  York],  in  his  gracious 
letter  of  invitation,  asked  that  I  share  with 


'  Made  before  the  annual  dinner  of  the  Alfred  E. 
Smith  Memorial  Foundation  at  New  York,  N.Y.,  on 
Oct.  16  (as  delivered). 


you  my  "vision  of  a  better  and  more  peace- 
ful world." 

It  is  not  an  easy  task.  For  what  is  peace? 
Through  most  of  our  history  Americans 
thought  of  peace  as  a  static  condition — a 
world  living  in  the  absence  of  war  unless  evil 
men  intruded  their  darker  designs.  Secure 
behind  two  oceans,  we  left  to  others  the  day- 
to-day  decisions  that,  over  time,  spelled  war 
or  peace,  security  or  fear  for  less  favored  na- 
tions. We  were  spared  the  agony  of  recon- 
ciling the  ideal  with  the  practical,  of  making 
do  with  limited  means  and  contingent  ends. 

But  two  World  Wars  and  an  era  of  involve- 
ment and  conflict  should  now  have  taught  us 
that  peace  is  a  process,  not  a  condition.  We 
have  learned  we  must  express  moral  values 
in  steadfastness  of  purpose  even  while  ne- 
cessity imposes  compromise.  We  now  know 
that  we  are  on  a  journey  that  has  no  termi- 
nal point,  whose  engine  is  reality,  and  whose 
beacon  is  a  better  life  for  future  generations. 
And  we  have  come  to  realize  that  if  we  are 
ever  to  have  true  peace  there  can  be  no  end 
to  our  own  exertions. 

— Ours  is  a  pluralistic  world.  It  must  find 
peace  in  conciliation  rather  than  in  the  dom- 
ination of  any  group  or  country.  This  is  the 
kind  of  world  we  have  always  seen  as  reflect- 
ing our  national  ideals  as  well  as  our  highest 
hopes. 

— Ours  is  a  world  in  which  the  needs  of 
ordinary  people  cry  out  for  economic  and  so- 
cial progress,  for  self-respect,  dignity,  and 
justice.  These  were  objectives  to  which  Amer- 
icans responded  even  in  the  most  isolationist 
of  times.  They  are  our  objectives  still.  Food 


November   11,   1974 


643 


aid  and  public  health,  scientific  and  technical 
cooperation,  are  fields  in  which  international 
efforts  have  been  sustained  by  our  contribu- 
tion. They  now  become  not  an  exercise  in 
charity  but  the  cement  of  global  community. 

— It  is,  above  all,  a  world  of  turmoil  and 
change,  a  world  much  in  need  of  a  self-confi- 
dent America  that  understands  that  without 
its  leadership  there  can  be  no  stability,  no 
permanent  improvement  in  the  human  con- 
dition, and  no  lasting  peace.  The  irony  of  our 
time  is  that  the  simple  faith  of  Al  Smith's 
provincial  America  is  precisely  what  the 
world  desperately  needs  today. 

In  the  past  few  years  we  have  achieved 
important  goals.  We  have  ended  our  involve- 
ment in  a  divisive  war ;  we  have  resolved  the 
perennial  postwar  crisis  over  Berlin;  we  have 
begun  hopeful  efforts  to  achieve  peace  in  the 
Middle  East;  we  have  bridged  two  decades 
of  hostility  with  the  world's  most  populous 
nation;  we  have  taken  major  steps  to  dimin- 
ish the  danger  of  nuclear  war  and  to  build  a 
more  durable  political  relationship  with  our 
most  powerful  adversary;  we  have  sought  a 
more  mature  and  equal  partnership  with  our 
allies. 

We  have  emerged  from — and  perhaps  put 
behind  us — a  postwar  structure  of  rigid  East- 
West  military  and  ideological  confrontation. 

But  now — indeed,  partly  because  of  our 
success — we  experience  the  birth  pangs  of  a 
new  order.  We  face  a  new  dimension  of  chal- 
lenges, more  pervasive  and  complex,  with 
perils  at  once  more  subtle  and  profound.  A 
new  world  is  emerging — a  world  whose  se- 
curity, well-being,  and  moral  fulfillment  de- 
mand interdependence;  a  world  whose  peo- 
ples are  interlinked  by  technology  and  global 
communications,  by  the  common  danger  of 
nuclear  war,  and  by  the  worldwide  thrusts 
of  human  needs;  a  world  in  which  traditional 
structures  and  tenets  of  diplomacy  are  being 
overwhelmed. 

At  the  midway  point  between  the  end  of 
the  Second  World  War  and  the  end  of  this 
century,  we  find  ourselves  also  midway  be- 
tween the  nation-state  from  which  we  began 


and  the  global  community  which  we  must 
fashion  if  we  are  ever  to  live  in  a  lasting 
peace. 

We  face  a  new  and  fundamental  crisis  of 
the  international  system: 

— Inflation  is  a  global  phenomenon  infect- 
ing all  societies  and  clearly  beyond  the  power 
of  any  national  government  to  control  alone. 

— The  threat  of  global  famine  and  mass 
starvation  is  an  affront  to  our  values  and  an 
intolerable  threat  to  our  hopes  for  a  better 
world. 

— The  abrupt  rise  of  energy  costs,  and  the 
ensuing  threats  of  monetary  crisis  and  eco- 
nomic stagnation,  threaten  to  undermine  the 
economic  system  that  nourished  the  world's 
well-being  for  over  30  years. 

All  these  problems  are  dealt  with  in  a 
clearly  inadequate  framework.  National  so- 
lutions continue  to  be  pursued  when,  mani- 
festly, their  very  futility  is  the  crisis  we  face. 

Inflation  eats  away  the  well-being  of  na- 
tions on  the  verge  of  development  and  of 
whole  classes  at  the  margin  of  society.  Eco- 
nomic stagnation,  or  recession,  will  feed  the 
frustration  of  groups  whose  expectations  for 
a  share  in  the  prosperity  they  see  around 
them  are  suddenly  and  cruelly  rebuffed.  Star- 
vation will  shatter  the  hopes  of  developing 
nations  for  progress.  Thus  the  economic  cri- 
sis threatens  to  magnify  the  discontent  and 
ungovernability  of  all  societies. 

Only  cooperative  international  solutions 
are  equal  to  the  challenge.  With  respect  to 
energy,  consumers  must  be  prepared  to  share 
and  conserve  and  provide  mutual  financial  as- 
sistance; consumers  and  producers  together 
must  shape  a  mutually  beneficial  long-term 
relationship;  there  must  be  a  determined  and 
lasting  commitment  in  each  country  to  the 
conservation  and  discipline  President  Ford 
proposed  to  the  nation  a  week  ago. 

The  threat  of  mass  starvation,  in  particu- 
lar, requires  a  major  commitment.  Cardinal 
Cooke's  eloquent  appeal  for  assistance  to  the 
drought-ridden  Sahel,  which  he  has  just  vis- 
ited, deserves  our  strong  support.  And  at 
next   month's    World    Food    Conference    in 


644 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Rome,  the  United  States  plans  to  launch  a 
new  long-term  international  program  of  ac- 
tion. To  do  less  would  violate  moral  impei'a- 
tives  as  well  as  practical  necessities. 

Nor  is  the  current  crisis  purely  economic. 
After  nearly  30  years  without  general  war, 
the  world  has  become  dangerously  tolerant 
of  accelerating  nuclear  proliferation  and  the 
purposeless  expansion  of  strategic  arsenals. 
Festering  political  conflicts,  whether  in  the 
Middle  East  or  Cyprus  or  Indochina,  ulti- 
mately could  pose  the  same  threat  to  general 
peace  as  did  the  more  dramatic  great-power 
confrontation  of  a  decade  ago. 

Thus  the  requirements  of  peace  and  prog- 
ress demand  of  all  nations  a  new  and  un- 
precedented sense  of  responsibility  to  the  in- 
ternational system. 

The  issues  confronting  America  today  are 
not,  in  their  deepest  sense,  issues  of  econom- 
ics, technology,  or  diplomacy.  They  are  a 
challenge  to  our  preconceptions,  a  test  of  our 
foresight,  our  will,  and  our  strength  of  pur- 
pose. Dogmas  left  over  from  the  19th  cen- 
tury— of  national  autonomy  or  economic  de- 
terminism— do  not  even  address,  let  alone  re- 
solve, the  international  issues  of  the  last 
quarter  of  the  20th  century.  The  fact  is  that 
all  nations — East  and  West,  aligned  and  non- 
aligned — are  part  of  one  global  system  and 
dependent  on  it  for  their  peace,  their  well- 
being,  and  the  achievement  of  their  own  na- 
tional objectives.  If  that  system  fails  through 
accident  or  design,  no  nation  or  bloc  is  spared 
the  penalty. 

Your  Eminence,  ladies  and  gentlemen:  A 
great  responsibility  rests  upon  us  here  in 
America.  For  many  years  our  country  has 
carried  a  disproportionate  share  of  the  bur- 
den of  maintaining  the  peace,  of  feeding  the 
hungry,  and  giving  hope  to  the  world's  dis- 
possessed. It  has  been  a  heavy  burden — 
which  we  did  not  seek  and  which  we  have 
often  been  tempted  to  put  down.  But  we  have 
not  done  so,  nor  can  we  afford  to  do  so  now, 
for  it  is  the  generations  who  follow  us  who 
would  pay  the  price  for  our  abdication. 

For  more  than  a  decade  we  have  been  torn 
by  war  and  then  by  constitutional  crisis.  We 


have  been  enervated  by  our  exertions  and 
perhaps  even  more  by  self-doubt.  But  now 
the  war  is  over  and  the  crisis  resolved.  It  is 
time  we  made  peace  with  ourselves. 

The  bitterness  that  has  characterized  the 
national  debate  for  most  of  a  decade  no  longer 
has  reason  or  place.  Governments  by  their 
very  nature  must  make  difficult  choices  and 
judgments  when  facts  are  not  clear  and  when 
trends  are  uncertain.  This  is  difficult  in  the 
best  of  circumstances.  It  may  grow  danger- 
ously erratic  in  a  pervasive  climate  of  dis- 
trust and  conflict.  Debate  in  a  democratic  so- 
ciety should  find  its  ultimate  limit  in  a  gen- 
eral recognition  that  we  are  all  engaged  in  a 
common  enterprise.  Let  us  never  forget  that 
at  home  a  society  thrives  not  on  its  internal 
victories  but  on  its  reconciliations. 

A  year  ago  your  speaker  ended  with  these 
words : 

My  own  great  hope  is  that  all  of  us  may  do  honor 
to  the  memory  of  Alfred  E.  Smith  by  loving  this 
country  as  deeply  as  he  did,  and  by  serving  her  as 
faithfully. 

That  speaker  was  President  Ford.  These 
phrases  are  especially  meaningful  to  some- 
one for  whom  America  was  a  haven  and  not 
something  to  be  taken  for  granted. 

This  country  is  summoned  once  again  to 
leadership,  to  helping  the  world  find  its  way 
from  a  time  of  fear  into  a  new  era  of  hope. 
With  our  old  idealism  and  our  new  maturity, 
let  us  disprove  the  impression  that  men  and 
nations  are  losing  control  over  their  desti- 
nies. Americans  still  believe  that  problems 
are  soluble  if  we  try.  We  still  believe  it  is 
right  to  seek  to  undo  what  is  wrong  with  the 
world.  And  we  still  seek  the  excitement  of 
new  frontiers  rather  than  shrinking  from 
their  uncertainty. 

So  we  return  to  our  starting  point.  Our 
"vision  of  a  better  and  more  peaceful  world" 
must  begin  with  a  vision  of  ourselves.  And 
in  that  context  let  us  remember  the  jaunty 
little  man  from  the  sidewalks  of  New  York 
who  was  not  for  nothing  called  the  Happy 
Warrior.  In  him  America  proved  that  man 
achieves  nobility  not  by  his  beginnings  but 
by  his  ends. 


November   11,    1974 


645 


President  Costa  Gomes  of  Portugal 
Visits  Washington 

Joint  U.S. -Portuguese  Cormmtnique  ^ 

At  the  invitation  of  President  Ford,  His 
Excellency  Francisco  da  Costa  Gomes,  Pres- 
ident of  the  Republic  of  Portugal,  visited 
Washington  on  October  18.  President  Costa 
Gomes,  who  was  accompanied  by  the  Foreign 
Minister,  Dr.  Mario  Scares,  had  meetings 
with  President  Ford  and  with  Secretary  of 
State  Kissinger  and  was  the  guest  of  honor  at 
a  luncheon  given  by  Secretary  Kissinger. 

President  Costa  Gomes  outlined  the 
achievements  of  the  Portuguese  Government 
in  light  of  recent  events  in  restoring  civil 
and  political  liberties  to  Portugal  and  in  cre- 
ating the  basis  for  a  return  to  democracy. 
He  reported  on  the  negotiations  which  had 
led  to  the  independence  of  Guinea-Bissau 
and  explained  his  government's  plans  for  the 
granting  of  self-determination  and  independ- 
ence to  the  remaining  overseas  territories. 
He  reaffirmed  his  government's  commitment 
to  the  North  Atlantic  Treaty  and  its  desire 
to  develop  even  closer  ties  to  the  United 
States. 

President  Ford  expressed  his  admiration 
for  the  statesmanship  shown  by  Portuguese 
leaders  in  undertaking  to  restore  democracy 
to  Portugal  by  holding  free  elections  soon 
and  in  making  possible  the  enjoyment  of  the 
right  of  self-determination  and  independence 
by  the  peoples  of  Portugal's  overseas  terri- 
tories. He  noted  with  pleasure  President 
Costa  Gomes'  reaffirmation  of  Portugal's 
commitment  to  NATO  and  expressed  his  con- 
fidence that  ties  between  the  United  States 
and  Portugal  will  become  ever  closer. 

The  two  Presidents  agreed  that,  as  these 
developments  proceed,  it  would  be  in  our  mu- 
tual interest  to  intensify  the  cooperation  be- 
tween the  two  countries  to  embrace  nev/  ac- 
tivities in  a  broad  range  of  areas,  such  as 
education,  health,  energy,  agriculture,  trans- 
portation and  communications,  among  others. 


'  Issued  on  Oct.  18  (text  from  White  House  press 
release). 


They  agreed  that  this  expansion  of  their  co- 
operation could  begin  with  technical  talks  in 
the  fields  of  agriculture,  public  health,  educa- 
tion and  financial  and  economic  matters,  as 
requested  by  the  Portuguese  authorities. 

They  also  agreed  that  the  two  countries 
should  continue  and  intensify  negotiations  re- 
lating to  cooperation  in  the  Azores. 


U.S.-U.S.S.R.  Trade  and  Economic 
Council  Meets  at  Moscow 

Following  is  a  statement  made  by  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  William  E.  Simon  he- 
fore  the  second  hoard  meethig  of  the  U.S.- 
U.S.S.R.  Trade  and  Economic  Council  at 
Moscow  on  October  15. 

Department  of  the  Treasury  press  release  dated  October  IB 

Much  has  happened  since  the  first  meeting 
of  the  joint  board  last  February  in  Washing- 
ton. There  have  been  unprecedented  events 
in  the  political  life  of  my  country. 

Many  things  have  not  changed  however; 
high  among  these  is  the  desire  of  the  United 
States  to  further  the  development  of  peace- 
ful, fruitful  relations  with  the  Soviet  Union. 
As  President  Ford  told  the  Congress  shortly 
after  taking  office : 

To  the  Soviet  Union,  I  pledge  continuity  in  our 
commitment  to  the  course  of  the  past  three  years. 
.  .  .  there  can  be  no  alternative  to  a  positive  and 
peaceful  relationship  between  our  nations. 

We  are  here  today  to  discuss  economic  and 
trade  relations  between  our  countries.  No- 
where is  there  more  concrete  evidence  of  the 
progress  we  are  making  than  in  this  field. 

Our  bilateral  trade  is  rapidly  approaching 
the  three-year  goal  of  $2-$3  billion  trade 
turnover  which  was  set  at  the  1973  summit. 
In  1973  alone,  U.S.-U.S.S.R.  trade  turnover 
was  $1.4  billion.  Although  total  trade  is  down 
somewhat  this  year  after  the  exceptionally 
large  agricultural  shipments  of  1973,  U.S. 
sales  of  machinery  and  equipment  products 
have  risen  sharply,  and  U.S.S.R.  exports  to 
the  United  States  have  shown  a  very  substan- 
tial increase. 


646 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Seventeen  American  firms  now  have  re- 
ceived permission  to  open  accredited  offices 
in  Moscow.  Export-Import  Bank  loans  for 
the  Soviet  Union  have  increased  to  $470  mil- 
lion. Impressive  contracts  have  been  signed 
in  the  last  nine  months  for  the  Kama  River 
truck  plant,  the  Moscow  Trade  Center,  the 
fertilizer  project,  and  equipment  for  gas  pipe- 
line development. 

The  U.S.  commercial  office  opened  for  busi- 
ness in  Moscow  last  spring.  In  addition  to 
smaller  exhibits  staged  in  its  display  area,  my 
government  recently  sponsored  U.S.  firms' 
participation  in  two  major  Soviet  trade  shows 
(health  and  plastics  manufacturing  equip- 
ment) and  organized  a  successful  solo  exhibi- 
tion of  American  machine  tools  in  Sokolniki 
Park. 

Our  two  governments  are  pledged  to  con- 
tinue this  momentum.  In  the  long-term  agree- 
ment signed  in  June,  both  formally  agreed  to 
facilitate  economic,  industrial,  and  technical 
cooperation  and  exchange  information  on  eco- 
nomic trends. 

Progress  has  also  been  made  in  resolving 
the  policy  problems  which  could  inhibit  fur- 
ther growth.  Soon  after  entering  the  White 
House,  President  Ford  emphasized  to  Con- 
gress the  importance  he  attached  to  granting 
most-favored-nation  status  to  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion. I  look  forward  to  early  resolution  of  the 
trade  reform  bill  which  I  believe  will  bring 
about  satisfactory  export-import  legislation. 
This  will  clear  the  impediments  on  the  path 
of  an  expanding  trade  relationship. 

The  U.S.  Government  will  continue  to  help 
clear  away  obstacles  to  improvement  in  our 
economic  and  commercial  relations.  In  the 
final  analysis,  however,  the  action  responsi- 
bility for  each  U.S.-Soviet  commercial  trans- 
action rests  with  the  private  sector  of  our 
economy.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  en- 
couraged the  formation  of  the  Trade  and 
Economic  Council,  which  brings  together  of- 
ficials from  your  ministries  and  trading  or- 
ganizations and  top  management  representa- 
tives from  our  firms — it  is  these  people  who 
are  doing  the  actual  work  of  expanding  trade. 

As  we  all  know,  the  Council  was  formed 
as  the  result  of  a  protocol  entered  into  in 


June  of  1973  by  Minister  [of  Foreign  Trade 
N.S.]  Patolichev  and  my  predecessor,  Secre- 
tary [George  P.]  Shultz.  It's  important,  how- 
ever, to  remember  that  while  the  Council  is 
the  creation  of  the  two  governments,  on  the 
U.S.  side  it  has  been  adopted  by  the  private 
sector — our  business  community.  As  an  hon- 
orary director  of  the  Council,  I  am  pleased  to 
note  that  the  child  of  these  two  governments 
is  healthy  and  growing  at  a  rapid  pace,  and 
I  am  pleased  with  the  care  and  upbringing  it 
is  being  given  by  the  U.S.  Government.  I 
voice  our  appreciation  for  the  support  and 
help  given  the  Council  since  its  inception  by 
the  Soviet  Government. 

While  the  role  of  the  Council  is  to  foster 
and  promote  the  growth  of  the  U.S.-Soviet 
trade  and  economic  relationship,  and  while  I 
am  confident  that  the  U.S.  Congress  will  ap- 
prove legislation  so  necessary  to  the  normali- 
zation of  this  relationship,  I  also  envisage 
that  out  of  this  improved  relationship  will 
emerge  a  larger  joint  economic  role  for  our 
two  countries. 

Given  the  extraordinary  global  economic 
interrelationship  of  all  countries,  there  is  a 
greater-than-ever  need  for  responsibility  and 
cooperation  between  nations.  It  is  hard  to 
conceive  of  a  solution  fair  to  all  countries, 
large  and  small,  in  any  area  of  major  interest 
without  the  full  and  close  cooperation  of  the 
United  States  and  the  U.S.S.R. 

Since  February,  the  Council  has  developed 
into  a  fully  functioning  organization.  Bina- 
tional  staffs  are  now  at  work  on  some  60  ma- 
jor projects  in  New  York  and  Moscow.  The 
Council  has  found  excellent  office  space  in 
Manhattan,  and  yesterday  we  dedicated  the 
attractive  offices  on  the  Shevchenko  Embank- 
ment. The  Subcommittee  on  Science  and 
Technology  concluded  a  productive  first  meet- 
ing a  few  days  ago  in  New  York. 

This  is  an  excellent  beginning,  but  is  only 
a  beginning,  and  I  am  confident  that  it  fore- 
shadows even  greater  accomplishments  in  the 
future  as  the  Council  realizes  its  full  poten- 
tial in  the  development  of  fruitful  economic 
relations  between  our  countries. 

As  an  honorary  director  of  the  U.S.- 
U.S.S.R.  Trade  and  Economic  Council,  I  com- 


November   11,   1974 


647 


mend  my  fellow  directors  and  the  Council 
staff  for  the  progress  you  have  made  so  far. 
I  wish  you  well  in  your  deliberations  at  this 
meeting,  and  I  urge  you  to  work  diligently  to 
create  an  economic  fabric  between  our  two 
countries  of  so  many  strands  so  closely  in- 
terwoven that  not  only  is  there  no  visible 
seam,  but  also  that  it  is  so  strong  as  to  be 
virtually  unbreakable. 

So  while  we  work  to  intermesh  and  syn- 
chronize our  different  economic  systems,  we 
also  work  to  prepare  and  strengthen  our- 
selves for  jointly  addressing  in  harmony  the 
problems  of  creating  a  better  world  for  all 
countries  and  all  people. 


U.S.S.R.  Agrees  To  Limit  Purchases 
of  U.S.  Grain  in  Current  Crop  Year 

Departynent  of  the  Treasury  Announcement 

Department  of  the  Treasury  press  release  dated  October  19 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  William  E.  Si- 
mon announced  on  October  19  conclusion  of 
an  agreement  with  the  Soviet  Union  on  pur- 
chases of  U.S.  grains  during  the  current  crop 
year. 

The  Soviet  Union  agreed  to  limit  its  total 
grain  purchases  from  the  United  States  this 
crop  year  to  2.2  million  tons,  including  1  mil- 
lion tons  of  corn  and  1.2  million  tons  of 
wheat. 

An  additional  1  million  tons  of  grain  con- 
tracted for  earlier  in  October  can  be  deliv- 
ered from  other  exporting  countries.  The  So- 
viet purchasing  agency  for  grains  will  make 
the  necessary  purchase  arrangements  with 
U.S.  export  firms. 

The  Soviet  Union  also  agreed  to  make  no 
further  purchases  in  the  U.S.  market  this 
crop  year,  which  ends  next  summer.  Fur- 
ther, the  Soviet  Union  agreed  to  work  with 
the  United  States  toward  development  of  a 
supply/demand  data  system  for  grains. 


The  agreement  followed  talks  in  Moscow 
by  Secretary  Simon  with  Minister  of  Foreign 
Trade  N.  S.  Patolichev.  Secretary  Simon  was 
in  the  Soviet  Union  October  12-15  for  the 
opening  of  the  Moscow  office  of  the  U.S.- 
U.S.S.R.  Trade  and  Economic  Council. 

The  grain  talks  were  scheduled  following 
the  Soviets'  buying  activity  in  the  United 
States  earlier  in  October.  At  that  time,  the 
Soviet  Union  placed  orders  with  two  U.S.  ex- 
port firms  for  the  purchase  of  3.2  million 
tons  of  U.S.  grain,  including  2.3  million  tons 
of  corn  and  900,000  tons  of  wheat  for  deliv- 
ery during  the  1974/75  crop  year,  which 
ends  next  summer.  Following  talks  with  Pres- 
ident Ford  on  October  5,  the  presidents  of 
the  two  export  firms  agreed  to  hold  these 
sales  in  abeyance  until  after  Secretary  Si- 
mon's visit  to  Moscow. 

This  year's  Soviet  purchases  of  U.S.  grain 
will  be  small  compared  with  purchases  dur- 
ing the  past  two  years.  The  Soviet  Union 
bought  17  million  tons  of  U.S.  grain  during 
1972  and  7  million  tons  in  1973.  The  smaller 
purchases  in  1974  are  in  line  with  smaller 
export  availabilities  of  U.S.  grain  as  a  result 
of  the  disappointing  corn  harvest  this  year. 
The  United  States  has  harvested  a  record 
wheat  crop,  but  the  corn  crop  is  expected  to 
be  down  16  percent  from  last  year's  record 
harvest.  Total  U.S.  feed  grain  production  is 
expected  to  be  down  18  percent. 

In  his  talks  with  Soviet  officials.  Secretary 
Simon  emphasized  that  the  United  States 
wants  to  continue  developing  its  agricultural 
trade  with  the  Soviet  Union.  The  Soviets  ad- 
vised Secretary  Simon  that  the  Soviet  Union 
will  have  an  adequate  harvest  this  year  but 
that  imports  are  needed  for  specialized  live- 
stock production  units. 

Secretary  Simon  reviewed  with  Soviet  of- 
ficials the  type  of  grain  data  that  the  United 
States  receives  from  other  countries  that 
purchase  U.S.  grain.  The  Soviets  agreed  to 
work  toward  the  development  of  a  data  ex- 
change system  on  grain  between  the  two  gov- 
ernments. 


648 


Department  of  State  Bulletin  I 


The  World  Population  Conference:  An  Assessment 


U'J«I1I| 

Unite 


Address  by  Philander  P.  Claxton,  Jr. 

Special  Assistant  to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Population  Matters  ^ 


It  will  be  a  decade  or  more  before  the  ac- 
complishments of  the  World  Population  Con- 
ference can  be  fully  judged.  We  have  enough 
perspective  now,  however,  to  see  the  confer- 
ence whole  and  to  assess  it  generally.  By  any 
reasonable  standard  it  was  a  remarkable  suc- 
cess. 

Although  the  results  were  not  ideal  and 
there  were  disappointments,  it  carried  out 
the  purposes  for  which  it  was  established  by 
the  Economic  and  Social  Council  four  years 
ago. 

Even  before  the  conference  itself,  prepara- 
tions for  it  and  the  stimulation  of  World 
Population  Year  1974  had  caused  many  coun- 
tries to  review  their  own  population  and 
family  planning  policies.  Several  had  moved 
toward  more  affirmative  positions.  Brazil, 
for  example,  the  largest  country  without  an 
affirmative  national  policy,  had  determined, 
and  announced  at  Bucharest,  a  policy  em- 
bracing recognition  of  the  right  of  couples  to 
determine  the  number  and  spacing  of  their 
children  and  the  obligation  of  the  govern- 
ment to  make  the  necessary  means  available. 

The  fact  that  the  world  conference  on  this 
difficult  and  delicate  subject  was  held  at  all 
was  an  outstanding  achievement.  It  was  all 
the  more  so  because  137  nations  attended — 
one  of  the  largest  U.N.  conferences  ever  held 
— including  all  members  of  the  United  Na- 


'■  Made  before  a  conference  for  nongovernmental 
organizations  on  "Bucharest  and  the  Future"  at  the 
Department  of  State  on  Oct.  10  (text  from  press  re- 
lease 400).  Mr.  Claxton  was  a  member  of  the  U.S. 
delegation  to  the  World  Population  Conference  at 
Bucharest  Aug.  19-30. 


tions  or  its  specialized  agencies  except  South 
Africa,  Saudi  Arabia,  and  North  Viet-Nam. 
They  debated  vigorously  for  two  weeks,  in  a 
plenary,  three  committees  of  the  whole,  and 
a  working  group,  and  went  away  in  good 
spirits  with  a  sense  of  accomplishment. 

The  intense  debate,  too  often  burdened  by 
polemics  and  ideologies,  was  nevertheless  an 
important  educational  process  which  made 
all  those  attending  more  aware  of  the  deeply 
held  beliefs  of  others. 

The  adoption  by  acclamation  (only  one  del- 
egation reserving)  of  an  excellent  World 
Population  Plan  of  Action,  after  a  hundred- 
plus  amendments — 47  by  votes — was,  as  the 
U.S.  delegation  said  in  its  closing  statement, 
an  achievement  of  great  magnitude.-  We  de- 
clared this  achievement  should  not  be  con- 
sidered as  a  victory  or  a  defeat  for  any  fac- 
tion, nation,  or  group  of  nations,  but  as  a 
triumph  for  the  process  of  international  co- 
operation under  the  United  Nations. 

The  plan  of  action  was  agreed  to  only  after 
intensive  debate  and  negotiation.  The  debate 
began  with  a  concerted  five-pronged  attack 
by  Algeria,  supported  by  a  few  African  coun- 
tries ;  Argentina,  supported  by  three  or  four 
Latin  American  countries;  an  Eastern  Eu- 
ropean group  of  eight  Socialist  countries ;  the 
People's  Republic  of  China;  and  the  Holy 
See. 

The  attack  was  directed  primarily  toward 
the  conceptual  basis  of  the  draft  plan  of  ac- 
tion  presented    by   the    Secretariat    of    the 


'  For  U.S.  statements  and  an  unofficial  text  of  the 
plan  of  action,  see  Bulletin  of  Sept.  30,  1974,  p.  429. 


November   11,    1974 


649 


United  Nations  rather  than  toward  its  op- 
erative provisions.^  The  major  thrust  of  the 
attack  was  to  assert  the  importance  (or  even 
the  precondition)  of  social  and  economic  de- 
velopment for  the  reduction  of  high  fertility 
and  to  reduce  the  empihasis  in  the  draft  on 
population/family  planning  programs. 

The  equilibrium  attained  by  these  differ- 
ing emphases  is  illustrated  by  the  last  four 
sentences  of  paragraph  1  of  the  plan : 

The  explicit  aim  of  the  World  Population  Plan  of 
Action  is  to  help  co-ordinate  population  trends  and 
the  trends  of  economic  and  social  development.  The 
basis  for  an  effective  solution  of  population  prob- 
lems is,  above  all,  socio-economic  transformation.  A 
population  policy  may  have  a  certain  success  if  it 
constitutes  an  integral  part  of  socio-economic  de- 
velopment; its  contribution  to  the  solution  of  world 
development  problems  is  hence  only  partial,  as  is 
the  case  with  the  other  sectoral  strategies.  Conse- 
quently, the  Plan  of  Action  must  be  considered  as  an 
important  component  of  the  system  of  international 
strategies  and  as  an  instrument  of  the  international 
community  for  the  promotion  of  economic  develop- 
ment, quality  of  life,  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedom. 

At  the  same  time  the  working  group  re- 
tained the  language  of  the  draft  plan  explain- 
ing the  interrelation  between  population  vari- 
ables and  development  variables : 

Population  and  development  are  interrelated:  Pop- 
ulation variables  influence  development  variables  and 
are  also  influenced  by  them;  the  formulation  of  a 
World  Population  Plan  of  Action  reflects  the  inter- 
national community's  awareness  of  the  importance 
of  population  trends  for  socio-economic  development, 
and  the  socio-economic  nature  of  the  recommenda- 
tions contained  in  this  Plan  of  Action  reflects  its 
awareness  of  the  crucial  role  that  development  plays 
in  affecting  population  trends.  (Par.  14(c).) 

A  new  sentence  was  added  to  paragraph  2 
concerning  the  relation  of  population  policies 
to  development : 

Policies  whose  aim  is  to  affect  population  trends 
must  not  be  considered  substitutes  for  socio-economic 
development  policies  but  integrated  with  those  poli- 
cies to  facilitate  the  solution  of  certain  problems 
facing  developing  and  developed  countries  and  pro- 
mote a  more  balanced  and  rational  development. 

It  has  always  been  the  view  of  the  United 


'  For  text  of  the  draft  plan  of  action,  see  U.N.  doc. 
E/CONF.  60/7. 


650 


States  that  population  programs  should  be 
considered  only  a  part,  but  an  essential  part, 
of  economic  and  social  development.  It  was 
and  is  our  view  that  the  importance  of  social 
and  economic  strategies  and  programs  had 
been  dealt  with  at  length  in  earlier  U.N.  doc- 
uments and  did  not  need  repetition  in  the 
Population  Plan  of  Action. 

From  our  point  of  view,  the  introduction 
of  language  desired  by  these  proponents  did 
not  change  or  weaken  the  plan  of  action,  ex- 
cept to  make  it  somewhat  more  diffuse.  From 
the  point  of  view  of  the  many  developing 
countries  seeking  these  changes,  their  ac- 
complishment quite  properly  gave  them  an 
important  sense  of  identification  with  the 
final  document.  This  is  right  and  good. 

The  same  group  of  countries,  particularly 
some  of  the  Latin  Americans,  also  opposed 
all  concepts  of  quantitative  goals  or  time 
frames  for  reduction  of  birth  rates  or  popu- 
lation growth  rates.  One  of  the  key  provi- 
sions of  the  draft  plan  (par.  27(b))  urged 
all  countries  to : 

Make  available,  to  all  persons  who  so  desire,  if 
possible  by  the  end  of  the  Second  United  Nations 
Development  Decade,  but  not  later  than  198.5,  the 
necessary  information  and  education  about  family 
planning  and  the  means  to  practise  family  plan- 
ning .  .  . 

The  working  group  adopted  an  Argentine 
amendment  deleting  the  reference  to  1980 
and  1985  and  changing  the  text  to  recommend 
that  all  countries : 

Encourage  appropriate  education  concerning  re- 
sponsible parenthood  and  make  available  to  persons 
who  so  desire  advice  and  means  of  achieving  it. 
(Par.  29(b).) 

The  same  group  of  countries  also  opposed 
paragraph  35  of  the  draft  plan,  which  says 
that: 

Countries  which  have  a  very  high  birth-rate  may 
consider  taking  action  ...  to  reduce  these  rates  by 
about  5  to  10  per  1,000  before  1985. 

A  compromise  was  reached  for  a  substitute 
that  restored  the  concept  of  quantitative 
goals  and  a  time  frame  in  less  precise  but 
broader  terms : 

In  the  light  of  the  principles  of  this  Plan  of  Ac- 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


tion,  countries  which  consider  their  birth  rates  detri- 
mental to  their  national  purposes  are  invited  to  con- 
sider setting  quantitative  goals  and  implementing 
policies  that  may  lead  to  the  attainment  of  such 
goals  by  1985.  Nothing  herein  should  interfere  with 
the  sovereignty  of  any  government  to  adopt  or  not 
to  adopt  such  quantitative  goals.  (Par.  37.) 

The  countries  members  of  the  Economic 
Commission  for  Asia  and  the  Far  East 
(ECAFE)  had  agreed  at  the  consultative 
meeting  on  the  draft  plan  of  action  held  in 
Bangkok  in  May  1974  to  propose  amendments 
to  the  plan  to  strengthen  the  goals  proposed 
in  it.  These  amendments  called  for  developed 
countries  to  aim  for  replacement  levels  of 
fertility  by  1985  and  stationary  populations 
as  soon  thereafter  as  practicable  and  for  de- 
veloping countries  to  seek  to  attain  replace- 
ment levels  of  fertility  in  two  or  three  dec- 
ades— all  nations  to  attempt  to  attain  re- 
placement levels  by  2000.  The  intensity  of  the 
attack  on  the  concept  of  goals  made  it  impos- 
sible to  press  for  these  ECAFE  amendments. 

The  attention  of  the  press  was  naturally 
drawn  to  the  controversy  over  these  issues. 
The  less  dramatic  but  fundamental  substance 
of  the  plan  of  action  as  actually  adopted  re- 
ceived little  attention ;  yet  it  constituted  the 
real  substance  of  the  conference  and  its  ac- 
complishments. 

The  final  plan  is  somewhat  less  urgent  in 
tone  than  the  draft  submitted  by  the  Secre- 
tariat but,  in  several  ways,  more  complete 
and  with  greater  potential.  It  contains  109 
paragraphs,  many  with  several  subpara- 
graphs. The  sweeping  scope  and  thorough- 
ness of  the  plan  can  be  fully  appreciated  only 
by  a  careful  reading  and  rereading.  How- 
ever, the  following  highlights  illustrate  its 
character. 

That  the  "explicit  aim  of  the  World  Popu- 
lation Plan  of  Action  is  to  help  co-ordinate 
population  trends  and  the  trends  of  economic 
and  social  development"  has  already  been 
noted.  The  "primary  aim"  of  the  plan  of  ac- 
tion is  also  asserted  to  be : 

...  to  expand  and  deepen  the  capacities  of  coun- 
tries to  deal  effectively  with  their  national  and  sub- 
national  population  problems  and  to  promote  an  ap- 
propriate international  response  to  their  needs  by 
increasing  international  activity  in  research,  the  ex- 


change of  information,  and  the  provision  of  assist- 
ance on  request.  (Par.  15.) 

The  plan  of  action  lays  down  several  im- 
portant principles,  some  for  the  fir.st  time  in 
a  U.N.  document: 

1.  Among  the  first-time  statements  is  the 
assertion  that  the  sovereign  right  of  each  na- 
tion to  set  its  own  population  policies  is  "to 
be  exercised  .  .  .  taking  into  account  univer- 
sal solidarity  in  order  to  improve  the  quality 
of  life  of  the  peoples  of  the  world."  (Par. 
14.)  This  new  provision  opens  the  way  to- 
ward increasing  responsibility  by  nations  to- 
ward other  nations  in  establishing  their  na- 
tional population  policies. 

2.  There  is  recognized  for  the  first  time  in 
a  single  declarative  sentence  that : 

All  couples  and  individuals  have  the  basic  human 
right  to  decide  freely  and  responsibly  the  number 
and  spacing  of  their  children  and  to  have  the  infor- 
mation, education  and  means  to  do  so.  (Par.  14(f).) 

3.  Also  for  the  first  time,  a  U.N.  document 
links  the  responsibility  of  childbearers  to  the 
community: 

The  responsibility  of  couples  and  individuals  in  the 
exercise  of  this  right  takes  into  account  the  needs  of 
their  living  and  future  children,  and  their  responsi- 
bilities towards  the  community.  (Par.  14(f)  contin- 
ued.) 

It  is  now  possible  to  build  on  this  newly 
stated  principle  as  the  right  of  couples  first 
recognized  in  the  Tehran  Human  Rights 
Proclamation  of  1968  has  been  built  on.^ 

4.  A  sweeping  declaration  of  the  right  of 
women  is  included : 

Women  have  the  right  to  complete  integration  in 
the  development  process  particularly  by  means  of  an 
equal  participation  in  educational,  social,  economic, 
cultural  and  political  life.  In  addition  the  necessary 
measures  should  be  taken  to  facilitate  this  integra- 
tion with  family  responsibilities  which  should  be 
fully  shared  by  both  partners.  (Par.  14(h).) 

5.  A  new  statement  of  principles  was 
added  on  resources  and  environment : 

In  the  democratic  formulation  of  national  popula- 


'  For  text  of  the  Proclamation  of  Tehran,  adopted 
by  the  International  Conference  on  Human  Rights 
on  May  13,  1968,  see  Bulletin  of  Sept.  2,  1968, 
p.  258. 


November   11,   1974 


651 


tion  goals  and  policies,  consideration  must  be  given, 
together  with  other  economic  and  social  factors,  to 
the  supplies  and  characteristics  of  natural  resources 
and  to  the  quality  of  the  environment  and  particu- 
larly to  all  aspects  of  food  supply  including  produc- 
tivity of  rural  areas;  the  demand  for  vital  resources 
increases  with  growing  population  and  with  growing 
per  capita  consumption;  attention  must  be  directed 
to  the  just  distribution  of  resources  and  to  the  min- 
imization of  wasteful  aspects  of  their  use  throughout 
the  world.  (Par.  14 (j).) 

6.  The  need  for  international  action  is  ac- 
cepted : 

The  growing  interdependence  among  countries 
makes  international  action  increasingly  important  to 
the  solution  of  development  and  population  prob- 
lems. (Par.  14(k).) 

The  plan  of  action  includes  recommenda- 
tions for :  population  goals  and  policies,  pop- 
ulation growth,  mortality  and  morbidity,  re- 
production, family  formation  and  the  status 
of  women,  population  distribution  and  inter- 
nal migration,  international  migration,  popu- 
lation structure,  socioeconomic  policies,  data 
collection  and  analysis,  research,  develop- 
ment and  evolution  of  population  policies,  the 
role  of  national  governments  and  of  interna- 
tional cooperation,  and  monitoring,  review, 
and  appraisal. 

A  score  of  these  recommendations  are  the 
most  important : 

1.  Governments  should  integrate  popula- 
tion measures  and  programs  into  comprehen- 
sive social  and  economic  plans  and  programs 
and  their  integration  should  be  reflected  in 
the  goals,  instrumentalities,  and  organiza- 
tions for  planning  within  the  countries.  A 
unit  dealing  with  population  aspects  should 
be  created  and  placed  at  a  high  level  of  the 
national  administrative  structure.  (Par.  95.) 

2.  Countries  which  consider  their  popula- 
tion growth  hampers  attainment  of  their 
goals  should  consider  adopting  population 
policies — through  a  low  level  of  birth  and 
death  rates.  (Pars.  17-18.) 

3.  Developed  countries  are  urged  to  de- 
velop appropriate  policies  in  population,  con- 
sumption, and  investment,  bearing  in  mind 


the  need  for  fundamental  improvement  in  in- 
ternational equity.  (Par.  14(j).) 

4.  Highest  priority  should  be  given  to  re- 
duction in  mortality  and  morbidity,  and  in- 
crease of  life  expectancy  and  programs  for 
this  purpose  should  reach  rural  areas  and 
underprivileged  groups.  (Pars.  20-25.) 

5.  Countries  should  encourage  appropriate 
education  concerning  responsible  parenthood 
and  make  available  to  persons  who  so  desire 
advice  and  means  of  achieving  it.  (Par.  29 
(b).) 

6.  Family  planning  and  related  services 
should  aim  not  only  at  prevention  of  un- 
wanted pregnancies  but  also  at  elimination 
of  involuntary  sterility  or  subfecundity  to 
enable  couples  to  achieve  their  desired  num- 
ber of  children.  (Par.  29(c).) 

7.  Adequately  trained  auxiliary  personnel, 
rural  extension,  home  economics,  and  social 
workers,  and  nongovernment  channels  should 
be  used  to  help  provide  family  planning  serv- 
ices and  advice.  (Par.  29(e).) 

8.  Governments  with  family  planning  pro- 
grams should  consider  coordinating  them 
with  health  and  other  services  designed  to 
raise  the  quality  of  life.  (Par.  30.) 

9.  Countries  wishing  to  affect  fertility  lev- 
els should  give  priority  to  development  pro- 
grams and  health  and  education  strategies 
which  have  a  decisive  effect  upon  demo- 
graphic trends,  including  fertility;  interna- 
tional cooperation  should  give  priority  to  as- 
sisting such  national  efforts.  (Par.  31.)  Such 
programs  may  include  reduction  in  infant 
and  child  mortality,  increased  education,  par- 
ticularly for  females,  improvement  in  the 
status  of  women,  land  reform,  and  support 
in  old  age.  (Par.  32.) 

10.  Countries  which  consider  their  birth 
rates  detrimental  to  their  national  purposes 
are  invited  to  set  quantitative  goals  and  im- 
plement policies  to  achieve  them  by  1985. 
(Par.  37.) 

11.  Because  the  family  is  the  basic  unit  of 
society,  governments  should  assist  families 
as  far  as  possible  through  legislation  and 
services.  (Par.  39.) 


652 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


12.  Governments  should  insure  full  par- 
ticipation of  women  in  the  educational,  eco- 
nomic, social,  and  political  life  of  their  coun- 
tries on  an  equal  basis  with  men — a  new  pro- 
vision added  at  Bucharest.  (Par.  41.) 

13.  A  series  of  recommendations  is  made 
to  stabilize  migration  within  countries,  par- 
ticularly policies  to  reduce  the  undesirable 
consequences  of  excessively  rapid  urbaniza- 
tion and  to  develop  opportunities  in  rural 
areas  and  small  towns,  recognizing  the  right 
of  individuals  to  move  freely  within  their 
national  boundaries.  (Pars.  44-50.) 

14.  Agreements  should  be  concluded  to 
regulate  the  international  migration  of  work- 
ers and  to  assure  nondiscriminatory  treat- 
ment and  social  services  for  these  workers 
and  their  families ;  also  other  measures  to  de- 
crease the  "brain  drain"  from  developing 
countries.  (Pars.  51-62.) 

15.  To  assure  needed  information  concern- 
ing population  trends,  population  censuses 
should  be  taken  at  regular  intervals  and  in- 
formation concerning  births  and  deaths  made 
available  at  least  annually.  (Pars.  72-77.) 

16.  Research  should  be  intensified  to  de- 
velop knowledge  concerning  the  social,  eco- 
nomic, and  political  interrelationships  with 
population  trends ;  effective  means  of  reduc- 
ing infant  and  childhood  mortality;  methods 
for  integrating  population  goals  into  na- 
tional plans,  means  of  improving  the  motiva- 
tion of  people,  analysis  of  population  policies 
in  relation  to  socioeconomic  development, 
laws,  and  institutions;  methods  of  fertility 
regulation  to  meet  the  varied  requirements 
of  individuals  and  communities,  including 
methods  requiring  no  medical  supervision ; 
the  interrelations  of  health,  nutrition,  and 
reproductive  biology;  and  methods  for  im- 
proving the  administration,  delivery,  and  uti- 
lization of  social  services,  including  family 
planning  services.  (Pars.  78-80.) 

17.  Training  of  management  in  population 
dynamics  and  administration  on  an  interdis- 
ciplinary basis  should  be  provided  for  medi- 
cal, paramedical,  traditional  health  person- 
nel ;  program  administrators ;  senior  govern- 


ment officials;  labor,  community,  and  social 
leaders.  Education  and  information  programs 
should  be  undertaken  to  bring  population  in- 
formation to  all  areas  of  countries.  (Pars. 
81-93.) 

18.  An  important  role  of  governments  is 
to  determine  and  assess  the  population  prob- 
lems and  needs  of  their  countries  in  the  light 
of  their  political,  social,  cultural,  religious, 
and  economic  conditions;  such  an  undertak- 
ing should  be  carried  out  systematically  and 
periodically  so  as  to  provide  informed,  ra- 
tional, and  dynamic  decisionmaking  in  mat- 
ters of  population  and  development.  (Par. 
98.) 

19.  International,  intergovernmental,  and 
nongovernmental  agencies  and  national  gov- 
ernments should  increase  their  assistance  in 
the  population  field  on  request.  (Par.  100.) 

20.  The  plan  of  action  should  be  closely  co- 
ordinated with  the  International  Develop- 
ment Strategy  for  the  Second  United  Nations 
Development  Decade,  reviewed  in  depth  at 
five-year  intervals,  and  modified  as  appropri- 
ate. (Pars.  107-109.) 

The  plan  of  action  deals  obliquely  with 
projections  of  population  growth  and  con- 
cepts of  goals.  It  notes  in  paragraph  16  that 
the  U.N.  medium  projections  for  population 
growth,  which  has  been  essentially  the  best 
estimate  of  demographers  for  the  most  likely 
growth  of  the  world's  population,  would  re- 
sult in  little  change  in  population  growth 
rates  in  the  next  decade.  It  then  introduces 
the  concept  of  the  U.N.  low  projection  and 
recognizes  that : 

According  to  the  United  Nations  low  variant  pro- 
jections, it  is  estimated  that  as  a  result  of  social 
and  economic  development  and  population  policies 
as  reported  by  countries  in  the  Second  United  Na- 
tions Inquiry  on  Population  and  Development,  popu- 
lation growth  rates  in  the  developing  countries  as  a 
whole  may  decline  from  the  present  level  of  2.4  per 
cent  per  annum  to  about  2  per  cent  by  1985;  and  be- 
low 0.7  per  cent  per  annum  in  the  developed  coun- 
tries. In  this  case  the  worldwide  rate  of  population 
growth  would  decline  from  2  per  cent  to  about  1.7 
per  cent. 


November   11,1 974 


653 


These  projected  reductions  are  said  in 
paragraph  36  to  be  "consistent  with  declines 
in  the  birth  rate  of  the  developing  countries 
as  a  whole  from  the  present  level  of  38  per 
thousand  to  30  per  thousand  by  1985."  The 
plan  points  out  that  to  achieve  these  levels 
of  fertility  by  1985  would,  of  course,  "require 
substantial  national  efforts,  by  those  coun- 
tries concerned,  in  the  field  of  socio-economic 
development  and  population  policies  .  .  .  ." 

These  statements  are  followed  by  para- 
graph 37,  already  referred  to,  which  invites 
interested  countries  to  consider  setting  quan- 
titative goals  and  implementing  policies  to 
attain  such  goals  by  1985. 

If  efforts  to  slow  population  growth  along 
the  lines  of  the  low  projection  can  be  suc- 
cessfully continued,  the  reduction  in  the 
world's  population  in  the  year  2000,  com- 
pared to  the  medium  projection,  would  be 
approximately  500  million.  By  the  year  2050 
it  would  be  approximately  2  billion.  At  the 
point  when  a  stationary  population  would  be 
reached,  about  a  hundred  years  from  now, 
the  difference  would  be  nearly  3  billion. 

The  World  Population  Plan  of  Action,  de- 
spite its  wordiness  and  often  hesitant  tone, 
contains  all  the  necessary  provisions  for  ef- 
fective family  planning  programs  and  popu- 
lation growth  control  programs  at  national 
and  international  levels.  It  lacks  only  plain 
statements  of  quantitative  goals  with  time 
frames  for  their  accomplishment.  These  can 
be  added  by  individual  national  action  and 
by  development  in  future  U.N.  documents. 

The  basis  for  suitable  goals  exists  in  para- 
graphs 16,  36,  37,  and  107,  referred  to  above. 
The  concept  of  the  U.N.  low-variant  projec- 
tion used  in  these  paragraphs  is  close  to  the 
goals  proposed  by  the  United  States  and 
other  ECAFE  nations  already  mentioned. 
The  dangerous  situation  evidenced  by  the 
current  food  situation  and  projections  for 
the  future  make  it  essential  to  press  for  the 
realization  of  these  goals. 

This  assessment,  directed  at  the  amend- 
ment and  adoption  of  the  World  Population 
Plan  of  Action,  does  not  do  justice  to  the  ac- 
complishments of  the  three  committees  of  the 
whole,  on  Population  Change  and  Economic 
and    Social    Development;    Population,    Re- 

654 


sources  and  Environment;  and  Population 
and  the  Family.  Each  of  these  considered  the 
interrelation  of  population  factors  and  their 
particular  subject  matter  and  adopted  rele- 
vant resolutions  of  a  positive  content.  These 
are  extensive  and  important  in  their  own 
right  and  deserve  a  separate,  detailed  assess- 
ment. 

The  U.S.  delegation  to  the  conference  gave 
four  undertakings  of  considerable  future  im- 
portance. From  the  U.S.  point  of  view  we 
should  consider  these  also  as  part  of  the  ac- 
tion agenda  coming  out  of  the  conference. 
We  said : 

First,  we  will  carry  out  the  provision  of  the  World 
Population  Plan  of  .4ction  to  the  best  of  our  ability. 
Especially  we  will  continue  our  effort  to  assure  the 
availability  of  family  planning  services  to  all  our 
people. 

Second,  we  will  undertake  a  collaborative  effort 
with  other  interested  donor  countries  and  U.N.  agen- 
cies— especially  the  World  Health  Organization 
(WHO),  the  U.N.  Fund  for  Population  Activities 
(UNFPA),  the  International  Bank  for  Reconstruc- 
tion and  Development  (IBRD),  and  the  U.N.  Chil- 
dren's Fund  (UNICEF) — to  assist  poorer  countries 
to  develop  low-cost  basic  preventive  and  curative 
health  services,  including  maternal  and  child  health 
and  family  planning  services,  reaching  out  into  re- 
mote rural  areas.  We  have  already  begun  to  use  our 
communications  satellites  for  medical  consultation 
and  diagnosis.  If  desired,  we  could  extend  these  new 
techniques  to  family  planning  organizations  and  ad- 
ministration. 

Third,  we  will  join  with  other  interested  countries 
in  a  further  collaborative  effort  of  national  research 
in  human  reproduction  and  fertility  control  covering 
biomedical  and  socioeconomic  factors. 

Fourth,  (we)  will  be  glad  to  join  other  countries  in 
order  to  seek  increased  funds  for  assistance  to  bi- 
lateral and  multilateral  health  and  population  pro- 
grams in  developing  countries  that  desire  our  help 
and  our  voluntary  contributions  to  the  U.N.  Fund 
for  Population- Activities.  If  other  donor  countries — 
especially  the  newly  wealthy  countries — indicate  an 
interest  in  providing  a  steady  increase  in  such  funds 
over  the  next  10  years,  (we)  will  bring  that  message 
home  from  this  conference,  and  given  some  evidence 
of  world  interest,  it  is  quite  possible  our  Congress 
will  respond  favorably. 

The  World  Population  Conference  has  pro- 
vided nations,  international  bodies,  private 
organizations,  and  individuals  with  an  im- 
pressive and  valuable  agenda  for  action.  It  is 
now  in  the  hands  of  all  of  us  to  make  its  po- 
tential a  reality. 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


President   Ford   Vetoes  Two  Versions 
of  Bill   Restricting   Aid   to  Turkey 

Following  are  statements  by  President 
Ford  issued  October  1  and  8,  his  remarks  of 
October  H  upon  signing  a  message  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  returning  H.J.  Res. 
1131  ivithout  his  approval,  the  text  of  that 
message,  his  statement  isstied  October  15 
folloiving  the  House  vote  sustaining  the  veto, 
the  text  of  a  message  to  the  House  on  October 
17  returning  H.J.  Res.  1163  without  his  ap- 
proval, and  his  statement  issued  October  18 
concerning  H.J.  Res.  1167,  which  he  signed 
into  law  on  October  17. 


STATEMENT   ISSUED   OCTOBER   1 

white  House  press  release  dated  October  1 

Last  night  the  Eagleton  amendment  ^  to 
the  continuing  resolution  authority  was 
passed  by  the  Senate.  Today  the  continuing 
resolution  itself  will  be  brought  to  a  Senate 
vote. 

It  is  my  conviction  that  approval  of  the 
continuing  resolution  containing  the  Eagle- 
ton  amendment  or  similar  language  would  de- 
stroy any  hope  for  the  success  of  the  initia- 
tives the  United  States  has  already  taken  or 
may  take  in  the  future  to  contribute  to  a  just 
settlement  of  the  Cyprus  dispute.  This  view 
is  shared  by  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger, 
who  is  now  in  New  York  where  he  is  making 
a  major  effort  in  his  talks  with  Greek  and 
Turkish  representatives  to  bring  about  prog- 
ress. 

If  the  Eagleton  amendment  or  similar  lan- 
guage is  adopted  by  the  Congress,  the  United 
States  will  have  lost  its  negotiating  flexibility 
and  influence.  It  thus  hurts  the  very  coun- 
tries and  objectives  it  purports  to  help. 

It  is  my  intention,  therefore,  to  withhold 
my  consent  to  any  continuing  resolution 
which  reaches  my  desk  containing  language 
such  as  that  found  in  the  Eagleton  amend- 
ment. I  can,  however,  accept  and,  indeed, 
endorse  the  language  relating  to  military  as- 


sistance to  Turkey  contained  in  the  continu- 
ing resolution  as  reported  to  the  full  Senate 
by  the  Senate  Appropriations  Committee. = 

I  deeply  appreciate  the  constructive  eff'orts 
of  the  Democratic  and  Republican  leadership 
in  both  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives in  their  support  for  an  amendment 
which  would  assist  the  diplomatic  efforts  of 
Secretary  Kissinger  in  seeking  an  equitable 
solution  to  the  Cyprus  question.  I  hope  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Senate  will  respond  to  this  bi- 
partisan leadership  effort. 


STATEMENT   ISSUED   OCTOBER  8 

White  House  press  release  dated  October  8 

Yesterday  the  House  of  Representatives, 
once  again  acting  against  the  almost  unan- 
imous advice  of  its  leadership,  amended  the 
continuing  resolution  granting  funds  for  our 
foreign  aid  programs.  The  amendment  re- 
quires an  immediate  cessation  of  all  U.S. 
military  assistance  to  Turkey  and  is,  in  my 
view,  a  misguided  and  extremely  harmful 
measure. 

Instead  of  encouraging  the  parties  involved 
in  the  Cyprus  dispute  to  return  to  the  nego- 
tiating table,  this  amendment,  if  passed  by 
the  Senate,  will  mean  the  indefinite  postpone- 
ment of  meaningful  negotiations.  Instead  of 
strengthening  America's  ability  to  persuade 
the  parties  to  resolve  the  dispute,  it  will 
lessen  our  influence  on  all  the  parties  con- 
cerned. And  it  will  imperil  our  relationships 
with  our  Turkish  friends  and  weaken  us  in 
the  crucial  eastern  Mediterranean. 

But  most  tragic  of  all,  a  cutoff  of  arms  to 
Turkey  will  not  help  Greece  or  the  Greek 
Cypriot  people,  who  have  suffered  so  much 
over  the  course  of  the  last  several  months.  We 
recognize  that  we  are  far  from  a  settlement 
consistent  with  Greece's  honor  and  dignity. 
We  are  prepared  to  exert  our  efforts  in  that 
direction.  But  reckless  acts  that  prevent  prog- 
ress toward  a  Cyprus  settlement  harm 
Greeks,  for  it  is  the  Greek  Government  and 
the  Greek  Cypriots  who  have  the  most  to 
gain  from  a  compromise  settlement.  And  it 


•  Cong.  Rec,  Sept.  30,  1974,  p.  S17733. 


■  S.  Rept.  1174,  93d  Cong.,  2d  sess. 


November   11,    1974 


655 


is  they  who  have  the  most  to  lose  from  con- 
tinued deadlock. 

Thus  I  call  upon  the  Senate  to  accept  the 
original  conference  report  language  on  Turk- 
ish arms  aid  '•  and  to  return  the  bill  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  once  again.  And  I 
ask  the  House  of  Representatives  to  recon- 
sider its  hasty  act  and,  working  with  the 
Senate,  pass  a  bill  that  will  best  serve  the  in- 
terests of  peace. 


REMARKS   UPON    SIGNING   VETO   MESSAGE, 
OCTOBER    14 

White  House  press  release  dated  October  14 

Today,  in  the  interest  of  preserving  the 
ability  of  the  United  States  to  assist  the 
Governments  of  Greece,  Turkey,  and  Cy- 
prus to  negotiate  a  peaceful  settlement  of 
the  Cyprus  dispute,  I  am  returning  to  the 
Congress  without  my  approval  the  continu- 
ing resolution  which  the  Congress  has 
amended  to  cut  off  military  aid  to  Turkey. 

In  so  doing,  I  want  to  clear  the  air  of  a 
number  of  misunderstandings  concerning  the 
U.S.  position  toward  the  Cyprus  crisis. 

Since  the  outbreak  of  the  crisis,  our  objec- 
tives have  been  to  establish  a  cease-fire,  to 
provide  humanitarian  aid  to  the  refugees,  to 
assist  the  parties  toward  a  negotiation  and  a 
settlement,  and  to  strengthen  and  to  improve 
our  historically  friendly  ties  with  Greece, 
Turkey,  and  Cyprus. 

I  have  discussed  these  goals  with  the  bi- 
partisan leadership  of  the  Congress  and  have 
received  their  unanimous  and  vigorous  sup- 
port. Our  ability  to  pursue  these  goals  de- 
pends, however,  on  being  able  to  maintain  a 
constructive  relationship  with  the  parties  in- 
volved. The  cutoff  of  assistance  to  Turkey  is 
destructive  of  that  relationship. 

Further,  it  in  no  way  helps  the  Greek  peo- 
ple or  the  people  of  Cyprus,  who  have  suf- 
fered so  much  in  the  past  months.  In  fact,  by 
dashing  hopes  for  negotiations,  it  prolongs 
their  suffering. 

We  recognize  clearly  the   need  to  insure 


'  H.  Rept.  1424,  93d  Cong.,  2d  sess. 


that  the  honor  and  integrity  of  the  Greek  peo- 
ple be  maintained.  We  seek  a  settlement 
which  insures  that  fundamental  requirement. 
U.S.  friendship  with  Greece  has  been  estab- 
lished through  generations  of  cooperation 
and  mutual  respect  based  on  shared  values 
and  common  goals.  I  intend  firmly  to  carry 
on  and  strengthen  that  relationship. 

I  cannot,  however,  carry  out  this  pledge  if 
my  ability  to  act  in  the  current  crisis  is  un- 
dercut by  restrictions  imposed  by  the  Con- 
gress. We  all  seek  a  peaceful  resolution  of 
this  problem.  We  all  seek  justice  for  the  peo- 
ple of  Cyprus.  We  all  seek  to  maintain  the 
strength  and  cooperation  in  our  relationship 
that  is  a  cornerstone  to  Western  security  in 
the  Mediterranean. 

It  is  for  these  reasons  that  I  return  this 
resolution  to  the  Congress  and  ask  that  it 
thoughtfully  reconsider  its  position. 

I  pledge  to  continue  working  closely  in 
partnership  with  the  Congress  to  enable  the 
United  States  to  play  a  useful  role  in  helping 
the  parties  toward  a  peaceful  resolution  of 
the  Cyprus  dispute. 

I  am  now  signing  my  veto  message,  which 
will  be  delivered  today  to  the  Congress. 

Thank  you  very  much. 


MESSAGE  TO  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
OCTOBER   14 

white  House  press  release  dated  October  14 

To  the  House  of  Representatives: 

At  the  beginning  of  my  Administration  I 
pledged  to  work  closely  and  cooperatively 
with  the  Congress.  I  believe  I  have  kept  that 
promise.  I  have  appeared  before  two  joint 
sessions  of  the  Congress,  I  have  met  fre- 
quently with  the  leadership  of  both  Houses, 
and  I  have  agreed  to  appear  personally  be- 
fore a  subcommittee  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives— a  step  no  other  President  has  un- 
dertaken in  more  than  a  century. 

These  actions  are  an  earnest  of  my  com- 
mitment to  a  new  partnership  between  the 
legislative  and  executive  branches  of  our  gov- 
ernment. They  reflect  my  deep  belief  that  the 
antagonisms  that  have  too  long  divided  our 


656 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


nation  must  be  resolved,  that  hopes  for  par- 
tisan advantage  must  be  put  aside,  and  that 
we  must  get  on  with  the  business  of  doing  the 
best  we  can  for  our  country. 

The  cooperation  I  have  received  from  the 
leadership  of  the  Congress — Democratic  and 
Republican  alike — has  been  truly  remarka- 
ble. The  leaders  have  advised  me  and  I  have 
listened ;  I  have  explained  my  problems  to 
them  and  they  have  responded  with  under- 
standing and  support.  For  this  I  am  deeply 
grateful. 

It  is,  therefore,  with  deep  regret  that  I  am 
returning  today  without  my  approval  the  re- 
cently passed  Continuing  Resolution,  H.J. 
Res.  1131,  granting  funds  for  the  operation 
of  several  departments  and  agencies  and  for 
the  temporary  continuation  of  our  foreign 
aid  programs.  I  take  this  step  with  great  re- 
luctance, but  in  the  belief  that  I  have  no 
other  choice. 

The  Continuing  Resolution  the  Congress 
has  passed  and  sent  to  me  for  signature  con- 
tains an  amendment  requiring  an  immediate 
cut-off  of  all  military  assistance  to  Turkey. 
That  amendment  was  passed  despite  my  own 
public  objection  to  it,  and  in  the  face  of  the 
unanimous  opposition  of  the  bipartisan  lead- 
ership of  both  Houses  of  Congress.  It  is  an 
act  which  is  harmful  even  to  those  it  pur- 
ports to  help. 

The  United  States  is  making  every  effort 
to  play  a  useful  role  in  assisting  the  parties 
to  a  resolution  of  the  Cyprus  dispute.  The 
Continuing  Resolution  as  amended  is  entirely 
destructive  of  those  efforts.  Instead  of  en- 
couraging the  parties  involved  in  the  Cyprus 
dispute  to  return  to  the  negotiating  table,  an 
arms  cut-off  to  Turkey  could  mean  the  indef- 
inite postponement  of  meaningful  negotia- 
tions. Instead  of  strengthening  America's 
ability  to  persuade  the  parties  to  resolve  the 
dispute,  it  would  lessen  our  influence  on  all 
the  parties  concerned.  It  would  as  well  im- 
peril our  relationships  with  our  Turkish  ally 
and  weaken  us  in  the  crucial  Eastern  Med- 
iterranean. It  directly  jeopardizes  the  NATO 
alliance. 

Most  tragic  of  all,  an  arms  cut-off  would 
not  help  Greece  or  the  Greek  Cypriot  people 


who  have  suffered  so  tragically  over  the  past 
several  months.  We  recognize  that  we  are 
still  far  from  a  settlement  consistent  with  the 
honor  and  dignity  of  Greece,  and  are  pre- 
pared to  exert  our  influence  to  that  end.  But 
reckless  acts  that  prevent  progress  toward  a 
Cyprus  settlement  harm  Greece,  for  it  is  the 
Greek  government  and  the  Greek  Cypriots 
who  have  the  most  to  gain  from  a  compromise 
settlement.  And  it  is  they  who  have  the  most 
to  lose  from  continued  deadlock. 

It  is  for  these  reasons  that  I  am  vetoing 
the  bill  sent  to  me.  I  do  so  because,  should 
this  measure  become  law,  it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  the  United  States  to  continue  to  play 
any  meaningful  role  in  assisting  the  parties 
to  resolve  the  Cyprus  dispute.  We  would  in- 
evitably be  forced  to  withdraw  from  the  ne- 
gotiations because  the  Congress  would  have 
taken  from  us  the  tools  we  need  to  affect  the 
outcome. 

My  choice,  then,  is  unavoidable;  my  re- 
sponsibility clear.  I  ask  that  the  Congress  re- 
consider its  action  and  send  to  me  a  bill  that 
we  can  all  support,  a  bill  that  provides  the 
flexibility  needed  to  carry  forward  the  for- 
eign policy  of  the  United  States. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  October  U,  197 A- 


STATEMENT  ISSUED   OCTOBER   15 

White  House  press  release  dated  October  15 

I  am  deeply  gratified  by  the  House  vote 
sustaining  my  veto  of  the  continuing  resolu- 
tion. This  wise  and  responsive  action  will 
serve  the  cause  of  peace  on  Cyprus  while 
maintaining  the  strength  of  our  vital  security 
relationships  in  the  eastern  Mediterranean. 

I  want  to  thank  the  congressional  leader- 
ship for  its  understanding  and  support.  I 
look  forward  to  working  in  partnership  with 
the  Congress  to  enhance  the  ability  of  the 
United  States  to  assist  the  parties  in  nego- 
tiating a  peaceful  and  lasting  resolution  of 
the  Cyprus  dispute  and  in  responding  gen- 
erously to  the  humanitarian  relief  needs  of 
the  Cypriot  people.  At  the  same  time,  I  ask 


November   11,1 974 


657 


Congress  for  prompt  action  to  provide  con- 
tinued funding,  without  encumbering  restric- 
tions, for  the  operation  of  several  depart- 
ments and  agencies. 


MESSAGE  TO  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
OCTOBER   17 

White  House  press  release  dated  October  17 

To  the  House  of  Representatives: 

I  greatly  regret  that  for  the  second  time  I 
must  return  vi'ithout  my  approval  the  Contin- 
uing Resolution  granting  funds  for  the  opera- 
tion of  several  departments  and  agencies  and 
for  the  temporary  continuation  of  our  for- 
eign aid  programs,  H.J.  Res.  1163. 

My  previous  veto  message  and  my  public 
statements  on  this  matter  have  clearly  ex- 
pressed our  objectives  with  respect  to  the 
resolution  of  the  Cyprus  dispute  as  well  as 
the  dangers  posed  by  legislative  restrictions 
destroying  our  ability  to  assist  the  parties 
involved.  The  Congress,  despite  the  best  ef- 
forts of  the  bipartisan  leaders  of  both  Houses, 
has  for  the  second  time  refused  to  recognize 
the  realities  of  the  situation. 

While  the  language  of  this  new  bill  is  dif- 
ferent, its  effect  is  similar  to  the  earlier  Con- 
tinuing Resolution  which  required  my  veto 
on  October  14.  I  need  not  reiterate  the  ex- 
tensive comments  which  I  made  at  that  time 
and  which  again  compel  a  veto.  The  provi- 
sions of  this  bill  as  they  would  apply  to  Tur- 
key would  do  nothing  to  bring  an  end  to  the 
suffering  of  the  Cypriot  people,  would  do 
nothing  to  encourage  the  two  sides  to  resolve 
the  dispute  peacefully,  and  would  bring  a 
further  deterioration  of  the  posture  of  the 
NATO  alliance  in  the  crucial  Eastern  Med- 
iterranean. It  is  for  these  reasons  and  those 
previously  stated  that  I  must  reluctantly  veto 
the  bill  before  me. 

In  addition,  I  am  compelled  to  point  out 
again  that  should  this  measure  become  law, 
the  United  States  would  have  lost  the  ability 
to  play  a  useful  role  in  this  dispute  and 
would  in  effect  have  to  withdraw  from  the 
negotiations.  Should  the  Congress  force  such 
an  action,  it  must  do  so  in  the  clear  knowl- 


658 


edge  that  it  assumes  full  responsibility  for 
the  situation  which  would  then  prevail. 

I  ask  that  the  Congress  not  choose  that 
path  but  that  it  reconsider  its  action  and  pro- 
vide a  bill  which  will  permit  the  continued 
execution  of  United  States  foreign  policy  in 
a  constructive  and  responsible  manner. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  October  17,  197 U. 


STATEMENT   ISSUED   OCTOBER   18 

white  House  press  release  dated  October  18 

I  have  signed,  with  serious  reservations, 
the  continuing  resolution  (H.J.  Res.  1167) 
providing  necessary  funds  after  a  three-week 
delay  for  the  operation  of  several  depart- 
ments and  agencies  and  for  the  temporary 
continuation  of  our  foreign  aid  programs. 

Despite  two  vetoes  of  similar  versions  of 
this  bill  and  my  public  statements  concerning 
the  damage  to  our  diplomacy  that  would  re- 
sult from  its  restrictions  on  military  aid  to 
Turkey,  Congress  has  nevertheless  persisted 
by  clear  majorities  in  a  course  which  I  con- 
sider ill  advised  and  dangerous. 

The  restrictions  imposed  in  this  bill  on  our 
military  assistance  to  Turkey  create  serious 
problems.^  Without  substantial  benefit  to  any 


'  H.J.  Res.  1167  (Public  Law  93-448,  approved  Oct. 
17)  includes  the  following  section: 

"Sec.  6.  None  of  the  funds  herein  made  available 
shall  be  obligated  or  expended  for  military  assist- 
ance, or  for  sales  of  defense  articles  and  ser\'ices 
(whether  for  cash  or  by  credit,  guaranty,  or  any 
other  means)  or  for  the  transportation  of  any  mili- 
tary equipment  or  supplies  to  Turkey  until  and  un- 
less the  President  certifies  to  the  Congress  that  the 
Government  of  Turkey  is  in  compliance  with  the 
Foreign  Assistance  Act  of  1961,  the  Foreign  Military 
Sales  Act,  and  any  agreement  entered  into  under 
such  Acts,  and  that  substantial  progress  toward 
agreement  has  been  made  regarding  military  forces 
in  Cyprus:  Provided,  That  the  President  is  author- 
ized to  suspend  the  provisions  of  this  section  and 
said  acts  if  he  determines  that  such  suspension  will 
further  negotiations  for  a  peaceful  solution  on  the 
Cyprus  conflict.  Any  such  suspension  shall  be  effec- 
tive only  until  December  10,  1974,  and  only  if,  dur- 
ing that  time,  Turkey  shall  obsen'e  the  ceasefire  and 
shall  neither  increase  its  forces  on  Cyprus  nor  trans- 
fer to  Cyprus  any  U.S.  supplied  implements  of  war." 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


other  country,  these  restrictions  threaten  our 
relations  with  a  country  which  is  a  close  ally, 
which  is  the  eastern  anchor  of  an  alliance 
vital  to  the  security  of  the  United  States,  and 
which  plays  a  fundamental  role  in  the  stra- 
tegic interests  of  the  United  States  in  the 
eastern  Mediterranean  area.  It  is  for  these 
reasons — the  national  security  interests  of 
the  United  States — that  we  have  been  provid- 
ing military  assistance  to  Turkey. 

The  problem  created  by  these  legislative  re- 
strictions with  respect  to  our  relations  with 
Turkey  are  not  compensated  for  in  any  way 
by  benefits  to  Greece  or  the  Greek  Cypriots. 
Contrary  to  the  intentions  of  the  supporters 
of  these  restrictions,  this  bill  can  only  hinder 
progress  toward  a  settlement  of  the  Cypriot 
dispute,  which  is  so  much  in  the  interest  of 
both  Greece  and  the  people  of  Cyprus. 

As  a  result  of  my  vetoes  of  two  earlier  ver- 
sions of  this  continuing  resolution,  the  Con- 
gress has  eased  the  most  troublesome  of  the 
earlier  restrictions.  Nevertheless,  the  risks 
created  by  the  remaining  ones  fail  to  provide 
compensating  benefits.  I  will,  of  course,  do  my 
best  to  accomplish  the  goals  which  we  had 
set  before  the  Congress  took  this  action. 
Whatever  we  can  still  do  to  assist  in  resolving 
the  Cyprus  dispute  will  be  done.  But  if  we  fail 
despite  our  best  efforts,  those  in  the  Congress 
who  overrode  the  congressional  leadership 
must  bear  the  full  responsibility  for  that 
failure. 


Congressional  Documents 
Relating  to  Foreign   Policy 


93d   Congress,   2d   Session 

Emergency  Marine  Fisheries  Protection  Act  of  1974. 
Report,  together  with  minority  views,  to  accom- 
pany S.  1988.  S.  Kept.  93-1079.  August  8,  1974. 
54  pp. 

Hungarian  Claims.  Report  to  accompany  H.R.  13261. 
S.  Rept.  93-1095.  August  15,  1974.  12  pp. 

Export-Import  Bank  Amendments  of  1974.  Report  to 
accompany  S.  3917.  S.  Rept.  93-1097.  August  15, 
1974.  47  pp. 

International  Nuclear  Agreement  Congressional  Re- 
view Act.  Conference  report  to  accompany  S.  3698. 
H.  Rept.  93-1299.   August  19,  1974.   4  pp. 


November   11,   1974 


Progress  Toward   Independence 
of  Portuguese  Africa 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  Commit- 
tee IV  (Trusteeship)  of  the  U.N.  General 
Assembly  on  October  11  by  U.S.  Representa- 
tive Barbara  M.  White. 

USUN  press  release  131  dated  October  11 

I  would  like  to  express  my  government's 
deep  satisfaction  with  the  progress  of  the 
process  of  decolonization  in  Portuguese- 
speaking  Africa  during  the  past  five  months 
— satisfaction  that  the  peoples  of  these  areas 
are  now  assuming  the  full  rights  and  respon- 
sibilities of  self-government,  which  are  their 
due,  and  satisfaction  that  the  provisional 
government  in  Portugal  has  had  the  wisdom 
to  accept  the  need  for  change  as  well  as  the 
courage  to  implement  it. 

We  are  gratified  that  Portugal's  new  pol- 
icy already  has  borne  fruit  with  Guinea- 
Bissau's  entry  into  the  community  of  states 
and  membership  in  this  organization.  It  is 
our  hope  that  the  evolution  toward  independ- 
ence in  Mozambique  will  be  peaceful  and  that 
next  year  Mozambique,  too,  will  take  its  seat 
in  this  body.  We  also  commend  the  leaders 
of  Guinea-Bissau  and  FRELIMO  [Liberation 
Front  of  Mozambique]  for  the  sense  of  real- 
ism and  compromise  they  have  shown  in 
their  negotiations  with  Portugal.  We  wish 
them  well  now  as  they  go  about  the  task  of 
establishing  new  governmental  institutions 
and  policies  to  execute  the  will  of  their  peo- 
ples. 

The  existence  of  several  liberation  move- 
ments in  Angola  makes  the  problem  of  de- 
colonization in  that  territory  more  compli- 
cated than  it  was  in  Mozambique  and  Guinea- 
Bissau.  We  hope  that  the  movements  may 
resolve  their  differences  expeditiously  so  that 
decolonization  can  proceed  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  structures  of  a  new  self-govern- 
ing Angola  can  begin. 

Other  African  governments  and  leaders 
have  been  of  invaluable  assistance  in  helping 
to  arrange  the  negotiations  concerning  Guin- 
ea-Bissau and  Mozambique.  So  has  the  dis- 


659 


tinguished  Secretary-General  of  the  United 
Nations,  through  his  timely  and  statesman- 
like good  offices.  By  helping  to  eliminate  per- 
sistent sources  of  tensions,  they  have  served 
not  only  Africa  but  the  world.  These  coun- 
tries and  leaders  deserve  our  hearty  thanks 
for  their  past  efforts  and  encouragement  for 
the  future. 

It  is  indeed  to  the  future  that  we  should 
look  today.  The  United  States  hopes  to  see 
the  process  of  decolonization  continue  to  a 
peaceful  conclusion  with  the  peoples  of  the 
remaining  non-self-governing  territories  in 
Africa  determining  their  own  future.  This 
will  best  serve  the  interests  of  the  peoples 
themselves,  of  Africa,  and  of  the  world.  We 
will  do  what  we  can  to  encourage  progress 
toward  this  end. 


TREATY   INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

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. 
Notification  that  constitutional  procedures  com- 
pleted: Japan,  September  26,  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.  TIAS  7868. 
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.  TIAS  7868. 
Ratification  deposited:  Norway,  August  13,  1974. 

Load  Lines 

Amendments  to  the  international  convention  on  load 
lines,  1966  (TIAS  6331).    Adopted  at  London  Oc- 
tober 12,  1971.' 
Acceptance  deposited:  Cyprus,  October  3,  1974. 

Ocean  Dumping 

Convention  on  the  prevention  of  marine  pollution  by 
dumping  of  wastes  and  other  matter,  with  an- 
nexes. Done  at  London,  Mexico  City,  Moscow,  and 
Washington  December  29,  1972.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Denmark  (not  applicable 
to  Faroe  Islands),  October  23,  1974. 

World  Heritage 

Convention   concerning  the  protection  of  the  world 
cultural  and  natural  heritage.    Done  at  Paris  No- 
vember 16,  1972.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Australia,  August  22,  1974. 


BILATERAL 

Bangladesh 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities. 
Signed  at  Dacca  October  4,  1974.  Entered  into 
force  October  4,  1974. 

Turkey 

Agreement  relating  to  payment  to  the  United  States 
of  the  net  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  defense  arti- 
cles by  Turkey.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at 
Ankara  October  9  and  10,  1974.  Entered  into  force 
October  10,  1974,  effective  July  1,  1974. 

United  Kingdom 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  of  February 
15,  1960,  as  amended  (TIAS  4425,  6619),  relating 
to  the  establishment  and  operation  of  a  ballistic 
missile  early  warning  station  at  Fylingdales  Moor. 
Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  London  October 
3,  1974.  Entered  into  force  October  3,  1974. 


Not  in  force. 


660 


Department  of  State  Bulletii 


INDEX     November  11, 197 i     Vol.  LXXI,No.  18^6 


Africa.  Progress  Toward  Independence  of  Por- 
tuguese Africa  (White) 659 

Agriculture.  U.S.S.R.  Agrees  To  Limit  Pur- 
chases of  U.S.  Grain  in  Current  Crop  Year 
(Treasury  announcement) 648 

American  Principles.  The  Testing  of  Ameri- 
can Commitment  (Kissinger) 643 

China.  Secretary  Kissinger  Interviewed  for 
New  York  Times  (transcript  of  interview 
by  James  Reston) 629 

Congress 

Congressional  Documents  Relating  to  Foreign 

Policy 659 

President  Ford  Vetoes  Two  Versions  of  Bill 
Restricting  Aid  to  Turkey  (statements,  re- 
marks, messages  to  House  of  Representa- 
tives)       655 

Cyprus.  President  Ford  Vetoes  Two  Versions 
of  Bill  Restricting  Aid  to  Turkey  (state- 
ments, remarks,  messages  to  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives)   655 

Economic  Affairs 

U.S.S.R.  Agrees  To  Limit  Purchases  of  U.S. 
Grain  in  Current  Crop  Year  (Treasury  an- 
nouncement)    648 

U.S.-U.S.S.R.    Trade    and    Economic    Council 

Meets  at  Moscow  (Simon) 646 

Europe.  Secretary  Kissinger  Interviewed  for 
New  York  Times  (transcript  of  interview  by 
James   Reston) 629 

Foreign  Aid.  President  Ford  Vetoes  Two  Ver- 
sions of  Bill  Restricting  Aid  to  Turkey 
(statements,  remarks,  messages  to  House 
of  Representatives) 655 

Greece.  President  Ford  Vetoes  Two  Versions 
of  Bill  Restricting  Aid  to  Turkey  (state- 
ments, remarks,  messages  to  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives)   655 

Latin  America.  Secretary  Kissinger  Inter- 
viewed for  New  York  Times  (transcript  of 
interview  by  James  Reston) 629 

Population.  The  World  Population  Conference : 

An  Assessment  (Claxton) 649 

Portugal 

President  Costa  Gomes  of  Portugal  Visits 
Washington  (joint  U.S. -Portuguese  commu- 
nique)      646 

Progress  Toward  Independence  of  Portuguese 

Africa  (White) 659 

Presidential  Documents.  President  Ford  Ve- 
toes Two  Versions  of  Bill  Restricting  Aid  to 
Turkey 655 

Trade.     U.S.-U.S.S.R.     Trade     and     Economic 

Council  Meets  at  Moscow  (Simon)  ....       646 

Treaty  Information.  Current  Actions  ....       660 

Turkey.  President  Ford  Vetoes  Two  Versions 
of  Bill  Restricting  Aid  to  Turkey  (state- 
ments, remarks,  messages  to  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives)   655 


U.S.S.R. 

Secretary  Kissinger  Interviewed  for  New 
York  Times  (transcript  of  interview  by 
James   Reston) 629 

U.S.S.R.  Agrees  To  Limit  Purchases  of  U.S." 
Grain  in  Current  Crop  Year  (Treasury  an- 
nouncement)    648 

U.S.-U.S.S.R.    Trade    and    Economic    Council 

Meets  at  Moscow  (Simon) 646 

United  Nations.  Progress  Toward  Independ- 
ence of  Portuguese  Africa  (White)  ....       659 

Name  Index 

Claxton,  Philander  P.,  Jr 649 

Ford,    President 655 

Kissinger,  Secretary 629,  643 

Simon,  William  E '646 

White,   Barbara   M 659 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  October  21-27 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Release  issued  prior  to  October  21  which 
appears  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  is  No. 
400  of  October  10. 


No. 

*432 
*433 


Date 

10/21 

10/22 


*434     10/23 


t435 
t436 


10/23 
10/24 


*437     10/25 


t438 
t439 


10/25 
10/25 


*440     10/25 


1441 
t442 
t443 
t444 


10/27 
10/27 
10/27 
10/27 


Subject 

American  education  delegation 
visits  U.S.S.R. 

Rescheduling  of  meeting,  Study 
Group  on  Matrimonial  Mat- 
ters, Secretary's  Advisory 
Committee  on  Private  Interna- 
tional Law. 

Joffrey  Ballet  to  tour  Soviet  Un- 
ion, Nov.  16-Dec.  14. 

Kissinger:   arrival,  Moscow. 

Kissinger,  Gromyko :  exchange 
of  toasts. 

Delegation  of  Soviet  youth  to 
study  U.S.  elections,  Oct.  25- 
Nov.  7. 

Advisory  Committee  for  Foreign 
Service  Institute,  Dec.  2. 

Study  Group  on  Agency,  Secre- 
tary's Advisory  Committee  on 
Private  International  Law, 
Chicago,  Nov.  21. 

Transportation  officials  to  tour 
U.S. 

Kissinger:  departure,  Moscow. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R.  joint  communique. 

Kissinger:  arrival.  New  Delhi. 

Kissinger,  Chavan :  exchange  of 
toasts,  New  Delhi. 


*  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.     OCTVERNMENT     PRIMTINO     OFFICE 

Special   Fourtb-Closi   Rote 
Book 


T 


h 


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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


THE  I 


. ) 


■  '// 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1847 


November  18,  1974 


PRESIDENT  FORD  MEETS  WITH  PRESIDENT  ECHEVERRIA 

OF  MEXICO     661 

U.S.  POLICY  TOWARD  GOVERNMENTS  OF  PERU,  1822-PRESENT: 
QUESTIONS  OF  RECOGNITION  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS 

A  Tabular  Summary     677 


THE   OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


Supsrinttfi 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE   BULLETIN 


Kor  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.  1847 
November  18,  1974 


The  Department  of  State  BULLETIN, 
a  weekly  publication  issued  by  the 
Office  of  Media  Services,  Bureau  of 
Public  Affairs,  provides  tfie  public  and 
interested  agencies  of  tlie  government 
witli  information  on  developments  in 
ilie  field  of  U.S.  foreign  relations  and 
on  tlie  worlc  of  tlie  Department  and 
the  Foreign  Service. 
Tlie  BULLETIN  includes  selected 
press  releases  on  foreign  policy,  issued 
by  the  Wliite  House  and  the  Depart- 
ment, and  statements,  addresses, 
and  news  conferences  of  the  President 
and  the  Secretary  of  State  and  otlier 
officers  of  the  Department,  as  well  as 
special  articles  on  various  phases  oh 
international  affairs  and  tlie  functions' 
of  the  Department.  Information  u 
included  concerning  treaties  and  inter- 
national agreements  to  whicli  tht 
United  States  is  or  may  become  i 
parly  and  on  treaties  of  general  inter 
national   interest. 

Publications  of  tlie  Department  ot 
State,  United  Nations  documents,  ant 
legislative  material  in  tlie  field  ol 
international  relations  are  also  listed 


President  Ford  Meets  With  President  Echeverria  of  Mexico 


President  Ford  and  President  Luis  Eche- 
verria of  the  United  Mexican  States  held 
meetings  at  Magdalena  de  Kino,  Sonora, 
Mexico,  and  Tubac,  Ariz.,  on  October  21. 
Following  are  remarks  exchanged  by  the  two 
Presidents  uqjon  President  Ford's  arrival  at 
Nogales,  Sonora,  Mexico;  their  exchange  of 
toasts  at  a  luncheon  at  Tubac,  Ariz.;  the 
transcript  of  their  neios  conference  at  Tu- 
bac; and  their  exchange  of  remarks  at  Davis- 
Monthan  Air  Force  Base,  Tucson,  Ariz., 
upon  departure. 


Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  October  28 

REMARKS  AT  NOGALES,   SONORA,   MEXICO 

President  Echeverria  ^ 

Your  Excellency,  Mr.  Gerald  Ford,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  of  America:  We 
bid  you  welcome  to  Mexico.  The  people  of 
Mexico  receive  you  with  the  expression  of 
their  friendship  for  the  American  people. 
Through  me,  our  people  wish  to  offer  you  the 
most  cordial  welcome,  to  convey  a  cordial 
greeting  which  we  would  ask  you  to  take 
back  with  you  for  all  the  American  people. 

Coexistence  between  Mexico  and  the 
United  States  of  America  has  been  a  long 
one.  We  have  an  extensive  borderline  be- 
tween us.  And  all  along  this  border  for  a 
long  time  now  the  sometimes  dramatic  and 
even  tragic  problems  have  been  left  behind. 

During  the  last  decades,  it  has  been  pos- 
sible to  solve  the  problems  that  affect  us  both 
through  civilized  practices  by  applying 
norms  of  law  and  of  reciprocal  respect.  And 
now  during  the  very  difficult  period  that  the 
entire  world  is  living  through,  we  both — the 
United  States,  in  these  difficult  times,  and 
Mexico — are  making  efforts  so  that  our  co- 


existence will  be  a  harmonious  one,  an  un- 
derstanding one,  and  a  respectful  one. 

In  our  country,  within  our  country  do- 
mestically, we  are  struggling  to  foster  social 
justice  in  accordance  with  old  moral  guide- 
lines and  with  a  spirit  of  cooperation  which 
we  believe  would  benefit  all  the  countries  of 
the  world. 

Internationally,  we  struggle  to  achieve 
norms  of  cooperation,  balance,  understand- 
ing on  the  part  of  each  nation  for  all  other 
countries.  In  Mexico,  we  believe  that  infla- 
tion is  only  one  of  the  manifestations  of  lack 
of  balance  between  the  interests  of  the  one 
and  the  other — between  the  rich  and  the 
poor,  between  the  people  that  are  just  devel- 
oping and  the  industrialized  countries.  We 
feel  that  we  have  to  reach  an  equilibrium  in 
order  to  fight  against  these  problems.  And 
we  believe  that  it  is  possible  that  we  can 
trust  international  relations  and  that  we  can 
find  a  system  of  cooperation  that  would  lead 
to  international  balance,  that  would  lead  to 
peace  and  not  to  war. 

We  should  understand  that  whatever  prob- 
lem comes  up  in  any  corner  of  the  world — 
in  Asia,  Africa,  Oceania,  Latin  America — 
are  problems  that  affect  all  of  us,  even  the 
richest  and  most  industrialized  countries,  be- 
cause we  must  understand  that  the  destiny 
of  mankind  is  one  and  indivisible. 

President  Ford,  this  is  the  doctrine  of 
Mexico,  sir,  with  which  we  receive  you  with 
great  cordiality.  We  want  you  to  feel  at 
home  among  us. 

President  Ford 

Mr.  President,  amigos:  1  am  delighted  to 
be  here  this  morning  to  meet  with  you  on 


'  President  Echeverria  spoke  Spanish  on  all  occa- 
sions. 


November   18,   1974 


661 


our  border  at  Nogales.  I  am  delighted  and 
highly  honored  to  participate  in  these  meet- 
ings today  which  will  be  partly  held  in  Mex- 
ico and  partly  held  in  the  United  States, 
which  symbolizes,  Mr.  President,  the  rela- 
tionship between  our  two  countries. 

It  is  a  working  partnership  of  mutual  co- 
operation which  exemplifies  the  spirit  be- 
hind the  new  dialogue  into  which  we  have 
entered  with  all  nations  of  Latin  America 
and  which  we  will  not  forget,  Mr.  President, 
which  started  last  year  at  Tlatelolco  in  Mex- 
ico City. 

In  our  meetings  today,  Mr.  President,  let 
us  give  new  meaning  to  the  special  relation- 
ship of  us  as  two  good  neighbors — Mexico 
and  the  United  States — through  frank  and 
friendly  consultations. 

It  is  very  significant,  Mr.  President,  that 
my  first  trip  outside  of  the  United  States  as 
President  of  our  country  is  to  Mexico,  our 
longtime  friend  and  very  good  neighbor.  It 
provides  a  living  demonstration  of  how  we 
are  inextricably  linked  by  historical  ties,  by 
geographical  position,  by  our  mutual  desire 
to  be  good  neighbors. 

It  is  my  fervent  wish  that  this  meeting 
will  mark  the  beginning  of  a  veiy  close  per- 
sonal relationship  between  us  and  contribute 
to  the  close  cooperation  and  the  very  friend- 
ly relation  of  our  peoples  and  our  govern- 
ments. 

Our  relationship  is  of  very  great  mutual 
benefit.  Each  of  our  countries,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, receives  much  from  the  other — mate- 
rial goods  of  all  kinds,  increased  understand- 
ing through  tourism  and  cultural  exchanges, 
and  the  enrichment  of  human  life  and  con- 
sciousness through  expanded  knowledge  and 
warm,  warm  friendship. 

This  exchange  is  especially  evident  in  the 
border  area.  I  thank  all  of  you  who  have 
come  here  to  welcome  me  and  to  see  this 
spirit  of  friendship  which  exists  between 
President  Echeverria  and  myself  represent- 
ing our  two  countries. 

Actually,  we  witness  today  the  flow  of 
people,  goods,  food,  music,  art,  and  language. 
We  note  the  existence  of  a  binational  com- 
mission— not  one,  but  several — and  bina- 
tional groups  of  many  kinds.    We  see  the 


efforts  by  people  on  both  sides  of  the  border 
to  work  together  in  a  joint  efi^ort  to  solve  the 
everyday  problems  of  their  respective  lives. 

There  are  countless  other  instances  dem- 
onstrating the  strong,  the  vital,  the  flourish- 
ing, and  friendly  relations  that  exist  be- 
tween us.  And  in  this  border  area,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, we  also  see  living  examples  of  how 
two  governments  disposed  to  work  together 
in  good  will  can  meet  and  solve  problems. 

Along  our  common  border,  we  have  jointly 
faced  and  together  resolved  problems  of 
flood  control,  sanitation,  minor  border  ad- 
justments necessitated  by  the  vagaries  of  the 
Rio  Grande. 

We  are  extremely  proud,  Mr.  President, 
of  our  recent  resolution  of  longstanding  and 
complex  issues  involving  the  salinity  of  the 
water  of  the  Colorado  River  delivered  to 
your  country.  Our  successful  eff'orts  in  these 
areas  over  the  past  few  years  are  precedents 
for  the  solution  of  problems  that  may  arise 
in  the  future.  We  must  continue  to  draw 
upon  the  spirit  of  mutual  respect,  good  will, 
which  made  this  cooperation  possible  in  the 
past. 

Mr.  President,  let  us  today  consider  how 
we  can  cooperate  in  solving  common  prob- 
lems which  will  result  in  a  better  and  better 
life  for  the  people  of  our  two  countries  and 
for  all  the  people  everywhere. 

Nuchas  gracias. 


EXCHANGE   OF  TOASTS,  TUBAC,  ARIZ. 

President  Ford 

Mr.  President,  distinguished  guests, 
friends :  I  am  very  pleased  to  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  have  our  distinguished  guest  here  in 
Tubac,  Arizona,  and  to  reciprocate  on  this 
occasion  for  the  warm  welcome  that  he  and 
the  people  of  Mexico  gave  to  me  and  to  the 
American  people  during  the  day,  which  was 
an  unbelievably  pleasant,  warm,  and  just  a 
wonderful  opportunity  to  be  together. 

I  am  most  grateful  to  you,  Mr.  President, 
for  having  suggested  that  we  meet  in  Mag- 
dalena  de  Kino  for  the  meetings  that  we  had 
during  the  day.  Your  sense  of  history,  your 


662 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


understanding  of  the  great  role  that  Father 
Kino  played  in  the  history  of  this  part  of  the 
world,  made  it  an  ideal  setting  for  the  discus- 
sions that  we  had  on  very  important  matters. 

Mr.  President,  the  Jesuit  priest  whose 
statue  is  in  the  U.S.  Capitol  and  whose  statue 
is  in  the  state  capitol  of  Sonera  and  the  capi- 
tol  of  Arizona  lived  and  worked  here  almost 
three  centuries  ago.  His  efforts  gave  the  first 
great  stimulant  to  progress  among  the  people 
of  this  part  of  the  North  American  Continent, 
and  we  are  all  proud  of  his  contribution  to 
this  flourishing  part  of  our  nation  as  well  as 
yours. 

Mr.  President,  with  the  horse,  the  cross, 
and  the  plow,  he  explored  this  area  of  your 
country  as  well  as  ours.  He  not  only  served 
his  faith,  Mr.  President,  but  he  also  intro- 
duced agriculture,  livestock,  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  this  area.  And  all  of  these  ingredi- 
ents, Mr.  President,  are  vital  to  the  progress 
of  your  country  as  well  as  ours. 

Father  Kino  lives  in  the  memories  of  those 
in  the  town  that  we  visited  this  morning.  On 
both  sides  of  the  border  we  owe  him  a  very 
great  debt  of  gratitude.  The  heritage  of 
Father  Kino  is  an  inspiration  for  all  of  us  to 
continue  the  work  that  he  started  three  cen- 
turies ago. 

Mr.  President,  as  I  am  sure  you  realize, 
I  am  a  great  believer  in  personal  dialogue.  I 
believe  that  the  straight  talk  that  you  and  I 
had  today  contributed  significantly  to  a  bet- 
ter understanding,  greater  cooperation,  and 
greater  potentialities  for  your  country  as 
well  as  ours. 

Mr.  President,  we  had  straight  talk  today 
with  openness  and  candor,  and  as  a  result,  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  relationship  between 
your  country  and  mine  has  increased  very 
significantly. 

Your  great  patriot  Benito  Juarez  said  over 
100  years  ago,  and  I  quote,  "Respect  for  the 
rights  of  others  is  peace."  And  this  relation- 
ship that  has  been  built  between  Mexico  and 
the  United  States  is  built  on  that  foundation, 
which  is  solid  rock. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  discussed  a  number 
of  very  important  issues,  and  we  have  done 
it  with  openness  and  candor,  and  the  spirit 


that  we  discussed  these  matters,  I  think,  will 
be  the  foundation  upon  which  we  can  con- 
tinue the  dialogue — a  dialogue  that  will  be 
beneficial  to  Mexico  as  well  as  to  the  United 
States,  to  Latin  America,  and  to  the  world 
as  a  whole. 

Mr.  President,  we  are  greatly  honored  to 
have  on  the  soil  of  the  United  States  the  Pres- 
ident of  Mexico  and  his  ofl^cial  party.  We  be- 
lieve that  the  relationship  between  us  will 
grow  from  this  beginning  under  my  admin- 
istration and  during  your  time  as  President, 
and  we  will  work  together  to  build  a  better 
and  better  world  in  this  hemisphere  as  well 
as  throughout  the  globe. 

May  I  offer  a  toast  to  the  President  of  Mex- 
ico and  to  the  people  of  the  great  country  of 
Mexico  and  to  the  growing  and  improved  re- 
lationships between  our  people,  our  country, 
and  you  and  myself. 


President  Echeverria 

Mr.  President  of  the  United  States  of 
America:  I  believe,  Mr.  President,  that 
among  the  many  important  points  of  agree- 
ment that  we  have  reached  during  this  very 
brief  visit — but  a  very  Intensive  one — we  can 
mention  the  enormous  success  of  this  visit. 

The  cordiality,  the  expressions  of  welcome 
and  aff'ection  with  which  you  have  been  re- 
ceived in  Magdalena  and  in  Nogales,  we  all 
know  would  have  been  the  same  whatever 
part  of  the  country  you  would  have  visited. 

It  is  not  only  the  fact  of  the  coexistence  be- 
tween Mexicans  and  North  Americans  and 
U.S.  citizens  that  intensifies  the  bonds  that 
bring  our  two  countries  together;  it  is  not 
only  the  relationship  that  exists  on  the  two 
sides  of  the  border.  It  is  the  fact  that 
throughout  all  our  history,  the  American  his- 
tory and  the  Mexican  history,  we  have  been 
able  to  bring  up  our  problems  very  openly; 
we  have  been  able  to  foster  and  foment  our 
friendship. 

When  you  and  I,  Mr.  President,  explored 
the  different  possibilities  of  meeting  along 
the  border  area,  we  decided  to  meet  in  this 
vast  region  which  was  at  that  time  a  desert 
and  which  Father  Kino  discovered  and  civi- 


November   18,    1974 


663 


lized.  Father  Kino's  untiring  work,  Father 
Kino's  great  foresight  and  vision,  and  all  his 
dedication  are  examples  that  are  to  be  fol- 
lowed in  the  work  that  needs  to  be  done  in 
this  very  vast  desert  area  in  which  we  are  at 
present. 

In  researching  the  work  that  was  done  by 
Father  Kino,  many  students  of  the  United 
States  and  many  students  of  history  of  Mex- 
ico participated,  and  similarly  to  the  way  in 
which  they  joined  forces  and  participated,  we 
can  join  forces  in  order  to  solve  the  problems 
of  the  United  States  and  of  Mexico. 

May  I  say  out  loud,  Mr.  President,  that  to 
deal  with  you  personally  is  very  gratifying, 
that,  very  simply  and  very  directly  and  fully 
informed,  you  take  up  the  most  complex  mat- 
ters, that  you  do  not  elude  the  problems  with 
a  great  many  high-sounding  phrases,  and 
that  it  is  easy  to  perceive  that  you  are  embued 
with-good  faith  in  our  bilateral  relations,  and 
that  this  will  be  beneficial  for  an  interna- 
tional life  which  every  day  becomes  more 
complex  throughout  the  world  and  which 
makes  it  necessary  for  political  leaders  to 
contribute  with  the  greatest  intelligence  and 
experience  and  all  of  their  good  will. 

We  know  that  the  world  is  living  through 
very  difficult  times  and  that  it  is  only  through 
the  spirit  of  understanding,  of  frankness, 
that  we  can  transcend  these  difficult  times  so 
that  they  will  not  become  too  long. 

And,  Mr.  President,  I  do  believe  that  if  in 
the  future  the  problems  and  all  other  matters 
that  should  come  up  are  to  be  dealt  with  as 
we  have  dealt  with  our  problems  today  in 
this  border  area,  we  will  have  done  a  great 
deal  to  lighten  our  burden  and  to  solve  these 
problems. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  a  great  pleasure 
for  me  to  meet  you  personally,  to  dialogue 
with  you,  Mr.  President,  in  the  direct  and 
clear  manner  in  which  you  speak,  not  only 
from  conviction  but  also  because  this  is  your 
way.  And  in  Mexico,  we  have  no  doubt  that 
this  is  a  very,  very  favorable  sign  so  that  the 
friendship  between  the  two  countries  will  be- 
come deeper  and  will  continue  into  the  fu- 
ture, strengthened,  vigorous,  and  without 
ever  being  blemished. 


Gentlemen,  I  offer  a  toast  to  the  health  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
friendship  of  the  two  countries. 


NEWS   CONFERENCE,   TUBAC,  ARIZ. 

President  Ford:  It  has  been  a  very  great 
privilege  and  pleasure,  Mr.  President,  to 
have  the  opportunity  of  visiting  your  coun- 
try today  and  to  discuss  with  you  a  number 
of  very  important  issues.  And  let  me  just 
emphasize  one. 

You,  of  course,  are  the  author  and  pro- 
moter of  some  very  far-reaching  action  in 
the  United  Nations  which,  we  believe,  as  a 
charter  for  economic  development  through- 
out the  world,  has  very  great  merit  and  very 
great  support,  and  I  compliment  you  for  it. 
And  I  can  assure  you  that  I  and  Secretary 
Kissinger  will  work  with  you  and  others  in 
your  government  in  trying  to  find  the  key 
and  the  answer  to  the  economic  development 
of  all  parts  of  our  great  globe. 

It  is  nice  to  have  you  in  the  United  States, 
and  I  thank  you  for  the  warm  welcome  given 
to  me  by  you  as  well  as  all  the  people  of 
Mexico. 

Yes. 

Q.  I  ivoidd  like  to  address  a  question  to 
both  Presidents.  Among  the  issues  you  dis- 
cussed today,  ivas  there  a  discussion  of 
American  access  to  the  recently  discovered 
oil  deposits  in  southern  Mexico,  and  coidd 
you  give  us  an  estimate  of  the  size  of  those 
deposits  ? 

President  Echeverria:  Yes,  Mexico  is  sell- 
ing to  whoever  wants  to  buy  the  oil  at  the 
market  price  in  the  world  market.  We  sell 
our  surplus  oil.  I  hope  that  we  can  drill  for 
more  oil  in  Mexico  in  order  to  be  able  to 
export  a  greater  amount.  We  have  sold  to 
the  United  States,  to  Uruguay,  to  Brazil, 
and  to  Israel,  and  we  hope  to  continue  to  sell 
without  making  any  differences  among  the 
buyers  in  order  to  contribute  to  satisfy  the 
demand. 

Q.  I  ivould  like  to  know,  President  Ford,  if, 
during  your  talks,  there  ivas  any  mention 


664 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


7nade  of  the  Trade  Reform  Act  and,  if  so, 
what  are  the  repercussions  that  this  ivill  have 
for  Mexico  ? 

President  Ford:  I  am  very  happy  and  very 
pleased  that  you  raised  the  question.  The 
new  trade  legislation,  which  I  hope  will  pass 
the  Congress  this  year,  will  significantly  in- 
crease the  trade  relations  between  Mexico 
and  the  United  States,  helping  to  balance  the 
trade  between  Mexico  and  the  United  States. 
This  trade  legislation,  which  I  have  worked 
very  hard  to  promote,  which  I  believe  will 
pass  the  U.S.  Senate  and,  I  believe,  the  Con- 
gress, will  be  very  helpful  in  making  good 
trade  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  Mexico. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  ns  whether  any  progress 
has  been  made  on  a  new  approach  resolving 
the  question  of  migrant  farmworkers  from 
Mexico  and  the  related  questions  involved  in 
that? 

President  Echeverria:  Yes.  Yes,  we  did  dis- 
cuss this  point,  and  I  brought  it  up  in  the 
name  of  Mexico — I  told  the  President  of  the 
United  States  that  we  have  definitely  desisted 
from  our  intention  of  signing  an  agi'eement, 
and  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  we  made  a  re- 
vision of  the  previous  agreement  and  we  saw 
that  in  practice,  in  the  way  it  works,  it  is  not 
good.  It  gives  opposite  results  from  the  ones 
we  want. 

What  happened  at  that  time  was  that,  at- 
tracted by  this  agreement  that  we  had  with 
the  United  States,  the  migrant  workers,  or 
the  would-be  migrant  workers,  would  come 
to  the  border  cities  of  the  United  States.  And 
then  it  happened  that  they  did  not  receive  a 
contract,  and  then  they  stayed  at  the  border 
city  and  increased  the  number  of  the  popula- 
tion or  else  they  went  illegally  into  the  United 
States. 

Now,  with  the  policy  of  self-criticism  that 
at  present  prevails  in  Mexico,  we  have  re- 
viewed this  matter,  and  we  have  come  to 
realize  and  accept  that  the  responsibility  be- 
longs to  Mexico. 

In  Mexico,  we  need  to  increase  the  sources 
of  employment.  We  need  to  send  more  re- 


sources out  into  the  countryside.  We  need  to 
organize  the  farmers  in  a  better  way.  We 
need  to  keep  them  within  the  land.  I  do  not 
know  if  President  Ford  has  anything  to  add, 
because  we  analyzed  this  point  jointly. 

President  Ford:  As  you  can  see,  we  dis- 
cussed this  matter  in  great  depth.  It  has  a 
long  history.  It  has  current  problems.  In  fact, 
we  have  some  new  problems.  And  in  order  to 
get  an  up-to-date  reading  on  what  should  be 
done,  how  we  can  best  help,  we  have  decided 
to  reanalyze  through  a  commission  that  will 
bring  up  the  data  that  involves  those  going 
from  Mexico  to  the  United  States  and  will 
update  data  that  will  involve  individuals  who 
are  in  the  United  States  seeking  employment, 
trying  to  find  the  right  answer.  And  this  re- 
vitalized commission,  I  think,  will  give  both 
of  us  and  our  countries  better  answers  to 
solve  the  problem. 

President  Echeverria:  Now,  however, 
there  is  a  point  that  Mexico  insists  upon  in 
reference  to  the  migrant  workers — whether 
they  are  legally  in  the  country  or  illegally  in 
the  country.  That  is,  Mexico  insists  that  they 
enjoy  the  rights  and  prerogatives  that  is 
granted  by  the  law  to  any  person. 

When  a  person  is  contracted  legally  and 
comes  to  work  in  the  United  States,  this  per- 
son under  contract  has  certain  rights — the 
right  to  a  decent  salary,  the  right  to  social 
security,  and,  that  is  to  say,  all  the  rights 
that  are  granted  by  the  law.  This  is  when  the 
person  comes  to  work  legally. 

Now,  if  the  migrant  worker  comes  in  il- 
legally, he  still  has  some  rights  that  must  be 
observed — this  is  basic. 

Q.  I  have  a  question  for  President  Ford.  I 
wotdd  like  to  ask  President  Ford  whether  the 
hemispheric  problems  were  taken  up  and,  if 
they  did  take  up  the  hemispheric  pi'oblems, 
what  is  the  attitude  of  the  United  States  with 
reference  to  Cuba  and  if  this  attitude  is  to  be 
ynaintained  at  the  next  conference  of  Foreign 
Ministers. 

President  Ford:  We  did  take  up  the  ques- 
tion of  the  U.S.  attitude  toward  Cuba.  I  indi- 
cated that  we  had  not  seen  any  change  in  the 
attitude  of  Mr.  Castro  or  any  of  the  other  in- 


November   18,    1974 


665 


dividuals  in  the  Cuban  Government  and,  in- 
asmuch as  there  had  been  no  change,  no  atti- 
tude that  was  different  regarding  the  United 
States,  it  was  not  expected  that  our  attitude 
would  change  toward  Cuba. 

We  did  discuss  the  meeting  that  is  to  be 
held  in  Quito,  I  think,  on  November  7  or  8, 
where  the  matter  will  be  brought  before  the 
OAS.  But  our  attitude,  as  of  the  present  time, 
is  since  no  change  in  the  attitude  of  Cuba,  we 
certainly  have  to  retain  our  point  of  view  con- 
cerning them. 

Q.  President  Echeverria,  I  wonder  if  you 
could  answer  one  part  of  Mr.  Shaw's  [Gay- 
lord  Shatv,  Associated  Press]  question  which 
was  not  ansivered,  and  that  is,  can  you  give 
us  some  estimate  of  the  size  of  the  new  oil 
discovery  in  Mexico? 

President  Echeverria:  Yes,  the  discoveries 
are  very  important  and  significant,  and  the 
significance  we  can  find  in  the  following  fig- 
ures: Of  the  640,000  barrels  a  day  that  are 
obtained  throughout  all  of  Mexico,  37  per- 
cent— that  is  241,000  barrels — come  from 
only  a  few  wells.  This  has  made  it  possible 
for  us  now  to  begin  to  export,  after  having 
transcended  the  stage  where  it  was  necessary 
for  us  to  import  in  order  to  satisfy  our  own 
consumption. 

Therefore  this  is  very  important  for  the 
Mexican  economy,  first  and  foremost,  if  we 
take  into  account  the  prices  that  prevail  for 
oil  in  the  world  market,  prices  which  we  re- 
spect. 

Q.  This  is  a  qiiestion  for  both  Presidents. 
Can  yoti  give  us  a  list  of  the  specific  agree- 
ments that  you  reached  today  ? 

President  Echeverria:  Actually,  no,  we  did 
not  come  to  international  agreements.  It  was 
the  first  meeting  between  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  the  President  of  Mexico  in 
order  to  get  together  to  discuss,  to  analyze, 
very  frankly,  very  openly,  very  clearly,  very 
directly,  some  of  the  problems  that  have  al- 
ready been  dealt  with  in  this  room. 

For  me,  the  most  important  part  of  our 
meeting  is  the  way  in  which  President  Ford 
underlined  to  me  personally,  and  later  on  here 
during  our  meeting  in  this  place,  the  impor- 


tance that  he  gives  the  Charter  of  Economic 
Rights  and  Duties  of  States. 

And  I  thank  President  Ford  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States  for  this  opinion  that  has 
been  expressed  to  me  because,  actually,  this 
is  a  complete  change  from  what  it  was  before, 
and  this  is  very  valuable  support  for  this 
charter  that  is  gaining  ground  within  the 
United  Nations,  and  for  the  already  100-and- 
some-odd  countries  that  are  supporting  the 
charter. 

The  United  States  had  never  before  ex- 
pressed as  much  interest  as  it  has  now  in  the 
approval  of  the  Charter  of  Economic  Rights 
and  Duties  of  States.  Of  course,  it  rather 
matters  that  we  still  have  to  elucidate,  that 
we  have  to  define,  but  I  feel  very  optimistic 
that  we  shall. 

The  press:  Muchas  gracias. 


REMARKS  AT   DAVIS-MONTHAN   AIR   FORCE 
BASE,   TUCSON,  ARIZ. 

President  Ford 

Mr.  President:  It  has  been  a  very  great 
privilege  and  an  extremely  high  honor  for 
me  to  have  had  this  opportunity  early  in  my 
administration  to  meet  with  you  and  your 
very  distinguished  delegation,  to  have  visited 
Nogales  and  Magdalena  de  Kino  in  your  very 
great  nation,  and  to  have  had  the  honor  of 
your  hospitality  in  Tubac.  Let  me  say  that  the 
reception  received  in  Magdalena,  in  Nogales, 
was  unbelievable,  and  I  can  say  to  all  of  my 
friends  here  in  Arizona  we  could  not  have 
had  a  warmer  greeting  and  a  friendlier  re- 
ception. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  time  has  been  all 
too  short,  but  what  we  have  shared  together 
has  been  most  valuable  to  me  in  the  handling 
of  the  problems  that  we  see  down  the  road. 
It  provided  a  very  opportune  moment  for  a 
warm  welcome,  to  know  you  personally,  to  be 
able  to  establish  a  close  personal  friendship — 
the  friendship  between  the  Presidents  of  two 
great  countries — a  neighbor  to  the  north  for 
Mexico  and  a  good  neighbor  to  the  south  from 
the  United  States.  This  opportunity  provided 
us  the  establishment  of  a  firsthand  dialogue. 


666 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


which  is  so  important  in  the  understanding 
and  cooperation  of  our  peoples  and  our  gov- 
ernments. It  provided  a  chance,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, to  hear  your  points  of  view  representing 
your  great  country  and  your  great  people  on 
matters  of  mutual  concern  to  our  countries 
and  to  give  me  an  opportunity  to  express  to 
you  the  views  of  our  people  and  our  govern- 
ment. 

To  me,  Mr.  President,  the  personal  rela- 
tionship we  have  initiated  today  is  equal  to 
the  substantive  discussions  we  have  held.  I 
am  confident  that  the  meeting  beginning  early 
today  and  ending  shortly  will  be  only  the  be- 
ginning of  a  close  personal  relationship,  an 
important  link  in  the  special  relationship 
which  unites  our  countries. 

Mr.  President,  during  my  short  visit  to 
your  side  of  the  border  this  morning,  you  and 
the  people  made  me  feel  very  much  at  home, 
and  I  assure  you  that  the  warmth  of  this 
friendship  by  our  people  to  you  I  hope  equals 
that  of  your  people  to  me. 

As  I  say  goodby  and  take  leave,  let  me  wish 
you  a  safe  and  pleasant  return  journey,  Mr. 
President.  I  will  not  say  goodby,  but  rather, 
following  the  tradition  of  your  country,  I 
will  say  hasta  luego. 

I  know  there  will  be  other  opportunities  in 
the  future  to  meet,  to  discuss  the  vital  ques- 
tions, but,  more  importantly,  to  get  better 
acquainted. 

It  is  a  privilege  and  a  pleasure  to  have  had 
this  opportunity  on  your  border  and  ours. 
Mr.  President,  I  thank  you. 

President  Echeverria 

President  Ford :  It  is  only  due  to  the  great 
spirit  of  friendship  which  unites  our  two 
countries  that  it  has  been  possible  in  a  few 
hours,  and  without  any  personal  contact  be- 
tween the  two  of  us  previously — it  has  been 
possible,  I  repeat,  to  revise  the  enormous 
amount  of  matters  that  we  have  between  our 
two  countries. 

We  are  practicing — and  this  is  well  for  the 
people  of  the  United  States  and  for  the  peo- 
ple of  Mexico  to  know — we  are  practicing  a 
simple  type  of  democracy,  a  democracy  in 
which  there  is  no  secrets,  a  democracy  in 


which  there  is  nothing  hidden,  a  democracy 
that  is  characterized  by  frankness. 

I  believe  that  this  conference  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico  can  set  an  exam- 
ple— can  set  an  example  that  should  be  fol- 
lowed by  all,  by  the  great  and  the  small  coun- 
tries, by  the  industrialized  nations  and  the 
developing  nations. 

I  see  that  from  here  on  in,  with  good  will, 
with  the  study  of  our  common  problems,  with 
mutual  understanding,  the  relationship  be- 
tween our  two  governments  will  improve. 

Mr.  President,  in  expressing  my  gratitude 
for  your  personal  acquaintance,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, and  for  the  hospitality  that  has  been 
shown  to  us  by  the  United  States  and  also 
this  expression  of  good  will  on  the  part  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  I,  too,  wish 
to  say  hasta  luego,  until  we  meet  again,  be- 
cause we  hope  that  we  will  have  you  in  Mex- 
ico City  so  that  the  Mexican  people  will  get 
to  know  you  as  I  do. 

Mr.  President,  in  taking  my  leave,  I  do  so 
with  a  warm  handshake,  with  an  abrazo, 
Mexican  style — with  an  embrace  that  we  hope 
will  travel  to  all  the  homes  of  the  United 
States  and  convey  the  great  affection  of  Mex- 
ico. 


Senate  Confirms  U.S.  Delegation 
to  UNESCO  General  Conference 

The  Senate  on  October  10  confirmed  the 
nominations  of  the  following-named  persons 
to  be  Representatives  and  Alternate  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States  to  the  18th 
session  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
United  Nations  Educational,  Scientific  and 
Cultural  Organization : 

Representatives 

R.  Miller  Upton 
William  B.  Jones 
Rosemary  L.  Ginn 
E.  Ross  Adair 
Gordon  H.  Seherer 

Alternate  Representatives 

Stephen  Hess 
William  G.  Harley 
J.  Roger  Porter 


November   18,    1974 


667 


U.S.   Congratulates  Mozambique's 
Joint  Transitional  Government 

Following  is  an  informal  translation  of  a 
letter  sent  by  Peter  Walker,  U.S.  Consul 
General  at  Lonrenqo  Marques,  to  Joaquim 
Alberto  Chissano,  Prime  Minister  of  the 
Transitional  Government  of  Mozambique,  on 
September  20  tipon  the  installation  of  the 
Transitional  Government. 


i-etary  of  State  Kissinger  to  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  United  Nations.^ 

Accept,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  sincere  ex- 
pressions of  my  respect  and  highest  consid- 
eration. 

Peter  Walker 

Consul  General  of  the 

United  States  of  America 


September  20,  1974. 

Excellency:  The  Government  of  the 
United  States  of  America  has  instructed  me 
to  express  the  congratulations  and  the  pleas- 
ure of  the  people  and  Government  of  the 
United  States  for  the  successful  conclusion  of 
the  negotiations  which  culminated  in  the  in- 
stallation of  the  government  which  will  pre- 
side over  the  period  of  Mozambique's  transi- 
tion to  independence. 

The  policy  of  the  United  States  toward  the 
peoples  of  Africa  has  long  been  one  of  sup- 
port for  their  self-determination,  and  thus 
the  United  States  strongly  supports  the  ef- 
forts of  the  Portuguese  Government  in  the 
decolonization  of  its  African  territories. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is 
fully  aware  that  the  installation  of  the  Tran- 
sitional Government  in  Mozambique  repre- 
sents an  important  step  toward  the  imple- 
mentation of  this  policy  of  decolonization, 
and  is  convinced  that  the  goodwill  and  en- 
lightened leadership  that  made  that  step  pos- 
sible should  also  lead  to  the  successful  com- 
pletion of  the  decolonization  process  next 
year. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America  is  hopeful  that  the  friendship  that 
has  long  existed  between  the  people  of  the 
United  States  and  the  people  of  Mozambique 
will  result  in  a  relationship  of  increasing  un- 
derstanding and  cooperation  as  Mozambique 
proceeds  to  independence. 

I  am  pleased  to  enclose,  for  the  informa- 
tion of  Your  Excellency,  excerpts  from  the 
speeches  delivered  recently  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America  and  by  Sec- 


Telecommunication   Convention 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate 

Message  From  President  Ford  - 

To  the  Seriate  of  the  United  States: 

For  advice  and  consent  to  ratification, 
I  herewith  transmit  to  the  Senate  the  In- 
ternational Telecommunication  Convention 
reached  at  Malaga-Torremolinos  on  October 
25,  1973.  This  transmittal  also  includes  the 
Annexes  and  Final  Protocol  to  the  Conven- 
tion, as  well  as  a  report  by  the  Department 
of  State. 

This  new  Convention  will  abrogate  and  re- 
place the  International  Telecommunication 
Convention  of  1965.  It  generally  follows  the 


^  E.xeerpt  from  an  address  made  before  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  on  Sept.  18  by  President  Ford: 

" — We  rededicate  ourselves  to  the  search  for  jus- 
tice, equality,  and  freedom.  Recent  developments  in 
.•\frica  signal  the  welcome  end  of  colonialism.  Be- 
havior appropriate  to  an  era  of  dependence  must  give 
way  to  the  new  responsibilities  of  an  era  of  interde- 
pendence." 

Excerpt  from  an  address  made  before  the  U.N. 
General  .Assembly  on  Sept.  23  by  Secretary  Kissin- 
ger: 

"The  United  States  notes  with  particular  satisfac- 
tion the  continuing  process  of  change  in  Africa.  We 
welcome  the  positive  demonstration  of  cooperation 
between  the  old  rulers  and  the  new  free.  The  United 
States  shares  and  pledges  its  support  for  the  aspira- 
tions of  all  Africans  to  participate  in  the  fruits  of 
freedom  and  human  dignity." 

'  Transmitted  on  Oct.  17  (te.xt  from  White  House 
press  release);  also  printed  as  S.  E.x.  J,  93d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  texts  of  the  convention, 
annexes,  and  protocol  and  the  report  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  State. 


668 


Department  of   State   Bulletin 


provisions  of  the  1965  Convention  with  a  con- 
siderable number  of  minor  improvements  and 
a  few  major  modifications  to  tal<e  account  of 
technical  developments  in  the  field  and  devel- 
opments in  international  organizations. 

One  notable  change  from  the  1965  Conven- 
tion is  the  deletion  of  the  separate  member- 
ship of  the  territories  of  the  several  member 
States,  including  the  United  States.  Although 
this  change  will  deprive  the  United  States  of 
its  vote  on  behalf  of  the  territories,  the  re- 
distribution of  financial  obligations  which  ac- 
company this  change  will  result  in  a  relatively 
lower  financial  contribution  from  this  coun- 
try. 

The  International  Telecommunication  Con- 
vention constitutes  the  procedural  and  orga- 
nizational framework  for  the  orderly  conduct 
of  international  telecommunications,  and  it 
is  in  the  public  and  commercial  interest  of 
the  United  States  to  continue  to  play  an  ac- 
tive role  within  this  framework.  I  recom- 
mend that  the  Senate  give  early  and  favor- 
able consideration  to  this  new  Convention, 
and  subject  to  a  reservation  noted  in  the 
State  Department  report,  give  its  advice  and 
consent  to  ratification. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  October  17,  1974. 


Notice  of  Time  for  Filing  Claims 
Against  Egypt  by  U.S.  Nationals 

Department  Announcement  ^ 

On  July  14,  1974,  the  Governments  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  Arab  Republic  of 
Egypt  agreed  to  establish  a  Joint  Committee 
to  discuss  compensation  of  U.S.  nationals 
for  their  property  in  Egypt,  with  a  view  to 
reaching  an  appropriate  settlement. 

U.S.  nationals  who  have  claims  against  the 
Government  of  the  Arab  Republic  of  Egypt 
for  the  nationalization,  expropriation  or  se- 


'  Issued  on  Oct.  18  (press  release  429). 


questration  of,  or  other  measures  directed 
against  their  property  by  the  Government 
of  the  Arab  Republic  of  Egypt  should  file 
their  claims  with  the  Department  of  State, 
Office  of  the  Legal  Adviser,  2201  C  Street, 
N.W.,  Washington,  D.C.  20520,  during  the 
period  beginning  October  22,  1974,  and  end- 
ing January  22,  1975. 

U.S.  nationals  who,  prior  to  June  1967, 
had  communicated  with  either  or  both  the 
American  Embassy  at  Cairo  and  the  Amer- 
ican Consulate  General  in  Alexandria,  Egypt, 
concerning  the  nationalization,  expropria- 
tion or  sequestration  of,  or  other  measures 
directed  against  their  property  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Arab  Republic  of  Egypt 
should  write  to  the  Department  of  State,  Of- 
fice of  the  Legal  Adviser,  regarding  the  up- 
dating and  the  further  preparation  and  de- 
velopment of  their  claims  during  the  period 
October  22,  1974,  to  January  22,  1975. 


Congressional  Documents 
Relating   to   Foreign   Policy 


93d  Congress,  2d  Session 

Oil  and  Asian  Rivals — Sino-Soviet  Conflict;  Japan 
and  the  Oil  Crisis.  Hearings  before  the  Sub- 
committee on  Asian  and  Pacific  Affairs  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  93d  Con- 
gress, first  and  second  sessions.  September  12, 
1973-March  6,  1974.    476  pp. 

Human  Rights  in  Chile.  Hearings  before  the  Sub- 
committees on  Inter-American  Affairs  and  on 
International  Organizations  and  Movements  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  December 
7,  1973-June  18,  1974.    215  pp. 

Foreign  Investment  in  the  United  States.  Hearings 
before  the  Subcommittee  on  Foreign  Economic 
Policy  of  the  House  Committee  on  Foreign  Af- 
fairs.   January   29-February   21,   1974.    478   pp. 

Critical  Developments  in  Namibia.  Hearings  before 
the  Subcommittee  on  Africa  of  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs.  February  21-April  4, 
1974.    305  pp. 

Global  Scarcities  in  an  Interdependent  World.  Hear- 
ings before  the  Subcommittee  on  Foreign  Eco- 
nomic Policy  of  the  House  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs.    May   1-22,  1974.    259  pp. 

U.S.  Participation  in  African  Development  Fund. 
Hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations.    June  27,  1974.    66  pp. 


November   18,    1974 


669 


THE  UNITED   NATIONS 


U.S.   Reviews  Disaster  Relief  Efforts 
for  Hurricane  Victims  in  Honduras 

FoUowing  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
Economic  Commission  for-  Latin  America  by 
U.S.  Representative  Clarence  Clyde  Fergu- 
son, Jr.,  on  October  21. 

USUN  press  release  141  dated  October  21 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  and 
our  people  should  like  again  to  express  our 
deepest  sympathy  to  the  government  and 
people  of  Honduras,  who  have  suffered  so 
much  from  the  devastation  of  Hurricane  Fifi. 
Perhaps  we  shall  never  know  the  toll  in  lives 
lost  in  this  most  terrible  disaster;  we  shall 
never  know  how  many  tens  of  thousands  of 
Hondurans  were  left  homeless;  we  shall 
never  know  how  many  millions  of  dollars  in 
productive  capacity  vanished  with  the  winds. 
We  do  know,  however,  that  for  the  people  of 
Honduras  the  dimensions  of  the  disaster  are 
enormous  and  that  there  is  an  undeniably 
pressing  need  for  international  relief  and  re- 
covery assistance. 

The  distinguished  Foreign  Minister  of 
Honduras  has  already  spoken  of  the  kinds 
and  levels  of  help  his  country  will  require, 
and  he  has  told  us  of  the  efforts  of  the  govern- 
ment and  people  of  Honduras  to  do  what  they 
can  to  deal  with  the  immediate  and  longer 
term  emergency  problems. 

We  in  this  hemisphere  know  the  enormous 
devastation  in  human  and  economic  terms 
which  can  be  visited  upon  any  of  us  by  hur- 
ricanes— the  scourge  of  our  part  of  the  world. 
Since  the  turn  of  the  century  we  have  our- 
selves been  ravaged  more  than  two  dozen 
times  by  major  hurricanes.  We  know  that 
for  a  developing  country  the  tragedy  of  hur- 
ricane devastation  can  be  even  more  cruel. 

The  meeting  today  was  called  by  our  dis- 
tinguished Executive  Chairman  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reviewing  what  Honduras'  neighbors 


and  appropriate  international  agencies  have 
contributed  and  will  contribute  to  assure  sur- 
vival and  recovery  from  this  tragedy. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  an  occasion  of  sad- 
ness. Nonetheless  I  am  proud  to  be  able  to 
report  that  the  United  States  was  among  the 
many  large  and  small  countries  that  reacted 
quickly  and  generously  to  the  desperate  needs 
of  the  Honduran  people  in  the  first  hours  and 
days  after  Fifi  struck. 

With  full  appreciation  of  the  genuinely 
magnanimous  response  of  other  nations  in 
this  dire  emergency,  I  would  like  to  review 
here  the  scale  and  variety  of  my  govern- 
ment's efforts  to  help  the  Honduran  people 
find  relief  from  the  enduring  agony  and  suf- 
fering caused  by  Fifi. 

Even  before  the  hurricane  rains  ceased, 
my  colleague  U.S.  Ambassador  Phillip  San- 
chez had  transmitted  to  our  government  an 
official  Honduran  request  for  assistance  on 
an  emergency  basis.  Within  hours  my  govern- 
ment dispatched  two  disaster  survey  teams 
to  Honduras  to  help  determine  the  extent  of 
damage  and  the  dimensions  of  assistance  re- 
quired. 

These  were  followed  by  the  assignment  of 
four  helicopters,  two  transport  aircraft,  and 
four  boats  for  use  in  rescue  and  emergency 
food  and  medical  distribution  missions.  U.S. 
military  personnel  were  flown  into  Honduras 
to  help  establish  and  maintain  an  emergency 
communications  network.  Our  Air  Force  im- 
mediately commenced  a  series  of  mercy  flights 
which  over  the  next  few  weeks  airlifted  to 
Honduras  almost  200  tons  of  relief  supplies, 
including  food,  blankets,  sheets,  tents,  porta- 
ble kitchens,  insecticides,  fuel,  and  clothing. 
The  U.S.  Government  has  also  authorized  or 
shipped  to  Honduras  almost  2,000  metric 
tons  of  food  supplies  since  the  beginning  of 
the  emergency.  Between  September  19  and 
October  1,  the  total  value  of  U.S.  Govern- 
ment disaster  relief  assistance  to  Honduras 
exceeded  $1.6  million. 


670 


Department  of   State   Bulletin 


As  a  clear  indication  of  his  great  concern 
with  this  disaster  President  Ford  sent  two 
personal  emissaries  to  Honduras  on  Septem- 
ber 28  to  assess  immediate  relief  require- 
ments and  longer  term  recovery  needs.  The 
emissaries,  Messrs.  Herman  Kleine  and  Rus- 
sell McClure,  personally  reported  their  find- 
ings to  our  President  on  October  7. 

They  recommended  that  the  United  States 
continue  to  participate  in  the  provision  of 
critically  needed  assistance  for  life  support 
in  the  posthurricane  emergency  phase.  They 
also  reported  that  assessment  and  planning 
were  already  underway  for  the  postemer- 
gency  task  of  rebuilding  the  economy  of  the 
shattered  northern  region.  "The  magnitude 
of  the  task,"  they  reported,  ".  .  .  will  be  be- 
yond the  crippled  capacity  of  the  Honduran 
economy.  Help  from  outside  will  be  needed."  ^ 

They  outlined  a  role  for  the  U.S.  Govern- 
ment, through  the  Agency  for  .International 
Development  and  through  multilateral  insti- 
tutions. They  recommended  that  AID  assist- 
ance be  addressed  primarily  to  the  rural  sec- 
tor and  rural  poor  who  were  so  grievously  af- 
fected. They  also  noted  that  the  requirements 
for  the  larger  capital  transfers  might  be  ap- 
propriately addressed  by  the  international 
agencies. 

As  significant  as  official  U.S.  Government 
assistance  has  been  in  the  immediate  posthur- 
ricane phase,  it  has  not  constituted  the  only 
or  even  the  major  U.S.  response  to  the  emer- 
gency. I  am  referring,  of  course,  to  the  char- 
acteristically generous  and  spontaneous  do- 
nations of  funds  and  commodities  by  private 
U.S.  citizens  and  the  provision  of  relief  sup- 
plies, equipment,  funds,  personnel,  and  trans- 
port by  the  state  and  local  governments  and 
by  private  groups  and  U.S.  voluntary  agen- 
cies. 

We  do  not  know  and  will  never  know  the 
full  value  of  private  citizens'  contributions 
to  the  relief  efforts,  as  these  contributions 
have  poured  into  Honduras  through  so  many 
different  channels.  We  have  attempted — with- 
out complete  success — to  record  contributions 
of  the  many  private  organizations  and  volun- 


^  For  text  of  the  report,  see  AID  press  release  74- 
70  dated  Oct.  7,  1974. 


tary  agencies  in  the  United  States.  We  do 
know  that  the  value  of  this  assistance  now 
exceeds  $5  million. 

I  cannot  mention  all  of  the  organizations 
involved,  but  with  your  permission,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  would  like  to  pay  particular  trib- 
ute to  the  very  significant  contributions  of 
the  American  Red  Cross,  CARE,  Catholic 
Relief  Services,  the  Medical  Assistance  Pro- 
gram, the  Salvation  Army,  the  State  of  Ala- 
bama, and  the  Sister  Cities  Program. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  happy,  too,  to  report 
that  the  continuing  resolution  voted  by  the 
U.S.  Congress  last  Thursday,  October  17,  au- 
thorizes AID  to  conduct  further  relief  and 
recovery  operations  in  Honduras  as  well  as 
in  Bangladesh  and  Cyprus. 

The  U.S.  AID  Mission  in  Honduras  is  now 
consulting  with  appropriate  agencies  of  the 
Government  of  Honduras  on  specific  recovery 
projects  where  U.S.  bilateral  assistance  ef- 
forts can  best  be  focused.  Preliminary  indi- 
cations are  that  our  recovery  assistance  can 
most  effectively  help  the  Honduran  Govern- 
ment in  assisting  farmers  in  replanting  their 
crops,  in  providing  minimal  health  facilities, 
getting  available  laborers  working  on  small 
infrastructure  repair  projects,  in  cleaning  up 
river  channels  and  other  watercourses,  in  re- 
pairing roads  and  bridges,  and  constructing 
emergency  housing. 

Finally,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to 
close  my  remarks  by  pointing  out  that  this 
disaster  has  again  established  the  need  for  a 
more  effective  U.N.  Disaster  Relief  Office. 
Representatives  of  my  government  have  been 
in  constant  touch  with  UNDRO  officials  since 
the  beginning  of  the  emergency  period,  and 
we  have  nothing  but  praise  and  admiration 
for  the  contributions  they  have  made  within 
their  sharply  limited  resources. 

However,  the  need  for  greater,  more  effi- 
cient coordination  of  international  disaster 
relief  assistance  becomes  both  clearer  and 
more  pressing  with  each  natural  disaster 
that  occurs.  It  is  not  enough  that  nations  re- 
spond generously  to  the  perceived  needs  of 
those  afflicted  by  disaster.  We  need  not  only 
international  generosity  and  compassion  but 
also  direction  and  coordination  by  a  UNDRO 
staffed  with  people  who  know  how  to  work 


November   18,    1974 


671 


with  a  disaster-stricken  government  and  who 
can  tell  all  of  us  precisely  what  is  needed 
where  and  for  whom — not  just  food  but  what 
kind  of  food  and  how  much,  not  just  trans- 
port or  personnel  or  communications  but 
what  kind  and  how  much. 

Mr.  Chairman,  from  my  own  personal  ex- 
perience I  can  testify  as  to  the  enormous  dif- 
ficulties that  can  be  created  out  of  unre- 
strained generosity  of  those  who  seek  to  help 
in  a  disaster.  In  my  involvement  in  relief  to 
the  civilian  victims  of  the  Nigerian  civil  war, 
I  found  such  matters  as  the  well-intentioned 
donation  of  cans  of  soup.  Regrettably,  as  we 
know,  most  American  liquid  soups  are  90  per- 
cent water;  transporting  that  volume  of  wa- 
ter is  inefficient  when  one  considers  dried 
soups  would  permit  90  percent  more  of  this 
valuable  nutrient. 

Moreover,  in  many  instances  one  must  con- 
sider the  traditional  diet  of  those  victims  of 
disaster.  In  such  circumstances  introduction 
of  new,  strange,  and  exotic  foods  can  even 
create  additional  problems.  These  I  mentioned 
only  as  illustrative  of  the  range  of  what  ap- 
peared to  be  minor  difficulties  but  which,  in 
a  disaster  context,  can  become  major  addi- 
tional problems. 

Mr.  Chairman,  people  who  were  on  the 
ground  and  active  in  the  Honduran  emer- 
gency tell  me  that  a  substantial  amount  of 
the  commodity  assistance  provided  so  gen- 
erously by  public  and  private  donors  around 
the  world  was  not  appropriate  for  this  par- 
ticular emergency.  In  some  cases,  I  am  given 
to  understand,  receipt  and  distribution  of 
critically  needed  emergency  supplies  might 
even  have  been  slowed  down  because  of  the 
obstruction  in  the  supply  system  caused  by 
the  presence  of  quantities  of  unnecessary  and 
unhelpful  items. 

An  authoritative  and  efficient  and  experi- 
enced and  well-staffed  UNDRO  with  the  abil- 
ity to  communicate  with  and  coordinate 
among  member  governments  the  precise 
kinds  and  amounts  of  assistance  needed  in 
any  particular  disaster  would  enable  the  in- 
ternational community  to  respond  to  disasters 
even  more  effectively  than  it  did  in  this  case. 


U.S.   Reaffirms  Opposition 
to  South  African  Apartheid 

Folloiving  is  a  statement  made  in  the  Spe- 
cial Political  Committee  of  the  U.N.  General 
Assembly  by  U.S.  Representative  Joseph  M. 
Segel  on  October  17. 

USUN  press  release  138  dated  October  17 

Everything  that  can  be  said  against  apar- 
theid has  been  said.  Not  one  word  has  been 
said  in  defense  of  apartheid.  And  rightfully 
so.  In  a  world  in  which  there  are  all  too  many 
abuses  of  human  rights,  apartheid  is  among 
those  which  are  absolutely  indefensible.  This 
pernicious  form  of  systematized  racial  dis- 
crimination that  continues  to  repress  the  non- 
white  peoples  of  South  Africa  hangs  heavy 
over  the  conscience  of  all  mankind. 

But  what  can  be  done  to  redress  the  wrongs 
of  apartheid? 

The  worldwide  attention  that  has  been  fo- 
cused on  this  problem,  principally  through 
the  efforts  of  the  nations  that  are  members 
of  the  Organization  of  African  Unity,  is  a 
great  help.  We  commend  you  for  your  per- 
sistence and  for  your  devotion  to  the  cause  of 
eliminating  this  unjust  and  demeaning  way 
of  life  that  is  imposed  upon  more  than  three- 
quarters  of  the  population  of  South  Africa. 

The  United  States  is  among  those  coun- 
tries that  have  taken  unilateral  action  to  help 
move  this  problem  toward  solution.  And  I 
just  want  to  take  a  few  moments  to  state  for 
the  record  what  the  United  States  and  its 
citizens  have  actually  done  and  are  doing, 
because  there  has  been  some  incorrect  infor- 
mation disseminated  in  the  press  and  in  this 
building  regarding  our  government's  activi- 
ties and  position  on  this  important  matter. 

For  one  thing,  the  United  States  has 
strongly  urged  the  relatively  small  number 
of  American  firms  which  have  facilities  in 
South  Africa  to  set  an  example  by  improving 
working  conditions,  salaries,  and  wages  of 
their  non-white  workers.  We  recognize  that 
there  are  some  who  do  not  agree  with  this 
policy,  but  we  believe  that  it  is  a  help,  not  a 
hindrance.    Further,   this   policy  has   borne 


672 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


fruit.  A  number  of  U.S.  firms  in  South  Af- 
rica are  now  following  the  extraordinary 
practice  (extraordinary  for  that  country)  of 
providing  equal  pay  for  equal  work,  regard- 
less of  race.  American  firms  also  have  set 
the  pace  in  providing  improved  educational, 
legal,  and  medical  benefits  to  non-white  work- 
ers in  South  Africa. 

Secondly,  the  United  States  recognizes  that 
it  is  wrong  for  any  country  to  assist  the  South 
African  Government  in  enforcing  its  apar- 
theid policies.  For  this  reason,  we  imposed 
an  arms  embargo  against  South  Africa  even 
before  the  United  Nations  did  so.  We  have 
observed  this  embargo  very  carefully  and 
continue  to  do  so.  Moreover,  we  have  not  en- 
gaged in  any  military  or  naval  cooperation 
with  South  Africa  in  the  last  decade.  And 
despite  allegations  to  the  contrary,  the  United 
States  has  not  coordinated  defense  strategy 
with  South  Africa  nor  do  we  have  any  inten- 
tion of  now  instituting  such  cooperation. 

The  U.S.  Government  and  the  people  of  the 
United  States  would  like  apai'theid  to  end — 
to  end  as  soon  as  possible.  The  people  of 
South  Africa  have  suffered  far  too  long  under 
this  oppressive  system. 

We  know  from  our  own  painful  struggle 
with  racial  discrimination  that  change  must 
be  pursued  vigorously  and  in  many  fields — 
education,  labor,  economic  opportunities, 
housing,  voting  rights,  et  cetera. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  all  aware  that  the 
diversity  of  South  Africa's  racial  and  eco- 
nomic groups  creates  special  problems  which 
must  be  taken  into  consideration.  But  five 
years  have  passed  since  the  Lusaka  Mani- 
festo was  issued,  and  although  some  changes 
have  taken  place,  it  is  painfully  obvious  that 
the  Government  of  South  Africa  has  not 
risen  to  the  challenge  of  this  considered  and 
responsible  document. 

We  believe  that  apartheid  can  still  be  ended 
peacefully.  It  is  clearly  in  the  best  interests 
of  all  the  peoples  of  the  world,  including  cer- 
tainly those  in  South  Africa,  that  the  change 
come  about  this  way. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  United  States  calls  on 
the  Government  of  South  Africa  to  reexam- 


ine its  policies  and  position  in  light  of  pres- 
ent-day realities.  We  say  to  the  Government 
of  South  Africa :  Your  repressive  racial  sys- 
tem is  indefensible;  it  is  both  wrong  and  un- 
wise to  try  to  continue  to  maintain  it. 

We  most  strongly  urge  the  South  African 
Government  to  bring  a  timely  end  to  its 
apartheid  policies  and  racial  injustice  and  to 
recognize  that  it  is  in  their  own  best  inter- 
ests to  do  this  as  rapidly  as  possible. 


U.S.  Takes  Further  Steps  To  Enforce 
Sanctions  Against  Southern  Rhodesia 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  Commit- 
tee IV  (Trusteeship)  of  the  U.N.  General 
Asseynbly  by  U.S.  Representative  Barbara  M. 
White  on  October  25. 

USUN  press  release  148  dated  October  25 

In  his  September  23  address  before  the 
U.N.  General  Assembly,  Secretary  of  State 
Henry  Kissinger  declared  that  "The  United 
States  shares  and  pledges  its  support  for  the 
aspirations  of  all  Africans  to  participate  in 
the  fruits  of  freedom  and  human  dignity."  I 
am  glad  to  recall  this  statement,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, as  we  discuss  Southern  Rhodesia,  one 
of  the  parts  of  Africa  where  these  issues  are 
at  stake  today. 

Over  the  past  year,  the  continent  of  Af- 
rica has  faced  frustration,  but  it  has  also 
been  the  scene  of  historic  progress.  Guinea- 
Bissau  has  joined  our  ranks  with  universal 
acclaim  for  its  newly  won  independence.  Mo- 
zambique and  Angola  are  moving  quickly  to- 
ward full  independence  and  majority  rule. 
These  dramatic  events  are  reshaping  the  face 
of  Africa.  They  must  also  have  telling  ef- 
fects— not  the  least  of  them  psychological — 
upon  the  minority  regime  in  Southern  Rho- 
desia. 

Up  to  now,  that  illegal  regime  has  seemed 
to  show  little  comprehension  of  what  is  hap- 
pening within  and  beyond  its  borders.  But 
we  are  hopeful  that  the  quickening  pace  of 
events  will  induce  it,  too,  to  face  the  crying 


November   18,   1974 


673 


need  for  change — to  work  out  a  peaceful  set- 
tlement acceptable  to  the  whole  population 
of  Southern  Rhodesia  as  well  as  to  the  United 
Kingdom,  which  retains  primary  responsibil- 
ity. 

We  believe  that  the  effective  enforcement 
by  all  nations  of  the  Security  Council's  man- 
datory sanctions  is  necessary  to  increase  the 
pressures  upon  the  minority  regime  in  Salis- 
bury and  thereby  contribute  toward  an  ac- 
ceptable solution.  Thus  my  government  has 
been  and  is  an  active  member  of  the  Security 
Council  Sanctions  Committee. 

During  the  past  year,  the  United  States 
has  taken  further  steps  to  tighten  its  own  en- 
forcement of  sanctions.  When  made  aware 
that  U.S.  airlines  maintained  interline  agree- 
ments with  Air  Rhodesia  and  that  U.S.  travel 
firms  and  airlines  issued  tickets  for  Air  Rho- 
desia, the  Federal  Aviation  Administration 
acted  to  end  these  practices.  When  it  became 
evident  that  the  operator  of  the  Air  Rhodesia 
office  in  New  York  was  engaging  in  unauthor- 
ized transactions,  the  Department  of  the 
Treasury  closed  the  office. 

This  committee  is  familiar  with  the  Byrd 
amendment,  which  permits  U.S.  imports  of 
certain  strategic  materials  from  Southern 
Rhodesia.  I  would  like  to  report  on  the  cur- 
rent situation. 

The  amendment  has  been  repealed  by  the 
Senate  and  is  awaiting  action  by  the  House  of 
Representatives.  On  August  12,  the  White 
House  announced  the  support  of  President 
Ford,  who  had  assumed  the  office  only  three 
days  before,  for  repeal  of  the  amendment. 
The  executive  branch  of  the  U.S.  Government 
is  committed  to  returning  the  United  States 
to  full  conformity  with  the  U.N.  sanctions. 
In  no  way  am  I  lessening  that  commitment, 
Mr.  Chairman,  when  I  point  out  that  U.S. 
imports  under  the  Byrd  amendment  have 
been  minimal  in  relation  to  total  Rhodesian 
trade,  amounting  to  less  than  5  percent  of  all 
exports  from  that  country.  Any  realistic  dis- 
cussion must  include  this  fact. 

During  this  debate  we  have  heard  allega- 
tions that  the  United  States,  through  South 
Africa,  is  assisting  the  Smith  regime  in  mili- 
tary matters.  I  can,  state  categorically  that 


these  charges  are  totally  without  foundation. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  United  States  deeply 
believes  in  and  supports  the  principle  of  ma- 
jority rule.  It  has  been  a  fundamental  part 
of  our  national  tradition ;  it  remains  so  today. 

The  United  States  wants  to  see  a  govern- 
ment in  Southern  Rhodesia  which  is  the  re- 
sult of  a  free  choice  by  all  the  people  of  that 
land. 

We  firmly  support  British  efforts  to  end  the 
Rhodesian  rebellion. 

We  will  do  our  best  to  see  that  U.N.  sanc- 
tions are  respected. 

We  earnestly  hope  that  the  march  of  events 
in  Africa  over  the  past  six  months  will  bear 
fruit  in  Southern  Rhodesia  as  well  and  that 
she  will  move  to  become  a  true  member  of 
the  African  community,  where  her  destiny 
must  lie. 


U.S.   Supports  Extension  of  Mandate 
of  U.N.   Force  in  Egypt-Israel  Sector 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
Security  Council  by  U.S.  Representative  John 
Scali  on  October  23,  together  ivith  the  text 
of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Council  that 
day. 

STATEMENT   BY   AMBASSADOR   SCALI 

USUN  press  release  147  dated  October  23 

Mr.  President  [M.  Michel  Njine,  Repre- 
sentative of  the  United  Republic  of  Cam- 
eroon] :  It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I  con- 
gratulate you  for  the  good  will  and  the 
patience  and  the  leadership  that  you  have 
demonstrated  in  leading  us  to  this  happy  re- 
sult— 13  affirmative  votes  and  no  dissenting 
voices  in  approving  this  important  resolution. 
At  a  time  when  there  were  dissenting  and 
differing  views,  you  have  successfully  led  us 
to  a  consensus  I  think  of  which  we  can  all  be 
proud. 

One  year  ago,  renewed  war  broke  out  be- 
tween Israel  and  her  Arab  neighbors,  en- 
dangering the  peace  and  the  security  of  the 


674 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


entire  area.  Today,  a  year  later,  the  Security 
Council  has  made  a  second  important  con- 
tribution to  preserving  the  present  ceasefire 
and  disengagement  and,  hopefully,  to  mov- 
ing us  closer  to  a  lasting  peace.  By  extending 
the  mandate  of  the  U.N.  Emergency  Force 
(UNEF)  for  another  six  months,  we  seek  to 
allow  the  necessary  time  and  opportunity  for 
negotiations,  which  are  indispensable. 

This  U.N.  peace  force  has  already  made  a 
historic  impact  for  good  in  this  highly  stra- 
tegic part  of  the  world.  It  has  a  record  of 
which  we  can  all  be  proud.  Despite  some  prob- 
lems, UNEF  has  not  only  separated  the  com- 
batants but  has  helped  create  the  climate  of 
peace  that  is  essential  to  successful  negotia- 
tions. 

With  this  renewed  mandate  and  our  vote 
of  confidence,  we  are  confident  these  soldiers 
for  peace  will  overcome  any  difficulties  as 
successfully  as  they  solved  the  inevitable 
problems  that  occurred  in  the  first  12  months 
of  the  existence  of  the  Force.  No  force  of  this 
kind  can  expect  perfect  conditions  for  its 
task.  The  important  point  is  that  it  has  been 
an  effective  force  for  good,  and  we  are  confi- 
dent that  it  can  continue  its  effective  role. 

Last  year's  tragic  conflict  brought  about  a 
realization  by  the  parties  that  the  only  realis- 
tic means  of  settling  disputes  is  by  a  process 
of  step-by-step  negotiations  based  on  Secu- 
rity Council  Resolutions  242  and  338.  For  the 
first  time  in  26  years,  this  approach  has  pro- 
duced concrete  progress  toward  such  a  settle- 
ment. Significant  steps  have  been  taken,  par- 
ticularly in  the  Egyptian-Israeli  and  the  Is- 
raeli-Syrian disengagement  agreements. 

The  United  States  has  been  privileged  to 
participate  actively  in  the  negotiating  proc- 
ess. Our  government  is  convinced,  and  the 
successes  of  the  past  year  have  strengthened 
our  conviction,  that  the  only  way  to  break 
through  existing  stalemates  and  move  con- 
cretely toward  peace  is  through  a  progressive 
series  of  agreements.  Each  step  helps  to 
change  attitudes  and  create  new  situations  in 
which  further  steps  toward  an  equitable  and 
permanent  settlement  can  be  agreed  upon. 
The  United  States  pledges  to  continue  stren- 
uous efforts  to  achieve  this  goal. 


We  thus  note  with  approval  that  the  Sec- 
retary General  in  his  report,  document 
S/11536,  states  that  he  considers  the  contin- 
ued operation  of  UNEF  essential  not  only  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  present  quiet  but  also 
to  assist,  if  required,  in  further  efforts  for  the 
establishment  of  peace  in  the  Middle  East  as 
called  for  by  the  Security  Council. 

I  am  grateful  for  this  opportunity  to  com- 
mend the  UNEF  for  its  outstanding  work  in 
maintaining  the  peace  and  preserving  the 
climate  in  which  the  negotiating  process  can 
go  forward.  It  is  difficult  to  exaggerate  the 
constructive  role  played  by  the  soldiers  for 
peace  in  these  important  first  steps. 

Therefore,  I  am  pleased  to  extend  my  gov- 
ernment's highest  appreciation  to  the  Secre- 
tary General  and  his  headquarters  staff  and 
to  the  Commander  in  Chief  of  UNEF  for 
their  faithful  and  dedicated  performance.  I 
also  wish  to  commend  the  civilian  staff,  the 
UNTSO  [U.N.  Truce  Supervision  Organiza- 
tion] observers,  and  most  of  all,  the  UNEF 
troops,  who  daily  risk  their  lives  far  from 
their  homes  and  families  in  the  tasks  of 
peace. 

Our  deepest  sympathy  is  extended  to  the 
Governments  of  Canada,  Peru,  Finland,  Pan- 
ama, Indonesia,  and  Austria  for  the  tragic 
loss  of  lives  of  members  of  their  contingents 
who  in  the  past  few  months  have  given  their 
lives  in  the  service  of  peace.  We  ask  the  dele- 
gations of  these  countries  to  convey  our  con- 
dolences to  the  bereaved  families  of  these 
brave  men.  May  their  sacrifice  inspire  our  ef- 
forts to  achieve  a  permanent  settlement. 

We  also  wish  to  commend  the  troop-con- 
tributing countries  for  their  commitment  to 
international  peace  and  security,  for  the  be- 
liefs which  have  motivated  them  to  contribute 
troops  for  this  peacekeeping  operation. 

The  operation  of  UNEF  has  demonstrated 
effectively  that  the  willingness  of  U.N.  mem- 
bers to  assume  collective  responsibility  for 
international  peacekeeping  is  important.  All 
of  us  have  agreed  that  it  is  vitally  important 
that  UNEF  should  operate  with  a  maximum 
possible  efficiency  and  at  the  lowest  cost  to 
U.N.  members,  all  of  whom  share  the  finan- 
cial burdens  of  peacekeeping. 


November   18,    1974 


675 


We  also  are  aware  that  the  Secretary  Gen- 
eral, the  troop  contributors,  all  U.N.  mem- 
bers, the  Security  Council,  and  the  General 
Assembly  are  vitally  interested  in  the  effec- 
tive and  efficient  operation  of  this  Force.  Ef- 
ficient operation,  in  my  government's  view, 
must  be  coupled  with  maximum  attention  to 
economy.  Indeed,  the  most  efficient  force  is 
usually  the  leanest.  My  government  strongly 
urges  the  Secretary  General  to  continue  his 
policy  of  keeping  UNEF  costs  as  low  as  pos- 
sible consistent  with  efficient  operation  and 
fair  compensation  to  troop-contributing  gov- 
ernments. My  delegation  will  be  working  to 
achieve  these  ends  in  the  responsible  organ 
of  the  General  Assembly,  the  Fifth  Commit- 
tee. 

Mr.  President,  the  United  States  has  voted 
in  favor  of  the  resolution  just  adopted  which 
extends  UNEF's  mandate  for  another  six 
months  in  the  belief  that  further  progress  to- 
ward a  Middle  East  settlement  can  be  made 
during  this  period.  We  know  that  peacekeep- 
ing operations  in  the  Middle  East  are  essen- 
tial to  maintaining  stability  during  the  nego- 
tiations among  the  parties.  But  we  also  firmly 
believe  that  peacekeeping  must  not  become  a 
substitute  for  a  just  and  permanent  settle- 
ment. 

TEXT  OF   RESOLUTION! 

The  Security  Council, 

Recalling  its  resolutions  338  (1973),  340  (1973), 
341  (1973)  and  346  (1974), 

Having  examined  the  report  of  the  Secretary- 
General  on  the  activities  of  the  United  Nations 
Emergency  Force  (S/11536), 

Noting  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary-General  that 
"although  quiet  prevails  in  the  Egypt-Israel  sector, 
the  over-all  situation  in  the  Middle  East  will  remain 
fundamentally  unstable  as  long  as  the  underlying 
problems  are  unresolved". 

Noting  also  from  the  report  of  the  Secretary- 
General  (S/11536)  that  in  the  present  circumstances 
the  operation  of  the  United  Nations  Emergency 
Force  is  still  required, 

1.  Decides  that  the  mandate  of  the  United  Na- 
tions Emergency  Force  should  be  extended  for  an 
additional   six-month  period,  that  is,  until   24  April 


'UN  doc.  S/RES/362  (1974);  adopted  by  the 
Council  on  Oct.  23  by  a  vote  of  13  to  0,  with  the  Peo- 
ple's Republic  of  China  and  Iraq  not  participating  m 
the  vote. 

676 


1975,  in  order  to  assist  in  further  efforts  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the  Mid- 
dle East; 

2.  Coinmends  the  United  Nations  Emergency 
Force  and  those  Governments  supplying  contingents 
to  it  for  their  contribution  towards  the  achievement 
of  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East; 

3.  Expresses  its  confidence  that  the  Force  will  be 
maintained  with  maximum  efficiency  and  economy; 

4.  Reaffirms  that  the  United  Nations  Emergency 
Force  must  be  able  to  function  as  an  integral  and  ef- 
ficient military  unit  in  the  whole  Egypt-Israel  sector 
of  operations  without  differentiation  regarding  the 
United  Nations  status  of  the  various  contingents  as 
stated  in  paragraph  26  of  the  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary-General (S/11536)  and  requests  the  Secretary- 
General  to  continue  his  efforts  to  that  end. 


United  Nations  Documents: 
A  Selected  Bibliography 

Mimeographed  or  processed  documents  (such  as 
those  listed  below)  may  be  consulted  at  depository 
libraries  in  the  United  States.  U.N.  printed  pub- 
lications may  be  purchased  from,  the  Sales  Section 
of  the  United  Nations,  United  Nations  Plaza,  N.Y. 
10017. 


Economic  and  Social  Council 

Statistical  Commission: 

Statistical  classifications.  Draft  standard  interna- 
tional trade  classification  (SITC),  rev.  2.  Note 
by  the  Secretary  General.  E/CN.3/456.  May  28, 
1974.   231  pp. 

Statistical  classifications.  Draft  international  stand- 
ard classification  of  all  goods  and  ser\'ices 
(ICGS).  Report  of  the  Secretary  General.  E/ 
CN.3/457.  Part  I;  June  17,  1974;  223  pp.  Part 
II;  June  12,  1974;  214  pp. 

System  of  social  and  demographic  statistics 
(SSDS)  Potential  uses  and  usefulness.  Report 
of  the  Secretary  General.  E/CN.3/449.  June  19, 
1974.   26  pp. 


World  Population  Conference 

World  Population  Conference  background  papers: 
Health    and    family    planning.     Prepared    by    the 

World  Health  Organization.    E/CONF.60/CBP/ 

30.    May  22,  1974.    41  pp. 
Report  on  the  second  inquiry  among  governments 

on  population   and  development.    Report  of  the 

Secretary    General.     E/CONF.60/CBP/32.     May 

24,  1974.    105  pp. 
World  and  regional   labor  force   prospects  to   the 

year  2000    Prepared  by  the  International  Labor 

Office,    Geneva.     E/CONF.60/CBP/31.     May   29, 

1974.    37  pp. 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


HISTORICAL  STUDIES 


U.S.  Policy  Toward  Governments  of  Peru,  1 822-Present: 
Questions  of  Recognition  and  Diplomatic  Relations 


A  TABULAR  SUMMARY 


Foreword 


This  project  is  one  of  a  series  on  U.S.  policy  toward  various  Latin  American  countries 
prepared  at  the  request  of  former  Assistant  Secretary  for  Inter-American  Affairs  Jack  B.  Ku- 
bisch.  It  is  based  upon  published  and  unpublished  official  documents  and  upon  published  sec- 
ondary works.  It  represents  a  substantial  revision  and  updating  of  this  office's  Research 
Project  No.  350,  "United  States  Recognition  of  Latin  American  Governments:  A  Tabular 
Summary  of  United  States  Recognition  Action  on  Changes  and  Attempted  Changes  of  Gov- 
ernment and  of  Chief  Executives ;  Part  4,  Peru,  1821-1952." 

The  research  and  drafting  for  the  revised  paper  were  done  by  Dr.  Ronald  D.  Landa  un- 
der the  direction  of  Dr.  Mary  P.  Chapman,  Chief  of  the  Area  Studies  Branch. 

Edwin  S.  Costrell 

Chief,  Historical  Studies  Division 

Historical  Ofl!ice 

Bureau  of  Public  Affairs 


Research  Project  No.  1066 A  (Revised) 
September  1974 


November   18,    1974  677 


Note  :    The  paragraphs  on  the  left  describe  developments  in  Peru ;  the 
indented  paragraphs  describe  U.S.  responses  to  those  developments. 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Independence  of  Peru 
AND  Establishment  of  Diplomatic  Relations,  1822-27 

July  28,  1821.  The  independence  of  Peru  was  proclaimed  by  Jose  de 
San  Martin. 

Jan.  30,  1822.  The  House  of  Representatives  asked  President  James 
Monroe  to  furnish  it  with  the  correspondence  with  Spanish-American 
governments,  as  well  as  with  information  regarding  the  "political  condi- 
tion" of  the  new  American  nations. 

Mar.  8.  President  Monroe  complied  with  the  House  request  by  pro- 
viding the  desired  correspondence  and  by  pointing  out  in  a  special 
message  to  Congress  that  Peru  and  four  other  Spanish- American  nations — 
Buenos  Aires,  Colombia,  Chile,  and  Mexico — were  in  the  "full  enjoyment" 
of  their  independence  and  that  the  new  governments  had  "a  claim  to 
recognition  by  other  Powers,  which  ought  not  to  be  resisted." 

Mar.  28.  The  House  of  Representatives  passed  two  resolutions,  one 
indicating  concurrence  with  the  President  that  the  American  provinces 
of  Spain  which  had  declared  and  were  enjoying  their  independence 
"ought  to  be  recognized  by  the  United  States  as  independent  nations," 
and  the  other  asking  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  to  report  a  bill 
appropriating  a  sum  to  enable  the  President  "to  give  due  effect  to  such 
recognition." 

May  4.  Congress  passed,  and  President  Monroe  signed  into  law,  a  bill 
providing  an  appropriation  of  $100,000  to  defray  the  expenses  of  "such 
Missions  to  the  independent  nations  on  the  American  continent"  as  the 
President  might  deem  proper. 

Jan.  13,  1823.  President  Monroe  nominated  John  M.  Prevost  as  the 
first  U.S.  Charge  d'Affaires  to  Peru,  but  the  nomination  was  soon  with- 
drawn. 

May  2,  1826.  The  Senate  confirmed  the  nomination  of,  and  the  Presi- 
dent commissioned,  James  Cooley  as  Charge  d'Aff"aires  to  Peru.  By  this  ac- 
tion the  United  States  completed  the  formal  recognition  of  the  independ- 
ence of  Peru. 

May  21,  1827.  Cooley  presented  his  credentials  to  the  Peruvian 
Government  in  Lima,  thus  establishing  diplomatic  relations  with  Peru. 


U.S.  Non-Recognition  of  the  Bermudez  Regime,    1834 

Jan.  4,  1834.  With  the  assistance  of  former  President  Agustin 
Gamarra,  Pedro  Bermudez  deposed  President  Luis  Jose  Orbegoso  through 
a  military  coup  and  named  himself  "Supreme  Provisional  Chief." 

678  Department  of  State   Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Jan.  11.  The  U.S.  Charge,  Samuel  Larned,  informed  Washington  that 
he  was  "compelled  to  consider  the  administration  of  the  general  govern- 
ment in  Peru  as  in  abeyance"  until  the  Bermudez  government  took  control 
of  most  of  the  other  Departments  (provinces)  of  the  country.  The 
"established  practice  of  our  government  is  to  acknowledge  governments 
f'e  facto  whenever  they  shall  have  succeeded  in  establishing  themselves 
in  the  country,"  said  Larned. 

Jan.  28.     After  a  popular  uprising  forced  Bermudez  and  his  supporters 
to  abandon  Lima,  Orbegoso  reclaimed  the  office  of  President. 

Feb.  13.  Larned  referred  to  the  Bermudez-Gamarra  insurrection  as 
the  "late  scandalous  military  movement"  and  expressed  his  belief  that 
its  purpose  was  to  establish  a  monarchical  government  in  Peru. 

June  25.  Larned  observed  that  "the  civil  war  may  now  be  considered 
at  an  end : — all  the  Departments,  and  the  whole  of  the  Army,  having 
recognized  the  legitimacy  of  the  Government"  of  President  Orbegoso. 


U.S.  Non-Recognition  of  the  Salaverry  Regime,  1835 

Feb.  23,  1835.  Felipe  Santiago  Salaverry,  Inspector-General  of  the 
Army,  led  a  revolt  which  again  overturned  the  Orbegoso  government.  Two 
days  later  Salaverry  named  himself  "Supreme  Chief." 

June  23.  Larned  reported  to  the  Department  of  State  that  he,  as 
well  as  most  of  the  Diplomatic  Corps,  was  continuing  to  withhold  recog- 
nition of  the  Salaverry  regime  as  the  de  facto  government,  and  that  he 
had  been  addressing  its  representatives  only  as  local  authorities,  "without 
once  making  use  of  a  style  of  address,  or  phrase,  that  could  be  construed 
to  imply  a  recognition,  in  them  or  their  'Supreme  Chief,  of  a  rmtional 
government  or  administration  .  .  .  ." 

June  24.  Orbegoso  signed  a  treaty  with  Bolivian  President  Andres 
Santa  Cruz,  who  agreed  to  enter  Peru  with  his  armies  in  order  to  help 
defeat  Salaverry,  who  had  allied  himself  with  Gamarra. 

July  10.  Santa  Cruz  issued  a  declaration  in  which  he  outlined  his 
plans  for  a  Peru-Bolivian  Confederation. 

Aug.  13.  Santa  Cruz  defeated  Gamarra's  forces  in  a  battle  near  the 
lake  of  Yanacocha.  Gamarra  fled  but  was  subsequently  captured  and,  on 
October  19,  1835,  was  banished  to  Costa  Rica. 

Nov.  13.  As  the  fighting  continued  between  the  forces  of  Salaverry 
and  the  combined  armies  of  Orbegoso  and  Santa  Cruz,  Larned  reaffirmed 
his  support  of  Orbegoso :  ".  .  .  as  the  Council  of  State  has  been  dissolved, 
and  the  Congress  has  not  been  allowed  to  assemble  at  its  legal  period, — 
President  Orbegozo  [sic]  is  the  only  member  or  representative  of  the 
constitutional  government  now  in  existence: — and  he  has  all  the  forms 
and  presumption  of  right  and  popular  will  on  his  side ;  whilst  his  adver- 
sary has  neither  the  one  nor  the  other;  having  nothing  to  support  his 
authority  but  the  armed  force  [sic]." 

November   18,    1974  679 


Developments  U.S.  Response 

Feb.  7,  1836.     Salaverry's  troops  were  defeated  near  Arequipa.    Sala- 
verry  was  later  taken  prisoner  and  executed. 

Feb.  13.  Lamed  reported  that  all  of  Peru  was  again  under  Orbegoso's 
"undisputed  sway,"  which  he  called  "a  splendid  and  cheering  example 
afforded  of  the  triumph  of  law,  order  and  principles,  over  ambition,  usur- 
pation, and  licentious  despotism." 


U.S.  Relations  With  the  Peru-Bolivian  Confederation,  1836-39 

Oct.  28,  1836.  A  decree  was  issued  formally  establishing  the  Peru- 
Bolivian  Confederation,  a  union  of  North  and  South  Peru  and  Bolivia. 
The  Confederation  had  been  taking  shape  for  over  a  year.  It  was  headed 
by  Santa  Cruz  under  the  title  of  "Supreme  Protector." 

Dec.  20.  Having  learned  of  the  plans  for  a  Peru-Bolivian  Confedera- 
tion, Secretary  of  State  John  Forsyth  told  James  B.  Thornton,  the  new 
Charge  to  Peru,  who  had  also  been  accredited  to  the  Bolivian  Government 
to  negotiate  a  commercial  treaty,  that  when  he  arrived  in  Lima,  "the 
government  that  may  have  been  constituted  to  manage  the  joint  affairs 
of  Peru  and  Bolivia"  hopefully  "would  not  permit  a  matter  of  mere  form 
to  be  an  obstacle  to  your  reception  or  to  the  transaction  of  business 
with  you." 

Dec.  28.  Chile,  supported  by  Gamarra  and  other  Peruvian  opponents 
of  Orbegoso,  declared  war  on  the  Confederation. 

Feb.  16,  1837.  Thornton,  who  had  arrived  in  Lima  on  Feb.  9  just  after 
Santa  Cruz  had  left  the  city,  submitted  his  letter  of  credence  by  mail  to 
the  Santa  Cruz  government.  As  there  was  no  personal  presentation  of 
credentials,  this  action  presumably  consummated  U.S.  recognition  of  the 
Peru-Bolivian  Confederation,  which  formally  recognized  Thornton  as 
Charge  by  a  decree  of  Mar.  16. 

Aug.  6.  Chilean  forces  and  Peruvians  under  Gamarra  landed  at  Ancon 
and  later  in  the  month  captured  Lima. 

June  9,  1838.  J.  C.  Pickett  was  commissioned  as  U.S.  Charge  to  the 
Peru-Bolivian  Confederation,  the  first  to  be  so  accredited. 

Sept.  20.  As  two  rival  governments  emerged  to  challenge  the  Confed- 
eration Government  in  North  Peru,  Acting  Charge  Edwin  Bartlett,  who 
was  in  correspondence  with  all  three,  said  that  he  had  carefully  avoided 
"anything  like  a  committal  of  the  United  States  in  a  recognition  of  either 
of  the  New  Governments." 

Jan.  20,  1839.  The  armies  of  the  Confederation  were  defeated  at  the 
Battle  of  Yungay. 

Feb.  20.  The  Peru-Bolivian  Confederation  was  officially  dissolved  and 
Santa  Cruz  abdicated. 


680  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Mar.  7.  According  to  a  despatch  from  Bartlett,  all  the  military  authori- 
ties in  Peru  had  acknowledged  the  authority  of  Gamarra  as  Provisional 
President  when  his  forces  captured  Callao. 

June  13.  Acting  Secretary  of  State  Aaron  Vail  rejected  a  proposal  by 
recently  appointed  Charge  Pickett  to  send  him  new  credentials  to  replace 
those  addressed  to  the  Peru-Bolivian  Confederation  and  to  accredit  him  to 
the  Gamarra  government. 


U.S.  Relations  With  the  Gamarra  Government,  1839-40 

Aug.  15,  1839.  Having  put  down  the  last  traces  of  resistance,  Gamarra 
was  confirmed  by  Congress  as  Provisional  President. 

Aug.  23.  The  Gamarra  government  informally  advised  Pickett  that 
his  credentials,  which  were  addressed  to  the  Confederation,  would  not 
be  accepted  if  presented. 

Oct.  19.  The  Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  officially  told  Pickett 
that  "the  restored  Republic  of  Peru,  after  having  driven  the  conqueror 
from  her  territory,  does  not  find  herself  in  a  situation  to  receive  agents 
accredited  to  him,  because  the  relations  of  the  usurping  Government  were 
very  different  from  those  of  the  Republic." 

Oct.  28.  Pickett  informed  Washington  that  the  Peruvian  refusal  to 
receive  him  was  "rather  unexpected,"  but  that  it  was  due  to  Gamarra's 
wish  to  avoid  "any  act  that  can  be  construed  into  an  admission,  that  the 
Peru-Bolivian  Confederation  ever  had  a  legal  existence." 

Jan.  30,  1840.  Pickett  was  formally  received  by  the  Gamarra  govern- 
ment, an  action  which  he  later  called  "as  unaccountable  as  it  was  unex- 
pected." He  pointed  out,  however,  that  he  was  "required  to  produce  new 
credentials,  within  a  reasonable  time,  to  be  addressed  to  the  Government 
of  Peru."  He  added  that  he  probably  would  hear  nothing  more  of  it,  but 
should  the  new  credentials  be  forwarded,  "it  may  not  be  necessary  to  present 
them  .  .  .  ."  Apparently  the  new  credentials  were  never  sent. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  Elias'  Assumption  of  Power,  1844 

June  17,  1844.  After  two  years  of  civil  war  and  several  changes  of 
government,  the  prefect  of  Lima,  Domingo  Elias,  renounced  allegiance  to 
President  Manuel  Ignacio  Vivanco  and  invested  himself  as  the  supreme 
authority. 

June  20.  At  a  conference  of  the  Diplomatic  Corps,  Pickett  signed  a  pro- 
tocol which  said  that,  because  of  a  multiplicity  of  de  facto  governments, 
none  of  which  exercised  complete  sovereignty,  it  was  necessary  to  recognize 
each. 


November   18,    1974  681 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Oct.  30.  In  setting  down  guidelines  for  Jolin  A.  Bryan,  who  had  just 
been  commissioned  Charge,  Acting  Secretary  of  State  Richard  K.  Cralle 
said  that  "whoever  may  be  in  actual  possession  and  exercise  of  the  supreme 
power,  whether  by  consent  of  the  governed  or  by  force,  must  be  regarded 
as  the  de  facto  government  of  the  country  .  .  .  ."  Whether  rightfully  or  not, 
Elias  was  "in  the  actual  possession  and  exercise  of  the  supreme  power  at 
Lima,  the  seat  of  Government :  and  it  appears  that  not  only  the  civil  and 
military  authorities  of  the  capital  and  other  places  had  quietly  submitted 
to  his  government,  but  there  has  been  no  actual  resistance  on  the  part  of 
the  people  at  large.  He  must,  therefore,  under  such  circumstances,  be 
regarded  as  representing  the  Supreme  Directory  of  the  Republic  .  .  .  ." 

Dec.  23.  Pickett  reported  that  his  signing  the  protocol  recognizing 
various  factions  was  an  error,  since  it  had  been  construed  by  the  Diplo- 
matic Corps  as  a  U.S.  commitment  to  join  the  other  powers  in  protecting 
foreign  commerce. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Castilla  Government,  1855 

May-June  1854.  Political  disintegration  occurred  as  rival  centers  of 
power  were  established  in  four  different  cities. 

June  10.  One  of  the  contenders  for  power,  Ramon  Castilla,  issued  a 
circular  proclaiming  himself  President. 

June  10.  The  Diplomatic  Corps  in  Lima,  including  U.S.  Minister  John 
R.  Clay,  ignored  Castilla's  circular. 

Jan.  5,  1855.  Civil  strife,  which  took  on  some  characteristics  of  a 
popular  upheaval  against  the  army,  was  ended  by  Castilla's  victory  near 
Lima  and  his  assumption  of  the  position  of  Provisional  President. 

Jan.  8.  Congratulations  were  offered  to  Castilla  by  Minister  Clay,  who 
remarked  that  the  United  States  "have  adopted  the  principle  of  recognizing 
the  Government  de  facto  in  countries  with  which  we  are  in  amity." 


U.S.  De  Facto  Recognition  of  the  Insurrectionary  Vivanco  Government,   1858 

Oct.  31,  1856.  A  revolt,  whose  leaders  proclaimed  General  Manuel 
Ignacio  Vivanco  President  and  "Regenerator  of  the  Republic,"  broke  out 
at  Arequipa. 

Dec.  29.  Vivanco's  forces  seized  control  of  some  guano  islands  off  the 
coast  of  Peru  and  began  selling  guano  there  to  anyone  who  wished  it. 

Jan.  24,  1858.  A  Peruvian  Government  steamer  captured  and  confis- 
cated the  cargo  of  two  U.S.  vessels,  the  Lizzie  Thompson  and  the  Georgiana, 
for  having  loaded  with  guano  at  islands  not  open  to  foreign  commerce 
and  having  done  so  under  licenses  from  Vivanco's  forces. 


682  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Feb.  8.  Clay  protested  to  the  Peruvian  Foreign  Minister  that  the 
seizures  were  unlawful,  since  Vivanco's  supporters  had  taken  over  the 
functions  of  government  for  more  than  a  year  in  some  of  the  guano  islands. 
As  belligerents  in  a  civil  war,  declared  Clay,  Vivanco's  party  must  be 
considered  a  de  facto  government. 

Mar.  6.  The  civil  war  ended  as  President  Castilla  routed  the  insurgent 
forces  at  Arequipa  and  drove  Vivanco  into  exile. 

Mar.  18.  The  Peruvian  Minister  in  Washington  informed  Secretary  of 
State  Lewis  Cass  that  his  government  considered  that  Clay  had  behaved 
in  an  unfair  and  hostile  way  toward  Peru  and  that  his  position  on  the 
case  involving  the  two  U.S.  ships  was  imperiling  the  "friendly  harmony" 
existing  between  the  two  nations. 

May  28.  Supported  by  the  opinion  of  the  U.S.  Attorney  General,  Cass 
told  the  Peruvian  Minister  that  the  Vivanco  forces  had  constituted  a 
"de  facto  authority,"  whether  or  not  recognized  as  a  belligerent,  and  cer- 
tainly had  the  authority  to  dispose  of  any  national  property  even  if  con- 
trary to  the  regulations  of  the  national  government. 

Nov.  26.  After  several  unsuccessful  efforts  to  convince  the  Peruvian 
Government  of  the  correctness  of  the  U.S.  position.  Secretary  Cass,  in 
instructions  to  Clay,  reaffirmed  his  belief  that  Peru  had  no  right  to  capture 
a  U.S.  vessel  whose  master  obeyed  the  authorities  he  found  in  a  Peruvian 
port,  "though  they  had  been  set  up  by  a  recent  revolution."  Clay  was 
directed  to  inform  the  Peruvian  Government  that  the  United  States  ex- 
pected reparation  for  the  parties  involved. 


U.S.  Severance  of  Relations,  1860-62, 
Over  THE  Lizzie  Thompson  and  Georgiana  Affair 

Dec.  2,  1858.  The  Peruvian  Minister  in  Washington  informed  Cass  that 
Peru  was  ready  to  submit  the  Lizzie  TJiompson  and  Georgiana  contro- 
versy to  the  decision  of  any  European  nation  chosen  by  President  James 
Buchanan. 

Mar.  2,  1859.  Cass  instructed  Clay  to  reject  the  Peruvian  suggestion 
of  arbitration  by  a  third  power,  since  the  majority  of  the  owners  of  the 
vessels  involved  were  opposed  to  the  idea. 

Feb.  27,  1860.  Having  already  made  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to 
obtain  indemnification  from  the  Peruvian  Government,  Clay  suggested 
to  Cass  that  a  U.S.  embargo  of  two  Peruvian  frigates  bound  for  the  United 
States  would  "bring  this  Government  to  reason." 

Mar.  12.  After  Cass  had  indicated  on  Feb.  23  that  "further  discussion 
with  the  Government  of  Peru  upon  the  subject  of  the  claims  of  our 
citizens  is  useless,"  Clay  remarked  that  the  time  had  come  "when  decisive 
action  is  required,  to  convince  Peru  and  the  other  Republics  of  Spanish 
origin,  that  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  not  to  be  dealt  with  at  will,  by 
military  rulers  .  .  .  ." 

November   18,    1974  683 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

June  4.  Delivering  an  ultimatum  from  the  Department  of  State,  Clay 
warned  the  Peruvian  Foreign  Minister  that  continued  refusal  to  settle 
claims  concerning  the  Lizzie  Thompson  and  the  Georgiana  would  be  re- 
garded as  "incompatible  with  the  continuance  of  cordial  relations." 

Oct.  19.  Since  the  Peruvian  Government  remained  intransigent  on 
the  issue,  Clay  suspended  relations  with  Peru. 

Nov.  26.  At  his  own  request,  the  Peruvian  Minister  in  Washington  was 
given  his  passport. 

June  8,  1861.  Christopher  Robinson  received  a  recess  commission  as 
Minister  to  Peru,  thus  indicating  the  U.S.  intention  to  resume  relations 
with  Peru.  President  Lincoln  had  decided  that  the  differences  between 
the  two  countries  were  "not  as  such  to  recommend  a  state  of  war." 

Jan.  11,  1862.  Relations  were  restored  when  Robinson  was  officially 
received  in  Lima. 

July  9,  1864.  Following  an  abortive  attempt  to  have  the  King  of 
Belgium  arbitrate  the  dispute,  Secretary  of  State  William  Seward  informed 
the  Peruvian  Minister  in  Washington  that  the  matter  would  not  be  pursued 
further. 


U.S.  Relations  With  the  Diez  Canseco  and  Prado  Governments, 

1865-66 

August  1865.  After  war  had  broken  out  the  previous  year  between 
Spain  and  Peru,  Mariano  Ignacio  Prado  led  a  rebellion  protesting  the 
peace  terms  demanded  by  Spain  and  accepted  by  the  government  of 
President  Juan  Antonio  Pezet.  The  rebels  gained  control  of  all  Peru 
except  Lima. 

Oct.  10.  Before  his  departure  for  Peru,  Minister  Alvin  P.  Hovey  was 
instructed  to  recognize  only  Pezet's  administration  as  the  constitutional 
government,  for  "the  United  States  are  slow  to  recognize  revolutionary 
governments." 

Nov.  6.  Pedro  Diez  Canseco  became  Provisional  President  upon  the 
overthrow  of  Pezet's  government. 

Nov.  8.  The  Diplomatic  Corps,  meeting  at  the  U.S.  Legation,  resolved 
unanimously  to  recognize  Diez  Canseco. 

Nov.  9.  Robinson,  while  awaiting  Hovey's  arrival,  prematurely  offered 
congratulations  and  "most  friendly  relations"  to  Diez  Canseco. 

Nov.  17.  Upon  his  arrival,  Hovey  requested  an  audience  for  the  presen- 
tation of  his  credentials  to  the  new  regime. 


684  Department   of  State   Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Nov.  26.  Military  leaders  overthrew  Diez  Canseco  and  proclaimed 
Mariano  Ignacio  Prado  as  dictator.  The  decision  was  approved  by  a  meet- 
ing of  citizens  in  Lima. 

Nov.  28.  Hovey  reported  that  he  would  not  seek  to  present  his  creden- 
tials nor  for  the  present  recognize  the  new  regime.  He  acknowledged 
that  the  Diplomatic  Corps  had  been  hasty  in  recognizing  Diez  Canseco. 

Dec.  21.  Relations  were  interrupted  and  the  Prado  government  was  still 
unrecognized  when  Robinson  left  Peru. 

Mar.  8,  1866.  Secretary  of  State  Seward  rejected  a  subsequent  request 
by  Hovey  to  recognize  the  Prado  government.  "The  policy  of  the  United 
States,"  said  Seward  "is  settled  upon  the  principle  that  revolutions  in 
republican  states  ought  not  to  be  accepted  until  the  people  have  adopted 
them  by  organic  law,  with  the  solemnities  which  would  seem  sufficient  to 
guarantee  their  stability  and  permanency." 

Apr.  13.  Hovey  reported  that  "should  the  United  States  wait  until  Peru 
is  governed  by  organic  law,  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name,  ...  it  will  ...  be 
a  far  distant  day  before  our  country  is  represented  at  all  in  Peru." 

Apr.  21.  Because  of  evidence  of  stability  in  Prado's  government  and 
concern  over  continuing  hostilities  between  Spain  and  Peru,  Hovey  was 
instructed  to  recognize  the  Prado  government. 

May  22.  Relations  were  resumed  when  Hovey  presented  his  credentials 
to  the  Prado  government. 


U.S.  Non-Recognition  of  the  Diez  Canseco  Regime  and 
Subsequent  Recognition  of  the  Balta  Government,  1868 

Jan.  22,  1868.  Pedro  Diez  Canseco  arrived  in  Lima  after  defeating 
President  Prado's  armies  and  claimed  the  executive  office  on  the  basis 
of  his  former  election  as  Vice  President. 

Feb.  14.  Hovey  indicated  that  Diez  Canseco  had  been  recognized  as 
President  de  facto  by  all  other  diplomatic  representatives,  but  that  he  had 
withheld  U.S.  recognition  in  accordance  with  the  Department  of  State's 
instructions  of  Mar.  8,  1866. 

Apr.  1.  Jose  Balta  was  the  apparent  victor  in  a  popular  election  for 
President,  the  results  of  which  were  to  be  sanctioned  by  Congress  in  July. 

Apr.  14.  Hovey  asked  Washington  that  he  be  authorized,  after  Balta's 
confirmation  as  President,  to  establish  relations  with  the  Balta  govern- 
ment immediately,  because  both  he  and  the  United  States  had  been  sharply 
criticized  in  Peru  for  withholding  recognition  from  the  Diez  Canseco 
government. 


November   18,   1974  685 


Developments  U.S.  Response 

May  7.  In  instructing  Hovey  to  wait  further  for  "legal  evidence  that 
the  existing  administration  had  been  deliberately  accepted  by  the  people 
of  Peru,"  Secretary  of  State  Seward  pointed  out  that  the  United  States 
"must  be  entirely  indifferent  to  political  persons  and  parties  in  Peru,  as 
in  all  South  American  republics,  so  long  as  all  those  persons  and  parties 
agree  in  maintaining  a  republican  system  as  the  only  admissible  form  of 
government."  Without  this  principle,  he  said,  the  constitutional  vigor  of 
the  U.S.  Government  would  be  impaired,  thus  favoring  "disorganization, 
disintegration,  and  anarchy  throughout  the  American  continent." 

Aug.  2.  Balta  was  inaugurated  President  after  Congress  had  certified 
his  election. 

Aug.  5.  The  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  delivered  a  note  to  the  U.S. 
Legation  announcing  Balta's  assumption  of  the  Presidency  and  giving 
assurances  that  the  rights  of  foreigners  would  be  respected  and  that 
international  agreements  would  be  honored. 

Aug.  10.  In  a  note  to  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Hovey  acknowl- 
edged receipt  of  its  note  of  Aug.  5,  thus  extending  formal  recognition  to 
the  Balta  government.  Hovey  believed  that  he  was  acting  in  accordance 
with  the  Department  of  State's  instruction  of  May  7. 

Aug.  17.  Prior  to  receiving  word  of  Hovey's  recognition  of  the  Balta 
government.  Secretary  of  State  Seward  notified  Hovey  that,  with  Balta's 
election  and  confirmation  by  Congress,  "no  objection  is  now  entertained 
to  your  holding  full  official  intercourse  with  that  government." 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Pardo  Government,  1872 

Oct.  15,  1871.  The  Presidential  election  was  accompanied  by  riots  and 
the  loss  of  lives,  with  each  of  five  factions  controlling  its  own  voting  tables 
and  preventing  a  fair  counting  of  the  votes. 

Nov.  17.  The  electoral  colleges  met  but  were  unable  to  decide  who  had 
won  the  election.  That  decision  was  left  to  the  Congress,  which  was  to 
convene  the  following  July. 

July  15,  1872.  Congress  assembled  and  decided  that  Manuel  Pardo  had 
won  the  Presidential  election.  President  Balta,  who  had  supported  another 
candidate  in  the  electoral  campaign,  nevertheless  accepted  Congress'  deci- 
sion and  prepared  to  transfer  power  to  Pardo  within  a  few  weeks. 

July  22.  Angered  by  President  Balta's  inclination  to  yield  the  election 
to  Pardo,  Minister  of  War  Tomas  Gutierrez  took  control  of  the  army, 
dispersed  Congress,  made  himself  "Supreme  Chief,"  and  four  days  later 
had  Balta  assassinated. 


686  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Developments  U.S-   Response 

July  25.  U.S.  Minister  Francis  Thomas  replied  to  a  note  of  July  23 
from  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  announcing  Gutierrez's  assumption 
of  power  by  indicating  that  he  would  inform  the  U.S.  Government  of  the 
developments  in  Peru  and  would  await  instructions.  The  Diplomatic  Corps 
had  agreed  to  recognize  Gutierrez  only  as  a  de  facto  ruler  simply  to  secure 
protection  for  the  lives  and  property  of  the  citizens  of  their  respective 
countries. 

July  28.  Gutierrez  was  killed  by  a  mob  infuriated  by  his  repressive 
measures.  Balta's  First  Vice  President,  Mariano  Herencia  Zevallos.  as- 
sumed the  Presidency  until  Pardo  could  be  inaugurated. 

Aug.  2.     Pardo  was  inaugurated  President. 

Sept.  26.  Acting  Secretary  of  State  Charles  Hale  informed  Thomas 
that  "the  indignation  of  the  people  of  Peru  at  a  cruel  assassination  and 
an  attempted  usurpation  and  overthrow  of  a  representative  government 
commands  admiration,  and  their  calm  return  to  order  gives  promise  of  a 
stable  condition  of  public  affairs." 

Nov.  23.  Thomas  formally  extended  recognition  to  the  Pardo  govern- 
ment by  presenting  to  Pardo  a  letter  from  President  Ulysses  S.  Grant 
congratulating  him  on  his  inauguration. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Pierola  Government,  1880 

Dec.  18,  1879.  Faced  with  serious  military  setbacks  eight  months  after 
Peru  had  joined  Bolivia  in  a  war  against  Chile  (the  War  of  the  Pacific), 
President  Mariano  Prado  left  the  country,  reportedly  to  seek  help  in  Eu- 
rope. Although  the  First  Vice  President  legally  assumed  the  Presidency, 
the  Minister  of  War,  Manuel  de  La  Cotera,  became  the  real  head  of  the  gov- 
ernment. 

Dec.  24.  After  supporters  of  Gen.  Nicolas  Pierola  had  staged  a  mutiny 
in  the  army,  La  Cotera  yielded  the  government  to  Pierola. 

Jan.  1,  1880.  Minister  Isaac  P.  Christiancy  joined  the  other  members 
of  the  Diplomatic  Corps  in  paying  respects  to  Pierola,  with  the  understand- 
ing that  recognition  was  not  thereby  extended. 

Jan.  31.  Secretary  of  State  William  Evarts  formally  announced  that 
the  United  States  would  recognize  the  Pierola  regime,  since  it  was  under- 
stood that  Peru  was  "driven  to  the  acceptance  of  a  new  government  on  a 
provisional  basis  by  the  external  pressure  of  their  affairs  and  that  the  ac- 
cession of  General  Pierola  to  power  was  not  accomplished  by  civil  strife  or 
factious  insurrection." 

Feb.  5.  In  a  note  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Christiancy  ex- 
tended recognition  on  the  basis  that  the  Pierola  government  had  the  "cor- 
dial concurrence  of  the  people." 


November   18,   1974  687 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Calderon  Government,  1881 

Jan.  17,  1881.  As  the  War  of  the  Pacific  continued,  an  invading  Chilean 
army  captured  Lima.  President  Pierola  left  the  city  in  an  attempt  to  rally 
the  interior  of  the  country  against  the  Chileans. 

Mar.  12.  Encouraged  by  the  Chilean  occupation  authorities,  who  refused 
to  recognize  the  Pierola  government,  Francisco  Garcia  Calderon,  who  had 
been  chosen  Provisional  President  by  an  assembly  of  leading  citizens  in 
Lima  and  Callao,  established  a  new  government  in  the  hamlet  of  Mag- 
dalena  outside  Lima. 

Mar.  16.  Christiancy  told  Secretary  of  State  James  G.  Blaine,  that  he 
could  not  recognize  the  Calderon  government  "until  it  shall  appear  to  be  a 
government  of  Peru,  instead  of  Lima  and  Callao."  Without  instructions 
from  Washington,  he  emphasized,  he  could  not  extend  recognition,  even  if 
Calderon  held  half  the  country,  until  he  was  satisfied  that  the  majority  of 
the  people  approved  of  the  Calderon  government  and  until  it  showed  evi- 
dence it  could  sustain  itself  as  the  Government  of  Peru. 

May  9.  Blaine  told  Christiancy  that  if  the  Calderon  government  was 
supported  by  "the  character  and  intelligence  of  Peru"  and  if  it  was  "really 
endeavoring  to  restore  constitutional  government  with  a  view  both  to  order 
within  and  negotiation  with  Chile  for  peace,"  he  was  authorized  to  extend 
recognition.  In  addition,  Blaine  noted  that  he  had  already  received  in  Wash- 
ington a  confidential  agent  of  the  Calderon  government. 

June  16.  Christiancy  responded  to  Blaine's  May  9  instruction  by  point- 
ing out  that  the  Calderon  regime  had  the  support  of  the  wealthy  sugar  plan- 
tation owners  and  merchants  and  that  it  was  attempting  to  restore  order 
and  reestablish  constitutional  government,  but  that  it  lacked  a  broad  po- 
litical base.  It  was  not  a  government  de  facto  in  any  part  of  Peru  except  in 
the  hamlet  of  Magdalena. 

June  26.  Rather  reluctantly,  Christiancy  extended  recognition  to  the 
Calderon  government  in  a  note  to  the  Foreign  Ministry.  He  later  explained 
to  Washington  that  he  had  done  so,  because  de  facto  political  control  had 
not  been  made  a  condition  of  recognition  and  because  Blaine  had  already 
received  Calderon's  agent  in  Washington.  Moreover,  Christiancy  had  heard 
a  rumor,  which  turned  out  to  be  false,  that  his  successor  would  not  come  to 
Peru  until  a  peace  settlement  between  Chile  and  Peru  was  reached.  There- 
fore, he  admitted,  he  did  not  want  it  to  appear  that  he  was  delaying  his 
successor's  coming  by  withholding  recognition. 

July  6.  Christiancy  reported  that  he  feared  recognition  may  have  been 
premature  since  some  of  Calderon's  forces  had  begun  to  desert  to  Pierola's 
side. 

July  11.  Congress  confirmed  Calderon  as  President  until  a  new  Presi- 
dent could  be  elected. 


688  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

AUG.IO.  Stephen  A.  Hurlbut,  who  had  replaced  Christiancy  as  Minister 
to  Peru  earlier  in  the  month,  told  the  Department  of  State  that  he  approved 
of  Christiancy's  recognition  of  the  Calderon  government.  Even  though  it 
was  not  "a  regular  or  constitutional  government,"  he  contended  that  it  was 
"infinitely  more  so  than  that  of  Pierola,  which  was  "a  violent  usurpation, 
autocratic  and  despotic."  Hurlbut  remarked,  however,  that  Chile  was  not 
formally  recognizing  the  Calderon  government  until  it  accepted  Chile's 
terms  for  a  peace  settlement,  something  which  Calderon  had  been  reluctant 
to  do. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Montero  Government,  1881 

Sept.  26-28,  1881.  The  Chilean  forces  of  occupation  seized  the  Peru- 
vian treasury,  stopped  payments,  took  over  revenue  collection,  and  decreed 
an  end  to  President  Calderon's  authority. 

Sept.  29.  In  order  to  insure  the  constitutional  succession,  Congress 
quietly  assembled  in  Lima  and  elected  Adm.  Lizardo  Montero,  then  in  com- 
mand of  the  north  of  Peru  beyond  Chilean  lines,  as  Vice  President. 

Oct.  4.  Hurlbut  gave  Washington  his  view  that  "no  act  of  Chile,  whether 
from  its  civil  or  military  authorities,  can  in  any  way  operate  upon  the  rela- 
tions which  the  United  States  have  maintained  or  may  choose  to  maintain 
with  any  government  in  Peru,  nor  can  any  military  order  prevent  my  treat- 
ing with  Mr.  Calderon  as  representing  the  sovereignty  of  Peru." 

Oct.  31.  Secretary  of  State  Blaine  instructed  Hurlbut  to  continue  to  rec- 
ognize the  Calderon  government. 

Nov.  4.  Calderon's  Foreign  Minister  sent  a  circular  note  to  the  Diplo- 
matic Corps  in  Lima  announcing  that  Montero  had  declared  his  allegiance 
to  Calderon. 

Nov.  6.  The  Chilean  forces  in  Lima  arrested  Calderon  and  his  Foreign 
Minister  and  had  them  sent  to  Chile. 

Nov.  9.  Hurlbut  Informed  the  Department  of  State  that  Chile's  obvious 
policy  was  to  hold  Peru  under  armed  occupation  until  it  could  find  or  cre- 
ate a  government  with  which  to  make  peace  on  Chile's  terms. 

Nov.  15.  Montero  formally  succeeded  Calderon  as  President  and  estab- 
lished his  government  at  Arequipa. 

Nov.  30.  Hurlbut  answered  a  letter  which  had  announced  Montero's  suc- 
cession to  the  Presidency  with  a  formal  communication  acknowledging 
Montero  as  "the  lawful  head"  of  the  Government  of  Peru.  However,  Hurl- 
but did  not  transfer  the  Legation  to  Arequipa  but  remained  in  Lima,  where 
he  died  on  Mar.  27,  1882. 


November   18,    1974  689 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Apr.  25,  1882.  William  H.  Trescott,  the  special  U.S.  envoy  to  the  three 
belligerent  nations  in  the  War  of  the  Pacific  empowered  to  help  negotiate  a 
peace  settlement,  visited  President  Montero  in  the  interior  of  Peru  and  pre- 
sented his  credentials  to  Montero.  He  later  explained  to  Washington  that 
he  had  undertaken  the  journey  because  he  believed  that  the  presentation  of 
his  credentials  "would  strengthen  what  is  unquestionably  the  real  govern- 
ment of  Peru,  recognized  and  obeyed  at  present  by  all  parties  of  the  Peru- 
vian people." 


Delayed  U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Iglesias  Government,  January  1883-April  1884 

Jan.  2,  1883.  Miguel  Iglesias  was  chosen  President  of  Peru  by  an  as- 
sembly handpicked  by  Chile  to  serve  as  an  instrument  for  making  peace 
between  the  two  countries. 

Oct.  3.  After  months  of  uncertainty  over  the  degree  of  support  Iglesias 
had  among  the  people,  the  new  U.S.  Minister,  Seth  L.  Phelps,  told  a  Chilean 
representative  that  recognition  would  be  extended  to  the  Iglesias  govern- 
ment when  there  was  proof  the  country  accepted  him.  In  the  meantime, 
Phelps  withheld  the  presentation  of  his  credentials. 

Oct.  20.  Iglesias  signed  a  peace  treaty  negotiated  with  Chile  at  Ancon, 
whereupon  Chile  recognized  the  Iglesias  government. 

Nov.  15.  Secretary  of  State  Frederick  Frelinghuysen  instructed  Phelps 
to  recognize  the  Iglesias  government  if  the  new  Constitutional  Assembly, 
which  was  to  be  elected  the  following  January,  represented  Peru  and  fa- 
vored Iglesias. 

Mar.  1,  1884.  The  Constitutional  Assembly  elected  in  January  named 
Iglesias  Provisional  President. 

Mar.  19.  In  response  to  an  inquiry  from  the  Department  of  State,  Phelps 
said  that  he  now  rejected  recognition  because  the  Iglesias  government  was 
supported  by  Chilean  troops,  had  organized  the  assembly  by  fraud,  and  had 
proposed  to  govern  without  constitutional  restraint. 

Mar.  28.  The  Treaty  of  Ancon  was  ratified  by  the  Peruvian  Constitu- 
tional Assembly. 

Apr.  2.  The  Constitutional  Assembly  conferred  dictatorial  powers  on 
Iglesias. 

Apr.  9.  Informed  that  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  the  Iglesias 
government,  in  an  interview  with  the  Diplomatic  Corps,  had  demanded  of 
them  immediate  recognition  and  when  they  had  refused  had  suspended  rela- 
tions with  the  various  legations.  Secretary  of  State  Frelinghuysen  noted 
that  the  question  of  recognition  was  addressed  to  the  "independent  judg- 
ment and  discretion"  of  the  United  States,  uninfluenced  by  "anything  in 
the  nature  of  a  menace." 


690  Department  of  State   Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Apr.  18.  Frelinghuysen  authorized  Phelps  to  present  his  credentials  to 
President  Iglesias  if  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  would  retract  his  state- 
ment to  the  Diplomatic  Corps. 

Apr.  23.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  told  Phelps  that  his  govern- 
ment desired  to  renew  diplomatic  relations  "precisely  as  if  nothing  had  oc- 
curred to  interrupt  them." 

Apr.  24.  Phelps  presented  his  credentials  to  President  Iglesias,  thus 
recognizing  the  Iglesias  government. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Caceres  Government,  1886 

Dec.  2,  1885.  Following  several  months  of  rebellion  by  forces  of  Andres 
Avelino  Caceres  against  the  government  of  President  Iglesias,  both  men, 
through  the  good  offices  of  the  Diplomatic  Corps,  agreed  that  the  govern- 
ment should  be  turned  over  to  a  Council  of  Ministers  until  popular  elections 
for  President  could  be  held. 

Dec.  16.  In  instructing  Minister  Charles  W.  Buck  to  withhold  recogni- 
tion, Secretary  of  State  Thomas  Bayard  pointed  out  that  the  United  States, 
"holding  steadfastly  to  the  principles  of  constitutional  self-government,  can 
not  assume  to  forejudge  the  popular  will  of  Peru  by  ratifying  and  confirm- 
ing an  experimental  and  provisional  order  of  things  they  may  have  indi- 
rectly helped  to  create."  While  he  was  authorized  to  maintain  relations  with 
whatever  government  happened  to  be  in  power.  Buck  was  also  told  that  it 
was  "for  the  President  to  determine  when  and  how  formal  recognition  of 
the  new  government  of  Peru  by  the  United  States  shall  be  effected." 

Mar.  14-21,  1886.  National  elections  were  held  which  resulted  in  the 
election  of  Caceres  as  President. 

Apr.  28.  President  Grover  Cleveland  received  the  Peruvian  Minister, 
who  presented  his  letter  of  recall.  The  United  States  interpreted  this 
action  as  having  the  effect  of  recognizing  the  Provisional  Government  un- 
der the  Council  of  Ministers,  with  the  understanding  that  it  was  soon 
to  be  succeeded  by  a  President  and  Congress  already  elected  by  the  people. 
Buck  was  authorized  to  announce  "this  friendly  action"  in  Peru  on  the 
same  day. 

June  3.  Caceres  was  inaugurated  President. 

June  5.  In  acknowledging  a  note  from  the  Foreign  Minister  the  previous 
day,  which  had  announced  Caceres'  assumption  of  the  Presidency,  Buck 
called  attention  to  President  Cleveland's  remarks  to  the  former  Peruvian 
Minister  in  Washington  on  Apr.  28  as  a  sign  of  the  "sympathetic  disposi- 
tion" of  the  United  States  to  Peru.  By  this  acknowledgment  the  United 
States  recognized  the  Caceres  government. 


November   18,    1974  691 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Borgono  and  Caceres  Governments,  1894 

Ape.  1,  1894.  After  the  death  of  President  Remigo  Morales  Bermiidez, 
former  President  Caceres  led  a  faction  which  opposed  the  succession  of 
First  Vice  President  Pedro  Alejandrino  del  Solar.  In  support  of  Caceres 
police  and  military  officers  took  orders  from  the  Second  Vice  President, 
Justiniano  Borgono,  who  assumed  the  Presidency. 

Apr.  3.  Minister  James  McKenzie  withheld  recognition  and  referred 
the  matter  to  Washington. 

May  26.  The  Department  of  State  transmitted  to  the  Legation  at 
Lima  President  Grover  Cleveland's  acknowledgment  of  Borgoiio's  as- 
sumption of  office. 

June  18.  McKenzie  personally  delivered  President  Cleveland's  letter 
to  Borgono,  thus  formally  recognizing  his  government. 

Aug.  10.  Caceres  was  inaugurated  President  after  his  election  on 
June  3. 

Aug.  14.  McKenzie  extended  recognition  to  the  Caceres  government 
by  acknowledging  receipt  of  the  Foreign  Ministry's  note  of  Aug.  11  which 
announced  the  change  in  government  and  by  reciprocating  the  new  govern- 
ment's wish  to  continue  friendly  relations. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Pierola  Government,  1895 

Mar.  20,  1895.  Following  a  revolt  led  by  former  President  Pierola, 
President  Caceres  turned  over  executive  power  to  a  Provisional  Council, 
which  was  to  call  for  a  Presidential  election  in  the  near  future. 

Mar.  22.  U.S.  Minister  McKenzie,  who  had  joined  the  Diplomatic  Corps 
in  encouraging  the  transfer  of  power,  extended  recognition  to  the  Pro- 
visional Council  through  a  note  addressed  to  the  new  government's 
Foreign  Minister. 

Sept.  8.  After  his  popular  election  in  June  and  subsequent  confirmation 
by  the  electoral  college,  Pierola  was  inaugurated  President. 

Sept.  9.  Charge  Richard  R.  Neill  extended  recognition  to  the  Pierola 
government  by  acknowledging  receipt  of  a  note  from  the  Foreign  Minister 
on  the  same  day  announcing  Pierola's  assumption  of  the  Presidency  and 
by  expressing  the  wish  of  the  United  States  to  continue  friendly  relations 
with  the  new  government. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Benavides  Government,  1914 

Feb.  4,  1914.  A  junta  assumed  power  after  rebel  forces  had  stormed 
the  palace  of  President  Guillermo  Billinghurst,  taking  him  prisoner  and 
forcing  his  resignation.  Col.  Oscar  Benavides  was  named  President  of 
the  junta. 

692  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Feb.  8.  Minister  Benton  McMillin  reported  that  there  was  no  evidence 
of  organized  opposition  to  the  new  government  and  that  none  seemed 
probable.  He  requested  instructions  concerning  recognition  and  gave  his 
own  view  that  ultimate  recognition  was  inevitable. 

Feb.  12.  Secretary  of  State  William  Jennings  Bryan  advised  McMillin 
that  recognition  should  be  extended  to  the  junta  as  a  provisional  govern- 
ment, pending  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  executive,  on  the  basis 
of  the  "uncontested  exercise  of  executive  power"  by  the  junta  and  its 
acceptance  by  the  people. 

May  15.     Oscar  Benavides  was  elected  Provisional  President  by  Con- 
gress and  immediately  sworn  in. 

May  27.  Under  instructions,  McMillin  called  on  the  Foreign  Minister 
and  informed  him  that  the  United  States  recognized  the  Benavides 
government. 


U.S.  De  Facto  and  De  Jure  Recognition  of  the  Leguia  Government,  1919-20 

July  5,  1919.  President-elect  Augusto  Leguia  assumed  the  office  of 
Provisional  President  after  the  forcible  deposition  of  President  Jose 
Pardo,  who  allegedly  was  planning  to  annul  Leguia's  election  in  May. 

July  7.  Minister  McMillin  was  instructed  to  "quietly  avoid  for  the 
present  any  action"  which  would  lead  the  new  regime  to  believe  it  had 
been  recognized. 

Aug.  9.  In  answer  to  an  inquiry  from  the  Department  of  State,  Mc- 
Millin indicated  that  Leguia's  support  was  strong  enough,  especially  in  the 
army,  to  enable  him  "to  overcome  any  and  all  opposition  that  may  arise 
against  his  rule  for  the  present  and  near  future." 

Aug.  26.  In  elections  for  a  new  Congress,  Leguia's  party  won  an  over- 
whelming victory. 

Aug.  30.  Under  instructions,  McMillin  recognized  the  Leguia  regime 
as  the  de  facto  government. 

Oct.  12.    Leguia  was  inaugurated  President. 

Feb.  6,  1920.  Secretary  of  State  Robert  Lansing  urged  recognition  of 
Leguia's  government  as  de  jure  because  of  its  absolute  control,  the  new 
liberal  constitution  which  had  just  been  promulgated,  its  safeguarding  of 
foreigners'  rights  to  real  and  subsoil  property,  its  efforts  to  place  loans 
in  the  United  States,  and  its  recognition  by  other  powers.  President 
Woodrow  Wilson  deferred  action  on  the  recommendation. 

Apr.  24.  De  jure  recognition  was  extended  when  the  newly  appointed 
Ambassador,  William  E.  Gonzales,  presented  to  President  Leguia  his 
credentials  as  well  as  a  congratulatory  letter  from  President  Wilson  on 
Leguia's  assumption  of  the  Presidency. 


November   18,    1974  693 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Sanchez  Cerro  Government,  1930 

Aug.  25,  1930.  President  Leguia  resigned  under  threat  of  a  military 
revolt. 

Aug.  27.    A  junta  headed  by  Col.  Luis  M.  Sanchez  Cerro  assumed  power. 

Aug.  29.  Authorizing  the  Embassy  in  Lima  to  convey  his  feelings  to 
Sanchez  Cerro,  Secretary  of  State  Henry  Stimson  expressed  the  hope  that 
the  new  government  would  not  revert  to  the  days  of  "personal  revenge" 
and  implied  that  the  new  government's  ability  to  protect  the  deposed  mem- 
bers of  the  last  government  would  be  a  factor  in  considering  recognition. 

Sept.  13.  Ambassador  Fred  Bearing  recommended  recognition  of  the 
junta  because  the  people  accepted  it,  it  controlled  all  of  Peru,  it  promised 
to  live  up  to  its  obligations  and  restore  constitutional  government,  and  it 
was  treating  Leguia  well. 

Sept.  18.  Under  instructions.  Bearing  informed  the  Foreign  Minister 
that  he  was  entering  into  full  diplomatic  relations  with  the  junta,  thus 
according  it  recognition. 

U.S.  Continuance  of  Relations  With  the  Samanez  Ocampo  Government,  1931 

Mar.  1,  1931.  Faced  with  increasing  discontent  among  the  armed 
forces  and  the  civilian  population.  President  Sanchez  Cerro  and  the 
entire  junta  handed  their  resignations  to  an  assembly  of  representative 
citizens,  which  then  gave  executive  power  to  a  Triumvirate  headed  by 
Ricardo  Leonicia  Elias. 

Mar.  5.  The  Triumvirate  headed  by  Elias  was  overthrown  in  a  coup 
planned  and  executed  by  army  officers  led  by  Gustavo  A.  Jimenez. 

Mar.  6.  Ambassador  Bearing  rejected  a  request  by  Sanchez  Cerro  that 
Bearing  and  other  members  of  the  Biplomatic  Corps  help  create  a  demand 
for  his  return  to  the  country  in  about  three  months'  time  so  that  he  could 
run  for  the  Presidency. 

Mar.  11.  A  new  junta  was  installed,  with  Bavid  Samanez  Ocampo  as 
its  head. 

Mar.  12.  The  Foreign  Ministry  sent  a  note  to  the  U.S.  Embassy,  in- 
forming it  of  the  change  of  government  and  giving  assurances  that  the 
new  government  would  strictly  comply  with  Peru's  international  obli- 
gations. 

Mar.  13.  Bearing  reported  that  in  view  of  signs  of  disaffection  in  the 
south  of  Peru,  he  was  deferring  any  recommendations  concerning  recog- 
nition of  the  new  government. 

Mar.  18.  Bearing  was  authorized  to  attend  a  reception  being  given 
that  evening  by  the  Foreign  Minister  for  the  Biplomatic  Corps,  but  was 
instructed  to  make  it  clear  that  he  was  not  attending  in  his  "representa- 
tive capacity." 

694  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Apr.  10.  The  Department  of  State  informed  Bearing  that  it  did  not 
favor  his  suggestion  that  the  United  States  support  a  joint  mediation  in 
Peru  by  several  nations  or  by  the  League  of  Nations,  a  suggestion  based 
on  Bearing's  belief  that  renewed  civil  strife  may  have  been  Communist- 
inspired. 

May  8.  Noting  that  only  Spain  and  Norway  had  so  far  extended  recog- 
nition, Secretary  Stimson  requested  further  information  from  Bearing  on 
the  government's  stability  and  popular  support. 

May  15.  Bearing  reported  that  the  government  had  the  support  of  the 
military  and  the  police  and  the  acquiescence  of  the  people  in  general.  He 
recommended  that  the  United  States  adopt  the  position  of  most  of  the 
other  Latin  American  nations ;  namely,  to  continue  relations  with  the  new 
government  without  taking  any  special  recognition  action.  He  argued  that 
such  action  would  tend  "to  stabilize  conditions  in  Peru  and  by  regularizing 
our  intercourse  will  greatly  facilitate  our  current  business." 

May  20.  Acting  on  instructions  received  the  previous  day,  Bearing 
addressed  a  note  to  the  Foreign  Ministry  acknowledging  its  note  of  Mar.  12 
and  stating  that  the  recent  change  in  government  made  no  difference  in 
the  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two  countries. 


U.S.  Recognition  of  the  Sanchez  Cerro  Government,  1931 

July  2,  1931.  Sanchez  Cerro  returned  to  Lima  from  abroad.  Prior  to 
his  arrival,  clashes  occurred  at  Lima  and  Callao  between  his  supporters 
and  police,  resulting  in  many  injuries  and  several  deaths. 

Oct.  11.  In  a  bitterly  contested  election  for  President,  Sanchez  Cerro 
defeated  Victor  Raul  Haya  de  la  Torre,  the  candidate  of  the  Alianza 
Popular  Revolucionaria  Americana  (APRA). 

Dec.  8.  Following  certification  of  his  election  by  the  National  Electoral 
Board  despite  claims  by  impartial  observers  that  Haya  de  la  Torre  had 
won,  Sanchez  Cerro  was  inaugurated  President. 

Bec.  11.  At  a  reception  for  members  of  the  Biplomatic  Corps,  Bearing, 
in  accordance  with  the  Bepartment  of  State's  instruction  of  Bec.  2,  con- 
veyed to  Sanchez  Cerro  the  congratulations  of  President  Herbert  Hoover 
and  his  best  wishes  for  the  success  of  Sanchez  Cerro's  administration. 


U.S.  Continuance  of  Relations  With  the  Benavides  Government,  1933 

July  7,  1932.  After  President  Sanchez  Cerro  had  instituted  a  campaign 
to  crush  opposition  parties  and  had  Haya  de  la  Torre  arrested,  an  uprising 
broke  out  in  Trujillo  which  resulted  in  widespread  casualties. 


November   18,   1974  695 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Apr.  7,  1933.  Because  of  a  variety  of  repressive  acts  by  Sanchez  Cerro, 
Ambassador  Bearing  told  Washington  that  the  basis  for  U.S.  recognition 
of  his  government  had  been  invalidated.  Bearing  proposed  new  courses 
of  action  toward  Sanchez  Cerro,  including  withdrawal  of  recognition, 
severance  of  diplomatic  relations,  and  publicity  of  Sanchez  Cerro's  mis- 
deeds. 

Apr.  30.  Sanchez  Cerro  was  assassinated.  The  government  was  turned 
over  to  a  Council  of  Ministers  which  asked  Congress,  under  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution,  to  elect  a  new  President.  That  same  day  Congress 
chose  Oscar  Benavides  to  serve  the  remainder  of  Sanchez  Cerro's  term. 

Apr.  30.  The  United  States  continued  diplomatic  relations  with  the 
Benavides  government,  although  there  is  no  apparent  record  of  the  deci- 
sion to  do  so  or  of  the  manner  in  which  this  was  communicated  to  the 
Benavides  government. 

July  11.  While  noting  that  the  situation  had  "changed  materially" 
since  Apr.  7  when  Bearing  had  made  his  recommendations  regarding 
U.S.  policy  toward  Sanchez  Cerro,  the  Bepartment  of  State  informed 
Bearing  that  it  had  disapproved  those  recommendations. 


U.S.  Continuance  of  Relations  With  the  Odria  Government,  1948 

Oct.  30,  1948.  In  a  bloodless  coup  d'etat  Gen.  Manuel  Odria  forced  the 
resignation  of  President  Jose  Luis  Bustamente  y  Rivero  and  established 
himself  at  the  head  of  a  military  junta. 

Oct.  31.  The  Foreign  Ministry  informed  the  U.S.  Embassy  of  the 
change  in  government  and  promised  that  the  new  government  would 
respect  Peru's  international  obligations. 

Oct.  31.  Ambassador  Harold  H.  Tittmann,  Jr.,  told  the  Bepartment  of 
State  that  unless  he  was  instructed  otherwise,  he  would  contact  Odria  and 
his  Foreign  Minister  within  the  next  two  days,  basing  his  action  on 
Resolution  35  of  the  Bogota  Conference  held  earlier  in  the  year.  This 
resolution  said  that  continuity  of  diplomatic  relations  among  the  American 
states  was  desirable,  that  action  with  regard  to  diplomatic  relations  should 
not  be  used  as  a  political  weapon,  and  that  establishment  of  diplomatic 
relations  with  a  government  did  not  imply  any  judgment  on  its  domestic 
policy. 

Nov.  12.  The  Bepartment  of  State  informed  the  U.S.  representatives 
in  the  American  Republics  that  in  view  of  the  "revolutionary  and  military 
character"  of  the  Odria  government,  it  was  consulting  with  Organization 
of  American  States  representatives  in  Washington  before  resuming  rela- 
tions. It  also  observed  that  it  was  not  acting  contrary  to  the  Bogota 
Conference  Resolution  35,  which  had  set  no  time  limit  concerning  the 
resumption  of  relations. 


696  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Developments  U.S.   Response 

Nov.  21.  Acting  on  instructions  received  the  previous  day,  Tittmann 
delivered  a  note  to  the  Foreign  Ministry,  acknowledging  receipt  of  its  note 
of  Oct.  31  and  stating  the  desire  of  the  U.S.  Government  to  continue 
friendly  relations  with  the  Odria  government. 


Suspension  of  Relations  With  and  Delayed  U.S.  Recognition 
OF  the  Perez  Godoy  Government,  1962 

June  10,  1962.  In  the  Presidential  election,  although  Haya  de  la  Torre 
had  more  votes  than  either  of  his  two  opponents,  none  of  the  candidates 
received  the  necessary  one-third  plurality  required  for  election.  By  law 
the  President  would  be  chosen  by  Congress  when  it  convened  on  July  28. 

July  13.  The  Joint  Armed  Forces  Command,  fearful  of  a  deal  that 
would  give  former  President  Odria  the  Presidency  and  Haya  de  la  Torre 
control  of  the  Cabinet,  demanded  that  President  Manuel  Prado  annul  the 
entire  election  as  fraudulent  and  that  an  interim  government  be  estab- 
lished to  serve  after  the  end  of  Prado's  term  until  new  elections  could  be 
held. 

July  18.  An  army  combat  team  drove  a  tank  through  the  gates  of  the 
Presidential  Palace  and  arrested  President  Prado.  Gen.  Ricardo  Perez 
Godoy  proclaimed  himself  President.  Constitutional  guarantees  were 
suspended.  Congress  was  dissolved,  and  the  election  results  were  annulled, 
with  the  promise  that  free  elections  would  be  held  in  June  1963. 

July  18.  The  Foreign  Ministry  addressed  a  note  to  the  U.S.  Embassy 
announcing  the  change  in  government  and  giving  assurances  that  the  new 
government  would  honor  its  international  obligations. 

July  18.  A  statement  issued  by  the  Department  of  State  said,  "We 
must  deplore  this  military  coup  d'etat  which  has  overthrown  the  constitu- 
tional Government  of  Peru.  .  .  .  our  diplomatic  relations  with  Peru  have 
been  suspended."  The  Department  of  State  announced  the  following  day 
the  suspension  of  the  various  assistance  programs  to  Peru,  "with  certain 
relatively  minor  exceptions  where  important  humanitarian  factors  are 
involved." 

July  23.  When  asked  at  a  press  conference  about  the  apparent  incon- 
sistency in  withholding  aid  from  a  military  dictatorship  in  Peru  while 
at  the  same  time  asking  Congress  for  discretionary  power  to  continue 
most-favored-nation  status  for  Communist  dictatorships  in  Poland  and 
Yugoslavia,  President  John  F.  Kennedy  replied:  "We  are  anxious  to  see 
a  return  to  constitutional  forms  in  Peru,  and  therefore  until  we  know 
what  is  going  to  happen  in  Peru,  we  are  prudent  in  making  our  judgments 
as  to  what  we  shall  do.  We  think  it's  in  our  national  interest,  and  I  think 
the  aid  we're  giving  in  other  areas  is  in  our  national  interest,  because  we 
feel  that  this  hemisphere  can  only  be  secure  and  free  with  democratic 
governments." 


November   18,    1974  697 


Developments  U.S.  Response 

Aug.  1.  At  a  press  conference  President  Kennedy  indicated  that  the 
United  States  had  been  encouraged  by  signs  that  Peru  was  returning  to 
"constitutional  free  government,  which  is  the  object  of  the  Alliance  for 
Progress." 

Aug.  17.  The  Department  of  State  announced  that  the  United  States 
was  resuming  relations  with  the  Peruvian  government  and  extending 
recognition  to  the  Perez  Godoy  junta  by  having  Charge  Douglas  Hender- 
son acknowledge  receipt  of  the  Foreign  Ministry's  note  of  July  18.  It  is 
also  stated  that  economic  assistance  to  Peru  was  being  resumed.  Military 
assistance,  however,  was  withheld. 


U.S.  Suspension  and  Resumption  of  Relations  With  the  Velasco  Government,  1968 

Oct.  3,  1968.  A  group  of  military  officers,  supported  by  a  column  of 
tanks,  forcibly  removed  President  Fernando  Belaunde  Terry  from  office 
and  put  him  on  a  plane  to  Buenos  Aires.  A  junta  of  military  service 
commanders  issued  a  Revolutionary  Manifesto  and  Statutes,  dissolved  the 
Congress,  and  proclaimed  as  President  Juan  Velasco  Alvarado,  Command- 
ing General  of  the  Army  and  Acting  President  of  the  Armed  Forces 
Command. 

Oct.  4.  It  was  announced  at  a  Department  of  State  press  briefing  that 
"the  overthrow  of  the  Peruvian  Government  by  the  military  forces  has 
the  efl'ect  of  suspending  normal  diplomatic  relations  between  Peru  and 
the  United  States."    Aid  programs  to  Peru  were  also  suspended. 

Oct.  9.  The  new  government  officially  seized  the  major  holdings  of 
the  International  Petroleum  Company. 

Oct.  25.  At  a  Department  of  State  press  briefing,  a  spokesman  said 
that  "the  American  Embassy  in  Lima  advised  the  Peruvian  Ministry  of 
Foreign  Aff'airs  at  noon  today  that  the  United  States  Government  has 
resumed  diplomatic  relations  with  the  Government  of  Peru."  The  deci- 
sion was  made,  he  said,  after  consultations  with  other  Organization  of 
American  States  members  in  accordance  with  Resolution  26  of  the  1965 
Rio  de  Janeiro  Conference  and  after  the  new  government  had  stated  its 
intention  to  honor  Peru's  international  obligations  and  to  return  to 
constitutional  government.  He  also  said  that  the  seizure  of  the  Interna- 
tional Petroleum  Company's  holdings  had  not  been  a  factor  in  the  decision 
to  resume  relations.  Aid  programs  for  Peru  remained  "under  review." 
(Most  aid  programs  were  soon  resumed.) 


698  Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Atomic  Energy 

Memorandum  of  understanding  in  the  field  of  nuclear 

science  and  technical  information,  with  minutes  of 

signature.  Done   at   Brussels   September   19,   1974. 

Entered  into  force  September  19,  1974. 

Signatures:    Belgium,    European    Atomic    Energy 

Community,    Federal    Republic    of    Germany," 

Ireland,    Italy,    Luxembourg,    Netherlands,    and 

the  United  States,  September  19,  1974. 

Coffee 

Protocol  for  the  continuation  in  force  of  the  interna- 
tional coffee  agreement  1968,  as  amended  and  ex- 
tended, with  annex.  Approved  by  the  International 
Coffee  Council  at  London  September  26,  1974.  Open 
for  signature  November  1,  1974,  through  March 
31,  1975.  Enters  into  force  definitively  October  1, 
1975,  if  governments  which  have  signed  not  sub- 
ject to  approval,  ratification,  or  acceptance  or 
which  have  deposited  instruments  of  approval,  rat- 
ification, or  acceptance  represent  at  least  20  ex- 
porting members  holding  a  majority  of  the  votes 
of  exporting  members  and  at  least  10  importing 
members  holding  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  im- 
porting members  or,  provisionally,  October  1,  1975, 
if  above  number  of  governments  deposit  notifica- 
tions undertaking  to  apply  protocol  provisionally 
and  to  seek  approval,  ratification,  or  acceptance. 

Cultural  Property 

Convention  on  the  means  of  prohibiting  and  prevent- 
ing the  illicit  import,  export  and  transfer  of  own- 
ership of  cultural  property.  Adopted  at  Paris  No- 
vember 14,  1970.  Entered  into  force  April  24, 
1972.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Jordan,  March  15,  1974. 

Disputes 

Convention  on  the  settlement  of  investment  disputes 
between  states  and  nationals  of  other  states.  Done 
at  Washington  March  18,  1965.  Entered  into  force 
October  14,  1966.    TIAS  6090. 
Signature:  The  Gambia,  October  1,  1974. 

International  Court  of  Justice 

Statute  of  the  International  Court  of  Justice  (59 
Stat.  1055). 

Declaration    recognizing    compulsory    jurisdiction 
deposited:  India,  September  18,  1974.* 

Maritime  Matters 

Amendment  of  article  VII  of  the  convention  on  fa- 
cilitation  of    international    maritime   traffic,    1965 


(TIAS   6251).   Adopted   at   London   November   19, 
1973.'' 

Acceptance  deposited:  Denmark,  March  28,  1974; 
United  Kingdom,  October  7,  1974. 

Oil  Pollution 

Amendments  to  the  international  convention  for  the 
prevention  of  pollution  of  the  sea  by  oil,  1954,  as 
amended  (TIAS  4900,  6109).  Adopted  at  London 
October  15,  1971." 

Acceptance   deposited:    United   Kingdom,    October 
14,1974. 

Patents 

Strasbourg  agreement  concerning  the   international 
patent   classification.    Done    at   Strasbourg   March 
24,  1971.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Brazil,  October  3,  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  en- 
tered into  force  January  1,  1971.  TIAS  7150. 
Accession  deposited:  The  Gambia,  July  2,  1974. 

.Additional  protocol  to  the  constitution  of  the  Uni- 
versal Postal  Union  with  final  protocol  signed  at 
Vienna  July  10,  1964  (TIAS  5881),  general  regula- 
tions with  final  protocol  and  annex,  and  the  uni- 
versal postal  convention  with  final  protocol  and  de- 
tailed 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. 
Ratifications  deposited:  Malagasy  Republic,  Janu- 
ary 9,  1973;  Malaysia,  May  17,  1974. 

Money  orders  and  postal  travellers'  cheques  agree- 
ment, with  detailed  regulations  and  forms.  Signed 
at  Tokyo  November  14,  1969.  Entered  into  force 
July  1,  1971;  for  the  United  States  December  31, 
1971.  TIAS  7236. 

Approval  deposited:  Malagasy  Republic,  January 
9, 1973. 

Property — Industrial 

Convention  of  Paris  for  the  protection  of  industrial 
property  of  March  20,   1883,  as  revised.   Done  at 
Stockholm  July  14,  1967.  Articles  1  through  12  en- 
tered   into    force    May    19,    1970;    for   the    United 
States  August  25,  1973.  Articles  13  through  30  en- 
tered  into   force    April    26,   1970;    for   the   United 
States  September  5,  1970.  TIAS  6923,  7727. 
Notification  from  World  Intellectual  Property  Or- 
ganization  that  ratification   deposited:   Nether- 
lands  (applicable  to  Surinam  and  Netherlands 
Antilles),  October  10,  1974. 


With  reservation. 
'  Applicable  to  Land  Berlin. 
'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 
'  With  conditions. 
'  Not  in  force. 


November   18,    1974 


699 


Property — Intellectual 

Convention  establishing  the  World  Intellectual  Prop- 
erty   Organization.    Done    at    Stockholm    July    14, 
1967.   Entered   into  force  April  26,   1970;   for  the 
United  States  August  25,  1970.  TIAS  6932. 
Ratification  deposited:  Netherlands   (applicable  to 
Surinam  and  Netherlands  Antilles),   October  9, 
1974. 
Notifications  of  intention  to  apply  transitional  pro- 
visions: Cyprus,  Indonesia,  September  20,  1974. 

Space 

Convention  on  international  liability  for  damage 
caused  by  space  objects.  Done  at  Washington,  Lon- 
don, and  Moscow  March  29,  1972.  Entered  into 
force  September  1,  1972;  for  the  United  States 
October  9,  1973.  TIAS  7762. 

Ratification  deposited:  New  Zealand,   October  30, 
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.' 
Signature:  Ecuador,  August  27,  1974.^ 

Treaties 

Vienna  convention  on  the  law  of  treaties,  with  an- 
nex. Done  at  Vienna  May  23,  1969.'- 
Ratification    deposited:     Mexico,     September     25, 
1974. 


BILATERAL 

Iceland 

Agreement  relating  to  the  continuation  of  the  de- 
fense agreement  of  May  5,  1951  (TIAS  2266), 
w'ith  memorandum  of  understanding  and  agreed 
minute.  Effected  by  e.xchange  of  notes  at  Reykja- 
vik October  22,  1974.  Entered  into  force  October 
22,  1974. 

Japan 

Arrangement  concerning  trade  in  cotton,  wool,  and 
.     manmade   fiber  textiles,  with   related  letters.   Ef- 
fected by  exchange  of  notes  at  Washington   Sep- 
tember 27,  1974.  Entered  into  force  September  27, 
1974,  effective  October  1,  1974. 

Viet-Nam 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  of  November  8 
and  December  14,  1972  (TIAS  7534),  relating  to 
the  transfer  of  scrap  to  Viet-Nam  as  supplemen- 
tary military  assistance.  Effected  by  exchange  of 
notes  at  Saigon  September  3  and  October  14, 
1974.  Entered  into  force  October  14,  1974. 


PUBLICATIONS 


'  With  reservation. 

"  Not  in  force. 

"  With  declaration. 


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. 
201,02.  A  25-percent  discount  is  7nade  on  orders  for 
100  or  more  copies  of  any  one  publication  mailed  to 
the  same  address.  Remittances,  payable  to  the  Su- 
perintendeyit  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. 

Bermuda Cat.   No.  SI. 123:345 

Pub.  7907         4  pp. 

Haiti Cat.  No.  S1.123:H12 

Pub.  8287         4  pp. 

Iraq Cat.  No.  S1.123:IRl/2 

Pub.  7975  4  pp. 

Jamaica Cat.  No.   S1.123:J22 

Pub.  8080  4  pp. 

Libya Cat.   No.   S1.123:L61 

Pub.  7815         5  pp. 

International  Coffee  Agreement.  Amending  and  ex- 
tending the  agreement  of  March  18,  1968.  TIAS 
7809.   237  pp.    $1.90.  (Cat.  No.  S9.10:7809). 

Nonscheduled  Air  Services.  Agreement,  with  proto- 
col, with  Yugoslavia.  TIAS  7819.  56  pp.  65^.  (Cat. 
No.  89.10:7819). 

Trade  in  Cotton  Textiles.  Agreement  with  Egypt. 
TIAS  7828.    3  pp.    25('.  (Cat.  No.  S9.10:7828). 

Space  Research  Project.  Agreement  with  Brazil  and 
the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany.  TIAS  7830.  10 
pp.   25<*.  (Cat.  No.  S9.10:7830). 

Finance — Public  Law  480  and  Other  Funds.  Agree- 
ment with  India.  TIAS  7831.  39  pp.  45<'.  (Cat.  No. 
S9.10:7831). 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Guinea. 
TIAS  7835.   11  pp.    25('.  (Cat.  No.  S9.10:7835). 

Extradition.  Treaty  with  Paraguay.  TIAS  7838.  26 
pp.   35('.  (Cat.  No.  S9.10:7838). 


700 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


INDEX     November  18, 197Jt     Vol.  LXXI,No.  18A7 


Claims.    Notice    of    Time    for    Filing    Claims 

Against  Egypt  by  U.S.  Nationals    ....       669 

Communications.  Telecommunication  Conven- 
tion Transmitted  to  the  Senate  (message 
from  President  Ford) 668 

Congress 

Congressional  Documents  Relating  to  Foreign 

Policy 669 

Senate  Confirms  U.S.  Delegation  to  UNESCO 

General  Conference 667 

Telecommunication  Convention  Transmitted  to 

the  Senate   (message  from  President  Ford)       668 

Egypt 

Notice    of    Time    for    Filing    Claims    Against 

Egypt  by  U.S.  Nationals 669 

U.S.  Supports  Extension  of  Mandate  of  U.N. 
Force  in  Egypt-Israel  Sector  (Scali,  text  of 
resolution) 674 

Foreign  Aid.  U.S.  Reviews  Disaster  Relief  Ef- 
forts for  Hurricane  Victims  in  Honduras 
(Ferguson) 670 

Historical  Studies.  U.S.  Policy  Toward  Gov- 
ernments of  Peru,  1822-Present:  Questions 
of  Recognition  and  Diplomatic  Relations 
(tabular  summary) 677 

Honduras.  U.S.  Reviews  Disaster  Relief  Ef- 
forts for  Hurricane  Victims  in  Honduras 
(Ferguson) 670 

Israel.  U.S.  Supports  Extension  of  Mandate 
of  U.N.  Force  in  Egypt-Israel  Sector  (Scali, 
text  of  resolution) 674 

Mexico.  President  Ford  Meets  With  President 

Echeverria  of  Mexico  (Ford,  Echeverria)    .       661 

Middle  East.  U.S.  Supports  Extension  of  Man- 
date of  U.N.  Force  in  Egypt-Israel  Sector 
(Scali,  text  of  resolution) 674 

Mozambique.  U.S.  Congratulates  Mozam- 
bique's Joint  Transitional  Government  (text 
of  letter) 668 

Peru.  U.S.  Policy  Toward  Governments  of 
Peru,  1822-Present:  Questions  of  Recogni- 
tion and  Diplomatic  Relations  (tabular  sum- 
mary)      677 

Portugal.  U.S.  Congratulates  Mozambique's 
Joint  Transitional  Government  (text  of  let- 
ter)     668 

Presidential  Documents 

President  Ford  Meets  With  President  Eche- 
verria of  Mexico 661 

Telecommunication  Convention  Transmitted  to 

the   Senate 668 

Publications.  GPO  Sales  Publications  ....       699 

South    Africa.    U.S.    Reaffirms    Opposition    to 

South  African  Apartheid  (Segel)    ....       672 

Southern  Rhodesia.  U.S.  Takes  Further  Steps 
To  Enforce  Sanctions  Against  Southern 
Rhodesia   (White) 673 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 699 

Telecommunication  Convention  Transmitted  to 

the  Senate   (message  from  President  Ford)       668 

United  Nations 

Senate  Confirms  U.S.  Delegation  to  UNESCO 

General  Conference 667 

United  Nations  Documents 676 

U.S.    Reaffirms   Opposition   to    South   African 

Apartheid    (Segel) 672 


U.S.  Reviews  Disaster  Relief  Efforts  for  Hur- 
ricane Victims  in  Honduras  (Ferguson)    .     .       670 

U.S.  Supports  Extension  of  Mandate  of  U.N. 
Force  in  Egypt-Israel  Sector  (Scali,  text  of 
resolution) 674 

U.S.  Takes  Further  Steps  To  Enforce  Sanc- 
tions Against  Southern  Rhodesia  (White)    .       673 

Name  Index 

Echeverria,  Luis 661 

Ferguson,  Clarence  Clyde,  Jr 670 

Ford,   President 661,668 

Scali,  John 674 

Segel,  Joseph   M 672 

White,   Barbara   M 673 


Check  List  of 

Department  of  State 

Press  Releases:  October  28-Noveniber  3 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 

fice of  Press 

Relations,  Department  of  State, 

Washington, 

D.C.  20520. 

Release  issued  prior  to  October  28  which  ap-      | 

pears 

in  this 

issue  of  the  Bulletin  is  429  of 

October  18. 

No. 

Date 

Subject 

1445 

10/28 

Kissinger:     Indian     Council     on 
World  Affairs,  New  Delhi. 

*446 

10/29 

Shipping   Coordinating   Commit- 
tee Subcommittee  on  Maritime 
Law,  Nov.  20. 

*447 

10/29 

Chinese    art    and    archaeological 
exhibition    to    tour   U.S.,    Dec. 
13-June  8. 

t448 

10/29 

Kissinger,   Chavan:   toasts,  New 
Delhi,  Oct.  28. 

1449 

10/30 

U.S. -India  joint  communique. 

*450 

10/30 

U.S.    delegation    to    the    World 
Food  Conference. 

t451 

10/30 

Kissinger:  news  conference,  New 
Delhi. 

*452 

10/30 

Advisory  Committee  on  Interna- 
tional  Book  and  Library  Pro- 
grams, Nov.  22. 

*453 

10/31 

Emmet  J.   Kay  to  receive  Trib- 
ute of  Appreciation  (biograph- 
ic data). 

+454 

10/31 

Kissinger:  remarks  on  All-India 
Radio,  Oct.  30. 

+455 

10/31 

Kissinger:     remarks     to     press, 
Dacca,  Oct.  30. 

+456 

10/31 

Kissinger,  Hossain:  exchange  of 
toasts,  Dacca,  Oct.  30. 

+457 

10/31 

U.S. -Bangladesh  joint  communi- 
que. 

+458 

11/1 

Ingersoll:   remarks  at   presenta- 
tion   of   award    to    Emmet   J. 
Kay. 

+459 

11/1 

Kissinger,   Bhutto:   exchange    of 
toasts,  Rawalpindi,  Oct.  31. 

+460 

10/31 

U.S.-Pakistan  joint  communique. 

*461 

11/1 

Kissinger:  departure,  Islamabad. 

+462 

11/1 

U.S. -Afghanistan      joint      state- 
ment. 

+463 

11/2 

U.S.-Iran  joint  communique. 

+464 

11/2 

Kissinger,  Ansary:  news  confer- 
ence, Tehran. 

ed. 

*  Not  prin' 

+  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.     aOVERNMENT     PRIKTING     OPFICE 

Special   Fourfb-Closi   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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


/J: 


7/ 


V^^S 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1848 


November  25,  1974 


SECRETARY  KISSINGER  VISITS  THE  U.S.S.R.,  SOUTH  ASIA,  IRAN, 
ROMANIA,  YUGOSLAVIA,  AND  ITALY     701 

TOWARD  A  GLOBAL  COMMUNITY:   THE  COMMON  CAUSE 
OF  INDIA  AND  AMERICA 

Address  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
Before  the  Indian  Council  on  World  Affairs     740 


H'-- 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POUCY 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE    BULLETIN 


Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1848 
November  25,  1974 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Document* 

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:    Contenta    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, 
a  weekly  publication  issued  by  the 
OMce  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  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  Departmerft  of 
State,  United  Nations  documents,  and 
legislative  material  in  the  field  of 
international  relations  are  also  listed. 


Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the  U.S.S.R.,  South  Asia,  Iran, 
Romania,  Yugoslavia,  and  Italy 


Secretai-y  Kissinger  visited  the  U.S.S.R., 
India,  Bangladesh,  Pakistan,  Afghanistan, 
Iran,  Romania,  Yugoslavia,  Italy,  Egypt, 
Saudi  Arabia,  Jordan,  Syria,  Israel,  and  Tu- 
nisia October  23-November  9.  Following  are 
remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger  and  foreign 
leaders  and  texts  of  joint  statements  and 
communiques  issued  through  his  visit  to 
Italy.' 


THE  VISIT  TO  THE   U.S.S.R.,  OCTOBER  23-27 

Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
Upon  Arrival,  Moscow,  October  23 

Press  release  435  dated  October  23 

I  want  to  express  my  pleasure  at  being 
in  Moscow  again.  We  expect  to  have  very 
full,  very  friendly,  and  very  constructive 
talks  as  a  continuation  of  the  dialogue  which 
has  gone  on  for  many  years  now  and  which 
we  believe  is  of  benefit  to  the  people  of  our 
two  countries  and  to  all  of  the  peoples  of 
the  world  in  the  interests  of  peace. 

Thank  you. 

Q.   [hiaudible] . 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Ever  since  1972  there 
have  been  regular  consultations  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union  across 
the  whole  range  of  international  issues,  so 
we  will  review  bilateral  relations,  interna- 
tional relations,  in  a  friendly  spirit  and  with 


'  Secretary  Kissinger's  address  before  the  World 
Food  Conference  Nov.  5  and  remarks  made  Nov.  5-9 
and  at  Moscow  Oct.  26  will  appear  in  later  issues  of 
the  Bulletin. 


the  attitude  of  making  a  constructive  contri- 
bution toward  peace. 

Q.  How  would  you  evaluate  the  present 
state  of  Soviet-American  relations? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  the  present 
status  of  Soviet-American  relations  is  good, 
and  we  are  determined  to  improve  it  still 
further. 

Q.  What  kind  of  progress  can  be  expected 
in  the  nearest  future  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I'm  here  with 
the  attitude  of  making  progress  in  these 
talks.  I'm  also  delighted  that  my  wife  is 
with  me  for  the  first  time. 

Q.  Thank  you  very  much. 


Luncheon  Hosted  by  Foreign  Minister  Gromyko, 
Moscow,  October  24 

Press  release  436  dated  October  24 

Toast  by  Foreign  Minister  Gromyko 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  Mrs.  Kissinger, 
ladies  and  gentlemen :  We  express  our  satis- 
faction with  the  fact  that  the  Secretary  of 
State  is  once  again  on  a  visit  to  the  Soviet 
Union  and  we  have  another  opportunity  to 
exchange  views  between  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  our  leaders  on  very  important 
questions  of  international  politics.  You  had 
your  first  conversation  with  Leonid  Brezhnev, 
the  General  Secretary  of  the  Communist 
Party.  He  was  pleased,  together  with  my 
other  colleagues,  with  this  talk,  and  this  is 
what  I  would  like  to  say.  This  conversation 
was  a  very  useful  one  with  a  very  important 


November  25,   1974 


701 


content.  While  there  are  still  very  impor- 
tant questions  remaining  to  be  discussed,  I 
can  say  quite  confidently  that  both  sides  are 
encouraged  in  these  frank  discussions  and 
that  this  is  in  accord  with  the  practice  that 
has  come  into  being  between  members  of  the 
Soviet  Union  and  the  United  States. 

Already  on  the  basis  of  this  discussion,  I 
am  sure  that  you  have  been  able  to  draw 
the  conclusion  that  the  Soviet  leadership  on 
the  whole  and  Leonid  Brezhnev,  our  Secre- 
tary, is  in  favor  of  continuing  the  line  that 
was  initiated  between  our  two  countries. 
Achievements  of  great  importance  have  been 
registered  in  Soviet-American  relations. 
They  are  well  known,  and  I  will  not  go  over 
them  again.  But  now  the  main  task  is  to 
continue  the  line  jointly  taken  in  these  rela- 
tions and  develop  and  encourage  these  rela- 
tions. The  Soviet  Government  is  still  firmly 
in  favor  of  continuing  that  line. 

Leonid  Brezhnev  during  that  conversation 
expressed  his  satisfaction  with  the  state- 
ments made  by  President  Ford,  who  is  in 
favor  of  developing  Soviet-American  rela- 
tions and  who  is  in  favor  of  continuing  that 
line.  This  is  fully  in  accord  with  our  own 
line  of  policy. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  this  has  indeed 
been  emphasized  on  both  sides ;  that  further 
success — and  we  would  like  to  say  further 
and  big  successes — require  efforts,  and  vigor- 
ous efforts,  on  both  sides.  We  are  prepared 
to  make  those  efforts.  I  believe  that  if  both 
sides  display  the  determination  to  continue 
and  advance  along  this  path,  both  the  United 
States  and  the  Soviet  Union  and  both  the 
American  people  and  the  Soviet  people  can 
look  confidently  and  optimistically  into  the 
future.  As  I  said,  there  are  still  many  more 
important  questions  to  be  discussed,  ques- 
tions of  great  importance,  and  it  is  therefore 
too  early  to  speak  or  even  hint  at  the 
possible  outcome  of  these  meetings.  But  I 
would  like  to  express  the  hope  that  our  meet- 
ings with  you  on  these  matters  which  are 
of  immense  interest  for  the  entire  world  will 
lead  to  positive  results. 

We  regret  that  this  visit  is  all  too  brief, 
and  once  again  you  will  not  be  able  to  see 


very  much  outside  of  Moscow.  As  I  see  it, 
you  still  have  certain  doubts  as  to  the  exist- 
ence of  Leningrad.  But  we  hope  that  after 
Mrs.  Kissinger's  trip  to  Leningrad,  she  will 
succeed  in  confirming  to  you  that  Leningrad 
does  exist. 

I  would  like  to  raise  our  glasses  in  a  toast 
to  the  positive  outcome  of  these  meetings,  to 
the  strength  of  cooperation  of  the  Soviet 
Union  and  the  United  States,  of  the  joint 
interest  in  detente  and  the  strengthening  of 
relations  between  the  Soviet  Union  and  the 
United  States. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  distinguished  guests 
and  friends,  and  Mrs.  Gromyko :  I  have  been 
asked  as  usual  a  very  direct  question  by  the 
Foreign  Minister,  which  is  to  affirm  the 
existence  of  Leningrad.  All  I  can  say  is  that 
we  are  in  the  preliminary  stage  of  our  nego- 
tiations. It  is  too  early  to  draw  a  final 
conclusion,  but  we  have  talked  in  a  construc- 
tive and  positive  manner  and  I  think  with 
good  will  on  both  sides  we  may  achieve  a 
reasonable  conclusion.  We  cannot  expect  to 
make  a  unilateral  concession — on  so  grave  a 
question  that  must  be  on   a   mutual   basis. 

On  behalf  of  Mrs.  Kissinger  and  myself 
and  my  colleagues,  let  me  thank  you  for  the 
characteristically  warm  reception  that  we 
have  received  here  in  a  country  that  based  its 
views  on  the  predominance  of  objective  fac- 
tors. Those  of  us  who  come  from  an  earlier 
stage  of  ideological  development  can  perhaps 
say  a  personal  word :  When  we  come  to 
Moscow  we  no  longer  feel  that  we  are  among 
foreigners.  We  have  been  colleagues  now 
through  many  difficult  negotiations  through 
many  complicated  periods  in  pursuit  of  a 
common  objective.  We  are  committed  to  im- 
proving relations  between  our  two  countries, 
to  strengthen  detente  and  thereby  enhance 
peace  for  all  the  peoples  of  the  world. 

We  speak  with  great  frankness,  and  there 
are  many  occasions  when  we  do  not  agree. 
But  we  are  always  animated  by  the  desire  to 
narrow  our  differences  and  to  achieve  our 
common  purposes. 

As  we  look  back  at  the  past  two  years, 


702 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


there  have  been,  of  course,  a  few  disappoint- 
ments. But  the  main  trend  has  been  ex- 
tremely positive.  We  have  agreed  on  major 
principles,  and  we  have  achieved  many  spe- 
cific agreements.  We  exchange  ideas  on  all 
great  problems  with  great  frankness  and 
generally  with  very  positive  results. 

When  I  came  to  Washington,  the  Soviet 
Union  was  considered  a  permanent  adver- 
sary. Today  one  can  already  say  that  the 
possibilities  of  war  between  our  two  coun- 
tries have  been  reduced  to  negligible  pro- 
portions and  the  tensions  which  were  so 
characteristic  of  earlier  periods  have  largely 
been  stemmed.  Now  our  objective  is  to  give 
this  condition  a  permanent  and  irreversible 
basis.  Through  all  the  ups  and  downs  in 
our  relations,  through  a  change  in  adminis- 
tration, it  has  been  a  firm  and  continuing 
principle  of  American  policy  that  the  United 
States  and  Soviet  Union  have  a  very  special 
responsibility  for  preserving  the  peace  in 
the  world  and  for  contributing  to  the  positive 
aspirations  of  mankind.  This  positive  peace 
responsibility  will  be  fostered  with  great 
energy  by  our  administration.  It  is  in  this 
spirit  that  we  conducted  our  first  talks  this 
morning  with  the  General  Secretary. 

I  fully  agree  with  the  evaluation  of  the 
Foreign  Minister  that  the  talks  this  morning 
were  useful.  It  was  a  very  good  beginning.  I 
agree  with  him  further  that  with  great 
efl'orts  on  both  sides  we  can  mark  very  con- 
siderable progress  in  the  months  ahead.  I 
can  pledge  these  efforts  from  the  American 
side.  We  note  the  comments  made  by  the 
Foreign  Minister  with  respect  to  the  Soviet 
side,  so  we  realize  the  potentialities  that  are 
before  us.  This  process  of  detente  which  we 
started  and  are  now  continuing  will  mark  a 
historic  change  in  people  and  a  major  ad- 
vance toward  a  lasting  peace.  It  is  in  this 
spirit  that  we  will  conduct  not  only  these 
discussions  but  our  entire  relations. 

It  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  would  like  to 
propose  a  toast  to  the  Foreign  Minister,  to 
the  expansion  of  relations  between  the  Soviet 
Union  and  the  United  States,  for  the  friend- 
ship between  Soviet  and  American  people, 
and  to  permanent  peace. 


Communique  on  the  Visit  to  the  U.S.S.R.- 

As  previously  agreed,  Henry  A.  Kissinger,  Secre- 
tary of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America  and 
Assistant  to  the  President  for  National  Security  Af- 
fairs, visited  Moscow  from  October  23  to  October  27. 

He  had  discussions  with  Leonid  I.  Brezhnev,  Gen- 
eral Secretary  of  the  Central  Committee  of  the  Com- 
munist Party  of  the  Soviet  Union,  and  Andrei  A. 
Gromyko,  Member  of  the  Politburo  of  the  Central 
Committee  of  the  Communist  Party  of  the  Soviet 
Union,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  USSR. 

Taking  part  in  the  discussions  on  the  Soviet  side 
were : 

The  Ambassador  of  the  USSR  in  the  United  States, 
A.  F.  Dobrynin 

Assistant  to  the  General  Secretary  of  the  Central 
Committee  of  the  Communist  Party  of  the  So- 
viet Union,  A.  M.  Alexandrov 

Member  of  the  Collegium  of  the  Ministry  of  For- 
eign Affairs  of  the  USSR,  G.  M.  Komiyenko. 

On  the  American  side: 

The  Ambassador  of  the  United  States  to  the 
USSR,  Walter  J.  Stoessel,  Jr. 

Officials  of  the  Department  of  State:  Helmut  Son- 
nenfeldt,  Arthur  A.  Hartman,  Alfred  A.  Ather- 
ton,  William  G.  Hyland,  Winston  Lord;  and  Jan 
M.  Lodal  and  A.  Denis  Clift  of  the  staff  of  the 
National  Security  Council. 

In  the  course  of  the  discussions,  a  thorough  ex- 
change of  views  took  place  on  a  wide  range  of  is- 
sues concerning  American-Soviet  relations  and  on  a 
number  of  current  international  problems. 

The  two  sides  noted  with  satisfaction  that  the  rela- 
tions between  the  USA  and  the  USSR  continue  to 
improve  steadily,  in  accordance  with  the  course  pre- 
viously established. 

In  this  connection  they  again  emphasized  the  fun- 
damental importance  of  the  decisions  taken  as  a  re- 
sult of  the  U.S. -Soviet  summit  meetings,  and  ex- 
pressed their  mutual  determination  to  continue  to 
make  energetic  efforts  to  ensure  uninterrupted  prog- 
ress in  U.S. -Soviet  relations. 

Particular  attention  was  given  to  the  problem  of 
the  further  limitation  of  strategic  arms.  In  their  con- 
sideration of  this  problem  the  two  sides  were  guided 
by  the  fundamental  understanding  with  regard  to  de- 
veloping a  new  long-term  agreement  which  is  to  fol- 
low the  Interim  Agreement  of  May  26,  1972.  Useful 
exchanges  took  place  on  the  details  involved  in  such 
an  agreement.  Discussions  on  these  matters  will  con- 
tinue. 

The  two  sides  noted  that  as  a  whole  ties  in  various 
spheres  between  the  USA  and  the  USSR  have  been 


-  Issued   at  Moscow  Oct.  27   (text  from  press  re- 
lease 442). 


November  25,   1974 


703 


developing  successfully.  They  agreed  that  full  im- 
plementation of  the  agreements  already  concluded 
will  open  favorable  prospects  for  further  expansion 
of  mutually  beneficial  cooperation  between  the  two 
countries. 

The  two  sides  continue  to  be  concerned  over  the 
situation  in  the  Middle  East.  They  reaffirmed  their 
determination  to  make  efforts  to  find  solutions  to 
the  key  questions  of  a  just  and  lasting  settlement  in 
the  area.  The  two  sides  agreed  that  the  early  recon- 
vening of  the  Geneva  Conference  should  play  a  use- 
ful role  in  finding  such  a  settlement. 

Noting  the  progress  achieved  by  the  Conference 
on  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe,  the  two 
sides  wdll  continue  to  work  actively  for  its  success- 
ful conclusion  at  an  early  date.  They  also  believe  that 
it  is  possible  to  achieve  progress  at  the  talks  on  mu- 
tual reduction  of  armed  forces  and  armaments  in 
Central  Europe. 

The  exchange  of  views  was  marked  by  a  business- 
like and  constructive  spirit.  Both  sides  consider  it 
highly  useful.  In  this  connection  they  reaffirmed  the 
positive  value  of  the  established  practice  of  regular 
consultations  between  the  two  countries.  Both  sides 
emphasized  the  special  importance  of  summit  meet- 
ings for  a  constructive  development  of  relations  be- 
tween the  USA  and  the  USSR.  As  has  been  an- 
nounced, Gerald  R.  Ford,  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  L.  I.  Brezhnev,  General  Secretary  of  the 
Central  Committee  of  the  CPSU,  will  hold  a  work- 
ing meeting  in  the  vicinity  of  Vladivostok  at  the  end 
of  November  1974. 


THE  VISIT  TO   INDIA,  OCTOBER  27-30 

Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
Upon  Arrival,  New  Delhi,  October  27 

Press  release  443  dated  October  27 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister:  This  is  my  first 
visit  to  India  as  Secretary  of  State,  but  I 
have  been  here  on  several  previous  occasions 
to  exchange  ideas  and  to  meet  old  friends. 
In  the  past  year  or  so  relations  betw^een  In- 
dia and  the  United  States  have  improved 
considerably.  The  tvi'o  greatest  democracies 
in  the  world  have  rediscovered  their  common 
purposes  and  have  exchanged  ideas  on  an 
ever-increasing  range  of  topics.  It  is  to  con- 
tinue this  exchange  that  I  have  gratefully 
accepted  the  invitation  of  the  Indian  Govern- 
ment, the  Foreign  Minister,  to  visit  the  sub- 
continent. 

I  look  forvi^ard  very  much  to  my  talks  with 
Prime  Minister  Gandhi  and  with  all  the  other 


Ministers  who  have  been  kind  enough  to 
make  time  on  their  schedules.  I  come  here  at 
a  time  of  great  difficulties  in  the  world  but 
also  of  great  opportunity.  There  is  the  pos- 
sibility of  building  a  new  international  sys- 
tem based  on  peace  and  justice  and  coopera- 
tion, values  to  which  both  of  our  countries 
have  long  since  been  dedicated. 

I  appreciate  the  warmth  of  your  reception. 
I  look  forward  to  my  talks ;  and  I  know  that 
when  I  leave,  the  already  strong  relation- 
ships between  India  and  the  United  States 
will,  hopefully,  be  further  strengthened. 

Thank  you. 

Dinner  Hosted  by  Y.  B.  Chavan,  Minister  of 
External  Affairs,  New  Delhi,  October  27 

Press  release  444  dated  October  27 

Toast  by  Foreign  Minister  Chavan 

On  behalf  of  the  Government  of  India,  I 
have  great  pleasure  to  extend  a  warm  and 
cordial  welcome  to  you  and  Mrs.  Kissinger.  I 
enjoyed  meeting  you  in  Washington  a  few 
weeks  ago,  and  I  am  indeed  happy  that  you 
were  able  to  pay  us  an  official  visit  and  pro- 
vide an  opportunity  to  exchange  views  on 
important  international  problems  and  mat- 
ters of  bilateral  interest. 

India  and  the  United  States  of  America 
are  both  democratic  countries  with  well- 
established  traditions  of  representative  gov- 
ernment, social  responsibility,  and  individual 
freedom.  We  have  admired  this  creative  ge- 
nius of  the  American  people  and  their  con- 
tribution to  human  progress. 

We  are  confident  that  our  two  countries 
can  work  together  to  create  a  better  world  in 
which  men  and  women  can  realize  their  po- 
tential both  as  individuals  and  useful  citizens 
and  contribute  to  the  development  of  society 
and  welfare  of  mankind.  It  is  also  a  unique 
feature  of  our  relations  that,  in  spite  of  occa- 
sional differences,  we  have  been  able  to  main- 
tain dialogue  and  contact  at  all  times  and  at 
all  levels.  This  provides  a  good  basis  for  our 
working  together  in  the  future  also  to  pro- 
mote mutual  understanding,  international 
peace,  and  progress. 

Mr.  Secretary,  since  your  last  visit  to  New 


704 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Delhi,  far-reaching  changes  have  taken  place 
in  this  region.  Out  of  the  agony  of  the  sub- 
continent, a  new  nation  was  born,  underlin- 
ing a  historical  truth  that  popular  aspirations 
cannot  be  long  suppressed.  On  the  basis  of 
the  realities  of  the  situation,  we  have  been 
trying  to  build  a  new  structure  of  peace, 
friendship,  and  cooperation  in  this  region. 

We  note  that  your  own  country  shares  this 
view  and  has  supported  the  Simla  process  of 
bilateral  and  peaceful  normalization  and  rec- 
onciliation without  external  interference.  It 
need  hardly  be  stressed  that  peace  is  partic- 
ularly essential  to  us  and  other  countries  of 
the  region  to  meet  the  challenge  of  economic 
and  social  growth.  We  are  fully  conscious  of 
our  responsibilities  and  of  the  need  to  build 
friendship  and  cooperation  with  our 'neigh- 
bors. We  have  achieved  this  objective  in  our 
relations  with  most  of  our  neighbors  and 
hope  to  do  the  same  with  the  remaining  one 
or  two  governments. 

Indo-American  relations  have  improved  in 
the  last  year  or  two.  Although  it  would  be 
idle  to  pretend  that  there  are  no  differences 
between  us,  we  both  recognize  the  need  for 
building  up  a  mature  and  constructive  rela- 
tionship on  the  basis  of  equality,  mutual  re- 
spect, and  mutual  benefit.  There  is  potential 
for  strengthening  our  relations,  and  we  look 
forward  to  our  discussions  with  you  on  ways 
and  means  of  furthering  Indo-American  un- 
derstanding. 

In  today's  world,  no  country  can  remain 
isolated  or  become  totally  self-sufficient  in  all 
its  requirements.  We  are  interested  in  pro- 
moting cooperation  between  India  and  Amer- 
ica in  various  fields  including  trade,  science, 
technology,  education,  and  culture.  I  am  con- 
fident that  our  discussions  will  enable  us  not 
only  to  remove  past  misunderstandings  but 
also  generate  momentum  for  a  better,  more 
mature  and  realistic  relationship  in  the 
months  and  years  ahead. 

Mr.  Secretary,  you  are  not  a  newcomer  to 
India.  However,  since  this  is  Mrs.  Kissinger's 
first  visit  to  our  country,  may  I  wish  her  a 
cordial  welcome  and  a  most  pleasant  stay 
here.  In  drawing  up  your  program,  we  have 
taken  particular  care  to  insure  that  you, 
Mrs.  Kissinger,  have  some  opportunity  to  see 


a  bit  of  India.  We  hope  you  will  come  again 
and  see  more  of  our  country.  And  we  hope 
you,  Mr.  Secretary,  would  also  come  with  her. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  distinguished  guests, 
ladies  and  gentlemen :  I  am  delighted  to  have 
been  able  to  accept  the  invitation  to  visit 
your  great  country  in  order  to  renew  long- 
standing friendships,  to  remove  old  misun- 
derstandings, and  to  build  a  new  and  mature 
relationship.  This  trip  has  been  prepared 
over  a  considerable  period  of  time  by  your 
distinguished  predecessor  and  by  the  two  in- 
defatigable Ambassadors  that  represent  our 
two  countries. 

As  for  our  Ambassador,  I  would  like  to 
point  out  to  you  that  those  of  his  dispatches 
that  appear  in  the  New  York  Times  are  only 
the  tip  of  the  iceberg  of  what  I  have  to  con- 
tend with.  And,  indeed,  what  saves  me  from 
more  exposure  in  the  New  York  Times  is  the 
limitation  of  space  which  is  inevitably  im- 
posed by  a  daily  newspaper.  But  sufllice  it  to 
say  that  our  Ambassador  to  New  Delhi  never 
lets  me  forget  for  a  moment  how  important 
our  relationship  is  and  he  has  worked  with 
great  dedication,  sharing  my  own  conviction 
and  President  Ford's  conviction  of  the  impor- 
tance that  we  attach  to  close  ties  with  India. 
As  for  your  Ambassador,  my  friend  Tikki 
Kaul  [Triloki  Nath  Kaul],  he  checks  on  me 
periodically — but  I  would  like  to  request  of 
you,  Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  that  you  change 
his  instructions  so  that  he  needs  to  call  on  me 
only  twice  a  week  to  make  sure  that  I  am  not 
tilting  the  wrong  way.  I  would  like  to  pay 
tribute  to  his  friendship  and  to  his  dedica- 
tion. 

In  the  United  States  in  recent  years,  just 
as  has  India,  we  have  had  to  make  many  ad- 
justments to  new  conditions.  We  are  inter- 
ested in  building  a  worldwide  structure  of 
peace  in  which  all  the  nations  feel  they  have 
a  sense  of  participation,  and  a  structure  of 
peace  which  transcends  the  antagonisms  of 
the  period  of  the  cold  war  and  tries  to  draw 
on  the  dedication  of  all  parts  of  the  world. 

In  this  structure  of  peace,  the  structure  of 
peace  in  the  subcontinent  to  which  the  For- 
eign Minister  has  referred  plays,  of  course, 


November  25,    1974 


705 


a  crucial  role.  The  United  States  strongly 
supports  the  Simla  process.  The  United  States 
feels  that  the  development  of  peace  in  the 
subcontinent,  free  of  outside  interference,  on 
the  basis  of  equality  and  negotiation,  is  an 
essential  precondition  to  peace  in  the  world. 
And  our  relationship  prospers  to  the  precise 
extent  that  this  process  has  taken  root  and 
has  continued. 

The  Foreign  Minister  pointed  out  India's 
desire  to  extend  cooperative  relationships 
with  the  United  States  in  many  fields.  We 
reciprocate  this  feeling,  and  in  the  work 
which  we  will  do  here,  in  the  institutions 
which  we  plan  to  create,  we  see  but  the  be- 
ginning of  further  cooperative  ventures  to 
the  joint  benefit  of  both  of  our  nations,  of 
the  peoples  of  the  subcontinent,  and  all  of 
the  people  in  the  world. 

I  look  forward  very  much  to  my  talks  here 
with  the  Prime  Minister,  with  the  Foreign 
Minister,  and  with  his  colleagues.  I  want 
you  to  know  that  I  come  here  with  good  will 
to  contribute  to  the  building  of  a  strong  rela- 
tionship between  two  great  democracies  shar- 
ing many  similar  ideals — two  democracies, 
which,  whatever  their  occasional  differences 
on  particular  issues,  have  a  common  interest 
in  a  peaceful  world,  in  a  developing  world, 
and  in  a  cooperative  world.  It  is  with  this  at- 
titude that  my  colleagues  and  I  will  conduct 
our  talks.  It  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  would  like 
to  propose  a  toast  to  the  Foreign  Minister 
and  to  friendship  between  the  Indian  and 
American  people. 

Dinner  Hosted  by  Secretary  Kissinger, 
New  Delhi,  October  28 

Press  release  448  dated  October  29 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Distinguished  guests :  Let  me  take  this  op- 
portunity to  welcome  you  at  this  elegant  resi- 
dence of  our  Ambassador,  which  reminds  me 
of  the  house  he  lived  in  as  a  professor  in 
Cambridge. 

I  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to 
thank  all  our  Indian  friends  for  the  remarka- 
ble hospitality  that  has  been  shown  to  us. 


for  the  warmth  with  which  Nancy  and  I  have 
been  received  here,  and  for  the  friendship  and 
cordiality  of  our  talks,  which  cannot  be  re- 
flected in  ofl[icial  communiques. 

The  Indian  philosopher  Kautilya  listed  the 
qualifications  for  a  minister  with  the  subtle 
ability  for  which  Indians  are  known.  These 
are  the  qualities  of  a  minister  as  described 
by  Kautilya:  "native  born" — that  leaves  me 
out  already — "of  high  family;  influential; 
well  trained  in  the  arts ;  possessed  of  fore- 
sight; wise;  of  strong  memory;  bold;  elo- 
quent; skillful;  intelligent;  possessed  of  en- 
thusiasm, dignity,  and  endurance;  pure  in 
character ;  affable ;  firm  in  loyal  devotion ;  en- 
dowed with  excellent  conduct,  strength, 
health,  bravery"  and  a  few  other  things  like 
that — "these  are  the  qualifications  of  a  min- 
isterial officer."  My  staff  will  pass  among  you 
in  a  few  minutes  and  certify  that,  except  for 
the  first  quality,  all  of  these  are  possessed  by 
the  Secretary  of  State.  They  will  all  say  a 
few  other  things  about  the  Secretary  of  State 
which  I'd  rather  not  hear.  [Laughter.] 

We  have  spent  a  very  fruitful  day  today, 
Mr.  Foreign  Minister.  We  have  had  very  good 
talks,  and  we  have  formed  the  Indo- American 
Commission,  which  I  am  confident  will  per- 
form a  significant  service  in  the  fields  for 
which  it  has  been  designed. 

But  I  believe  that  the  real  significance  of 
this  occasion  is  that  we  talked  to  each  other 
for  the  first  time  in  a  long  while  free  of  com- 
plexes. We  now  understand  that  when  we 
deal  with  each  other  the  United  States  does 
not  do  favors  to  India  but  deals  with  India 
on  the  basis  of  a  common  interest.  And  we  are 
not  here  to  seek  moral  approbation  from  In- 
dia, because  we  now  realize  that  what  ties  us 
together  is  a  common  perception  of  the  kind 
of  world  in  which  both  of  us  can  be  secure 
and  both  of  us  can  prosper. 

These  intangible  qualities,  I  believe,  will  be 
even  more  important  than  the  substantive  re- 
sults that  have  become  apparent  today  or  that 
will  be  reflected  in  the  communique.  The  ex- 
changes which  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of 
conducting  with  the  Foreign  Minister  and 
the  extended  talks  with  the  Prime  Minister 
will  be  continued  in  the  months  ahead.  We 


706 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


will  start  the  Subcommissions  very  soon. 

We  all  look  forward  to  the  visit  of  the 
Foreign  Minister — and  we  will  arrange  as 
relaxed  and  reflective  a  schedule  for  him  as 
he  has  for  me.  So  let  me  take  this  occasion  to 
express  the  appreciation  of  myself  and  all 
of  my  colleagues  for  the  manner  in  which 
we've  been  received,  for  the  spirit  that  has 
animated  our  talks ;  to  express  the  confidence 
that  what  we  have  started  in  these  talks  will 
be  on  a  mature  and  enduring  basis;  and  to 
look  forward  to  renewing  our  acquaintance 
very  soon  in  the  United  States.  I'd  like  to 
propose  a  toast  to  the  Foreign  Minister. 

Toast  by  Foreign  Minister  Chavan 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  Mrs.  Kissinger, 
Ambassador  and  Mrs.  Moynihan :  On  my  be- 
half and  on  behalf  of  my  colleagues  in  the 
Government  of  India,  let  me  take  this  oppor- 
tunity to  thank  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
Mrs.  Kissinger  for  giving  this  opportunity 
again  of  reconsidering  the  future  of  the 
commissions  in  a  more  useful  manner. 

Dr.  Kissinger  has  been  speaking  of  the 
very  useful  talks  that  we  have  had  during 
the  course  of  the  day.  I  think  he  is  right  that 
these  discussions  we  have  had  today  were 
very  frank  and  free  of  any  conflicts,  as  he 
put  it.  I  am  sure  it  has  helped  us  now  and 
will  continue  to  help  us  in  the  future  to  un- 
derstand each  other  better.  Naturally  one 
can't  say  that  there  won't  be  difference  in 
approaches,  but  at  least  we  will  try  to  under- 
stand why  we  prefer  the  way  we  do ;  but  our 
emphasis  will  be  to  agree  more  and  more  on 
basic  issues  so  that  the  understanding  will 
be  on  a  firmer  foundation. 

We  have  agreed  today  to  sign  an  agree- 
ment for  establishing  a  Joint  Commission  and 
to  deal  with  different  aspects  of  administra- 
tion, economic  cooperation,  cultural  coopera- 
tion, educational  cooperation,  and  I  think 
that  will  help  us  to  come  constructively  to- 
gether to  win  the  mature  relationship  that 
we  have  envisaged.  That  is  much  more  impor- 
tant. 

I  think  that  Dr.  Kissinger's  visit  certainly 
will  prove  to  be  a  very  important  step  in  re- 


discovering, if  I  may  quote  him  again,  the 
common  purposes  in  the  approaches  of  United 
States  and  India.  And  that  is  why  I  consider 
this  visit  a  very  important  visit  which  is 
sort  of  a  nice  landmark  in  our  relationship.  I 
can  assure  you  that  we  will  continue  the  same 
dialogue  in  the  same  spirit  with  a  view  to 
achieve  what  we  both  of  us  desire.  I  must 
request  you  gentlemen  to  raise  your  glasses 
and  offer  a  toast  to  Dr.  Kissinger  and  Mrs. 
Kissinger. 


News  Conference  by  Secretary  Kissinger, 
New  Delhi,  October  30 

Press  release  451  dated  October  30 

Kewal  Singh,  Secretary  in  the  Ministry 
for  External  Affairs:  Ladies  and  gentlemen, 
we  have  as  you  see  this  morning  with  us 
Dr.  Henry  Kissinger,  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  the  United  States  of  America,  and  per- 
haps the  most  eminent  personality  in  the 
international  diplomacy  today.  At  one  time 
with  his  very  heavy  schedule  it  seemed  al- 
most impossible  if  he'd  be  able  to  meet  you, 
which  he  very  much  wanted  to  do.  But  as 
you  all  know,  Dr.  Kissinger  has  a  flair  for 
resolving  the  impossible.  We  are  happy  that 
he  is  here  with  us.  The  conference  is  exactly 
30  minutes.  After  he  has  said  a  few  words, 
you  are  welcome  to  shoot  your  questions. 
Before  asking  the  questions,  please  kindly 
announce  your  name  and  the  agency  or  the 
press  you  represent. 

Thank  you. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  want  to  express 
my  appreciation  and  that  of  my  colleagues 
for  the  extraordinarily  warm  receptions  that 
we  have  received  here.  The  talks  were  cor- 
dial, frank,  and  extremely  useful.  I  think  we 
have  succeeded  jointly  in  establishing  a  ma- 
ture and  good  basis  for  the  future  relation- 
ship between  India  and  the  United  States, 
and  we  also  had  enough  opportunity  to  re- 
view world  developments. 

So,  I  believe  we  have  turned  a  new  page. 
On  the  part  of  the  United  States — my  im- 
pression is,  also  on  that  of  India — we  will 
work  with  dedication  and  seriousness  to  give 
it  a  meaning  that  will  be  of  benefit  to  both 


November  25,   1974 


707 


of  our  peoples  as  well  as  to  the  peoples  of 
the  world. 

Now  I'll  be  glad  to  take  your  questions. 

Q.  Hoxv  successful  do  you  think  your  visit 
has  been? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  India  and  the  United 
States  are  both  major  countries  which  are 
located  of  course  in  different  parts  of  the 
world  and  do  not  necessarily  have  a  complete 
identity  of  views  on  every  subject.  But  in 
terms  of  the  purpose  that  we  set  ourselves, 
which  was  to  establish  a  basis  for  a  new  and 
mature  relationship,  I  consider  the  trip  com- 
pletely successful. 

Q.  Is  there  any  rethinking  on  the  part  of 
the  U.S.A.  on  lifting  or  relaxing  the  em- 
bargo on  supply  of  lethal  weapons  to  Paki- 
stan in  light  of  Mr.  Bhutto's  threat  that 
Pakistan  ivould  go  nuclear  if  the  U.S.A.  did 
not  resume  arms  supply? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  had  occasion 
to  say  in  several  meetings  that  I  do  not  think 
it  is  appropriate  for  me  to  make  statements 
that  affect  other  countries  of  the  subcon- 
tinent while  I'm  in  New  Delhi.  Our  current 
policy  is  well  known.  We  have  already  stated 
that  we  would  not  participate  in  an  arms 
race  on  the  subcontinent.  Beyond  that  I  do 
not  think  it  would  be  appropriate  for  me  to 
go  while  I'm  here. 

Q.  The  two  points  which  have  emerged 
from  the  joint  communique  published  today 
are  that  you  made  no  direct  refereyice  to 
economic  aid  to  India  in  your  talks  with  C. 
Suhramaniam  [Minister  of  Finance']  and 
that  the  question  of  the  supply  of  food  to 
India  will  be  in.  accordance  with  the  decision 
of  the  forthcoming  World  Food  Conference 
at  Rome.  Now,  I  just  wanted  to  know 
whether  you  in  the  course  of  your  talks 
threw  any  hint  about  the  possibility  of  the 
resumption  of  economic  aid  to  India  and 
food  supplies  on  a  bilateral  basis  irrespec- 
tive of  the  decisions  that  might  be  taken  at 
the  World  Food  Conference  in  Rome? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Let  me  deal  with 
this  question  in  two  parts.    I  think  one  of 


the  aspects  of  the  relationship  that  is  de- 
veloping now  between  India  and  the  United 
States  is  that  we  can  talk  to  each  other  free 
of  complexes.  One  of  the  complexes  that  has 
affected  our  relationship  in  the  past  has  been 
who  was  asking  whom  for  what,  and  second- 
ly, whether  the  United  States  was  doing 
anybody  a  favor  by  extending  aid  or  other 
forms  of  cooperation. 

Let  me  say  first  of  all  that  when  the 
United  States  undertakes  a  certain  measure 
with  respect  to  India,  or  any  other  country, 
it  does  so  in  its  own  interest  as  well  as  in 
the  interests  of  the  other  country.  Unless 
there  is  a  joint  interest  there  is  no  firm  basis 
for  common  action.  We  have  an  interest  in 
a  stable,  growing  subcontinent;  and  there- 
fore, when  we  discuss  aid  with  India,  it  is 
not  in  the  context  of  India  asking  us  for  a 
special  favor  but  of  defining  joint  objectives. 

Now,  the  Commission  that  has  been  set  up 
will  provide  an  opportunity  for  discussing 
common  objectives,  in  a  realistic  frame- 
work ;  and  within  that  framework  I  am  cer- 
tain that  the  question  of  what  measures  can 
be  taken  by  the  United  States  to  assist  in 
the  development  of  India  in  our  joint  in- 
terest will  undoubtedly  come  up.  In  that  con- 
text it  also  came  up  informally  in  some  of 
the  talks  that  were  conducted. 

With  respect  to  the  food  problem,  there 
are  again  two  aspects.  One  is  those  measures 
which  the  United  States  takes  as  a  country 
individually  and  those  measures  which  it 
proposes  that  the  world  will  take  on  a  multi- 
lateral basis.  At  the  World  Food  Conference, 
I  intend  to  put  before  the  other  nations  the 
entire  U.S.  approach  to  the  world  food  prob- 
lem— those  steps  that  are  taken  on  a  na- 
tional basis  as  well  as  those  steps  which  are 
taken  on  a  multilateral  basis.  Those  steps 
which  the  United  States  is  prepared  to  take 
on  a  national  basis  obviously  do  not  have  to 
wait  for  the  decisions  of  the  World  Food 
Conference;  and  those  steps  will  include,  as 
far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned,  a  pro- 
gram of  food  assistance  to  India. 

Q.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  fundamental  ques- 
tion: The  U.S.A.  and  India  are  the  two 
biggest  democracies  in  the  world.  Naturally, 


70S 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


it  was  expected  there  shoidd  have  been  best 
cooperation  between  the  tivo.  But  instead 
it  happeyied  to  the  contrary.  I  am  not  going 
into  the  reasons,  but  what  surprises  me  is 
that  your  country  has  made  up  with  the 
tivo  biggest  Communist  countries  of  the 
world  and  also  supported  some  of  the  dicta- 
torial countries.  On  our  side,  too,  we  had 
come  closer  with  Socialist  Communist  coun- 
tries headed  by  the  U.S.S.R.  Does  it  mean 
that  the  democratic  countries  of  the  world 
had  no  real  faith  in  the  principle  of  democ- 
racy? I  am  aivare  that  you  can  reply  only 
for  your  side.  Does  it  also  mean  that  the 
U.S.A.,  the  staunch  believer  in  the  democ- 
racy, does  not  want  democracy  to  flourish 
in  other  parts  of  the  world? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  This  is  a  question 
I  heay  occasionally  at  our  press  conferences 
in  America,  though  stated  with  less  elo- 
quence. The  United  States  has  two  cate- 
gories of  concerns  in  the  world.  One  has  to 
do  with  the  problem  of  peace,  security,  and 
the  avoidance  of  a  holocaust.  The  second  is 
influenced  by  the  basic  orientation  of  our 
values,  in  which  of  course  our  preference 
for  democratic  institutions  plays  a  very  im- 
portant role. 

Now,  under  ideal  circumstances,  those  two 
strands  of  our  policy  should  operate  side  by 
side.  However,  there  are  many  circum- 
stances in  which  a  choice  may  have  to  be 
made.  For  example,  the  question  of  the 
prevention  of  nuclear  war  cannot  wait  for 
the  emergence  of  democratic  institutions  in 
the  Soviet  Union,  because  when  you  have 
two  countries  capable  of  destroying  human 
life  you  have  a  number  of  practical  prob- 
lems that  arise.  Similarly,  it  was  our  view 
that  it  was  impossible  to  think  of  a  peaceful 
international  environment  without  an  ex- 
change of  views  and  regular  contacts  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  People's 
Republic  of  China.  This  does  not  mean 
approbation  of  the  domestic  structure  of 
these  governments,  but  it  does  mean  that 
there  are  certain  practical  problems  that  re- 
quire solutions  of  an  overwhelming  impor- 
tance. 

In  the  area  where  we  believe  we  have  a 


choice,  our  preference  for  democratic  insti- 
tutions and  democratic  governments  ought 
to  be  clear;  but  there  are  these  two  strands 
of  our  policy  which,  for  the  sake  of  the 
peace  of  the  world,  have  to  be  kept  in  view. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  has  India  asked,  for 
food,  and  if  so,  hotv  much;  and  what  is  it 
that  the  United  States  is  prepared  to  give? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  do  not  like  to  have 
the  question  put  in  terms  of:  Has  India 
asked  for  food  ?  There  have  been  discussions 
with  respect  to  food,  which  would  be  difficult 
to  reconstruct  of  exactly  who  initiated  what, 
but  there  has  been  discussion  as  to  the 
amount  of  food  that  the  United  States  can 
make  available. 

As  you  know,  the  large  surpluses  which 
existed  in  the  United  States  in  the  1960's, 
both  in  terms  of  reserves  as  well  as  in  terms 
of  current  production,  have  been  substan- 
tially eroded,  such  that  our  food  assistance 
to  any  country  in  the  world  now  depends  on 
our  annual  production  and  on  our  annual 
surplus.  And  given  the  worldwide  shortage 
of  food,  this  situation  is  rather  tight.  Be- 
cause of  the  impact  on  the  domestic  market 
in  the  United  States,  we  have  had  to  make 
our  decisions  on  a  quarterly  basis  up  to  now. 
But  we  are  now  attempting  to  project  them 
on  an  annual  basis. 

We  have  made  some  preliminary  alloca- 
tions, but  we  are  reviewing  all  the  alloca- 
tions again,  and  I  do  not  think  a  final 
judgment  can  be  made  until  after  I  return 
to  Washington.  But  I  can  say  that  we  are 
reviewing  the  situation  once  again  to  see 
what  the  maximum  is  that  the  United  States 
has  available  for  this  year,  and  after  this  year 
we  hope  to  put  it  on  a  more  long-term  basis. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  you  tell  us  the  cur- 
rent view  of  the  United  States  on  Israel 
negotiating  with  the  Palestinian  Liberation 
Organization  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  not  had  an 
opportunity  to  review  the  authoritative 
statements  from  the  Rabat  summit,  nor  have 
I  had  any  formal  communication  from  any 
of  the  participants  or  any  communication 
from  any  of  the  participants  at  the  Rabat 


November  25,    1974 


709 


summit.  The  U.S.  view  as  to  the  most  effec- 
tive way  of  negotiating  has  been  stated 
previously,  which  is  that  it  would  be  most 
effective  if  Israel  negotiated  with  Jordan 
about  the  West  Bank.  We  will  now  have  to 
study  the  communique  at  Rabat  to  see  what 
the  implications  are  for  future  negotiations, 
and  of  course  this  depends  very  much  on  the 
views  of  all  the  parties  and  not  just  one  of 
the  parties. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  you  have  made  many 
impossible  things  possible.  I  tvould  like  to 
know  tohat  is  your  secret  of  success  in 
diplomacy  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Nothing  is  more 
dangerous  than  to  claim  success  in  diplo- 
macy. I  do  not  believe  in  statements  of 
miraculous  achievements.  Anything  that  is 
done  is  the  result  of  careful  preparation  and 
an  enormous  amount  of  detail,  as  well  as 
the  result  of  objective  circumstances  that 
exist,  that  cannot  be  created,  that  can  only 
be  used.    But  I  appreciate  the  question. 

Q.  The  joint  communique  states  that  the 
countries  of  the  subcontinent  coidd  live  with- 
out outside  interference.  But  2m fortunately, 
as  America's  record  recently  suggests,  the 
interference  in  Chile,  the  coup  in  Cyprus, 
as  recorded  by  congressional  comynittee  evi- 
dence suggests  that  America  is  interested  in 
activities  fomentiyig  the  overthroiv  of  con- 
stitutionally elected  governments.  How  does 
it  reconcile  with  the  high-minded  principle 
enunciated  in  the  joint  communique?  Not 
wholly,  or  alone  in  the  Indian  context  either, 
we  all  know  from  Ambassador  Moynihan's 
telegraphic  cable  to  you. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  As  I  have  had  occa- 
sion to  say  yesterday,  Ambassador  Moyni- 
han  sends  me  many  cables  of  great  eloquence 
designed  to  explain  to  me  the  point  of  view 
of  Indians,  and  this  is  a  point  of  view  that 
you  have  just  now  repeated. 

Now,  in  going  through  the  particular 
events  which  you  mention,  no  useful  purpose 
would  be  served  by  going  into  each  of 
the  instances,  except  to  point  out  that  the 
United  States  did  not  foment  the  overthrow 


of    a    constitutional    government    in  *  Chile. 
That  has  been  made  sufficiently  plain  by  the 
President.    Secondly,  the  United  States  had 
nothing   whatever   to   do  with  the   coup  in 
Cyprus ;  this  is  simply  repeating  totally  un- 
founded  propaganda.     Thirdly,   the   United 
States  is  not  engaged,  directly  or  indirectly, 
in    any   attempt  to   influence   the    domestic 
situation   in   India.     It   has   not   authorized 
such  a  program;  it  is  not  engaged  in  such 
a  program;   and   it  has   repeatedly  pointed 
out  that  if  any  of  its  officials  should  ever  be 
caught  in  an  unauthorized  action,  we  would 
take  strong  measures. 

So,  I  reject  the  implication  that  the  United 
States  is  engaged  on  a  systematic  basis  in 
undermining  any  government  and,  partic- 
ularly, constitutional  governments.  Exactly 
the  opposite  is  true. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  what  is  the  special  mis- 
sion ayid  program  of  tjour  latest  visit  to 
India,  and  also  kindly  tell  us  ivhat  is  your 
latest  assessment  about  India-America  re- 
lations? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  agree  with  the  as- 
sessment of  your  Prime  Minister,  who  said 
that  Indian-American  relations  are  good  and 
should  be  getting  better.  I  agree  that  they 
are  good.  I  believe  that  they  are  getting 
better,  and  our  big  problem  now  is— and  I 
believe  we  will  deal  with  it  successfully — 
is  to  keep  them  on  a  steady  basis,  free  of 
the  fluctuations  that  have  characterized 
them  in  the  past. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  do  you  think  that  the 
Indo-Soviet  treaty  for  peace  and  friendship 
comes  in  the  way  of  Indo-American  friend- 
ship? Secondly,  on  your  way  to  Delhi  you 
stopped  over  in  Moscow.  Did  you  sense  any 
sense  of  disquiet  and  concern  about  your 
visit  to  India,  or  did  they  wish  you  success 
and  Godspeed? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  don't  think 
that  Soviet  leaders  are  given  to  excessively 
emotional  statements  when  I  arrive  or  de- 
part. But  of  course  the  Soviet  leaders  knew 
that  I  was  going  to  India  from  Moscow  prior 
to  my  going  to  Moscow.    I  found  no  expres- 


710 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


sion  of  disquiet  or  unhappiness ;  but  I  think 
the  Soviet  leaders  should  speak  for  them- 
selves. 

As  for  the  United  States,  we  are  interested 
in  India  conducting  an  independent  foreign 
policy  in  a  subcontinent  free  of  outside  pres- 
sures. If  India  conducts  such  a  foreign 
policy,  as  I  believe  it  has,  then  with  what 
other  countries  it  may  have  treaties  of  con- 
sultation is  the  business  of  India  and  not  a 
matter  in  which  the  United  States  would 
express  an  opinion.  We  do  not  consider  the 
treaty  as  it  exists  now,  and  the  manner  in 
which  it  has  been  implemented,  an  obstacle 
to  improved  relations  with  the  United 
States. 

Q.  You  stated  here,  as  you  had  previ- 
ously at  the  United  Nations,  that  the  United 
States  strongly  favors  an  embargo  on  the 
export  of  nuclear  explosive  technology.  What 
response  did  you  receive  from  the  Prime 
Minister  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  first  of  all  this 
is  not  exactly  a  precise  description  of  what 
the  U.S.  position  is.  The  U.S.  position  is 
that  countries  in  a  position  to  export  nuclear 
technology  should  do  so  in  a  manner  that 
does  not  contribute  to  the  spread  of  ex- 
plosive and  especially  of  weapons  technology 
and  that  this  should  be  done  on  a  multi- 
lateral basis  by  all  countries  that  have  a 
capability  to  export  nuclear  technology. 

I  was,  first  of  all,  as  our  communique 
makes  clear,  assured  that  India  had  no  in- 
tention to  develop  a  weapons  program,  and 
I  took  occasion  to  welcome  this  statement. 
Secondly,  we  will  consult  with  India,  with 
other  countries,  about  the  safeguards  which 
we  consider  useful  and  which  we  are  pre- 
pared to  apply  also  to  ourselves;  so  this  is 
not  intended  in  any  discriminatory  sense 
against  any  one  country.  And  I  believe  that 
we  can  have  useful  discussions  on  that  basis. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  I  asked  you  what  the 
Prime  Minister's  response  was. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  have  given 
you  as  much  as  I  am  prepared  to  do  on  this 
basis  of  a  private  conversation. 


Q.  We  have  come  to  knoiv  even  from  the 
American  official  sources  that  you  gave  a 
very  careful  listening  whenever  the  Diego 
Garcia  question  arose  in  the  talk.  I  want  to 
know  ivhy  not  some  clear  expression  came 
up  from  your  side  regardiyig  this  question 
and  it  remained  only  up  to  the  listening 
point? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  don't  know  whether 
it  is  correct  to  say  that  there  was  no  clear 
expression  of  views.  I  think  there  was  an 
absence  of  identity  of  views  on  that  subject. 
We  respect  the  Indian  point  of  view,  and  of 
course  we  have  our  own  on  that  matter. 

Q.  During  your  visit  in  Rome,  in  addition 
to  attendiyig  the  Food  Conference,  are  you 
planning  to  meet  our  President  Leone  to 
review  the  very  heavy  Italian  political  situa- 
tion ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  expect  to  have  din- 
ner with  President  Leone.  But  the  Italian 
political  situation  is  too  complicated  for  me 
to  understand.  This  will  not  be  one  of  the 
subjects  of  our  discussion.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  The  U.S.  President  has  said  that  what 
you  did  in  Chile — namely,  financing  of  oppo- 
sition parties  and  papers  and  also  strikes  by 
labor  and  transport — it  was  according  to 
the  U.S.A.  in  the  interests  of  the  Chilean 
people.  What  guarantee  is  there  that  you 
will  not  do  the  same  thing  in  India  if  the 
U.S.A.  considers  it  to  be  in  the  interest  of 
the  Indian  people  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  it  has 
been  repeatedly  denied  that  the  United 
States  supported  strikes  in  Chile.  I  don't 
think  this  is  the  appropriate  place  to  go  into 
details  of  a  subject  which  is  more  complex 
than  has  been  possible  to  discuss  through  a 
series  of  isolated  leaks.  The  assurance  you 
have  is  that  I  have  stated  that  the  United 
States  has  not,  and  is  not  now,  intervening 
in  any  manner  whatsoever,  for  any  purpose 
whatsoever,  in  the  domestic  affairs  of  India. 
This  assurance  will  be  of  course  maintained. 

Q.  In  your  speech  to  the  Indian  Council 
of  World  Affairs  you  linked  the  questions  of 


November  25,   1974 


711 


food  ivith  the  energy  crisis.  Are  you  in  fact 
saying  that  the  United  States  cannot  go  on 
indefinitely  providing  massive  food  relief  if 
countries  in  the  Third  World  such  as  India 
do  not  support  the  American  position — in 
fact  your  position — on  the  oil  crisis? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  we  have 
talked  in  a  number  of  forums  about  the 
problems  of  food  and  the  problems  of  energy 
— not  to  link  them  as  conditions  to  each 
other,  but  in  order  to  emphasize  that  cur- 
rent problems  have  become  global,  that  the 
world  has  become  interdependent,  and  that 
national  solutions  to  any  of  these  problems 
are  impossible.  There  can  be  no  victors  in  a 
bloc  approach  to  these  issues,  because  even 
those  who  control  the  resources,  be  it  of  food 
or  of  energy,  would  become  the  victims  of  an 
economic  collapse  that  assumes  worldwide 
proportions.  This  is  the  basic  theme  that 
the  United  States  is  urging.  We  are  not 
making  our  approach  in  Rome  on  food  con- 
ditional on  having  our  views  met  on  energy. 
We  are  presenting  them  in  parallel  as  illus- 
trations of  a  general  problem. 

Now  with  respect  to  energy,  I  believe 
that  India  is  perfectly  capable  of  making  up 
its  own  mind  as  to  the  impact  of  high  energy 
prices  without  pressure  tactics  from  the 
United  States,  because  it  is  precisely  coun- 
tries like  India  which  suffer  most  from  an 
increase  in  both  energy  and  in  food  and 
fertilizer  prices.  And  therefore  I  don't  be- 
lieve that  there  is  any  need  for  me  to  give 
long  lectures  to  Indian  leaders  about  a  mat- 
ter that  affects  them  so  immediately.  I  have 
not  asked  for  formal  support  from  India  at 
either  the  Food  Conference  or  with  respect 
to  energy  since  I'm  confident  that  India  is 
perfectly  capable  of  making  up  its  own  mind 
on  that  subject. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  the  Foreign  Minister  of 
India  extended  a  cordial  invitation  to  the 
distinguished  lady  accompanying  you  on  this 
totir.  May  I  extract  a  promise  from  you  that 
whenever  this  distinguished  lady  prefers  to 
come  to  India  a  second  time,  you  would  ac- 
company her? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Thank  you  very 
much.  1  will,  yes. 


Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger  Broadcast 
on  All-India  Radio  October  30  ^ 

Good  evening,  ladies  and  gentlemen.  I  am 
happy  to  have  this  opportunity  to  speak  to 
the  people  of  India.  I  bring  with  me  the  best 
wishes  of  President  Ford  and  the  people  of 
America. 

Many  believe  that  America  and  India  are 
as  different  as  two  countries  can  be,  because 
of  geography,  history,  and  stages  of  economic 
development.  But  I  believe  that  because  of 
our  traditions,  political  systems,  and  human 
goals,  we  have  much  in  common. 

We  were  both  once  colonies,  ruled  from 
abroad.  America  won  its  independence  al- 
most 200  years  ago  in  a  long  war.  India  won 
its  independence  just  26  years  ago,  also  after 
a  long  struggle. 

Our  early  years  were  spent  in  building  one 
nation  from  many  different  states,  each  want- 
ing to  go  its  own  way.  In  the  same  way,  your 
country,  with  great  success,  has  built  one  na- 
tion from  what  once  were  many  separate 
provinces  and  princely  states. 

For  our  first  100  years  and  more  the 
United  States  was  a  nation  of  farmers.  Our 
people  lived  on  small  farms,  in  small  villages 
and  towns.  Only  gradually  as  we  developed 
our  industry  did  our  cities  grow.  As  eight 
out  of  ten  Indians  today  live  in  the  country, 
so  was  it  in  America  until  only  a  very  short 
time  ago. 

I  understand  that  there  is  an  Indian  prov- 
erb which  says :  When  the  Ganges  flows, 
wash  your  hands.  There  is  an  American  prov- 
erb very  much  like  this,  which  comes  from 
the  tradition  of  our  farmers :  Make  hay  while 
the  sun  shines. 

As  I  look  at  what  has  been  achieved  in  In- 
dia in  the  last  25  years,  I  think  that  you  have 
indeed  been  "washing  your  hands  as  the 
Ganges  flows."  Great  things  have  been 
achieved.  Roads,  dams,  factories,  irrigation, 
electricity,  have  spread  through  every  state. 
Where  once  those  with  radios  numbered  thou- 
sands, today  there  are  millions  of  radios  on 
which  you  are  hearing  me  tonight.  There  is. 


"  Recorded  by  Secretary  Kissinger  before  his  de- 
parture from  New  Delhi  (text  from  press  release  454 
dated  Oct.  31). 


712 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


I  believe,  another  old  saying,  "The  ocean  fills 
up  drop  by  drop" ;  so  it  is  with  progress. 

As  there  has  been  progress  within  our  two 
countries,  so  also  has  there  been  great  prog- 
ress recently  in  the  relations  between  our 
two  countries.  It  is  to  build  stronger  bonds 
between  our  peoples  and  governments  that  I 
have  come  to  visit  your  country. 

I  have  held  very  friendly  and  successful 
talks  with  Prime  Minister  Gandhi,  Foreign 
Minister  Chavan,  and  other  Ministers  and 
leaders  of  your  country.  Mrs.  Kissinger  and 
I  have  also  had  a  chance  to  see  some  of  your 
countryside  and  the  great  monuments  of  In- 
dia's history  in  and  ai'ound  New  Delhi.  Mrs. 
Kissinger  traveled  to  Agra  as  well  to  see  and 
admire,  as  have  millions  of  people  in  the  past, 
the  beautiful  Taj  Mahal.  We  have  also  met 
many  Indians  in  different  professions  and  oc- 
cupations during  our  visit. 

In  all  our  conversations  we  have  talked  as 
good  friends,  not  as  diplomats  or  politicians. 
As  good  friends  we  have  found  many  things 
on  which  we  agree,  many  areas  for  coopera- 
tion, and  many  objectives  we  share.  But  also 
as  good  friends  we  have  been  completely  hon- 
est and  told  each  other  where  we  disagree. 
Your  leaders  have  discussed  their  problems 
and  their  diff'erences  with  my  country.  I  have 
done  the  same  with  them. 

These  talks  have  been  very  reassuring  and 
very  helpful.  We  have  erased  many  past  prob- 
lems and  agreed  on  future  opportunities.  We 
have  reaffirmed  the  friendship  which  has  ex- 
isted between  the  Indian  and  American  peo- 
ple and  the  basic  interests  we  share.  We  have 
set  a  new  course  for  the  future. 

Today  we  are  both  conscious  of  the  ideals 
we  have  in  common  and  the  challenges  we 
have  in  common : 

— We  are  the  world's  two  largest  democra- 
cies. Both  of  us  believe  in  the  dignity  and 
freedom  and  well-being  of  the  individual  per- 
son. 

— We  both  have  great  natural  resources 
and  technical  skills.  There  is  much  we  can 
trade  with  one  another  and  much  we  can 
learn  from  one  another. 

— Both  our  peoples  have  always  felt  a 
great  concern  for  peace  in  the  world.   We 


share  an  overriding  interest  in  stability  and 
economic  development  and  justice. 

Your  government  and  mine  agree  that  we 
should  leave  behind  us  feelings  of  dependence 
or  suspicions  of  interference  or  assertions 
that  either  side  is  always  right  on  every  is- 
sue. 

Therefore  the  United  States  wants  to 
strengthen  our  relations  with  India : 

— We  established  a  new  Indo-U.S.  Joint 
Commission  for  economic,  scientific,  and  cul- 
tural cooperation. 

— The  United  States  will,  as  our  own  re- 
sources allow,  help  India's  economic  develop- 
ment in  ways  which  India  itself  thinks  most 
appropriate  and  helpful.  We  will  work  to- 
gether on  a  basis  of  mutual  benefit. 

— The  leaders  of  our  two  countries  are 
consulting  more  and  more  on  the  world's 
great  political,  security,  and  economic  prob- 
lems. The  United  States  wants  to  know  In- 
dia's concerns  on  these  international  issues. 
We  have  much  to  contribute  together. 

We  are  encouraged  as  well  by  the  improve- 
ment in  relations  among  our  many  friends 
in  this  region.  The  United  States  strongly 
supports  the  eff"orts  of  all  the  countries  in 
South  Asia  to  resolve  their  differences  peace- 
fully, free  of  outside  pressure  or  interfer- 
ence. The  wisdom  and  courage  of  the  leaders 
of  South  Asia  and  the  initiative  of  India  have 
resulted  in  progress  toward  the  goal  agreed 
upon  by  Pakistan  and  India  at  the  Simla 
Conference  in  1972 :  "The  promotion  of  a 
friendly  and  harmonious  relationship  and 
the  establishment  of  a  durable  peace  in  the 
Subcontinent."  We  want  stability  and  eco- 
nomic progress  for  South  Asia  just  as  the 
leaders  of  India  and  its  neighbors  do. 

As  India  and  America  strengthen  rela- 
tions, we  can  better  work  side  by  side  to  re- 
solve problems  that  concern  all  mankind. 

Representatives  of  our  two  countries  can 
cooperate  in  international  meetings  on  ex- 
tremely important  problems  that  affect  all 
nations  regardless  of  their  philosophies  or 
social  systems :  international  trade  and  com- 
merce, energy  resources,  the  oceans,  the  pres- 
ervation of  the  environment  and  health  of 


November  25,    1974 


713 


this  planet,  and  perhaps  more  important, 
ways  to  insure  that  there  is  sufficient  food 
for  the  growing  population  of  the  world.  Na- 
tions more  and  more  depend  on  one  another. 
They  must  help  each  other  or  everyone  will 
suffer. 

The  United  States  is  trying  to  reduce  ten- 
sions and  build  cooperation  with  all  countries 
in  the  world.  We  respect  nonalignment.  In 
recent  years  we  have  made  great  progress  in 
our  relations  with  both  the  Soviet  Union  and 
the  People's  Republic  of  China.  We  are  doing 
our  best  to  control  the  arms  race  and  to  make 
the  world  a  safer  place.  And  improvement  of 
our  relations  with  any  one  country  cannot 
be — and  will  not  be — at  the  expense  of  any 
other  countries.  We  believe  that  a  world  of 
peace  is  in  every  nation's  interest.  That  is 
America's  highest  objective. 

Last  week  the  Hindu  population  of  India 
celebrated  the  festival  which  commemorates 
the  eternal  and  eventual  triumph  of  good 
over  evil — Dashahara.  The  Muslim  people  of 
India,  at  almost  the  same  time,  celebrated 
the  inspiration  of  the  Prophet  in  composing 
the  Koran. 

It  is  this  kind  of  faith  that  can  overcome 
great  difficulties  and  that  can  help  achieve  our 
hopes.  It  is  this  kind  of  faith  that  can  be 
found  in  the  people  of  America  and  the  peo- 
ple of  India.  It  has  been  the  basis  of  our 
achievements  and  of  yours,  and  it  will  be  in 
the  years  ahead. 

Jai  Hind. 

Joint  Communique  Issued  at  the  Conclusion 
of  the  Visit  to  India  ^ 

At  the  invitation  of  the  Government  of  India, 
the  US  Secretary  of  State,  Dr.  Henry  A.  Kissinger, 
paid  an  official  visit  to  India  from  27  to  30  October, 
1974.  The  Secretary  called  on  the  President  of 
India  and  held  discussions  with  the  Prime  Minister, 
Foreign  Minister  and  other  senior  Ministers  and 
officials  of  the  Government  of  India.  He  conveyed 
to  the  President  and  the  Prime  Minister,  President 
Ford's  personal  greetings  and  his  satisfaction  over 
the  improvement  in  US-Indian  relations.  The  cor- 
dial and  frank  nature  of  the  discussions  during  the 
Secretary's    visit    reflected    the    desire    and    interest 


'Issued  at  New  Delhi  on  Oct.  29  (text  from  press 
release  449  dated  Oct.  30). 


of  both  countries  in  broadening  the  basis  for  their 
relationship  and  in  strengthening  the  many  contacts 
and  ties   between  the   Indian   and   American   people. 

During  the  discussions  there  was  an  exchange  of 
views  on  various  aspects  of  bilateral  relations,  the 
situation  in  South  Asia  and  neighboring  regions 
and  a  review  of  the  global  situation  including  the 
world  economic  situation. 

The  Indian  side  explained  the  initiative  and  steps 
it  had  taken  under  the  Simla  Agreement  towards 
normalization,  and  for  the  establishment  of  durable 
peace  and  cooperative  relations  between  the  coun- 
tries of  the  Subcontinent.  The  American  side  ex- 
pressed its  satisfaction  at  the  initiative  taken  by 
the  Prime  Minister  of  India  and  the  eflfort  of  other 
leaders  of  South  Asia  and  at  the  progress  that  had 
been  made  in  bringing  about  regional  peace  and  co- 
operation and  expressed  their  support  for  the  Simla 
process.  Both  sides  agreed  that  it  was  in  the  in- 
terest of  all  the  countries  of  the  region  to  live  in 
peace  and  harmony  on  the  basis  of  sovereign 
equality  and  without  intervention  by  outside  powers 
or  attempts  by  such  powers  to  gain  positions  of  spe- 
cial privilege  in  the  region. 

The  two  sides  expressed  their  satisfaction  at  the 
improvement  that  has  taken  place  in  their  bilateral 
relations  and  agreed  that  based  on  their  democratic 
traditions,  structure  of  government  and  past  rela- 
tionship, there  was  considerable  scope  for  further 
strengthening  of  bilateral  relations.  Both  sides 
affirmed  that  there  is  no  conflict  of  national  interests 
and  that  Indo-American  relations  are  based  on  the 
principles  of  equality,  mutual  respect  and  mutual 
understanding. 

The  two  sides  agreed  that  it  was  desirable  to 
promote  cooperation  between  the  two  countries  and 
that  the  agreement  to  set  up  an  Indo-US  Joint 
Commission  which  Secretary  Kissinger  and  Foreign 
Minister  Chavan  signed  on  October  28  marked  a 
significant  step  forward  in  building  a  framework 
for  more  mature  and  meaningful  relations  and  ac- 
tive cooperation.  They  expressed  confidence  that  the 
Joint  Commission  would  facilitate  contacts  and  ex- 
changes in  the  fields  of  trade  and  commerce,  eco- 
nomic cooperation,  science  and  technology,  education 
and  culture  and  other  fields.  The  first  meeting  of 
the  Joint  Commission  was  held  in  New  Delhi  on 
28  October  1974  and  the  next  meeting  will  be  held 
in  Washington  early  next  year.  It  was  also  agreed 
that  Sub-Commissions  would  soon  be  established  and 
begin  their  regular  meetings  in  New  Delhi  and 
Washington. 

The  Secretary  reviewed  recent  developments 
toward  a  lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East.  The 
Indian  side  welcomed  the  progress  so  far  achieved. 
Both  sides  expressed  the  hope  that  a  just  and  last- 
ing peace  will  be  achieved  on  the  basis  of  Security 
Council  Resolutions  242  and  338. 

The  Secretary  reviewed  progress  to  date  in  im- 
plementing the  Paris  Accords  on  Indo-China.    Both 


714 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


sides  expressed  the  hope  that  just  and  lasting  peace 
would  be  established  in  Indo-China  on  the  basis  of 
respect  for  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of 
the  states  of  the  region  without  any  outside  inter- 
ference. 

Both  sides  noted  with  satisfaction  that  series  of 
agreements  which  have  helped  to  reduce  tension  in 
Europe.  They  expressed  satisfaction  at  the  process 
of  decolonization  in  Africa  and  expressed  the  hope 
that  this  process  will  be  accelerated. 

In  reviewing  the  international  situation,  both  sides 
expressed  satisfaction  that  relaxation  of  tensions 
and  development  of  cooperation  are  becoming  the 
main  characteristics  of  international  life.  They  ex- 
pressed their  strong  support  for  further  efforts  to 
reduce  international  tensions  and  build  a  global 
detente.  On  disarmament  matters  the  Secretary 
described  current  US-Soviet  efforts  to  accelerate 
progress  in  reaching  agreements  on  strategic  arms 
limitation.  Both  sides  expressed  their  support  for 
the  realization  of  concrete  measures  in  the  field  of 
arms  limitation  and  disarmament.  The  Secretary 
also  discussed  US  concern  over  the  implications  for 
regional  and  global  stability  of  nuclear  proliferation. 
The  Indian  side  reiterated  its  consistent  position 
that  the  highest  priority  in  international  efforts 
should  be  accorded  to  nuclear  disarmament  and  that 
in  order  to  achieve  international  peace  and  stability, 
all  proliferation  of  nuclear  weapons  should  be 
stopped.  The  Indian  side  also  affirmed  India's  policy 
not  to  develop  nuclear  weapons  and  to  use  nuclear 
technology  for  peaceful  purposes  only.  The  US  side 
welcomes  the  Government  of  India's  affirmation  in 
this  regard.  There  was  mutual  recognition  of  the 
need  of  putting  nuclear  technology  to  constructive 
use,  particularly  for  developing  countries,  and  of 
ensuring  that  nuclear  energy  does  not  contribute 
to  any  proliferation  of  nuclear  weapons. 

In  reviewing  the  current  international  economic 
situation  and  the  rising  prices  of  food,  fertilizer, 
fuel,  industrial  materials  and  technology  both  sides 
agreed  that  cooperative  efforts  by  governments 
were  called  for  to  prevent  further  deterioration  of 
the  world  economic  structure  to  the  detriment  of 
both  the  developed  and  the  developing  nations.  The 
two  sides  noted  the  serious  situation  developing  in 
the  most  seriously  affected  countries  as  a  result  of 
rising  prices  and  the  paucity  of  resources  now  avail- 
able to  them.  They  expressed  the  hope  that  the  forth- 
coming World  Food  Conference  in  Rome  will  find 
a  way  of  conserving  world  food  stocks  and  making 
them  available  to  the  most  seriously  affected  de- 
veloping nations  on  more  favorable  terms.  They 
also  agreed  to  exchange  views  and  technology  on  a 
bilateral  and  multilateral  basis  in  order  to  achieve 
increase  in  national  food  production  and  ensuring 
the  necessary  inputs  of  energy,  fertilizers,  tech- 
nology, etc. 

The  US  Secretary  of  State  thanked  the  Govern- 
ment of  India  for  their  cordiality  and  warm  hospi- 


tality and  invited  the  Minister  of  External  Affairs 
of  India  to  pay  an  official  visit  to  the  USA.  The 
invitation  was  accepted  with  thanks. 

The  Prime  Minister  conveyed  an  invitation  for 
President  Ford  to  visit  India  in  1975,  and  Secretary 
Kissinger  accepted  the  invitation  on  behalf  of  the 
President. 


THE  VISIT  TO  BANGLADESH,  OCTOBER  30-31 

Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
to  the  Press,  Dacca,  October  30  ^ 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Ladies  and  gentle- 
men, I  first  of  all  want  to  express  my  appre- 
ciation to  the  Prime  Minister  and  to  all  of 
his  associates  for  the  very  warm  reception 
that  we  have  received  here. 

I  have  long  admired  the  Prime  Minister. 
It  isn't  often  that  one  has  the  privilege  of 
meeting  someone  who  has  been  the  father  to 
his  country  and  who  created  a  nation  out  of 
his  convictions.  We  had  a  very  good  talk  in 
New  York  in  which  I  had  the  pleasure  of 
making  his  acquaintance  for  the  first  time, 
and  we  continued  our  talk  here. 

We  had  a  brief  review  of  the  international 
situation  and  then  the  Prime  Minister  ex- 
plained to  me  his  aspirations  for  his  people 
and  for  his  country — and  Bangladesh 
wouldn't  exist  if  the  Prime  Minister  were 
not  a  man  of  vast  conceptions.  We  reviewed 
those,  and  I  expressed  to  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter that  the  United  States,  ever  since  the  in- 
dependence of  Bangladesh,  has  believed  very 
strongly  in  the  progress  and  development  of 
Bangladesh  and  we  will  do  what  is  within 
our  capabilities  to  help  with  the  problems  of 
food  and  with  the  problems  of  development. 

In  the  afternoon  I  reviewed  some  of  those 
specific  problems  with  the  Foreign  Minister, 
and  I  hope  we  can  make  some  progress  to- 
ward straightening  out  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties. We  discussed  in  general  terms  then  the 
larger  aspirations  of  Bangladesh  with  the 
Prime  Minister,  who  also  took  the  occasion  to 
invite  President  Ford  to  visit  Bangladesh. 


^  Made  following  a  meeting  with  Prime  Minister 
Rahman  (text  from  press  release  455  dated  Oct.  31). 


November  25,   1974 


715 


Q.  Sir,  what  are  the  difficulties? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  the  difficulties 
are  not  difficulties  between  our  two  countries, 
but  problems  in  development,  problems  in  the 
better  utilization  of  American  resources  that 
have  been  made  available,  and  matters  of  this 
kind.  It  isn't  often  that  I  have  the  pleasure 
of  visiting  a  country  with  which  we  have  no 
difficulties.  Of  course  the  Prime  Minister  said 
he  will  talk  with  you  after  I  have  left,  and  I 
do  not  know  what  he  is  going  to  say.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Q.  Sir,  in  what  way  can  the  United  States 
assist  in  resolving  these  difficidties  you  are 
referring  to? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  one  of  the  prob- 
lems of  Bangladesh  is  of  course  the  problem 
of  food,  and  that  has  two  aspects:  the  food 
that  has  to  be  imported,  but  in  the  long  term 
the  food  that  can  be  grown  inside  the  coun- 
try. This  requires  fertilizer,  technical  assist- 
ance of  various  kinds;  and  it  is  in  this  area 
where  the  long-term  hope  for  Bangladesh  re- 
sides and  where  the  United  States,  I  think, 
can  be  helpful  in  various  ways.  And  we  also 
believe  that  flood  control  is  one  of  the  areas 
in  which  we  can  cooperate. 

Q.  Sir,  did  you  discuss  subcontinental  rela- 
tions ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes,  we  discussed  re- 
lations on  the  subcontinent,  and  I  expressed 
my  respect  for  the  Prime  Minister's  gener- 
osity of  spirit  in  contributing  to  a  peaceful 
evolution  on  the  subcontinent,  and  the  United 
States  of  course  supports  the  process  of  ne- 
gotiations between  the  countries  on  the  sub- 
continent and  hopes  for  a  full  normalization 
of  relations  among  all  the  states  here. 

Q.  Your  Excellency,  can  we  then  hope  for 
some  solution  of  the  existing  problems  be- 
tween Bangladesh  and  Pakistan  in  respect  to 
the  division  of  assets  and  resources  and  the 
repatriation  of  Pakistanis  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  Prime  Minister 
of  course  had  explained  these  problems  to  me 
eloquently  already  in  New  York,  and  we  re- 
viewed them  again  here,  and  I  will  have  an 
occasion  to  discuss  them  in  Islamabad,  where 
I  am  going  tomorrow.  But  I  have  made  it  a 


practice  not  to  make  any  predictions  about 
one  country  while  I  am  visiting  another  coun- 
try. 

Q.  Are  you  taking  any  proposals  from  here 
to  discuss  in  Islamabad? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  The  Prime  Min- 
ister explained  his  general  point  of  view  to 
me,  and  I  have  no  specific  proposals.  I  am 
not  acting  as  mediator,  but  as  a  friend. 

Q.  Will  you  use  your  good  offices  in  this 
respect  to  persuade  Pakistan  to  come  to  an 
understanding  with  Bangladesh  to  solve  the 
remaining  problems ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  will  explain 
what  I  have  learned  here. 

Q.  Your  Excellency,  did  (indistinct)  ivith 
India  ivith  Pakistan? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  did  not  discuss 
it,  but  in  principle  we  are  not  averse  to  it, 
and  this  is  a  matter  that  we  are  prepared  to 
take  up. 

Q.  Your  Excellency,  are  you  convinced  tfiat 
the  economy  of  Bangladesh  is  viable? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  that  Bangla- 
desh— I  am  not  an  economist,  but  I  think 
that  there  is  great  potential  in  this  country, 
but  as  in  many  of  the  developing  countries, 
there  is  a  need  for  resources  to  begin  the 
process  of  development,  and  the  problem  is 
to  do  it  on  a  sufficient  scale  so  that  one  is  not 
.simply  going  from  crisis  to  crisis. 

Q.  In  view  of  the  reports  that  former 
President  Nixon  is  critically  ill,  might  this 
alter  your  current  travel  plans? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  do  not  want 
to  speculate  on  an  eventuality  that  I  hope 
will  never  arise. 

Dinner  Hosted  by  Foreign  Minister  Hossain, 
Dacca,  October  30 

Press  release  456  dated  October  31 

Toast  by  Foreign  Minister  Hossain 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  extend  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  and  people  of 
Bangladesh  a  warm  welcome  to  you,  to  Mrs. 
Kissinger,  and  to  the  members  of  your  dele- 


716 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


gation,  on  your  first  visit  to  Bangladesh.  We 
are  indeed  happy  that  you  have  found  time, 
despite  your  many  preoccupations,  to  come  to 
Bangladesh  soon  after  the  recent  meeting  in 
Washington  between  President  Ford  and  our 
Prime  Minister  Bangabandhu  Sheikh  Muji- 
bur  Rahman  and  our  meeting  in  New  York, 
when  we  were  able  to  note  with  satisfaction 
the  steady  development  of  friendly  relations 
between  our  two  countries.  Your  visit  to 
Bangladesh  will  contribute  toward  further 
development  of  the  friendly  relations  which 
we  both  value. 

The  Bengalee  people  have  known  of  the 
good  will  and  friendly  feelings  that  the  Amer- 
ican people  have  for  them.  Indeed,  we  recall 
with  appreciation  the  sympathy  and  support 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  including 
many  of  their  representatives  in  Congress, 
during  the  difficult  days  of  our  liberation 
struggle.  We  therefore  welcomed  the  estab- 
lishment of  relations  between  our  govern- 
ments soon  after  liberation  and  gratefully 
acknowledge  the  valuable  economic  assistance 
extended  to  us  since  liberation  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States. 

The  emergence  of  sovereign,  independent 
Bangladesh  was  a  fulfillment  of  the  aspira- 
tion of  the  Bengalee  people  to  live  in  free- 
dom. Independence  meant  for  them  an  oppor- 
tunity to  recover  from  centuries  of  neglect 
and  exploitation.  The  luxuriant  green  of 
Bangladesh  reflects  the  innate  fertility  of  our 
land.  Yet  today  our  people  are  prey  to  star- 
vation and  suffer  from  the  scourges  of  pov- 
erty, hunger,  disease,  illiteracy,  and  unem- 
ployment. 

Our  highest  priority  upon  independence 
has  been  to  harness  the  resources  with  which 
nature  had  endowed  us  and  which  remained 
unexploited  due  to  the  investments  necessary 
for  their  development  having  been  denied  in 
the  past.  Our  fertile  land,  given  investments 
in  irrigation  and  inputs,  has  the  latent  po- 
tential for  a  three-  to  four-fold  increase  in 
food  production,  which,  together  with  proper 
development  of  our  other  resources  including 
deposits  of  natural  gas,  our  forests,  and  our 
fisheries,  would  provide  the  foundations  of  a 
self-reliant  economy.  This  task  has  been  made 
enormously  difficult  by  the  impact  of  global 


inflation,  which  has  resulted  in  a  steep  esca- 
lation of  the  cost  of  development.  The  situa- 
tion has  been  further  aggravated  by  the  dev- 
astating floods  that  we  experienced  this  year. 

The  limits  of  endurance  of  a  people  have 
hardly  been  tested  as  those  of  the  people  of 
Bangladesh.  Yet  they  have  demonstrated, 
and  continue  to  demonstrate,  their  strong  de- 
termination to  contend  against  adversity  and 
to  build  a  better  future  for  themselves. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  material  assist- 
ance we  have  received  from  friendly  coun- 
tries, including  the  United  States,  has  pro- 
vided valuable  support  for  the  eflforts  of  our 
people.  Indeed,  such  support  and  assistance 
will  continue  to  be  of  importance  to  our  ef- 
forts to  build  a  better  life  for  our  people. 

We  have  steadfastly  pursued  an  independ- 
ent, nonaligned  foreign  policy,  seeking  to  de- 
velop friendly  relations  with  all  countries  on 
the  basis  of  respect  for  sovereignty,  equality, 
territorial  integrity,  and  noninterference  in 
each  other's  internal  afl'airs.  We  have  re- 
mained committed  to  the  pursuit  of  peace  in 
our  subcontinent,  in  our  region,  and  in  the 
world.  We  have  therefore  appreciated,  Mr. 
Secretary  of  State,  your  eflforts  for  the  pro- 
motion of  detente  and  the  easing  of  tensions 
in  diflferent  parts  of  the  world.  It  is  our  hope 
that  lasting  peace  may  be  established  in  the 
Middle  East  in  consonance  with  the  just 
aspirations  of  our  Arab  brethren,  including 
the  people  of  Palestine. 

We,  who  represent  the  poor  and  under- 
privileged majority  of  mankind,  look  for- 
ward to  the  creation  of  an  enduring  struc- 
ture of  peace  in  the  world  so  that  valuable 
resources  may  be  released  for  promotion  of 
the  welfare  of  the  people  of  the  world.  In- 
volved as  we  are  in  fighting  continuing 
battles  in  the  global  war  against  hunger,  we 
have  appreciated  the  contribution  you  have 
made  in  focusing  attention  on  the  problem 
of  food  and  in  proposing  a  world  conference 
on  this  subject.  It  is  our  hope  that  this  con- 
ference will  result  in  a  meaningful  program 
of  action  to  meet  one  of  the  most  urgent  prob- 
lems of  our  times. 

Consistently  with  our  commitment  to 
peace,  we  have  striven  to  promote  normal- 
ization of  relations   and   the   establishment 


November  25,   1974 


717 


of  durable  peace  in  our  subcontinent.  We 
are  fortunate  in  having  the  best  of  relations 
with  our  immediate  neighbors.  We  have 
made  our  maximum  contribution  toward  pro- 
moting normalization  of  relations  with  Paki- 
stan. We  remain  ready  to  move  forward 
toward  this  goal  through  solution  of  the 
remaining  outstanding  pi'oblems  on  the  basis 
of  discussions,  in  a  spirit  of  fair  play  and 
mutual  accommodation.  We  note  with  satis- 
faction that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  has  appreciated  our  efforts  to  promote 
the  process  of  normalization  in  our  subcon- 
tinent. 

Mr.  Secretai-y  of  State,  your  visit  has 
provided  a  valuable  opportunity  to  hold 
useful  discussions,  which  will  undoubtedly 
contribute  toward  further  development  of 
friendship  and  understanding  between  our 
two  countries.  We  have  appreciated  your 
assurance  that  your  great  country  will  con- 
tinue to  extend  valuable  assistance  to  us 
in  promoting  the  welfare  of  our  people.  I  am 
confident  that  the  bonds  of  friendship  and 
cooperation  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  Bangladesh  will  continue  to 
grow  to  the  mutual  benefit  of  our  two  gov- 
ernments and  peoples. 

Excellency,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  may  I 
now  request  you  to  join  me  in  a  toast  to  the 
health,  long  life,  and  happiness  of  His  Ex- 
cellency Mr.  Gerald  R.  Ford,  President  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  to  the  health, 
long  life,  and  happiness  of  our  honored 
guest,  Dr.  Henry  A.  Kissinger,  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
Mrs.  Kissinger,  and  to  the  well-being  and 
prosperity  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
of  America. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  Mrs.  Hossain,  dis- 
tinguished guests:  When  I  saw  all  these 
microphones  brought  and  placed  in  front  of 
us,  I  said  to  my  friend  the  Foreign  Minister 
that  one  of  us  had  better  say  something  in- 
telligent and  I  am  glad  to  know  that  he  has 
already  relieved  me  of  any  burdens  that  I 
may  have  with  his  eloquent  toast.    It  is  of 


course  difficult  to  respond  to  someone  who 
speaks  English  better  than  I  do. 

I  would  like  to  express  my  great  pleasure 
at  being  the  first  Secretary  of  State  to  visit 
Bangladesh,  and  it  is  a  particular  privilege 
for  me  because  your  Foreign  Minister, 
whom  I  knew  at  Harvard,  gave  me  an  op- 
portunity to  renew  my  acquaintance  with 
him  first  in  New  York  and  then  here,  and 
several  other  former  colleagues  from  Har- 
vard have  also  been  invited  to  this  occasion. 
But,  above  all,  I  am  moved  to  be  here  be- 
cause it  is  not  often  that  one  can  visit  a 
country  whose  courage  and  suffering  earned 
its  independence  in  a  so-recent  past  and 
which  symbolizes  so  much  the  necessities  of 
our  period. 

Bangladesh  has  gone,  in  10  years,  from 
dependence  to  independence  and  now  to  in- 
terdependence. In  the  last  century,  when 
new  nations  came  into  being  they  thought 
they  could  then  live  a  self-contained  exist- 
ence ;  and  given  the  economies  of  that  period, 
that  was  a  reasonable  aspiration.  But  Ban- 
gladesh came  into  being,  as  your  Foreign 
Minister  has  pointed  out,  after  centuries  of 
suffering,  at  the  precise  moment  when  no 
nation  could  by  its  own  methods  achieve 
the  aspirations  of  its  people.  All  nations, 
however  rich,  however  long  established, 
have  had  to  learn  to  live  with  the  reality 
that  all  of  us  can  achieve  our  objectives 
only  by  a  common  effort  or  not  at  all. 

And  so  this  country  has  found  itself  in  a 
situation  of  increasing  population,  in  a 
world  of  rising  prices,  and  having  to  estab- 
lish a  basis  for  development  and  prosperity. 
The  American  people  have  always  shared 
the  aspirations  for  the  independence  and 
progress  of  Bangladesh  and  we  have  been 
able  to  contribute,  to  some  small  extent,  to 
the  realization  of  Bangladesh's  hopes.  We 
believe  very  strongly  that  a  world  in  which 
children  go  hungry  is  an  intolerable  world 
and  all  of  us,  and  all  nations,  face  the  prob- 
lem of  what  to  do  about  the  challenge  of 
food.  Of  course  surplus  countries  can  help, 
but  the  ultimate  solution  must  be  in  increas- 
ing the  productivity  of  the  deficit  countries. 


718 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


and  we  agree  with  the  Foreign  Minister 
that  in  this  respect  the  potential  of  Ban- 
gladesh has  only  begun  to  be  tapped.  The 
United  States  continues  to  be  ready  to  co- 
operate with  the  deficit  countries  and  espe- 
cially with  established  friends  like  Bangla- 
desh in  achieving  this  aspiration. 

In  our  talks  this  afternoon,  we  had  an 
opportunity  to  discuss  the  whole  range  of 
development  efforts  of  Bangladesh  and  to 
see  in  what  way  the  efforts  of  other  coun- 
tries could  be  mobilized  to  help  realize  the 
aspirations  of  the  people  of  this  beautiful 
country.  We  agree  that  it  is  better  to  make 
a  major  effort  than  to  stagger  on  from  crisis 
to  crisis  overcoming  only  the  symptoms. 

As  for  the  international  goals  stated  by 
the  Foreign  Minister,  they  are  compatible 
with  the  aspirations  of  my  country  for  a 
world  of  diversity  based  on  respect  for  na- 
tional dignity  and  operating  on  the  princi- 
ples of  equality  and  mutual  accommodation. 
We  hope  that  whatever  disagreements  re- 
main on  the  subcontinent  can  be  resolved  in 
that  same  spirit,  and  we  have  applauded  the 
generosity  of  spirit  which  Bangladesh  has 
contributed  to  the  negotiations  that  have 
been  taking  place  in  this  area.  The  United 
States,  whenever  it  can,  will  use  its  influence 
for  a  just  and  equitable  peace,  including,  of 
course,  in  the  critical  area  of  the  Middle 
East,  and  we  know  that  those  countries 
that  cannot  always  participate  directly  in 
the  negotiations  will  sustain  us  with  their 
good  wishes. 

So,  I  want  to  say  that  my  visit  here  has 
been  too  short.  I  have  been  touched  by  the 
warmth  of  Bengalee  hospitality.  I  have 
been  delighted  to  renew  my  acquaintance 
with  so  many  old  friends  and  to  have  met 
so  many  new  ones.  I  was  particularly  pleased 
to  have  my  talks  with  the  Prime  Minister, 
who  had  made  a  profound  impression  al- 
ready when  we  met  in  New  York  and  who 
had  a  very  good  and,  I  believe,  very  fruitful 
talk  with  President  Ford. 

So  in  bringing  you  the  good  wishes  of  our 
President  I  would  like  to  propose  a  toast 
to  the  President  of  Bangladesh,  to  the  Prime 


Minister,  to  the  Foreign  Minister,  and  to  the 
enduring  friendship  of  our  two  peoples. 

Joint  Communique  Issued  at  the  Conclusion 
of  the  Visit  to  Bangladesh  « 

At  the  invitation  of  the  Government  of  the 
People's  Republic  of  Bangladesh,  the  United  States 
Secretary  of  State  Henry  A.  Kissinger,  accompanied 
by  Mrs.  Kissinger,  visited  the  People's  Republic  of 
Bangladesh  on  October  30  and  31,  1974.  During  his 
stay  the  Secretary  of  State  was  received  by  the 
President  of  the  People's  Republic  of  Bangladesh, 
Mr.  MohammaduUah,  the  Prime  Minister,  Banga- 
bandhu  Sheikh  Mujibur  Rahman,  and  the  Foreign 
Minister,  Ur.  Kamal  Hossain.  The  President  of 
Bangladesh  expressed  his  pleasure  at  this  visit,  the 
first  by  an  American  Secretary  of  State  to  Bangla- 
desh. On  the  evening  of  October  30  the  Foreign 
Minister  hosted  a  dinner  and  cultural  presentation 
for  the  Secretary  and  Mrs.  Kissinger. 

The  visit  of  the  Secretary  of  State  provided 
further  opportunity  to  continue  the  discussions 
which  started  during  the  recent  visit  of  the  Prime 
Minister  and  the  Foreign  Minister  to  the  United 
States  at  the  time  of  the  admission  of  Bangladesh 
to  the  United   Nations. 

The  discussions  were  held  in  a  cordial  atmosphere 
reflecting  the  warmth  in  relations  between  Bangla- 
desh and  the  United  States.  Subjects  of  discussion 
included  the  prospects  for  world  peace,  particularly 
in  the  Middle  East,  detente  and  the  economic  issues 
now  aflfecting  all  the  nations  of  the  world. 

Secretary  Kissinger  and  Foreign  Minister  Hossain 
noted  with  particular  satisfaction  that  the  cordial 
relations  between  their  two  countries  were  develop- 
ing satisfactorily  to  the  mutual  benefit  of  both. 
They  agreed  that  the  progress  which  has  been  made 
towards  reconciliation  among  the  nations  of  the 
Subcontinent  since  the  events  of  1971  is  encourag- 
ing, and  e.xpressed  the  hope  that  the  process  of 
normalization  will  continue.  Both  governments  took 
particular  pleasure  in  noting  the  repatriation  of 
about  230,000  persons  between  Bangladesh  and  Paki- 
stan up  to  June  of  this  year  under  the  aegis  of  the 
UNHCR  [United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for 
Refugees].  Both  sides  expressed  the  hope  that  all 
remaining  issues  would  be  satisfactorily  resolved 
through  negotiations  for  the  benefit  of  the  peoples 
of  the  Subcontinent  and  in  the  interest  of  peace,  sta- 
bility and  progress  in  the  region. 

The  Government  of  Bangladesh  expressed  appre- 
ciation for  the  assistance  the  United  States  has  pro- 
vided during  the  last  three  years,  including  recent 
bilateral  agreements  signed  in  Dacca  covering  food- 


"  Issued  at  Dacca  on  Oct.  30    (text  from  press  re- 
lease 457  dated  Oct.  31). 


November  25,   1974 


719 


grain  and  fertilizer  loans  amounting  to  approxi- 
mately $60  million  worth  of  assistance.  In  addition, 
the  substance  of  the  discussions  at  the  Aid-to-Bang- 
ladesh  Meeting  on  October  24  and  25  in  Paris  was 
reviewed.  Both  sides  agreed  that  this  meeting  rep- 
resented a  constructive  development  for  the  future 
of  Bangladesh.  The  Bangladesh  side  expressed  great 
satisfaction  that  the  United  States  Government 
would  assist  Bangladesh  within  its  capacity  and  that 
the  United  States  would  look  forward  to  being  an 
active  participant  in  the  efforts  of  the  Aid-to-Bangla- 
desh  consortium  to  contribute  to  the  future  develop- 
ment of  Bangladesh. 

Both  sides  expressed  the  desire  of  their  govern- 
ments to  continue  their  contacts  and  promote  ex- 
change at  all  levels  aimed  at  the  further  develop- 
ment of  friendly  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  Bangladesh. 


THE  VISIT  TO   PAKISTAN,   OCTOBER  31- 
NOVEMBER   1 

Dinner  Hosted  by  Prime  Minister  Bhutto, 
Rawalpindi,  October  31 

Press  release  459  dated  November  1 

Toast  by  Prime  Minister  Bhutto 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  I  have  a  written 
text  of  a  speech  in  my  pocket  and  I  can  take 
it  out  and  read  it.  But  it  would  be  a  dull  con- 
clusion to  a  very  warm  visit.  So  if  you  will 
bear  with  me,  I  would  like  to  depart  from  the 
text  and  say  a  few  words  only  which  come 
sincerely  from  my  heart.  And  since  they  come 
from  my  heart,  this  toast  and  this  speech  is 
not  for  Dr.  Kissinger,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
but  for  Mrs.  Kissinger,  for  one  of  two  rea- 
sons. Firstly  because  they  have  been  recently 
married;  and  she  can  say:  "Well,  you  cannot 
say  we  have  been  recently  married.  We've 
been  married  for  a  few  weeks  or  a  few 
months."  But  a  person  like  me,  having  been 
married  for  20  years,  would  say,  What  are  a 
few  weeks  or  a  few  months?  Especially  when 
you  travel  so  much,  and  Dr.  Kissinger  goes 
all  over  the  world,  leaving  you  behind  in 
Washington,  B.C.,  drab  and  dreary  Washing- 
ton, D.C.  But  you  can  read  his  books  when 
he  is  gone.  So  this  is  a  toast  for  Mrs.  Kissin- 
ger and  not  for  the  Secretary  of  State.  I  re- 


member fondly  "Waltzing  Matilda,"  but  we 
prefer  tilting  Kissinger.  But  they  say  that 
Dr.  Kissinger  doesn't  tilt  anymore — but  why 
did  he  get  married? 

We  welcome  you  to  Pakistan,  Dr.  Kissin- 
ger and  Mrs.  Kissinger.  Your  visit  here  is 
too  short.  But  I  know  how  terribly  busy  you 
are  looking  after  your  global  responsibilities, 
and  global  responsibilities  for  a  great  power 
mean  a  lot  to  all  of  us  because  it  means  a 
world  of  peace  and  a  world  of  stability.  And 
we  are  all  anxious  to  have  peace  and  stability. 

We  know  the  great  contributions  your 
country  has  made  and  you  have  made  as  the 
exponent  of  your  country's  foreign  policy 
for  the  achievement  of  a  world  equilibrium 
without  an  idealistic  approach  to  world  af- 
fairs. But  when  I  say  that  it  has  not  been 
idealistic,  it  does  not  mean  that  it  has  been 
devoid  of  idealism.  Idealism  can  never  be  for- 
gotten in  this  pragmatic  world. 

We  who  are  your  admirers  would  like  you 
to  be  considered  as  a  modern  Metternich. 
But  the  difference  is  that  Metternich's  nation 
had  lost  the  war  and  Metternich  came  after 
a  Napoleon.  You  are  casting  and  evolving  the 
foreign  policy  of  a  great  country  without  a 
war  and  as  a  victorious  nation. 

The  economic  and  political  situation  is  sat- 
urated. In  a  saturated  economic  and  political 
situation,  profound  changes  are  difficult  to 
achieve. 

After  the  First  World  War  and  the  Second 
World  War  it  was  possible  to  have  a  new  in- 
ternational order,  because  you  had  to  build  a 
new  international  order  on  the  ashes  of  v/ar 
and  on  the  debris  of  war.  But  when  you  have 
to  evolve  a  new  international  economic  and 
social  order  without  war,  without  a  clean 
slate,  .it  is  a  more  ingenious  effort,  and  it  re- 
quires more  patience  and  more  understand- 
ing of  the  whole  international  community. 

What  with  the  energy  crisis,  what  with  in- 
ternational inflation,  what  with  the  situation 
in  Europe  and  in  the  Middle  East  and  the 
situation  evolving  throughout  the  world — 
where  are  you  going  to  pull  the  pulley  and 
leave  the  structure  intact?  The  pulleys  have 
to  be  pulled,  and  yet  the  structure  has  to  be 
kept  intact.  This  is  why  your  job  is  unen- 


720 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


vious,  and  that  is  why  you  will  have  to  devise 
new  methods.  You  will  have  to  bring  to  bear 
your  full  imagination,  imagination  of  your 
great  people.  You  have  to  have  the  forbear- 
ance of  the  pyramids. 

You'll  have  to  negotiate  with  different 
powers,  different  countries,  different  peoples, 
with  conflicting  interests  and  with  different 
positions.  And  you  have  to  waltz  out  of  that 
situation  like  "Waltzing  Matilda."  Now, 
that's  why  we  feel  sorry  for  you — that  on 
the  one  hand,  you  represent  the  greatest 
power  on  earth;  on  the  other  hand,  you  are 
incapacitated  by  the  very  power  that  you 
hold.  We  who  come  from  smaller  countries 
can  express  our  views.  We  can  express  our 
views  more  freely.  But  these  views  do  not 
have  an  affect  on  the  changes  in  the  interna- 
tional structure. 

You  have  just  come  from  India  and  Bangla- 
desh. Believe  me,  we  will  be  happy  if  your 
visit  to  India  is  successful  and  if  your  visit 
to  Bangladesh  is  successful.  You  might  say, 
is  it  not  strange  that  Pakistan  should  say 
that,  Pakistan  with  her  differences  with  In- 
dia, historical,  way  back  God  knows  to  when, 
time  immemorial,  thousands  of  years  if  not 
hundreds?  But  we  say  this  is  a  new  world. 
This  is  a  different  world.  And  we  accept  your 
position.  We  accept  your  big  role  in  world  af- 
fairs. You  have  come  from  Bangladesh,  which 
was  a  part  of  our  country.  It  is  no  longer  a 
part  of  our  country.  Otherwise,  three  years 
ago,  you  would  have  come  from  East  Pakistan 
into  West  Pakistan.  Now  they  are  separate. 
We  wish  them  well.  We  would  like  them  to 
prosper.  We  would  like  them  to  be  happy, 
because  in  the  subcontinent  the  biggest  task 
we  have  is  to  face  poverty  and  misery.  If  we 
can  find  a  just  solution  to  our  problems — and 
we  know  that  you  will  be  happy  if  we  can  find 
these  solutions — we  would  be  very  happy. 

We  have  had  very  useful  discussions  today. 
I  am  happy  with  those  discussions ;  I  am  very 
satisfied.  Now  the  journalists,  they  will  badg- 
er you  tomorrow.  I  don't  want  the  journalists 
to  badger  Dr.  Kissinger.  He  has  got  enough 
problems  as  it  is.  And  therefore,  I'd  like  to 
tell  the  journalists  that  why  do  you  want  to 
trouble  him  unnecessarily  and  ask  him  silly 


questions,  pointed  questions,  "box  items." 
Forget  the  box  items,  the  small  questions,  for- 
get the  headlines.  I  say  I  am  satisfied,  and  I 
speak  now  as  a  representative  of  Pakistan, 
and  when  I  say  I  am  satisfied,  well  then, 
that's  enough. 

And  why  should  we  expect  results  instan- 
taneously? Results  don't  come  instantane- 
ously. We  are  not  going  into  a  cafeteria  to 
order  a  hamburger.  The  question  is  that  we 
have  had  discussions  and  I  am  .satisfied  with 
these  discussions.  That's  good  enough.  It's 
the  tip  of  the  iceberg,  and  you  shouldn't  ex- 
pect immediate  results,  or  spontaneous,  in- 
stantaneous decisions.  Those  days  are  gone. 
Those  days  no  longer  exist. 

So  I  would  say  don't  bother  about  the  jour- 
nalists. You  go  to  Kabul.  Say  hello  to  Daoud 
for  me  and  tell  him  that  we'd  like  to  be 
friends  with  them,  and  when  you  go  after 
that  to  Iran,  please  give  our  warmest  regards 
and  affection  and  respects  to  His  Majesty 
the  Shah  of  Iran,  with  whom  we  have  very 
close  and  cordial  relations.  And  we  wish  you 
a  very  good  journey  to  Rome,  where  we  hope 
you  will  rest  a  little;  and  if  your  speech  is 
still  unwritten  we  have  an  excellent  man  in 
the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Mr.  [Malik] 
Bucha,  who  can  write  a  very  good  speech  for 
you  if  you  want  him  to  write  that  speech. 

So  go  back  to  the  United  States  feeling 
satisfied  with  what  you  have  achieved.  And 
you  have  achieved  a  great  deal.  The  fact 
that  you  have  gone  to  India,  the  fact  that  you 
have  gone  to  all  these  countries  and  come  to 
us — we  feel  satisfied,  we  feel  happy  with 
your  visit  here.  We  wish  you  and  Mrs.  Kis- 
singer to  come  again  and  stay  a  little  longer 
in  our  country.  You  are  always  welcome ; 
your  leaders  are  always  welcome. 

And  finally,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  would 
like  you  to  join  me  in  a  toast  to  Dr.  Kissin- 
ger and  his  charming  wife,  Mrs.  Kissinger, 
to  our  friendship  with  the  United  States  of 
America — which  is  not  a  new  friendship. 
It's  an  old  friendship,  it  is  over  a  generation, 
and  it  is  a  constant  friendship.  It  has  not 
gone  through  ups  and  downs.  It  has  gone  up 
and  up,  and  there  is  no  question  of  its  going 
through  ups  and  downs;  because  when  you 


November  25,   1974 


721 


have  fundamental  friendship,  it  doesn't  go 
down — it  goes  up  or  it  stays  steady. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  Mrs.  Bhutto,  Excellen- 
cies, ladies  and  gentlemen :  I  wish,  Mr.  Prime 
Minister,  you  had  pulled  the  speech  from 
your  pocket  and  read  something  pedantic 
and  bureaucratic — which  is  what  is  usually 
prepared  for  one — because  then  my  difficulty 
in  following  one  of  the  more  eloquent  men 
of  our  times  would  not  be  so  great.  Of  course 
the  Prime  Minister  knows  very  well  that  his 
remarks  about  the  press  were  not  designed 
to  calm  them  down,  they  were  an  incitement 
to  riot.  [Laughter.] 

I  appreciate  the  very  warm  remarks,  and 
coming  to  this  country  is  always  returning  to 
old  friends.  This  is  my  second  visit  here  as 
Secretary  of  State,  and  I  met  the  Prime  Min- 
ister for  the  first  time  under  circumstances 
that  were  very  difficult  for  Pakistan. 

I  admired  his  wisdom  in  that  difficult  pe- 
riod. And  I  could  see  how  he  had  rebuilt  a 
nation  from  a  situation  that  could  not  have 
been  more  complex.  And  having  lived  through 
that  period  with  him  for  a  few  days,  I  would 
like  to  remark  on  the  generosity  of  spirit  that 
was  reflected  in  what  he  said  about  the  rela- 
tionship of  Pakistan  to  India  and  to  Bangla- 
desh. 

There  is  sometimes  speculation  of  what  I 
do  when  I  go  on  these  trips.  And  there  are 
some  articles  that  claim  that  I  tell  everybody 
what  they  would  like  to  hear.  The  fact  is 
that  I  try  to  tell  everybody  exactly  the  same 
thing.  When  I  was  in  India,  I  pointed  out 
that  the  United  States  believed  in  the  process 
of  peaceful  accommodation  in  the  subconti- 
nent, that  it  welcomed  the  negotiations  that 
were  going  on,  and  that  it  strongly  favored  a 
peaceful  solution.  But  I  also  said  there,  as  I 
say  here,  that  the  United  States  has  an  inter- 
est in  a  secure  and  unified  and  independent 
and  sovereign  Pakistan.  And  on  this  basis  I 
believe  that  peace  on  the  subcontinent  can  be 
achieved  for  the  benefit  of  all  of  its  people. 

I  appreciate  very  much,  Mr.  Prime  Minis- 
ter, your  observations  about  the  international 


scene,  because  it  is  true  that  what  the  world 
faces  today  is  how  to  build  a  peaceful  inter- 
national order  for  which  there  is  no  prece- 
dent. And  in  the  absence  of  catastrophe,  for 
which  there  is  no  immediate  impetus,  it  is 
moreover  a  peaceful  order  which  cannot  be 
based  simply  on  the  equilibrium  of  power, 
because  that  is  too  dangerous.  But  also  with- 
out an  equilibrium,  life  is  too  insecure.  But 
it  must  also  reflect  a  sense  of  justice,  where 
all  the  nations  feel  that  they  have  a  stake  in 
maintaining  that  new  international  system. 
Despite  differences  of  ideology  and  despite 
differences  in  history,  the  United  States  is 
trying  to  do  its  bit  in  bringing  about  in  this 
world  conditions  of  a  degree  of  interdepend- 
ence which  is  unique  in  history.  I  have  been 
speaking  about  the  problem  of  interdepend- 
ence for  the  last  year.  And  I  thought  that  I 
had  been  in  the  forefront  of  those  who  had 
coined  this  concept.  But  then  I  came  across 
this  speech  of  the  Prime  Minister,  who  as 
usual  said  the  same  thing  more  eloquently 
than  I  did.  He  said: 

The  world  today  is  very  different  than  the  world 
in  which  Pakistan  emerged  an  an  independent  na- 
tion 26  years  ago.  The  passage  of  time  has  witnessed 
a  gradual  but  perceptible  transformation  in  the 
minds  of  men  and  their  vision  of  the  world.  Com- 
peting ideologies  no  longer  cause  the  fear  or  inspire 
the  fervor  that  characterized  the  era  of  the  Cold 
War.  .\bove  all,  there  is  a  greater  perception  of  glo- 
bal unity  and  interdependence — a  concern  for  using 
the  world's  riches  more  beneficially  and  sharing 
them  more  equitably — and  a  concept  of  justice  and 
fairness  transcending  national  frontiers. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  these  views  reflect 
exactly  our  attitude.  And  I  have  taken  the 
liberty  of  quoting  you  because,  when  the  for- 
mal talks  are  over  and  when  one  speaks  of 
specific  issues  here  and  there,  one  tends  to 
forget  that  the  only  reliable  guarantee  of 
nations  dealing  with  each  other  is  whether 
they  have  the  same  perception  of  the  world 
and  the  same  general  objective  with  respect 
to  the  nature  of  peace. 

I  have  appreciated  in  our  talks  today,  Mr. 
Prime  Minister,  that  we  did  not  get  lost  in 
trivialities  and  spoke  about  the  essentials.  I 
share  your  feeling  that  the  talks  were  useful 


722 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


and  that,  as  always,  we  talked  as  old  friends 
and  as  constant  friends.  And  I  know  that 
whenever  we  will  come  back  here  or  when- 
ever an  American  Secretary  of  State  or  Pres- 
ident comes  here,  he  will  be  meeting  old  and 
reliable  fi'iends. 

And  it  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  would  like  to 
pi'opose  a  toast  to  the  Prime  Minister  and 
Mrs.  Bhutto,  to  the  people  of  Pakistan,  and 
to  the  friendship  between  Pakistan  and  the 
United  States. 

Joint  Communique  Issued  at  the  Conclusion 
of  the  Visit  to  Pakistan  ^ 

At  the  invitation  of  Prime  Minister  Zulfikar  Ali 
Bhutto,  the  United  States  Secretary  of  State,  Dr. 
Henry  Kissinger,  visited  Pakistan  from  October  31 
to  November  1.  Secretary  Kissinger  held  compre- 
hensive discussions  with  the  Prime  Minister  and 
Minister  of  State  [for  Foreign  Affairs  and  for  De- 
fense] Aziz  Ahmed  on  Pakistan-United  States  bi- 
lateral relations  and  on  a  broad  range  of  other  inter- 
national issues.  The  discussions  took  place  in  an  at- 
mosphere of  mutual  understanding  and  respect,  in 
keeping  with  the  special  friendship  and  close  ties 
that  exist  between  Pakistan  and  the  United  States. 

The  Secretary  conveyed  to  the  Prime  Minister, 
President  Ford's  personal  greetings  and  reiterated 
the  President's  desire  to  maintain  and  expand  the 
close  and  friendly  relations  which  have  traditionally 
existed  between  the  two  nations.  The  Prime  Minister 
warmly  reciprocated  President  Ford's  message  and 
welcomed  the  President's  assurances  that  the  U.S. 
would  continue  to  support  the  sovereignty  and  terri- 
torial integrity  of  a  strong,  secure  and  prosperous 
Pakistan  as  an  important  element  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  international  peace,  and  that  this  would  re- 
main an  important  principle  of  American  foreign 
policy.  The  Prime  Minister  and  the  Secretary  agreed 
that  mutual  respect  for  the  principles  of  sovereignty, 
territorial  integrity  and  non-interference  in  internal 
affairs  was  essential  for  peaceful  relations  among 
all  states. 

The  Prime  Minister  reviewed  with  the  Secretary 
the  efforts  the  Government  of  Pakistan  has  made  to 
restore  peace  and  bolster  stability  in  the  South  Asian 
region.  The  Secretary  expressed  U.S.  admiration  of 
the  Prime  Minister's  efforts  to  normalize  Pakistan's 
relations  with  India  and  Bangladesh.  He  told  the 
Prime  Minister  that  the  visits  he  had  recently  com- 
pleted to  New  Delhi  and  Dacca  had  heightened  his 
awareness  of  the  importance  of  the  normalization 
process  and  his  confidence  in  its  continued  progress. 


'  Issued  at  Islamabad  on  Oct.  31   (text  from  press 
release  460). 


He  expressed  his  particular  satisfaction  with  the 
progress  Pakistan  and  India  had  made  in  moving 
forward  together  toward  the  implementation  of  the 
provisions  of  the  1972  Simla  Agreement. 

The  Prime  Minister  called  the  Secretary's  atten- 
tion to  the  proposal  for  a  nuclear  weapons  free  zone 
in  South  Asia  which  Pakistan  has  sponsored  in  the 
current  session  of  the  United  Nations  General  As- 
sembly. They  took  note  of  the  adverse  implications 
for  stability  of  nuclear  proliferation  and  agreed  that 
renewed  efforts  should  be  made  to  prevent  the  spread 
of  nuclear  weapons. 

The  Prime  Minister  expressed  his  government's 
continued  appreciation  for  the  economic  assistance 
the  U.S.  has  over  the  years  provided  Pakistan.  He 
welcomed  the  United  States  Government's  decision 
to  furnish  approximately  100,000  tons  of  wheat  un- 
der Public  Law  480  program  to  help  meet  Pakistan's 
immediate  needs.  The  Secretary  assured  the  Prime 
Minister  that  the  U.S.  would  continue  to  give  care- 
ful consideration  to  Pakistan's  additional  require- 
ments. 

The  Prime  Minister  and  the  Secretary  took  note 
of  the  increasing  world  economic  interdependence 
and  expressed  concern  over  the  steep  rise  in  price 
levels  of  essential  goods.  They  stressed  the  need  for 
cooperative  endeavors  by  all  the  governments  con- 
cerned to  prevent  further  aggravation  of  the  world 
economic  situation.  They  hoped  that  the  forthcom- 
ing World  Food  Conference  in  Rome  would  succeed 
in  taking  necessary  steps  to  stabilize  the  food  situa- 
tion and  especially  to  mitigate  the  serious  food 
shortages  faced  by  the  most  seriously  affected  de- 
veloping countries. 

The  Secretary  welcomed  the  initiatives  being  taken 
by  the  Government  of  Pakistan  designed  to  achieve 
self-sufficiency  in  food  for  Pakistan  itself  and  to 
expand  Pakistan's  food  exports  to  deficit  countries. 
He  noted  that  the  U.S.  has  been  assisting  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Pakistan's  expanded  agricultural  re- 
search efforts  and  pledged  further  U.S.  assistance  in 
such  high  priority  areas  as  fertilizer  production  and 
water  resources  utilization. 

The  Prime  Minister  and  the  Secretary  reviewed 
the  efforts  now  going  forward  to  bring  about  fur- 
ther progress  toward  a  just  and  lasting  solution  to 
the  problems  of  the  Middle  East.  The  Prime  Minis- 
ter commended  the  Secretary  for  the  initiatives  he 
had  taken  during  his  recent  visit  to  Middle  Eastern 
capitals  and  urged  him  to  continue  these  valuable 
efforts. 

The  Secretary  expressed  his  deep  appreciation  to 
the  Prime  Minister  for  the  warm  hospitality  he  and 
his  colleagues  had  again  received  in  Pakistan.  He 
and  the  Prime  Minister  agreed  that  the  discussions 
they  had  held  had  been  most  useful  and  they  looked 
forward  to  meeting  again  to  exchange  views.  In  this 
connection.  Secretary  Kissinger  delivered  an  invita- 
tion to  Prime  Minister  Bhutto  from  President  Ford 


November  25,   1974 


723 


to  visit  with  him  in  Washington  at  a  mutually  con- 
venient date  within  the  first  three  months  of  the 
coming  year.  The  Prime  Minister  accepted  the  invi- 
tation with  pleasure.  The  Prime  Minister  conveyed 
an  invitation  for  President  Ford  to  visit  Pakistan  in 
1975,  and  Secretary  Kissinger  accepted  the  invita- 
tion on  behalf  of  the  President. 


THE  VISIT  TO  AFGHANISTAN,  NOVEMBER   1 


The  Secretary  expressed  the  continuing  desire  of 
the  United  States  to  cooperate  with  the  Republic  of 
Afghanistan  in  achieving  its  economic  development 
goals.  In  this  connection  the  Secretary  informed  the 
.Afghan  side  that  he  will  ask  a  senior  official  of  the 
U.S.  Agency  for  International  Development  to  visit 
Afghanistan  in  the  near  future  to  review  with  the 
Afghan  authorities  joint  programs  and  progress  in 
bringing  projects  to  fruition. 


Joint  Statement  Issued  at  the  Conclusion 
of  Secretary  Kissinger's  Discussions  * 

United  States  Secretary  of  State,  Henry  A.  Kis- 
singer, paid  an  official  visit  to  the  Republic  of  Af- 
ghanistan on  November  1,  1974,  at  the  invitation  of 
the  Government  of  Afghanistan.  During  his  stay  he 
was  received  by  the  Head  of  State  and  Prime  Minis- 
ter, Mohammad  Daoud  and  met  Mr.  Mohammad 
Nairn  [adviser  to  the  Prime  Minister]  and  Deputy 
Foreign  Minister  Waheed  Abdullah.  He  had  lunch 
with  the  Head  of  State  and  Prime  Minister  Mo- 
hammad Daoud. 

The  two  sides  conducted  frank  discussions  on  a 
wide  range  of  issues  in  the  friendly  atmosphere  that 
characterizes  U.S. -Afghan  relations.  The  topics  in- 
cluded bilateral  relations,  recent  developments  in  the 
Near  East  and  South  Asia  region,  progress  in  inter- 
national detente,  and  the  mutual  interests  of  both  na- 
tions of  securing  a  peaceful,  stable,  and  cooperative 
world.  The  Afghan  side  informed  Secretary  Kissin- 
ger of  its  views  and  position  on  a  number  of  inter- 
national issues  including  the  situation  prevailing  in 
the  region  to  which  .Afghanistan  belongs.  Secretary 
Kissinger  informed  the  Afghan  side  of  his  discus- 
sions with  other  governments  in  the  region.  They 
agreed  that  the  way  to  find  lasting,  durable  and 
peaceful  solutions  to  existing  problems  and  differ- 
ences between  states  is  through  constructive  and 
thorough  discussions  among  all  sides  concerned. 

Both  sides  expressed  pleasure  at  the  warm  and 
friendly  relations  between  their  governments.  In  ex- 
pressing his  appreciation  for  this  opportunity  to 
visit  Afghanistan,  the  Secretary  affirmed  his  admira- 
tion for  progress  being  made  by  the  government 
and  people  of  the  Republic  of  Afghanistan.  Secre- 
tary Kissinger  also  conveyed  to  President  Daoud 
warm  personal  wishes  from  President  Ford. 

The  Afghan  and  American  sides  stressed  the  im- 
portance of  international  cooperation  in  the  field  of 
economic  and  technical  development  and  its  major 
role  in  strengthening  international  stability  and 
peace.  The  Afghan  side  expressed  its  pleasure  at  the 
contribution  towards  this  end  being  made  by  the 
United  States  in  Afghanistan  through  bilateral  eco- 
nomic, technical,  and  educational  cooperation. 


'Issued  at  Kabul  on  Nov.  1   (text  from  press  re- 
lease 462). 


THE  VISIT  TO   IRAN,   NOVEMBER   1-3 

News  Conference  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
and  Minister  Ansary,  Tehran,  November  2 

Press  release  464  dated  November  2 

Minister  of  Economic  Affairs  and  Finance 
Hushang  Ansary:  Gentlemen,  we  have  just 
emerged  from  a  meeting  with  Secretary  of 
State  Henry  Kissinger  and  his  distinguished 
colleagues.  At  this  meeting  let  me  start  by 
saying  we  have  expressed  our  pleasure  and 
privilege  at  the  opportunity  to  have  the  Sec- 
retary here  in  Iran  and  to  discuss  matters  of 
mutual  interest,  not  only  with  His  Imperial 
Majesty  the  Shahanshah  as  was  done  last 
night,  but  also  here  at  this  Ministry  in  con- 
nection with  the  various  aspects  of  our  coop- 
eration between  the  United  States  and  Iran. 

I  took  the  opportunity  at  the  meeting  with 
the  Secretary  to  express  our  great  apprecia- 
tion for  the  good  work  he  has  done  and  is 
continuing  in  connection  with  peacemaking 
efforts  in  the  Middle  East.  We  have  followed 
his  itinerary  very  closely,  and  we  are  highly 
appreciative  of  his  personal  contributions, 
which  have  been  great,  in  bringing  about  con- 
ditions to  create  peace  and  stability  in  the 
area,  as  we  have  always  felt  in  this  country 
it  is  high  time  that  the  people  of  the  region 
in  this  part  of  the  world  disengage  them- 
selves from  the  problems  of  confrontation 
and,  instead,  embark  on  extensive  programs 
of  economic  development  and  social  reform 
that  should  be  aimed  at  raising  the  standard 
of  living  and  insuring  welfare  and  prosperity 
for  the  people  of  these  countries.  In  that  re- 
spect, we  have  expressed  not  only  our  appre- 
ciation for  the  great  contributions  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  but  also  wished  him  con- 
tinued success  in  his  efforts. 


724 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


May  I  say  also  that  we  are  very  pleased 
that,  concurrent  with  the  visit  of  the  Secre- 
tary, agreement  has  been  reached  on  the  for- 
mation of  a  Joint  Commission  at  ministerial 
level  to  oversee  and  supervise  the  develop- 
ment of  relations  between  the  countries  in 
many  areas  of  special  interest,  including  po- 
litical and  economic,  scientific,  cultural,  and 
other  subjects  of  interest.  We  are  gratified 
that  the  Secretary  personally  has  agreed  to 
co-chair  the  Commission,  and  we  are  certain 
that  as  a  result  of  the  talks  that  we  had  this 
morning,  the  Commission  should  be  able  to 
make  important  contributions  to  the  develop- 
ment of  relations  between  the  two  countries, 
a  relationship  that  has  traditionally  been  very 
close  and  will  continue  to  be  close,  taking  its 
inspiration  from  the  wishes  of  His  Imperial 
Majesty  and  the  leaders  of  your  country,  the 
United  States.  With  that  brief  remark,  la- 
dies and  gentlemen,  may  I  now  give  you  the 
Secretary  of  State. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Mr.  Minister,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  after  reading  some  of  the  ac- 
counts about  the  Iranian-American  relation- 
ships over  recent  weeks,  I  think  it  is  impor- 
tant to  emphasize  that  I've  come  here  to  visit 
old  and  trusted  and  steady  friends.  All  of  my 
colleagues  and  I  have  been  very  grateful  for 
the  traditionally  cordial  and  warm  reception 
we  have  had  here.  I  have  had  the  privilege  of 
spending  over  two  hours  with  His  Imperial 
Majesty  last  evening,  and  this  morning  the 
Minister  of  Finance  and  I,  as  well  as  our  as- 
sociates, had  a  very  full  exchange  about  the 
Commission  that  we  have  agreed  to  set  up — 
but  a  Commission  that  makes  sense  only 
within  the  framework  of  compatible  views 
about  the  future  evolution  of  this  area  and 
of  the  world  economy. 

So  all  our  talks  here  have  been  very  posi- 
tive and  with  an  attitude  that  we  share  a 
common  destiny.  I  think  the  communique 
speaks  for  itself,  and  I  see  no  point  in  review- 
ing it.  But  it  makes  clear  that  a  considerable 
amount  of  attention  was  devoted  to  a  review 
of  the  international  situation,  in  which  we  al- 
ways benefit  from  His  Majesty's  advice  and 
perceptions. 

Another  important  part  of  our  discussions 
both  last  evening  and  this  morning  was  de- 


voted to  the  future  of  the  world  and  how  to 
master  some  of  the  current  dislocations. 
With  respect  to  the  related  problems  of  en- 
ergy, food,  and  inflation,  there  is  a  clear  rec- 
ognition on  both  sides  that  the  stability  and 
progress  of  the  industrialized  world  as  well 
as  the  development  of  the  least  developed 
parts  of  the  world  are  essential  to  maintain- 
ing all  that  has  been  achieved  in  the  last  gen- 
eration and  equally  essential  to  the  future 
peace  and  stability  of  the  whole  world. 

It  was  in  this  context — that  of  the  general 
economic  set  of  relationships — that  the  ques- 
tion of  oil  prices  was  discussed  in  a  construc- 
tive and  positive  spirit  and  with  a  sense  of 
hopeful  evolution  with  respect  to  the  contri- 
bution that  can  be  made  to  the  objective  that 
I  previously  stated.  Our  Iranian  friends  have, 
in  addition,  a  full  recognition  of  the  crucial 
importance  of  the  problem  of  food,  and  we 
have  discussed  several  methods  by  which  our 
two  countries  can  cooperate  in  meeting  the 
needs  of  the  world  for  additional  food  and 
for  additional  resources  to  produce  more 
food. 

And  finally,  we  di.scussed  in  this  context 
the  necessity  of  mastering  the  world  infla- 
tion, because  none  of  these  problems  can  be 
dealt  with  on  an  isolated  basis.  Within  the 
next  month  we  will  set  up  subgroups  in  vari- 
ous fields  including  those  that  have  been  men- 
tioned by  the  Minister  of  Finance  and  my- 
self, which  have  been  assured  of  the  highest 
level  attention  in  both  countries,  charged  with 
preparing,  hopefully,  within  six  months,  ma- 
jor advances  in  these  fields  for  another  meet- 
ing of  the  Joint  Commission,  which  we  plan 
to  hold  in  Washington,  though  we  will  not  be 
able  to  match  the  hospitality — and  you  will 
have  to  keep  in  mind  that  we  have  a  shorter 
history  in  which  to  learn  these  civilized  meth- 
ods. 

So,  we  are  very  pleased  with  our  meeting 
here,  and  I  would  like  to  express  my  appreci- 
ation and  to  convey  the  greetings  of  President 
Ford,  who  hopes  to  make  the  acquaintance  of 
His  Imperial  Majesty  very  soon. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  will  you  take  some  ques- 
tions ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes. 


November  25,    1974 


725 


Q.  Put  maybe  overly  simply,  the  United 
States  favors  lower  oil  prices,  and  Iran  has 
favored  higher  oil  prices.  Based  on  your  visit 
here,  do  you  think  there  will  be  any  narroiv- 
ing  of  the  views  on  prices  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  of  course  the 
statement  of  the  issue,  as  you  yourself  said, 
is  overly  simple.  I  think  that  you  of  course 
all  have  to  keep  in  mind  that  Iran  cannot 
make  these  decisions  unilaterally  and  will 
have  to  consult  its  partners  in  OPEC  [Orga- 
nization of  Petroleum  Exporting  Countries] 
about  any  conclusions  that  it  may  reach  with 
respect  to  oil  prices.  I  think  the  views  with 
respect  to  the  linked  problems  of  oil  prices 
and  inflation  have  been  brought  closer. 

Q.  The  suggestion  of  that,  sir,  is  that  you 
tvould  hope  that  Iran  at  some  point  in  the 
near  future  would  use  its  influence  in  the  di- 
rection of  loioering  prices.  Is  that  correct? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  I've  tried  to 
explain  on  a  number  of  occasions,  the  oil  price 
problem  has  many  aspects.  When  prices  have 
been  rising,  there  are  many  other  things  that 
can  be  done  other  than  immediately  lowering 
them.  But,  first  of  all,  some  of  you  will  have 
an  opportunity  to  meet  with  His  Imperial 
Majesty.  Secondly,  I  do  not  think  it  would 
be  appropriate  for  me  to  go  into  details  ex- 
cept to  say  that  we  had  a  constructive  and 
positive  talk  on  the  subject  and  that  our 
views  have  been  brought  closer. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  are  you  hopeful  that  in 
the  medium  run  that  oil  prices  might  be  re- 
duced? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I'm  hopeful  that  the 
impact  of  oil  prices  on  the  world  economy 
can  be  brought  under  control,  and  I  believe 
that  this  requires,  on  the  other  side,  some  rec- 
ognition of  the  impact  of  the  inflation  of  the 
world  on  the  oil-producing  countries.  But  I 
think  in  that  framework  progress  is  possible. 

Q.  But  in  the  immediate  future,  do  you  an- 
ticipate any  further  rise  in  oil  prices,  per- 
haps not  a  very  great  one,  but  a  further  rise 
as  a  residt  of  the  OPEC  meeting  in  Vienna  ? 


Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  we 
should  wait  until  we  see  what  His  Imperial 
Majesty  will  propose  at  the  OPEC  meeting. 
Of  course  the  hope  of  the  United  States  is 
that  further  rises  can  be  avoided. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  you  discuss  with  the 
Shah  the  prospects  for  a  possible  meeting  be- 
tween producers  and  the  consumers  anytime 
soon? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes,  we  discussed  the 
initiatives  that  have  been  made  with  respect 
to  meetings  of  producers  and  consumers.  I 
explained  to  His  Imperial  Majesty  the  gen- 
eral American  approach  to  the  problem  of  the 
dialogues.  We,  in  any  event,  will  remain  in 
close  contact  with  His  Majesty,  as  we  tradi- 
tionally do,  to  make  sure  that  we  understand 
each  other's  views.  The  United  States  is  not 
opposed  to  a  dialogue  between  consumers  and 
producers,  and  the  problem  is  to  conduct  it 
in  such  a  manner  that  it  will  achieve  the  de- 
sired results  for  both  parties. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  the  Middle  East,  did 
you  have  a  considerable  discussion  with  the 
Shah  on  this  issue,  and  ivould  you  tell  us 
whether  there  is  any  fundamental  difference 
in  U.S.  and  Iranian  views? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  had  an  extensive 
discussion  with  His  Imperial  Majesty  on  the 
Middle  East  and  benefited  from  his  evalua- 
tion of  the  situation.  I  believe  that,  as  has 
been  the  case  in  the  past,  our  analysis  is  sub- 
stantially congruent. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  is  the  American 
view  on  His  Imperial  Majesty's  proposal  for 
a  fixed  price  of  just  under  $10? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  are  not,  in  prin- 
ciple, opposed  to  the  idea  of  a  fixed  price,  but 
we  are  studying  it  further. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  has  the  question  of  food 
supply  been  linked  with  the  question  of  en- 
ergy supply? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No,  the  issue  of  food 
supply  has  not  been  linked  with  the  issue  of 
energy  supply.  But  on  the  other  hand,  there 
is  an  inherent  connection  between  the  will- 


726 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


ingness  of  the  world  to  take  a  global  view  to 
one  problem  and  the  ability  of  the  world  to 
take  a  global  view  to  the  other  problem.  This 
is  not  a  question  of  a  condition ;  this  is  a  ques- 
tion of  the  approach. 

We  will  proceed  with  our  food  policy  with- 
out reference  to  any  decisions  that  have  been 
made  or  will  be  made.  But  any  thoughtful 
person  must  recognize  that  reality  estab- 
lishes a  connection  between  the  ability  of  the 
world  to  deal  globally  with  its  problems  in 
various  fields. 

But  I  would  also  like  to  add  that,  at  least  as 
far  as  Iran  and  the  United  States  are  con- 
cerned, this  is  not  a  problem. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  is  the  U.S.  view 
on  the  role  that  Iran  should  play  in  the  In- 
dian Ocean  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  you  know, 
I'm  trying  to  curb  the  missionary  spirit  in 
our  bureaucracy,  and  therefore  I'm  trying  to 
reduce  our  natural  propensity  of  telling  other 
people  what  to  do.  But  Iran,  by  virtue  of  its 
resources,  its  political  cohesion,  and  its  per- 
ception of  itself,  can  play  a  significant  and 
stabilizing  role.  It  has  already  attempted  to 
contribute,  and  not  without  success,  to  eas- 
ing relations  between  several  of  its  neigh- 
bors, and  I  believe  that  this  is  a  role  it  can 
continue  to  play. 

In  the  field  of  agriculture,  for  example, 
Iran  can  make  a  major  contribution  to  en- 
hancing the  productivity  of  other  countries 
in  the  Indian  Ocean,  and  we  discussed  vari- 
ous methods  by  which  our  technology  and  the 
Iranian  resources  can  combine  to  bring  this 
about,  which  will  become  apparent  during 
and  after  the  World  Food  Conference.  So  we 
consider  that  Iran's  role  in  the  Indian  Ocean 
is  a  constructive  one  and  one  which  we  tend 
to  support. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  yott,  tell  us  whether 
the  United  States  is  moving  totvard  a  reas- 
sessment of  its  attitudes  toward  the  Pales- 
tinian Liberation  Organization,  and  ivhether 
this  subject  came  up — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  to  tell  you,  Mr. 
Minister,  this  is  the  press  that  travels  with 


me  that  normally  sees  me  on  background, 
and  now  they  are  trying  to  ask  on  the  record 
all  the  questions  to  which  they  have  already 
heard  my  answers  on  background.  [Laugh- 
ter.] As  I've  pointed  out  to  you  gentlemen 
previously — 

Minister  Ansary:  They  were  wondering  if 
you'd  changed  your  mind — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No,  they  want  to  get 
it  on  the  record.  As  I  pointed  out  to  you  gen- 
tlemen previously,  I  will  probably  visit  the 
Middle  East  next  week  in  order  to  assess  and 
to  talk  to  the  participants  at  the  Rabat  sum- 
mit and  to  other  countries  in  the  area  that 
for  obvious  reasons  were  not  at  the  Rabat 
summit  about  their  conclusions  with  respect 
to  recent  events.  The  United  States  is  not,  at 
this  moment,  undertaking  a  reassessment  of 
its  policy;  after  I  return  from  the  area,  nat- 
urally, the  President  and  his  senior  advisers 
will  consider  the  overall  situation. 

But  I  do  not  expect  a  change  in  American 
policy. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  follotving  up  on  Mr.  Kop- 
pel's  [Ted  Koppel,  ABC  News']  question 
about  the  Indian  Ocean,  did  you  discuss  with 
the  Shah  the  prospect  of  an  American  base 
on  the  island  of  Diego  Garcia?  Could  you.  tell 
us  a  little  aborit  that? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  will  answer  that 
question,  but  I  think  you  gentlemen  have  to 
recognize  that  I  cannot  in  this  press  confer- 
ence give  a  full  account  of  a  four-hour  dis- 
cussion with  the  Shah.  We  did  not  discuss 
this  issue.  But  could  we  have  some  questions 
from  the  Iranian  journalists  present? 

Q.  Yes.  Mr.  Secretary,  could  you  kindly 
tell  me  if  there  is  any  chance  of  Iranian  in- 
vestment in  American  companies,  like  Iran- 
ian investment  in  Germany's  Krupp  Com- 
pany ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  It  is  not  an  issue  that 
came  up  directly,  but  it  is  the  sort  of  issue 
that  would  be  addressed  by  the  Joint  Com- 
mission. I  can  say  that  in  principle  we  have 
no  objection  to  this. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  ivill  the  work  of  the 
Joint  Commission  be  limited  to  the  bilateral 


November  25,   1974 


727 


relations,  or  will  you   be   doing   things   to- 
gether in  turn? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Now,  the  work  of  the 
Commission  will  include  such  problems  as 
possible  investment  in  third  countries,  for 
example,  and  it  will  address  itself,  I  believe, 
also  to  what  can  be  contributed  through  our 
bilateral  relations  to  the  regional  development 
in,  for  example,  the  Indian  Ocean. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  the  question  of  arms 
deliveries  to  Iran  come  up,  and  if  so,  in  what 
context? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  you  know, 
we  have  an  ongoing  arms  relationship  with 
Iran,  and  one  or  two  issues  in  connection 
with  this  came  up  tangentially.  There  there 
is  no  policy  issue  that  requires  a  great  deal  of 
consideration  at  this  moment. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  at  the  outset  you  said 
that  the  Joint  Commission  only  makes  sense 
in  the  light  of  the  compatible  views  of  the 
two  countries  on  the  world  economy.  Do  you 
consider,  after  your  talks,  that  both  nations 
have  a  compatible  view  now  on  the  ivorld 
economy? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  said  that  His  Im- 
perial Majesty  and  I  discussed  how  essential 
it  was  for  the  industrial  nations  to  maintain 
their  stability,  their  possibility  for  progress, 
for  maintaining  the  kind  of  earth  that 
brought  us  to  the  present  situation,  or  that 
brought  us  not  to  the  present  situation  but 
brought  about  the  evolution  of  the  whole 
post- World  War  II  period;  and  secondly,  also, 
the  necessity  of  helping  the  least  developed 
countries.  I  believe,  with  respect  to  those  ob- 
jectives and  to  the  objectives  of  bringing 
about  global  solutions  to  the  problems  of  en- 
ergy, food,  and  inflation,  the  objectives  of  the 
United  States  and  Iran  can  be  said  to  be  sub- 
stantially compatible. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  does  xvhat  you  have  said 
on  oil  previously  mean  that  you  now  expect 
Iran  to  siipport  efforts  to  hold  the  line  on  oil 
prices  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  don't  think  I  should 
be  any  more  specific  than  I  have  been,  and  I 


think  that  you  will  just  have  to  wait  to  see 
what  position  Iran  will  take. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  nevertheless,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  United  States  and  leaving  Iran  out 
of  it,  you  said  that  the  hope  of  the  United 
States  is  that  further  rises  can  be  avoided. 
What  happens  to  our  hope  for  lower  prices? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Before  you  can  have 
lower  prices,  you  have  to  have  stable  prices. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  Iran  has  proposed  this 
unitary  price  of  $9.85  in  the  gulf.  Do  you  re- 
gard this  as  a  true  weighted  average  reilect- 
ing  current  rates  in  the  gulf,  or  as  an  in- 
crease ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  was  warned  before 
I  got  here  under  no  circumstances  to  get  my- 
self involved  in  a  detailed  discussion  of  oil 
prices,  because  my  Iranian  counterpart  would 
be  infinitely  more  competent  than  I  and  would 
overwhelm  me  with  statistics.  So  I'm  not  pre- 
pared to  go  into  a  discussion  of  what  price 
would  be  considered  the  correct  price  by  the 
United  States  or  a  price  from  which  index- 
ing might  be  considered  appropriate.  But  it 
is  one  of  the  problems  that  has  to  be  dis- 
cussed. 

Q.  Can  we  ask,  perhaps,  the  question  from 
Mr.  Ansary?  How  would  Iran  regard  an  ar- 
bitration of  the  present  oil  price? 

Mi)iister  Ansary:  Well,  as  you  know.  His 
Imperial  Majesty  has  proposed  that  he  would 
be  prepared  to  link  the  price  of  oil  with  the 
rate  of  inflation  in  the  industrial  countries. 
Once  you  link  the  two  together,  they  can 
move  in  either  direction  together. 

Q.  Mr.  Minister,  when  you  say  once  you 
liyik  them  together  they  can  move  in  either 
direction,  do  you  believe  that,  in  a  period 
when  there  is  massive  ivorld  inflation,  it  is 
realistic  to  expect  a  doxvnward  trend  in  oil 
prices  linked  to  a  doivyiivard  tvend  in  other 
commodity  prices? 

Minister  Ansary:  I  stand  on  my  statement 
that  the  idea  is  to  link  the  two  together.  Once 
you  do  that,  they  both  have  the  same  destiny. 
Now,  whether  it's  realistic  or  not  depends  on 


728 


Deparfment   of   State   Bulletin 


the  approach  that  we  all  make  to  the  problem, 
toward  inflation. 

Q.  Mr.  Ansary,  I  icasn't  challenging  your 
statement  by  any  means,  sir.  I  tvas  seeking 
further  amplification  of  it. 

Minister  Ansary:  As  you  know,  we're  all 
concerned  with  the  rampant  inflation  with 
which  the  world  has  been  faced.  This  pro- 
posal was  made  initially  by  His  Imperial 
Majesty  in  the  context  of  his  desire  for  the 
entire  community  of  nations  to  cooperate  in 
lowering  the  rate  of  inflation,  which  is  only 
beneficial  to  the  entire  world  community. 

Q.  Mr.  Minister,  does  Iran  want  to  mate 
the  two  at  the  present  levels,  when  the  price 
of  oil  is  artificially  high,  or  would  it  be  will- 
ing to  go  back  to  some  previous  index  level 
from  previous  years  ? 

Minister  Ansary:  All  I  can  say  is  that  link- 
ing can  only  take  place  at  the  time  you  talk 
about  it.  There  was  no  question  of  making 
the  link  retroactive. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  you  and  His  Majesty 
specifically  discuss  his  plan  for  indexing  and 
for  linking  20  or  30  co^nmodities  to  the  price 
of  oil?  And  if  so,  I  assume  you're  familiar 
with  the  criticism  of  that,  that  it  amounts  to 
institutionalizing  inflation.  Did  that  come  up? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes,  that  came  up, 
and  I  will  have  to  stand  on  what  I  said;  I 
cannot  go  into  more  detail  about  it.  I  repeat 
what  I  said,  that  what  we  discussed  was 
within  the  context  of  considering  the  impact 
on  the  world  economy,  especially  on  the  in- 
dustrialized nations  as  well  as  on  the  least 
developed  nations,  of  the  energy  crisis,  as 
well  as  the  impact,  on  the  producers,  of  infla- 
tion. 

Now,  obviously  it  is  in  neither  side's  inter- 
est to  build  an  institutionalized  system  that 
accentuates  the  tendencies  on  both  sides.  And 
some  means  will  have  to  be  found  to  take  ac- 
count of  these  objectives,  and  I  left  the 
meeting  with  some  encouragement  that  an 
evolution  in  a  constructive  direction  was  pos- 
sible. Now,  what  form  this  will  take,  one  will 
have  to  await  Iran's  proposals  at  the  OPEC 


meetings  and  other  discussions  that  may  take 
place. 

Minister  Ansary:  Thank  you  very  much, 
Mr.  Secretary.  I  think  since  the  Secretary 
has  to  leave  for  the  airport  immediately  in 
about  five  minutes  fi'om  now,  we'll  close  the 
meeting.  Thank  you  very  much. 


Joint  Communique  Issued  at  the  Conclusion 
of  the  Visit  to  Iran  ^ 

At  the  invitation  of  the  Government  of  Iran  the 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  Dr.  Henry 
A.  Kissinger,  visited  Iran  November  1-.3,  1974.  The 
visit  was  another  expression  of  long-standing  close 
and  friendly  relations  between  the  two  countries  and 
their  interest  in  further  strengthening  the  ties  be- 
tween them. 

During  the  visit  Dr.  Kissinger  was  received  by  His 
Imperial  Majesty,  Mohammad  Reza  Shah  Pahlavi, 
Shahanshah  of  Iran.  Secretary  Kissinger  conveyed 
to  His  Majesty  the  warm  personal  greetings  of 
President  Ford,  together  with  the  President's  ex- 
pressions of  appreciation  for  His  Majesty's  leader- 
ship and  statesmanlike  role  in  world  affairs.  His 
Majesty  and  the  Secretary  of  State  reviewed  the  in- 
ternational situation  and  discussed  matters  of  bilat- 
eral interest  in  the  spirit  of  mutual  respect  and  un- 
derstanding that  has  long  characterized  U.S. -Iranian 
relations.  Dr.  Kissinger  also  met  with  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  Dr.  Abbas  Ali  Khalatbary  and  Min- 
ister of  Economic  Affairs  and  Finance  Hushang  An- 
sary. 

In  their  review  of  the  international  situation  the 
two  sides  expressed  satisfaction  with  the  progress 
toward  global  detente  and  agreed  on  the  need  for 
further  efforts  to  reduce  tensions.  The  two  sides  also 
noted  their  close  similarity  of  views  on  regional  se- 
curity issues.  The  U.S.  side  expressed  its  continuing 
support  for  Iran's  programs  to  strengthen  itself  and 
to  work  cooperatively  with  its  neighbors  in  the  Per- 
sian Gulf  and  wider  Indian  Ocean  regions.  It  also 
stated  appreciation  for  Iranian  efforts  to  promote 
peaceful  solutions  to  disputes  among  its  neighbors. 
The  Iranian  side  explained  its  concept  of  increasing 
economic  cooperation  among  the  countries  on  the  In- 
dian Ocean  littoral.  Both  sides  reaffirmed  their  con- 
tinued support  of  CENTO  [Central  Treaty  Organi- 
zation] and  the  contribution  which  it  makes  to  re- 
gional security  and  economic  development. 

Secretary  Kissinger  described  the  efforts  the 
United  States  is  making  in  search  of  a  lasting  peace- 
ful resolution  of  the  Arab-Israeli  conflict.  The  Sec- 
retary reaffirmed   the   determination   of  the   United 


"  Issued  at  Tehran  on  Nov.  2  (text  from  press  re- 
lease 463). 


November  25,    1974 


729 


states  to  press  its  efforts  to  help  maintain  the  mo- 
mentum of  the  negotiations  begun  earlier  this  year. 
The  Iranian  side  reaffirmed  its  support  for  the  peace- 
making efforts  of  the  United  States. 

The  two  sides  engaged  in  a  full,  constructive  and 
friendly  discussion  of  the  global  petroleum  price  and 
supply  question  in  the  context  of  a  review  of  the 
overall  world  economic  situation.  The  two  sides  also 
reviewed  other  aspects  of  the  world  economic  situa- 
tion and  agreed  on  the  need  for  cooperative  efforts 
to  check  inflation  and  avert  the  common  misfortune 
of  a  major  economic  crisis.  The  Iranian  side  ex- 
plained its  programs  of  bilateral  financial  assistance 
to  other  countries  and  its  proposal  for  a  new  multi- 
lateral organization  to  aid  developing  countries.  The 
American  side  welcomed  Iran's  far-sighted  policies 
in  this  respect.  The  two  sides  agreed  to  cooperate  in 
global  and  regional  programs  to  eliminate  the  world 
food  deficit.  The  two  sides  agreed  to  form  a  U.S.- 
Iran Joint  Commission  designed  to  increase  and  in- 
tensify the  ties  of  cooperation  that  already  exist  be- 
tween the  two  countries.  It  was  decided  that  the  U.S. 
Secretary  of  State  and  the  Iranian  Minister  of  Eco- 
nomic Affairs  and  Finance  would  ser\'e  as  the  co- 
chairmen  of  the  Commission.  The  first  meeting  of 
the  Joint  Commission,  which  was  held  November  2, 
laid  out  a  broad  program  of  cooperation  in  the  po- 
litical, economic,  cultural,  defense,  scientific,  and 
technological  fields.  Joint  working  groups  will  be 
formed  to  carry  out  the  work  of  the  Commission  and 
to  enlist  the  energies  and  skills  of  governmental  and 
private  institutions  in  fulfilling  the  aims  of  the  Com- 
mission. The  next  meeting  of  the  Commission  will  be 
held  in  Washington  next  year. 

A  major  element  in  the  work  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mission will  be  a  program  in  the  field  of  nuclear  en- 
ergy, especially  power  generation,  for  which  an 
agreement  for  cooperation  is  now  under  discussion. 
Meanwhile,  contracts  have  been  signed  under  which 
the  United  States  is  to  provide  enriched  fuel  for  two 
power  reactors.  Contracts  for  fuel  for  six  additional 
reactors  will  be  signed  in  the  near  future.  Iran  will 
be  discussing  construction  of  the  reactors  with  Amer- 
ican firms.  The  Iranian  side  has  also  expressed  in- 
terest in  participating  in  a  proposed  commercial 
uranium  enrichment  facility  to  be  built  in  the  United 
States.  The  two  sides  were  in  full  agreement  on  the 
need  for  better  national  and  international  controls 
over  nuclear  materials  to  prevent  them  from  falling 
into  irresponsible  hands.  They  further  agreed  that 
every  effort  should  be  made  to  discourage  further 
national  development  of  nuclear  weapons  capabili- 
ties building  on  the  principles  of  the  Non-Prolifera- 
tion  Treaty  to  which  both  are  parties. 

Among  other  fields  in  which  cooperation  is  al- 
ready underway  and  will  be  further  expanded  are 
joint  ventures  with  Iran  in  the  fields  of  agriculture, 
the  development  of  petrochemical  and  electronics  in- 
dustries, as  well  as  animal  husbandry,  telecommuni- 
cations, highway  construction,  geology,   space  tech- 


nology, education  and  social  services.  Other  fields  of 
cooperation  will  be  developed  as  the  work  of  the 
Joint  Commission  progresses. 


THE  VISIT  TO   ROMANIA,   NOVEMBER  3-4 

Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger  to  the  Romanian 
Press,  Bucharest,  November  3 

Press  release  465  dated  November  4 

Q.  Your  visit  in  Romania — the  talks  you 
have  had  and  the  contacts  you  made.  Maybe 
you'll  comment  on  them? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  United  States  at- 
taches considerable  importance  to  its  friendly 
relations  with  Romania.  We  have  exchanged 
ideas  over  the  years  on  a  variety  of  subjects, 
and  this  is  a  continuation  of  the  dialogue 
about  international  affairs  and  possibilities 
of  the  economic  cooperation  between  Romania 
and  the  United  States. 

Q.  How  do  you  characterize  the  talks  you 
have  had  with  the  President? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  consider  the  talks  I 
have  had  with  the  President  constructive, 
wide  ranging,  and  friendly. 

Q.  Hoiv  do  you  see  the  development  of 
A  mericayi-Romanian  relations  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  am  hopeful 
that  with  the  passage  of  the  trade  bill  in  the 
next  month  or  so  we  will  be  able  to  extend 
most-favored-nation  status  to  Romania, 
which  would  give  new  impetus  to  our  eco- 
nomic relations.  Our  political  relations  have 
already  been  good,  and  we  will  maintain  the 
close  contact  that  has  characterized  them,  so 
I  think  we  are  in  a  period  which  will  show 
even  more  improvement  in  our  relations. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  is  in  your  opinion 
the  most  controversial  issue  of  the  world 
tvhich,  if  resolved  quickly,  would  insure  last- 
ing peace  in  the  world? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  are  several  is- 
sues, but  the  Middle  East  problem  is  cer- 
tainly one  of  the  most  difficult  ones. 

Q.  How  precise  could  you  be  about  your 


730 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


scheduled  trip  to  the  Middle  East?  How  do 
you  see  the  contimied  prospects  for  negotia- 
tions after  the  Arab  summit? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  we  have  an- 
nounced today  that  I  will  be  visiting  Cairo, 
Riyadh,  Amman,  Damascus,  and  Jerusalem 
starting  Tuesday,  and  the  purpose  of  the  trip 
is  to  assess  the  significance  of  the  Arab  sum- 
mit for  peace  negotiations  in  the  Middle  East. 
As  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned,  our 
position  is  clear.  We  will  do  our  utmost  to 
promote  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the  Mid- 
dle East  within  the  framework  of  the  rele- 
vant Security  Council  resolutions,  and  we  will 
work  with  the  parties  that  are  interested  to 
bring  about  such  a  peace. 

Q.  What  is  the  U.S.  position  for  the  Euro- 
pean Security  Conference? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  United  States 
favors  the  completion  of  the  European  Secu- 
rity Conference  as  expeditiously  as  it  can  be 
arranged,  and  we  support  the  negotiations 
that  are  going  on  and  take  an  active  part  in 
them. 

Q.  There  is  much  talk  lately  about  new  eco- 
nomic order  in  the  world.  How  would  you 
comment  on  that? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  have  to  com- 
ment favorably,  because  I  made  some  of  these 
speeches.  I  believe  that  the  combination  of 
the  energy  crisis,  the  food  crisis,  and  infla- 
tion in  many  countries  produces  the  need  for 
global  solutions  in  a  number  of  fields.  I'm 
going  to  the  World  Food  Conference  in  Rome 
on  Tuesday,  and  I  plan  to  make  some  state- 
ments of  the  American  position  with  respect 
to  worldwide  agricultural  problems,  and  I 
think  there  is  a  necessity  to  organize  our- 
selves to  meet  these  needs. 

Q.  Your  Excellency,  ivhat  are  the  roles  of 
the  small  and  middle-sized  countries  in  solv- 
ing the  international  problems? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  are  living  in  a 
world  now  where  the  superpowers  can,  and 
should,  no  longer  attempt  to  control  all  de- 
cisions, because  power  is  more  difl'used,  and 
you  cannot  build  a  lasting  peace  except  on  the 


agreement  of  all  of  the  countries  that  will  be 
aff'ected  by  it. 


Dinner  Hosted  by  President  Ceausescu, 
Bucharest,  November  3 

Press  release  466  dated  November  4 

Toast  by  President  Ceausescu 

I  would  like  to  express  my  satisfaction  for 
the  visit  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger  is  mak- 
ing to  Romania,  and  I  hope  that  this  will 
mark  a  new  stage  in  the  development  of  co- 
operation between  our  countries.  This  is  the 
second  visit  which  the  Secretary  of  State  is 
making  to  Romania.  I  hope  that  his  third 
visit  will  take  place  soon,  together  with  Pres- 
ident Ford. 

I  toast  the  good  cooperation  between  our 
countries,  and  I  wish  the  U.S.  Secretary  of 
State  success  in  his  activity  and  good  health. 

To  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

I  had  the  privilege  to  visit  Romania  five 
years  ago,  when  I  accompanied  President 
Nixon.  We  had  then  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant talks  I  have  ever  had  in  the  company  of 
the  President,  talks  with  consequences  which 
extended  far  beyond  the  scope  of  our  bilat- 
eral discussions.  It  was  then  that  the  basis 
for  the  development  of  very  cordial  and 
friendly  relations  between  our  countries  was 
established.  We  exchanged  views  on  many 
subjects  and  pledged  cooperation  in  many 
fields.  The  United  States,  under  the  new  ad- 
ministration, is  resolved  to  continue  this  pol- 
icy which  was  initiated  on  the  occasion  of 
that  visit. 

Now  that  there  are  good  prospects  for  the 
trade  bill  to  be  passed  by  Congress,  I  am 
sure  that  we  will  soon  grant  Romania  most- 
favored-nation  status.  Consequently  the  eco- 
nomic relations  between  our  countries  will 
be  given  a  new  impetus.  I  hope  that  we  can 
find  a  mutually  convenient  time  for  Presi- 
dent Ford's  visit  as  soon  as  possible,  and  I 
believe  we  will  be  able  to  achieve  that. 

I  am  sure  that  my  visit,  and  especially  the 
meeting  of  the  two  Presidents,  will  acceler- 


November  25,   1974 


731 


ate  the  development  of  our  relations.  It  is  m 
this  spirit  that  I  invite  you  to  toast  the 
friendship  between  Romania  and  the  United 

States. 

To  President  Ceausescu's  health. 

Joint  Communique  Issued  at  the  Conclusion 

of  the  Visit  to  Romania  i" 

At  the  invitation  of  the  Minister  of  Forei^  Af- 
fairs of  the   Socialist  Republic   of  Romania  George 
Macovescu,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States 
of  America  Henry  A.  Kissinger,  with  Mrs.  Kissin- 
ger   paid  an  official  visit  to  Romania  on  November 
3-4    1974    The  President  of  the  Socialist  Republic  ot 
Romania  Nicolae  Ceausescu  received  Secretary  Kis- 
singer. Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Socialist 
Republic   of   Romania   George    Macovescu   also   held 
talks  with  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger.  They  had 
cordial  and  constructive  exchanges  of  view  both  on 
bilateral  relations  as  well  as  on  various  international 
issues   of  mutual   interest.   It  was   determined  with 
satisfaction  that  a  high  degree  of  agreement  exists 
on  these   matters,   reflected  in  the   continuing   good 
and  mutually  beneficial   relations  between  the   two 

countries.  ^^     ,    j  u„ 

Both  sides  reaffirmed  the  importance  attached  by 
the  two  governments  to  the  principles  set  forth  m 
the  joint  declaration  of  the  Presidents  of  the  two 
states  on  December  5,  1973.  Noting  the  favorable 
prospects  for  further  development  of  jelations  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  they  agreed  that  those 
principles-together  with  the  joint  declaration  on 
economic,  industrial  and  technical  cooperation-pro- 
vide a  sound  basis  for  implementing  and  expandmg 
long-term  cooperation  between  the  two  countries  in 

^"xhTTwo  sides  noted  with  satisfaction  the  recent 
growth  in  trade  between  the  two  countries  and  re- 
solved to  act  to  promote  widened  economic  coopera- 
tion The  two  sides  agreed  that  introducing  most- 
favored-nation  status  into  bilateral  economic  rela- 
tions as  soon  as  possible  is  an  '-P°rtant  factor  for 
developing  cooperation  between  the  U.S.  and  Ro- 
mania in  this  field.  The  two  sides  agreed  to  the  early 
opening  of  negotiations  on  a  trade  agreement^  They 
also  agreed  to  negotiate  an  agreement  on  long-term 
economic  cooperation. 

Previous  experience  in  cultural  exchanges  and  sci- 
entific and  technical  cooperation  was  evaluated  and 
prospects  for  further  expansion  were  deemed  favor- 
able A  new  long-term  agreement  on  cultural,  scien- 
tific and  technical  cooperation  is  soon  to  be  negoti- 

In  accordance  with  the  joint  declaration  of  Decem- 
ber 5,  1973,  the  two  sides  reaffirmed  their  intention 

-Issued  at  Bucharest  on  Nov.  4  (text  from  press 
release  467). 


732 


to  contribute  to'  the  solution  of  problems  of  a  hu- 
manitarian nature.  _ 

In  discussions  marked  by  an  open  and  friendly 
spirit  on  the  main  international  problems  of  com- 
mon interest,  both  sides  underlined  that  solutions  to 
the  problems  currently  facing  the  world  community 
must  be  pursued  by  peaceful  means  and  negotiation 
without  use  of  force  or  threat  of  force  on  the  basis 
of  respect  for  the  independence,  sovereignty,  and 
juridical  equality  of  all  states,  whatever  their  size 
or  social,  political  and  economic  system.  They  also 
emphasized  the  need  for  efforts  to  move  toward  a 
world  in  which  each  nation  can  freely  choose  and  de- 
velop its  own  political,  social,  economic  and  cultural 

life. 

Special  attention  was  paid  to  European  security 
and  cooperation.  Both  sides  reaffirmed  their  deter- 
mination to  work  constructively  for  an  early  and 
successful  conclusion  of  the  Conference  on  Security 
and  Cooperation  in  Europe,  as  an  important  stage  in 
the  process  of  building  better  understanding  and  co- 
operation between  participating  countries,  in  order  to 
assure  conditions  where  each  is  able  to  live  in  peace 

and  security. 

Both  sides  underlined  their  continued  determina- 
tion  to    strive   for   effective   disarmament   measures 
which  strengthen  the  peace  and  security  of  all  peo- 
ples. .  , 
In  connection  with  the  Middle  East  situation,  both 
sides  favorably   noted   the   accords   already  reached. 
However,  the  need  was  underlined  for  continuing  ef- 
forts to  reach  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  this  region. 
The  two  sides  underlined  the  need  for  a  lasting  po- 
litical settlement  of  the  Cyprus  problem  in  keeping 
with  the  interests  of  the  Cypriot  people  and  all  sides 
concerned  and  with  international   peace  and  under- 
standing.                                                            . 

Current  problems  of  the  world  economic  situation 
were  examined  in  the  context  of  growing  interna- 
tional interdependence.  Stress  was  put  on  the  need 
for  finding  solutions  to  the  problems  affecting  the 
countries  of  the  world,  particularly  those  involving 
food  energy,  population,  and  development.  In  this 
connection,  emphasis  was  placed  on  the  importance 
of  conducting  economic  relations  on  an  equitable  ba- 

sis 

Both  sides  agreed  on  the  need  to  give  effective 
support  to  the  United  Nations  in  strengthening 
world  peace  and  developing  international  coopera- 
tion. 

Both  sides  affirmed  the  importance  of  intensifying 
the  contacts  and  consultations  at  all  levels  which 
characterize  relations  between  the  two  countries, 
noting  that  these  contribute  both  to  increased  mu- 
tual understanding  between  the  Socialist  Republic 
of  Romania  and  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
to  the  strengthening  of  the  cause  of  world  peace.  In 
this  connection.  President  Nicolae  Ceausescu  renewed 
his  invitation  to  President  Ford  to  visit  Romania. 
Secretary  Kissinger  stated  that  President  Ford  ac- 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


cepts  the  invitation  with  pleasure.  It  was  agreed 
that  the  visit  will  take  place  at  the  earliest  possible 
date. 

Secretary  Kissinger  expressed  appreciation  for  the 
cordial  reception  he  was  accorded  in  Romania  as 
well  as  for  the  full  exchange  of  views  during  his 
visit  in  Bucharest. 


THE  VISIT  TO  YUGOSLAVIA,   NOVEMBER  4 

Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
Upon  Arrival,  Belgrade 

Press  release  468  dated  November  4 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  ladies  and  gentle- 
men :  This  is  my  first  visit  to  Yugoslavia  in 
four  years.  A  country  with  which  we  have 
had  friendly  and  cordial  relations  for  almost 
the  entire  postwar  period,  Yugoslavia  with 
its  fierce  spirit  of  independence  and  its  inde- 
pendent policy  has  made  a  significant  contri- 
bution to  world  peace.  I  look  forward  to 
exchanging  ideas  with  the  Foreign  Minister, 
with  President  Tito,  and  with  all  of  their  col- 
leagues in  the  spirit  of  frankness  and  cordial- 
ity that  has  always  marked  our  relationship. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

Remarks  by  President  Tito  and  Secretary  Kissinger  ^' 

President  Tito 

We  had  today  very  good  talks  with  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Kissinger.  The  Sec- 
retary of  State  had  talks  before  that  with 
our  Prime  Minister  and  Foreign  Minister. 
The  talks  were  concerned  with  bilateral  re- 
lations and  also  international  problems, 
mostly  the  Middle  East.  As  regards  bilateral 
relations,  we  of  course  agreed  to  continue  to 
develop  and  expand  them.  Current  relations 
so  far  also  are  not  bad ;  as  regards  interna- 
tional problems,  especially  the  Middle  East, 
concern  was  expressed  on  both  sides  because 
of  the  stagnation  that  is  there.  Much  depends 
on  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
which  so  far  was  the  main  influence  in  the 


carrying  out  of  the  disengagement  and  for  a 
peaceful  solution  of  the  conflict  between  the 
Arab  states  and  Israel.  The  Secretary  of 
State  will  soon  visit  again  this  region,  and  he 
will  know  best  what  this  situation  is  and 
what  there  is  to  do. 

The  discussions  we  had  were  very  useful, 
and  I  am  very  glad  Secretary  Kissinger  vis- 
ited Yugoslavia,  and  on  many  things  we  dis- 
cussed, our  positions  were  identical. 

Secretary  Kissinger 

I  wanted  to  thank  the  President  for  the 
very  cordial  reception  he  has  had  for  me  and 
the  very  frank  and  friendly  talks  that  we 
had.  The  President  and  I  as  well  as  his  asso- 
ciates reviewed  the  bilateral  relations  be- 
tween our  two  countries.  I  agreed  completely 
with  what  the  President  said.  Those  relations 
were  good  to  begin  with  and  we  decided  to 
strengthen  them  through  consultations  and 
other  means. 

With  respect  to  international  problems,  we 
reviewed  several  of  them  and  special  empha- 
sis was  paid  to  the  Middle  East.  We,  the 
United  States,  would  like  to  do  our  best  to 
prevent  any  stalemate  from  developing.  This 
requires  that  all  of  the  parties  on  both  sides 
understand  the  special  necessities  of  the  other 
and  make  an  effort  to  bring  their  positions 
closer  to  each  other. 

It  is  for  this  purpose  that  I  am  going  to  the 
Middle  East  to  see  whether  useful  negotia- 
tions can  be  conducted  and  in  what  manner, 
and  I  pledge  that  the  United  States  will  do 
its  utmost  to  improve  matters  in  the  Middle 
East  to  a  just  and  lasting  peace. 

Altogether  I  would  evaluate  my  visit  here 
very  useful,  contributing  to  mutual  under- 
standing and  to  the  strengthening  of  our  re- 
lationship. 

Joint  Statement  at  the  Conclusion 
of  the  Visit  to  Yugoslavia  ^^ 

At  the  invitation  of  the  Vice  President  of  the  Fed- 
eral Executive  Council  and  Federal  Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs  Milos  Minic,  the  Secretary  of  State 


"  Made  at  the  conclusion  of  their  meeting  on  Nov. 
4  (text  from  press  release  476). 


"  Issued  at  Belgrade  on  Nov.  4   (text  from  press 
release  475). 


November  25,    1974 


733 


of  the  United  States  of  America,  Henry  A  Kissin- 
ger, together  with  his  wife,  paid  an  official  visit  to 
Yugoslavia  on  November  4,  1974. 

The  President  of  the  Socialist  Federal  Republic  of 
Yugoslavia   Josip    Broz   Tito   received    Secretary   of 
State  Henry  Kissinger  who,  on  that  occasion,  con- 
veyed to  the  President  of  the  Socialist  Federal  Re- 
public of  Yugoslavia  a  message  from  the  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America  Gerald  Ford.  The 
President  of  the  Republic  entertained  Henry  Kissin- 
ger, together  with  his  wife  and  associates,  at  lunch 
Mr   Kissinger  was  also  received  by  the  President  of 
the  Federal  Executive  Council  Dzemal  Bijedic    Vice 
President   and   Federal    Secretary   Minic   and   Secre- 
tary  of   State    Kissinger   held   talks   concerning   all 
questions  of  interest  to  the  two  countries. 

The  talks  held  during  these  meetings  in  an  atmos- 
phere of  friendship  and  openness,  covej^d  the  mos^ 
Important  international  questions  and  bilateral  rela- 
tions  between   the   two   countries.   Special   attention 
was  devoted  to  crisis  areas  in  the  world,  ^^^^  as  the 
Near  East  and  Cyprus.  The  two  sides  put  forth  their 
views  about  the  paths  towards  a  settlement  of  these 
and  other  outstanding  world  problems,  affirmed  the 
importance  of  continued  regular  contacts  and  consul- 
tations at  all  levels  in  various  fields  of  mutual  inter- 
est   and    stressed   the   benefit   these   provide   to    in- 
creased  understanding  and   mutual  respect  for  one 
another's  viewpoints  and  positions. 

On  the  basis  of  the  progress  achieved  at  the  Con- 
ference on  European  Security  and  Cooperation  for 
preserving  and  consolidating  peace  in  Europe  and 
for  further  advancement  of  all-round  constructive 
cooperation  among  European  states,  the  two  sides 
stressed  their  mutual  interest  in  continued  coordina- 
tion of  efforts  to  attain  acceptance  of  basic  princi- 
ples for  inter-European  cooperation  and  security, 
and  an  early  and  successful  conclusion  of  that  con- 
ference. 

The   two   sides  gave   special    attention   to  current 
problems  in  the  sphere  of  international  economic  de- 
velopments   and    relations.    Recognizing    the    funda- 
mental interdependence   of  all  nations  and  peoples 
the  two  sides  agreed  that  real  peace  and  stability  in 
the  world  could  come  only  with  significant  progress 
towards    solution   of   the    pressing    problems   facing 
mankind  in  the  fields  of  international  economic  rela- 
tions,  world    economy,    and    economic    development. 
They  agreed  further  that  lasting  solutions  to  these 
problems  could  be  found  only  on  the  basis  of  respect 
for  independence,  sovereignty,  equality  and  non-in- 
terference  among   all   states   regardless   of  whether 
they  have  similar  or  different  social,  economic  or  po- 
litical systems. 

Reaffirming  the  necessity  for  widespread  coopera- 
tion based  on  equality  of  all  members  of  the  inter- 
national community  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  of 
the  Charter  of  the  United  Nations  in  settling  out- 
standing  international   problems,  it  was   recognized 


that  Yugoslavia's  policy  of  non-alignment  makes  an 
active  contribution  to  greater  understanding  among 
peoples  and  the  search  for  peaceful  solution  to  in- 
ternational problems  and  conflicts. 

Both  sides  assessed  that  bilateral  cooperation  be- 
tween the  Socialist  Federal  Republic  of  Yugoslavia 
and  the  United  States  of  America  is  developing  fa- 
vorably, and  stressed  the  interest  and  readiness  for 
its  further  advancement  and  expansion,  especially  in 
the  spheres  of  economic,  financial  and  scientific- 
technological  cooperation,  as  well  as  in  joint  invest- 
ments They  emphasized  particularly  the  importance 
of  the  agreement  under  which  United  States  and 
Yugoslav  firms  are  cooperating  in  construction  of 
Yugoslavia's  first  nuclear  power  plant. 

They  also  confirmed  their  readiness  to  actively  en- 
courage further  expansion  of  cultural  cooperation 
and  expressed  their  expectation  that  the  participa- 
tion of  Yugoslavia  at  the  forthcoming  bicentennial 
of  the  United  States  of  America  will  contribute  to 
the  deepening  of  understanding  between  the  peoples 
of  the  two  countries.  They  also  emphasized  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  contribution  to  the  development  of 
the  United  States  of  America  by  U.S.  citizens  of 
Yugoslav  extraction  who  represent  a  strong  link  of 
lasting  friendship  between  the  peoples  of  the  two 
countries. 

Attaching  extraordinary  importance  to  the  prin- 
ciples contained  in  the  joint  statement  signed  Oc- 
tober 30,  1971  during  President  Tito's  visit  to  the 
United  States  on  which  mutual  relations  of  the  two 
countries  are  based,  as  well  as  to  the  messages  ex- 
changed between  Presidents  Tito  and  Ford  reaffirm- 
ng  these  principles,  the  Vice  President  of  the  Fed- 


eral Executive  Council  and  Federal  Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs  Milos  Minic  and  the  Secretary  of 
State  Henrv  Kissinger  noted  that  these  are  the  docu- 
ments which,  for  Yugoslav-American  relations,  con- 
stitute a  lasting  basis  of  stable  friendly  relations 
and  broad,  mutually  advantageous  cooperation  be- 
tween the  two  countries. 


THE  VISIT  TO   ITALY,   NOVEMBER  4-5 

Dinner  Hosted  by  President  Giovanni  Leone, 
Rome,  November  4 

Press  release  478  dated  November  5 

Toast  by  President  Leone 

Since  this  is  the  third  time  I  have  had  the 
pleasure  of  meeting  Mr.  Kissinger,  I  would 
like  to  say  that  the  cards  between  us  are  on 
the  table,  there  is  no  bluffing,  so  it  is  useless 
to  prepare  speeches  which  won't  be  read  and 
then  thrown  in  the  wastebasket— one  speaks 


734 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


extemporaneously.  Mr.  Kissinger  played  the 
last  trick  upon  me  when  he  gave  me  and  For- 
eign Minister  Moro  a  wonderful  lunch.  He 
had  sent  in  a  draft  of  his  speech,  but  later 
he  dropped  it  and  spoke  also  of  other  things 
not  on  the  draft.  But,  thank  God,  having 
some  experience  as  a  lawyer,  I  succeeded  in 
answering  him  on  the  same  plane.  So  this 
time  we  haven't  even  tried  to  play  the  tradi- 
tional respectable  diplomatic  practice  of  ex- 
changing speeches,  refining  the  adjectives, 
changing  the  commas,  and  modifying  the 
phrases.  And  then,  how  could  one  follow  the 
rule,  even  such  a  noble  rule,  when  the  sub- 
ject of  the  meeting  is  Mr.  Kissinger,  who 
revolutionized  diplomacy  and  travels  so  gen- 
erously, with  dedication,  with  sacrifice,  as  a 
messenger  of  peace,  as  we  welcome  him  once 
more  here  at  the  Quirinale  Palace? 

This  is  the  third  time  we've  met:  exactly 
five  months  ago,  Mr.  Kissinger,  July  5 ;  two 
meetings  in  Rome,  one  of  which  is  this  one; 
and,  in  between,  my  official  visit  to  the  United 
States  accompanied  by  Foreign  Minister 
Moro.  And  today's  meeting — a  meeting  which 
we  requested  and  which  you  have  so  kindly 
accepted  and  welcomed — is  a  meeting  which 
is  due  to  the  World  Food  Conference,  which 
will  open  tomorrow  and  to  which  you  will 
contribute  your  thought  and  the  vigor  and 
strength  of  the  nation  you  represent.  Well, 
that  conference  will  make  clear  to  the  minds 
of  all  the  responsible  leaders  of  all  countries 
how  dramatic  their  commitment  is  at  a  truly 
significant  and  interesting  moment  in  the 
evolution  of  history. 

For  years  now  studies  have  been  made — 
and  Italy  gave  its  contribution  with  the  Club 
of  Rome,  [Aurelio]  Peccei,  and  others — and 
also  in  recent  conferences  as  the  one  in  Ro- 
mania— for  a  very  long  time  the  dramatic 
plight  forecast  for  humankind  at  the  eve  of 
next  century  has  been  studied  the  world  over. 
This  conference  must  therefore  realize  what 
are  the  responsibilities  of  the  more  developed 
countries  and  which  country  in  this  regard 
has  a  major  responsibility — and  that  is  your 
country,  but  also  my  country,  although  to  a 
lesser  extent — in  supplying  political  will, 
moral  strength,  determination,  tools,  struc- 


tures, and  means  to  overcome  the  world's 
hunger. 

Before  receiving  you,  Mr.  Kissinger,  I  met 
with  Argentina's  Foreign  Minister;  and  we 
remarked  with  great  regret  that  Argentina 
is  not  able  to  export  its  meat,  while  there  is  a 
meat  shortage  in  other  world  areas,  which 
means  that  there  is  lack  of  organization.  I 
also  met  Mr.  Waldheim  [United  Nations  Sec- 
retary General  Kurt  Waldheim],  who  called 
attention  to  the  importance  of  this  confer- 
ence, saying  what  I  will  take  the  liberty  of 
saying  tomorrow  in  bringing  my  country's 
welcome  to  the  conference ;  that  is,  that  this 
is  a  matter  of  political  decision  and  will  there- 
fore involve  cooperation,  coordination,  col- 
laboration among  all  the  people  of  the  world. 

President  Ford  and  you,  Mr.  Kissinger, 
have  launched  that  word  "cooperation,"  and 
you  are  its  herald  in  your  trips  throughout 
all  the  world's  regions.  And  indeed  the  two 
pillars  of  Italian  foreign  policy  respond  to 
this  purpose,  to  this  aim  of  cooperation :  the 
Atlantic  alliance,  whose  role  you,  we,  and  all 
the  member  nations  have  always  thought  of 
as  a  defensive  one  as  well  as  one  of  evolution, 
progress,  and  detente;  and  Europe,  where  we 
are  struggling — with,  unfortunately,  mo- 
ments of  arrest,  which  sadden  and  worry 
us — to  shape  in  this  old  and  great  continent, 
which  still  has  something  to  say  and  has  to 
work  in  the  light  of  its  great  tradition,  in 
order  to  shape  a  united  political  institution 
which  would  go  against  no  one,  and  specially 
not  against  America,  but  instead  would  pose 
itself  ahead  of  and  at  the  side  of  America  to 
work  together  for  detente,  for  peace,  for  the 
progress  of  the  world's  people. 

Mr.  Secretary,  Mr.  Kissinger,  in  your  trip 
you  have  traveled  over  three  continents,  Eu- 
rope, Asia,  and  Africa,  a  trip  which  was  to 
end  here  in  Italy — as  we  were  saying  earlier 
in  private — and  you  were  longing  for  per- 
haps a  day  of  rest  in  Italy  or  in  the  United 
States,  while  this  is  only  a  pause  because  in- 
ternational developments  still  require  the  vig- 
orous contribution  of  the  United  States,  a 
contribution  of  poise,  of  strength,  of  loyalty, 
of  vigor  and  will.  And  tomorrow,  after  a 
tiring  day,  you  will  resume  your  journey,  a 


November  25,    1974 


735 


very  noble  pilgrimage  for  peace  and  for  the 
construction  of  world  solidarity. 

You  will  be  accompanied  by  our  heartfelt 
best  wishes  as  well  as  by  the  reaffirmation 
from  me  personally — and  tomorrow  you  will 
hear  this  repeated  by  our  Foreign  Minister 
and  our  Prime  Minister  when  you  meet  but 
who  now  here  join  me  in  welcoming  you — of 
the  renewed  statement  of  Italy's  loyalty  to 
its  friendship,  the  statement  that,  in  the 
difficult  fabric  of  international  detente,  Italy 
is  at  the  side  of  the  United  States,  of  course 
in  the  minor  position  that  her  possibilities, 
her  capacity,  and  her  international  weight 
permit.  These  statements  will  accompany  you 
in  your  mission  for  detente,  and  whatever 
you  do  for  detente  on  the  world  level  among 
the  major  powers,  whatever  you  do  in  the 
Middle  East  to  pick  up  again  the  threads  of 
peace — that  peace  which  we  were  following 
with  great  interest,  which  we  thought  v.^as 
forthcoming,  and  which  kindles  so  much 
trepidation  in  spirits  the  world  over — you 
will  be  accompanied  by  our  trust  and  our 
sympathy. 

With  these  feelings  we  welcome  you  in 
warmth  and  friendship  to  this  palace.  And 
we  have  the  pleasure  to  welcome  Mrs.  Kis- 
singer, whom  you,  her  husband,  when  we 
met  in  Washington  promised  to  take  to  see 
the  700-room  palace.  And  I  answered :  I 
haven't  counted  them  yet,  and  I  don't  believe 
that  the  years  that  God  will  allow  me,  if  he 
will  let  me  complete  my  turn,  will  be  enough 
to  count  them.  But  I  also  added :  My  bedroom 
is  very  small.  These  rooms  are  for  the  guests 
only,  and  especially  when  the  guests  are  as 
charming  as  you,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Kissinger. 
These  doors  are  wide  open.  These  lights  re- 
capture their  old  splendor.  These  halls  relive 
the  great  moments  in  Italy's  life  in  order  to 
say  to  you  that  we — as  friends  and  allies,  as 
a  people  proud  of  their  freedom,  their  inde- 
pendence, and  their  history — we  look  at  your 
country  with  sympathy,  with  great  trust, 
with  confident  expectation. 

With  these  feelings,  I  ask  you,  gentlemen, 
to  join  me  in  raising  our  glasses  to  the  health 
of  the  U.S.   President,   Mr.   Ford,   and  his 


gracious  wife,  to  whom  we  send  a  special 
greeting  of  best  wishes,  as  well  as  to  the 
health  of  Mr.  Kissinger,  to  the  success  of  his 
mission,  to  the  gracious  Mrs.  Kissinger,  to 
the  friendship  of  our  two  peoples. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  President:  You  made  some  very 
friendly  remarks  about  the  purposes  of  my 
trip,  the  solidarity  between  Italy  and  the 
United  States,  and  it  is  true :  When  I  come 
to  Italy  I  feel  that  I  am  not  in  a  foreign  coun- 
try, that  I  am  with  friends  who  share  a  com- 
mon destiny. 

We  face  in  the  West  right  now  a  profound 
crisis,  and  the  crisis  is  not  energy  or  infla- 
tion ;  it  is  whether  the  nations  with  similar 
traditions  and  common  values  can  work  to- 
gether to  master  their  destiny.  If  the  nations 
of  the  West  work  together  as  they  have  for 
the  past  generation,  then  the  problems  that 
we  now  face  can  be  turned  into  opportunities 
and  we  can  begin  a  whole  new  period  of  cre- 
ativity; and  that  is  what  the  United  States  is 
trying  to  do,  together  with  its  friends  in  Eu- 
rope, at  this  moment. 

So,  occasionally  I  am  asked  whether  the 
United  States  will  help  Italy  in  its  difficul- 
ties. But  that  is  the  wrong  way  of  putting  the 
question.  Of  course  we  will  work  together  to 
solve  our  difficulties.  But  we  are  not  helping 
Italy;  we  are  helping  ourselves.  There  is  no 
part  of  the  Western  community  that  can  have 
setbacks  without  affecting  every  other  part. 
And  that  is  the  attitude  with  which  we  will 
work  together. 

The  President  spoke  of  the  World  Food 
Conference,  and  it  is  again  my  destiny  that  I 
have  to  follow  him  on  this  biggest  platform. 
And  it  will  turn  out  that  he  is  saying  very 
much  what  I  am  trying  to  express  less  elo- 
quently— that  is,  I  will  express  it  less  elo- 
quently. He  is  absolutely  right.  The  problem 
of  food  is  not  a  technical  problem.  It  is  ri- 
diculous that  there  should  be  surpluses  in 
some  areas,  shortages  in  some  other  areas.  It 
is  therefore  entirely  a  question  of  political 
will  and  political  imagination.  This  is  the  op- 
portunity we  have  at  the  World  Food  Confer- 


736 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


ence;  and  it  is  appropriate  that  it  should 
meet  in  Rome,  which  throughout  its  long  and 
glorious  history  has  had  to  look  at  the  rela- 
tionship among  nations,  and  in  Italy,  with  its 
tradition  of  humanity  and  compassion.  And, 
selfishly,  I  am  glad  it  is  in  Italy,  because  it 
gives  me  an  opportunity  to  see  my  friends 
with  whom  it  is  always  a  pleasure  to  ex- 
change ideas  and  from  whom  we  always 
profit. 

So,  I  would  like  to  propose  a  toast  to  the 
President  of  Italy,  and  to  the  permanent 
friendship  between  Italy  and  the  United 
States,  and  to  Mrs.  Leone. 

Dinner  Hosted  by  Foreign  Minister  Aldo  Moro, 
Rome,  November  5 

Press  release  479  dated  November  5 

Toast  by  Foreign  Minister  Moro 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State :  First  of  all  I  wish 
to  tell  you  how  happy  I  am  that  your  pres- 
ence in  Rome  for  the  World  Food  Conference 
offered  us  the  opportunity  for  this  our  latest 
meeting,  allowing  us  to  resume  the  construc- 
tive dialogue  that  we  happily  began  with  you 
a  little  more  than  a  month  ago  in  Washing- 
ton. You  come  here  at  the  end  of  a  long  trip 
during  which  you  stopped  in  several  capitals 
of  Eastern  Europe  and  Asia,  displaying  there 
your  keen  diplomatic  activity  for  rapproche- 
ment among  peoples.  And  from  Rome  you  be- 
gin another  delicate  and  difficult  mission,  for 
which  we  wish  you  the  best  success. 

Italy,  because  of  her  position  at  the  center 
of  the  Mediterranean  area  and  of  her  active 
participation  in  the  European  Community,  is 
extremely  interested  in  stability  and  harmony 
within  these  areas  of  vital  interest.  And  to 
these  problems  others  are  added  today,  com- 
plex and  serious  problems,  created  by  the 
economic  crisis  which  has  heightened  inter- 
dependence among  states,  making  closer  co- 
operation urgent. 

I  can  reaffirm  to  you  on  this  occasion  that 
Italy,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Atlantic  Declaration 
of  last  June,  which  confirmed  the  validity  for 
security  and  peace  of  the  political  course  our 


two  countries  have  followed  for  a  quarter 
century  and  strengthened  their  traditional 
links,  will  give  her  constructive  contribution 
to  any  efl'ort  aiming  at  consolidating  an  equi- 
table and  stable  international  order. 

For  this  purpose,  the  exchange  of  views  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Italy  are  very 
useful,  as  always,  and  we  expect  to  continue 
them  on  the  occasion  of  other  meetings  in  the 
international  forums  in  which,  as  allied  and 
friendly  countries,  we  both  develop  our  com- 
mon action  for  the  security  and  peace  of  all 
the  world's  peoples. 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  the  tribute  I  wish 
to  pay  you  today  stems  not  from  a  matter  of 
etiquette  but  from  deeply  felt  conviction  in 
praise  of  your  untiring  work,  your  excep- 
tional tenacity,  your  clear  vision  of  facts, 
your  farsighted  understanding  of  the  close 
but  not  exclusive  links  which  unite  us  and 
other  peoples  to  your  great  country ;  we  par- 
ticularly value  the  capacity  and  will  to  safe- 
guard and  develop,  through  turbulent  politi- 
cal events,  the  great  principles  of  freedom 
and  independence  which  underlie  the  birth, 
the  tasks,  and  the  destiny  of  the  American 
nation. 

With  this  hope,  I  am  pleased  to  raise  my 
glass  to  the  success  of  your  mission,  to  your 
personal  well-being  and  the  well-being  of  the 
gracious  Mrs.  Kissinger,  and  to  the  deep 
friendship  which  unites  the  American  and 
Italian  peoples. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  Excellencies,  ladies 
and  gentlemen:  It  is  a  very  great  pleasure 
for  me  to  have  this  opportunity  to  see  all  my 
friends  again  on  such  a  pleasant  occasion. 

The  Foreign  Minister  is  in  the  process  of 
seeing  whether  a  government  can  be  formed, 
and  after  he  has  begun  to  explain  to  me  the 
nuances  and  complexities,  I  don't  know  why 
it  is  that  I  am  going  to  the  Middle  East.  He 
seems  to  me  much  better  qualified  to  handle 
that  situation.  But  seriously,  I  have  had  the 
privilege  of  working  for  many  years  now 
with  the  Foreign  Minister,  and  the  principles 
of   Atlantic   solidarity  based   on   European 


November  25,   1974 


737 


unity  have  always  been  at  the  basis  of  his 
foreign  policy.  I  remember  many  occasions 
when  Italy  contributed  importantly  to  the 
success  of  our  common  efforts,  such  as  for 
example,  at  the  Washington  Energy  Confer- 
ence last  February  and  in  the  conclusion  of 
the  Atlantic  Declaration  to  which  the  For- 
eign Minister  referred. 

I  recall  these  events  because,  no  matter 
who  is  President  of  the  United  States  or 
what  government  is  in  power  in  Italy,  the 
friendship  and  solidarity  of  our  two  peoples 
are  basic  factors  of  international  politics. 
We  consider  ourselves  part  of  the  same  fam- 
ily, and  we  seek  our  solutions  not  on  the  basis 
of  what  one  can  do  for  the  other,  but  on  the 
basis  on  what  both  can  do  for  the  common 
good.  Whenever  I  talk  to  Italian  leaders,  we 
speak  free  of  complexes  and  neither  of  us 
has  the  need  to  prove  anything  to  the  other. 

So,  in  the  difficult  period  that  now  exists 
in  the  world — an  economic  crisis  and  politi- 
cal difficulties  in  many  countries — once  again 
Italy  and  the  United  States  have  a  common 
destiny.  One  of  the  most  important  problems 
that  the  world  faces  is  that  the  nations  of 
the  West,  who  at  the  end  of  the  Second  World 
War  through  their  unity  achieved  progress, 
once  again  manage  to  establish  solidarity  in 
the  face  of  the  crisis  which  we  now  confront. 
And  having  developed  their  solidarity,  they 
can  then  work  together  on  the  basis  of  the 
interdependence  of  the  whole  world.  This 
will  be  our  attitude  in  the  United  States  with 
respect  to  working  with  Italy  to  overcome 
present  difficulties.  I  know  that  our  friend- 
ship will  lead  to  cooperation  in  the  Atlantic 
world  as  well  as  in  the  world  at  large. 

I  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to 
thank,  also  on  behalf  of  my  wife,  the  Foreign 
Minister  for  the  extraordinarily  cordial  re- 
ception we  have  had  here  and  to  tell  to  all 
our  Italian  friends  that  here  we  always  feel 
at  home,  which  means,  to  your  sorrow  per- 
haps, that  you  may  have  to  attend  many  such 
lunches  in  the  months  ahead. 

And  it  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  would  like  to 
propose  a  toast  to  my  friend,  the  Foreign 
Minister,  and  to  the  friendship  of  the  Italian 
and  American  people. 


President   Ford's   News  Conference 
of  October  29 

Folloiviyig  are  excerpts  relating  to  foreign 
policy  from  the  transcript  of  a  news  con- 
ference held  by  President  Ford  in  the  Brief- 
ing Room  at  the  White  House  on  October  29.^ 

Q.  Mr.  President,  I  have  a  two-part  ques- 
tion on  foreign  affairs.  Number  one,  the 
emergence  of  the  PLO  [Palestine  Liberation 
Organzatio7i~\  in  the  Middle  East,  how  does 
this  affect  our  position  regarding  the  Middle 
East?  Ayid  the  second  part,  also  on  foreign 
affairs,  negative  reports  out  of  Japan  and 
anti-American  feelings  and  items  like  that, 
whether  you  are  reconsidering  going  to 
Japan. 

President  Ford:  Let  me  answer  the  second 
question  first.  No  developments  in  Japan 
have  changed  my  attitude.  I  intend  to  go  to 
Japan,  as  has  been  planned  for  some  time. 

The  decision  by  the  Arab  nations  to  turn 
over  the  negotiating  for  the  West  Bank  to 
the  PLO  may  or  may  not — at  this  stage  we 
aren't  certain  what  impact  it  will  have  on 
our  role  in  the  Middle  East. 

We  of  course  feel  that  there  must  be 
movement  toward  settlement  of  the  prob- 
lems between  Israel  and  Egypt  on  the  one 
hand,  between  Israel  and  Jordan  or  the  PLO 
on  the  other,  and  the  problems  between 
Israel  and  Syria  in  the  other  category. 

We  have  not  had  an  opportunity  yet  to 
make  any  firm  decision  on  what  impact 
there  will  be  from  this  Arab  decision.  I  can 
only  say  that  we  think  it  is  of  maximum  im- 
portance that  continued  movement  toward 
peace  on  a  justifiable  basis  in  the  Middle 
East  is  vital  to  that  area  of  the  world,  and 
probably  to  the  world  as  a  whole. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  since  Secretary  Kis- 
singer has  been  to  Moscow,  do  you  have  any 
optimistic  outlook  yww  on  the  SALT  agree- 
ment? 


'  For  the  complete  transcript,  see  Weekly  Compila- 
tion of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Nov.  4,  1974. 


738 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


President  Ford:  I  believe  that  the  Secre- 
tary's discussions  with  the  General  Secretary, 
Mr.  Brezhnev,  were  very  constructive.  Some 
of  the  differences,  as  I  understand  it,  be- 
tween their  view  and  ours  have  been  nar- 
rowed. And  as  a  result  of  the  progress  that 
was  made  in  Moscow  the  announcement  was 
made  that  I  would  meet  with  Mr.  Brezhnev  in 
Vladivostok  the  latter  part  of  November. 
We  hope  that  each  step  will  mean  more 
progress  and  that  we  will  end  up  with  a 
SALT  Two  agreement. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  your  Press  Secretary, 
Mr.  Nessen,  has  hinted  or  implied  that  you 
may  be  considering  limiting  oil  imports;  that 
is,  limiting  imports  of  Arab  oil  if  necessary 
to  make  your  goal  of  cutting  oil  imports  by  1 
million  a  day,  perhaps  in  the  form  of  a  dollar 
limit  on  imports.  Are  you  coyisidering  if? 
Is  this  a  live  possibility? 

President  Ford:  Our  first  objective  is  to 
cut  the  6-million-barrels-per-day  imports  of 
crude  oil  by  1  million  barrels.  We  believe 
that  with  the  energy  conservation  recom- 
mendations we  have  made  that  objective  can 
be  accomplished. 

However,  if  there  isn't  the  saving  of  1 
million  barrels  per  day  of  oil  imports  by 
voluntary  action,  we  will  of  course  move  to 
any  other  alternative,  including  the  possi- 
bility of  mandatory  limitations,  to  achieve 
that  result.  That  is  essential  from  the  point 
of  view  of  our  economy,  our  balance  of  pay- 
ments, et  cetera. 


Q.  Mr.  President,  in  Oklahoma  City,  you 
said  that  overwhelming  victories  in  Congress 
this  fall  by  the  opposition  party,  being  the 
Democrats,  woidd  seriously  jeopardize  world 
peace.  This  is  our  first  chance  to  question 
you  on  that.  I  -was  wondering  if  you  would 
elaborate  on  that.  Did  you  mean  it  in  the 
sense  that  some  Democrats  accused  you  of 
demagoguery  or  is  this  consistent  ivith  your 
original  announced  policy  that  you  were  go- 
ing to  try  to  unify  the  country  after  Water- 
gate ? 


President  Ford:  I  think  the  facts  that  I 
referred  to  involved  the  conflict  we  had  with 
a  majority  of  the  Members  of  the  House  and 
Senate  over  the  limitations  and  restrictions 
they  put  on  the  continuing  resolution. 

Those  limitations  and  restrictions  on  that 
particular  piece  of  legislation,  in  my  judg- 
ment and  in  the  judgment  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  will  make  it  more  diificult  for  the 
United  States  to  help  the  Greeks.  It  will 
make  it  more  difficult  for  us  to  work  to 
bring  about  a  negotiated  settlement  in  the 
Cyprus  matter.  That  congressional  limitation 
will  not  help  our  relations  with  Turkey. 

I  point  out  that  both  the  United  States  and 
Turkey  are  members  of  NATO  and  if  our 
relationship  with  Turkey  is  destroyed  or 
harmed,  it  will  hurt  our  interest  as  well  as 
NATO's. 

Secondly,  we  do  have  an  agreement  with 
Turkey  as  to  some  military  installations  and 
those  installations  are  important  for  both 
Turkey  and  ourselves;  and  if,  through  con- 
gressional action,  we  undercut  our  relation- 
ship with  Turkey,  hurt  our  relations  with 
NATO,  hurt  the  Greeks,  because  it  will  make 
it  more  difficult  for  a  settlement  of  the  Cyprus 
matter,  then  I  think  the  Congress  has  made 
a  mistake;  and  if  a  Congress  that  is  more 
prone  to  do  that  is  elected  on  November  5, 
it  will  make  our  efforts  much  harder  to 
execute  and  implement  foreign  policy  to 
build  for  peace  and  maintain  the  peace. 

As  Mr.  Nessen  explained  in  a  subsequent 
press  conference,  I  was  referring  as  much 
to  Republicans  as  I  was  to  Democrats  who 
don't  cooperate  in  giving  a  President  of  the 
United  States  an  opportunity  to  meet  the 
day-to-day  problems  that  are  involved  in 
foreign  policy. 

A  President  has  to  be  able  to  act.  He  has 
to  be  able  to  work  with  allies  and  with  some 
potential  adversaries ;  and  if  the  Congress  is 
going  to  so  limit  a  President,  whether  he  is 
a  Democrat  or  Republican,  that  he  has  no 
flexibility,  in  my  opinion,  the  opportunity  for 
a  successful  foreign  policy  is  harmed  con- 
siderably. 


November  25,   1974 


739 


Toward  a  Global  Community:  The  Common  Cause  of  India  and  America 


Address  by  Secretary  Kissinger  ■ 


I  am  honored  to  be  invited  to  address 
such  a  distinguished  gathering;  for  the  basic 
objective  of  this  organization — to  compre- 
hend, communicate,  and  help  shape  the  state 
of  world  affairs — has  been  the  central  pur- 
pose of  my  own  life  since  long  before  I 
served  in  government.  And  I  since  have 
found  that  the  statesman,  too,  has  no  more 
important  task. 

Former  President  Radhakrishnan  once 
said: 

Life  becomes  meaningful  only  when  we  grasp 
the  character  of  the  age  we  live  in,  see  its  signifi- 
cance, understand  the  objectives  it  sets  for  us  and 
strive  to  realize  them. 

The  fundamental  reality  of  our  age  is 
that  we  live  in  a  world  inextricably  linked 
by  interdependent  economies  and  universal 
aspirations,  by  the  speed  of  communications 
and  the  specter  of  nuclear  war.  The  political 
lesson  of  our  age  is  that  the  national  interest 
can  no  longer  be  defined  or  attained  in  isola- 
tion from  the  global  interest,  and  the  moral 
challenge  of  our  age  is  to  free  ourselves  from 
the  narrow  perception  of  the  nation-state 
and  to  shape  a  conception  of  global  commu- 
nity. 

The  three  years  since  I  was  last  in  New 
Delhi  have  seen  profound  changes  in  the 
relationship  between  India  and  the  United 
States,  in  the  whole  region,  and  in  the  world. 

On  my  last  trip  to  South  Asia  I  paid  my 
first  visit  to  Peking.  On  this  trip  I  have 
visited  Moscow.  Moving  about  among  capi- 
tals only  recently  considered  hostile  is  a  new 
pattern  for  the  United  States.    It  signified 


'  Made  before  the  Indian  Council  on  World  Affairs 
at  New  Delhi  on  Oct.  28  (text  from  press  release 
445). 


the  transition  from  a  bipolar  world  locked 
in  confrontation  and  seemingly  destined  for 
some  final  encounter  to  the  new  world  of 
dispersed  power  and  reduced  tension. 

This  changed  environment  is  more  complex 
and  therefore,  for  some,  less  assuring.  Yet 
we  see  it  as  a  world  of  hope.  For  the  process 
of  detente  among  major  powers  has  not 
made  the  world  more  complex ;  it  merely  sig- 
nifies that  leaders  have  recognized  its  com- 
plexity. Those  who  ought  always  to  have 
known  how  serious  is  man's  predicament 
have  learned  how  little  benefit  confrontation 
brings  and  how  absolute  is  the  need  for 
cooperation. 

This  has  not  been  an  efltortless  transition 
for  the  American  people.  Nor  is  it  without 
difliculties  in  other  nations  of  the  world,  for 
it  requires  coming  to  terms  with  less  simple 
views  of  right  and  wrong,  of  the  possible  and 
the  ideal,  than  have  permeated  political 
thinking  for  a  generation. 

This  new  American  view,  it  is  appropriate 
to  acknowledge,  owes  much  to  an  old  vision 
of  India's  national  leaders.  Jawaharlal  Nehru 
perceived  the  impermanence  of  the  postwar 
world — into  which  India  was  born — of  frozen 
hostility  between  the  superpowers  and  their 
insistent  efforts  to  enlist  other  nations  on 
one  side  or  the  other.  Under  Nehru  and 
since  India  sought  to  deflect,  to  moderate,  and 
to  redirect  those  forces.  This  was  the  origin 
of  the  concept  of  nonalignment. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  debate  now  whether 
the  United  States  should  have  welcomed  the 
concept  at  that  time  in  order  to  agree  that 
in  the  present  world  it  is  for  nations  such  as 
India  an  altogether  understandable  and  prac- 
tical   position.     The   United    States    accepts 


740 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


nonalignment.  In  fact,  America  sees  a  world 
of  free,  independent,  sovereign  states  as 
being  decidedly  in  its  own  national  interest. 
Support  of  national  independence  and  of  the 
diversity  that  goes  with  it  has  become  a 
central  theme  of  American  foreign  policy. 

Nowhere  is  this  clearer  than  with  respect 
to  South  Asia,  where  a  fifth  of  mankind 
lives.  In  testimony  before  the  U.S.  Senate 
Foreign  Relations  Committee  six  weeks  ago, 
I  stated  this  principle  of  American  foreign 
policy  in  explicit  terms: 

We  do  not  look  at  the  subcontinent  as  being 
composed  of  some  countries  that  are  clients  of 
China,  others  that  are  clients  of  the  Soviet  Union, 
others  that  should  be  clients  of  the  United  States. 
We  believe  that  we  can  have  productive  relation- 
ships with  all  of  them.  And  we  believe  also,  spe- 
cifically with  respect  to  India,  that  our  relations  are 
in  a  stage  of  dramatic   improvement. 

The  warming  of  our  bilateral  relations  has 
been  increasingly  manifest  for  some  time.  It 
began  inevitably  as  the  Simla  process  began, 
and  it  has  proceeded  and  strengthened  as 
that  process  has  proceeded  and  strength- 
ened. For  it  was  conflict  within  the  subcon- 
tinent that  brought  the  involvement  of  out- 
siders in  the  first  place.  And  correspondingly, 
the  region's  political  capacity  to  resolve  re- 
gional conflict  has,  to  a  considerable  degree, 
diminished  outside  involvement.  President 
Ford  has  asked  me  to  affirm  that  the  United 
States  strongly  supports  the  efi'orts  of  peace- 
ful settlement  on  the  subcontinent,  free  of 
imposition  or  pressure  or  outside  inter- 
ference. We  want  political  stability  and 
economic  success  for  South  Asia.  That  is 
what  we  believe  South  Asians  hope  for  and 
what  the  rest  of  the  world  should  hope  for 
as  well. 

The  statesmanship  of  all  of  South  Asia's 
leaders  has  been  at  the  heart  of  this  process. 
It  has  taken  great  courage  to  persevere 
toward  the  goal  agreed  upon  by  Pakistan 
and  India  at  the  Simla  Conference  in  1972: 
"The  promotion  of  a  friendly  and  harmoni- 
ous relationship  and  the  establishment  of  a 
durable  peace  in  the  Subcontinent." 

The  size  and  position  of  India  give  it  a 
special  role  of  leadership  in  South  Asian 
and  world  affairs.    They  confer  on  it  at  the 


same  time  the  special  responsibility  for  ac- 
commodation and  restraint  that  strength 
entails.  The  United  States  recognizes  both 
these  realities.  They  are  wholly  compatible 
with  the  close  friendships  and  special  bonds 
we  have  with  all  the  nations  of  the  region. 
As  we  wish  South  Asia  well,  we  wish  India 
well. 

Thus  a  more  mature  and  durable  relation- 
ship is  emerging  between  India  and  the 
United  States — one  which  leaves  behind  the 
peaks  and  valleys  of  the  past. 

Both  India  and  the  United  States  still  con- 
sider themselves  youthful  nations.  The  rest- 
lessness, the  striving,  and  the  ideals  of  our 
people  attest  to  the  reality  of  that  image.  But 
a  basic  quality  of  youth — enthusiasm  un- 
seasoned by  experience — often  caused  us  to 
assume  or  expect  too  much.  We  are  two  great 
nations  of  independent  judgment  and  per- 
spective ;  often  our  zeal  and  moral  convic- 
tions have  led  us  into  disagreements  with  a 
passion  that  might  not  have  been  present  had 
we  not  been  conscious  of  similar  ideals. 

For  a  quarter  of  a  century  our  relations 
tended  to  oscillate  between  high  expectation 
and  deep  suspicion.  The  low  point  occurred 
in  1971  when  a  basic  disagreement  flowed 
from  diff"erent  political  judgments.  We  faced 
these  diff'erences  candidly;  that  crisis  is  now 
behind  us.  We  have  surmounted  past  strains 
and  moved  ahead  with  promise.  We  can  now 
build  our  relationship  free  of  past  distortions 
and  conscious  of  the  interests  and  values  we 
share. 

From  the  events  of  the  past — from  our 
experience  with  the  world  as  well  as  yours — 
we  have  both  developed  a  more  balanced 
view.  Both  of  us  independently  have  come 
to  temper  our  zeal  and  understand  limitations 
on  our  ability  to  bend  the  world  to  our  ex- 
pectations. In  parallel  with  this,  in  our 
relations  with  each  other  we  both  stress 
the  basic  compatibility  of  our  interests.  This 
promises  to  provide  a  durable  basis  for 
cooperation  and  friendship. 

For  our  new  relationship  to  thrive,  a  great 
deal  depends  on  our  mutual  understanding. 
Nations  face  different  problems  and  different 
opportunities;  their  perspectives  and  power 
inevitably  vary.    Let  me  therefore  briefly 


November  25,   1974 


741 


sketch  America's  broader  purposes,  especial- 
ly as  they  have  evolved  in  recent  years  in  a 
changing  international  environment. 

America's  Purposes 

Around  the  world  today,  the  new  and  the 
old  coexist  in  uneasy  equilibrium.  The  frozen 
international  landscape  of  the  past  quarter 
century  has  begun  to  thaw,  but  we  have  yet 
to  put  a  durable  structure  of  cooperation  in 
its  place.  A  new  era  of  stability  has  begun 
in  Europe  and  Asia,  while  chronic  disputes 
in  the  Middle  East  and  Indochina  still  en- 
danger regional  and  global  peace.  The  United 
States  and  the  Soviet  Union  have  perceived 
a  common  interest  in  avoiding  nuclear  holo- 
caust, while  some  potential  for  conflict  per- 
sists and  the  arsenals  of  the  two  sides  con- 
tinue to  grow.  The  United  States  and  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  have  succeeded 
in  overcoming  two  decades  of  estrangement, 
but  important  differences  in  philosophy  re- 
main. And  as  the  old  blocs  among  old  powers 
decline,  new  blocs  among  new  nations  threat- 
en to  emerge. 

The  United  States  sees  its  central  task 
today  as  helping  the  world  to  shape  a  new 
pattern  of  stability,  justice,  and  interna- 
tional cooperation.  We  have  rejected  the  old 
extremes  of  world  policeman  and  isolation. 
But  we  recognize  that  America's  principles, 
strength,  and  resources  impose  upon  us  a 
special  responsibility. 

Our  goal  is  to  move  toward  a  world  where 
blocs  and  balances  are  not  dominant;  where 
justice,  not  stability,  can  be  our  overriding 
preoccupation;  where  countries  consider  co- 
operation in  the  global  interest  to  be  in  their 
national  interest.  For  all  that  has  been 
achieved,  we  must  realize  that  we  have  taken 
only  the  first  hesitant  steps  on  a  long  and 
arduous  road. 

The  United  States  has  three  principal 
policy  objectives. 

First,  America  has  sought  to  foster  a  new 
spirit  of  responsibility  and  restraint  among 
all  powers. 

The  cornerstone  of  our  foreign  policy  is — 
as  it  has  been  for  a  generation — our  partner- 
ship with  our  Atlantic  allies  and  Japan.  These 


bonds  have  served  both  the  world's  peace 
and  its  prosperity.  Our  cooperation  pro- 
vided a  solid  foundation  for  efforts  to  reduce 
tensions  with  our  adversaries.  It  has  en- 
abled us  to  contribute  to  world  economic 
growth.  And  the  nations  which  provide  the 
industrial,  financial,  and  technological  sinews 
of  the  global  economy  now  share  a  heavy 
collective  responsibility  to  concert  their  ef- 
forts in  a  time  of  global  economic  stress. 

In  the  last  five  years  the  United  States 
has  also  sought  to  put  its  relations  with  the 
Communist  powers  on  a  new  and  steady 
basis. 

Since  the  dawn  of  the  nuclear  age,  man's 
fears  of  holocaust  and  his  hopes  for  peace 
have  turned  on  the  relationship  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union.  Never 
before  have  two  nations  had  the  physical 
ability  to  annihilate  civilization.  Never  be- 
fore has  it  been  so  important  that  the  two 
nuclear  giants  maintain  close  contact  with 
one  another  to  avoid  conflicts  which  would 
menace  other  nations  as  much  as  themselves. 

Progress  has  been  achieved  in  our  rela- 
tionship with  the  Soviet  Union  which  would 
have  been  unthinkable  a  decade  ago.  We 
take  the  easing  of  tensions  for  granted  only 
at  the  risk  of  the  return  of  confrontation.  In 
my  discussions  in  Moscow  I  stated  yet  again 
the  determination  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment to  maintain  the  momentum  of  the 
process  of  detente  and  was  assured  by  the 
Soviet  leaders  that  they  shared  this  inten- 
tion. The  United  States  will  persevere  to 
reduce  military  competition  with  the  Soviet 
Union  in  all  its  aspects;  to  insure  that  our 
political  competition  is  guided  by  principles 
of  restraint,  especially  in  moments  of  crisis ; 
and  to  move  beyond  restraint  to  cooperation 
in  helping  find  lasting  solutions  to  chronic 
conflicts. 

America's  relations  with  the  People's  Re- 
public of  China  are  also  of  fundamental  im- 
portance. There  cannot  be  a  stable  peace  in 
Asia — or  in  the  world — without  a  pattern 
of  peaceful  international  relationships  that 
includes  this  powerful  and  talented  nation. 
It  was  essential  to  end  a  generation  of  mu- 
tual isolation  and  hostility. 

Yet  rapprochement  with  the  People's  Re- 


742 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


public  of  China  is  not  sought  at  the  expense 
of  any  other  nations;  on  the  contrary,  it 
attempts  to  serve  a  wider  purpose.  The 
principles  of  the  Shanghai  communique 
commit  our  two  nations  to  respect  the  inde- 
pendence, sovereignty,  and  integrity  of  all 
countries  as  we  work  to  improve  our  own 
relationships. 

Our  relations  with  the  nonaligned  coun- 
tries are  another  pillar  of  our  foreign  policy. 
No  accommodation  among  countries,  how- 
ever powerful,  can  be  durable  if  negotiated 
over  the  heads  of  others  or  if  an  attempt 
is  made  to  impose  it  on  others.  Our  attitude 
toward  the  nonaligned  will  be  based  on  the 
principles  of  equality,  mutual  respect,  and 
shared  endeavors  and  on  the  premise  that 
all  countries  have  a  stake  in  a  peaceful 
world.  Condominium,  hegemony,  spheres  of 
influence,  are  historically  obsolete  and  moral- 
ly and  politically  untenable. 

It  is  a  corollary  of  this,  however,  that 
bloc  diplomacy  of  any  kind  is  anachronistic 
and  self-defeating.  We  see  a  danger  of  new 
patterns  of  alignment  that  are  as  artificial, 
rigid,  and  ritualistic  as  the  old  ones.  The 
issues  the  world  faces  are  so  urgent  that 
they  must  be  considered  on  their  merits,  on 
the  basis  of  their  implications  for  humanity 
and  for  world  peace — rather  than  on  some 
abstract  notion  of  ideological  or  bloc  advan- 
tage. In  a  real  sense  the  world  is  no  longer 
divided  between  East  and  West,  North  and 
South,  developed  and  developing,  consumer 
and  producer.  We  will  solve  our  problems  to- 
gether, or  we  will  not  solve  them  at  all. 

Limiting  the  Dangers  of  the  Atom 

Second,  America  seeks  to  limit  and  ulti- 
mately to  reduce  nuclear  weapons  competi- 
tion. 

The  relaxation  of  international  tensions 
cannot  survive  an  unrestrained  arms  race  by 
the  two  strongest  nuclear  powers.  And  in- 
ternational stability  will  be  seriously  jeopar- 
dized by  the  proliferation  of  nuclear  weapons. 
This  is  why  the  United  States  has  made  it 
a  major  objective  to  bring  about  a  more 
stable  nuclear  environment. 

The  Strategic  Arms  Limitations  Talks  are 


among  the  most  crucial  negotiations  ever 
conducted.  The  agreements  already  signed 
by  the  United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union 
represent  a  major  step  toward  strategic  sta- 
bility. They  placed  a  permanent  limit  on 
defensive  weapons  and  an  interim  limit  on 
off'ensive  nuclear  weapons.  Our  task  now  is 
to  control  the  qualitative  as  well  as  quanti- 
tative advance  of  weapons.  We  seek  a  long- 
term  agreement  which  would  establish  stable 
ceilings  and  other  restraints,  from  which  we 
could  begin  the  long-sought  process  of  arms 
reductions.  Progress  in  this  direction  was 
made  during  my  recent  talks  in  Moscow. 

At  the  same  time,  a  world  in  which  an 
ever-increasing  number  of  nations  possess 
nuclear  weapons  vastly  magnifies  the  risks 
of  both  regional  and  global  conflict.  And 
proliferation  complicates — if  it  does  not  in- 
hibit— international  cooperation  in  the  peace- 
ful uses  of  the  atom. 

Last  month  at  the  United  Nations  I  pro- 
posed a  comprehensive  global  effort.  The 
United  States  is  of  the  view  that  countries 
capable  of  exporting  nuclear  technology 
should  agree  to  common  restraints  on  a  multi- 
lateral basis  which  would  further  the  peace- 
ful, but  inhibit  the  military,  uses  of  nuclear 
power. 

We  take  seriously  India's  aflfirmation  that  it 
has  no  intention  to  develop  nuclear  weapons. 
But  India  of  course  has  the  capability  to 
export  nuclear  technology;  it  therefore  has 
an  important  role  in  this  multilateral  en- 
deavor. 

Needless  to  say,  the  United  States  does 
not  ask  other  countries  for  restraint  on  the 
export  of  nuclear  materials  and  technology 
which  it  is  not  prepared  to  apply  to  itself. 
We  will  work  vigorously  with  others  on  the 
practical  steps  which  should  be  taken  to  limit 
the  dangers  of  the  atom  while  furthering 
its  potential  for  human  good. 

Global  Cooperation  To  Meet  Global  Problems 

A  third  objective  of  American  policy  is  to 
build  global  cooperation  to  meet  unprece- 
dented global  problems. 

The  traditional  agenda  of  international 
affairs — the  balance  among  major  powers, 


November  25,   1974 


743 


the  security  of  nations — no  longer  defines 
our  perils  or  our  possibilities.  To  some  ex- 
tent we  have  mastered  many  of  the  familiar 
challenges  of  diplomacy.  Yet  suddenly  we  are 
witnessing  a  new  threat  to  the  governability 
of  national  societies  and  to  the  structure  of 
international  stability.  A  crisis  threatens 
the  world's  economic  system.  The  industrial- 
ized nations  see  decades  of  prosperity  in 
jeopardy;  the  developing  countries  see  hopes 
for  development  and  progress  shattered  or 
postponed  indefinitely.  And  even  the  newly 
wealthy  oil  producers  are  beginning  to  per- 
ceive that  their  recent  gains  will  be  swept 
away  in  a  global  crisis. 

The  dangers  are  as  self-evident  for  the 
United  States  as  they  are  for  India  and 
other  countries;  rates  of  inflation  unknown 
in  the  past  quarter  century,  financial  institu- 
tions staggering  under  the  most  massive  and 
rapid  movements  of  reserves  in  history,  and 
profoundly  disturbing  questions  about  the 
ability  to  meet  man's  most  fundamental  needs 
for  energy  and  food. 

This  is  not  a  conventional  political  prob- 
lem which  can  be  dealt  with  by  conventional 
diplomacy  or  on  the  basis  of  conventional 
premises  of  social  and  economic  theory.  It 
affects  all  countries  and  groups.  There  is  no 
gain  for  one  at  the  expense  of  another. 
Piecemeal  solutions  offer  no  hope;  a  global 
enterprise  is  imperative.  No  nation  or  bloc 
of  nations  can  impose  its  narrow  interests 
without  tearing  the  fabric  of  international 
cooperation.  Whatever  our  ideological  belief 
or  social  structure,  we  are  part  of  a  single 
international  system  on  which  our  national 
objectives  depend.  Our  common  destiny  is 
now  not  a  slogan;  it  is  an  unmistakable 
reality. 

The  United  States  is  prepared  to  dedicate 
itself  in  practical  ways  to  this  global  effort. 
At  the  World  Food  Conference  next  week 
we  will  offer  a  comprehensive  program  as 
our  contribution  to  freeing  mankind  from  the 
eternal  struggle  for  sustenance.  We  recognize 
that  America's  agricultural  productivity,  ad- 
vanced technology,  and  tradition  of  assistance 
represent  a  major  obligation.  We  know  that 
we  cannot  speak  of  the  global  responsibility 


of  others  without  practicing  global  responsi- 
bility ourselves.  America  pioneered  in  de- 
velopment assistance,  particularly  with  re- 
spect to  food ;  we  are  determined  to  step  up 
our  past  contributions.  We  will  increase  our 
production  at  home  so  there  will  be  more 
food  available  for  shipment  abroad.  And  we 
will  help  developing  nations  increase  their 
own  production,  which  is  the  only  long-term 
solution  to  the  problem. 

The  magnitude  of  the  world's  food  needs — 
and  the  redistribution  of  the  world's  wealth — 
imply  that  others  must  enlist  in  the  fight 
against  famine.  The  United  States  will  work 
cooperatively  with  other  exporters,  with  food 
importers,  and  with  those  countries  in  a 
position  to  help  finance  increased  food  pro- 
duction in  the  developing  countries. 

But  it  is  an  objective  fact  that  we  cannot 
meet  man's  need  for  food,  much  less  insure 
economic  and  social  advance,  without  coming 
to  grips  with  the  energy  crisis.  Higher  oil 
prices  directly  affect  food  prices  by  increas- 
ing the  costs  of  fertilizer,  of  operating  agri- 
cultural machinery,  and  of  transporting  food 
to  deficit  areas.  This  in  turn  contributes  to 
the  more  general  economic  crisis  of  inflation 
and  stagnation  which  will  surely  doom  the 
ability  of  the  economically  advanced  coun- 
tries to  fulfill  their  obligations  to  the  less 
well  endowed.  Both  consumers  and  pro- 
ducers have  a  parallel  stake  in  a  global  econ- 
omy that  is  stable  and  growing.  The  economic 
progress  of  30  years  has  brought  the  goal 
of  universal  well-being  closer;  today's  crisis 
puts  it  in  jeopardy.  This  is  why  the  United 
States  has  emphasized  global  interdependence 
and  seeks  cooperative  global  solutions. 

The  United  States  and  India 

The  American  purposes  I  have  described 
are,  we  believe,  consistent  with  India's  pur- 
poses. We  are  nations  whose  values  and 
aspirations  are  so  similar  that  our  disputes 
are  often  in  the  nature  of  a  family  quarrel. 
We  have  no  conflict  of  interest,  no  basic 
animosity  or  disagreement  that  keeps  us 
apart.  And  we  face  a  world  in  crisis  and 
transition  that  compels  us  to  work  together. 


744 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


We  are  both  democracies,  with  all  that 
implies  for  the  kinds  of  decisions  we  are  able 
to  make.  The  leaders  of  a  democracy  can 
only  sustain  policies  which  their  electorate 
will  support.  If  there  are  no  general  rules 
as  to  what  such  policies  are  likely  to  be, 
there  are  specific  limitations  as  to  what  they 
cannot  be.  It  is  clear  that  our  relationship 
cannot  be  based — in  either  country — on  the 
dependence  of  one  on  the  other.  Nor  can  our 
relationship  survive  constant  criticism  of  one 
by  the  other  in  all  international  forums. 
There  must  be  a  sense  of  common  purposes 
in  at  least  some  endeavors.  To  India-Ameri- 
can relations,  equality  and  mutual  respect  are 
more  than  doctrines  of  international  law ; 
they  are  political  necessities. 

In  the  past  year  or  two  we  have  removed 
major  obstacles  to  an  improved  relationship. 
Our  energies  are  now  focused  on  the  positive 
content  of  our  relationship.  Even  more  im- 
portantly, we  find  once  again  that  as  two 
great  nations  we  share  certain  aspirations 
for  the  world  at  large;  we  share  a  concern 
for  cooperative  solutions  to  man's  funda- 
mental needs. 

The  present  crisis  confronting  both  de- 
veloped and  developing  nations  reveals  all 
too  clearly  the  world's  past  failure  to  address 
global  problems  on  a  truly  cooperative  basis. 
India  and  the  United  States  have  much  to 
contribute.  The  world's  best  minds  must  be 
mobilized;  and  India  has  the  third  largest 
pool  of  scientific  talent,  while  the  United 
States  has  the  first.  We  must  apply  the  great 
economic  strength  of  our  two  nations;  the 
United  States  has  the  largest  industrial  out- 
put in  the  world  and  India  the  10th  largest. 
Our  economies  are  complementary;  the  fact 
that  India  is  only  the  26th  largest  trading 
partner  of  the  United  States  reveals  what 
potential  is  yet  untapped. 

The  Joint  Commission  we  are  establishing 
— for  scientific,  cultural,  and  economic  co- 
operation— provides  a  new  means  to  match 
our  resources  with  our  challenges.  It  is  the 
symbol  of  the  new  area  of  equality,  and  the 
United  States  stands  ready  to  expand  the 
concept  of  the  joint  commission  into  other 
areas. 


We  share  a  concern  for  economic  develop- 
ment. 

It  is  impossible  to  visit  South  Asia  with- 
out being  deeply  affected  by  the  plight  of 
so  many  of  the  peoples  of  this  region.  In- 
dividual hopes  for  survival  and  national  aspi- 
rations for  development  have  been  dealt  a 
cruel  blow  by  the  crises  in  energy,  food,  and 
inflation. 

The  American  people  want  to  be  helpful, 
while  avoiding  the  dependence  we  both  re- 
ject. Earlier  this  year,  the  United  States 
wrote  off  the  largest  amount  of  foreign 
debt  ever  canceled  in  history.  This  year  the 
United  States  will  launch  a  modest  bilateral 
aid  program.  A  substantial  portion  of  our 
multilateral  aid  already  comes  to  India.  Our 
new  food  program,  which  I  will  outline  at 
the  World  Food  Conference  next  week,  will 
be  of  particular  relevance  to  India. 

We  share  a  concern  for  world  peace. 

Neither  India  nor  the  United  States  will 
ever  be  satisfied  with  a  world  of  chronic 
conflicts,  uneasy  truces,  and  offsetting  blocs. 
We  have  a  joint  interest  in  a  comprehensive, 
institutionalized  peace,  based  not  merely  on 
a  balance  of  forces  but  on  a  sense  of  justice. 

In  recent  months  our  dialogue  on  the 
entire  range  of  global  concerns  has  assumed 
a  new  frequency  and  depth.  Our  consultation 
has  defined  areas  where  we  agree  and  nar- 
rowed those  where  we  do  not.  We  have  found 
anew  the  basis  for  collaboration  in  many 
areas. 

Tagore  wrote  with  foresight: 

During  the  evolution  of  the  nation  the  moral  cul- 
ture of  brotherhood  was  limited  by  geographic  boun- 
daries, because  at  that  time  those  boundaries  were 
true.  Now  they  have  become  imaginary  lines  of  tra- 
dition divested  of  the  qualities  of  real  obstacles.  So 
the  time  has  come  when  man's  moral  nature  must 
deal  with  this  fact  with  all  seriousness  or  perish. 

The  time  has  come  for  nations  to  act  on 
this  vision.  Let  there  be  hope  rather  than 
despair,  creativity  rather  than  disarray.  The 
recognition  and  understanding  of  our  prob- 
lems are  clearly  emerging;  we  have  the  tech- 
nical means  to  solve  them.  And  the  urgency 
of  our  tasks  impels  us. 

Half  a  century  ago,  Mahatma  Gandhi  wrote 


November  25,   1974 


745 


that  we  must  launch  "experiments  with 
truth."  In  this  spirit,  let  us  resolve  to 
strengthen  the  new  beginnings  between  India 
and  America.  Let  us  build  a  relationship 
that  can  endure  and  serve  common  ends  for 
a  long  time.  Let  us  make  our  contribution 
to  help  mankind  match  its  capacity  to  its 
challenges  for  the  benefit  of  our  two  peoples 
and  of  all  mankind. 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


U.S.  and   India  Agree  To  Establish 
Joint  Commission  on  Cooperation 

Following  is  the  text  of  an  agreement 
signed  at  Neiv  Delhi  on  October  28  by  Secre- 
tary Kissinger  and  Y.  B.  Chavan,  Minister 
for  External  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  India. 

Agreement  Between  the  Government  of  The 
United  States  of  America  and  the  Government 
OF  the  Republic  of  India  To  Establish  a  Joint 
Commission  on  Economic,  Commercial,  Scien- 
tific, Technological,  Educational  and  Cultural 
Cooperation. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America 
and  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  India, 

Guided  by  a  common  desire  to  strengthen  further 
the  friendly  relations  between  their  two  countries, 

Determined  to  explore  the  possibilities  of  foster- 
ing mutually  advantageous  cooperation  between  them 
in  the  economic,  commercial,  scientific,  technological, 
educational  and  cultural  fields, 

Have  agreed  as  follows: 

Article  1 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America 
and  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  India  hereby 
constitute  a  Joint  Commission  on  Economic,  Com- 
mercial, Scientific,  Technological,  Educational  and 
Cultural  Cooperation. 

Article  2 

The  tasks  of  the  Commission  may  include  the  fol- 
lowing: 

1.  In  the  field  of  economic  and  commercial  coop- 
eration: 


746 


(a)  to  review  matters  concerning  economic  and 
commercial  relations  between  the  two  countries; 

(b)  to  identify  and  investigate  areas  for  closer 
cooperation,  to  make  joint  studies  in  areas  of  com- 
mon interest  and  to  recommend  programs  concerning 
economic  growth  and  development  through  mutual 
cooperation; 

(c)  to  recommend  measures  and  activities  to  stim- 
ulate two-way  trade  between  the  two  countries  con- 
sistent with  their  international  obligations,  which 
may  include  inter  alia  the  sending  of  trade  promo- 
tion missions  and  trade  delegations; 

(d)  to  promote  possibilities  of  increased  invest- 
ment consistent  with  the  investment  policies  of  the 
two  countries;  and 

(e)  to  explore  possibilities  of  enhanced  coopera- 
tion between  financial,  industrial  and  commercial  in- 
stitutions and  organisations. 

2.  In  the  field  of  scientific  and  technological  coop- 
eration: 

(a)  to  review  and  recommend  plans  for  coopera- 
tion between  the  two  countries  and  measures  for 
their  implementation  and  coordination,  which  may 
include  inter  alia  the  exchange  of  specialists  and  in- 
formation and  the  organisation  of  bilateral  seminars 
on  problems  of  common  interest; 

(b)  to  identify  common  scientific  and  technological 
problems  and  to  formulate  and  recommend  joint  re- 
search programs  which  might  lead  to  application  of 
results  in  industry,  agriculture,  health  and  other 
fields;  and 

(c)  to  explore  possibilities  of  enhanced  scientific 
and  technical  cooperation  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments, their  agencies  and  other  institutions  in  the 
two  countries. 

•3.  In  the  field  of  education  and  cultural  coopera- 
tion: 

(a)  to  review  and  recommend  programs,  plans 
and  priorities  for  cooperative  efforts  to  facilitate  the 
interchange  of  people,  materials  and  ideas  in  the 
broad  fields  of  education,  scholarship,  and  such  areas 
of  cultural  endeavour  as  performing  arts,  fine  arts, 
libraries  and  museums,  sports  and  mass  communica- 
tions; and 

(b)  to  review  periodically  the  progress  and  func- 
tioning of  existing  programmes  and  arrangements, 
making  recommendations  as  may  be  appropriate. 

4.  The  Commission  may  also  consider  matters  aris- 
ing in  the  course  of  the  implementation  of  the  agree- 
ments between  the  two  countries  in  force  from  time 
to  time  in  the  fields  of  economic,  commercial,  scien- 
tific, technological,  educational  and  cultural  coopera- 
tion including  those  which  may  be  signed  hereafter 
and  make  recommendations  for  the  successful  fulfil- 
ment of  those  agreements. 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


5.  The  Commission  shall  also  be  competent  to  re- 
view other  problems  that  might  arise  in  the  imple- 
mentation of  this  Agreement  and  other  related  mat- 
ters that  might  be  brought  up  by  either  party. 

Article  3 

The  Commission  shall  consist  of  representatives  of 
the  two  Governments  with  the  representation  of  each 
government  headed  by  an  official  of  ministerial  or 
cabinet  rank. 

The  Commission  may  appoint  subcommissions  and 
other  bodies  as  may  be  necessary  to  deal  with  spe- 
cific issues  or  fields  of  cooperation  and  to  make  ap- 
propriate progress  reports. 

Article  4- 

The  Commission  shall  hold  its  meetings  not  less 
than  once  a  year.  Meetings  of  the  Commission  shall 
be  held  in  each  country  alternately.  The  Commission 
may  invite  to  such  meetings,  as  may  be  mutually 
agreed,  the  required  number  of  experts  and  advisers. 
Special  meetings  of  the  Commission  may  be  con- 
vened by  mutual  agreement. 

Article  5 

Within  its  areas  of  competence,  the  Commission 
may  submit  mutually  agreed  findings  or  proposals  to 
the  respective  Governments. 

Article  6 

Administrative  expenses  incidental  to  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Commission  and  its  Subcommissions  shall 
be  borne  by  the  country  in  which  the  meeting  is 
held.  Each  Government  shall  bear  the  expenses  of 
its  own  representation  at  the  meetings  of  the  Com- 
mission and  its  Subcommissions,  including  the  ex- 
penses of  travel  to  such  meetings  as  well  as  board 
and  lodging  and  other  personal  expenses  of  its  rep- 
resentatives. All  procedural  and  administrative  mat- 
ters not  provided  for  herein  shall  be  determined  by 
the  Commission  or  its  Subcommissions  upon  the  mu- 
tual consent  of  the  two  sides. 

Article  7 

This  Agreement  shall  remain  in  force,  subject  to 
the  right  of  either  Government  to  terminate  it  upon 
notification  to  the  other  Government  in  writing  of 
its  intention  to  do  so,  such  notification  being  made 
not  later  than  six  months  prior  to  the  proposed  date 
of  termination  of  the  Agreement.  Unless  otherwise 
agreed,  the  termination  of  this  Agreement  or  of  the 
activities  of  the  Commission  shall  not  affect  the  va- 
lidity or  duration  of  any  other  agreements  entered 
into  by  the  two  Governments  in  the  fields  of  eco- 
nomic, commercial,  scientific,  technological,  educa- 
tional or  cultural  cooperation. 

Article  8 

This  Agreement  shall  come  into  force  from  the 
date  of  signature  hereof. 


Done  in  New  Delhi  on  October  28,  1974,  in  two 
original  copies  each  in  English  and  Hindi,  both  texts 
being  equally  authentic. 


Henry  A.  Kissinger 
Secretary  of  State 

On  behalf  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United 
States  of  America 


Current  Actions 


Y.  B.  Chavan 

Minister  for  External 
Affairs 

On  behalf  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Republic 
of  India 


MULTILATERAL 

Biological  Weapons 

Convention  on  the  prohibition  of  the  development, 
production  and  stockpiling  of  bacteriological  (bio- 
logical) and  toxin  weapons  and  on  their  destruc- 
tion. Done  at  Washington,  London,  and  Moscow 
April  10,  1972.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Turkey,  November  5,  1974. 

CofFee 

Agreement  amending  and  extending  the  interna- 
tional coffee  agreement  1968.  Approved  by  the  In- 
ternational Coffee  Council  at  London  April  14, 
1973.  Entered  into  force  October  1,  1973.  TIAS 
7809. 

Notification  that  constitutional  procedures  com- 
pleted: El  Salvador,  September  2,  1974;  Rwan- 
da, September  13,  1974. 

Conservation 

Convention    on    international    trade    in    endangered 
species  of  wild  fauna  and  flora,  with  appendices. 
Done  at  Washington  March  3,  1973.' 
Signature:  Chile,  September  16,  1974. 
Ratification  deposited:  Sweden,  August  20,  1974. 

Consular  Relations 

Vienna  convention  on  consular  relations.  Done  at  Vi- 
enna April  24,  1963.  Entered  into  force  March  19, 
1967;   for  the   United   States   December   24,   1969. 
TIAS  6820. 
Accession  deposited:  New  Zealand,  September  10, 

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:  New  Zealand,  September  10, 

1974. 

Containers 

International  convention  for  safe  containers  (CSC), 
with  annexes.  Done  at  Geneva  December  2,  1972.^ 


Not  in  force. 


November  25,   1974 


747 


Approval  deposited:    France    (with   reservation), 
October  21,  1974. 

Fisheries 

Protocol  to  the  international  convention  for  the 
Northwest  Atlantic  fisheries  (TIAS  2089),  relat- 
ing to  amendments  to  the  convention.  Done  at 
Washington  October  6,  1970.  Entered  into  force 
September  4,  1974. 
Proclaimed  by  the  President:  October  23,  1974.' 

Finance 

Articles  of  agreement  of  the  International  Finance 

Corporation.   Done   at   Washington   May  25,   1955. 

Entered  into  force  July  20,  1956.  TIAS  3620. 

Signatures  and  acceptances  deposited:  Cameroon, 

October  1,  1974;  Western  Samoa,  June  28,  1974. 

Articles  of  agreement  of  the  International  Develop- 
ment Association.  Done  at  Washington  January 
26,  1960.  Entered  into  force  September  24,  1960. 
TIAS  4607. 

Signature  and  acceptance  deposited:  Western  Sa- 
moa, June  28,  1974. 

Load  Lines 

International  convention  on  load  lines,   1966.  Done 
at  London  April  5,  1966.  Entered  into  force  July 
21,  1968.  TIAS  6331,  6629,  6720. 
Accession  deposited:  Malta,  September  11,  1974. 
Acceptance  deposited:  Venezuela,  October  15,  1974. 

Phonograms 

Convention  for  the  protection  of  producers  of  phono- 
grams against  unauthorized  duplication  of  their 
phonograms.  Done  at  Geneva  October  29,  1971.  En- 
tered into  force  April  18,  1973;  for  the  United 
States  March  10,  1974.  TIAS  7808. 
Notification  from  World  Intellectual  Property  Or- 
ganization that  ratification  deposited:  Spain, 
May  24,  1974. 

Pollution 

International  convention  for  the  prevention  of  pollu- 
tion from  ships,  1973,  with  protocols  and  annexes. 
Done  at  London  November  2,  1973.' 
Signatures:   German   Democratic  Republic,   Octo- 
ber 21,  1974;"  Spain,  September  20,  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:    Czechoslovakia,    October    11,    1974;' 
Rwanda,  October  15,  1974. 


Whaling 

Amendments  to  paragraphs  1,  11-15,  21,  24(b), (c) 
to  the  schedule  to  the  international  whaling  con- 
vention. Adopted  at  London  June  28,  1974.  En- 
tered into  force  October  2,  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. 
Ratification  deposited:  Israel,  November  7,  1974. 


BILATERAL 


Chile 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities, 
with  related  notes.  Signed  at  Santiago  October 
25,  1974.  Entered  into  force  October  25,  1974. 

India 

Agreement  to  establish  a  Joint  Commission  on  Eco- 
nomic, Commercial,  Scientific,  Technological,  Edu- 
cational and  Cultural  Cooperation.  Signed  at  New 
Delhi  October  28,  1974.  Entered  into  force  October 
28,  1974. 

Khmer  Republic 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of  ag- 
ricultural commodities  of  August  10,  1974.  Ef- 
fected by  exchange  of  notes  at  Phnom  Penh  Oc- 
tober 25,  1974.  Entered  into  force  October  25,  1974. 

Turkey 

Agreement  relating  to  payment  to  the  United  States 
of  the  net  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  defense  arti- 
cles by  Turkey.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at 
Ankara  October  9  and  10,  1974.  Entered  into  force 
October  10,  1974,  effective  July  1,  1974. 


'  Not  in  force. 
'  With  an  understanding. 
'  Subject  to  ratification. 
*  With  a  statement. 

^  Does  not  accept  Annexes  III,  IV  and  V  (Optional 
Annexes). 
"  With  reservation. 


748 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


INDEX     November  25,1 97^     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  18i8 


Afghanistan.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  tlie 
U.S.S.R.,  Soutli  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugo- 
slavia, and   Italy 701 

Bangladesh.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the 
U.S.S.R.,  South  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugo- 
slavia, and  Italy 701 

India 

Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the  U.S.S.R.,  South 

Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugoslavia,  and  Italy       701 

Toward    a   Global    Community:    The    Common 

Cause  of  India  and  ,A.merica  (Kissinger)     .       740 

U.S.  and  India  Agree  To  Establish  Joint  Com- 
mission on  Cooperation  (text  of  agreement)       746 

Iran.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the  U.S.S.R., 
South  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugoslavia,  and 
Italy       701 

Italy..  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the  U.S.S.R., 
South  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugoslavia,  and 
Italy       701 

Middle  East.  President  Ford's  News  Confer- 
ence of  October  29  (excerpts) 738 

Pakistan.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the 
U.S.S.R.,  South  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugo- 
slavia, and  Italy 701 

Presidential     Documents.     President      Ford's 

News  Conference  of  October  29  (excerpts)    .       738 


Romania.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the 
U.S.S.R.,  South  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugo- 
slavia, and  Italy 701 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 747 

U.S.  and  India  Agree  To  Establish  Joint  Com- 
mission on  Cooperation  (text  of  agreement)       746 

Turkey.  President  Ford's  News  Conference  of 

October  29   (excerpts)     738 

U.S.S.R.,  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the 
U.S.S.R.,  South  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugo- 
slavia, and  Italy 701 

Yugoslavia.  Secretary  Kissinger  Visits  the 
U.S.S.R.,  South  Asia,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugo- 
slavia, and  Italy 701 

Name  Index 

Ansary,  Hushang 724 

Bhutto,  Zulfikar  Ali 720 

Ceausescu,    Nicolae 731 

Chavan,   Y.   B 704,746 

Ford,    President 738 

Gromyko,  Andrei  A 701 

Hossain,   Kamal 716 

Kissinger,    Secretary 701, 740 

Leone,    Giovanni 734 

Moro,  Aldo 737 

Tito,  Josip  Broz 733 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  November  4-10 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Office 
of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State,  Wash- 
ington, D.C.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  November  4  which  ap- 
pear in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos.  435 
of  October  23,  436  of  October  24,  442-444  of  Oc- 
tober 27,  445  of  October  28,  448  of  October  29, 
449  and  451  of  October  30,  454-457  and  460  of 
October  31,  459,  461,  and  462  of  November  1,  and 
463  and  464  of  November  2. 

Subject 

Kissinger:  remarks  to  Romanian 
press,  Bucharest,  Nov.  3. 

Kissinger,  Ceausescu:  exchange  of 
toasts,  Nov.  3. 

U.S.-Romania  joint  communique. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Belgrade. 

Death  of  Joseph  W.  Reap. 

Secretary's  Advisory  Committee  on 
Private  International  Law  Study 
Group  on  Arbitration,  New  York, 
Nov.  26. 

Study  Group  1,  U.S.  National  Com- 
mittee for  CCITT,  Nov.  26. 

Study  Group  9,  U.S.  National  Com- 
mittee for  CCIR,  Dec.  4. 

U.S.  National  Committee  for  CCIR, 
Dec.  5. 

U.S. -India  Joint  Commission,  Sub- 
commission  for  Educational  and 
Cultural  Affairs,  U.S.  members. 


No.       Date 


No. 

Date 

465 

11/4 

466 

11/4 

467 

468 

*469 

*470 

11/4 
11/4 
11/4 
11/4 

*471 

11/4 

*472 

11/4 

*473 

11/4 

t474 

11/4 

Subject 

U.S. -Yugoslav  joint  statement. 

Kissinger,  Tito:  remarks. 

Kissinger:  World  Food  Conference, 
Rome. 

Kissinger,  Leone:  exchange  of 
toasts,  Nov.  4. 

Kissinger,  Moro:  exchange  of  toasts. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Cairo. 

Kissinger,  Sadat:  news  conference, 
Cairo. 

Kissinger:  departure,  Cairo. 

National  Review  Board  for  the  Cen- 
ter for  Cultural  and  Technical  In- 
terchange Between  East  and  West, 
Honolulu,  Dec.  9-10. 

Kissinger,  Saqqaf:  remarks,  Riyadh, 
Nov.  6. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Amman,  Nov.  6. 

Kissinger:  departure,  Amman. 

Program  for  the  official  visit  of  Aus- 
trian Chancellor  Bruno  Kreisky, 
Nov.  9-13. 

Kissinger:  departure,  Damascus, 
Nov.  7. 

Kissinger,  Allon:  arrival,  Jerusalem, 
Nov.  7. 

Kissinger,  Allon:  remarks,  Jerusa- 
lem, Nov.  7. 

Kissinger,  Allon:  exchange  of  toasts. 

Kissinger,  Allon:  departure,  Jerusa- 
lem. 

Kissinger:  arrival,  Tunis. 


*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


475 
476 

t477 

11/4 
11/4 
11/5 

478 

11/5 

479 
1480 
1481 

11/5 
11/5 
11/6 

1482 
*483 

11/6 
11/6 

t484 

11/7 

*485 
t486 
*487 

11/7 
11/7 
11/7 

1488 

11/8 

t489 

11/8 

*490 

11/8 

t490A  11/8 
1491  11/8 

t492 

11/8 

Superintendent    of    Documents 

us.    GOVERNMENT   PRINTrNG    OFFICE 
WASHTNGTON,    D.C.    20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND   FEES  PAID 
U.S.     aOVERNMEHT     PRIHTINO     OFFICE 

Special   Fourth-Clott   Rote 
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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


/J; 


7// 


/S9f 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1849 


December  2,  1974 


THE  ENERGY  CRISIS:    STRATEGY  FOR  COOPERATIVE  ACTION 

Address  hy  Secretary  Kissinger     7U9 

SECRETARY  KISSINGER  VISITS  FIVE  ARAB  NATIONS  AND  ISRAEL     757 

U.N.  CALLS  FOR  COOPERATION  IN  ACCOUNTING 
FOR  MISSING  AND  DEAD  IN  ARMED  CONFLICTS 

Statement  by  Senator  Percy  and  Text  of  Resolution     772 

U.S.  VOTES  AGAINST  EXPULSION  OF  SOUTH  AFRICA  FROM  THE  U.N. 
Statement  by  Ambassador  Scali  and  Text  of  Draft  Resolution    775 


^mV^'^ 


iv^tc• 


'A  ra 


9:1^ 


THE   OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1849 
December  2,  1974 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

WashinBton.  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

52  issues  plus  semiannual  indexes, 

domestic  $29.80.  foreign  $37.26 

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, 
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  worfi  of  tlie  Department  and 
ftie  Foreign  Service. 
Ttie  BULLETIN  includes  selected 
press  releases  on  foreign  policy,  issued 
by  tlie  Wltite  House  and  the  Depart- 
ment, and  statements,  addresses, 
and  news  conferences  of  tfie  President 
and  the  Secretary  of  State  and  other 
officers  of  the  Department,  as  well  as 
special  articles  on  various  phases  of 
international  affairs  and  ttie  functions 
of  the  Department.  Information  is 
included  concerning  treaties  and  inter- 
national agreements  to  wliich  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  at 
international  relations  are  also  listed. 


The  Energy  Crisis:  Strategy  for  Cooperative  Action 


Address  by  Secretary  Kissinger 


A  generation  ago  the  Western  world  faced 
a  historic  crisis — the  breakdown  of  interna- 
tional order  in  the  wake  of  world  war. 
Threatened  by  economic  chaos  and  political 
upheaval,  the  nations  of  the  West  built  a 
system  of  security  relations  and  cooperative 
institutions  that  have  nourished  our  safety, 
our  prosperity,  and  our  freedom  ever  since. 
A  moment  of  grave  crisis  was  transformed 
into  an  act  of  lasting  creativity. 

We  face  another  such  moment  today.  The 
stakes  are  as  high  as  they  were  25  years  ago. 
The  challenge  to  our  courage,  our  vision,  and 
our  will  is  as  profound.  And  our  opportunity 
is  as  great. 

What  will  be  our  response? 

I  speak,  of  course,  of  the  energy  crisis. 
Tonight  I  want  to  discuss  how  the  adminis- 
tration views  this  problem,  what  we  have 
been  doing  about  it,  and  where  we  must  now 
go.  I  will  stress  two  themes  that  this  govern- 
ment has  emphasized  for  a  year  and  a  half: 

— First,  the  problem  is  grave  but  it  is 
soluble. 

— Second,  international  collaboration,  par- 
ticularly among  the  industrial  nations  of 
North  America,  Western  Europe,  and 
Japan,  is  an  inescapable  necessity. 

The  economic  facts  are  stark.  By  1973, 
worldwide  industrial  expansion  was  out- 
stripping energy  supply;  the  threat  of  short- 
ages was  already  real.   Then,  without  warn- 


'  Made  before  a  University  of  Chicago  Board  of 
Trustees  banquet  at  Chicago,  111.,  on  Nov.  14  (text 
from  press  release  500) . 


ing,  we  were  faced  first  with  a  political 
embargo,  followed  quickly  by  massive  in- 
creases in  the  price  of  oil.  In  the  course  of 
a  single  year  the  price  of  the  world's  most 
strategic  commodity  was  raised  400  percent. 
The  impact  has  been  drastic  and  global: 

— The  industrial  nations  now  face  a  col- 
lective payments  deficit  of  $40  billion,  the 
largest  in  history  and  beyond  the  experience 
or  capacity  of  our  financial  institutions.  We 
suffer  simultaneously  a  slowdown  of  produc- 
tion and  a  speedup  of  an  inflation  that  was 
already  straining  the  ability  of  governments 
to  control. 

—The  nations  of  the  developing  world 
face  a  collective  yearly  deficit  of  $20  billion, 
over  half  of  which  is  due  to  increases  in  oil 
prices.  The  rise  in  energy  costs  in  fact 
roughly  equals  the  total  flow  of  external  aid. 
In  other  words,  the  new  oil  bill  threatens 
hopes  for  progress  and  advancement  and 
renders  problematical  the  ability  to  finance 
even  basic  human  needs  such  as  food. 

— The  oil  producers  now  enjoy  a  surplus 
of  $60  billion,  far  beyond  their  payments  or 
development  needs  and  manifestly  more  than 
they  can  invest.  Enormous  unabsorbed  sur- 
plus revenues  now  jeopardize  the  very 
functioning  of  the  international  monetary 
system. 

Yet  this  is  only  the  first  year  of  inflated 
oil  prices.  The  full  brunt  of  the  petrodollar 
flood  is  yet  to  come.  If  current  economic 
trends  continue,  we  face  further  and  mount- 
ing worldwide  shortages,  unemployment, 
poverty,   and   hunger.    No   nation,   East  or 


December  2,    1974 


749 


West,  North  or  South,  consumer  or  pro- 
ducer, will  be  spared  the  consequences. 

An  economic  crisis  of  such  magnitude 
would  inevitably  produce  dangerous  political 
consequences.  Mounting  inflation  and  re- 
cession— brought  on  by  remote  decisions 
over  which  consumers  have  no  influence — 
will  fuel  the  frustration  of  all  whose  hopes 
for  economic  progress  are  suddenly  and 
cruelly  rebufi'ed.  This  is  fertile  ground  for 
social  conflict  and  political  turmoil.  Mod- 
erate governments  and  moderate  solutions 
will  be  under  severe  attack.  Democratic  so- 
cieties could  become  vulnerable  to  extremist 
pressures  from  right  or  left  to  a  degree  not 
experienced  since  the  twenties  and  thirties. 
The  great  achievements  of  this  generation 
in  preserving  our  institutions  and  construct- 
ing an  international  order  will  be  im- 
periled. 

The  destinies  of  consumers  and  producers 
are  joined  in  the  same  global  economic  sys- 
tem, on  which  the  progress  of  both  depends. 
If  either  attempts  to  wield  economic  power 
aggressively,  both  run  grave  risks.  Political 
cooperation,  the  prerequisite  of  a  thriving 
international  economy,  is  shattered.  New 
tensions  will  engulf  the  world  just  when  the 
antagonisms  of  two  decades  of  the  cold  war 
have  begun  to  diminish. 

The  potentially  most  serious  international 
consequences  could  occur  in  relations  be- 
tween North  America,  Europe,  and  Japan. 
If  the  energy  crisis  is  permitted  to  continue 
unchecked,  some  countries  will  be  tempted 
to  secure  unilateral  benefit  through  separate 
arrangements  with  producers  at  the  expense 
of  the  collaboration  that  offers  the  only  hope 
for  survival  over  the  long  term.  Such  uni- 
lateral arrangements  are  guaranteed  to  en- 
shrine inflated  prices,  dilute  the  bargaining 
power  of  the  consumers,  and  perpetuate  the 
economic  burden  for  all.  The  political  conse- 
quences of  disarray  would  be  pervasive. 
Traditional  patterns  of  policy  may  be  aban- 
doned because  of  dependence  on  a  strategic 
commodity.  Even  the  hopeful  process  of 
easing  tensions  with  our  adversaries  could 
suffer,  because  it  has  always  presupposed 
the  political  unity  of  the  Atlantic  nations 
and  Japan. 


The  Need  for  Consumer  Cooperation 

This  need  not  be  our  fate.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  energy  crisis  should  summon  once 
again  the  cooperative  effort  which  sustained 
the  policies  of  North  America,  Western 
Europe,  and  Japan  for  a  quarter  century. 
The  Atlantic  nations  and  Japan  have  the 
ability,  if  we  have  the  will,  not  only  to 
master  the  energy  crisis  but  to  shape  from 
it  a  new  era  of  creativity  and  common 
progress. 

In  fact  we  have  no  other  alternative.  The 
energy  crisis  is  not  a  problem  of  transitional 
adjustment.  Our  financial  institutions  and 
mechanisms  of  cooperation  were  never  de- 
signed to  handle  so  abrupt  and  artificially 
sustained  a  price  rise  of  so  essential  a  com- 
modity with  such  massive  economic  and 
political  ramifications.  We  face  a  long-term 
drain  which  challenges  us  to  common  action 
or  dooms  us  to  perpetual  crisis. 

The  problem  will  not  go  away  by  per- 
mitting inflation  to  proceed  to  redress  the 
balance  between  oil  producers  and  producers 
of  other  goods.  Inflation  is  the  most  gro- 
tesque kind  of  adjustment,  in  which  all  other 
elements  in  the  domestic  structure  are  up- 
set in  an  attempt  to  balance  one — the  oil 
bill.  In  any  event,  the  producers  could  and 
would  respond  by  raising  prices,  thereby 
accelerating  all  the  political  and  social 
dangers  I  have  described. 

Nor  can  consumers  finance  their  oil  bill 
by  going  into  debt  to  the  producers  without 
making  their  domestic  structure  hostage  to 
the  decisions  of  others.  Already,  producers 
have  the  power  to  cause  major  financial  up- 
heavals simply  by  shifting  investment  funds 
from  one  country  to  another  or  even  from 
one  institution  to  another.  The  political  im- 
plications are  ominous  and  unpredictable. 
Those  who  wield  financial  power  would 
sooner  or  later  seek  to  dictate  the  political 
terms  of  the  new  relationships. 

Finally,  price  reductions  will  not  be 
brought  about  by  consumer-producer  dia- 
logue alone.  The  price  of  oil  will  come  down 
only  when  objective  conditions  for  a  reduc- 
tion are  created,  and  not  before.  Today  the 
producers  are  able  to  manipulate  prices  at 
will  and  with  apparent  impunity.    They  are 


750 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


not  pei'suaded  by  our  protestations  of  dam- 
age to  our  societies  and  economies,  because 
we  have  taken  scant  action  to  defend  them 
ourselves.  They  are  not  moved  by  our  alarms 
about  the  health  of  the  Western  world, 
which  never  included  and  sometimes  ex- 
ploited them.  And  even  if  the  producers 
learn  eventually  that  their  long-term  in- 
terest requires  a  cooperative  adjustment  of 
the  price  structure,  it  would  be  foolhardy  to 
count  on  it  or  passively  wait  for  it. 

We  agree  that  a  consumer-producer  dia- 
logue is  essential.  But  it  must  be  accom- 
panied by  the  elaboration  of  greater  con- 
sumer solidarity.  The  heart  of  our  approach 
must  be  collaboration  among  the  consuming 
nations.    No  one  else  will  do  the  job  for  us. 

Blueprint  for  Consumer  Cooperation 

Consumer  cooperation  has  been  the  cen- 
tral element  of  U.S.  policy  for  the  past  year 
and  a  half. 

In  April  1973  the  United  States  warned 
that  energy  was  becoming  a  problem  of 
unprecedented  proportions  and  that  collab- 
oration among  the  nations  of  the  West  and 
Japan  was  essential.  In  December  of  the 
same  year,  we  proposed  a  program  of  col- 
lective action.  This  led  to  the  Washington 
Energy  Conference  in  February  1974,  at 
which  the  major  consumers  established  new 
machinery  for  consultation  with  a  mandate 
to  create,  as  soon  as  possible,  institutions 
for  the  pooling  of  effort,  risk,  and  tech- 
nology. 

In  April  1974  and  then  again  this  fall  be- 
fore the  U.N.  General  Assembly,  President 
Ford  and  I  reiterated  the  American  philos- 
ophy that  global  cooperation  offered  the  only 
long-term  solution  and  that  our  efforts  with 
fellow  consumers  were  designed  to  pave  the 
way  for  constructive  dialogue  with  the  pro- 
ducers. In  September  1974  we  convened  a 
meeting  of  the  Foreign  and  Finance  Min- 
isters of  the  United  Kingdom,  Japan,  the 
Federal  Republic  of  Germany,  France,  and 
the  United  States  to  consider  further  meas- 
ures of  consumer  cooperation.  And  last 
month  President  Ford  announced  a  long- 
term    national    policy   of   conservation    and 


development  to   reinforce  our  international 
efforts  to  meet  the  energy  challenge. 

In  our  view,  a  concerted  consumer  strat- 
egy has  two  basic  elements: 

— First,  we  must  create  the  objective  con- 
ditions necessary  to  bring  about  lower  oil 
prices.  Since  the  industrialized  nations  are 
the  principal  consumers,  their  actions  can 
have  a  decisive  impact.  Determined  national 
action,  reinforced  by  collective  efforts,  can 
transform  the  market  by  reducing  our  con- 
sumption of  oil  and  accelerating  develop- 
ment of  new  sources  of  energy.  Over  time 
this  will  create  a  powerful  pressure  on 
prices. 

— Second,  in  the  interim  we  must  protect 
the  vitality  of  our  economies.  Effective  ac- 
tion on  conservation  will  require  months ; 
development  of  alternative  sources  will  take 
years.  In  the  meantime,  we  will  face  two 
great  dangers.  One  is  the  threat  of  a  new 
embargo.  The  other  is  that  our  financial 
system  may  be  unable  to  manage  chronic 
deficits  and  to  recycle  the  huge  flows  of  oil 
dollars  that  producers  will  invest  each  year 
in  our  economies.  A  financial  collapse — or 
the  threat  of  it — somewhere  in  the  system 
could  result  in  restrictive  monetary,  fiscal, 
and  trade  measures  and  a  downward  spiral 
of  income  and  jobs. 

The  consumers  have  taken  two  major 
steps  to  safeguard  themselves  against  these 
dangers  by  collaborative  action. 

One  of  the  results  of  the  Washington 
Energy  Conference  was  a  new  permanent 
institution  for  consumer  energy  cooperation 
— the  International  Energy  Agency  (lEA). 
This  agency  will  oversee  a  comprehensive 
common  effort — in  conservation,  cooperative 
research  and  development,  broad  new  action 
in  nuclear  enrichment,  investment  in  new 
energy  supplies,  and  the  elaboration  of  con- 
sumer positions  for  the  consumer-producer 
dialogue. 

Equally  significant  is  the  unprecedented 
agreement  to  share  oil  supplies  among  prin- 
cipal consumers  in  the  event  of  another 
crisis.  The  International  Energy  Program 
that  grew  out  of  the  Washington  Energy 
Conference  and  that  we  shall  formally  adopt 


December  2,    1974 


751 


next  week  is  a  historic  step  toward  con- 
sumer solidarity.  It  provides  a  detailed 
blueprint  for  common  action  should  either 
a  general  or  selective  embargo  occur.  It  is  a 
defensive  arrangement,  not  a  challenge  to 
producers.  But  producing  countries  must 
know  that  it  expresses  the  determination 
of  the  consumers  to  shape  their  own  future 
and  not  to  remain  vulnerable  to  outside 
pressures. 

The  International  Energy  Agency  and  the 
International  Energy  Program  are  the  first 
fruits  of  our  efforts.  But  they  are  only 
foundations.  We  must  now  bring  our  blue- 
print to  life. 

To  carry  through  the  overall  design,  the 
consuming  countries  must  act  in  five  inter- 
related areas: 

— First,  we  must  accelerate  our  national 
programs  of  energy  conservation,  and  we 
must  coordinate  them  to  insure  their  effec- 
tiveness. 

— Second,  we  must  press  on  with  the  de- 
velopment of  new  supplies  of  oil  and  alterna- 
tive sources  of  energy. 

— Third,  we  must  strengthen  economic 
security — to  protect  against  oil  emergencies 
and  to  safeguard  the  international  financial 
system. 

— Fourth,  we  must  assist  the  poor  nations 
whose  hopes  and  efforts  for  progress  have 
been  cruelly  blunted  by  the  oil  price  rises 
of  the  past  year. 

— Fifth,  on  the  basis  of  consumer  soli- 
darity we  should  enter  a  dialogue  with  the 
producers  to  establish  a  fair  and  durable 
long-term  relationship. 

Let  me  deal  with  each  of  these  points  in 
turn. 


Coordination  of  Conservation  Programs 

Conservation  and  the  development  of  new 
sources  of  energy  are  basic  to  the  solution. 
The  industrialized  countries  as  a  whole  now 
import  nearly  two-thirds  of  their  oil  and 
over  one-third  of  their  total  energy.  Over 
the  next  decade,  we  must  conserve  enough 
oil  and  develop  sufficient  alternative  supplies 
to   reduce  these   imports   to   no   more  than 


one-fifth  of  the  total  energy  consumption. 
This  requires  that  the  industrialized  coun- 
tries manage  the  growth  of  their  economies 
without  increasing  the  volume  of  their  oil 
imports. 

The  effect  of  this  reduced  dependence  will 
be  crucial.  If  it  succeeds,  the  demand  of 
the  industrialized  countries  for  imported  oil 
will  remain  static  while  new  sources  of 
energy  will  become  available  both  inside  and 
outside  of  OPEC  [Organization  of  Petro- 
leum Exporting  Countries].  OPEC  may 
attempt  to  offset  efforts  to  strengthen  con- 
servation and  develop  alternative  sources 
by  deeper  and  deeper  cuts  in  production, 
reducing  the  income  of  producers  who  seek 
greater  revenues  for  their  development.  The 
majority  of  producers  will  then  see  their 
interest  in  expanding  supply  and  seeking  a 
new  equilibrium  between  supply  and  demand 
at  a  fair  price. 

Limiting  oil  imports  into  industrial  coun- 
tries to  a  roughly  constant  figure  is  an  ex- 
tremely demanding  goal  requiring  disci- 
pline for  conservation  and  investment  for 
the  development  of  new  energy  sources.  The 
United  States,  which  now  imports  a  third 
of  its  oil  and  a  sixth  of  its  total  energy, 
will  have  to  become  largely  self-sufficient. 
Specifically,  we  shall  set  as  a  target  that  we 
reduce  our  imports  over  the  next  decade 
from  7  million  barrels  a  day  to  no  more  than 
1  million  barrels,  or  less  than  2  percent  of 
our  total  energy  consumption. 

Conservation  is  of  course  the  most  im- 
mediate road  to  relief.  President  Ford  has 
stated  that  the  United  States  will  reduce  oil 
imports  by  1  million  barrels  per  day  by  the 
end  of  1975 — a  15  percent  reduction. 

But  one  country's  reduction  in  consump- 
tion can  be  negated  if  other  major  consum- 
ers do  not  follow  suit.  Fortunately,  other 
nations  have  begun  conservation  programs  of 
their  own.  What  is  needed  now  is  to  relate 
these  programs  to  common  goals  and  an 
overall  design.  Therefore,  the  United  States 
proposes  an  international  agreement  to  set 
consumption  goals.  The  United  States  is 
prepared  to  join  an  international  conserva- 
tion agreement  that  would  lead  to  systematic 
and  long-term  savings  on  an  equitable  basis. 


752 


Deportment  of  State  Bulletin 


As  part  of  such  a  program,  we  propose 
that  by  the  end  of  1975  the  industrialized 
countries  reduce  their  consumption  of  oil 
by  3  million  barrels  a  day  over  what  it  would 
be  otherwise — a  reduction  of  approximately 
10  percent  of  the  total  imports  of  the  group. 
This  reduction  can  be  carried  out  without 
prejudice  to  economic  growth  and  jobs  by 
cutting  back  on  wasteful  and  inefficient  uses 
of  energy  both  in  personal  consumption  and 
in  industry.  The  United  States  is  prepared 
to  assume  a  fair  share  of  the  total  reduction. 

The  principal  consumer  nations  should 
meet  each  year  to  determine  appropriate 
annual  targets. 

Development  of  Alternative  Energy  Sources 

Conservation  measures  will  be  effective 
to  the  extent  that  they  are  part  of  a  dynamic 
program  for  the  development  of  alternative 
energy  sources.  All  countries  must  make  a 
major  shift  toward  nuclear  power,  coal,  gas, 
and  other  sources.  If  we  are  to  assure 
substantial  amounts  of  new  energy  in  the 
1980's,  we  must  start  now.  If  the  indus- 
trialized nations  take  the  steps  which  ai'e 
within  their  power,  they  will  be  able  to 
transform  energy  shortages  into  energy  sur- 
pluses by  the  1980's. 

Project  Independence  is  the  American 
contribution  to  this  effort.  It  represents  the 
investment  of  hundreds  of  billions  of  dol- 
lars, public  and  private — dwarfing  our  moon- 
landing  program  and  the  Manhattan  Proj- 
ect, two  previous  examples  of  American 
technology  mobilized  for  a  great  goal. 
Project  Independence  demonstrates  that  the 
United  States  will  never  permit  itself  to  be 
held  hostage  to  a  strategic  commodity. 

Project  Independence  will  be  comple- 
mented by  an  active  policy  of  supporting  co- 
operative projects  with  other  consumers.  The 
International  Energy  Agency  to  be  estab- 
lished next  week  is  well  designed  to  launch 
and  coordinate  such  programs.  Plans  are  al- 
ready drawn  up  for  joint  projects  in  coal 
technology  and  solar  energy.  The  United 
States  is  prepared  to  expand  these  collective 
activities  substantially  to  include  such  fields 
as  uranium  enrichment. 


The  area  of  controlled  thermonuclear  fu- 
sion is  particularly  promising  for  joint  ven- 
tures, for  it  would  make  available  abundant 
energy  from  virtually  inexhaustible  re- 
sources. The  United  States  is  prepared  to 
join  with  other  lEA  members  in  a  broad  pro- 
gram of  joint  planning,  exchange  of  scientific 
personnel,  .shared  use  of  national  facilities, 
and  the  development  of  joint  facilities  to  ac- 
celerate the  advent  of  fusion  power. 

Finally,  we  shall  recommend  to  the  lEA 
that  it  create  a  common  fund  to  finance  or 
guarantee  investment  in  promising  energy 
projects  in  participating  countries  and  in 
those  ready  to  cooperate  with  the  lEA  on  a 
long-term  basis. 

Financial  Solidarity 

The  most  serious  immediate  problem  fac- 
ing the  consuming  countries  is  the  economic 
and  financial  .strain  resulting  from  high  oil 
prices.  Producer  revenues  will  inevitably  be 
reinvested  in  the  industrialized  world;  there 
is  no  other  outlet.  But  they  will  not  neces- 
sarily flow  back  to  the  countries  whose  bal- 
ance of  payments  problems  are  most  acute. 
Thus  many  countries  will  remain  unable  to 
finance  their  deficits  and  all  will  be  vulnera- 
ble to  massive  sudden  withdrawals. 

The  industrialized  nations,  acting  together, 
can  correct  this  imbalance  and  reduce  their 
vulnerability.  Just  as  producers  are  free  to 
choose  where  they  place  their  funds,  so  the 
consumers  must  be  free  to  redistribute  these 
funds  to  meet  their  own  needs  and  those  of 
the  developing  countries. 

Private  financial  institutions  are  already 
deeply  involved  in  this  process.  To  buttress 
their  efforts,  central  banks  are  assuring  that 
necessary  support  is  available  to  the  private 
institutions,  particularly  since  so  much  of 
the  oil  money  has  been  invested  in  relatively 
short-term  obligations.  Private  institutions 
should  not  bear  all  the  risks  indefinitely,  how- 
ever. We  cannot  afford  to  test  the  limits  of 
their  capacity. 

Therefore  the  governments  of  Western  Eu- 
rope, North  America,  and  Japan  should  move 
now  to  put  in  place  a  system  of  mutual  sup- 
port that  will  augment  and  buttress  private 


December  2,    1974 


753 


channels  whenever  necessary-  The  United 
States  proposes  that  a  common  loan  and  guar- 
antee facility  be  created  to  provide  for  redis- 
tributing up  to  $25  billion  in  1975,  and  as 
much  again  the  next  year  if  necessary. 

The  facility  will  not  be  a  new  aid  institu- 
tion to  be  funded  by  additional  taxes.  It  will 
be  a  mechanism  for  recycling,  at  commercial 
interest  rates,  funds  flowing  back  to  the  in- 
dustrial world  from  the  oil  producers.  Sup- 
port from  the  facility  would  not  be  automatic, 
but  contingent  on  full  resort  to  private  fi- 
nancing and  on  reasonable  self-help  meas- 
ures. No  country  should  expect  financial  as- 
sistance that  is  not  moving  effectively  to 
lessen  its  dependence  on  imported  oil. 

Such  a  facility  will  help  assure  the  stability 
of  the  entire  financial  system  and  the  credit- 
worthiness of  participating  governments ;  in 
the  long  run  it  would  reduce  the  need  for  of- 
ficial financing.  If  implemented  rapidly  it 
would : 

— Protect  financial  institutions  from  the 
excessive  risks  posed  by  an  enormous  volume 
of  funds  beyond  their  control  or  capacity : 

— Insure  that  no  nation  is  forced  to  pursue 
disruptive  and  restrictive  policies  for  lack  of 
adequate  financing ; 

— Assure  that  no  consuming  country  will 
be  compelled  to  accept  financing  on  intolera- 
ble political  or  economic  terms ;  and 

— Enable  each  participating  country  to 
demonstrate  to  people  that  efforts  and  sacri- 
fices are  being  shared  equitably — that  the 
national  survival  is  buttressed  by  consumer 
solidarity. 

We  have  already  begun  discussion  of  this 
proposal;  it  was  a  principal  focus  of  the 
meeting  of  the  Foreign  and  Finance  Minis- 
ters of  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany,  the 
United  States,  Japan,  the  United  Kingdom, 
and  France  in  September  in  Washington. 

Easing  the  Plight  of  Developing  Countries 

The  strategy  I  have  outlined  here  is  also 
essential  to  ease  the  serious  plight  of  many 
developing  countries.  All  consuming  nations 
are    in    need    of    relief    from    excessive    oil 


prices,  but  the  developing  world  cannot  wait 
for  the  process  to  unfold.  For  them,  the  oil 
crisis  has  already  produced  an  emergency. 
The  oil  bill  has  wiped  out  the  external  as- 
sistance of  the  poorer  developing  countries, 
halted  agricultural  and  industrial  develop- 
ment, and  inflated  the  prices  for  their  most 
fundamental  needs,  including  food.  Unlike  the 
industrial  nations,  developing  countries  do 
not  have  many  options  of  self-help ;  their 
margin  for  reducing  energy  consumption  is 
limited ;  they  have  little  capacity  to  develop 
alternative  sources. 

For  both  moral  and  practical  reasons,  we 
cannot  permit  hopes  for  development  to  die 
or  cut  ourselves  off  from  the  political  and 
economic  needs  of  so  great  a  part  of  mankind. 
At  the  very  lea.st,  the  industrial  nations  must 
maintain  the  present  level  of  their  aid  to  the 
developing  world  and  take  special  account  of 
its  needs  in  the  multilateral  trade  negotia- 
tions. 

We  must  also  look  for  ways  to  help  in 
the  critical  area  of  food.  At  the  World  Food 
Conference,  I  outlined  a  strategy  for  meet- 
ing the  food  and  agricultural  needs  of  the 
least  developed  countries.  The  United  States 
is  uniquely  equipped  to  make  a  contribution 
in  this  field  and  will  make  a  contribution 
worthy  of  its  special  strength. 

A  major  responsibility  must  rest  with 
those  oil  producers  whose  actions  aggra- 
vated the  problems  of  the  developing  coun- 
tries and  who,  because  of  their  new-found 
wealth,  now  have  greatly  increased  re- 
sources for  assistance. 

But  even  after  all  presently  available  re- 
sources have  been  drawn  upon,  an  un- 
financed  payments  deficit  of  between  $1  and 
$2  billion  will  remain  for  the  25  or  30  coun- 
tries most  seriously  affected  by  high  oil 
prices.    It  could  grow  in  1976. 

We  need  new  international  mechanisms  to 
meet  this  deficit.  One  possibility  would  be 
to  supplement  regular  International  Mone- 
tary Fund  facilities  by  the  creation  of  a 
separate  trust  fund  managed  by  the  IMF  to 
lend  at  interest  rates  recipient  countries 
could  afford.   Funds  would  be  provided  by 


754 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


national  contributions  from  interested  coun- 
tries, including  especially  oil  producers.  The 
IMF  itself  could  contribute  the  profits  from 
IMF  gold  sales  undertaken  for  this  purpose. 
We  urge  the  Interim  Committee  of  the  IMF 
and  the  joint  IMF-IBRD  [International 
Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development] 
Development  Committee  to  examine  this 
proposal  on  an  urgent  basis. 

Constructive    Dialogue   With    Producers 

When  the  consumers  have  taken  some  col- 
lective steps  toward  a  durable  solution — 
that  is,  measures  to  further  conservation 
and  the  development  of  new  supplies — and 
for  our  interim  protection  through  emer- 
gency planning  and  financial  solidarity,  the 
conditions  for  a  constructive  dialogue  with 
producers  will  have  been  created. 

We  do  not  see  consumer  cooperation  as 
antagonistic  to  consumer-producer  coopera- 
tion. Rather  we  view  it  as  a  necessary  pre- 
requisite to  a  constructive  dialogue,  as  do 
many  of  the  producers  themselves,  who  have 
urged  the  consumers  to  curb  inflation,  con- 
serve energy,  and  preserve  international 
financial  stability. 

A  dialogue  that  is  not  carefully  prepared 
will  compound  the  problems  which  it  is  sup- 
posed to  solve.  Until  the  consumers  develop 
a  coherent  approach  to  their  own  problems, 
discussions  with  the  producers  will  only  re- 
peat in  a  multilateral  forum  the  many  bi- 
lateral exchanges  which  are  already  taking 
place.  When  consumer  solidarity  has  been 
developed  and  there  are  realistic  prospects 
for  significant  progress,  the  United  States  is 
prepared  to  participate  in  a  consumer- 
producer  meeting. 

The  main  subject  of  such  a  dialogue  must 
inevitably  be  price.  Clearly  the  stability  of 
the  system  on  which  the  economic  health  of 
even  the  producers  depends  requires  a  price 
reduction.  But  an  equitable  solution  must 
also  take  account  of  the  producers'  need  for 
long-term  income  security  and  economic 
growth.  This  we  are  prepared  to  discuss 
sympathetically. 


In  the  meantime  the  producers  must  rec- 
ognize that  further  increases  in  the  prices 
while  this  dialogue  is  being  prepared  and 
when  the  system  has  not  even  absorbed  the 
previous  price  rises  would  be  disruptive  and 
dangerous. 

On  this  basis — consumer  solidarity  in  con- 
servation, the  development  of  alternative 
supplies,  and  financial  security;  producer 
policies  of  restraint  and  responsibility;  and 
a  mutual  recognition  of  interdependence  and 
a  long-term  common  interest — there  can  be 
justifiable  hope  that  a  consumer-producer 
dialogue  will  bring  an  end  to  the  crisis  that 
has  shaken  the  world  to  its  economic  founda- 
tions. 

The  Next  Step 

It  is  now  a  year  and  a  month  since  the  oil 
crisis  began.  We  have  made  a  good  begin- 
ning, but  the  major  test  is  still  ahead. 

The  United  States  in  the  immediate  future 
intends  to  make  further  proposals  to  imple- 
ment the  program  I  have  outlined. 

Next  week,  we  will  propose  to  the  new 
International  Energy  Agency  a  specific  pro- 
gram for  cooperative  action  in  conservation, 
the  development  of  new  supplies,  nuclear 
enrichment,  and  the  preparation  of  con- 
sumer positions  for  the  eventual  consumer- 
producer  dialogue. 

Simultaneously,  Secretary  [of  the  Treas- 
ury William  E.]  Simon  will  spell  out  our 
ideas  for  financial  solidarity  in  detail,  and 
our  representative  at  the  Group  of  Ten  will 
present  them  to  his  colleagues. 

We  will,  as  well,  ask  the  Chairman  of  the 
Interim  Committee  of  the  IMF  as  well  as 
the  new  joint  IMF-IBRD  Development 
Committee  to  consider  an  urgent  program 
for  concessional  assistance  to  the  poorest 
countries. 

Yesterday,  Secretary  [of  the  Interior 
Rogers  C.  B.]  Morton  announced  an  accel- 
erated program  for  domestic  oil  exploration 
and  exploitation. 

President  Ford  will  submit  a  detailed  and 
comprehensive  energy  program  to  the  new 
Congress. 


December  2,    1974 


755 


Let  there  be  no  doubt,  the  energy  problem 
is  soluble.  It  will  overwhelm  us  only  if  we 
retreat  from  its  reality.  But  there  can  be 
no  solution  without  the  collective  efforts  of 
the  nations  of  North  America,  Western 
Europe,  and  Japan — the  very  nations  whose 
cooperation  over  the  course  of  more  than 
two  decades  has  brought  prosperity  and 
peace  to  the  postwar  world.  Nor,  in  the 
last  analysis,  can  there  be  a  solution  without 
a  dialogue  with  the  producers  carried  on  in 
a  spirit  of  reconciliation  and  compromise. 

A  great  responsibility  rests  upon  America, 
for  without  our  dedication  and  leadership 
no  progress  is  possible.  This  nation  for 
many  years  has  carried  the  major  respon- 
sibility for  maintaining  the  peace,  feeding 
the  hungry,  sustaining  international  eco- 
nomic growth,  and  inspiring  those  who 
would  be  free.  We  did  not  seek  this  heavy 
burden,  and  we  have  often  been  tempted  to 
put  it  down.  But  we  have  never  done  so, 
and  we  cannot  afford  to  do  so  now — or  the 
generations  that  follow  us  will  pay  the  price 
for  our  self-indulgence. 

For  more  than  a  decade  America  has  been 
torn  by  war,  social  and  generational  turbu- 
lence, and  constitutional  crisis.  Yet  the  most 
striking  lesson  fi-om  these  events  is  our 
fundamental  stability  and  strength.  During 
our  upheavals,  we  still  managed  to  ease  ten- 
sions around  the  globe.  Our  people  and  our 
institutions  have  come  through  our  domestic 
travails   with    an   extraordinary    resiliency. 


And  now,  once  again,  our  leadership  in  tech- 
nology, agriculture,  industry,  and  commu- 
nications has  become  vital  to  the  world's 
recovery. 

Woodrow  Wilson  once  remarked  that 
"wrapped  up  with  the  liberty  of  the  world 
is  the  continuous  perfection  of  that  liberty 
by  the  concerted  powers  of  all  civilized 
people."  That,  in  the  last  analysis,  is  what 
the  energy  crisis  is  all  about.  For  it  is  our 
liberty  that  in  the  end  is  at  stake  and  it  is 
only  through  the  concerted  action  of  the  in- 
dustrial democracies  that  it  will  be  main- 
tained. 

The  dangers  that  Woodrow  Wilson  and 
his  generation  faced  were,  by  today's  stand- 
ards, relatively  simple  and  straightforward. 
The  dangers  we  face  now  are  more  subtle 
and  more  profound.  The  context  in  which 
we  act  is  more  complex  than  even  the  period 
following  the  Second  World  War.  Then  we 
drew  inspiration  from  stewardship;  now  we 
must  find  it  in  partnership.  Then  we  and 
our  allies  were  brought  together  by  an  ex- 
ternal threat,  now  we  must  find  it  in  our 
devotion  to  the  political  and  economic  insti- 
tutions of  free  peoples  working  together  for 
a  common  goal.  Our  challenge  is  to  maintain 
the  cooperative  spirit  among  like-minded 
nations  that  has  served  us  so  well  for  a 
generation  and  to  prove,  as  Woodrow  Wilson 
said  in  another  time  and  place,  that  "The 
highest  and  best  form  of  efl^ciency  is  the 
spontaneous  cooperation  of  a  free  people." 


756 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Secretary   Kissinger  Visits   Five  Arab   Nations  and  Israel 


Following  are  remarks  made  by  Secretary 
Kissinger  and  foreign  leaders  during  his  trip 
to  Egypt,  Saudi  Arabia,  Jordan,  Syria,  Israel, 
and  Tunisia  November  5-9.^ 


THE  VISIT  TO   EGYPT,   NOVEMBER   5-6 

Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
Upon  Arrival,  Cairo,  November  5 

Piess  release  480  dated  Novemliei    .' 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  I'm  on  a  quick 
visit  to  Cairo  to  see  President  Sadat  and 
Foreign  Minister  Fahmy  to  discuss  with 
them  their  conclusions  in  the  light  of  the 
Rabat  summit  as  to  how  further  progress 
can  be  made  toward  a  successful  and  lasting 
peace  in  the  Middle  East.  The  United  States 
stands  ready,  as  it  has  throughout  the  past 
year,  to  be  helpful  in  making  rapid  progress 
toward  peace. 

Thank  you. 

News  Conference  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
and  President  Sadat,  November  6 

Press  release  481  <Iated  November  6 

President  Sadat:  I  am  glad  that  my  friend 
Dr.  Kissinger  was  able  to  come  and  exchange 
with  me  views  and  measures.  As  you  well 
know,  I  have  the  fullest  confidence  in  Dr. 
Kissinger,  and  we  support  his  continuing 
efforts  for  achieving  a  lasting  and  just  peace 
in  the  Middle  East.  We  believe  that  the 
United  States  can  play  an  active  role  toward 
further  progress  in  this  respect,  and  I  want 


'  For  documentation  related  to  Secretary  Kissin- 
ger's trip  to  the  U.S.S.R.,  India,  Bangladesh,  Paki- 
stan, .Afghanistan,  Iran,  Romania,  Yugoslavia,  and 
Italy  Oct.  23-Nov.  5,  see  Bulletin  of  Nov.  25,  1974, 
p.  701. 


to  emphasize  that  the  doors  for  progress  are 
still  open. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  woidd  you  tell  us  if  you 
are  attempting  or  have  attempted  to  bring 
about  some  kind  of  a  dialogue  between  Secre- 
tary of  State  Kissinger  and  the  PLO  [Pales- 
tine Liberation  Organization]  ? 

President  Sadat:  I  leave  this  to  Dr.  Kis- 
singer. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  simply  want  to 
make  a  general  statement.  The  talks  between 
the  President  and  myself  have  been  useful 
and  constructive,  as  always.  As  I  said  upon 
arrival  at  the  airport  yesterday,  the  United 
States  is  prepared  to  remain  actively  en- 
gaged in  attempting  to  bring  about  a  just 
and  lasting  peace  in  this  area.  I  emphasized 
on  many  occasions  our  views  which  can  be 
most  eff'ectively  achieved  by  a  step-by-step 
approach. 

I  am  just  beginning  a  trip  through  the 
Middle  East,  and  we  will  remain  in  active 
and  close  diplomatic  contact  with  all  of  the 
parties  to  see  what  possibilities  exist  and 
to  encourage  progress  wherever  possibilities 
exist. 

I  want  to  thank  the  President  for  receiv- 
ing me  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  has  a 
very  bad  cold. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  I  would  like  to  ask  you, 
sir,  what  is  your  judgment  as  to  how  the 
Rabat  summit  conference  affects  the  step- 
by-step  negotiation  process  in  which  Egypt 
has  beeyi  engaged  with  the  United  States? 

President  Sadat:  Well,  I  can't  see  at  all 
that  the  Rabat  conference  has  put  any  block 
in  this.  The  Rabat  conference  has  been 
mainly  for  the  question  of  Palestine,  and  it 
was  inevitable  that  at  some  time  the  Pales- 


December  2,   1974 


757 


tinian  question  was  going  to  be  tackled  as 
a  political  problem  rather  than  a  humani- 
tarian problem. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  are  yon  optimistic? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  believe  that  prog- 
ress is  possible,  and  with  the  cooperation 
of  the  parties,  we  will  continue  our  efforts, 
and  we  believe  that  progress  is  possible. 

Q.  Does  that  mean,  Dr.  Kissinger,  that  is 
not  possible  at  the  moment? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  We  believe  that 
progress  is  possible  in  the  months  ahead. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  is  Egypt  ready  to  begin 
discussions  with  Israel  about  further  tvith- 
drawals  in  the  Sinai,  ivhether  or  not  there 
are  similar  discussions  on  the  West  Bank? 

President  Sadat:  Well,  we  shall  always 
be  in  Egypt  ready  to  regain  whatever  land 
we  can. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  last  time  you  thought 
the  United  States  2vas  concerned  by  Jordan 
negotiating  with  Israel  as  regards  the  West 
Bank.  Yoii  said  that  this  was  the  U.S.  point 
of  view.  Now  that  the  PLO  is  going  to  take 
this  role  up,  how  do  you  think  this  can  be 
resolved  as  regards  to  the  United  States? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  What  my  view  was, 
and  is,  is  that  it  will  be  the  best  solution, 
and  we  now  have  to  see  the  impact  of  the 
recent  visit  with  respect  to  that  particular 
problem.  In  my  own  point  of  view  it  has 
complicated  matters. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  can  you  tell  us  how  your 
discussions  yesterday  with  Mr.  Arafat  affect 
your  discmsions  with  Dr.  Kissinger? 

President  Sadat:  I  don't  see  how  my  dis- 
cussions with  Arafat  yesterday  and  with  Dr. 
Kissinger  yesterday  and  today  make  any 
contradictions.    There  is  no  contradiction. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  are  you  going  to  meet 
Mr.  Yasir  Arafat  here  in  Cairo? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  ivhen  will  you  have 
another  meeting  with  Dr.  Kissinger? 

President  Sadat:  Well,  this  depends  upon 


the  momentum  of  the  process  in  the  near 
future. 

Q.  Woidd  you  expect  that  momentum  to 
slow  down  or  can  you  give  us  your  e.rpecta- 
tion  of  when  the  negotiations  between  Egypt 
and  Israel  on  the  next  disengagement  will 
begin,  sir? 

President  Sadat:  Well,  the  momentum  is 
continuing,  and  it  hasn't  been  hindered.  As 
I  said  in  my  statement,  the  efforts  of  Dr. 
Kissinger  in  the  near  future  are  needed 
much  more  than  they  were  needed  before. 

Q.   Thank  you,  sir. 

Remarks  by  Secretary   Kissinger 
Upon  Departure,  November  6 

Press  lelease    1S2  dated  Noveinl>tr  (i 

Q.  During  the  talks  ivith  the  President, 
did  you  submit  any  concrete  proposals  this 
time  or  the  time  before? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  not  submitted 
a  complete  proposal  on  either  of  the  trips, 
either  in  October  or  now.  I  am  here  to  dis- 
cuss in  general  manner  the  procedures  and 
approaches  that  could  be  used,  and  I  will 
cover  exactly  the  same  subjects  in  every 
country  that  I  visit.  I  would  like  to  remind 
you  all  that  it  is  exactly  one  year  today  that 
I  visited  Cairo  for  the  first  time  and  many 
things  have  changed  since  then,  and  I  hope 
that  by  this  time  next  year  other  things  will 
have  changed. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  on  the  disengage- 
ments in  the  Sinai? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have  had  no  con- 
crete discussions  on  any  specific  plan. 

EXCHANGE   OF  REMARKS  UPON   DEPARTURE, 
RIYADH,  SAUDI  ARABIA,  NOVEMBER  6 

Press  release  484  dated  November  7 

Foreign  Minister  Umar  al-Saqqaf 

It  has  been  customary  so  far  for  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  to  start  speaking  and  to  give 
his  impressions  of  his  visit  to  our  country. 
I  feel  it  my  pleasant  obligation  now  to  turn 


758 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


the  tables  on  him  and  start  expressing  my 
appreciation  for  the  Secretary's  visit,  if  he 
agrees. 

Dr.  Kissinger's  visit  was  a  good  one,  a 
useful  one ;  and  it  came  at  an  appropriate 
time,  following  several  activities  in  the  Arab 
area.  For  instance,  I  would  mention  the 
Arab  summit  conference,  which  was  a  big 
conference.  This  was  an  international  Arab 
summit  conference  pertaining  to  the  Arabs, 
the  heads  of  states,  their  countries,  in  which 
they  discussed  affairs  of  concern  to  their 
respective  countries  and  also  discussed  world 
problems  and  problems  of  interest  to  the  rest 
of  the  world.  This  was  the  nature  of  that 
Arab  summit  conference. 

This  conference  was  successful,  construc- 
tive, and  effective.  It  had  nothing  new  that 
we  demanded  different  from  what  was  the 
case  during  the  Algiers  conference  last  year. 
The  attitude  we  took  in  Algiers  was  still 
the  same.  Our  conviction  is  still  the  same; 
namely,  that  the  way  followed  by  Dr.  Kis- 
singer is  a  way  that  would  in  the  future 
realize  the  complete,  expeditious  Israeli 
withdrawal  based  on  justice.  We  would  never 
do  without  his  efforts  or  those  of  the  great 
country  he  represents. 

Our  two  countries  are  friends — the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  Kingdom  of  Saudi 
Arabia.  We  insist  on  being  friends.  We 
insist  on  challenging  or  defying  problems 
and  surmounting  them.  We  do  not  accept 
that  the  problems  challenge  us  and  beat  us. 
That  is  why  we  wish  all  success  to  our  friend 
Henry  and  his  mission  toward  which  he 
expended  a  lot  of  energy,  a  lot  of  intellect, 
and,  what  was  more  important,  his  having 
put  to  work  without  any  restraint  his  deep 
convictions  in  bringing  about  justice. 

Our  policy  is  the  same.  We  want  to  see 
complete  withdrawal  to  the  1967  borders 
and  the  return  of  Arab  Jerusalem  to  its 
people  and  the  restoration  of  their  legitimate 
rights  to  the  Palestinian  people.  I  have  no 
new  demands.  This  is  what  I  said  even 
before  the  Rabat  conference.  I  am  saying 
this  and  repeating  it  simply  because  we  have 
no  new  demands. 

There  is  another  topic  touched  upon  by 


my  friend  Dr.  Kissinger;  namely,  that  of 
oil.  I  repeat  that  the  policy  of  my  King  and 
my  government  is  still  the  same  as  it  was; 
namely,  to  keep  the  prices  as  they  are  and 
to  try  to  reach  a  reduction,  albeit  a  symbolic 
reduction,  or  if  we  can,  a  greater  reduc- 
tion— and  we  would  be  doing  this  because 
of  our  awareness  and  of  the  welfare  of 
humanity  at  large. 

Finally,  I  greet  our  guests,  the  Secretary 
of  State  and  the  colleagues  who  came  with 
him,  and  look  forward  to  seeing  him  in  the 
not  too  distant  future  when  at  least  part  of 
these  problems  we  have  been  discussing  will 
have  been  solved. 


Secretary  Kissinger 

I  have  nothing  much  to  add  to  what  has 
been  so  eloquently  expressed  by  my  friend 
the  Foreign  Minister.  We  had  very  good 
talks,  very  useful  talks,  with  His  Majesty, 
explaining  to  our  friends  in  the  Kingdom  the 
situation  as  we  saw  it  and  our  determina- 
tion, if  the  parties  could  cooperate,  to  move 
step  by  step  toward  a  just  and  lasting  peace. 
I  found  His  Majesty  understanding  and 
supportive.  With  this  encouragement  the 
United  States  will  continue  its  efforts  to 
bring  the  parties  closer  together.  I  hope  to 
make  progress  toward  a  just  and  lasting 
peace. 

With  respect  to  the  question  of  oil,  I  had 
an  opportunity,  as  the  Foreign  Minister 
pointed  out,  to  explain  the  impact  of  the 
current  prices  on  international  stabilitj'.  I 
would  like  to  express  our  gratification  for 
the  statement  of  the  Foreign  Minister  that 
the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of  Saudi 
Arabia  will  continue  to  work  for  the  lower- 
ing of  prices. 

The  Foreign  Minister,  who  has  been  a 
voice  for  moderation  and  wisdom  in  this  area, 
will  be  coming  to  the  United  States  next 
week  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  I  look 
forward  to  continuing  our  discussions  on  that 
occasion.  It  remains  only  for  me  to  thank 
him  for  all  of  my  colleagues  for  the  charac- 
teristic hospitality  shown  us  on  this  visit 
to  the  Kingdom,  and  we  leave   determined 


December  2,    1974 


759 


to  strengthen  even  further  the  ah-eady  warm 
relations  between  our  two  countries. 
Thank  you. 


DEPARTURE,  AMMAN,  JORDAN,   NOVEMBER  7 

Press  release  486  dated  November  7 

I  would  like  to  say  that  the  talks  we've 
had  here  were  conducted  in  the  warm,  cordial, 
and  friendly  atmosphere  of  close  coopera- 
tion that  has  always  characterized  the  rela- 
tionship between  Jordan  and  the  United 
States.  We  reviewed  recent  events  in  the 
area,  and  I  expressed  our  view  that  I  have 
also  expressed  elsewhere:  that  some  recent 
decisions  have  complicated  problems  and  pos- 
sibilities for  solution. 

I  have  also  explained  that  the  United 
States  would  continue  to  make  efforts  to 
bring  about  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the 
area  on  the  basis  of  the  step-by-step  methods 
we  have  been  pursuing  and  that  we  believe 
are  the  only  possible  ones.  As  far  as  our  rela- 
tionship to  the  Kingdom  of  Jordan  is  con- 
cerned, Jordan  is  of  course  an  old,  valued, 
and  trusted  friend,  and  that  friendship  has, 
if  anything,  been  strengthened  by  recent 
events. 

The  United  States  considers  Jordan  a 
major  factor  in  the  area,  and  it  will  continue 
to  base  its  policy  on  that  conviction.  Our 
talks  here  have  strengthened  that  relation- 
ship. 

Thank  you  very  much. 


DEPARTURE,  DAMASCUS,  SYRIA,   NOVEMBER  7 

Press  release  488  dated  November  8 

I  wanted  to  say  that  the  talks  were  con- 
ducted in  the  cordial  atmosphere  that  has 
become  characteristic  of  our  conversations. 
President  Asad  explained  to  me  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  significance  of  the  Rabat  sum- 
mit. I  told  the  President  that  we  remained 
ready  to  proceed  on  a  step-by-step  basis  in 
bringing  a  just  and  lasting  peace  to  the 
area  and  that  this  required  the  cooperation 
of  all  of  the  parties  involved. 


We  decided  that  we  would  remain  in  con- 
tact with  each  other  over  the  weeks  ahead 
and  that  we  would  continue  to  exchange 
views.  It  was  also  agreed  that,  whatever 
happens  in  the  negotiations,  the  strengthen- 
ing of  friendly  relations  between  Syria  and 
the  United  States,  which  is  an  objective  of  the 
policies  of  both  countries,   would   continue. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

THE  VISIT  TO   ISRAEL,   NOVEMBER  7-8 

Exchange   of   Remarks   Upon   Arrival, 
Jerusalem,  November  7 

Press  release  4S9  datetl  November  8 

Foreign  Minister  Yigal  Allon 

I  am  delighted  to  welcome  once  more 
Secretary  Henry  Kissinger  on  his  tireless 
mission  to  achieve  peace  in  our  area.  We 
consider  this  as  a  very  important  visit  of 
his,  particularly  that  between  his  last  visit 
and  this  one,  as  you  all  know,  two  events 
took  place — one  in  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  United  Nations,  which  decided  to  invite 
representatives  of  the  so-called  PLO  to  ad- 
dress the  Assembly ;  the  other  one  is  the 
Rabat  conference,  which  decided  that  only 
the  so-called  PLO  will  represent  the  Pales- 
tinians in  seeking  some  sort  of  a  solution. 
As  you  all  know,  we  think  that  these  two 
events  are  counterproductive,  very  harmful 
to  the  effort  of  achieving  peace.  Neverthe- 
less, we  mustn't  get  desperate. 

All  those  who  believe  in  peace,  such  as  our 
government  in  this  country — and  of  course 
Mr.  Kissinger  is  one  of  the  greatest  believers 
in  the  necessity  and  the  possibility  of  peace 
in  this  area — we  should  do  our  best  to  see 
to  it  that  the  momentum  is  not  lost  and  [in- 
audible] further  steps  will  be  studied  in 
order  to  achieve  this  great  goal. 

Welcome,  Mr.  Kissinger. 

Secretary  Kissinger 

Thank  you,  Yigal.  I'm  here  to  discuss  with 
our  friends  the  impact  of  recent  events  and 
the  possibilities  for  joint  efforts  toward 
peace.   Since  I  have  been  here  last,  there  has 


760 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


been  no  change  in  American  policy  on  any 
of  the  issues  before  us.  Our  friends  and  we 
will  review  all  the  possibilities.  In  every 
Arab  capital  that  I  have  visited  I  have  said 
what  I  shall  also  repeat  here:  The  United 
States  will  make  every  effort,  on  a  step-by- 
step  basis,  to  contribute  to  a  just  and  last- 
ing peace  in  the  Middle  East.  My  friends 
here  and  I  will  review  this  evening  what 
steps  are  possible,  and  we  will  do  it  in  the 
atmosphere  of  frankness,  cordiality,  and 
warmth  that  has  always  characterized  our 
relationship. 
Thank  you. 

Luncheon  Hosted  by  Foreign  Minister  Allon, 
Jerusalem,  November  7 

Press  release  490-A  dated  November  8 

Toast  by  Foreign  Minister  Allon 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  Mr.  Secretary,  col- 
leagues and  friends :  This  is  an  informal 
lunch,  so  I  am  not  going  to  make  a  speech. 
We  do  deserve  a  good  lunch,  after  working 
hard  for — what  is  it — some  20  hours.  Some 
people  are  always  asking  me  if  the  Americans 
are  already  pressing  and  squeezing  me.  I 
say  to  them,  "not  yet,"  but  I  must  admit  that 
they  are  pressing  us,  because  whenever 
Henry  Ki.ssinger  and  his  friends  are  coming 
here,  they  make  us  work  so  hard  that  they 
are  violating  our  own  law  of  work  and,  after 
work,  rest. 

Anyhow,  I  can  say  this :  We  were  looking 
forward  to  your  visit,  Henry,  and  Joe 
[Joseph  J.  Sisco,  Under  Secretary  for  Politi- 
cal Affairs],  and  friends.  Because  with  Rabat, 
without  Rabat,  with  that  disappointing  reso- 
lution of  the  Assembly,  without  it,  we  must 
concentrate  our  efforts  in  our  tremendous 
undertaking  to  achieve  a  political  settlement, 
which  absolutely  must  lead  to  peace  in  this 
area.  There  are  so  many  reasons  to  get 
desperate.  It's  a  sort  of  perpetual  effort; 
whenever  you  get  closer  to  the  horizon  you 
find  the  horizon  is  a  little  bit  further  away, 
and  still  you  have  to  stick  to  this  dream, 
because  this  is  one  of  the  greatest  dreams 
that  our  generation  has  to  turn  into  a  reality. 


I  know  you  are  Secretary  of  State  of  a 
great  country,  but  many  people — across  the 
world,  across  border-s — look  upon  you  not 
just  as  the  Secretary  of  State  of  America 
but  a  man  who  undertook  a  special  mission, 
which  many  people  and  many  governments 
tried  before,  including  ourselves,  and  unfor- 
tunately failed.  What  we  need  today  is  the 
combination  of  great  vision,  faith,  and  skill — 
three  qualities  that  characterize  you,  Mr. 
Secretary — and  we  hope  in  this  grave  situa- 
tion we  did  not  have,  neither  you  nor  us,  to 
take  any  decision,  because  no  definite  pro- 
posals have  been  put  before  us.  But  exchange 
of  views  in  assessing  the  situation  was  so 
important  for  us,  and  for  you  and  your  col- 
leagues, in  our  joint  effort  to  achieve  a  joint 
goal — which  I'm  sure  will  be  the  goal  of 
some  of  our  neighbors  at  least — that  this 
trip  can  be  considered  a  very  useful  one, 
and  I'm  sure  you  can  see  yourself  that  the 
atmosphere  was  very  friendly,  [and  I  say 
this]  not  just  diplomatically,  as  when  we 
meet  we  usually  say  what  we  think  in  candor 
and  respect. 

And  I  would  like  to  raise  my  glass  to  all 
of  us  here,  and  I'm  sure  the  day  will  come 
when  we  will  celebrate  the  great  political 
achievement.   L'chaim  ["To  life"]. 

Toast  by  Secretary  Kissinger 

Yigal  and  friends:  I  hope  you  all  noticed 
when  Yigal  started,  he  started  with  "Mr. 
Secretary,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  colleagues 
and  friends" — so  at  least  we  know  who  is 
not  his  friends.  [Laughter.]  It  is  a  policy 
of  equilibrium. 

This  is  my  ninth  trip  here  in  the  last  year, 
and  there  is  a  sort  of  fever  chart  that  pre- 
cedes every  trip,  always  profound  analyses 
that  the  United  States  has  now  finally 
changed  its  policy,  and  at  last  what  has  al- 
ways been  suspected  has  come  true — that 
the  United  States  will  now  really  press 
Israel  and  force  Israel  to  do  things  that 
Israel  does  not  want  to  do,  and  may  already 
have  done  it,  and  if  there  is  a  word  in  some 
communique  that  is  not  exactly  the  same 
word  as  in  the  former  one,  and  since  we're 


December  2,    1974 


761 


never  given  credit  for  stupidity,  it  is  alvi^ays 
a  profound  design. 

That  fever  chart  we  have  gone  through 
nine  times,  and  the  interesting  thing  to  me 
is  that  never  have  these  predictions  sur- 
vived our  first  meeting,  because  we  always, 
when  we  meet  and  analyze  the  situation,  de- 
velop a  common  approach,  and  this  is  no 
accident,  because  our  relationship  is  not 
based  on  personalities.  And  anybody  who 
talks  about  peace  in  the  Middle  East  will 
sooner  or  later  be  driven  to  the  same  con- 
clusion— that  a  peace  to  be  lasting  must  make 
the  participants  feel  that  they  are  secure,  that 
they  have  a  sense  of  participation — and 
therefore,  knowing  the  rivalries  and  the  suf- 
fering and  the  tensions  of  the  past  genera- 
tion, we  have  deliberately  moved  step  by 
step,  to  permit  all  those  who  negotiate  an 
opportunity  to  feel  that  what  is  being  nego- 
tiated is  really  their  negotiation,  and  not 
something  that  the  United  States  has  given. 

On  this  particular  trip  there  have  been 
important  events.  As  I  said  at  the  airport, 
and  as  I  have  tried  to  say  for  a  week,  not 
always  with  great  success,  there  has  been 
no  change  in  American  policy.  I'm  not  here 
because  there  is  a  change  in  American  policy, 
but  because  there  is  a  continuing  American 
policy  which,  in  the  light  of  circumstances, 
has  to  be  analyzed  from  time  to  time.  The 
objectives  have  to  be  set  so  that  we  know 
what  we  are  doing,  with  confidence  in  each 
other;  that  has  always  characterized  our 
relationship.  We  are  now  in  an  extremely 
delicate  phase — it  is  extremely  complicated — 
in  which  a  great  deal  depends  on  psychologi- 
cal understanding,  political  sensitivity,  and 
on  confidence  in  each  other. 

I  feel  that  after  our  talks  here  there  is 
no  question  about  the  confidence  in  each 
other;  there  is  no  question  about  the  direc- 
tion in  which  we  should  go.  We  will  now 
have  to  see  what  is  possible,  how  it  is  possi- 
ble. We  will  stay  in  close  touch;  no  doubt 
I  will  come  back  here ;  no  doubt  there  will  be 
stories  again  that  I  am  here  to  announce  at 
last  the  change  that  has  always  been  pre- 
dicted and  has  never  happened,  that  at  last 
we  are  going  to  bring  the  pressure  that  has 


not  occurred  and  that  I  am  too  cowardly  to 
exercise  anyway.  [Laughter.] 

Be  that  as  it  may,  there  is  no  pressure 
necessary,  because  we  are  in  essential  agree- 
ment on  the  course.  I  believe,  I  hope,  and  I 
pray  that  we  will  look  back  to  this  trip  as 
one  of  those  that  ushered  in  a  period  in 
which  new  advances  were  possible,  even 
though  we  have  to  move  carefully  and  we 
have  to  see  what  possibilities  exist  in  a  very 
complicated  situation  that  has  arisen  as  a 
result  of  the  Rabat  summit  and  other  develop- 
ments internationally. 

So  we  leave  here  with  confidence  and  with 
appreciation  not  only  for  the  reception  we 
have  had  but  for  the  very  frank,  useful,  and 
friendly  talks  that  we  have  conducted.  I  look 
forward  to  an  early  opportunity  to  resume 
contact,  and  of  course  we  will  stay  in  inti- 
mate touch.  So  if  you  could  change  the  in- 
structions to  [Israeli  Ambassador  Simcha] 
Dinitz  so  that  he  calls  only  three  times  a 
day,  it  will  enable  us  to  conduct  foreign  policy 
on  other  matters  occasionally.  [Laughter.] 
That  is  actually  the  only  major  complaint 
we  have.  [Laughter.] 

Anyway,  I  would  like  to  propo.se  a  toast 
to  the  Prime  Minister  and  the  Foreign  Min- 
ister. 


Exchange  of  Remarks  Upon  Departure, 
Jerusalem,  November  8 

Press  rele.Hse  -191  dated  November  8 

Secretary  Kissinger 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  I've  said  earlier 
that  this  is  my  ninth  or  tenth  visit  in  one 
year,  and  we  all  now  know  that  it  follows 
a  certain  course.  There's  always,  before  I 
come,  a  great  deal  of  speculation  about  the 
momentous  changes  that  are  going  to  be 
brought  about  in  policy  as  a  result  of  my 
visit  and  what  new  pressures  may  be  brought 
on  Israel.  And  then  we  meet,  we  agree,  we 
pursue  a  common  approach,  and  we  remain 
on  the  same  course,  which  is  to  move  step 
by  step  toward  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in 
the  area,  a  peace  that  no  people  can  want 
more  and  no  people  deserve  more  than  the 


762 


Department   of  State  Bulletin 


people  of  Israel.  We  have  had  two  days  of 
very  cordial,  very  frank,  very  friendly  talks, 
and  we  agreed  that  in  the  new  conditions 
that  have  arisen  in  these  months  we  need 
to  explore  carefully  what  possibilities  do 
exist.  We  will  jointly  explore  them.  The 
United  States  stands  ready  to  help  all  the 
parties  that  are  ready  to  move  forward,  and 
the  United  States,  as  always,  maintains  the 
closest  relations  with  its  old  friends  in  Israel. 
So  the  talks  have  been  good.  We  know 
where  we're  going.  We  will  explore  care- 
fully and  deliberately.  We  will  stay  in  close 
touch  with  each  other,  and  we  have  hope  for 
the  future. 

Foreign  Minister  Allon 

While  I  can't  but  endorse  everything  that 
the  Secretary  of  State  had  to  say  about  his 
visit  to  the  Middle  East  in  general  and  to 
Israel  in  particular,  it  was  quite  natural 
that  the  Government  of  Israel  was  most 
anxious  to  hear  an  authoritative  assessment 
of  the  situation  after  the  Rabat  conference. 

I  couldn't  think  of  another  person  in  the 
world  today  but  Dr.  Kissinger  who  could  go 
to  any  Arab  capital  he  wishes  and  from 
there  go  to  Israel  when  his  hosts  there  know 
very  well  that  he  is  about  to  visit  Jerusalem 
and  talk  to  us.  This  gives  us  in  addition  to 
what  we  know  from  our  own  sources  what 
was  going  on  in  Rabat,  to  hear  Dr.  Kis- 
singer's opinion  about  the  possibilities  of  the 
continuation  of  our  joint  political  effort  to 
achieve  durable  and  just  peace  in  the  Middle 
East  even  if  this  has  to  be  achieved  step  by 
step. 

We  are  very  happy  to  hear  from  the 
Secretary  of  State  that  these  options  are  not 
blocked  altogether.  It  is  true  that  the  sit- 
uation is  very  complicated,  very  delicate,  and 
therefore  what  is  needed  today  is  a  great 
vision,  a  faith  in  the  need  and  possibility  to 
achieve  peace,  and  the  skill  of  a  mediator. 
Happily,  Dr.  Kissinger  possesses  all  these 
qualities,  and  therefore  we  think  his  visit  to 
this  country  was  most  useful.  We  had  good 
talks,  very  frank  ones  and  a  very  friendly 
atmosphere.     We    do   hope    that    sooner   or 


later,  better  sooner  than  later,  we  shall  hear 
some  news  about  the  possibilities  of  some  po- 
litical progress  in  order  to  keep  the  momen- 
tum alive. 

I  am  very  happy  that  Mrs.  Kissinger, 
Nancy,  could  come  with  him,  but  unfor- 
tunately he  keeps  us  so  bu.sy  that  it  doesn't 
give  us  a  chance  even  to  look  at  her.  I  hope 
this  isn't  out  of  jealousy — just  because  we 
are  hard-working  people.  So  next  time  I 
hope  he'll  take  an  extra  day  and  come  to  a 
nice  place  like  my  kibbutz  and  relax  a  little 
bit,  not  only  politically  but  also  physically. 


THE  VISIT  TO   TUNISIA,   NOVEMBER  8-9 

Remarks  by  Secretary  Kissinger 
Upon  Arrival,  Tunis,  November  8 

Press  leltase  492  dated  Noveniher  R 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  A  little  over  a  year 
ago  I  stopped  in  Tunisia  on  my  first  trip  to 
the  Middle  East.  I  came  here  to  get  the 
benefit  of  the  views  of  your  President  Bour- 
guiba  and  of  all  his  associates  about  how 
the  United  States  could  best  proceed  to  con- 
tribute to  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the 
Middle  East.  Since  then  some  progress  has 
been  made,  and  I  am  again  on  a  trip  to  find 
out  what  the  next  steps  might  be  and  such 
a  journey  would  not  be  complete  without 
exchanging  ideas  with  our  old  friends  in 
Tunisia. 

I  bring  the  greetings  of  President  Ford 
and  also  the  congratulations  to  your  Presi- 
dent for  his  recent  reelection. 


Exchange  of  Remarks  Upon  Departure, 
November  9 

Press  release  493  dated  November  11 

Secretary  Kissinger 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  We  have  had  a 
very  brief  but  very  warm,  cordial,  and  use- 
ful visit  here.  The  President  and  the  For- 
eign Minister,  who  were  in  Rabat,  explained 
to  me  their  understanding  of  the  significance 
of  the  conference  of  the  Arab  chiefs  of  state. 


December  2,    1974 


763 


I  told  Tunisian  friends  that  the  United 
States  believes  that  progress  toward  a  just 
and  lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East  is 
possible  on  a  step-by-step  basis  on  which  the 
United  States  would  be  prepared  to  partici- 
pate if  the  parties  involved  were  prepared 
to  make  the  effort.  President  Bourguiba 
explained  to  me  that  in  his  own  career  he 
proceeded  step  by  step  against  many  ob- 
stacles and  some  criticism  and  finally  pre- 
vailed in  his  objectives.  We  will  come  to 
draw  courage  from  his  example. 

The  Foreign  Minister  explained  to  me  the 
important  discussions  that  Tunisia  arranged 
between  the  Foreign  Minister  of  Portugal 
and  the  leaders  of  the  independence  move- 
ment in  Angola  that  are  taking  place  in 
Tunisia  at  this  moment.  The  Foreign  Min- 
ister also  arranged  an  opportunity  for  me 
to  meet  the  Foreign  Minister  of  Portugal 
to  discuss  both  bilateral  Portuguese-U.S.  re- 
lations and  the  important  negotiations  going 
on  here  in  Tunisia.  I  believe  that  the  negotia- 
tions now  going  on  in  Tunisia  can  be  of  his- 
toric importance  and  will  be  supported  by  the 
United  States.  I  would  like  to  congratulate 
the  Foreign  Minister  of  Tunisia  and  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Tunisia  for  having  taken  this 
important  initiative. 

Finally,  we  reviewed  the  bilateral  rela- 
tionships between  Tunisia  and  the  United 
States,  which  are  excellent.  We  are  here 
among  old  friends.  We  agreed  to  begin  dis- 
cussions about  setting  up  a  commission  be- 
tween Tunisia  and  the  United  States  to  ex- 
plore ways  in  which  this  relationship  can 
be  further  strengthened  in  many  fields. 

It  remains  for  me  only  to  thank  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Tunisia,  its  great  President,  and 
its  Foreign  Minister  for  having  arranged  on 
short  notice  such  a  warm  and  successful  visit. 

Foreign  Minister  Habib  Chatti 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  As  you  see,  we 
were  very  glad  to  welcome  Secretary  of 
State  Kissinger  and  Mrs.  Kissinger.  This 
was  a  visit  marked  by  friendship  which 
shows  very  well  this  durable,  old,  and  solid 
friendship  that  exists  between  Tunisia  and 
the  United  States. 

The  talks  vrith  the  Secretary  of  State  were. 


as  always,  extremely  interesting,  particular- 
ly on  account  of  the  trip  he  has  just  under- 
taken and  the  many  issues  with  which  he  has 
been  dealing,  also  because  of  his  style  of 
diplomacy. 

Our  talks  were  very  interesting  and,  I 
would  say,  even  very  important,  because  they 
enabled  us  to  gain  an  insight,  a  clear  insight, 
into  the  situation  as  it  exists  in  the  Arab 
world  and  also  in  the  United  States,  as  an 
aftermath  of  the  Rabat  summit  meeting.  The 
situation  as  it  now  exists  is  quite  difficult, 
and  the  task  of  the  U.S.  Secretary  of  State, 
in  an  eff'ort  to  reach  some  middle  ground  be- 
tween the  Arab  states  and  Israel,  has  become 
very  difficult.  We  are  facing  a  situation 
which  is  more  difficult,  but  at  the  same  time 
it  is  more  clear,  and  therefore  we  must  all 
act  with  determination  so  as  to  find  the  way 
to  conciliation. 

Tunisia,  as  well  as  the  other  Arab  nations, 
are  deeply  dedicated  to  peace  and  wish  to 
find  a  peaceful  solution  to  this  serious  prob- 
lem which  poses  a  threat  not  only  to  the 
Mediterranean  area  but  to  the  whole  world. 

The  Secretary  of  State  has  assured  us  that 
he  will  continue  to  act  toward  conciliation 
with  a  view  to  finding  a  just  and  durable  so- 
lution to  the  problems  of  the  Middle  East.  We 
are  particularly  gratified  by  his  good  and 
sound  determination. 

President  Bourguiba  said  yesterday  to 
Secretary  Kissinger  that  Tunisia  will  do  all 
that  is  possible  on  its  part  in  order  to  help 
the  United  States,  and  both  Tunisia  and  its 
President  consider  that  the  United  States 
can  play  an  essential  part  to  assure  the  at- 
tainment of  this  peace  that  is  so  much  wished 
for  in  this  region. 

Without  saying  that  we  are  optimistic  re- 
garding the  evolution  in  the  Middle  Eastern 
situation,  still  we  are  not  pessimistic.  And 
since  Secretary  Kissinger  is  always  optimis- 
tic, his  optimism  is  definitely  contagious.  We 
wish  him  the  greatest  measure  of  success  in 
the  continuation  of  his  mission  because  it 
does  concern  all  of  mankind. 

Regarding  bilateral  relations  I  have  not 
much  to  say  except  they  are  the  very  best 
possible  and  that  the  weather  is  always  in 
the  position  of  the  fairest  weather. 


764 


Department   of   State   Bulletin 


Secretary   Kissinger   Hosts   Luncheon 
at  Moscow 

Following  is  an  exchange  of  toasts  between 
Secretary  Kissinger  and  Soviet  Foreign  Min- 
ister Andrei  A.  Gromyko  at  a  luncheon  at 
Spaso  House,  Moscow,  on  October  26.^ 


We  intend  to  continue  these  frequent  con- 
tacts and  to  find  common  points  of  view 
across  an  increasing  range  of  activity. 

And  so  with  this  attitude,  I  would  like  to 
propose  a  toast  to  Foreign  Minister  and  Mrs. 
Gromyko,  to  the  friendship  of  the  Soviet  and 
American  people,  and  to  peace  in  the  world. 


Press  release  440A  dated  October  26 

SECRETARY   KISSINGER 

Mr.  Foreign  Minister,  Mrs.  Gromyko,  dis- 
tinguished guests :  The  reason  for  the  slight 
delay  at  the  beginning  was  because  the  For- 
eign Minister  and  I  were  negotiating  how  to 
allocate  the  hour  and  45  minutes  we  set  aside 
for  the  toast.  [Laughter.] 

First  of  all,  on  behalf  of  all  of  my  col- 
leagues and  of  Mrs.  Kissinger,  I  would  like 
to  express  our  profound  gratitude  to  our 
Russian  hosts  for  the  very  warm  hospitality 
we  have  been  shown  here.  Nancy  returned 
from  a  trip  last  night  and  has  definitely  con- 
firmed the  existence  of  Leningrad.  But  until 
I  have  been  shown  it  myself,  I  will  reserve 
my  judgment. 

We  have  spent  three  days  here  on  this  my 
third  visit  to  the  Soviet  Union  in  one  year. 
The  frequency  of  these  visits  and  the  inten- 
sity of  our  talks  reiiect  the  enormous  impor- 
tance the  United  States  attaches  to  the  rela- 
tionship with  the  Soviet  Union.  Through 
changes  of  administration  there  has  been  one 
constant  recognition — that  the  peace  of  the 
world  depends  on  the  degree  to  which  the 
United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union  can  co- 
operate for  common  objectives.  So  when  we 
meet  we  review  all  topics.  We  know  each 
other  well  enough  now  so  that  we  speak  with 
total  frankness  about  exactly  what  we  think, 
and  yet  the  atmosphere  is  both  busines.slike 
and  friendly  and  cordial.  I  think  we  have  on 
this  trip  made  good  progress  in  a  number  of 
fields,  and  we  have  set  a  course  which  we 
hope  and  expect  will  be  to  the  benefit  of  our 
two  peoples  and  for  the  benefit  of  mankind. 


^  For  other  documentation  related  to  Secretary 
Kissinger's  Oct.  23-27  visit  to  the  U.S.S.R.,  see  Bul- 
letin of  Nov.  25,  1974,  p.  701. 


FOREIGN   MINISTER  GROMYKO 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  Mrs.  Kissinger,  la- 
dies and  gentlemen,  comrades  :  I  wish  to  note 
as  a  very  significant  achievement  right  from 
the  start  the  fact  that  the  doubts  that  the 
Secretary  of  State  had  entertained  as  regards 
the  existence  of  Leningrad  have  now  been 
removed.  He  did  not  believe  anyone  except 
his  own  wife,  but  that  is  all  too  under- 
standable. 

We  sympathize  with  what  Dr.  Kissinger 
has  said  just  now  as  regards  the  role  played 
by  the  two  powers.  Although  this  is  perhaps 
a  repetition,  it  is  not  out  of  place  to  say  this 
several  times.  The  more  often  statements  of 
this  sort  emanate  from  both  Moscow  and 
Washington — and  better  still,  from  other 
world  capitals,  too — the  better  it  will  be. 
And  it  will  be  better  still  if  these  statements 
are  buttressed  by  the  practical  actions  of 
these  two  nations  in  the  interest  of  detente 
and  peace.  And  it  is  to  promote  that  objec- 
tive that  we  are  now  holding  these  talks  in 
Moscow  during  this  visit  by  Secretary  of 
State  Kissinger. 

As  regards  the  prevalent  atmosphere,  I 
would  say — and  I  trust  that  this  does  not 
difl'er  from  Dr.  Kissinger's  assessment — 
that  it  is  good,  friendly,  and  businesslike, 
and  this,  too,  is  a  good  augury.  The  second 
point  that  I  would  like  to  make  is  to  stress 
that  the  questions  which  are  under  discus- 
sion during  these  talks  are  of  exceptional 
complexity,  and  there  is  really  no  need  to 
dwell  on  that,  because  this  is  indeed  univer- 
sally known.  And,  of  course,  during  their 
discussion  there  do  at  times  appear  certain 
differences  of  views,  if  perhaps  not  in  the 
ultimate  objectives  then  in  the  means  and 
methods  to  be  used  to  achieve  them.  Such 
diff"erences  do  sometimes  occur.    But  there 


December  2,    1974 


765 


are  no  important  and  complex  problems,  at 
least  among  those  existing  since  the  end  of 
the  last  war,  which  could  be  resolved,  so  to 
say,  at  one  go  without  any  difficulties. 

We  would  perhaps  like  to  see  such  an  ideal 
situation  come  about — that  situation  has  not 
existed  and  does  not  exist.  Such  is  the  state 
of  affairs  both  in  Europe  and  in  regards  to 
questions  concerning  other  parts  of  the 
world  and  questions  which  cannot  be  allo- 
cated to  various  geographical  localities.  But 
the  important  thing  is  that  the  two  sides 
should  not  end  their  efforts  to  achieve  agree- 
ment and  that  they  should  not  weaken  their 
desire  or  their  determination  to  find  a  com- 
mon language  on  the  questions  under  dis- 
cussion. 

As  regards  the  Soviet  Union,  we  do  have 
both  the  desire  and  the  determination  to 
find  a  common  understanding  with  the 
United  States  and  with  the  leaders  of  that 
country  on  the  questions  that  we  are  dis- 
cussing. Frequently  negotiations  have  to  go 
through  several  stages,  and  the  important 
thing  is  that  there  should  indeed  be  move- 
ment from  one  stage  to  the  next,  and  second- 
ly, each  new  advance  from  one  stage  to  the 
other  should  bring  with  it  new  success  at 
every  stage — new  success  leading  toward 
ultimate  agreement  and  accord.  That  is  how 
we  see  the  necessary  approach  to  the  out- 
standing issues  of  the  day  and  to  those  ques- 
tions that  are  under  discussion  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union. 

So  if  in  the  course  of  this  present  stage 
of  exchange  of  opinions  some  questions  are 
not  resolved  to  their  very  end,  we  believe — 
and  we  trust  that  this  does  not  run  counter 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  State — 
the  two  nations  must  continue  their  search 
for  a  final  solution;  we  are  prepared  to  do 
so.  The  very  fact  that  taking  part  in  these 
talks  from  beginning  to  end  is  the  General 
Secretary  of  the  Central  Committee  of  the 
Communist  Party  of  the  Soviet  Union, 
Leonid  Brezhnev,  who  has  met  with  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  several  times,  speaks  for  it- 
self and  most  emphatically  so.  We  should 
like  to  look  ahead  with  optimism  toward  the 
future  generally  and   in   particular  toward 


the  future  of  relations  between  the  Soviet 
Union  and  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  Soviet  Union  and  our  leadership  and 
I  have  already  had  an  opportunity  to  draw 
your  attention  to  this,  Mr.  Secretary.  The 
Central  Committee  of  our  Party  and  the 
Soviet  Government  and  personally  the  Gen- 
eral Secretary  of  our  Central  Committee  are 
fully  determined  to  pursue  the  line  that  has 
been  taken  in  Soviet-American  relations,  the 
line  that  we  are  following  and  the  line  which 
we  intend  to  follow  in  the  future.  Improve- 
ment of  relations  between  the  Soviet  Union 
and  the  United  States  is  necessary  not  only 
in  the  interests  of  our  two  peoples ;  it  is 
indeed  in  the  interests  of  all  the  world.  And 
this  improvement  should  not  be  feared  by 
any  countries  or  by  any  people. 

I  believe  we  can  say  with  full  grounds  that 
the  results  of  the  talks  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Soviet  Union  which  have  been 
held  on  .several  occasions  and  their  positive 
outcome  have  been  met  with  broad  under- 
standing and  appreciation  the  world  over, 
and  I  would  venture  to  say  almost  every- 
where in  the  world.  That,  we  feel,  is  only 
too  understandable,  and  this  certainly  heart- 
ens the  Soviet  people  and  the  Soviet  leader- 
ship. We  trust  this  also  evokes  a  positive 
attitude  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
leadership.  This  certainly  goes  to  confirm 
the  correctness  of  the  path  that  we  have 
jointly  charted,  aimed  at  improving  relations 
between  our  two  nations. 

To  the  further  development  and  improve- 
ment of  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  the  Soviet  Union ;  to  both  powers  dis- 
playing determination  to  seek  ways  to  re- 
solve unresolved  issues;  to  the  useful  and 
positive  results  of  this  new  Soviet-American 
meeting  in  Moscow,  even  though  it  has  not 
yet  reached  its  conclusion;  to  your  health, 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State;  to  Mrs.  Kissinger; 
to  the  health  of  all  the  representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America  present  here 
today,  first  and  foremost  the  American  Am- 
bassador and  his  wife,  in  whose  house  we 
are  all  guests  today;  to  all  this  I  would 
like  to  ask  all  of  you  to  raise  your  glasses 
and,  if  possible,  drain  them. 


766 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Federal  Chancellor  Kreisky  of  the  Republic  of  Austria 
Visits  the   United   States 


BriDio  Kreisky,  Federal  Chancellor  of  the 
Republic  of  Austria,  made  an  official  visit 
to  the  United  States  November  9-1.].  He  met 
witli  President  Ford  and  other  government 
officials  at  Washington  November  12-l.i. 
Following  are  an  exchange  of  greetings  be- 
tween President  Ford  and  Chancellor  Kreis- 
ky at  a  welcoming  ceremony  in  the  East 
Room  at  the  White  House  on  November  12 
and  their  exchange  of  toasts  at  a  dinner  at 
the  White  House  that  evening. 


REMARKS  AT   WELCOMING   CEREMONY 

white  House  press  release  dated  November  12 

President  Ford 

Mr.  Chancellor:  It  is  a  great  privilege 
and  a  very  high  honor  to  welcome  you  to  the 
United  States. 

I  might  apologize  for  the  weather.  We 
could  not  do  much  about  that. 

But  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  American 
people,  let  me  say  how  very  happy  we  are 
for  this  further  opportunity  to  strengthen 
the  ties  of  affection  and  the  ties  of  respect 
that  bind  our  two  nations  and  our  two  peo- 
ples together. 

Like  all  of  the  world,  America  has  profited 
very  greatly,  Mr.  Chancellor,  from  Austria's 
great  contributions  to  the  arts,  to  the  law, 
education,  medicine,  and  psychology,  and  of 
course  there  is  the  great  legacy  of  music,  the 
legacy  of  Vienna  that  the  whole  world  treas- 
ures, the  music  of  Mozart,  the  Strausses,  and 
so  many  others ;  additionally,  the  great  im- 
portance that  Austria  has  served  as  a  con- 
tinuing force  for  peace  and  stability  through- 
out the  world. 

Mr.  Chancellor,  modern  Austria  has 
proven  beyond  any  doubt  again  and  again  in 


recent  years  that  a  small  country  can  make 
big  contributions  to  world  peace  and  world 
understanding.  Your  positive  involvement  in 
world  affairs,  your  generous  support  of  the 
United  Nations,  including  an  important  role 
in  the  peacekeeping  forces  in  the  Middle 
East  and  Cyprus,  your  gracious  hosting  of 
important  international  conferences,  such  as 
the  initial  pha-se  of  the  Soviet-American  stra- 
tegic arms  negotiations  and  the  force  reduc- 
tion talks  now  in  process — all  of  these  Aus- 
trian contributions  are  helping  to  build  a  bet- 
ter and  more  peaceful  world. 

We  Americans,  of  course,  are  very,  very 
proud  of  our  long  and  sincere  friendship 
with  Austria.  We  cherish  our  many,  many 
American  citizens  of  Austrian  ancestry,  and 
we  look  with  satisfaction  and  admiration  at 
Austria's  impressive  economic  achievements 
over  the  past  10  years. 

Mr.  Chancellor,  we  also  look  forward  to 
our  discussions  and  to  the  future  good  rela- 
tions of  Austria  and  the  United  States.  The 
nations  of  the  world  face  many,  many  chal- 
lenges today — challenges  in  the  field  of  fi- 
nance, food,  and  energy,  to  name  only  a  few. 
Meeting  them  will  require  our  best  common 
efforts  and  the  counsel  and  understanding  of 
many  of  our  friends. 

So,  Mr.  Chancellor,  in  anticipation  of  our 
session  together  and  with  our  traditional 
Austro-American  friendship  in  mind,  Amer- 
ica, one  and  all,  bids  you  welcome  and  wishes 
you  an  enjoyable  and  most  productive  visit. 

Chancellor  Kreisky  ^ 

Mr.  President:  First  of  all,  let  me  thank 
you  for  having  invited  me  to  come  to  Wash- 
ington on  an  official  visit  at  a  time  when  you 
are  extremely  busy.  We  in  Austria  greatly 


'  Chancellor  Kreisky  spoke  in  German. 


December  2,    1974 


767 


appreciate  this  high  privilege,  and  we  take 
it  as  proof  of  the  strong  and  unimpaired 
friendship  which  has  existed  for  decades  be- 
tween the  American  people  and  the  Austrian 
people. 

Mr.  President,  I  come  from  a  country 
which  greatly  appreciates  the  great  contribu- 
tion made  by  the  United  States — and  we 
know  this  from  experience — for  the  libera- 
tion of  Europe  and  for  the  economic  recon- 
struction of  our  continent. 

We  remember  with  great  gratitude  the 
sacrifices  which  the  American  people  in  so 
many  ways  have  made  for  the  restoration  of 
peaceful  conditions  in  Europe. 

Today  Austria  is  an  economically  pros- 
perous country  enjoying  the  blessings  of 
freedom  and  democracy.  We  have  not  for- 
gotten the  significant  contributions  made  by 
your  country  for  this  development. 

Austria  belongs  among  the  smaller  na- 
tions of  Europe,  and  I  regard  it  as  an  ex- 
pression of  international  democracy  that  in 
its  dealings  with  Au.stria,  the  United  States 
has  never  disregarded  the  principles  of  equal- 
ity and  of  respect  for  the  sovereignty  and 
freedom  of  our  country.  The  friendship  be- 
tween our  two  countries  and  between  our 
two  peoples  rests  on  the  solid  foundation  of 
mutual  trust  and  mutual  respect. 

Let  me  assure  you,  Mr.  President,  and 
Mrs.  Ford,  that  Mrs.  Kreisky  deeply  re- 
gretted to  have  been  unable  to  join  me  in 
this  trip  and  to  see  her  fervent  wish  to  be 
here  unfulfilled. 

Mr.  President,  I  want  to  again  thank  you 
sincerely  for  this  invitation,  and  I  am  look- 
ing forward  to  our  discussions  with  my  Min- 
ister also  with  the  greatest  of  interest. 


TOASTS  AT  WHITE   HOUSE   DINNER 

White  House  press  release  dated  November  12 

President  Ford 

Mr.  Chancellor  and  distinguished  guests: 
It  is  a  great  privilege  to  honor  you  in  the 
White  House  on  this  occasion.  As  I  look 
around  the  room,  I  see  many,  many  people 
that  I  know  from  personal  experience,  in- 


cluding Mrs.  Ford  and  myself,  who  have 
visited  Austria  and  been  the  beneficiaries  of 
the  wonderful  hospitality,  the  warmth,  the 
friendship  of  the  many,  many  fine  Austrians 
who  have  bent  over  backwards  to  make  us 
from  America  warmly  welcome. 

I  must  say  to  you,  Mr.  Chancellor,  that 
sometime — I  can't  give  you  the  date — but 
I  am  going  to  wander  into  Austria  and  take 
advantage  of  those  wonderful  Tyrolean 
Alps,  because  I  do  like  to  ski,  and  hope- 
fully I  will  have  an  opportunity  to  do  so 
just  to  not  only  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the 
mountains  but  the  benefit  of  the  wonderful 
people  from  your  country. 

There  are  many,  Mr.  Chancellor,  who  pass 
judgment  on  a  country  by  its  size  and  geogra- 
phy and  its  size  in  population.  I  don't  think 
those  are  the  most  significant  ways  on  which 
you  really  can  judge  a  people  or  a  country, 
and  we  recognize  of  course  that  Austria  is 
relatively  small  in  population  and  relatively 
small  in  geography,  but  as  we  look  at  the 
great  history  and  the  present  in  Austria, 
we  find  that  looking  from  the  outside  to  the 
country  that  you  have  a  great  humanitarian 
spirit,  you  have  a  great  belief  in  friendship, 
but  more  importantly  than  almost  anything, 
the  people  of  Austria  have  a  character. 

And  that  is  how  we  judge,  in  my  opinion, 
the  .strength  of  a  nation,  despite  its  size 
either  geographically  or  populationwise. 

We  know  over  the  years  since  the  end  of 
the  decade  of  the  forties  that  Austria  has 
contributed  very  significantly,  despite  many 
problems.  You  have  contributed  in  the  Mid- 
dle East  and  Cyprus,  and  we  commend  you 
and  we  thank  you  for  these  eff"orts  that  have 
helped  to  preserve  the  peace  and  to  build  for 
it  in  the  future. 

I  would  simply  like  to  express  on  behalf 
of  all  of  us  in  the  United  States  our  gratitude 
for  the  friendship  that  we  have  with  the 
people  of  Austria,  the  gratitude  that  we 
have  for  the  actions  of  your  government,  and 
we  look  forward,  I  can  say,  Mr.  Chancellor, 
without  any  reservation  or  qualification,  the 
opportunity  to  work  with  you  and  the  people 
of  your  country  in  the  years  ahead. 

It  is  an  enduring  friendship  predicated  on 
a  firm  foundation  of  people  to  people  and 


768 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


government  to  government,  and  may  I  ask 
all  of  our  distinguished  guests  here  tonight  to 
join  me  in  a  toast  to  Dr.  Bruno  Kreisky, 
the  Chancellor  of  the  Republic  of  Austria. 


Chancellor  Kreisky  - 

Mr.  President,  Mrs.  Ford,  ladies  and  gen- 
tlemen :  In  your  vi^arm  words  of  welcome, 
Mr.  President,  for  which  I  sincerely  thank 
you,  you  have  mentioned  the  longstanding 
and  proven  ties  between  the  United  States 
and  Austria.  Certainly  the  peoples  of  the 
former  Austro-Hungarian  monarchy  always 
harbored  feelings  of  genuine  friend.ship  and 
admiration  for  the  American  people. 

To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  however, 
the  relations  between  the  two  govern- 
ments were  not  always  quite  that  cordial. 
[Laughter.] 

It  appears  that  His  Imperial  and  Royal 
Apostolic  Majesty  Franz  Joseph  could  not 
bring  himself  for  a  long  time  to  receive  the 
American  envoy  to  Vienna. 

Early  in  this  century  the  developing  official 
relations  between  Austria-Hungary  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  at  least  until  the 
outbreak  of  World  War  I  and  the  ensuing 
disintegration  of  the  Austro  monarchy,  there 
really  never  was  more  than  correct  relations 
and  therefore  completely  different  from  those 
we  are  fortunate  to  enjoy  today. 

Why  do  I  choose  to  point  this  out?  Be- 
cause the  development  of  our  relations  serves 
as  a  most  convincing  example  which  shows 
that  a  very  special  and  close  relationship 
between  two  nations  can  be  developed  in 
quite  a  few  decades. 

I  see  three  reasons  for  this.  In  1945  the 
United  States  became  one  of  the  four  occu- 
pation powers  in  Austria  and  helped  us 
from  the  very  first  day  to  lay  all  those  foun- 
dations needed  for  the  restoration  of  democ- 
racy. Nothing  has  made  a  greater  contribu- 
tion to  the  history  of  our  democracy  than 
the  presence  of  the  United  States  in  Austria. 
You  virtually  were  the  guardian  of  our  fi'ee- 
dom,  Mr.  President. 

Secondly,    Austria   was   in   ruins,    and   it 


'  Chancellor  Kreisky  spoke  in  English. 


was  hard  to  imagine  at  that  time  how  our 
state  could  ever  again  become  the  home  and 
heaven  of  our  people.  You  gave  to  those 
of  us  who  set  out  to  clear  the  ruins  not  only 
a  healthy  dose  of  American  optimism,  but 
also  the  most  generous  material  assistance. 

Mr.  President,  I  hope  you  will  have  the 
opportunity  to  see  with  your  own  eyes  the 
fruits  which  have  sprung  from  your  coun- 
try's contributions  to  the  economic  revival 
of  Austria. 

Aid  under  the  Marshall  plan  was  the  foun- 
dation of  our  economic  prosperity,  and  its 
effects  are  still  being  felt  today.  This  aid 
constituted  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why 
twice  as  many  people  than  in  1937  earn  a 
good  living  in  Austria  today. 

During  the  period  from  1937  to  1970,  our 
gross  national  product,  given  constant  rises, 
quadrupled  and  has  shown  a  marked  in- 
crease since. 

Let  me  add  that  your  material  assistance 
of  that  time  still  keeps  giving  today,  as  many 
Austrian  firms  receive  lower  interest,  long- 
term  investment  loans  from  the  ERP  [Euro- 
pean Recovery  Program]  counterpart  front, 
which  is  sustained  through  repayment  of 
earlier  loans. 

The  fact  that  this  aid  by  the  United  States 
for  the  restoration  of  our  economy  was  given 
to  us  free  of  any  contingencies  of  political 
dogma  enabled  us  to  utilize  those  sums, 
which  appeared  gigantic  to  us  in  the  light 
of  our  circumstances,  and  complete  inde- 
pendence. 

And  finally,  the  third  reason.  Through 
generous  grants,  Austrian  scientists,  engi- 
neers, and  experts  of  every  specialty  have 
been  afforded  the  opportunity  to  explore  new 
dimensions  in  the  advanced  areas  of  your 
cultural  and  scientific  life. 

A  further  example  is  the  considerable  con- 
tribution made  by  the  Ford  Foundation 
to  the  Institute  for  Advanced  Studies  in 
Vienna,  from  which  a  great  number  of 
eminent  social  scientists  have  emerged  in 
recent  years.  This  constitutes  ample  reward 
for  the  contributions  made  by  Austria  to  the 
cultural  life  of  the  United  States. 

Before  raising  my  glass  to  the  continued 
prospering  of  these  relations,  I  would  like 


December  2,   1974 


769 


to  again  voice  my  regret  that  Mrs.  Kreisky 
was  unable,  for  reasons  of  health,  to  partici- 
pate in  this  beautiful  and  impressive  visit. 
She  regretted  this  all  the  more  because  it 
robbed  her  of  the  opportunity  to  meet  Mrs. 
Ford,  whose  restoration  to  health  has  made 
us  all  very  happy  and  to  whom  I  wish  to 
extend  warm  personal  wishes. 

And  now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  ask  you 
to  raise  your  glasses  and  join  me  in  a  toast 
to  the  health  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  his  charming  wife  and  to  the 
continued  development  of  the  excellent  rela- 
tions between  our  two  countries. 

U.S.   Pledges  Continued  Efforts 

To  Resolve  Indochina  MIA  Question 

Following  are  remarks  made  by  Deputy 
Secretary  Robert  S.  Ingersoll  on  November  1 
upon  presenting  the  Department  of  State's 
Tribute  of  Appreciation  to  Emmet  J.  Kay, 
an  American  civilian  pilot  ivho  was  held  as 
a  prisoner  of  Pathet  Lao  forces  in  Laos  from 
May  7,  1973,  to  September  18,  197 A. 

Press  release  458  dated  November  1 

As  we  recognize  Mr.  Kay  for  his  courage 
and  endurance  as  a  prisoner  for  over  16 
months  in  Laos,  we  think  also  of  the  many 
Americans  who  remain  unaccounted  for  in 
Indochina.  There  are  some  2,400  in  all,  more 
than  half  declared  dead  with  their  bodies  not 
recovered,  the  rest  listed  as  missing. 

They  include  men  from  our  military  serv- 
ices, as  well  as  some  30  American  civilians, 
among  them  several  journalists.  Their  fam- 
ilies have  waited  for  years  in  hope  of  addi- 
tional information — as  promised  in  the  Viet- 
Nam  and  Laos  agreements  of  1973.  Some  20 
months  have  elapsed  since  those  agreements 
were  signed,  with  virtually  no  progress  on 
accounting  for  the  missing  and  the  return 
of  the  remains  of  the  dead. 

Despite  continuing  efforts  to  arrange  this, 
the  Communist  authorities  have  refused  to 
agree  to  searches  for  crash  sites,  graves,  and 
other  information  in  areas  under  their  con- 
trol. We  have  long  been  ready  to  carry  out 
such  searches  by  unarmed  American  teams, 


and  we  are  prepared  to  discuss  arrange- 
ments for  such  searches  by  representatives 
of  neutral  countries,  by  the  International 
Committee  of  the  Red  Cross,  or  by  responsi- 
ble local  authorities.  Such  searches  have 
helped  resolve  a  number  of  cases  in  South 
Viet-Nam,  and  we  continue  to  hope  they  can 
be  extended  to  other  areas  of  Indochina  as 
well. 

The  release  of  Emmet  Kay  and  the  re- 
lease of  nearly  400  other  prisoners  held  by 
both  sides  in  Laos  was  a  welcome  forward 
step  in  carrying  out  the  Laos  agreement  and 
protocol.  We  hope  this  action  will  be  fol- 
lowed by  constructive  efforts  to  account  for 
the  missing  in  all  parts  of  Southeast  Asia 
where  Americans  were  lost.  The  families 
of  our  men  have  waited  too  long  already;  it's 
time  to  get  on  with  the  task. 

I  am  pleased  to  note  that  the  Third  Com- 
mittee of  the  U.N.  General  Assembly  this 
week  approved  a  resolution  on  the  subject  of 
accounting  for  the  missing  and  dead  in  armed 
conflicts.  From  our  discussions  of  this  sub- 
ject at  the  United  Nations  and  at  other 
international  meetings  we  know  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  concern  to  people  in  many  countries 
which  have  experienced  this  problem  during 
and  after  hostilities.  There  should  be  no 
political  or  military  disagreement  about  this 
humanitarian  question,  and  I  pledge  our  own 
continued  efforts  to  help  resolve  it. 

U.S.  Members  Named  to  U.S. -India 
Educational,  Cultural  Subcommission 

Press  release  474  dated  November  4 

The  Department  of  State  announced  on 
November  4  the  appointment  of  10  distin- 
guished Americans  as  members  of  the  Edu- 
cational and  Cultural  Subcommission  of  the 
U.S. -India  Joint  Commission  for  Economic, 
Commercial,  Scientific,  Technical,  Educa- 
tional and  Cultural  Cooperation. 

Establishment  of  this  Subcommission  was 
provided  for  in  the  Agreement  for  a  Joint 
Commission  signed  on  October  28  by  Indian 
Foreign  Minister  Y.  B.  Chavan  and  Secretary 
Kissinger  during  Secretary  Kissinger's  re- 
cent trip  to  New  Delhi. 


770 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


The  members,  who  will  serve  for  two-year 
terms,  include : 

Robert  Goheen  (Chairman),  Chaii-man  of  the 
Council  on  Foundations 

Dr.  Ronald  S.  Berman,  Chairman,  National  En- 
dowment for  the  Humanities 

Charles  Blitzer,  Assistant  Secretary  for  History 
and  Art,  Smithsonian  Institution 

Edward  Booher,  President,  Book  and  Education 
Services  Group,  McGraw-Hill  Co. 

Dr.  Daniel  Boorstin,  Director,  National  Museum 
of  History  and  Technology,  Smithsonian  Insti- 
tution 

Dr.  Edward  C.  Dimock,  Jr.,  President,  American 
Institute  of  Indian  Studies,  University  of  Chi- 
cago 

Dr.  Fred  H.  Harrington,  program  adviser.  Ford 
Foundation 

Dr.  Franklin  A.  Long,  Henry  Luce  Professor  of 
Science  and  Society,  Cornell  University 

Dr.  Eleanor  B.  Sheldon,  President,  Social  Sci- 
ence Research  Council 

Lee  T.  Stull,  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  for  Ed- 
ucational and  Cultural  Affairs,  Department  of 
State 

The  American  and  Indian  members  of  the 
Subcommission  will  meet  annually  to  review 
existing  educational  and  cultural  exchange 
activities  and  to  explore  opportunities  for 
closer  cooperation  and  expanded  ties  in  edu- 
cational and  cultural  fields. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  Subcommission  is 
expected  to  take  place  in  New  Delhi  in  Jan- 
uary 1975.  At  this  meeting  the  delegates  will 
discus3  proposals  relating  to  Indian  and 
American  Studies,  educational  programs,  col- 
laborative research  projects,  media,  library, 
and  museum  exchanges,  performing  arts,  the 
role  of  foundations,  and  private  cooperation 
and  business  involvement  in  exchange. 


Letters  of  Credence 

Belgium 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Belgium,  Willy  Van  Cauwenberg, 
presented  his  credentials  to  President  Ford 


on  October  4.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's 
remarks  and  the  President's  reply,  see  De- 
partment of  State  press  release  dated  Oc- 
tober 4. 

Greece 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of 
Greece,  Menelas  Alexandrakis,  presented  his 
credentials  to  President  Ford  on  October  4. 
For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's  remarks  and 
the  President's  reply,  see  Department  of 
State  press  release  dated  October  4. 

Indonesia 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Republic  of  Indonesia,  Rusmin  Nurjadin, 
presented  his  credentials  to  President  Ford 
on  October  4.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's 
remarks  and  the  President's  reply,  see  De- 
partment of  State  press  release  dated  Oc- 
tober 4. 

Laos 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Laos,  Khamphan  Panya,  pre- 
sented his  credentials  to  President  Ford  on 
October  4.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's  re- 
marks and  the  President's  reply,  see  Depart- 
ment of  State  press  release  dated  October  4. 

Netherlands 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Netherlands,  Age  Robert 
Tammenoms  Bakker,  presented  his  creden- 
tials to  President  Ford  on  October  4.  For 
texts  of  the  Ambassador's  remarks  and  the 
President's  reply,  see  Department  of  State 
press  release  dated  October  4. 

Niger 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Republic  of  Niger,  Ilia  Salifou,  presented  his 
credentials  to  President  Ford  on  October  4. 
For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's  remarks  and 
the  President's  reply,  see  Department  of 
State  press  release  dated  October  4. 


December  2,    1974 


771 


THE   UNITED   NATIONS 


U.N.  Calls  for  Cooperation  in  Accounting  for  Missing 
and  Dead  in  Armed  Conflicts 


Following  is  a  statement  by  Senator 
Charles  H.  Percy,  U.S.  Representative  to  the 
U.N.  General  Assembly,  made  in  Committee 
III  (Social,  Hnmanitarian  and  Cultural)  on 
October  21,  together  with  the  text  of  a  reso- 
lution adopted  by  the  committee  on  October 
29  and  by  the  Assembly  on  November  6. 


STATEMENT  BY   SENATOR   PERCY 

USUN  press  release  136  dated  October  21 

The  resolution  before  us  deals  with  the 
problem  of  accounting  for  the  missing  and 
the  dead  in  armed  conflicts.  Concern  about 
this  humanitarian  problem  has  been  evident 
since  ancient  times.  During  the  wars  be- 
tween Rome  and  Carthage,  it  is  recorded, 
mothers  and  wives  waited  for  news  of  those 
who  died  and  the  missing.  More  recently, 
following  the  First  and  Second  World  Wars, 
we  remember  pictures  of  relatives  at  rail- 
road stations  and  ports  as  prisoners  and 
refugees  returned,  with  signs  asking,  "Has 
anyone  information  on  my  son?" — or  hus- 
band or  brother,  as  the  case  may  be. 

There  is  much  of  death  and  suffering  in 
the  heat  of  battle,  and  there  is  suffering  that 
lingers  after  the  fighting  is  over:  physical 
sufferings  from  wounds,  mental  trauma 
from  psychological  injuries,  and  grief  for 
relatives  for  whom  the  outcome  of  the  battle 
is  measured  in  terms  of  the  death  of  loved 
ones. 

The  aftermath  of  armed  conflict  also 
brings  the  quiet  anguish  of  those  who  wait 


for  information  on  the  missing.  Many  people 
in  many  countries  attest  to  this.  Indeed, 
there  is  hardly  an  armed  conflict,  regardless 
of  location,  regardless  of  character,  that  has 
not  resulted  in  cases  of  men  missing  in 
action. 

Surely  all  would  agree  that  the  certain 
knowledge  of  a  missing  person's  fate  is  bet- 
ter than  extended  uncertainty  about  the  fate 
of  a  loved  one.  Sometimes  families  wait  for 
years — for  a  lifetime — never  knowing  for 
sure  what  has  happened  to  a  missing  rela- 
tive. 

This  subject  is  of  particular  concern  to 
my  government  because  at  the  present  time 
in  Indochina  many  persons  on  both  sides — 
combatant  as  well  as  noncombatant — remain 
unaccounted  for.  Families  of  missing  men  in 
my  country  have  told  me  personally  of  their 
distress. 

In  addition  to  emotional  stress,  there  are 
legal  and  practical  difficulties  if  a  man's  fate 
cannot  be  established.  But  above  all,  there 
is  the  lingering  ache  of  uncertainty. 

From  talks  with  other  delegates  here,  I 
know  the  same  situation  exists  elsewhere  as 
a  result  of  other  recent  armed  conflicts.  It 
is  not  the  purpose  of  this  resolution  to  single 
out  specific  problem  areas  or  to  point  the 
finger  of  blame  at  any  government.  Rather 
it  is  to  state  and  reaffirm  international  con- 
cern about  this  humanitarian  problem. 

The  resolution  we  have  joined  in  propos- 
ing recalls  that  one  of  the  fundamental  pur- 
poses of  the  United  Nations  is  the  promotion 
of  international  cooperation  to  resolve  hu- 


772 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


manitarian  problems.  With  all  peoples  and 
nations,  we  would  hope  that  negotiations 
could  supplant  war.  At  the  same  time,  we 
recognize  that  armed  conflicts  continue  to 
cause  widespread  devastation  and  human 
suffering.  The  purpose  of  this  resolution  is 
to  call  attention  to  a  sometimes-unrecognized 
consequence  of  armed  conflicts — the  lack  of 
information  on  persons,  civilians  as  well  as 
military  personnel,  who  are  missing  in  ac- 
tion or  who  died  in  connection  with  the 
conflict. 

The  yearning  to  know  the  fate  of  relatives 
lost  in  armed  conflict  is  a  basic  human  emo- 
tion. It  is  not  limited  to  any  one  country  or 
area  of  the  world.  People  everywhere,  what- 
ever their  situation,  regardless  of  national- 
ity, share  this  emotion  and  experience  the 
sorrow  of  loss  when  their  sons  or  husbands 
are  missing  in  time  of  conflict.  Surely  all 
would  agree  that  provision  of  information 
on  those  who  are  missing  or  who  have  died 
in  armed  conflicts  deserves  a  high  priority 
and  should  not  be  delayed  pending  resolution 
of  other  issues. 

The  resolution  calls  on  participants  in  an 
armed  conflict — regardless  of  the  nature  of 
the  conflict  or  of  its  location — to  take  ac- 
tions within  their  power  to  find  and  mark 
the  graves  of  the  dead,  to  facilitate  the  re- 
turn of  remains  if  this  is  requested  by  fam- 
ilies, and  to  provide  information  on  the 
missing  in  action.  These  are  minimal  require- 
ments which,  if  observed,  would  go  far  to- 
ward satisfying  the  longing  for  information 
on  loved  ones. 

This  resolution  notes  with  approval  the 
resolution  on  this  subject  adopted  by  the 
International  Conference  of  the  Red  Cross 
at  Tehran  on  November  14,  1973.  The  name 
of  the  Red  Cross  has  long  been  associated 
with  the  plight  of  victims  of  armed  conflicts 
and  with  the  Geneva  Conventions  of  1949, 
which  state  fundamental  humanitarian  law 
on  this  subject. 

The  Red  Cross  Conference  resolution  on 
the  missing  and  dead  was  initiated  by  the 
United  States  and  cosponsored  by  the  Gov- 


ernments of  Denmark,  Mexico,  the  Nether- 
lands, Norway,  and  Pakistan.  It  was  also 
cosponsored  by  the  Red  Cross  delegations 
of  Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  Ethiopia,  the 
German  Democratic  Republic,  the  United 
Kingdom,  Iceland,  the  Netherlands,  Paki- 
stan, and  the  United  States.  The  resolution, 
which  was  adopted  unanimously,  reads  as 
follows: 

The  XXIInd  International  Conference  of  the  Red 
Cross, 

Recogiiizmg  that  one  of  the  tragic  consequences  of 
armed  conflicts  is  a  lack  of  information  on  persons 
who  are  missing  or  who  have  died,  including  those 
who  died  in  captivity,  and 

In  conformity  with  the  humanitarian  traditions  of 
the  Red  Cross  and  with  the  spirit  of  the  Geneva 
Conventions  of  1949, 

Calls  on  parties  to  armed  conflicts,  during  hostili- 
ties and  after  cessation  of  hostilities,  to  help  locate 
and  care  for  the  graves  of  the  dead,  to  facilitate  the 
disinterment  and  return  of  remains,  and  to  provide 
information  about  those  who  are  missing  in  action, 
and 

Further  calls  on  parties  to  armed  conflicts  to  co- 
operate with  protecting  powers,  with  the  ICRC  and 
its  Central  Tracing  Agency,  and  with  such  other  ap- 
propriate bodies  as  may  be  established  for  this  pur- 
pose, including  National  Red  Cross  societies,  to  ac- 
complish the  humanitarian  mission  of  accounting 
for  the  dead  and  missing,  including  those  belonging 
to  third  countries  not  parties  to  the  armed  conflict. 

The  International  Committee  of  the  Red 
Cross  (ICRC)  has  long  sought  to  assist  in 
resolving  the  cases  of  the  dead  and  missing, 
in  particular  through  its  Central  Tracing 
Agency,  located  in  Geneva.  During  and  after 
armed  conflicts  the  ICRC  and  the  tracing 
agency  attempt  to  accumulate  information 
on  the  missing  and  to  record  particulars  on 
those  who  have  died.  This  resolution  en- 
dorses the  efforts  of  the  ICRC  and  the  trac- 
ing agency  in  this  area  and  calls  on  parties 
to  armed  conflicts  to  assist  to  the  best  of 
their  ability  in  this  humanitarian  task. 

It  is  appropriate  and  timely  also  for  the 
United  Nations  to  state  concern  on  this  sub- 
ject, to  give  notice  to  all  that  accounting 
for  the  missing  and  dead  in  armed  conflicts 
is  a  humanitarian  subject  of  universal  con- 
cern  and   a   matter   which   should   be   kept 


December  2,   1974 


773 


separate  from  political  and  military  aspects 
of  armed  conflicts.  It  is  hoped  that  approval 
of  this  resolution  will  remind  parties  to 
armed  conflicts  that  the  interests  of  human- 
ity as  well  as  the  spirit  of  the  Geneva  Con- 
ventions of  1949  require  that  they  make  se- 
rious and  timely  efi^orts  to  account  for  the 
dead  and  missing. 

I  repeat — it  is  a  consideration  that  applies 
to  both  sides  and  without  regard  to  the 
character  or  location  of  a  conflict.  It  applies 
to  civilians  as  well  as  to  military  personnel — 
and  to  such  special  categories  as  journalists, 
whose  protection  has  also  been  the  subject 
of  special  consideration.  The  resolution  con- 
cludes by  asking  the  Secretary  General  to 
bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Diplomatic 
Conference  on  Humanitarian  Law,  which 
resumes  work  in  February  1975  in  Geneva. 
It  would  be  our  hope  that  this  diplomatic 
conference  will  be  able  to  agree  on  improved 
methods  for  accounting  for  the  missing  and 
dead  in  armed  conflicts. 

I  reiterate  that  the  question  of  the  missing 
in  action  is  of  special  concern  in  my  country 
but  that  this  resolution  does  not  single  out 
specific  problem  areas  nor  does  it  point  the 
finger  of  blame  at  any  government.  We 
mean  only  to  state  and  reafl^rm  international 
concern  about  an  important  humanitarian 
problem. 

TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  ^ 

Assistance  and  co-operation  in  accounting  for  persons 
who  are  missing  or  dead  in  armed  conflicts 

The  General  Asseynbly, 

Recalling  that  one  of  the  purposes  of  the  United 
Nations  is  the  promotion  of  international  co-opera- 
tion in  solving  international  problems  of  humani- 
tarian character, 

Regretting  that,  in  violation  of  the  principles  of 
the  Charter  of  the  United  Nations,  the  resort  to 
force  has  continued  to  occur,  causing  loss  of  human 
lives,  widespread  devastation  and  other  forms  of  hu- 
man suffering, 

Reaffirming  that  it  is  one  of  the  fundamental  ob- 
ligations of  Member  States  to  ensure  and  promote 
international  peace  and  security  by  preventing  or 
ending  armed  conflicts, 


Recognizing  that  one  of  the  tragic  results  of  armed 
conflicts  is  the  lack  of  information  on  persons,  ci- 
vilians as  well  as  combatants,  who  are  missing  or 
dead  in  armed  conflicts, 

Noting  with  satisfaction  resolution  V,  adopted  by 
the  twenty-second  International  Conference  of  the 
Red  Cross  held  at  Teheran  from  28  October  to  15 
November  1973,  calling  on  parties  to  armed  conflicts 
to  accomplish  the  humanitarian  task  of  accounting 
for  the  missing  and  dead  in  armed  conflicts, 

Bearing  in  mind  the  inadmissibility  of  a  refusal 
to  apply  the  Geneva  Conventions  of  1949, 

Reaffirming  the  urgent  need  to  ensure  full  adher- 
ence to,  and  effective  implementation  of,  the  Geneva 
Conventions  of  1949  on  the  protection  of  war  victims 
by  all  States,  and  in  particular  those  signatories  to 
the  Geneva  Conventions  of  1949, 

Considering  that  the  desire  to  know  the  fate  of 
loved  ones  lost  in  armed  conflicts  is  a  basic  human 
need  which  should  be  satisfied  to  the  greatest  extent 
possible,  and  that  provision  of  information  on  those 
who  are  missing  or  who  have  died  in  armed  conflicts 
should  not  be  delayed  merely  because  other  issues 
remain  pending, 

1.  Reaffirms  the  applicability  of  the  Geneva  Con- 
ventions of  1949  to  all  armed  conflicts  as  stipulated 
by  those  Conventions; 

2.  Calls  on  parties  to  armed  conflicts,  regardless 
of  their  character  or  location,  during  and  after  the 
end  of  hostilities  and  in  accordance  with  the  Geneva 
Conventions  of  1949,  to  take  such  action  as  may  be 
within  their  power  to  help  locate  and  mark  the 
graves  of  the  dead,  to  facilitate  the  disinterment 
and  the  return  of  remains,  if  requested  by  their  fam- 
ilies, and  to  provide  information  about  those  who 
are  missing  in  action; 

3.  Appreciates  the  continuing  efforts  of  the  Inter- 
national Committee  of  the  Red  Cross  to  assist  in 
the  task  of  accounting  for  the  missing  and  dead  in 
armed  conflicts; 

4.  Calls  on  all  parties  to  amied  conflicts  to  co- 
operate in  accordance  with  the  Geneva  Conventions 
of  1949  with  protecting  Powers  or  their  substitutes, 
and  with  the  International  Committee  of  the  Red 
Cross,  in  providing  information  on  the  missing  and 
dead  in  armed  conflicts,  including  persons  belonging 
to  other  countries  not  parties  to  the  armed  conflict; 

5.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  bring  the 
present  resolution  to  the  attention  of  the  second  ses- 
sion of  the  Diplomatic  Conference  on  the  Reaffirma- 
tion and  Development  of  International  Humanitarian 
Law  Applicable  in  Armed  Conflicts. 


'A/RES/3220  (XXIX);  (A/C.3/L.2110/Rev.2,  as 
amended;  text  from  U.N.  doc.  A/9829);  adopted  by 
the  Assembly  on  Nov.  6  by  a  vote  of  95  (U.S.)  to  0, 
with  32  abstentions. 


774 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


U.S.  Votes  Against  Expulsion 
of  South   Africa   From   the   U.N. 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
SecHtitij  Council  by  U.S.  Representative  John 
Scali  on  October  30,  together  with  the  text 
of  a  (haft  resolution  which  was  vetoed  that 
day  by  the  United  States,  the  United  King- 
dom, and  France. 


STATEMENT   BY  AMBASSADOR   SCALI 

USUN  press  release  154  dated  October  30 

Over  the  past  two  weeks,  distinguished 
members  of  our  organization  and  individual 
petitioners  to  this  Council  have  expressed 
their  opposition  to  the  South  African  Govern- 
ment's practice  of  apartheid.  In  virtually  all 
cases,  their  arguments  were  predicated  on 
the  abhorrence  of  the  unequal  treatment  of 
peoples  within  a  society  and  a  minority  rule 
which  discriminates  against  the  majority  on 
the  basis  of  color. 

Let  there  be  no  doubt  or  confusion,  de- 
spite the  efforts  of  some,  about  the  attitude 
of  the  U.S.  Government  concerning  apartheid. 
In  simplest  terms,  Mr.  President,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  opposes  it  cate- 
gorically and  absolutely.  It  is  evil.  It  is 
ugly. 

The  United  States  shares  the  indignation 
of  those  who  during  this  debate  have  decried 
South  Africa's  persistence  in  holding  on  to 
the  iniquitous  and  callous  policy  of  apartheid. 
The  system  of  legislated  racial  discrimina- 
tion and  associated  repressive  legislation 
that  prevails  in  South  Africa  is  an  inde- 
fensible affront  to  the  spirit  and  principles 
of  the  charter  and  to  human  dignity  around 
the  world.  It  denies  what  the  U.N.  Charter 
proclaims — the  dignity  and  worth  of  every 
person  and  the  equal  rights  of  all  men  and 
women.  It  is  a  matter  of  profound  concern 
to  the  United  States  that  the  South  African 
Government  has  ignored  calls  in  the  Security 
Council  and  in  the  General  Assembly  to  put 


an  end  to  its  inhumane,  outmoded,  and  short- 
sighted policies. 

Despite  all  warnings  and  admonitions,  the 
South  African  Government  continues  to  prac- 
tice apartheid.  It  continues  to  uproot  non- 
whites  and  consign  them  to  often-barren 
"homelands"  in  order  to  preserve  the  su- 
premacy of  the  fifth  of  the  population  who 
are  white.  It  maintains  draconian  restric- 
tions on  the  movement  of  non-whites.  It  per- 
sists in  providing  to  non-whites  inferior 
education,  keeping  them  in  a  disadvantageous 
position.  Segregation  and  inequality  in  all 
areas  of  life  are  pervasive.  Non-whites  are 
not  represented  in  the  government  that  dom- 
inates and  intrudes  into  almost  every  aspect 
of  their  lives. 

South  Africa's  denial  of  basic  human  rights 
is  compounded  in  Namibia  by  its  illegal 
occupation  of  that  territory.  The  United 
States  finds  it  reprehensible  that  South 
Africa  has  failed  to  honor  its  obligations 
under  international  law  to  withdraw  from 
Namibia  in  accordance  with  General  Assem- 
bly and  Security  Council  resolutions  and  the 
1971  opinion  of  the  International  Court  of 
Justice. 

South  Africa's  continuing  illegal  occupa- 
tion of  Namibia  is  made  all  the  more  out- 
rageous by  the  manner  in  which  it  admin- 
isters the  territory.  The  repression  of  peace- 
ful political  activity,  the  flogging  of  dissi- 
dents by  the  South  African  administration's 
surrogates,  and  the  division  of  the  territory 
into  so-called  homelands  are  indefensible  and 
inconsistent  with  the  responsibilities  South 
Africa  had  assumed  as  administrator  of  a 
mandated  territory. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  am  obliged  to  point 
out  that  even  in  this  grievous  case,  the 
United  States  continues  strongly  to  adhere 
to  the  view  that  resorts  to  force  and  other 
forms  of  violence  are  not  acceptable  means 
to  induce  change.  This  is  our  view  with 
regard  to  other  serious  problems  throughout 
the  world,  and  it  is  our  view  with  respect 
to  South  Africa.  Armed  confrontation  is  no 
substitute  for  communication. 


December  2,    1974 


775 


The  description  of  South  Africa's  trans- 
gressions I  have  just  presented  is  not  new. 
Observers  have  agreed  about  the  essential 
facts  of  apartheid  for  many  years. 

Some  of  the  words  I  have  just  used  are 
borrowed.  Members  of  the  Council  may  be 
familiar  with  the  statement  made  in  the 
Special  Political  Committee  of  the  General 
Assembly  on  October  17  on  the  issue  of 
apartheid  by  my  distinguished  co-delegate 
Mr.  Joseph  Segel.  This  is  a  personal  state- 
ment, as  well  as  an  official  one,  delivei'ed 
from  the  heart  by  a  man  now  serving  as  a 
public  member — I  repeat,  a  public  member — 
of  the  U.S.  delegation.  It  is  also  a  statement 
to  which  I  subscribe,  to  which  the  U.S. 
Government  subscribes. 

We  are  heartened  indeed  by  some  encourag- 
ing words  in  this  chamber  voiced  by  the 
Permanent  Representative  of  South  Africa. 
On  October  24,  he  himself  implied  that  South 
Africa  is  responding  not  in  a  vacuum  but 
in  reaction  to  world  events,  not  the  least  of 
which  has  been  the  condemnation  of  South 
Africa's  apartheid,  Namibian,  and  Rhodesian 
policies  within  this  international  organiza- 
tion. I  have  noted  with  special  interest  that 
a  distinguished  African  leader,  whose  bitter 
experiences  in  the  past  make  him  an  impres- 
sive witness  today,  has  also  found  hopeful 
aspects  in  the  new  South  African  voices. 

We  believe  that  a  just  solution  of  South 
Africa's  racial  dilemma  indeed  lies  within 
South  Africa  itself.  Taking  practical  steps 
toward  improving  the  condition  of  non- 
whites  and  seeking  change  through  commu- 
nication seem  to  us  more  likely  to  have 
impact  than  some  other  measures  suggested. 

American  firms  in  South  Africa,  for  ex- 
ample, have  had  notable  success  in  improv- 
ing the  pay  and  working  conditions  of  their 
non-white  workers.  They  do  this  as  a  matter 
of  enlightened  policy — with  the  support  of 
the  U.S.  Government.  The  United  States 
believes  that  through  its  current  cultural 
exchange  program  prominent  South  Africans 
of  all  races  have  gained  a  new,  more  ac- 
curate perspective  of  their  country's  prob- 
lems and  a  determination  to  seek  a  solution 
to  them. 

At  the  same  time,  the  United  States  con- 


tinues to  bar  the  sale  of  military  equipment 
to  South  Africa.  In  this  regard,  I  would  like 
to  state  flatly  that  the  United  States  has  not 
collaborated  with  South  Africa  on  military 
or  naval  matters  for  over  a  decade  and  has 
no  intention  of  beginning  such  cooperation  in 
the  future. 

The  situation  in  southern  Africa  is  sig- 
nificantly different  now  from  that  of  six 
months  ago.  South  Africa  has  no  alternative 
but  to  reassess  its  position  in  light  of  re- 
cent events.  The  United  States  urges  that 
in  doing  so,  the  South  African  Government 
look  at  the  realities  of  the  future. 

We  call  on  South  Africa  to  make  good 
the  assurances  it  gave  Secretary  General 
Waldheim  in  April  last  year  to  allow  the 
people  of  Namibia  to  determine  the  future 
of  the  territory  by  exercising  their  right  of 
self-determination,  and  to  withdraw  from 
Namibia.  We  urge  that  South  Africa  simul- 
taneously begin  to  bring  an  end  to  its  apart- 
heid policies  and  to  establish  the  basis  for 
a  just  society  and  government  where  all 
are  equal.  We  believe  that  after  a  quarter 
of  a  century  of  warnings  it  is  time  for  the 
South  African  Government  to  adopt  the 
measures  which  will  lead  to  a  society  of 
equal  opportunity,  equal  rewards,  and  equal 
ju-stice  for  all.  We  call  on  South  Africa  to 
fulfill  its  obligations  under  article  25  of 
the  charter  and  to  comply  with  Security 
Council   resolutions   on   Southern   Rhodesia. 

Mr.  President,  some  speakers  have  argued 
that  the  best  way  to  bring  the  Government  of 
South  Africa  to  accomplish  these  objectives — 
to  bring  the  South  African  Government  to 
heel — is  for  this  Council  to  recommend  to 
the  General  Assembly  that  South  Africa  be 
expelled  from  membership  in  the  United 
Nations  organization. 

My  government  believes  that  this  kind  of 
all-or-nothing  approach  would  be  a  major 
strategic  mistake,  e.specially  at  a  time  when 
we  have  been  hearing  what  may  be  new 
voices  of  conciliation  out  of  South  Africa. 
These  new  voices  should  be  tested.  We  must 
not  be  discouraged,  as  we  may  have  been 
last  December  when  we  instructed  the  Secre- 
tary General  to  abandon  his  contacts  with 
the  South  Africans  on  Namibia. 


776 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Mr.  President,  many  of  our  colleagues  dur- 
ing the  past  weeks  have  cited  time  and  time 
again  the  poetic  reference  to  "winds  of 
change."  With  the  fresh  winds  of  change 
blowing  from  an  enlightened  Portuguese 
policy  toward  Angola  and  Mozambique, 
effecting  important  and  progressive  changes 
in  southern  Africa,  the  United  States  believes 
that  it  is  incumbent  upon  this  organization 
not  to  deflect  those  very  winds  as  they  rush 
toward  South  Africa.  By  doing  so,  we  con- 
fess that  this  organization  is  powerless  to 
influence  change  there.  My  government  does 
not  accept  the  view  that  the  United  Nations 
is  powerless ;  rather,  we  strongly  believe  that 
it  is  through  both  increased  bilateral  con- 
tacts and  the  strong  will  of  a  determined 
United  Nations  that  peaceful  change  will 
occur  in  South  Africa. 

Mr.  President,  the  United  Nations  was 
not  founded  to  be  simply  a  league  of  the 
just.  Rather,  in  our  view,  it  is  a  unique 
international  forum  for  the  exchanging  of 
ideas,  where  those  practicing  obnoxious  doc- 
trines and  policies  may  be  made  to  feel  the 
full  weight  of  world  opinion.  There  is  there- 
fore a  clear,  positive,  and  indispensable  role 
for  the  United  Nations  in  bringing  change 
to  South  Africa. 

My  delegation  believes  that  South  Africa 
should  continue  to  be  exposed,  over  and  over 
again,  to  the  blunt  expressions  of  the  abhor- 
rence of  mankind  for  apartheid.  South  Afri- 
cans could  hear  of  this  abhorrence  only  from 
afar  were  we  to  cast  them  from  our  ranks, 
beyond  the  range  of  our  voices. 

Our  analysis  is  that  expulsion  would  say 
to  the  most  hardened  racist  elements  in 
South  Africa  that  their  indiff'erence  to  our 
words  and  resolutions  had  been  justified. 
We  think  it  would  say  to  the  South  Africans 
that  we  have  not  heard,  or  do  not  wish  to 
encourage,  the  new  voices — the  voices  that 
augur  hope  of  change. 

We  believe  that  the  United  Nations  must 
continue  its  pressure  upon  South  Africa, 
moving  step  by  step  until  right  has  tri- 
umphed. It  is  self-defeating  to  fire  a  single 
last  dramatic  salvo  with  only  silence  to  fol- 
low. History  holds  no  example  of  a  pariah 
state  that  reformed  itself  in  exile.  The  pariah 


is  by  definition  an  outlaw,  free  of  restraint. 
There  is  no  record  of  good  citizenship  in  the 
land  of  Nod,  east  of  Eden,  where  Cain,  the 
first  pariah,  was  banished. 

My  delegation  has  another  grave  concern 
about  the  wisdom  of  expelling  South  Africa. 
Even  if  this  would  help  thwart  the  ugly 
crime  of  apartheid,  expulsion  would  set  a 
shattering  precedent  which  could  gravely 
damage  the  U.N.  structure.  It  would  bring 
into  question  one  of  the  most  fundamental 
concepts  on  which  our  charter  is  based — the 
concept  of  a  forum  in  which  ideas  and  ideals 
are  voiced  and  revoiced  along  with  conflicting 
views  until  elements  of  injustice  and  oppres- 
sion are  forced  to  give  way  to  reason. 

This,  in  sum,  is  the  appeal  of  my  delega- 
tion. Let  us  continue  to  hold  the  evils  of 
apartheid  under  the  light  of  world  opinion 
until  all  our  fellow  human  beings  have  seen 
it  for  what  it  is.  Let  us  continue  to  press 
South  Africa  in  this  U.N.  forum  and  others 
to  move  rapidly  toward  an  era  of  equality 
and  justice. 


TEXT  OF   DRAFT   RESOLUTION  ' 

The  Sectirity  Council, 

Having  considered  General  Assembly  resolution 
3207  (XXIX)  of  30  September  1974,  in  which  the 
Assembly  called  upon  the  Security  Council  "to  re- 
view the  relationship  between  the  United  Nations 
and  South  Africa  in  the  light  of  the  constant  viola- 
tion by  South  Africa  of  the  principles  of  the  Charter 
and  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights", 

Having  heard  the  statements  of  the  persons  invited 
to  address  the  Council  on  this  issue, 

Taking  note  of  the  special  report  of  the  Special 
Committee  on  Apartheid  on  "violations  of  the  Char- 
ter of  the  United  Nations  and  resolutions  of  the 
General  Assembly  and  the  Security  Council  by  the 
South  African  regime"   (S/11537), 

Mindful  of  the  provisions  of  the  Charter  of  the 
United  Nations  concerning  the  rights  and  obliga- 
tions of  Member  States,  particularly  Articles  1,  2, 
6,  55  and  56, 

Recalling  its  resolutions  134  (1960),  181  (1963), 
182  (1963),  190  (1964),  282  (1970),  and  311  (1972) 


*  U.N.  doc.  S/11543;  the  draft  resolution  was  not 
adopted  owing  to  the  negative  votes  of  three  perma- 
nent members  of  the  Council,  the  vote  being  10  in 
favor,  3  against  (U.S.,  France,  U.K.),  with  2  ab- 
stentions (Austria,  Costa  Rica). 


December  2,    1974 


777 


on  the  question  of  the  policies  of  apartheid  of  the 
Government  of  the  Republic  of  South  Africa, 

Reaffirming  that  the  policies  of  apartheid  are  con- 
trary to  the  principles  and  purposes  of  the  Charter 
of  the  United  Nations  and  inconsistent  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human 
Rights,  as  well  as  South  Africa's  obligations  under 
the  Charter, 

Recalliyig  that  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Secu- 
rity Council  have  more  than  once  condemned  the 
South  African  Government  for  its  persistent  refusal 
to  abandon  its  policies  of  apartheid  and  to  abide  by 
its  obligations  under  the  Charter,  as  called  for  by 
the  Security  Council  and  the  General  Assembly, 

Noting  with  concern  South  Africa's  refusal  to 
withdraw  its  police  and  military  forces,  as  well  as 
its  civilian  personnel,  from  the  mandated  Territory 
of  Namibia  and  to  co-operate  with  the  United  Na- 
tions in  enabling  the  people  of  Namibia  as  a  whole 
to  attain  self-determination  and  independence. 

Noting  further  that,  in  violation  of  the  pertinent 
resolutions  of  the  Security  Council,  particularly  res- 
olution 253  (1968)  of  29  May  1968,  South  Africa  has 
not  only  given  support  to  the  illegal  regime  in  South- 
ern Rhodesia,  but  has  also  sent  into  that  Territory 
military  and  police  personnel  for  the  purpose  of 
strengthening  that  regime  in  its  attempt  to  impede 
the  exercise  of  their  inalienable  rights  by  the  people 
of  that  Territory, 

Considering  that  effective  measures  should  be 
taken  to  resolve  the  present  situation  arising  out  of 
the  policies  of  apartheid  of  the  Government  of  South 
Africa, 

Recotnmends  to  the  General  Assembly  the  immedi- 
ate expulsion  of  South  Africa  from  the  United  Na- 
tions in  compliance  with  Article  6  of  the  Charter. 


U.S.  Commends  Work  of  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  by  U.S.  Representative 
John  Scali  on  November  5. 

USUN  press  release  160  dated  November  5 

Since  its  inception,  nuclear  technology  has 
presented  mankind  with  a  fundamental  di- 
lemma. How  are  we  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of 
this,  our  civilization's  highest  technical 
achievement,  without  also  suffering  its  lethal 
poison?  Never  before  in  history  has  man  pos- 
sessed an  instrument  with  such  potential  for 


good  or  for  evil.  Never  has  man  been  more 
starkly  faced  with  the  moral  responsibility 
to  control  the  product  of  his  own  creation. 

Events  of  the  past  year  have  highlighted 
our  dilemma.  Even  the  most  reluctant  must 
now  acknowledge  that  the  world  community 
has  yet  to  adequately  exploit  the  potential 
benefits  of  nuclear  technology  or  to  fully 
control  its  awesome  capacity  for  destruction. 
As  a  result,  today's  debate  takes  on  a  new 
and  timely  significance. 

Recent  dramatic  developments  in  the  field 
of  energy  have  intensified  the  world  search 
for  new  sources  of  energy.  The  fact  that  this 
new  demand  for  alternate  sources  of  energy 
results  from  an  artificial  restriction  on  oil 
production  does  not  make  the  development  of 
such  alternates  any  less  urgent. 

The  International  Atomic  Energy  Agen- 
cy's response  to  this  new  situation,  particu- 
larly as  it  affects  the  developing  countries, 
has  been  commendably  swift  and  compre- 
hensive. We  congratulate  the  Agency  for  its 
decision  to  step  up  technical  assistance  to  the 
developing  countries.  We  are  impressed  with 
the  Agency's  recognition  that  an  equally  high 
priority  must  be  placed  on  international 
standards  for  health,  safety,  and  reactor  re- 
liability. We  continue  to  attach  the  highest 
importance  to  all  of  these  activities,  and  we 
congratulate  the  Director  General  [A.  Sig- 
vard  Eklund]  and  his  staff  for  the  imagina- 
tive way  in  which  they  are  carrying  out  their 
growing  responsibilities. 

As  the  world  community  expands  access  to 
the  fruits  of  nuclear  technology,  we  must  also 
apply  ever  more  rigorous  and  effective  con- 
trols over  its  potential  for  destruction.  "The 
challenge  before  the  world,"  as  Secretary 
Kissinger  has  remarked  to  the  Assembly,  "is 
to  realize  the  peaceful  benefits  of  nuclear 
technology  without  contributing  to  the 
growth  of  nuclear  weapons  or  to  the  number 
of  states  possessing  them." 

Secretary  Kissinger  went  on  to  set  out  a 
number  of  specific  areas  where  action  to  con- 
trol and  limit  the  spread  of  nuclear  arms  is 
most  urgent.  These  priority  areas  include  the 
strengthening  of  safeguards  and  controls  on 


778 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


the  transfer  of  nuclear  materials  and  im- 
proving the  physical  security  of  such  mate- 
rial. He  also  called  for  more  comprehensive 
adherence  to  the  Nonproliferation  Treaty 
and  the  safeguards  it  provides. 

I  would  like  to  take  this  occasion  to  say 
how  impressed  my  government  has  been  by 
the  way  in  which  the  International  Atomic 
Energy  Agency  is  taking  the  lead  in  con- 
fronting each  of  these  key  issues. 

In  his  message  to  the  recent  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency  General  Conference, 
President  Ford  stated  that  the  Nonprolifera- 
tion Treaty  was  "one  of  the  pillars  of  United 
States  foreign  policy."  Director  General  Ek- 
lund  has  today  reported  to  us  on  the  status 
of  the  safeguards  agreements  concluded  pur- 
suant to  that  treaty.  We  share  the  Director 
General's  concern  over  the  delays  in  conclud- 
ing these  agreements.  My  government  there- 
fore would  like  again  to  urge  those  nations 
which  have  signed  the  Nonproliferation 
Treaty  but  have  not  yet  concluded  safeguards 
agreements  to  accelerate  negotiations  with 
the  Agency  in  order  to  complete  these  agree- 
ments as  soon  as  possible.  We  further  urge 
these  countries  which  have  not  yet  become 
parties  to  the  treaty  to  do  so  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble. 

Secretary  Kissinger  suggested  that  the  In- 
ternational Atomic  Energy  Agency  consider 
urgently  the  development  of  an  international 
convention  to  improve  physical  security 
against  the  theft  or  diversion  of  nuclear  ma- 
terials. We  are  very  pleased  to  note  that  the 
Agency  has  already  begun  to  turn  its  atten- 
tion to  this  problem,  and  we  look  forward  to 
cooperating  fully  with  the  Agency's  efforts. 

The  addendum  to  the  International  Atomic 
Energy  Agency  annual  report  ^  tells  of  the 
Agency's  recent  actions  to  prepare  itself  to 
respond  to  requests  for  services  related  to  nu- 
clear explosions  for  peaceful  purposes.  Once 
again  I  would  like  to  note  that  my  govern- 
ment is  pleased  that  the  agency  has  estab- 
lished the  necessary  expertise  to  follow  the 
work  in  this  field,  to  keep  abreast  of  the  tech- 


nological developments,  and  to  carry  out  its 
responsibilities  under  article  V  of  the  Non- 
proliferation  Treaty. 

In  closing,  Mr.  President,  I  would  like  to 
record  my  government's  full  support  of  the 
program  of  the  International  Atomic  Energy 
Agency.  We  believe  that  under  the  forceful 
and  imaginative  leadership  of  Director  Gen- 
eral Eklund,  the  Agency  is  responding  well 
to  the  unprecedented  and  still-increasing 
challenges  of  a  nuclear  age. 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Antarctica 

Recommendations  relating-  to  the  furtherance  of  the 
principles  and  objectives  of  the  Antarctic  treaty. 
Adopted  at  Wellin^on  November  10,  1972.' 
Notification  of  approval:   Argentina,   October  17, 
1974. 

Ocean    Dumping 

Convention  on  the  prevention  of  marine  pollution  by 
dumping  of  wastes  and  other  matter,  with  annexes. 
Done  at  London,  Mexico  City,  Moscow,  and  Wash- 
ington December  29,  1972.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Jordan,  November  11,  1974. 

Patents 

Strasbourg  agreement  concerning  the  international 

patent  classification.   Done  at  Strasbourg  March 

24,  1971. 

Accession  deposited:  Israel,  October  7,  1974. 

Enters  into  force:  October  7,  1975. 

Notification  from  World  Intellectual  Property  Or- 
ganization that  accession  deposited:  Egypt,  Oc- 
tober 17,  1974. 

Property — Industrial 

Convention  of  Paris  for  the  protection  of  industrial 
property  of  March  20,  1883,  as  revised.  Done  at 
Stocl<holm  July  14,  1967.  Articles  1  through  12  en- 
tered into  force  May  19,  1970;  for  the  United 
States  August  25,  1973.  Articles  13  through  30  en- 


'  U.N.  doc.  A/9722/ Add.  1. 


'■  Not  in  force. 


December  2,    1974 


779 


tered   into  force   April   26,    1970;    for   the   United 
States  September  5,  1970.  TIAS  6923. 
Notification  from   World  Intellectual  Property  Or- 
ganization that  accession  deposited:  Zaire,   Oc- 
tober 31,  1974. 

Property — Intellectual 

Convention  establishing  the  World  Intellectual  Prop- 
erty Organization.  Done  at  Stockholm  July  14, 
1967.  Entered  into  force  April  26,  1970;  for  the 
United  States  August  25,  1970.  TIAS  6932. 
Ratification  deposited:  Zaire,  October  28,  1974. 
Notification  of  intention  to  apply  transitional  pro- 
visions: Republic  of  Viet-Nam,  October  30,  1974. 

Safety  at  Sea 

International    convention   for   the   safety   of   life   at 
sea,  1974,  with  annex.  Done  at  London  November 
1,  1974.  Open  for  signature  November  1,  1974,  un- 
til July  1,  1975.  Enters  into  force  12  months  after 
the  date  on  which  not  less  than  25  states,  meeting 
certain  requirements,  have  become  parties. 
Signatures :  Bulgaria,"  Byelorussian  Soviet  Social- 
ist    Republic,"     Chile,-     Congo      (Brazzaville)," 
Czechoslovakia,"     Denmark,"     Egypt,"     France," 
Ghana,"  Greece,"  Hungary,"  Iceland,"  Indonesia," 
Iran,"  Israel,"  Republic  of  Korea,"  Liberia,"  Mex- 
ico,"  Monaco,^  Portugal,'  Sweden,"  Switzerland," 
Ukrainian   Soviet   Socialist  Republic,''  Union  of 
Soviet    Socialist    Republics,"    United    Kingdom," 
United    States,"    Venezuela,"    Republic    of    Viet- 
Nam,"  Yemen   (San'a'),"  Yugoslavia,"  November 
1,  1974. 

Sea,  Exploration  of 

Protocol  to  the  convention  for  the  International 
Council  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Sea  (TIAS 
7628)  amending  article  14(2).  Done  at  Copen- 
hagen August  13,  1970.' 

Ratification  deposited:  United  States,  October  31, 
1974. 

Telecommunications 

Telegraph  regulations,  with  appendices,  annex,  and 
final  protocol.  Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.  En- 
tered into  force  September  1,  1974.' 
Notifications  of  approval:  Denmark,  Overseas  Ter- 
ritories for  the  international  relations  of  which 
the  United  Kingdom  is  responsible,  August  21, 
1974;  Finland,  Japan,  August  29,  1974;  Luxem- 
bourg, September  4,  1974;   Sweden,  August  30, 
1974;  Thailand,  August  14,  1974;  United  King- 
dom, August  12,  1974.' 
Telephone    regulations,    with    appendices    and    final 
protocol.  Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.  Entered 
into  force  September  1,  1974.* 

Notifications  of  approval:  Denmark,  Overseas  Ter- 
ritories for  the  international  relations  of  which 


the  United  Kingdom  is  responsible,  August  21, 
1974;  Finland,  Japan,  August  29,  1974;  Luxem- 
bourg, September  4,  1974;  Sweden,  August  30, 
1974;  Thailand,  August  14,  1974;  United  King- 
dom, August  12,  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:   Nicaragua,   October   29,   1974;    Para- 
guay, October  25,  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  aiticle  2,  paragraphs  2,  3,  and  4  which  entered 
into  force  April  1,  1974.  TIAS  7840. 
Acceptance  deposited:  Nicaragua,  July  30,  1974. 
Accessions  deposited:  Austria,  August  22,  1974; 
Philippines,  August  12,  1974. 

Treaties 

Vienna  convention  on  the  law  of  treaties,  with  an- 
nex. Done  at  Vienna  May  23,  1969.' 
Accession  deposited:  Greece,  October  30,  1974. 


BILATERAL 

Mexico 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  relating  to  the 
provision  of  support  by  the  United  States  for  a 
multi-spectral  aerial  photographic  system  capable 
of  detecting  opium  poppy  cultivation  of  June  10 
and  24,  1974  (TIAS  7863).  Effected  by  exchange 
of  letters  at  Mexico  September  19,  1974.  Entered 
into  force  September  19,  1974. 

Agreement  providing  additional  helicopters  and  re- 
lated assistance  to  Mexico  in  support  of  its  efforts 
to  curb  illegal  production  and  traffic  in  narcotics. 
Effected  by  exchange  of  letters  at  Mexico  Novem- 
ber 1,  1974.  Entered  into  force  November  1,  1974. 

Viet-Nam 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities. 
Signed  at  Saigon  October  8,  1974.  Entered  into 
force  October  8,  1974. 


'  Not  in  force. 

"  Subject  to  ratification,  acceptance,  or  approval. 
'  Without  resei-vation  as  to  ratification,  acceptance, 
or  approval. 

'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 
Extended  to  Channel  Islands  and  Isle  of  Man. 


780 


Department  of  State  Bulletir 


INDEX     December  2, 197 U     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  18^9 


Atomic  Energy.  U.S.  Commends  Work  of  In- 
ternational Atomic   Energy  Agency   (Scali) 

Austria.  Federal  Chancellor  Kreisky  of  the 
Republic  of  Austria  Visits  the  United  States 
(Ford,    Kreisky) 

Belgium.  Letters  of  Credence  (Van  Cauwen- 
berg)      

Educational  and  Cultural  Affairs.  U.S.  Mem- 
bers Named  to  U.S. -India  Educational,  Cul- 
tural Subcommission 

Energy.  The  Energy  Crisis:  Strategy  for  Co 
operative  Action  (Kissinger) 


Greece.  Letters  of  Credence  (Alexandrakis) 

India.  U.S.  Members  Named  to  U.S.-India  Ed 
ucational,  Cultural  Subcommission  .     .     . 

Indonesia.  Letters  of  Credence  (Nurjadin)  . 

International  Law.  U.N.  Calls  for  Cooperation 
in  .Accounting  for  Missing  and  Dead  in 
Armed  Conflicts  (Percy,  text  of  resolution) 

Laos 

Letters  of  Credence    (Panya) 

U.S.  Pledges  Continued  Efforts  To  Resolve  In- 
dochina MIA  Question   (IngersoU)  .... 

Middle  East.  Secretary'  Kissinger  Visits  Five 
Arab  Nations  and  Israel  (remarks  by  Sec- 
retary Kissinger  and  foreign  leaders)     .     . 

Netherlands.  Letters  of  Credence  (Tammen- 
oms    Bakker) 

Niger.  Letters  of  Credence  (Salifou)  .... 

Presidential  Documents.  Federal  Chancellor 
Kreisky  of  the  Republic  of  Austria  Visits 
the  United  States 

South  Africa.  U.S.  Votes  Against  Expulsion 
of  South  Africa  From  the  U.N.  (Scali,  text 
of  draft  resolution) 

Treaty  Information.  Current  .-Actions  .... 

U.S.S.R.  Secretary  Kissinger  Hosts  Luncheon 
at  Moscow  (Kissinger,  Gromyko)    .... 

United  Nations 

U.N.  Calls  for  Cooperation  in  Accounting  for 
Missing  and  Dead  in  .\rmed  Conflicts  (Per- 
cy, text  of  resolution) 

U.S.  Commends  Work  of  International  Atom- 
ic Energy  Agency  (Scali) 

U.S.  Votes  Against  Expulsion  of  South  Af- 
rica From  the  U.N.  (Scali,  text  of  draft 
resolution) 

Viet-Nam.  U.S.  Pledges  Continued  Efforts  To 
Resolve  Indochina  MIA  Question  (Inger- 
soU)    


778 

767 

771 

770 

749 
771 

770 
771 

772 

771 
770 

757 

771 

771 

767 

775 
779 

765 

772 
778 

775 
770 


IngersoU,  Robert  S 770 

Kissinger,  Secretary 749, 757, 765 

Kreisky,   Bruno 767 

Nurjadin,   Rusmin 771 

Panya,    Khamphan 771 

Percy,  Charles  H 772 

Sadat,  Anwar  al- 757 

Salifou,  Ilia 771 

Saqqaf,  Umar  al- 758 

Scali,  John 775,778 

Tammenoms  Bakker,  Age  Robert 771 

Van  Cauwenberg,  Willy 771 


Name  Index 

Alexandrakis,  Menelas 771 

AUon,  Yigal       760 

Chatti,  Habib 764 

Ford,    President 767 

Gromyko,  Andrei  A 765 


No. 

Date 

440A 

10/26 

493 

11/11 

495 

11/12 

Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:   November  11—17 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  DC.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  November  11  which 
appear  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos. 
458  of  November  1,  474  of  November  4,  480  of 
November  5,  481  and  482  of  November  6,  484 
and  486  of  November  7,  and  488,  489,  490A, 
491,  and  492  of  November  8. 

Subject 

Kissinger,  Gromyko:  exchange 
of  toasts,  Moscow. 

Kissinger,  Chatti:  departure, 
Tunis,  Nov.  9. 

Secretary's  Advisory  Commit- 
tee on  Private  International 
Law  Study  Group  on  Negoti- 
able Instruments,  New  York, 
Dec.  4. 

Advisory  Committee  on  Inter- 
national Intellectual  Prop- 
erty, International  Indus- 
trial Property  Panel,  Dec.  10. 

Secretary's  Advisory  Commit- 
tee on  Private  International 
Law  Study  Group  on  Mari- 
time Bills  of  Lading,  Dec.  6. 

Working  committees  estab- 
lished for  National  Commis- 
sion for  Observance  of  World 
Population  Year. 

Nordness  appointed  consult- 
ant to  World  Population 
Y'ear  Commission  (biograph- 
ic data). 

Kissinger:  University  of  Chi- 
cago. 

Kissinger:  news  conference. 

Kissinger,  Boyatt:  Foreign 
Service  Day  memorial  cere- 
mony. 


*496 


*497 


*498 


*499 


500 

t501 
t502 


11/12 


11/13 


11/14 


11/14 


11/14 

11/15 
11/15 


*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  BULLETIN. 


Superintendent    of    Documents 
us.  government  printing  office 

WASHINGTON.    DC.    20402 


OFFICIAL   BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES   PAID 
U.S.     OOVERNMBNT     PRIMTINO     OFFICE 

Special   Fourth-Clasi   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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


'3: 
7, 


7S50 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1850 


December  9,  1974 


SECRETARY  KISSINGER'S  NEWS  CONFERENCE  OF  NOVEMBER  15     781 

SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY  SIMON  DISCUSSES 

ENERGY  PROPOSALS 

Address  Before  the  National  Foreign  Trade  Convention     TdU 

U.S.  CALLS  FOR  WORLDWIDE  EFFORT  TO  ELIMINATE  TORTURE 
AND  INHUMAN  TREATMENT  OF  PRISONERS 

Statement  by  Senatw  Percy 
and  Text  of  U.N.  General  Assembly  Resolution     807 

tiosto 
SuperinU'i 

375 

DfcPOSlTOkY 

THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 

For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE    BULLETIN 


Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1850 
December  9,  1974 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Dociunenta 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

52  issues  plus  semiannual  indexes, 

domestic  $29.80,  foreign  $37.26 

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  co/itained  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, 
a  weekly  publication  issued  by  the 
0/Rce  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  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. 


Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference  of  November  15 


Following  is  the  transcript  of  a  neivs  con- 
ference held  by  Secretary  Kissinger  in  the 
auditorium  of  the  Executive  Office  Building 
on  November  15. 

Press  release  501  dated  November  15 

Ronald  H.  Nessen,  Press  Secretary  to 
President  Ford:  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  in 
response  to  your  request  to  talk  to  Dr.  Kis- 
singer about  the  Far  East  trip,  here  is  Dr. 
Kissinger.  This  is  all  on  the  record  for  im- 
mediate release,  no  live  broadcast,  and  those 
are  the  only  rules. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  If  I  had  known  there 
was  no  live  broadcast,  I  wouldn't  have  come 
here.  [Laughter.] 

Let  me  make  a  few  very  brief  remarks 
about  the  purpose  of  the  trip,  and  then  I 
will  take  your  questions  on  that  or  any  other 
subject. 

You  will  remember  that  a  visit  to  Japan 
by  the  President  was  foreseen  in  a  Japanese- 
American  communique  last  year.  It  was  an- 
nounced to  take  place  by  the  end  of  1974,  and 
it  was  reaffirmed  on  a  number  of  occasions 
afterward.  It  will  be  a  historic  event  in  that 
it  is  going  to  be  the  first  visit  by  an  Ameri- 
can President  to  Japan,  reflecting  the  great 
importance  we  attach  to  the  relationship  with 
Japan. 

In  recent  years,  our  relations  with  Japan 
have  undergone  a  series  of  adjustments 
brought  about  by  new  conditions  in  the  Far 
East,  the  growing  strength  and  self-confi- 
dence of  Japan,  and  the  emergence  of  a 
pattern  of  equality.  We  consider  this  rela- 
tionship excellent. 

We  believe  also  that  the  future  stability 
of  the  Pacific  area  depends  importantly  on  a 
close  understanding  between  the  United 
States  and  Japan,  which  is  symbolized  by 
the  visit  of  the  President  and  by  the  occa- 


sion that  this  will  give  for  full  exchanges 
with  Japanese  leaders. 

The  President  called  in  the  Japanese  Am- 
bassador on  the  first  afternoon  of  the  day 
that  he  was  sworn  in  as  President.  On  that 
occasion,  in  affirming  the  continuity  of  Amer- 
ican foreign  policy,  he  also  specifically  af- 
firmed that  he  would  meet  the  commitment 
of  his  predecessor  to  visit  Japan  by  the  end 
of  1974. 

So,  this  trip  was  planned  as  one  of  the 
first  acts  of  President  Ford,  and  we  consider 
it  essential  for  the  overall  design  of  foreign 
policy.  While  being  in  Japan,  we  expect  to 
review  with  the  Japanese  leaders  bilateral 
relations  of  Japan  and  the  United  States, 
which,  I  repeat,  we  consider  excellent,  as 
well  as  to  review  the  international  situation 
and  in  order  to  make  certain  that  we  under- 
stand each  other  as  to  basic  principles  and 
objectives. 

The  visit  to  Korea  is  a  natural  complement 
to  the  visit  to  Japan.  We  could  not  be  in 
that  area  and  not  visit  Korea  without  raising 
grave  doubts  that  our  commitment  to  Korea 
was  still  what  it  has  traditionally  been.  The 
visit  to  Vladivostok  reflects  the  necessity  of 
the  leaders  of  the  two  nuclear  superpowers 
to  be  in  frequent  touch  with  each  other,  a 
necessity  which  is  particularly  acute  after 
a  change  of  administration  in  the  United 
States,  to  enable  the  two  leaders  to  have  an 
opportunity  to  exchange  views  on  the  whole 
range  of  our  relationships,  on  possible  diffi- 
culties that  may  arise,  but  even  more  im- 
portantly, on  how  to  give  momentum  to  the 
commitment  to  detente  that  they  have  both 
expressed. 

This  is  the  basic  purpose  of  the  trip,  and 
now  I  will  be  glad  to  take  your  questions. 

Q.  Ml .  Secretary,  with  respect  to  the  diffi- 
culties that  may  arise,  before  you  get  into 


December  9,   1974 


781 


the  questiovs  o?i  the  trip  I  would  like  to  ask 
ivhat  your  assessment  is  of  the  possibility  of 
an  outbreak  of  warfare  in  the  Middle  East 
now,  in  viev:  of  a  spate  of  reports  yesterday 
and  today  from  the  area  about  possible  pre- 
emptive Israeli  attacks,  the  unloading  of 
huge  amounts  of  Soviet  armaments  in  Syria, 
the  visits  to  the  Golan  Heights  and  that. 
Could  you  give  ms  your  opinion  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Obviously,  we  have 
seen  these  reports,  and  we  are  checking  into 
them  on  an  urgent  basis.  We  cannot  believe 
that  any  of  the  parties  in  the  Middle  East 
would  resort  to  war  under  these  circum- 
stances. 

We  cannot  believe  that  any  major  power 
would  deliberately  encourage  war  in  a  situa- 
tion as  serious  and  as  potentially  explosive 
as  that  in  the  Middle  East.  The  United  States 
would  certainly  oppose  any  idea  that  the 
problems  of  the  Middle  East  can  be  solved 
by  military  action  and  will  use  its  influence 
with  all  parties  to  prevent  this  from  arising. 
It  expects  that  all  other  countries  that  are 
in  a  position  to  do  so  would  exercise  a  sim- 
ilar restraining  influence. 

So,  we  think  that  these  reports  are  prob- 
ably— if  they  are  not  exaggerated  as  to  the 
facts,  we  do  not  believe  that  military  actions 
are  imminent. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  another  point  on  your 
travels  will  be  Peking  this  year,  and  it  has 
been  almost  a  year  since  you  were  there  be- 
fore. Do  you  expect  this  visit  to  bring  fur- 
ther progress  toivard  normalization  of  rela- 
tions or  anything  of  a  substantive  sort? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  relationships  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  People's 
Republic  of  China  are  good,  and  they  are 
progressing  in  the  manner  that  has  been 
foreseen  on  our  previous  visits,  including  the 
last  one. 

Every  trip  is  within  the  context  of  pro- 
moting the  normalization  of  relationships 
and  to  represent  a  step  toward  the  normali- 
zation of  relationships.  I  do  not  expect  any 
dramatic  announcements  as  a  result  of  this 
trip,  but  I  expect  a  continuation  of  the  steady 
progress  that  has  marked  our  previous  con- 


tacts   and   a    further    improvement   of    our 
relationship. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  think  it  is  in- 
evitable that  Israel  is  going  to  have  to  deal 
with  Mr.  [Yasir]  Arafat  and  the  PLO 
[Palestine  Liberation  Organization]  in  sub- 
sequent negotiations  now  that  a  certain 
amount  of  recognition  in  stature  has  been 
given  the  organization  by  Rabat  and  by  the 
General  Assembly  and,  if  so,  under  what  con- 
ditions would  it  be  possible  for  Israel  to  do 
this? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  As  you  know,  I  ex- 
pressed the  view  of  the  administration, 
which  has  not  changed,  that  the  proper  nego- 
tiation, or  the  best  negotiation  for  the  future 
of  the  West  Bank,  was  between  Jordan  and 
Israel,  and  the  United  States  had  used  its 
influence  to  bring  about  such  a  negotiation. 

As  to  any  other  parties  that  might  nego- 
tiate, this  is  entirely  a  decision  for  Israel 
and  for  any  of  the  other  parties  that  may  be 
involved,  and  it  is  not  a  matter  on  which 
the  United  States  will  give  advice  as  to  the 
conditions  in  which  such  negotiations  may 
be  appropriate,  if  indeed  it  is  appropriate. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  could  you  give  7ts  your 
appraisal  of  the  Arab  and  of  the  Israeli  re- 
actions to  the  fact  that  more  than  a  month 
elapsed  before  General  Brorcn  [Gen.  George 
S.  Brown,  Chairman,  Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff] 
apologized  for  his  remarks  at  Duke  and  he 
was  only  mildly  reprimanded  by  the  Presi- 
dent? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  frankly  have  no 
view  as  to  what  the  Arab  or  Israeli  reaction 
to  this  is.  It  is  my  understanding  that  the 
President  expressed  his  opposition  to  the 
views  as  expressed  by  General  Brown,  and 
this  certainly  reflects  the  view  of  the  admin- 
istration. 

We  don't  consider  this  a  subject  of  foreign 
policy  decisions,  because,  clearly,  the  admin- 
istration's view  has  been  repeatedly  enun- 
ciated and  has  been  in  no  way  affected  by 
any  remarks  that  were  made  by  any  military 
leader. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  isn't  the  President  tak- 
ing a  sizable  risk  by  traveling  abroad  like 


782 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


this  at  a  time  when  there  is  no  Vice  Presi- 
dent in  place? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  You  have  to  remem- 
ber that  the  President  committed  himself  to 
this  trip  on  his  first  day  in  office,  at  a  time 
when  it  was  considered  inconceivable  that  a 
Vice  President  would  not  be  confirmed  by 
this  time.  To  cancel  a  trip  because  a  Vice 
President  hasn't  been  confirmed  would  give 
an  impression  of  domestic  instability  that 
would  in  itself  be  a  foreign  policy  factor, 
and  therefore  the  President  decided  to  con- 
tinue with  a  trip  which  we  consider  ex- 
tremely important  in  its  own  right  under 
conditions  which  could  not  be  foreseen  at 
the  time  the  decision  was  made. 

Middle  East  Tensions 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  said  a  moment  ago 
that  you  couldn't  believe — or  words  to  that 
effect — that  any  major  power  would  delib- 
erately encourage  war  in  the  Middle  East  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:   That  is  correct. 

Q.  /  assume  you  might  mean  the  Soviet 
Union.  I  would  like  to  ask  ivhether  you  have 
any  information  or  evidence  to  indicate  that 
the  Soviet  Union  might  be  encouraging  war? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have  no  evidence 
that  the  Soviet  Union  is  encouraging  war, 
and  as  I  have  said,  we  are  using  all  our  in- 
fluence with  both  parties,  and  we  are  certain- 
ly calling  to  the  attention  of  all  other  coun- 
tries the  importance  of  restraint  in  the  Mid- 
dle East. 

Q.  Is  the  Soviet  Union  using  its  influence 
in  a  positive  direction,  in  your  opinion,  sir? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  This  recent  flareup 
has  only  come  to  our  attention  in  the  last 
few  hours,  and  it  isn't  clear  to  us  yet  what  it 
means.  I  would  warn  against  overexaggerat- 
ing  the  imminence  of  any  conflict  there.  But 
we  are  certainly  calling  it  to  the  attention  of 
the  Soviet  Union. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  cotild  you  give  us  a 
more  thorough  vietv  of  your  current  ap- 
praisal of  the  Middle  East  situation  as  the 
Pr-esident  and  you  are  about  to  depart  for 


a  considerable  period  of  time?  Do  you  have 
any  special  anxiety  that  there  u'ill  be  a  hi- 
atus here  during  this  period,  when  we  are 
now  at  a  stage  of  seeing  considerable  reports 
of  imminent  action?  What  is  your  basic  view 
of  the  hazard  here? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  President  and  I 
met  with  Secretary  [of  Defense  James  R.] 
Schlesinger  this  morning,  and  we  reviewed 
contingencies  which  might  arise  and  mecha- 
nisms of  how  to  deal  with  them  if  they 
should  arise.  I  repeat,  this  is  a  normal  pre- 
caution. We  do  not  expect  the  contingencies 
to  arise.  We  do  not  believe  that  prior  to 
a  meeting  between  the  General  Secretary 
[Leonid  I.  Brezhnev]  and  the  President  the 
Soviet  Union  would  be  encouraging  military 
action  in  the  Middle  East,  and  we  cannot 
believe  that  any  of  the  parties  in  the  Middle 
East  would  be  so  reckless  as  to  engage  in 
military  action. 

So,  while  we  recognize  that  certain  mili- 
tary precautions  have  been  taken  by  both 
sides,  and  while  there  is  always  a  risk  that 
precautions  could  get  out  of  hand,  we  do  not 
think  a  war  is  likely.  If  it  should  occur,  we 
have  made  contingency  plans  for  dealing 
with  it.  Communications  are  of  course  very 
rapid,  and  we  would  deal  with  it  on  that  ba- 
sis. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  also  on  the  Middle  East, 
does  the  United  States  detect  any  change  or 
moderation  in  the  statements  made  by  Mr. 
Arafat  representing  the  Palestinians?  Does 
that  make  any  difference  as  far  as  the  United 
States  is  concerned?  And  also,  what  are  your 
plans  on  traveling  to  the  Middle  East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  With  respect  to  the 
speech  itself,  our  reading  of  it  is  that  it  called 
for  a  state  which  really  did  not  include  the 
existence  of  Israel  and  therefore  was  dealing 
with  a  successor  state,  and  we  do  not  con- 
sider this  a  particularly  moderate  position. 

With  respect  to  my  own  plans,  I  have  no 
plans  now  to  go  to  the  Middle  East.  This 
could  change,  but  as  I  pointed  out  before,  we 
think  that  this  is  now  a  period  for  quiet 
diplomacy,  and  I  do  not  expect  to  return  to 
the  Middle  East  in  the  near  future. 


December  9,    1974 


783 


Q.  Before,  I  noticed  you  used  the  past 
tense  in  referring  to  our  preference — "ivas" 
— for  negotiations  between  Israel  and  Jor- 
dan. Do  you  think  in  the  current  situation 
there  is  a  live  possibility  of  negotiating  with 
Jordan ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  It  is  my  understand- 
ing that  King  Hussein  has  accepted  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Rabat  summit  to  the  effect  that 
the  PLO  should  be  the  principal  negotiator 
on  the  West  Bank,  and  this  explains  my 
reference  to  the  past. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  has  the  Syrian  Govern- 
ment indicated  to  you,  as  far  as  you  know, 
its  attitude  toward  an  extensio7i  of  the  U.N. 
presence  on  the  Golan  Heights?  And  whether 
it  has  or  hasn't,  hoiv  much  of  any  importance 
do  you  attach  to  its  attitude  toward  that 
question  that  will  soon  be  coming  up? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  Syrian  Govern- 
ment has  not  given  us  a  formal  answer  as  to 
the  extension  of  UNDOF  [United  Nations 
Disengagement  Observer  Force]  on  the  Go- 
lan Heights,  and  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge, 
I  do  not  believe  that  they  have  given  a  formal 
answer  to  anybody.  They  have,  however, 
indicated  on  a  number  of  occasions  grave 
doubts  about  the  extension  of  UNDOF,  and 
if  one  were  to  quote  the  statements  that  they 
have  made,  one  could  construe  them  as  an 
indication  that  they  probably  will  not  agree 
to  the  extension. 

It  is  our  view  that  failure  to  extend 
UNDOF  would  cast  doubts  on  the  viability 
of  agreements  that  may  be  made  in  that 
area,  and  we  therefore  believe  that  the  ex- 
tension of  UNDOF  is  important  for  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  negotiating  process  and  espe- 
cially for  negotiating  prospects  that  may 
exist  between  Syria  and  Israel,  and  the  fail- 
ure to  extend  it  would  undoubtedly  contrib- 
ute to  the  tension  in  the  area. 

Cooperation  Among  Energy  Consumers 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  would  like  to  ask  a 
couple  of  questions  about  your  oil  speech 
last  night.    Why  did  you  say,  "In  the  mean- 


time, we  will  face  two  great  dangers.  One  is 
the  threat  of  a  7iew  embargo."?  And  second- 
ly, what  kind  of  a  response  can  you  expect 
from  other  consuming  nations  when  the 
United  States  itself  has  not  yet  come  up  ivith 
a  serioxis  program  for  conservation  or  de- 
veloping alternate  sources  of  energy? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  With  respect  to  the 
first  question,  it  is  obvious  that  the  possi- 
bility of  another  embargo  exists  and  the 
emergency  program  that  will  be  agreed  to 
next  week — that  has  been  agreed  to  but  will 
be  formally  adopted  next  week — provides  for 
precisely  this  contingency.  We  went  through 
an  embargo  last  year,  and  the  possibility  of 
an  embargo  cannot  be  ignored.  Therefore,  in 
order  to  enable  the  consuming  nations  to 
withstand  political  pressures,  we  consider 
this  program  is  of  the  first  significance. 

Secondly,  in  my  speech,  which  I  went  over 
carefully  with  the  President  before  I  gave  it, 
we  stated  the  goals  that  have  to  be  met  in 
order  to  meet  the  objectives  that  were  set  in 
the  speech,  the  objectives  being  to  reduce  de- 
pendence on  imported  oil,  to  create  a  situa- 
tion in  which  alternative  sources,  coupled 
with  conservation  restraints  and  financial 
solidarity,  bring  about  a  reduction  in  the 
price  of  oil. 

And  in  any  event,  the  cooperation  among 
the  consumers  is  essential  whether  or  not  the 
price  of  oil  comes  down.  In  fact,  it  is  even 
more  essential  if  the  price  of  oil  does  not 
come  down.  The  goals  that  I  stated  are  the 
administration  goals.  The  methods  by  which 
they  are  reached,  whether  they  are  done  by 
voluntary  restraints  or  by  other  measures, 
will  be  reflected  in  Presidential  speeches  to 
the  Congress. 

In  any  event,  the  United  States  has  ex- 
pressed its  readiness  in  this  speech  to  ac- 
cept internationally  binding  consumption  re- 
straints, and  therefore  the  question  of 
whether  or  not  we  are  now  engaged  in  them 
is  really  irrelevant  to  the  program  that  has 
been  set  forth  which  we  are  prepared  to 
undertake  on  an  international  basis. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  would  like  to  ask  a 


784 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


question  about  the  ivisdom  and  timing  of 
the  Far  East  trip,  specifically  with  regard  to 
visiting  Prime  Minister  Tanaka  and  his 
problems  at  home.  I  tvould  like — if  you 
would,  please,  to  address  yourself  to  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Tanaka  may  in  fact  be  a  lameduck 
Prime  Minister.  Also,  if  you  would  address 
yourself  to  the  fact,  please,  that  President 
Ford  will  be  visiting  Korea,  where  the  gov- 
ernment has  come  under  severe  criticism  for 
being  rather  oppressive,  contrary  to  demo- 
cratic principles.  And  if  you  would,  sir, 
please  address  yourself  to  the  site  of  the 
meetingplace  in  the  Soviet  Union,  which  is 
either  on  or  close  to  disputed  territory  with 
the  Chinese. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  With  respect  to  the 
first  question,  the  visit  to  any  country  is  to 
the  government  and  not  to  any  particular 
individual.  We  don't  express  any  view  as  to 
what  difficulties  Prime  Minister  Tanaka  may 
or  may  not  be  in,  and  therefore  I  don't  accept 
the  basic  premise  of  your  question.  But  the 
fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  major  figures  in 
Japan  with  whom  we  will  be  dealing  have 
shown  considerable  stability  in  terms  of  their 
participation  in  the  government.  Therefore, 
we  believe  that  whatever  may  happen  in 
Japan — and  we  do  not  accept  that  the  con- 
tingency you  foresee  is  inevitable — that, 
therefore,  the  trip  should  go  forward. 

Secondly,  it  is  clear  that  the  President  of 
the  Republic  of  Korea  is  being  criticized.  We 
did  not  think  that  this  outweighs  the  consid- 
eration that  I  have  mentioned  before,  that 
the  failure  to  visit  Korea  might  be  under- 
stood as  a  reduction  in  the  degree  of  the 
American  commitment  to  the  security  of 
South  Korea,  which  could  have  serious  in- 
ternational consequence. 

With  respect  to  the  site  of  the  meeting 
with  the  Soviet  Union,  this  is  a  matter  that 
has  been  discussed,  and  we  have  received  no 
complaints  from  the  Chinese  side. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  without  disclosing  your 
contingency  plans,  we  have  been  reading 
about  alleged  NSC  [National  Security  Coun- 
cil] memos  and  so  forth,  foreseeing  a  possi- 


bility that  the  United  States  might  go  in  this 
time  if  there  ivas  another  Arab-Israeli  con- 
flict.   Do  you  foresee  any  possibility? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Do  I  personally  fore- 
see any  possibility? 

Q.  Yes,  of  the  United  States  going  into  the 
Middle  East  ivar. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  I  don't 
foresee  a  Middle  East  war.  Secondly,  I  don't 
confirm  that  there  are  any  NSC  contingency 
plans  for  the  United  States  to  go  into  an 
Arab-Israeli  war.  The  U.S.  attitude  will  be 
what  it  has  been  in  previous  wars,  and  our 
attitude  is  basically  to  avoid  a  conflict  and  to 
bring  it  to  the  most  rapid  conclusion  possible 
if  there  should  be  one.  But  we  believe  there 
is  every  possibility  of  avoiding  a  conflict 
now,  and  therefore  there  is  no  sense  specu- 
lating on  what  we  might  do. 

But  it  is  clear  that  the  U.S.  intentions, 
unless  there  should  be  other  outside  interven- 
tion, would  be  to  confine  its  role  to  what  it 
has  been. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  last  night  in  Phoenix, 
President  Ford,  in  answer  to  a  general  ques- 
tion on  Middle  East  policy,  mentioned  that 
Israel  has  been  urged  to  muke  peace,  to 
reach  agreements  with  Egypt  and  "other 
Arab  nations."  He  was  pressed  on  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  the  PLO  should  be  recog- 
nized, and  he  repeated  that  Israel  should 
reach  agreements  with  Egypt  and  "other 
Arab  parties,"  which  left  the  answer  am- 
biguous. I  tvish  you  would  clear  it  up, 
whether  or  not  we  regard  the  PLO  as  a 
nation  or  a  party  or,  in  the  final  analysis,  as 
a  negotiating  partner,  although  I  recognize 
tvhat  you  said  earlier,  that  it  is  an  Israeli 
decision. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  to  repeat  what 
I  said  earlier.  The  United  States  is  not  en- 
gaged in  promoting  any  particular  set  of 
negotiations.  I  have  stated  what  our  view 
as  to  the  most  effective  strategy  has  been, 
and  we  have  not  expressed  any  recommenda- 
tion to  any  of  the  parties  with  whom  they 
should  negotiate. 


December  9,   1974 


785 


Q.  What  are  yoxir  maximum  hopes  for  a 
strategic  arms  achievement  at  the  Vladivos- 
tok summit? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  issue  of  strategic 
arms  limitation  is  an  extremely  complicated 
one,  involving  many  weapons  systems,  many 
technologies;  and  the  fact  is,  as  I  have  point- 
ed out  on  a  number  of  occasions,  that  the 
forces  of  the  two  sides  have  been  designed 
in  a  different  manner,  with  different  charac- 
teristics, so  that  comparisons  are  sometimes 
difficult. 

Therefore,  it  is  hard  to  foretell  any  specific 
achievement.  We  believe  that  progress  was 
made  during  my  talks  with  General  Secre- 
tary Brezhnev  in  Moscow.  We  think  that  this 
progress  can  be  continued  in  Vladivostok. 
Whether  the  progress  will  lend  itself  to 
some  formal  statement,  or  whether  it  will 
lead  to  being  transferred  to  the  Geneva  nego- 
tiations, or  whether  some  other  method  will 
be  chosen  and  the  exchanges  will  continue, 
can  really  not  be  predicted  until  there  have 
been  some  further  discussions  building  on 
the  discussions  that  took  place  in  Moscow. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  in  part  of  your  speech 
last  night,  in  your  proposal  to  cut  oil  imports, 
u-ere  you  just  referring  to  Arab  nations  or 
were  you  also  proposing  to  cut  oil  imports 
from  Canada? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  was  referring  to 
cutting  overall  oil  imports,  not  just  from  the 
Arab  nations. 

Complex  Food  Aid  Problems 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  given  the  position  of 
moral  leadership  that  the  United  States  un- 
dertook in  convening  the  World  Food  Con- 
ference, why  was  the  decision  reached  not  to 
follow  the  advice  of  the  U.S.  delegation  and 
provide  an  extra  million  tons  of  food? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  this  was  not  a  recommendation 
of  the  U.S.  delegation,  but  was  a  recom- 
mendation of  some  members  of  the  U.S. 
delegation. 

But  let  me  make  clear  what  our  position 
had  been  with  respect  to  the  World   Food 

786 


Conference.  We  face  two  problems:  the  basic 
problem  of  world  food  shortages,  which  is  a 
structural  one,  and  the  immediate  emergency 
problem  of  the  shortages  this  year  that  can- 
not be  dealt  with  by  any  structural  changes. 
The  United  States  believes  that  no  matter 
what  food  aid  is  given  this  year,  structural 
adjustments  in  world  agriculture  policies  are 
essential.    This  is  why  we  proposed  the  Ex- 
port Planning  Group  of  the  exporting  na- 
tions and  why  we  proposed  a  group  to  pro- 
mote   the    increase    in    agriculture    in    the 
underdeveloped  nations,  which  is  one  of  the 
most  essential   elements,  and  why  we  pro- 
posed a  reserve  program. 

Food  aid  is  one  relatively  small  part  of 
the  overall  problem.  Now,  with  respect  to 
food  aid,  we  have  stated  that  we  will  do  what 
is  humanly  possible  in  order  to  give  the  max- 
imum food  aid.  The  differences  in  the  govern- 
ment concern  tactics  and  not  substance. 

The  difference  concerns  the  question  of 
whether  we  should  announce  a  specific  target 
before  we  know  what  the  crop  reports  are 
and  produce  an  increase  in  prices  in  this 
country  and  contribute  to  the  inflation  or 
whether  we  should  continue  to  operate  on  a 
quarterly  basis  as  we  have  been  on  the  basis 
of  crop  reports  and  in  a  manner  that  enables 
us  to  make  the  decisions  without  having  the 
undesirable  consequences  that  I  described. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  most  of  the  decisions 
that  have  been  taken  in  the  last  quarter 
have  been  at  the  high  end  of  the  option,  and 
I  personally  expect  that  by  the  time  that 
the  year  is  over  we  will  have  increased  not 
only  the  dollar  amount  but  the  quantity  of 
the  food  aid. 

But  the  President  wanted  to  reserve  the 
option  of  looking  at  it  every  quarter  so  that 
the  difference  between  those  members  of 
the  delegation  who  ask  for  a  flat  commitment 
and  the  dominant  trend  in  the  administra- 
tion, including  the  view  of  the  President,  is 
really  primarily  a  matter  of  how  to  give  food 
aid  without  producing  inflationary  pressures 
in  this  country  and  therefore  maybe  en- 
dangering the  whole  food  aid  problem. 

I  personally  regret  that  the  issue  of  the 
World  Food  Conference,  which  really  should 
deal  with  the  structural  problem  of  food,  has 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 


been  tied  up  with  a  one-year  allocation  of 
food  aid,  which  is  not  going  to  be  decisive 
in  dealing  with  the  overall  issue  that  we 
have  described. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  believe  that  there 
is  any  connection  at  all  betiveen  the  reports 
that  we  have  been  receiving  now  about  mo- 
bilization in  the  Middle  East  and  the  fact 
that  the  President  is  about  to  embark  on  this 
trip?  Can  there  be  any  linkage? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  consider  that  ex- 
tremely unlikely,  and  I  would  have  thought 
that  the  imminent  meeting  of  the  President 
with  the  General  Secretary  should  have  a 
calming  effect  on  the  situation  rather  than  an 
accelerated  effect. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  the  parties  concerned 
that  anyone  who  wantonly  starts  a  war  un- 
der these  conditions  would  be  putting  him- 
self into  a  very  dubious  position  internation- 
ally and  with  its  relationship  with  the  United 
States,  and  obviously  this  must  be  clear  to 
any  of  the  Soviet  leaders,  whom  we  do  not 
believe  are  encouraging  the  tensions  right 
now,  and  we  do  not  believe  that  a  conflict  is 
imminent. 

Q.  It  is  not  possible,  you  think,  that,  right- 
ly or  wrongly,  that  other  poxvers  might  per- 
ceive that  the  United  States  in  effect  is  in 
a  weakened  condition? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  It  would  be  a  very 
serious  miscalculation. 

I  Q.  May  I  also  ask,  do  these  reports  in  any 
way  directly  contradict  assurances  you  had 
received,  either  from  the  Soviets  or  others 
during  your  Middle  East  travels? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  did  not  have  the 
impression  on  my  Middle  East  travel  that 
any  of  the  parties  were  planning  imminent 
military  operations. 

As  far  as  the  Soviets  are  concerned,  it 
seems  to  me  to  go  without  saying  that  prior 
to  a  meeting  between  the  General  Secretary 
and  the  President  they  should  not  and,  in 
my  belief,  are  not  taking  action  to  exacerbate 
the  situation. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  said  you  didn't  have 


the  impression.  Did  you  have  specific  assur- 
ances in  the  Middle  East  about  this  situa- 
tion ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  stated  my 
view.  Certainly  all  of  the  parties  know  that 
the  United  States  would  be  opposed,  strongly 
opposed,  to  the  resumption  of  hostilities. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  expect  any  major 
agreements  to  be  signed  in  Japan,  or  should 
we  consider  that  trip  primarily  symbolic? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  a  trip  can  be 
substantive  without  major  agreements  being 
signed.  In  negotiations  with  Japan  it  is  very 
important  to  permit  the  Japanese  consensus- 
building  to  develop  and  not  to  expect  in  a 
three-day  visit  to  accelerate  any  particular 
decision. 

We  believe  that  there  will  not  be  any 
major  agreement  signed,  but  we  nevertheless 
believe  that  the  trip  will  be  highly  substan- 
tive. 

If  I  may  make  one  other  comment  about 
all  these  Middle  East  questions.  There  is  a 
tendency,  if  I  may  say  so,  to  overreact  to 
reports.  It  was  the  case  after  the  Rabat 
summit.    It  seems  to  me  to  be  the  case  today. 

In  our  judgment,  we  are  not  in  a  situation 
of  imminent  conflict,  and  I  do  not  think  that 
it  contributes  to  stability  to  give  the  impres- 
sion that  we  are. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  there  have  been  reports 
recently  that  Egypt  is  now  linking  the  re- 
opening of  the  Suez  Canal  to  a  further  Israeli 
pullback  in  Sinai.  Yet  during  the  January 
disengagement  agreement,  we  were  told  that 
the  canal  would  be  reopened  as  quickly  as 
possible.   Is  there  a  tie-in  between  the  two? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have  not  received 
any  formal  communication  from  the  Egyp- 
tians to  that  effect.  I  have  seen  statements 
in  the  press  which  allege  this,  or  in  which 
Egyptian  officials  are  quoted  as  having  said 
this.  We  would  consider  this  inconsistent 
with  the  disengagement  agreement,  but  it 
will  be  a  moot  point  until  the  canal  clear- 
ance is  completed,  which  is  not  yet  the  case. 

Q.  What  can  you  tell  us  about  the  likely 
degree  of  Japanese  acceptance  of  the  plan 


December  9,   1974 


787 


you  outlined  last  night,  and  ivould  you  expect 
something  to  come  in  Tokyo  on  that? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  do  not  expect  that 
in  the  period  of  three  days  there  will  be  any 
major  decisions  taken  on  a  plan  that  was  as 
embracing  as  the  one  that  was  put  forward 
last  night.  We  undoubtedly  will  have  some 
discussions  on  that  subject.  I  think  the  final 
decisions  will  have  to  be  taken  in  a  multi- 
lateral framework  and  not  on  a  bilateral 
basis  between  individual  countries. 

I  would  expect  that  progress  will  be  made, 
not  necessarily  next  week  but  in  the  months 
ahead,  just  as  progress  was  made,  after  the 
Pilgrims  speech  last  year,  over  a  six-month 
period,  in  implementing  both  the  proposal 
for  an  agency  and  the  proposal  for  an  emer- 
gency sharing  program. 

And  we  believe,  since  there  is  really  no 
realistic  alternative  to  the  major  direction 
that  has  been  proposed,  that  over  a  period 
of  months  some  of  the  main  elements,  or 
many  of  the  main  elements,  of  the  proposal 
will  be  implemented. 

We  are  not  putting  it  forward  on  a  take- 
it-or-leave-it  basis.  Within  the  framework 
of  the  general  objectives,  we  are  quite  open- 
minded  as  to  counter  proposals.  But  we 
believe  this  is  the  direction  in  which  the 
consuming  nations  ought  to  go,  and  we  think 
this  is  the  direction  they  will  go. 


President  Ford's  News  Conference 
at  Sigma  Delta  Chi  Convention 

Following  are  excerpts  relating  to  foreign 
policy  from  the  tratiscript  of  a  question-and- 
answer  session  held  by  President  Ford  at  a 
convention  of  the  Society  of  Professional 
Journalists,  Sigma  Delta  Chi,  at  Phoenix, 
Ariz.,  on  November  IJt.^ 


Q.  Peggy  Roberson,  the  Birmingham 
Netvs,  Birmingham,  Alabama. 

Mr.  President,  recently  we  have  seen  hor- 
rifying pictures  of  starving  people  in  the 


world,  and  we  have  learned  that  energy  and 
food  are  unbreakably  linked.  Are  we  pre- 
pared to  use  food  as  a  weapon  to  force  down 
energy  prices  so  farmers  can  produce  low- 
cost  food  to  feed  these  people  ? 

President  Ford:  We  are  not  going  to  use 
food  as  a  weapon.  We  must  recognize,  how- 
ever, that  food  is  just  as  important  to  the 
world  as  oil  and  that  in  order  to  get  a  better 
distribution  of  oil  that  is  held  in  vast  re- 
serves by  other  nations  and  food  that  is 
produced  by  us  to  a  greater  extent  than  any 
other  nation  in  the  world,  we  must  get  to- 
gether and  cooperate  to  make  sure  that  that 
which  is  available  in  both  cases  is  spread 
throughout  the  world  for  the  benefit  of  all 
people. 

Dr.  Kissinger,  the  Secretary  of  State,  has 
put  together  the  group  of  oil-consuming  na- 
tions. We  expect  to  work  with  the  oil-produc- 
ing nations.  I  believe  that  there  can  be  an 
understanding  achieved  that  will  be  to  the 
mutual  benefit  of  the  producers  in  food  and 
oil  and  the  consumers  in  both. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  Norman  Kempster  of 
the  Washington  Star-News. 

You  have  spoken  of  the  danger  of  the 
Nation  being  without  a  Vice  President.  On 
Sunday  you  are  planning  a  trip  to  Japan 
where  some  violence  is  threatened.  What  do 
you  expect  to  achieve  on  this  trip  to  Japan 
that  can  make  it  worth  the  risk? 

President  Ford:  There  are  three  very  im- 
portant countries  that  I  am  visiting — and  I 
should  preface  that  with  a  comment  that  a 
President  has  two  major  responsibilities,  one 
in  the  field  of  domestic  policy  and  the  other 
in  the  field  of  foreign  policy. 

And  where  we  have  three  extremely  im- 
portant countries,  two  where  we  have  good 
relationships,  treaties,  where  we  are  allies — 
Japan  and  South  Korea — where  we  want  to 
strengthen  that  relationship,  and  the  third, 


'  For  the  complete  transcript  of  President  Ford's 
opening  remarks  and  questions  and  answers,  see 
Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated 
Nov.  18. 


788 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


the  Soviet  Union,  where  we  have  been  trying 
to  achieve  a  detente  and  broaden  it,  where 
we  are  going  to,  hopefully,  lay  a  broader 
foundation  for  SALT  Two — when  you  add 
up  the  pluses,  I  think  that  there  is  convinc- 
ing evidence  that  I,  as  President,  should  go 
to  Japan,  to  expand  our  good  relations  with 
Japan;  go  to  South  Korea,  a  staunch  and 
strong  ally,  and  to  work  out  some  differences, 
if  any,  and  to  broaden  our  relations  there; 
and  to  go  to  the  Soviet  Union  to,  hopefully, 
make  some  progress  in  detente,  in  the  reduc- 
tion of  arms.  I  think  it  is  a  very  worthwhile 
trip. 


Q.  Mr.  President,  Russ  Ward  of  NBC 
News. 

There  has  been  some  recent  talk  in  the 
Middle  East  about  a  possible  reimposition  of 
the  Arab  oil  embargo.  Do  you  have  con- 
tingency plans  for  dealing  with  such  a  move, 
and  might  those  plans  include  a  possible 
change  in  our  relations  over  there,  either 
with  Israel  or  the  PLO  [Palestine  Liberation 
Organization]  ? 

President  Ford:  Our  plans  are  aimed  at 
trying  to  get  the  Israelis  to  negotiate  a  settle- 
ment or  additional  settlements  with  the 
Egyptians  and  the  other  Arab  nations.  Those 
are  the  plans  we  have  which  are  affirmative 
and  plans  that  I  think,  if  we  continue  con- 
structively, can  bring  about  some  success. 

Until  we  have  failed,  and  I  don't  think  we 
will,  in  trying  to  get  the  parties  to  work  to- 
gether, I  don't  think  it  is  appropriate  to  dis- 
cuss what  we  will  do  if  we  don't  achieve 
success. 

Q.  Are  you  suggesting,  Mr.  President,  that 
Israel  should  deal  directly  with  the  PLO? 
It  has  been  the  Israeli  objection  all  along 
against  recognizing  the  PLO  as  a  bona  fide 
political  organization. 

President  Ford:  I  didn't  say  that.  I  did 
say  that  the  Israelis  should  negotiate  with 
the  Egyptian  and  other  Arab  parties.  The 
Israelis  have  said  they  will  never  negotiate 
with  the  PLO.    We  are  not  a  party  to  any 


negotiations.  I  think  we  have  to  let  the 
decision  as  to  who  will  negotiate  to  be  the 
responsibility  of  the  parties  involved. 

Q.  Gene  McLain,  KTAR  Television  and 
Radio,  Phoenix. 

Mr.  President,  you  are  approaching  your 
first  hundred  days  in  office.  How  do  you  size 
up  your  pluses  and  minuses,  your  major  dis- 
appointments and  successes? 

President  Ford:  I  think  the  best  things 
we  have  done — number  one,  nominating 
Nelson  Rockefeller ;  number  two,  the  con- 
ducting of  the  economic  summit  meetings,  I 
think  12  all  over  the  country,  with  two  in 
Washington,  and  the  formulation  of  a  good, 
sound  economic  plan  that  meets  the  problems 
of  a  weakening  economy  and  inflation. 

I  believe  that  we  have  laid  additional 
groundwork  for  success  in  the  Middle  East. 
We  have  redirected  some  of  our  policies  in 
the  subcontinent  areas.  We  have,  in  addition, 
enhanced  the  possibility  of  strategic  arms 
limitation  agreement  number  two,  which  I 
think  will  be  enhanced  by  the  meeting  I  am 
going  to  have  in  Vladivostok  in  about  12 
days,  hopefully  to  be  followed  by  a  meeting 
in  Washington  sometime  in  the  summer  of 
1975. 

Some  of  the  disappointments — we  had  a 
few  bad  breaks.  I  think  the  Congress  was 
dead  wrong  when  they  handicapped  myself 
and  Secretary  Kissinger  in  the  efforts  that  we 
could  make  in  the  settlement  of  the  Cyprus 
question  between  Greece  and  Turkey.  I  think 
that  was  a  terrible  disappointment,  and  some 
of  the  things  we  warned  about  might  hap- 
pen, and  it  won't  be  helpful  to  Greece.  That 
was  a  bad  break. 

Another  was  the  failure  on  the  part  of  the 
Congress  to  act  more  affirmatively  on  behalf 
of  the  nomination  of  Nelson  Rockefeller.  It 
should  have  been  done  before  the  campaign 
recess.  I  think  the  Congress  also  might  have 
moved  ahead  more  rapidly  in  some  of  the 
economic  suggestions. 

We  have  had  some  pluses,  and  we  have  had 
some  minuses,  but  I  believe  so  far  we  are 
a  little  ahead  of  the  game. 


December  9,   1974 


789 


Under  Secretary  Sisco  Discusses 
Middle  East  in  "Today"  Interview 

Following  is  the  transcript  of  an  inter- 
vieiv  with  Under  Secretary  for  Political  Af- 
fairs Joseph  J.  Sisco  by  Richard  Valeriani 
and  Barbara  Walters  on  the  NBC  "Today" 
show  on  November  20. 

Press  release  507  dated  November  20 

Mr.  Valeriani:  Mr.  Sisco,  you  said  on 
Monday  in  an  interview  to  be  published  out- 
side the  country  that  the  United  States  now 
regards  the  Palestine  Liberation  Organiza- 
tion (PLO)  as  the  umbrella  organization  for 
all  Palestinians.  Now,  that  seems  to  go  fur- 
ther than  you've  ever  gone  before. 

Mr.  Sisco:  Dick,  I  think  that  was  an  un- 
fortunate way  to  put  it.  Actually,  what  I  was 
trying  to  reflect  was  that  the  Arabs  consider 
the  PLO  as  the  umbrella  organization.  Now, 
let  me  make  very  clear  that  our  policy  is  as 
stated  by  the  President  and  the  Secretary 
of  State.  We've  accorded  no  recognition  of 
any  kind;  our  position  remains  unchanged. 

I  think  some  people  have  read  something 
into  that — I  was  really  trying  to  state  a  fact 
as  conceived  by  the  Arabs,  that  the  Arabs  do 
conceive  of  the  PLO  as  the  umbrella  organi- 
zation. 

Mr.  Valeriani:  You  seem  to  be  preparing 
the  groundwork  for  bringing  the  PLO  into 
the  negotiations. 

Mr.  Sisco:  No,  I  don't  think  that's  the 
case,  Dick.  Again,  I've  got  to  underscore  that 
our  position  remains  unchanged.  Let's  look, 
for  example,  at  the  General  Assembly  for 
the  moment.  We  had  a  major  speech  that 
was  made  by  [Yasir]  Arafat  quite  recently. 
I  found  no  openings  in  that  speech.  As  the 
Secretary  of  State  said  in  his  press  con- 
ference last  Friday,  he  hardly  saw  that  as  a 
moderate  approach.  There  was  no,  for  ex- 
ample, explicit  or  implicit  implication  of  giv- 
ing up  terrorism  as  a  matter  of  policy.  The 
proposal  for  a  secular  state  would  really  have 
the  effect  of  negating  the  existence  of  the 
State  of  Israel  as  we  know  it.    So  that,  I 


think,  in  terms  of  that  particular  speech,  I 
saw  no  opening. 

Mr.  Valeriani:  But  doesn't  the  decision  by 
the  Arab  summit  meeting  in  Rabat  to  alloiv 
the  PLO  to  negotiate  for  all  Palestinians  in 
effect  thron-  the  negotiating  process  into 
deadlock? 

Mr.  Sisco:  No,  I  don't  think  that  we're  at 
an  impasse  or  at  a  deadlock.  I'd  be  the  first 
to  admit  that  Rabat,  I  think,  has  been  com- 
plicating to  our  effort.  But,  Dick,  you  were 
on  this  recent  trip  with  the  Secretary  of 
State.  The  thing  that  struck  me  from  this 
recent  trip  was  that  both  sides  were  at  great 
pains  to  emphasize  that  the  doors  of  di- 
plomacy remained  open.  Note,  for  example, 
the  strong  endorsement  of  the  continuation 
of  the  Secretary's  mission  that  came  out  of 
Cairo — likewise,  in  Saudi  Arabia  and  else- 
where. 

I  think  the  doors  remain  open,  and  I  think 
that  what  we  can  expect  over  the  coming 
weeks  is  a  period  of  quiet  diplomacy,  largely 
within  the  confines  of  diplomatic  channels; 
but  our  efforts  are  going  to  continue,  and 
they're  going  to  continue  primarily  because 
both  sides  want  our  efforts  to  continue. 

Miss  Walters:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Sisco — 
perhaps  on  your  icay  to  our  studio — in  our 
last  hour  ive  had  the  chief  spokesman  for 
the  PLO  delegation  to  the  United  Nations  in 
this  country,  u'ho  said  that  the  Palestinian 
attacks  would  continue  until  the  Israelis  ne- 
gotiated with  the  PLO.  I'd  like  to  ask  two 
questions.  First  of  all,  up  until  recently  there 
had  been  the  feeling  as  expressed  by  Presi- 
dent Sadat  of  Egypt  that  the  Arabs  were 
beginning  to  recognize  Israel  as  a  sovereign 
Jeivish  state  and  would  negotiate  on  those 
terms.  Then  with  the  recognition  by  the 
United  Nations  of  the  PLO,  which  says  they 
want  a  secular  state,  one  isn't  too  sure  what 
the  prevailing  Arab  point  of  vieiv  is  and 
whether  President  Sadat's  statements  in  the 
past  did  recognize  Israel's  existence  now  and 
in  the  future.  Can  you  give  us  an  idea  of 
what  the  prevailing  Arab  viewpoint  is  now? 

Mr.  Sisco:  Yes,  I  think  I  can,  Barbara.  I 


I 


790 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


think  it's  important  to  remember  that  the 
principal  Arab  states  that  are  involved  in 
this  matter  have  all  in  the  past,  and  they 
have  not  changed  their  position  in  this  re- 
gard, supported  Resolution  242 — the  Novem- 
ber 1967  Security  Council  resolution — and  a 
subsequent  resolution  that  calls  for  negotia- 
tions. I  have  detected,  Barbara,  no  change 
in  that  attitude,  and  those  two  resolutions 
are  based  on  the  assumption  of  coexistence 
between  Arab  states  and  an  Israeli  state. 

Miss  Walters:  May  I  ask  the  second  ques- 
tion then.  Over  the  weekend  when  there  ivas 
a  scare  of  a  possible  war,  the  threat  of  a  pos- 
sible war,  a  very  imminent  war  between 
Syria  and  Israel,  Secretary  Kissinger  talked 
with  the  Israeli  Ambassador,  talked  with 
Arab  leaders,  he  also  talked  ivith  the  Soviet 
Union  and  received  some  kind  of  assurance 
that  put  a  damper  on  the  fears  of  the  war. 
Can  you  give  us  any  idea  of  what  that  con- 
versation with  the  Soviet  leaders  involved? 

Mr.  Sisco:  Obviously,  Barbara,  I  can't  go 
into  the  details  and  you're  right,  the  Secre- 
tary did  undertake  all  of  these  discussions. 
The  only  thing  I  would  say  about  Soviet 
policy,  which  indirectly  really  gets  at  what 
you've  asked,  is  that  I  believe  there  is  a 
mutual  recognition,  both  in  Moscow  and  in 
Washington,  that  there  is  a  mutual  interest 
that  the  Middle  East  not  break  out  into  an- 
other war.  I  think  this  is  important — that 
both  of  the  major  powers  recognize  the 
danger  of  the  situation. 

You  know,  you  look  at  the  Middle  East; 
not  only  do  you  have  the  differences  between 
the  Arabs  and  the  Israelis,  you  have  intra- 
Arab  relationships  that  are  important,  then 
you've  got  superimposed  the  whole  major- 
power  complex — the  interest  of  the  major 
powers — and  now  on  top  of  all  of  these,  you 
have  this  very  delicate  relationship  between 
producer  and  consumer.  This  is  why  I've 
often  said  that  the  Middle  East  today  is  the 
most  complicated  situation  in  the  world.  I 
fear  and  I'm  concerned  about  this. 

I  would  hope  that — I  thought  that  terror- 
ism would  be  at  an  end.  I  find  these  terrorist 
acts  deplorable;  the  State  Department  issued 


a  statement  yesterday  condemning  this  latest 
terrorist  attack.'  And  these  terrorist  attacks 
have  to  be  understood,  I  think,  Barbara,  as 
antipeace  actions  rather  than  actions  that 
help  negotiations  or  help  make  practical 
progress. 

Mr.  Valeriani:  In  that  connection,  Mr. 
Sisco,  earlier  in  the  year  there  seemed  to  be 
a  momentrim  toward  peace  in  the  Middle 
East.  Now  it  seems  to  have  shifted;  there 
seems  to  be  a  momentum  toward  war  as 
exemplified  by  the  events  of  last  weekend. 
How  close  is  it? 

Mr.  Sisco:  Well,  I'm  not  so  sure  that  one 
can  describe  the  present  situation  as  a  mo- 
mentum toward  war.  Certainly  there's  been 
an  increase  in  tension,  but  as  long  as  the  op- 
portunities for  diplomacy  remain,  as  long  as 
the  people  in  the  area  feel  that  there  is  such 
an  opportunity,  then  I  think  we've  got  a 
chance  of  more  practical  progress;  and  in 
this  regard,  I  think  the  United  States  con- 
tinues to  remain  key. 

Mr.  Valeriani:  Well,  yoti'll  have  a  very 
quick  opportunity  to  test  that  when  the  man- 
date for  the  U.N.  Force  on  the  Golan  Heights 
comes  up  for  reneival.  Are  the  Syrians  going 
to  agree  to  a  renewal? 

Mr.  Sisco:  Well,  the  mandate  for  the  U.N. 
Force  on  the  Syrian  front,  as  you  say,  comes 
up  at  the  end  of  the  month.  The  U.N.  Force 
both  on  the  Egyptian  front  as  well  as  the 
Syrian  front,  in  my  judgment,  is  a  major 
element  of  stability.  Both  sides  have  agreed 
to  the  positioning  of  this  force,  and  I  think 
it's  all-important  that  there  be  an  extension 
because  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  disen- 
gagement agreement  itself.  And  I  think  we'll 
have  to  wait  and  see.  My  hope  is  that  both 
sides  will  see  the  advantage  of  maintaining 
every  element  of  the  disengagement  agree- 
ment— particularly  in  this  very  delicate  and 


'  The  following  statement  was  issued  by  the  De- 
partment's press  spokesman  on  Nov.  19: 

"Once  again  we  have  witnessed  the  tragic  specta- 
cle of  a  terrorist  attack  on  innocent  civilians  (this, 
in  reference  to  the  attack  on  Beith  Shean).  We  want 
to  express  our  shock  over  these  senseless  murders." 


December  9,    1974 


791 


tense  period  of  time — and  that  the  United 
Nations  really  serves  the  interest  of  both 
sides  in  these  circumstances  and  is  in  the 
mutual  interest  of  both  sides. 

M?:  Valeriani:  Do  you  expect  it  to  be  re- 
newed ? 

Mr.  Sisco:  I'm  saying  that  this  matter  ob- 
viously— no  one  can  predict  with  any  kind 
of  certainly — I'm  saying  that  it's  important 
that  it  be  renewed,  and  we're  certainly  going 
to  work  to  this  end. 

Mr.  Valeriani:  You've  emphasized  over 
and  over  again,  Mr.  Sisco,  about  the  key 
role  of  the  Uyiited  States.  How  much  pres- 
sure do  yo2i  feel  because  of  the  Ambs'  oil 
weapon? 

Mr.  Sisco:  Well,  Dick,  let  me  say  very 
frankly— the  Middle  East  today  has  gotten 
much  more  complicated  than  it  has  been 
over  the  years.  The  United  States,  after  all, 
has  very  significant  overall  political,  eco- 
nomic, strategic,  and  financial  interests  in 
the  area.  I  think  I'd  be  less  than  candid  if  I 
didn't  say  that  oil  was  a  factor  in  the  situa- 
tion, of  course ;  it's  an  important  source  for 
oil.  The  whole  monetary  picture  is  of  sig- 
nificance. 

But  in  this  connection,  I  think  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  has  charted  the  way  very,  very 
clearly  in  his  speech  that  he  gave  recently — 
at  my  old  alma  mater,  by  the  way — at  the 
University  of  Chicago.  I  think  he  under- 
scored really  two  things:  One,  we  in  this 
country  must  go  ahead  and  take  every  meas- 
ure to  become  as  independent  as  possible 
from  outside  sources.  In  other  words,  to  do 
everything  possible  to  make  Project  Inde- 
pendence a  reality.  And  secondly,  alongside 
that,  it's  of  major  importance  that  we  take 
the  lead  as  we  are  in  helping  to  organize  the 
consumer  nations  so  that  they  also,  together 
with  us,  take  the  kind  of  parallel  steps  which 
will  reduce  the  reliance  on  the  outside.  The 
Secretary  feels,  and  I  must  say  I  feel  equally 
strongly,  that  unless  the  consumers  can  or- 
ganize themselves  in  this  way  then  there  will 
be  difficulties  and  we  will  be  subject  to  pres- 
sure. 


Mr.  Valeriani:  But  that's  long  range,  Mr. 
Sisco.  What  do  you  do  now  in  the  short  term 
under  these  pressures? 

Mr.  Sisco:  I  think  that  we  do  everything 
that  we  can  in  the  short  range;  we  do  what 
we  can  in  terms  of  stabilizing  the  monetary 
situation,  and  I  think  we  move  as  rapidly  as 
we  can.  As  you  know,  we  have  no  interest  in 
linking  this  whole  matter  with  our  own  ef- 
forts toward  a  political  solution.  But  as  far 
as  we're  concerned,  we  would  be  going  ahead 
trying  to  make  practical  progress  on  a  po- 
litical solution  whether  this  other  factor  was 
there  or  not. 

Mr.  Valeriani:  Thank  you  very  much. 


President  Ford  Reports  on  NATO's 
Effect  on   Balance  of  Payments 

Message  to  the  Congress  ' 

To  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

In  accordance  with  Section  812(d)  of  the 
Department  of  Defense  Appropriation  Au- 
thorization Act,  1974  (Public  Law  93-155), 
I  am  pleased  to  submit  a  report  to  the  Con- 
gress on  our  further  progress  toward  offset- 
ting the  balance  of  payments  deficit  resulting 
from  the  deployment  of  U.S.  forces  in  NATO 
Europe. 

I  am  now  able  to  provide  you  with  figures 
for  U.S.  expenditures  in  NATO  Europe  dur- 
ing fiscal  year  1974.  These  figures  were  com- 
piled by  the  Department  of  Commerce  in 
consultation  with  the  Department  of  Defense 
and  the  General  Accounting  Oflfice.  They  in- 
dicate that  in  FY  74  the  expenditures  re- 
sulting from  the  deployment  of  U.S.  forces 
in  fulfillment  of  our  NATO  commitments 
and  obligations  amounted  to  $1,983  million 
(including  preliminary  fourth  quarter  data 
subject  to  revision).  Attached  to  this  report 
is  an  appendix  showing  how  this  figure  was 
derived  and  what  adjustments  were  made  to 


'Dated    Nov.    17;    transmitted    on    Nov.    18    (text 
from  White  House  press  release). 


792 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


conform  our  normal  expenditure  data  to  the 
letter  and  intent  of  Section  812.  Minor 
changes  in  this  data  may  occur  as  final  quar- 
ter fiscal  year  1974  figures  are  confirmed 
during  the  next  few  weeks. 

As  President  Nixon  reported  to  the  Con- 
gress on  May  16,  1974,  the  offset  agreement 
concluded  in  April  1974  with  the  Federal  Re- 
public of  Germany  had  a  dollar  value  of  ap- 
proximately $2.22  billion  over  fiscal  years 
1974  and  1975.  Of  that  amount,  the  fiscal 
year  1974  portion,  approximating  $1.1  bil- 
lion, will  be  directly  applicable  toward  meet- 
ing the  requirements  of  Section  812,  leaving 
approximately  $883  million  to  be  offset  by 
our  other  European  NATO  allies. 

As  I  noted  in  my  report  of  August  20, 
1974,  the  NATO  Economic  Directorate,  at 
the  direction  of  the  North  Atlantic  Council, 
has  established  a  mechanism  for  identifying 
allied  purchases  of  military-related  items 
from  the  United  States.  This  was  an  essen- 
tial step  to  enable  us  to  comply  with  the  re- 
quirements of  Section  812.  Representatives 
of  the  Economic  Directorate  consulted  in 
Washington  on  October  21-22  with  the  De- 
partments of  State,  Commerce  and  Defense 
and  reported  that  approximately  $1,050  mil- 
lion in  purchases  by  allies  other  than  the 
Federal  Republic  of  Germany  have  been 
identified. 

The  Departments  of  Commerce  and  De- 
fense have  sought  to  confirm  this  figure  by 
examining  the  U.S.  balance  of  payments  ac- 
counts and  records  in  an  effort  to  identify 
balance  of  payments  receipts  reflecting  mili- 
tary-related sales  and  exports  to  our  Euro- 
pean NATO  allies,  on  both  a  government-to- 
government  and  commercial  category  basis. 
However,  this  data  is  still  incomplete  and  the 
U.S.  accounting  system  in  many  cases  is  too 
aggregated   to   identify   all   of  the   specific 


purchases'  and  payments  made  by  the  Euro- 
pean members  of  NATO.  For  this  reason  our 
calculation  of  the  final  offset  total  will  take 
into  account  the  information  being  provided 
through  the  NATO  Economic  Directorate  by 
our  European  NATO  allies.  On  the  basis  of 
the  foregoing,  I  continue  to  expect  that  the 
requirements  of  Section  812  will  be  met. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  November  17,  I97i. 

APPENDIX 

A.  U.S.  Defense  Expenditures  Entering  the  Inter- 
national Balance  of  Payments  in  NATO  Europe 
During  Fiscal  Year  1974,  (in  millions  of  dollars): 

Personal  expenditures  by  US  Military  and  Ci- 
vilian Personnel  and  their  Dependents  ....  815 
Payments  to  Foreign  Nationals  for  direct  and 

contract   hire 561 

Major  Equipment  purchased  in  NATO  Europe  81 

Construction 75 

NATO  Infrastructure  System  Payments  ....  76 
Petroleum  Products  (includes  cost  of  crude  oil 

imported   into  Europe) 1.37 

Materials  and  Supplies 148 

Payments  to  US   and   foreign  contractors  for 

contractual  services 444 

All  Other  Payments    (net) 66 

Total  for  Fiscal  Year  1974  (preliminary)  2,403 

B.  Deductions  Made  Pursuant  to  Section  812  for 
Expenditures  not  Resulting  From  the  Deployment  of 
US  Forces  in  Fulfillment  of  our  NATO  Commit- 
ments and  Obligations  (in  millions  of  dollars): 

Expenditures  for  US  activities  not  related  to 
NATO  such  as  US  strategic  forces  in  NATO 
countries      279 

Major  equipment  purchased  in  NATO  Europe 
and  imported  into  the  US  and  unrelated  to 
US  troop  deployments  in  Europe 81 

Expenditures  in  NATO  Europe  for  the  afloat 
operations  of  the  Sixth  Fleet  for  US  stra- 
tegic purposes 60 

Total  for  Fiscal  Year  1974  (preliminary)      420 

C.  Expenditures  Less  Deductions 1,983 


December  9,    1974 


793 


Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Simon  Discusses  Energy  Proposals 


Following  is  an  address  by  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  William  E.  Simon  made  at  Netv 
York,  N.Y.,  on  November  18  before  the  61st 
National  Foreign  Trade  Convention,  spon- 
sored by  the  National  Foreign  Trade  Coun- 
cil, Inc. 

Department  of  the  Treasury  press  release  dated  November  18 

We  meet  today  in  serious  times — times 
that  demand  plain  speaking — and  I  intend  to 
speak  plainly  and  bluntly. 

As  all  of  you  know,  the  policies  of  the  oil 
cartel  now  pose  a  fundamental  challenge  to 
the  economic  and  political  structure  which 
has  served  the  international  community  for 
a  quarter  of  a  century.  Some  believe  the 
world  confronts  the  greatest  economic  crisis 
since  the  early  postwar  years.  Yet,  as  Presi- 
dent Eisenhower  once  observed,  a  crisis  need 
not  stampede  men  into  headlong  panic: 

A  crisis  (he  said)  is  also  the  sharpest  goad  to  the 
creative  energies  of  men,  particularly  when  they  rec- 
ognize it  as  a  challenge  to  their  every  resource,  and 
move  to  meet  it  in  faith,  in  thought,  and  in  courage. 

That  was  a  lesson  the  leaders  of  the  early 
postwar  years  had  already  learned,  and  they 
applied  it  well.  Their  vision  and  their  work 
laid  the  foundations  for  a  period  of  unprece- 
dented growth  and  progress,  not  only  among 
the  industrialized  nations  but  among  the 
newly  developing  nations  as  well. 

Today,  the  vision  and  creative  energies 
and,  indeed,  the  principles  of  those  earlier 
years  are  needed  once  again.  With  consum- 
ers, we  must  seek  a  new  unity  of  purpose 
and  strength  of  common  effort.  With  pro- 
ducers, we  must  seek  to  resolve  our  differ- 
ences through  mutual  understanding  and  co- 
operation. And  with  developing  nations,  we 
must  continue  to  provide  help  and  assistance 
so  that  they  may  fulfill  their  dreams  of  ad- 


vancement. This  is  the  basis  upon  which  the 
United  States  is  moving  forward  today  in 
both  its  trade  and  energy  policies. 

With  trade  deficits  mounting  in  almost 
every  nation  outside  the  oil  producing  and 
exporting  countries  bloc,  governments  in 
many  countries  are  increasingly  tempted  to 
restrict  trade  in  the  name  of  shortage,  sur- 
plus, inflation,  or  unemployment.  As  we  have 
learned  once  before  in  this  century,  however, 
beggar-thy-neighbor  policies  by  one  party 
are  ultimately  destructive  for  all.  This  is  not 
a  time  for  unconstrained  bilateralism,  for 
monopolistic  restriction  on  supply,  or  for 
other  administrative  arrangements  which 
distort  normal  patterns  of  trade  and  invest- 
ment. The  solutions  to  the  problems  of  an  in- 
terdependent world  lie  in  more  interdepend- 
ence, not  less.  An  expanding  world  economy 
with  reasonably  stable  prices  is  essential  to 
the  political,  social,  and  economic  interests 
of  all  nations.  This  can  only  be  achieved  if 
conditions  are  established  which  permit  for- 
eign trade  and  investment  to  play  their  his- 
torical role  as  engines  of  economic  progress. 

Negotiations  on  trade  and  trade  relations 
were  never  more  appropriate  or  timely.  In 
this  regard,  we  place  great  importance  upon 
enactment  of  the  trade  reform  bill  before 
the  end  of  this  year.  A  clean  act,  unencum- 
bered by  extraneous  amendments,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  urgent  priority  to  the  President.  Only 
with  this  legislative  mandate  can  our  nego- 
tiators be  effective  in  seeking  an  open  and 
flexible  world  trading  system,  and  only  with 
the  full  participation  of  the  United  States 
can  we  solve  common  economic  problems. 

Previous  international  trade  negotiations 
have  focused  on  the  problem  of  opening  na- 
tional markets  to  the  exports  of  other  coun- 
tries. It  is  essential  that  the  multilateral 
trade  negotiations  in  Tokyo  now  turn  to  the 


794 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


other  side  of  the  question — finding  means  to 
insure  international  access  to  food  and  raw 
material  supplies. 

This  problem  of  gaining  access  to  supplies 
has  been  pointedly  raised,  of  course,  by  ac- 
tions of  the  oil-exporting  nations  belonging 
to  the  OPEC  [Organization  of  Petroleum 
Exporting  Countries]  bloc — first  by  the  em- 
bargo last  fall,  then  by  a  quadrupling  of 
prices,  and  finally  by  their  production  cut- 
backs designed  to  maintain  prices. 

Before  the  price  increase  in  October  of  last 
year,  the  average  payment  to  producing 
countries  for  a  barrel  of  oil — using  Saudi 
Arabian  light  crude  as  a  benchmark — was 
less  than  $2;  today  it  is  approximately  $10. 
Payments  to  OPEC  nations  for  oil,  amount- 
ing to  $22  billion  in  1973,  are  expected  to  ex- 
ceed $85  billion  this  year  and  as  of  this  fall 
are  running  at  an  annual  rate  of  about  $100 
billion.  This  year  alone  the  OPEC  nations 
will  have  $60  billion  in  earnings  which  they 
do  not  spend  on  imports  of  goods  and  serv- 
ices. A  receipt  for  the  OPEC  group  is  obvi- 
ously a  payment  for  the  oil  importers,  and  a 
surplus  for  OPEC  is  a  deficit  for  the  rest  of 
the  world.  Only  by  piling  up  debt  to  the 
OPEC  nations  can  the  importers,  as  a  group, 
pay  for  the  oil. 

The  costs  imposed  on  the  world  economy 
by  exorbitant  oil  prices  are  both  severe  and 
extensive.  They  make  our  battle  against  in- 
flation more  difficult  and  the  inflation  itself 
more  virulent.  As  the  world  shifts  resources 
to  adapt  to  a  new  energy  balance,  there  will 
also  be  serious  frictions  and  unavoidable 
costs  of  structural  adjustment.  Reluctance  to 
borrow  year  after  year  to  finance  oil  pur- 
chases will  cause  nations  to  maintain  lower 
levels  of  economic  activity,  and  there  will  be 
slower  economic  growth.  There  is  a  clear 
danger  that  some  countries  might  take  in- 
appropriate or  disruptive  actions,  with  the 
risk  of  retaliation  and  resort  to  competitive 
restrictions. 

At  some  time,  furthermore,  real  resources 
will  have  to  be  transferred  to  OPEC  coun- 
tries to  pay  for  accumulated  debt.  The  direct 
impact  will  not  be  equal  for  all  countries — 
but  directly  or  indirectly,  all  countries  will 


find  their  hopes  for  prosperity  dimmed.  I 
can  think  of  no  single  change  that  would 
more  improve  the  outlook  for  the  world 
economy  than  a  substantial  decrease  in  the 
price  of  oil.  And  I  can  conceive  of  no  devel- 
opment more  essential  to  the  preservation  of 
our  international  trading  system. 

Why  Oil  Prices  Must  Eventually  Fall 

The  producing  nations  are  aware  that  oil 
is  not  immune  to  the  forces  of  supply  and 
demand.  The  sharp  jump  in  prices  has  al- 
ready resulted  in  reduced  oil  consumption 
around  the  world,  and  as  the  passage  of  time 
permits  further  adjustments,  such  reduc- 
tions will  be  far  greater.  In  the  oil-import- 
ing countries  of  the  non-Communist  world, 
consumption  is  projected  to  decline  from  the 
1973  level  of  48  million  barrels  per  day  to 
about  461,4  million  barrels  per  day  this  year. 
When  it  became  evident  that  consumption 
was  declining,  a  number  of  OPEC  countries 
cut  their  output,  not  their  price.  Prior  to  the 
embargo  last  year,  OPEC  spare  capacity  was 
on  the  order  of  li/^  million  barrels  per  day. 
Now  they  have  unutilized  capacity  of  nearly 
8  million  barrels  a  day.  Even  during  their 
oil  embargo,  excess  capacity  did  not  reach 
this  level.  Inevitably,  if  that  excess  capacity 
grows,  there  will  be  increasing  pressures  for 
lower  prices. 

In  the  face  of  high  prices,  consumers  are 
also  accelerating  development  of  their  own 
sources  of  energy  which,  in  time,  will  cost 
them  significantly  less  than  the  current  price 
of  OPEC  oil.  If  the  OPEC  nations  persist  in 
cutting  back  output  in  order  to  maintain 
price,  they  will  find  that  both  their  market 
and  their  income  have  been  drastically 
eroded.  To  me,  the  question  is  not  whether 
oil  prices  will  fall,  but  when  they  will  fall. 

I  know  there  are  energy  doomsayers  in 
the  world  who  believe  that  the  world  is  about 
to  run  out  of  oil.  Those  people  are  dead 
wrong.  First  of  all,  many  experts  believe 
that  in  the  Middle  East  itself,  proven  re- 
serves of  nearly  400  billion  barrels  of  oil  are 
matched  by  additional  reserves  at  least  equal 
in  amount.  Nor  are  the  world's  energy  con- 


December  9,  1974 


795 


sumers  locked  in  an  OPEC  vise.  The  world's 
oil  and  energy  resources  outside  the  OPEC 
nations  are  even  larger  than  inside. 

Here  in  the  United  States,  our  oil  produc- 
tion potential  is  enormous,  from  new  sources 
off  our  shores  and  in  the  Arctic  and  from 
older  sources  through  improved  and  more  in- 
tensive methods  of  recovery.  And  other  tra- 
ditional energy  sources — natural  gas,  coal, 
and  nuclear  power — will  become  increas- 
ingly important  as  market  incentives  move 
our  potential  into  production.  Waiting  in  the 
wings,  new  sources  of  energy  will  be  brought 
forth  by  technological  progress  and  economic 
incentives — the  same  process  by  which  our 
energy  resources  have  always  been  devel- 
oped. 

Realistically,  some  potential  sources  of  en- 
ergy will  require  passage  of  time  before  they 
result  in  substantial  production.  But  the  oil 
market  itself  is  already  in  the  process  of  be- 
ing transformed.  In  the  past  year  alone,  26 
significant  new  oil  discoveries  have  been  re- 
ported. At  least  30  billion  barrels  of  oil  have 
been  added  to  proven  reserves  outside  the 
OPEC  countries — an  increase  of  25  percent. 
Proven  North  Sea  reserves  have  doubled 
since  last  fall ;  Mexico  has  discovered  enor- 
mous new  fields ;  even  China  has  announced 
finds  that  allow  it  to  become  a  significant  oil 
exporter.  Oil  has  also  been  found  in  commer- 
cial quantities  in  Guatemala,  the  Peru-Ama- 
zon Basin,  the  Tierra  del  Fuego  region  of 
Chile  and  Argentina,  Gabon,  Zaire,  Cabinda, 
Angola,  Tunisia,  India,  Bangladesh,  Burma, 
Malaysia,  Brunei,  Thailand,  South  Viet- 
Nam,  Taiwan,  and  Egypt.  And  all  these  dis- 
coveries have  taken  place  in  just  one  year. 

Altogether  these  finds  outside  OPEC  have 
an  estimated  production  potential  of  13  mil- 
lion barrels  per  day  by  1980,  all  of  which  re- 
duce OPEC's  potential  market.  And  this 
doesn't  even  include  the  oil  which  will  be 
flowing  from  Alaska  and  our  outer  continen- 
tal shelf. 

We  do  have  an  energy  crisis,  but  it's 
clearly  solvable.  The  OPEC  nations,  by  strin- 
gently limiting  the  rate  at  which  their  oil  is 
flowing,  are  inevitably  creating  the  condi- 
tions under  which  floods  of  energy  from 
other    sources    will     be    forthcoming — and 


forthcoming  at  prices  well  below  current 
levels. 

There  is  no  justification  today  for  the 
present  price  of  oil.  It  bears  no  relationship 
to  the  costs  of  production.  The  contention  by 
some  OPEC  members  that  the  increase  was 
required  in  order  to  keep  pace  with  the  rise 
in  price  of  other  commodities  is  just  not 
true.  A  barrel  of  oil  today  buys  in  imports 
some  five  times  what  it  did  two  decades  ago 
and  four  times  what  it  bought  as  recently  as 
last  September. 

Let  us  also  be  clear  that  we  are  not  faced 
with  a  case  of  producing  companies  rigging 
the  markets.  Profits  of  the  oil  companies 
have  increased,  but  this  is  largely  a  shortrun 
phenomenon  resulting  from  revaluation  of 
inventories,  profits  in  collateral  activities 
such  as  chemicals  and  transportation,  and 
other  factors.  Certainly  the  oil  companies 
would  not  conspire  to  escalate  the  revenues 
of  the  OPEC  countries  so  that  the  host  coun- 
tries would  then  take  over  their  industry. 
Oil  is  now  overpriced  for  one  reason  and  one 
reason  only:  because  a  small  group  of  coun- 
tries have  joined  together  to  manipulate  the 
price. 

Securing  Cooperation  Among  Consumer  Nations 

It  has  been  our  hope  that  these  nations 
would  recognize  that  their  policies  are  in 
neither  their  own  interests  nor  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  world.  Their  hopes  as  well  as  ours 
lie  in  the  resumption  of  international  trade 
on  reasonable  terms.  Until  now,  however, 
our  arguments  have  fallen  on  seemingly 
deaf  ears.  The  United  States  has  long  recog- 
nized that  logic  and  moderation  might  not 
prevail,  and  for  that  reason,  over  the  past 
year  and  a  half,  we  have  been  quietly  but 
firmly  laying  the  groundwork  for  a  more 
effective  response  to  this  challenge  by  the 
major  consumer  nations. 

A  central  thrust  of  our  policy  has  been 
to  achieve  greater  cooperation  among  con- 
sumer nations.  In  pursuit  of  that  goal,  lit- 
erally hundreds  of  hours  have  been  devoted 
to  private  and  public  diplomacy  by  the  high- 
est ranking  officials  of  our  government.  Our 
record  is  clear: 


796 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


—In  April  of  1973,  President  Nixon 
warned  that  energy  was  becoming  a  major 
problem  and  that  close  cooperation  was  need- 
ed between  the  United  States,  Western 
Europe,  and  Japan. 

— In  February  of  1974,  at  our  invitation, 
a  dozen  major  consuming  nations  gathered 
here  for  the  Washington  Energy  Conference. 
I  submitted  a  detailed  paper  at  that  time  on 
the  financial  and  economic  aspects  of  inter- 
national oil  prices  and  on  the  need  for  con- 
servation and  expanded  production.  At  that 
conference,  the  international  Energy  Coordi- 
nating Group  was  established,  providing 
essential  machinery  for  consultation  and  ne- 
gotiations among  consuming  nations. 

— After  extended  discussions  by  members 
of  that  Coordinating  Group,  an  agreement 
was  reached  in  Brussels  this  September  for 
an  unprecedented  plan  to  share  energy  re- 
sources among  consumer  nations  during 
times  of  emergency.  The  Brussels  agreement 
represents  a  major  breakthrough,  for  it  will 
provide  mutual  protection  in  time  of  need, 
and  it  was  reached  after  previous  attempts 
had  failed.  The  Brussels  meeting  also  pro- 
duced guidelines  for  cooperative  longrun 
efforts  in  energy  conservation,  production, 
and  research  and  development  and  led  to 
the  formation  of  a  new  organization  asso- 
ciated with  the  OECD  [Organization  for 
Economic  Cooperation  and  Development]  to 
carry  out  this  program,  the  International 
Energy  Agency  (lEA).  The  Governing 
Board  of  this  new  Agency  is  holding  its  first 
meeting  today. 

These  are  all  solid  achievements,  but  now 
we  must  go  further. 


The  New  Proposals  by  the  United  States 

In  many  meetings  with  senior  officials  of 
other  nations  over  the  course  of  the  past  10 
months.  Secretary  Kissinger  and  I  and  our 
senior  deputies  have  discussed  our  views  of 
the  current  world  economic  situation  and 
listened  to  theirs.  We  have  continually 
stressed  that  energy,  economic,  and  financial 
problems  cannot  be  separated  and  that  new 
initiatives   in   one   area  must  be   linked   to 


new  initiatives  in  the  other  areas.  In  the 
past  several  weeks,  we  have  presented  a  com- 
prehensive set  of  proposals  in  private  talks 
with  a  limited  number  of  major  industrial 
countries,  and  the  discussions  that  followed 
have  been  very  intensive  and  constructive. 

Recently,  feeling  that  the  agreements 
reached  in  Brussels  gave  us  solid  foundations 
upon  which  to  build.  President  Ford  directed 
that  the  United  States  should  finally  make  a 
public  presentation  of  its  proposals.  That 
was  the  basis  of  Dr.  Kissinger's  speech  in 
Chicago  last  Thursday  night,  when  he  out- 
lined the  global  aspects  of  our  position,  and 
my  talk  here  today,  in  which  I  will  present 
the  financial  aspects  of  our  proposals  in 
greater  detail. 

The  essence  of  the  U.S.  position  can  be 
succinctly  described: 

— The  price  of  oil  itself,  not  its  financial 
repercussions,  is  the  real  source  of  trouble 
in  the  world  economy. 

— To  help  bring  about  lower  oil  prices 
and  to  reduce  the  economic  burden  of  oil  im- 
ports, major  consuming  nations  should  work 
together  to  achieve  significant  reductions  in 
their  imports  of  OPEC  oil. 

— They  should  also  coordinate  policies  and 
pool  their  technical  resources  to  increase  en- 
ergy production  within  their  own  nations. 

— IMF  [International  Monetary  Fund]  re- 
sources should  be  more  fully  mobilized  for 
all  its  member  nations. 

— A  major  new  financial  mechanism 
should  be  set  up  in  association  with  the 
OECD  to  provide  standby  financial  support 
in  case  any  of  the  participating  countries 
find  themselves  in  economic  trouble  after 
having  made  reasonable  efforts  on  their  own 
part. 

— Consideration  should  also  be  given  to 
setting  up  a  special  trust  fund  managed  by 
the  IMF  to  help  developing  nations  that  are 
suffering  the  most  and  require  financing  on 
concessional  terms. 

— Finally,  serious  preparations  should  be 
made  for  an  eventual  dialogue  between  a 
consumer  group  and  the  producer  nations. 

Our  ideas  call  for  a  forthright,  earnest 
effort  by  the  world's  major  industrial  coun- 


December  9,   1974 


797 


tries  to  resolve  the  international  energy 
crisis.  To  implement  such  a  far-reaching 
initiative  will  require  further  weeks  of  di- 
plomacy with  our  allies  and  friends.  We  will 
need  the  cooperation  of  the  Congress.  And 
we  will  need  your  support  and  the  support  of 
all  other  Americans. 

Reducing  Oil  Imports 

Let  us  look  more  closely  now  at  these 
proposals.  All  major  oil-consuming  countries 
have  adopted  national  programs  of  energy 
conservation  to  reduce  oil  imports.  President 
Ford  has  announced  a  U.S.  program  to  re- 
duce oil  imports  by  1  million  barrels  a  day 
below  what  they  otherwise  would  have  been 
by  the  end  of  1975.  The  President  has  made 
it  clear  that  we  will  meet  this  target  and  that 
whatever  steps  are  necessary  will  be  taken. 
The  French  Government  announced  some 
weeks  ago  that  it  would  take  actions  to  limit 
1975  oil  imports  in  France  to  a  quantity  cost- 
ing no  more  than  imports  in  1974.  Just  last 
week,  the  British  Government  announced 
new  taxes  on  gasoline  in  order  to  reduce  oil 
imports.  Other  governments  have  adopted 
targets,  goals,  and  policies  differing  accord- 
ing to  national  circumstances  but  all  directed 
toward  reducing  oil  imports. 

These  first  steps  toward  conservation  could 
be  strengthened  if  the  major  industrial  na- 
tions as  a  group  were  to  place  on  the  table 
their  proposed  conservation  programs  and 
their  proposed  programs  for  expanding  en- 
ergy production  so  that  both  could  be  inter- 
nationally reviewed  and  discussed  to  deter- 
mine their  overall  adequacy  and  the  equity 
with  which  the  effort  is  being  shared  among 
nations. 

We  believe  that  effective  national  programs 
of  conservation  could  achieve  a  reduction  in 
imports  of  the  major  industrial  countries  of 
the  world  by  the  end  of  1975  of  at  least  3  mil- 
lion barrels  a  day — without  unduly  dampen- 
ing economic  activity  and  performance.  Such 
a  reduction  in  imports,  were  it  to  be  agreed 
upon  and  implemented,  would  result  in  im- 
port savings  at  an  annual  rate  of  some  $11 
billion  at  present  price  levels  and  would  pro- 
vide sti'ong  marketplace  pressures  to  bring 


down  the  price  of  oil.  The  impact  of  the  ef- 
forts of  each  of  us  can  be  multiplied  many 
times  by  the  efforts  of  all  of  us. 

I  would  be  less  than  candid  if  I  were  to 
leave  the  impression  that  achieving  this  goal 
will  be  easy.  But  I  would  be  less  than  honest 
if  I  were  to  pretend  that  what  is  easy  will  be 
effective. 

Immediate  efforts  to  reduce  oil  imports  are 
essential.  But  equally  essential  are  the  efforts 
needed  to  promote  energy  conservation  and 
production  in  the  longer  run. 

Fortunately,  we  now  have,  in  the  new  In- 
ternational Energy  Agency,  a  forum  for  de- 
veloping and  coordinating  new  national  and 
international  policies  to  achieve  these  ends. 
It  is  no  secret  that  administrative  and  policy 
barriers  to  conservation  and  to  increased  pro- 
duction still  exist  in  almost  all  countries — 
including  the  United  States.  It  is  also  no  se- 
cret that  international  efforts  to  achieve  these 
same  objectives  face  many  difficulties.  But  it 
is  essential  that  we  push  ahead. 

A  basic  requirement  is  to  develop  in  the 
lEA  a  common  longer  term  target  for  reduc- 
ing the  rate  of  growth  of  energy  consump- 
tion and  oil  imports.  Such  a  longer  run  ob- 
jective will  be  helpful  to  governments  as  na- 
tional policy  decisions  are  made  and  will  also 
serve  to  demonstrate  to  OPEC  nations  where 
their  present  course  is  leading. 

We  should  also  establish  a  review  process 
within  the  International  Energy  Agency  of 
the  policies  of  the  participating  countries  for 
developing  new  energy  sources.  Out  of  this 
process  should  evolve  not  only  useful  guiding 
principles  for  energy  development  but  an  in- 
creased awareness  among  all  members  of  the 
requirements  of  successful  policies  in  this 
field. 

Another  complex  problem  with  which  we 
must  come  to  grips  in  the  lEA  is  the  so- 
called  "downside  risk"  problem.  Which  en- 
ergy resources  will  be  developed  in  the  fu- 
ture and  at  what  rates  will  depend  on  in- 
vestor estimates  of  the  prospective  price  of 
oil.  Prospective  investors  in  energy  projects 
can  be  expected  to  be  cautious  in  a  situation 
in  which  the  price  of  oil  could  plunge  as  eas- 
ily as  it  has  soared.  Thus  we  must  begin  to 
consider  methods  of  international  coopera- 


798 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


tion  to  provide  investors  an  appropriate  de- 
gree of  protection  against  such  risks. 

Finally,  there  remain  unexploited  opportu- 
nities for  cooperation  in  energy  research  and 
development — in  nuclear  fusion,  coal  tech- 
nology, the  use  of  hydrogen,  and  enriched 
uranium — and  the  new  International  Energy 
Agency  can  usefully  serve  to  expedite  and  fa- 
cilitate such  cooperation  in  these  and  other 
areas. 

In  all  of  these  areas,  a  collective  determi- 
nation to  move  forward  quickly  and  effec- 
tively will  not  only  serve  to  reduce  our  de- 
pendence on  oil  from  OPEC  nations  but  also 
to  accelerate  the  process  by  which  the  price 
of  OPEC  oil  is  brought  down  to  acceptable 
levels. 

Providing  Financial  Security 

At  the  same  time,  countries  which  agree  to 
act  together  in  energy  need  to  be  confident 
that  if  a  financial  emergency  arises,  credit 
will  be  available  to  them  on  reasonable  terms. 
They  could  be  given  such  confidence  through 
a  new  supplementary  financial  mechanism 
which  the  major  industrial  nations  could 
themselves  establish.  Among  them  they  will 
receive  the  capital  represented  by  the  OPEC 
surpluses.  The  OPEC  countries  do  not  have 
to  be  offered  special  guarantees,  above  mar- 
ket rates  of  return,  or  value-indexing 
schemes.  They  can  place  their  money  where 
they  choose.  All  that  is  needed  are  adequate 
arrangements — private  and  public — to  insure 
that  funds  are  distributed  among  the  indi- 
vidual oil-importing  states  so  as  to  avoid  un- 
necessarily stringent  economic  difficulties  in 
particular  countries. 

Existing  private  and  public  facilities  have 
been  doing  this  job  of  redistribution  in  the 
past,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  can- 
not continue  to  do  the  job.  The  problems  of 
financing  higher  oil  bills  can  be  managed  un- 
til oil  prices  come  down — not  easily,  not 
without  strains,  and  not  without  effort,  but 
they  can  be  managed. 

Substantial  volumes  of  OPEC  funds,  prob- 
ably $45  billion  in  the  first  10  months  of  this 
year,  have  been  invested  in  a  variety  of  ways. 


Nearly  one-quarter  of  these  funds  have  been 
invested  directly  in  the  U.S.  market  and 
nearly  another  quarter  in  the  domestic  as- 
sets of  other  industrial  countries.  The  OPEC 
countries  have  also  lent  directly  to  other  gov- 
ernments and  transferred  additional  amounts 
to  international  institutions — for  example, 
the  International  Monetary  Fund's  special 
oil  facility.  In  addition,  substantial  amounts 
have  been  placed  in  Euro-currency  markets — 
but  the  total,  less  than  40  percent,  is  not  as 
large  as  many  have  assumed.  For  borrowers, 
all  these  investments  represent  potential 
sources  of  funds  and  provide  a  wide  range  of 
alternative  financing  channels. 

While  the  international  financial  system 
has  worked  well,  we  must  recognize,  however, 
that  individual  countries  could  find  them- 
selves in  economic  trouble,  with  needed  cred- 
it too  scarce  or  too  expensive  to  permit  them 
to  maintain  open  economies  at  appropriate 
levels  of  activity.  A  supplementary  loan  fa- 
cility, established  by  the  major  industrial 
countries  associated  with  the  OECD,  would 
provide  the  backstopping  that  is  needed  to 
supplement  existing  channels  of  financing. 
This  is  the  financial  safety  net  that  the 
United  States  is  recommending. 

Certain  principles  would  be  fundamental 
to  such  a  mechanism: 

1.  Participation  should  be  linked  with  a 
commitment  to  cooperate  in  reducing  de- 
pendence on  oil  imports. 

2.  Participants  would  also  undertake  to 
follow  responsible  adjustment  policies  and 
avoid  resorting  to  the  use  of  trade-restric- 
tive measures  or  other  beggar-thy-neighbor 
policies. 

3.  Like  any  insurance  policy,  the  facility 
should  be  large  enough  to  do  the  job.  It 
must  be  clear  that  the  potential  for  borrow- 
ing is  adequate  to  meet  the  need.  We  recom- 
mend a  facility  with  total  commitments  by 
all  members  of  $25  billion  in  1975.  Addi- 
tional financial  resources  would  be  provided 
in  subsequent  years  in  case  of  need. 

4.  The  facility  should  supplement  private 
market  channels  and  other  channels,  includ- 
ing the  IMF  and  other  official  institutions. 
It  should  not  replace  them.    For  this  reason 


December  9,   1974 


799 


it  should  do  its  lending  on  market-related 
terms. 

5.  Decisions  on  the  provision  of  financial 
support  should  be  made  by  a  weighted  vote 
of  participants  and  should  be  based  on  the 
overall  economic  position  of  the  borrower, 
not  on  any  single  criterion  such  as  oil  im- 
port bills. 

6.  Whenever  support  is  provided  by  the 
facility,  all  members  should  share  the  credit 
risk  on  the  basis  of  their  share  of  participa- 
tion. 

Beyond  these  general  principles  there  are 
many  details  to  be  worked  out  and  on  which 
we  are  openminded.  One  question  that  must 
be  answered  is  the  manner  in  which  the 
facility  would  obtain  the  funds  with  which  to 
lend.  An  individual  government  could  lend 
directly  to  the  new  facility  or  could  permit 
the  facility  to  go  into  the  capital  markets  of 
the  world  and  borrow  funds  on  the  basis  of 
its  guarantee. 

There  would  appear  to  be  a  number  of 
advantages  in  having  funds  provided  to  the 
facility  through  direct  lending  by  member 
governments  rather  than  guarantees.  Tradi- 
tionally, the  loan  route  is  more  efficient  and 
it  is  cheaper.  Nevertheless,  it  may  be  desir- 
able in  establishing  the  facility  to  provide 
some  flexibility  on  this  score  simply  because 
national  practices  and  legislative  require- 
ments vary  widely.  Whatever  means  is 
chosen,  the  United  States  will  need  to  obtain 
additional  authority  from  the  Congress  in 
order  to  proceed. 

For  the  United  States,  participation  might 
best  be  accomplished  through  the  Exchange 
Stabilization  Fund.  This  Fund  has  the  au- 
thority to  engage  in  international  lending 
operations  for  the  purpose  of  stabilizing  the 
value  of  the  dollar,  and  this  would  be  a  basic 
purpose  of  our  participation  in  the  proposed 
facility. 

Arrangements  for  administration  of  the 
facility  will  also  have  to  be  negotiated.  Our 
initial  feeling  is  that  it  should  be  associated 
with  the  OECD  in  a  manner  similar  to  that 
of  the  new  International  Energy  Agency  and 
administered  by  its  own  governing  board, 
whose  members  might  be  drawn  from  among 


the   senior  finance   officials   of   the   member 
countries. 

The  question  of  shares  will  be  an  impor- 
tant issue  in  setting  up  a  facility  of  this 
nature.  Various  factors  have  been  mentioned 
that  might  be  taken  into  account,  such  as 
the  size  of  the  oil  import  bills  of  the  member 
states,  the  relative  value  of  gross  national 
product,  share  in  international  trade,  or  some 
combination  of  these  factors.  The  various  pos- 
sibilities will  have  to  be  carefully  weighed. 
It  may  also  be  important  to  state  that  in 
our  current  thinking,  borrowing  from  the 
facility  should  not  be  related  specifically  to 
imports  of  oil.  "Oil  deficits"  become  in- 
creasingly indistinguishable  from  "nonoil" 
deficits.  And  even  the  concept  of  balance  of 
payments  deficits  is  of  limited  utility  in  the 
world  we  face  today.  In  our  view,  access  to 
this  facility  should  be  based  on  an  overall 
judgment  of  a  country's  needs  taken  in  con- 
junction with  its  resources,  its  basic  eco- 
nomic policies,  and  the  actions  it  is  taking  to 
reduce  dependence  on  OPEC  oil. 

We  have  been  discussing  the  broad  out- 
lines of  how  such  a  facility  might  work  with 
a  number  of  other  governments  for  several 
months.  Both  my  personal  conversations  with 
other  finance  ministers  and  our  official-level 
contacts  give  me  confidence  that  there  will  be 
support  for  this  general  line  of  thinking.  We 
now  intend  to  urge  consideration  of  this  idea 
more  formally  in  official-level  discussions  in 
Paris  this  week.  I  should  note  that  the  Secre- 
tary General  of  the  OECD  has  independently 
developed  suggestions  for  a  supplementary 
funding  mechanism  similar  in  many  respects 
to  the  one  I  have  just  described.  His  ideas, 
which  are  very  welcome,  will  also  be  on 
the  table  at  the  meetings  this  week  in  Paris 
of  the  OECD  Working  Party  3  and  of  the 
Group  of  Ten  Deputies. 

We  will  be  prepared  to  devote  many  hours 
and  many  days  of  hard  work  over  the  next 
few  weeks  to  translate  these  broad  outlines 
into  an  operating  program.  We  will  need  to 
work  very  closely  with  the  authorities  of  the 
IMF  and  the  newly  established  Interim  Com- 
mittee of  that  body.  Intensive  consultations 
with  our  Congress  will  also  be  undertaken. 


800 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


and  I  am  sure  that  our  partners  in  this 
venture  will  be  consulting  intensively  with 
their  legislatures. 

What  we  are  suggesting  is  in  no  way  in- 
tended to  replace  the  International  Monetary 
Fund  as  the  permanent  institution  providing 
the  basic  financial  support  for  a  well-func- 
tioning world  economy.  The  IMF  is  in  a 
position  to  provide  substantial  additional 
support  to  any  of  its  members.  It  has  over 
$10  billion  of  currencies  which  are  effectively 
available  and  usable,  quite  apart  from  its 
holdings  of  gold.  We  are  prepared,  in  the 
current  review  of  IMF  quotas,  to  support  a 
substantial  increase  in  that  figure.  Further- 
more, we  are  prepared  to  support  early 
measures  to  insure  effective  mobilization  of 
the  resources  that  the  IMF  now  has. 

At  the  same  time  we  are  suggesting  an 
initiative  outside  the  IMF,  in  part  because 
of  the  magnitude  of  the  possible  transfer 
requirements  among  the  major  industrial 
countries  and  in  part  because  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  IMF  financial  operations  are 
not  appropriate  to  the  exceptional  circum- 
stances we  now  face.  Moreover,  it  would  be 
inappropriate — even  if  possible— to  intro- 
duce into  the  IMF  the  full  range  of  policy 
issues  which  must  be  taken  into  account 
when  decisions  and  judgments  are  made  with 
respect  to  financial  support  among  major 
industrial  countries. 


Meeting  the  Needs  of  Developing  Nations 

Of  equal  importance  is  our  concern  for  the 
developing  countries  and  the  smaller  indus- 
trial countries.  Of  course  it  is  true  that  for 
the  developing  countries  it  is  essential  that 
the  major  industrial  countries  maintain 
healthy,  growing  economies  in  the  face  of 
the  oil  crisis.  The  developing  countries  de- 
pend on  the  industrial  nations  to  take  a 
growing  volume  of  their  exports  and  to  con- 
tinue essential  concessional  aid  levels. 

If  we  establish  a  facility  which  will  help 
assure  the  maintenance  of  economic  activity 
in  the  industrial  countries,  we  are  assisting 
the  developing  countries  as  well.  Many  of 
the  developing  countries  have  come  to  de- 


pend on  continued  large  capital  flows  to 
support  their  rapid  economic  growth. 

By  helping  to  assure  orderly  access  to  the 
major  capital  markets  and  thereby  reducing 
the  danger  of  undue  competition  for  the 
surplus  investment  funds  of  the  oil  exporters, 
the  establishment  of  a  new  financial  mecha- 
nism for  industrial  countries  would  enhance 
the  ability  of  many  developing  countries  to 
attract  the  large  amounts  of  capital  they 
need  and  can  productively  employ.  These 
countries  will  also  be  able  to  make  appro- 
priate use  of  the  resources  of  the  IMF. 

One  group  of  developing  countries — those 
with  the  lowest  per  capita  incomes  and  those 
seriously  affected  by  natural  disasters  and 
other  problems — will,  however,  still  require 
concessional  assistance.  We  and  other  de- 
veloped countries  have  been  redirecting  our 
concessional  assistance  toward  these  coun- 
tries and  urging  the  international  financial 
institutions  to  do  the  same.  We  also  look 
to  the  oil  exporters  to  provide  a  major  part 
of  the  additional  concessional  funds  needed 
by  these  countries  because  of  the  increase  in 
oil  prices.  The  additional  amounts  needed  by 
these  poorest  countries — perhaps  $1.5  billion 
in  1975 — is  small  in  comparison  with  the  oil 
exporters'  surpluses.  But  although  relatively 
modest  in  global  terms,  the  sums  involved 
bulk  very  large  for  the  countries  concerned 
because  needs  are  this  desperate. 

We  shall  be  addressing  the  problems  of 
these  countries  on  an  urgent  basis  in  the  new 
Development  Committee,  where  we  shall  keep 
the  availabilities  of  funds  under  continual 
review  as  well  as  the  efforts  of  developing 
countries  to  make  maximum  efforts  to  use 
available  resources  effectively. 

One  way  to  help  these  countries  would 
be  to  establish  a  trust  fund  managed  by  the 
IMF  and  receiving  contributions  from  OPEC 
states  and  from  other  sources.  Perhaps  the 
IMF  itself  could  contribute  to  such  a  fund 
profits  derived  by  the  sale  in  the  private 
market  of  some  portion  of  its  gold  holdings. 
A  trust  fund  of  this  nature  which  would 
offer  credit  at  relatively  low  cost — perhaps 
2  to  4  percent — and  on  moderately  long  ma- 
turities would  provide  funds  to  those  most 


December  9,    1974 


801 


seriously  affected  on  terms  which  are  not 
appropriate  for  other  borrowers.  We  hope 
this  suggestion  will  receive  the  urgent  atten- 
tion of  ministers  in  the  IMF  Interim  Com- 
mittee and  the  IMF-IBRD  [International 
Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development] 
Development  Committee. 

Cooperation  With  the  OPEC  Nations 

U.S.  proposals  for  greater  solidarity  among 
major  industrial  countries  in  no  sense  stem 
from  any  desire  for  confrontation  with  the 
OPEC  nations.  We  recognize  and  support 
the  legitimate  aspirations  of  these  nations  to 
accelerate  their  own  development,  establish 
their  industrial  and  agricultural  bases,  and 
to  improve  the  living  standards  of  their  peo- 
ples today  and  in  the  years  to  come. 

We  have  established  Joint  Cooperation 
Commissions  with  the  key  oil  producers  in 
the  Middle  East  to  help  them  achieve  these 
objectives.  We  have  undertaken  a  major 
effort  within  our  government  to  provide 
them  the  expertise  we  have  achieved  in  de- 
veloping the  economy  of  our  own  country 
and  to  help  make  it  adaptable  to  their  devel- 
opment programs. 

I  personally  visited  a  number  of  countries 
in  the  Middle  East  last  July  to  launch  this 
effort  and  intend  to  return  soon  to  insure 
its  momentum.  My  visit  last  summer  was 
followed  by  meetings  both  here  and  in  the 
Middle  East  of  other  U.S.  officials,  techni- 
cians, and  experts  with  their  counterparts, 
which  have  put  flesh  on  the  Commission 
structures  that  have  been  established. 

We  are  prepared  to  continue  to  do  what 
we  can  to  accelerate  the  economic  develop- 
ment of  OPEC  nations  and  to  encourage  the 
private  sector  of  our  country  and  other 
industrial  countries  to  take  an  active  role  in 
this  process.  In  the  meantime,  we  will  con- 
tinue to  permit  these  countries  to  invest  in 
our  markets,  and  I  am  confident  they  will  be 
allowed  to  invest  in  the  markets  of  other 
nations  as  well. 

For  their  part  the  OPEC  countries  must 
recognize  that  their  position   in  the  world 


economy  has  already  changed  dramatically. 
These  countries  will  continue  to  have  greater 
influence  in  the  world  even  with  a  substan- 
tial fall  in  oil  prices.  These  countries  are 
now  the  major  surplus  countries  of  the 
world,  with  a  surplus  of  a  magnitude  un- 
precedented in  history.  It  is  vital  to  the 
maintenance  of  a  sound  and  equitable  world 
economy  that  they  accept  without  delay  the 
responsibilities  which  have  historically  fallen 
upon  major  creditor  countries. 

I  have  spoken  already  of  their  responsibili- 
ties for  assisting  the  needy  of  the  world. 
They  must  also  understand  that  their  foreign 
investments  can  be  treated  no  differently 
from  the  investments  of  others.  They  cannot 
realistically  expect  the  rest  of  the  world  to 
devise  a  special  system  of  guarantees  for 
them  alone.  It  is  also  incumbent  upon  them 
to  shed  the  outmoded  habits  acquired  when 
they  were  developing  countries  with  limited 
resources.  The  resources  of  this  group  of 
countries  are  adequate  to  finance  their  legiti- 
mate development  aspirations,  even  though 
the  situation  of  individual  OPEC  countries 
may  differ.  Their  excess  revenues  this  year 
alone  approximate  six  times  the  flow  of  de- 
velopment assistance  to  all  developing  coun- 
tries last  year.  This  new  reality  must  be  re- 
flected in  the  policies  of  international  finan- 
cial institutions. 

In  my  conversations  with  officials  of  OPEC 
nations  and  on  my  travels  to  the  Middle  East, 
I  have  found  that  there  is  widespread  under- 
standing in  OPEC  countries  of  the  responsi- 
bilities inherent  in  their  new  international 
role.  Certainly  leaders  of  OPEC  nations  are 
well  aware  of  the  important  stake  they  have 
in  a  healthy  world  economic  system.  I  re- 
main confident  that  a  basis  can  be  found  for 
the  industrial  nations  of  the  world  to  con- 
tinue to  work  constructively  with  OPEC 
nations. 

Of  course,  they  must  recognize  that  we 
continue  to  be  strongly  opposed  to  the  ac- 
tions they  have  taken  to  compel  a  massive 
temporary  transfer  of  resources — real  and 
financial — to  them  from  the  rest  of  the  world. 
We  believe  they  can  achieve  their  develop- 
ment objectives  on  a  more  secure  basis  at  a 


802 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


substantially  lower  level  of  oil  prices. 

They  must  recognize,  too,  that  each  pass- 
ing day  takes  us  a  step  further  away  from 
an  optimal  utilization  of  the  world's  re- 
sources, as  other  nations  revise  their  policies 
toward  reliance  on  oil  imports.  Certainly, 
there  is  even  now  no  possibility  that  oil- 
consuming  countries  can  return  to  the  energy' 
practices  of  two  years  ago.  But  the  full  scope 
of  consuming-country  reaction  is  not  yet  de- 
fined, and  the  hope  remains  that  reasonable 
men  can  find  rational  solutions. 

We  remain  persuaded  that  extreme  poli- 
cies will  in  time  prove  very  harmful  to  the 
basic  economic  and  social  aspirations  of  these 
nations  and  that  there  is  a  solid  foundation 
for  reaching  agreement  on  a  constructive 
resolution  of  this  issue.  Greater  cooperation 
among  the  world's  industrial  countries  along 
the  lines  that  Secretary  Kissinger  and  I  have 
set  forth  last  week  and  today  will  help  estab- 
lish the  basis  for  such  agreement. 

In  their  own  interest,  and  in  the  interest 
of  the  world  as  a  whole,  the  time  has  now 
come  when  the  major  industrial  nations 
must  grasp  the  nettle.  The  evidence  before 
us — of  rapid  inflation  and  economic  stagna- 
tion— offers  bleak  encouragement  for  the  fu- 
ture unless  we  now  take  decisive  collective 
action  to  break  the  present  train  of  events. 
We  must  act  together  to  limit  our  depend- 
ence on  imported  oil  and  to  promote  our 
mutual  economic  and  financial  solidarity. 
Such  action  will  inevitably  be  carried  out 
through  decisions  and  actions  often  appear- 
ing to  be  technical  in  nature  and  limited  in 
scope.  But  underlying  all  of  what  we  do  must 
be  a  solid  foundation  of  commitment — a  po- 
litical consensus  that  we  will  act  together 
to  determine  our  own  destiny — and  a  mutual 
faith  that  we  can  do  so. 

We  must  maintain  our  commitment  to  ex- 
panding trade  and  foreign  investment.  We 
are  too  far  down  the  road  to  interdependence 
to  look  back.  We  have  it  in  our  power  to 
choose  whether  we  are  prisoners  of  a  history 
yet  to  be  written  or  the  architects  of  a  future 
yet  to  be  seen.  I  have  no  doubt  what  our 
choice  will  be;  we  know  what  the  required 
international  response  must  be. 


December  9,   1974 


Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Convention 
on  Protection  of  Diplomats 

Message  From  President  Ford  ^ 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

With  a  view  to  receiving  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate  to  ratification,  I  trans- 
mit herewith  a  copy  of  the  Convention  on  the 
Prevention  and  Punishment  of  Crimes 
against  Internationally  Protected  Persons, 
including  Diplomatic  Agents,  adopted  by  the 
United  Nations  General  Assembly  on  De- 
cember 14,  1973,  and  signed  in  behalf  of  the 
United  States  of  America  on  December  28, 
1973.  The  report  of  the  Department  of  State 
with  respect  to  the  Convention  is  also  trans- 
mitted for  the  information  of  the  Senate. 

The  effective  conduct  of  international  re- 
lations depends  in  large  part  on  the  ability  of 
diplomatic  agents  to  travel  and  live  freely 
and  securely  while  representing  the  interests 
of  their  respective  countries.  We  have  wit- 
nessed in  recent  years  an  unprecedented  in- 
crease in  acts  of  violence  directed  against 
diplomatic  agents  and  other  internationally 
protected  persons.  This  development  has 
demonstrated  the  urgent  need  to  take  affirm- 
ative action  to  minimize  the  threats  which 
can  be  directed  against  diplomatic  agents. 
Although  the  legal  obligation  to  protect  these 
persons  was  never  que.stioned,  the  mecha- 
nism for  international  cooperation  to  ensure 
that  perpetrators  of  serious  attacks  against 
them  are  brought  to  justice,  no  matter  where 
they  may  flee,  was  lacking. 

The  Convention  is  designed  to  rectify  this 
serious  situation  by  creating  a  legal  mech- 
anism whereby  persons  alleged  to  have  com- 
mitted serious  crimes  against  diplomats  will 
be  prosecuted  or  extradited.  It  also  sets  out 
a  framework  for  international  cooperation 
in  the  prevention  and  punishment  of  such 
crimes. 


'  Transmitted  on  Nov.  13  (text  from  White  House 
press  release);  also  printed  as  S.  Ex.  L,  93d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  report  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  and  the  text  of  the  convention;  for 
text  of  the  convention,  see  Bulletin  of  Jan.  28,  1974, 
p.  92. 


803 


This  Convention  is  vitally  important  to  as- 
sure continued  safe  and  orderly  conduct  of 
the  diplomatic  process.  I  hope  that  all  States 
will  become  Parties  to  this  Convention.  I 
recommend,  therefore,  that  the  Senate  give 
early  and  favorable  consideration  to  this 
Convention. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  November  13,  197 Jf. 


President  Ford  Maintains 
Current  Tariffs  on  Sugar 

Statement  by  President  Ford  ^ 

I  am  announcing  actions  designed  to  (1) 
insure  the  continued  flow  of  sugar  into  this 
country  from  abroad  and  (2)  encourage  in- 
creased production  domestically  at  the  same 
time.  The  actions  I  am  taking  will  maintain 
duties  on  sugar  imports  at  the  lowest  per- 
missible rate  under  the  Tariff  Schedules  of 
the  United  States. 

The  Sugar  Act  is  scheduled  to  expire  on 
December  31,  1974.  If  no  action  is  taken,  tar- 
ifi^s  on  imported  sugar  will  rise  about  1.3 
cents  per  pound  on  January  1,  1975.  The  law 
provides,  however,  that  the  President  can 
continue  the  current  rates  in  force  if  his 
proclamation  extending  the  rates  includes  a 
quota  on  sugar  imports.  I  have,  therefore, 
decided  to  extend  the  current  tariff  rates  and 
will  set  an  annual  global  quota  of  7  million 
short  tons  for  1975.-  That  quantity  is  more 
than  adequate  to  meet  anticipated  import 
requirements.  At  the  same  time,  it  will  in- 
sure a  degree  of  stability  for  our  own  sugar 
industry  to  operate  effectively  in  a  period  of 
very  tight  supplies. 

Although  there  is  no  risk  we  will  run  out 
of  sugar,  we  may  well  experience  higher 
prices  than  we  would  like  until  production 
catches  up  with  demand.  Users  of  sugar  can 


'  Issued  on  Nov.  18  (text  from  White  House  press 
release). 

"For  text  of  Proclamation  No.  4334,  see  39  Fed. 
Reg.  40739. 


help  ease  prices  by  buying  wisely,  conserving 
supplies,  and  consuming  less  sugar.  I  urge 
all  Americans  to  reduce  the  amount  of  sugar 
in  cooking  and  to  put  in  half  the  amount 
usually  used  to  sweeten  coffee  or  tea. 

The  world  sugar  supply  has  tightened 
markedly  in  recent  months.  For  the  past 
three  crop  years,  world  sugar  production  has 
been  rising.  But  even  so,  consumption  has 
exceeded  production  by  a  small  margin.  Crop 
setbacks  this  year  in  a  number  of  countries 
will  prevent  production  from  keeping  pace 
with  the  normal  growth  of  consumption. 
Since  sugar  production  this  year  is  expected 
to  be  about  the  same  as  last,  worldwide 
sugar  supplies  will  continue  to  be  tight.  Be- 
cause we  in  this  country  import  about  one- 
half  of  the  sugar  we  consume,  we  are  directly 
affected  by  this  worldwide  problem.  So  far 
this  year,  our  foreign  suppliers  have  shipped 
10  percent  more  sugar  to  the  United  States 
than  last  year. 

The  Council  on  Wage  and  Price  Stability 
is  working  with  sugar-using  industries  to 
stimulate  conservation  in  the  use  of  sugar. 
The  Council  will  also  hold  public  hearings  to 
examine  the  margins  charged  by  sugar  proc- 
essors, refiners,  and  distributors.  The  pur- 
pose of  these  hearings  will  be  to  insure  that 
the  retail  prices  of  sugar  and  sugar  products 
are  not  unduly  increased. 

In  the  past,  sharp  increases  in  sugar  prices 
have  always  been  temporary  because  they 
stimulated  offsetting  production  increases  of 
sugar  cane  and  sugar  beets.  I  have  asked 
Secretary  [of  Agriculture  Earl  L.]  Butz  to 
insure  that  all  American  farmers  are  made 
aware  of  the  excellent  market  opportunities 
offered  by  sugar  beets  and  sugar  cane  and  to 
make  sure  that  there  are  no  governmental 
impediments  to  increased  production. 

Early  season  contracting  between  farmers 
and  processors  could  be  very  helpful  in  1975, 
and  long-term  contracting  between  U.S.  re- 
finers and  foreign  suppliers  could  be  very 
beneficial  as  well.  Our  traditional  foreign 
sugar  suppliers  who  have  benefited  from  our 
sugar  program  in  the  past  are  also  urged  to 
continue  providing  sugar  to  our  market. 

Finally,  I  have  directed  the  Economic  Pol- 


804 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


icy  Board  to  monitor  the  sugar  situation  on 
a  weekly  basis  and  to  report  to  me  any  signs 
of  speculation  or  market  activity  in  world 
and  domestic  markets  that  would  worsen  the 
tight  supply  situation  we  face  this  year. 

The  administration  recognized  the  incon- 
veniences worked  on  the  average  American 
citizen  by  the  current  sugar  situation.  It  will 
continue  to  do  everything  it  can  to  improve 
matters  and  to  remove  some  of  the  uncer- 
tainties for  the  future. 


U.S.-Canada  Treaty  on  Extradition 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate 

Message  From  President  Ford  ^ 


To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

With  a  view  to  receiving  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate  to  ratification,  I  trans- 
litimit  herewith  the  Treaty  on  Extradition  be- 
tween the  United  States  of  America  and 
Canada,  signed  at  Washington  on  December 
3,  1971,  as  amended  by  an  exchange  of  notes 
of  June  28  and  July  9,  1974. 

The  Treaty  is  one  of  a  current  series  of  ex- 
tradition treaties  being  negotiated  by  the 
United  States  and  contains  provisions  re- 
garding extradition  for  the  offenses  of  air- 
craft hijacking,  narcotics  and  conspiracy  to 
commit  listed  offenses. 

The  Treaty  will  facilitate  the  mutual  ef- 
forts of  the  United  States  and  Canada  in 
combating  international  crime.  In  addition, 
modernization  of  the  extradition  relations  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Canada  is  espe- 
cially important  in  light  of  the  ease  of  travel 
between  the  two  countries.  I  recommend  that 
the  Senate  give  early  and  favorable  consid- 
eration to  the  Treaty  as  amended  and  give 
its  advice  and  consent  to  ratification. 


.ties 


Pol' 


Gerald  R.  Ford. 
The  White  House,  September  12,  197 U. 


'Transmitted  on  Sept.  12  (text  from  White  House 
press  release);  also  printed  as  S.  Ex.  G.,  93d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  texts  of  the  treaty  and 
the  report  of  the  Department  of  State. 


December  9,   1974 


Presidential  Determination  on  Sale 
of  200,000  Tons  of  Wheat  to  Egypt 

MEMORANDUM  OF  OCTOBER  31,  1974  ' 

[Presidential  Determination  No.   75-5] 

Finding  and  Determination  Concerning  Egypt 

Memorandum  for  the  Secretary  of  State; 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture 

The  White  House, 
Washington,  October  31,  197J,. 

Finding  and  Determination  under  Sections  103(d) 
(3)  and  (4)  of  the  Agricultural  Trade  Development 
and  Assistance  Act  of  1954,  as  amended — Egypt. 

Pursuant  to  the  authority  vested  in  me  under  the 
Agricultural  Trade  Development  and  Assistance  Act 
of  1954,  as  amended  (hereinafter  "the  Act"),  I  here- 
by: 

(a)  Find,  pursuant  to  Section  103(d)(3)  of  the 
Act,  that  the  making  of  an  agreement  with  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Egypt  for  the  sale,  under  Title  I  of  the 
Act,  of  200  thousand  metric  tons  of  wheat  is  in  the 
national  interest  of  the  United  States;  and 

(b)  Determine,  pursuant  to  Section  103(d)(4)  of 
the  Act,  that  the  sale  to  Egypt  of  wheat  in  further- 
ance of  such  an  agreement  is  in  the  national  interest 
of  the  United  States. 

This  Determination  shall  be  published  in  the  Fed- 
eral Register. 

Statement  of  Reasons  That  Sales  Under  Title 
I  of  the  Agricultural  Trade  Development  and 
Assistance  Act  of  1954,  As  Amended  (Public 
Law  480)  to  Egypt  Are  in  the  National  Intb31- 

EST 

Egypt  is  central  to  our  efforts  to  achieve  a  just 
and  lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East.  Our  ultimate 
success  will  depend  in  part  on  Egyptian  confidence 
in  our  intention  to  develop  a  broad  and  constructive 
bilateral  relationship  with  that  country.  Continua- 
tion of  a  program  for  concessional  sales  of  agricul- 
tural commodities  to  Egypt  will  constitute  a  tangi- 
ble demonstration  of  our  intended  role. 

In  response  to  current  Egyptian  needs,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  export  to  that  country  200  thousand  metric 
tons  of  wheat  financed  under  Title  I  of  the  Agricul- 
tural Trade  Development  and  Assistance  Act  of 
1954,  as  amended  (Pub.  L.  480).  This  amount  is 
based  on  Egypt's  needs  for  not  more  than  one  fiscal 
year. 


»  39  Fed.  Reg.  39431,  Nov.  7,  1974. 


805 


In  order  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Egypt  for  such  a  sale  under  Title  I,  it  is 
necessary  that  the  President  find  and  determine  that 
such  sales  would  be  in  the  national  interest  of  the 
United  States.  Section  103(d)(3)  of  Pub.  L.  480  pro- 
hibits the  sale  of  agricultural  commodities  under 
Title  I  of  the  Act  to  any  nation  which  sells  or  fur- 
nishes or  permits  ships  or  aircraft  under  its  registry 
to  transport  to  or  from  Cuba  or  North  Vietnam  any 
equipment,  materials,  or  commodities  (so  long  as 
those  countries  are  governed  by  Communist  re- 
gimes). However,  if  such  activities  are  limited  to 
furnishing,  selling,  or  selling  and  transporting  to 
Cuba  medical  supplies,  non-strategic  agricultural  or 
food  commodities,  sales  agreements  may  be  made  if 
the  President  finds  they  are  in  the  national  interest 
of  the  United  States.  Section  103(d)(4)  also  prohib- 
its sales  of  commodities  under  Title  I  to  Egypt  un- 
less the  President  determines  such  sales  are  in  the 
national  interest  of  the  United  States. 

The  considerations  noted  above,  however,  make 
the  proposed  sale  important  to  the  national  interest 
of  the  United  States  notwithstanding  the  prohibi- 
tions contained  in  Sections  103(d)  (3)  and  (4)  of 
Pub.  L.  480. 

Section  410  of  Pub.  L.  480  prohibits  sales  under 
Title  I  of  Pub.  L.  480  to  a  country  in  violation  of 
Section  620(e)  of  the  Foreign  Assistance  Act  of 
1961,  as  amended,  which  concerns  expropriation  or 
nationalization  of  property  of  Americans  without 
taking  appropriate  steps  to  discharge  its  obligations 
under  international  law.  Egypt  agreed  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  Joint  Committee  to  discuss  compensa- 
tion of  American  nationals  and,  on  July  15,  Secre- 
tary Kissinger  determined  that  such  an  agreement 
constituted  appropriate  steps  under  Section  620(e). 
The  Committee  continues  active.  Therefore,  no  waiver 
of  that  provision  is  required  to  permit  this  addi- 
tional sale  of  wheat  to  Egypt  under  Title  I  of  Pub. 
L.  480. 


Activation  of  the  Energy  Resources 
Council 

AN     EXECUTIVE     ORDER' 

In  my  address  to  the  Congress  on  October  8, 
1974,  I  expressed  my  intention  to  create  a  new  Na- 
tional Energy  Board,  under  the  chairmanship  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  to  develop,  coordinate,  and 
assure  the  implementation  of  Federal  energy  policy. 
Subsequent  to  my  delivery  of  that  address,  the  Con- 
gress completed  action  on  the  Energy  Reorganiza- 
tion Act  of  1974  which  I  have  just  approved  into 
law.  Section  108  of  that  act  creates  in  the  Executive 
Office  of  the  President  a  new  Energy  Resources 
Council  which  would  be  charged  with  performing 
functions  that  are  essentially  the   same  as  those   I 


•  No.  11814;  39  Fed.  Reg.  36955,  Oct.  16,  1974. 


had  intended  to  assign  to  the  National  Energy 
Board.  Consequently,  I  have  determined  that  it 
would  serve  no  useful  purpose  to  create  that  Board. 
Instead,  I  am  now  exercising  the  authority  vested  in 
me  by  section  108  of  the  Energy  Reorganization  Act 
of  1974,  to  activate  immediately  the  Energy  Re- 
sources Council,  to  designate  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  as  its  Chairman,  and  to  designate  addi- 
tional officials  as  members  thereof. 

Now,  Therefore,  by  virtue  of  the  authority  vested 
in  me  as  President  of  the  United  States  of  America 
by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 
particularly  section  108  of  the  Energy  Reorganiza- 
tion Act  of  1974,  and  section  301  of  title  3  of  the 
United  States  Code  it  is  hereby  ordered  as  follows: 

Section  1.  Section  108  of  the  Energy  Reorganiza- 
tion Act  of  1974  shall  be  effective  as  of  the  date  of 
this  order  and  the  Energy  Resources  Council  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  been  activated  as  of  that  date. 

Sec.  2.  The  Council  shall  consist  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  who  shall  be  its  Chairman,  the  As- 
sistant to  the  President  for  Economic  Affairs,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
the  Secretary  of  Defense,  the  Attorney  General,  the 
Secretary  of  Commerce,  the  Secretary  of  Transpor- 
tation, the  Chairman  of  the  Atomic  Energy  Commis- 
sion, the  Director  of  the  Office  of  Management  and 
Budget,  the  Chairman  of  the  Council  of  Economic 
Advisers,  the  Administrator  of  the  Federal  Energy 
.■Administration,  the  Administrator  of  the  Energy 
Research  and  Development  Administration  (upon  en- 
try into  office),  the  .■Administrator  of  the  Environ- 
mental Protection  Agency,  the  Chairman  of  the 
Council  on  Environmental  Quality,  the  Director  of 
the  National  Science  Foundation,  the  Executive  Di- 
rector of  the  Domestic  Council,  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  the  President  may,  from  time  to  time,  desig- 
nate. 

Sec.  3.  The  Energy  Resources  Council  shall  per- 
form such  functions  as  are  assigned  to  it  by  section 
108  of  the  Energy  Reorganization  Act  of  1974,  shall 
develop  a  single  national  energy  policy  and  pro- 
gram, and  shall  perform  such  other  functions  as  may 
be  assigned  to  it,  from  time  to  time,  by  the  Presi- 
dent. 

Sec.  4.  All  departments  and  agencies  shall  cooper- 
ate with  the  Council  and  shall,  to  the  extent  per- 
mitted by  law,  provide  it  with  such  assistance  and 
information  as  the  Chairman  of  the  Council  may  re- 
quest. 

Sec.  5.  The  Committee  on  Energy,  the  establish- 
ment of  which  was  announced  on  June  14,  1974,  is 
hereby  abolished. 

Sec.  6.  The  Council  shall  terminate  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  section  108  of  the  Energy  Re- 
organization Act  of  1974. 


^^   ^,       ^W 


The  White  House,  October  11,  197i. 


806 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


THE   UNITED   NATIONS 


U.S.  Calls  for  Worldwide  Effort  To  Eliminate 
Torture  and  Inhuman  Treatment  of  Prisoners 


Folloiving  is  a  statement  by  Senator 
Charles  H.  Percy,  U.S.  Representative  to  the 
U.N.  General  Assembly,  made  in  Committee 
III  (Social,  Humanitarian  and  Cultural)  on 
October  18,  together  with  the  text  of  a  reso- 
lution adopted  by  the  committee  on  October 
22  and  by  the  Assembly  on  November  6. 


STATEMENT  BY  SENATOR  PERCY 

USUN  press  release  139  dated  October  18 

The  Charter  of  the  United  Nations  re- 
affirms faith  in  fundamental  human  rights, 
in  the  dignity  and  worth  of  the  human  per- 
son, in  the  equal  rights  of  men  and  women 
and  of  nations  large  and  small.  This  organi- 
zation is  thus  based  upon  sacred  ideals 
shared  by  societies  throughout  the  world. 

The  protection  of  human  rights  by  this 
organization  has  not  been  free  from  diffi- 
culty. While  all  peoples  share  the  aspirations 
proclaimed  in  the  charter,  it  remains  none- 
theless essentially  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
each  sovereign  state  to  find  the  means  of 
fulfilling  these  aspirations. 

The  fundamental  dilemma  created  by  the 
inherent  conflict  between  broad  international 
goals  and  national  prerogatives  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  permitted  to  frustrate  our  efforts  to 
work  together  toward  a  more  humane  world. 

Today,  Madam  Chairman,  we  consider  a 
topic  of  central  and  vital  importance  in  the 
struggle  to  safeguard  human  rights — the 
question  of  torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman, 
or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment.  We 
have  before  us  the  draft  resolution  contained 
in  A/C.  3/L.  2106.  The  United  States  is 
pleased  to  be  a  cosponsor.    I  would  like  to 


express  our  gratitude  particularly  to  the  del- 
egation of  the  Netherlands,  which  took  the 
lead  in  developing  this  resolution,  and  to 
other  cosponsors  who  helped  in  promoting  it. 

All  nations  rightly  condemn  the  practice 
of  torture.  No  practice  is  more  abhorrent. 
An  absolute  debasement  of  the  function  of 
government  takes  place  when  the  over- 
whelming power  of  government  is  utilized 
not  to  protect  individual  human  beings  but 
to  coerce  them  into  subservience. 

The  problem  of  torture  is  one  of  particular 
interest  to  my  government.  In  his  statement 
before  the  General  Assembly  on  September 
23,  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States  called  for  a  major  international  effort 
to  prohibit  torture. 

It  is  indisputable,  however,  that  this  prob- 
lem must  be  viewed  not  as  a  concern  of  one 
or  several  countries  but  of  the  entire  family 
of  nations.  Men  and  women  of  all  races  and 
creeds  have  been  victims  of  this  abuse.  Tor- 
ture has,  regrettably,  been  practiced  at  one 
time  or  another  by  countries  in  all  parts  of 
the  world.  Only  by  a  worldwide  effort  can 
we  hope  to  eliminate  this  universally  con- 
demned practice. 

We  must  address  ourselves  to  the  practical 
steps  which  can  be  taken.  Are  we  innovative 
enough  to  find  means  whereby  the  interna- 
tional community  can  assist  its  members  to 
prevent  or  lessen  the  practice  of  torture  and 
yet  not  encroach  upon  the  proper  domestic 
jurisdiction  of  sovereign  states?  We  believe 
that  practical  means  can  be  found  and  that 
the  draft  resolution  before  us  can  be  an  im- 
portant and  major  step  in  our  efforts. 

Since  all  states  condemn  the  practice  of 
torture  by  government  officials,  this  practice 


l«    December  9,   1974 


807 


must  take  place  contrary  to  the  intentions 
of  the  highest  governmental  authorities,  or 
at  least  their  stated  intentions.  Governments 
should  therefore  consider  taking  steps  to  pre- 
vent the  practice  before  the  pressures  for  its 
utilization  are  greatest— in  times  of  civil 
strife  and  in  the  aftermath  of  bitter  internal 

conflicts. 

Torture  is  an  abuse  which  is  most  likely 
to  prevail  when  associated  legal  protections 
do  not  exist.  Codes  of  law  regarding  notifi- 
cation of  arrest,  right  to  counsel,  right  to 
appear  promptly  before  a  judge,  can  be  in- 
strumental   in    preventing    the    practice    of 

torture. 

While  these  subjects  touch  upon  broad  and 
fundamental  issues  of  human  freedom,  they 
are  also  areas  of  technical  legal  expertise. 
The  experience  of  many  nations  m  seeking 
justice  under  law  should  be  examined.    The 
merits    and    problems    of    different    statu- 
tory and  constitutional  solutions  should  be 
studied.    The  help  of  learned  jurists  should 
be  sought.    Model  codes  can  and  should  be 
developed  for  the  use  of  countries  that  wish 
to  improve  and  strengthen  their  systems  of 
justice. 

The  task  will  not  be  an  easy  one.  ihe 
complexities  of  law  to  be  examined  will  be 
great  The  questions  of  balance  and  judg- 
ment will  present  difficult  challenges.  De- 
tailed matters  of  police  practice  will  have  to 
be  reviewed. 

Let  me  illustrate  with  specifics.  When  the 
experts  gather  they  should  address  such 
practical  questions  as  these: 

—How  to  assure  the  right  legal  assistance 
immediately  upon  detention. 

—How  to  provide  that  an  arrested  person 
must  be  brought  before  a  judicial  authority 
promptly  within  a  specified  time  after  de- 
tention. 

—How  to  specify  that  detained  persons 
can  communicate  with  their  families. 

—How  to  devise  regulations  regarding  the 
permissible  duration  and  manner  of  interro- 
gation. .  , 
—How  to  establish  when  it  is  appropriate 


or   necessary   to   conduct   medical   examina- 
tions, either  before  or  after  interrogation. 

—How  to  determine  what  records  should 
be  kept  regarding  the  identity  of  arresting 
officials,  interrogaters,  details  of  medical  ex- 
aminations. 

—How  to  provide  for  procedural  remedies 
in  case  of  complaints  of  abuse,  such  as  the 
procedure  of  habeus  corpus  or  amparo. 

In  addition  to  questions  of  detailed  pro- 
cedure of  the  sort  I  have  just  described,  there 
will  be  thorny  questions  of  definition.    Let 
me  again  illustrate  with  specifics.    How  can 
the  essence  of  "torture"  or  "cruel  or  inhu- 
man treatment"  be  defined?    For  example, 
we  can  all  understand  that  it  is  often  im- 
portant for  police  authorities  to  question  a 
suspect  as  soon  as  possible  after  detention 
and  that  questioning  may  need  to  continue 
for  a  considerable  period  of  time.   However, 
should  it  be  permissible  to  deprive  a  suspect 
of  sleep  for  a  prolonged  period?   Is  this  the 
type  of  matter  that  can  or  should  be  defined 
in  model  legislation?  Should  it  be  left  up  to 
magistrates?   Many  similar  questions  of  de- 
tail will  undoubtedly  arise. 

The  United  States  has  already  begun  its 
technical  and  legal  studies  on  these  issues. 
We  will  now  intensify  our  preparatory  work 
for  the  meetings  of  the  Fifth  United  Nations 
Congress  on  the  Prevention  of  Crime  and 
the  Treatment  of  Offenders,  which  is  to  take 
place    in    1975.     We    intend    to   participate 
constructively  and  creatively  in  fulfilling  the 
tasks  requested  of  this  Congress  by  operative 
paragraphs  3  and  4  of  the  draft  resolution. 
I  would  note  that  the  draft  resolution  also 
involves  other  U.N.  bodies— the  Commission 
on  Human  Rights,  the   Subcommission   on 
Prevention  of  Discrimination  and  Protection 
of  Minorities,  the  World  Health  Organiza- 
tion, and  the  General  Assembly  itself,  which 
is  to  consider  this  matter  again  at  its  30th 
session.   We  believe  that  all  of  these  bodies 
can  have  important  roles  to  play  in  the  over- 
all  effort.   We  must  of  course  recognize  that 
the  task  we  confront  will  require  a  long  and 
sustained  effort,  and  it  will  be  necessary  as 


808 


Department  of  State  Bulletii 


we  proceed  to  determine  in  wliich  forums  we 
can  take  the  most  practical  and  effective 
steps  forward. 

Our  purpose  is  to  devote  the  effort  re- 

1  quired — and  it  will  be  considerable — to 
advance  the  development  of  model  codes 
dealing  with  problems  such  as  I  have  out- 
lined by  using  any  and  all  of  the  forums 
which  have  the  competence,  expertise,  and 
motivation  necessary  for  success.  We  do  not 
anticipate  that  this  effort  can  realize  all  of 
its  goals  at  once,  and  we  therefore  welcome 
the  fact  that  other  interested  governments 
have  taken  an  initiative  which  parallels  and 
complements  our  own  expressed  interest  and 
ideas.  We  hope  to  work  closely  with  all 
interested  governments  and  are  therefore 
particularly  pleased  to  support  this  resolu- 
tion's recommendations  to  the  fifth  Con- 
gress— one  of  the  places  we  can  make  an 
early  start  on  the  practical  pursuit  of  this 
task. 

(I  would  also  call  attention  to  operative 
paragraphs  1  and  2  of  the  draft  resolution. 
These  paragraphs  request  member  states  to 
furnish  to  the  Secretary  General  relevant  in- 
formation and  comments  and  ask  the  Secre- 
tary General  to  prepare  an  analytical  sum- 
mary. We  urge  that  all  members  respond 
fully  to  this  request.  The  work  which  is  to 
proceed  in  the  fifth  United  Nations  Congress 
and  in  other  U.N.  bodies  will  clearly  benefit 
greatly  if  it  is  based  on  broad  and  detailed 
knowledge  of  practice  and  opinion  through- 
out the  world. 

It  is  a  sad  commentary,  Madam  Chairman, 
that  this  committee,  just  a  little  more  than 
25  years  after  the  adoption  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Universal  Declaration  of 
Human  Rights,  finds  it  necessary  to  single 
out  the  problem  of  torture  as  one  which  to- 
day requires  our  attention.  We  share  with 
many  others  feelings  of  dismay  and  outrage 
whenever  we  receive  reports  which  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  practice  of  torture  has  been 
pursued  ofl!icially.  We  need  not,  however,  be 
discouraged  if  we  view  our  work  in  the  long 
perspective  of  history  and  if  we  recognize 


December  9,   1974 


the  unique  and  practical  opportunities  which 
the  United  Nations  and  its  organs  afford 
to  us. 

In  the  past  few  centuries  steady  progress 
can  be  discerned  toward  the  universal  goal 
of  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  individual 
person.  As  we  all  know,  the  world  has  wit- 
nessed serious  and  tragic  lapses  in  the  treat- 
ment of  human  beings  over  wide  areas  and 
for  lengthy  periods.  Yet  I  have  no  doubt 
that,  taking  the  world  as  a  whole,  there  has 
been  a  gradual  improvement  over  the  years 
in  the  behavior  of  states  toward  their  own 
citizenry. 

From  the  very  beginning,  the  United  Na- 
tions has  made  a  major  contribution  to  the 
raising  of  standards  of  decency  everywhere 
with  the  adoption  of  the  Universal  Declara- 
tion of  Human  Rights.  The  goals  of  this 
declaration  are  noble  and  high.  No  nation 
can  properly  claim  to  have  attained  them 
completely.  Yet  none  of  us  can  afford  to 
relax  in  the  endless  struggle  to  achieve  them. 
We  can  take  heart  from  the  gains  that  have 
been  realized  in  the  course  of  time.  Some  of 
the  most  degrading  and  inhuman  practices 
have  been  tempered  or  eliminated.  The  in- 
stitution of  slavery,  for  instance,  has  been 
virtually  removed  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

I  am  convinced  that  the  time  has  now 
come  to  take  another  common  step  upward 
on  the  ladder  of  civilization.  It  is  time  to 
intensify  greatly  our  work  to  prevent  the 
practice  of  torture.  We  must  do  everything 
we  can  to  end  this  abuse. 

In  his  statement  before  the  General  As- 
sembly, Secretary  Kissinger  urged  that  we 
should  never  forget  that  all  of  our  political 
endeavors  are  ultimately  judged  by  one 
standard — to  translate  our  actions  into  hu- 
man concerns.  He  added  that  the  United 
States  will  never  be  satisfied  with  a  world 
where  man's  fears  overshadow  his  hopes. 

When  we  work  to  build  barriers  against 
the  practice  of  torture,  we  work  to  realize 
one  of  mankind's  deepest  aspirations — the 
ability  of  every  person  to  lead  a  life  of  dig- 
nity and   decency.   The   task  before  us  de- 


809 


mands  all  of  the  creativity,  the  skill,  the  per- 
sistence, and  the  good  will  which  we  can 
bring  to  bear. 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  ^ 

Torture  and  other  cniel,  hihuman  or  degrading 
treatment  or  punishment  in  relation  to  detention 
and  imprisonment 

The  General  Assembly, 

Mindful  of  article  5  of  the  Universal  Declaration 
of  Human  Rights  and  article  7  of  the  International 
Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights, 

Reaffirming  the  rejection,  in  its  resolution  3059 
(XXVIII)  of  2  November  1973,  of  any  form  of  tor- 
ture and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treat- 
ment or  punishment, 

Taking  into  account  the  report  of  the  Secretary- 
General  on  the  consideration  given  to  this  question 
by  the  Sub-Commission  on  Prevention  of  Discrimina- 
tion and  Protection  of  Minorities  and  by  the  Com- 
mission on  Human  Rights  and  other  bodies  con- 
cerned,^ 

Noting  ivith  appreciation  the  decision  of  the  Sub- 
Commission  on  Prevention  of  Discrimination  and 
Protection  of  Minorities  to  review  annually  the  de- 
velopments in  the  field  of  human  rights  of  persons 
subjected  to  any  form  of  detention  or  imprisonment,' 

Noting  also  the  draft  principles  on  freedom  from 
arbitrary  arrest  and  detention  contained  in  the  rele- 
vant study  on  this  matter,' 

Recalling  Economic  and  Social  Council  resolution 
663  C  (XXIV)  of  31  July  1957,  in  which,  inter  alia, 
the  Council  approved  the  Standard  Minimum  Rules 
for  the  Treatment  of  Prisoners,^  and  Council  resolu- 
tion 1794  (LIV)  of  18  May  1973  concerning  the  prep- 
aration of  an  international  code  of  police  ethics,  as 
well  as  General  Assembly  resolution  3144  (XXVIII) 
of  14  December  1973  on  human  rights  in  the  admin- 
istration of  justice, 

Considering  that  the  Fifth  United  Nations  Con- 
gress on  the  Prevention  of  Crime  and  the  Treatment 
of  Offenders,  to  be  held  in  accordance  with  General 
Assembly   resolution  415    (V)   of   1   December   1950, 


^U.N.  doc.  A/RES/3218   (XXIX)    (A/C.3/L.2106/ 
Rev.   1)  ;  adopted  by  the  Assembly  on  Nov.  6  by  a 
vote  of  125  (U.S.)  to  0,  with  1  abstention. 
-'  U.N.  doc.  A/9767.  [Footnote  in  original.] 
'Ibid.,  annex  I.  [Footnote  in  original.] 
*  See  United  Nations  publication,  Sales  No.:  E.65. 
XIV.2,  para.  823.  [Footnote  in  original.] 

'First  United  Nations  Congress  on  the  Preven- 
tion of  Crime  and  the  Treatment  of  Offenders:  re- 
port by  the  Secretariat  (United  Nations  publica- 
tion, Sales  No.:  1956.IV.4),  annex  I.A.  [Footnote  in 
original.] 


810 


will  take  place  in  September  1975  at  Toronto,  Can- 
ada, 

Conviticed  that,  because  of  the  increase  in  the 
number  of  alarming  reports  on  torture,  further  and 
sustained  efforts  are  necessarj'  to  protect  under  all 
circumstances  the  basic  human  right  to  be  free  from 
torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treat- 
ment or  punishment, 

1.  Requests  Member  States  to  furnish  the  Secre- 
tary-General in  time  for  submission  to  the  Fifth 
United  Nations  Congrress  on  the  Prevention  of  Crime 
and  the  Treatment  of  Offenders  and  to  the  General 
Assembly  at  its  thirtieth  session: 

(a)  Information  relating  to  the  legislative,  ad- 
ministrative and  judicial  measures,  including  reme- 
dies and  sanctions,  aimed  at  safeguarding  persons 
within  their  jurisdiction  from  being  subjected  to  tor- 
ture and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treat- 
ment or  punishment; 

(6)  Their  observations  and  comments  on  articles 
24  to  27  of  the  draft  principles  on  freedom  from  ar- 
bitrary arrest  and  detention  prepared  for  the  Com- 
mission on  Human  Rights; 

2.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  prepare  an 
analytical  summary  of  the  information  received  un- 
der paragraph  1  above  for  submission  to  the  Fifth 
United  Nations  Congress  on  the  Prevention  of  Crime 
and  the  Treatment  of  Offenders,  to  the  General  As- 
sembly at  its  thirtieth  session,  to  the  Commission  on 
Human  Rights  and  to  the  Sub-Commission  on  Pre- 
vention of  Discrimination  and  Protection  of  Minori- 
ties; 

3.  Requests  the  Fifth  United  Nations  Congress  on 
the  Prevention  of  Crime  and  the  Treatment  of  Of- 
fenders, under  item  3  of  its  agenda,  taking  into  ac- 
count the  consideration  given  to  the  question  by  the 
Committee  on  Crime  Prevention  and  Control  in  pur- 
suance of  Economic  and  Social  Council  resolution 
1794  (LIV),  to  give  urgent  attention  to  the  question 
of  the  development  of  an  international  code  of  ethics 
for  police  and  related  law  enforcement  agencies; 

4.  Further  requests  the  Fifth  United  Nations 
Congress  on  the  Prevention  of  Crime  and  the  Treat- 
ment of  Offenders,  under  item  4  of  its  agenda,  to  in- 
clude, in  the  elaboration  of  the  Standard  Minimum 
Rules  for  the  Treatment  of  Prisoners,  rules  for  the 
protection  of  all  persons  subjected  to  any  form  ol 
detention  or  imprisonment  against  torture  and  othei 
cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  piuiish- 
ment,  and  to  report  thereon  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  its  thirtieth  session; 

5.  Invites  the  World  Health  Organization,  taking 
into  account  the  various  declarations  on  medical  eth 
ics  adopted  by  the  World  Medical  Association,  ti 
draft,  in  close  co-operation  with  such  other  compe 
tent  organizations,  including  the  United  Nations  Ed 
ucational,    Scientific   and   Cultural   Organization,   a; 


Department  of  State  Bulletii 


I 


may  be  appropriate,  an  outline  of  the  principles  of 
medical  ethics  which  may  be  relevant  to  the  protec- 
tion of  persons  subjected  to  any  form  of  detention  or 
imprisonment  against  torture  and  other  cruel,  inhu- 
man or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment,  and  to 
bring  the  draft  to  the  attention  of  the  Fifth  United 
Nations  Congress  on  the  Prevention  of  Crime  and 
the  Treatment  of  Offenders  with  a  view  to  assisting 
the  Congress  in  the  implementation  of  the  task  set 
out  in  paragraph  4  above; 

6.  Decides  to  consider  at  its  thirtieth  session  the 
question  of  torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  de- 
grading treatment  or  punishment  in  relation  to  de- 
tention and  imprisonment. 


U.S.  challenges  Ruling  To  Exclude 
South  Africa  From  General  Assembly 

Following  are  statements  made  in  the 
U.N.  General  Assembly  on  November  12  by 
U.S.  Representative  John  Scali. 

FIRST  STATEMENT 

USUN  press  release  166  dated  November  12 

My  delegation  cannot  accept  the  argument 
that  the  vote  in  the  Security  Council  on  the 
South  African  issue  last  October  30  in  any 
way  changes  the  clear  wording  of  articles  5 
and  6  of  the  charter.  Nor,  in  our  view,  does  it 
in  any  way  permit  this  or  any  other  Assem- 
bly to  deprive  a  member  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  membership. 

I  am  deeply  concerned  with  the  criticism 
of  my  delegation's  vote  in  the  Security  Coun- 
cil on  the  South  African  matter.  I  categori- 
cally reject  any  implication   that  our  vote 

ii  was   anti-African,   anti-United    Nations,   or 

m  was  motivated  by  any  support  whatsoever 
for  apartheid. 

As  I  had  hoped  was  clear  from  the  many 
times  my  delegation  has  expressed  this  view, 
the  U.S.  Government  thoroughly  opposes  the 
policy   of   apartheid.   We   support  the   self- 

iti  determination  as  soon  as  possible  of  Nami- 
bia. We  call  on  South  Africa  to  fulfill  its  ob- 
ligations under  article  25  of  the  charter  and 
to  comply  with  Security  Council  resolutions 

u  on  Southern  Rhodesia. 


Ijlji  December  9,  1 974 


Has  it  been  forgotten  that  the  United 
States  imposed  its  own  arms  embargo  on 
South  Africa  before  the  United  Nations  did? 

Our  vote  in  the  Security  Council,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, reflected  our  strong  belief  that  the 
continued  presence  in  the  United  Nations  of 
South  Africa  would  best  allow  members  to 
continue  pressure  for  necessary  reforms  in 
that  nation  as  well  as  changes  in  Namibia 
and  Rhodesia. 

As  I  said  in  my  explanation  of  vote  before 
the  Security  Council  last  October  30,  Mr. 
President  [Algerian  Foreign  Minister  Ab- 
delaziz  Bouteflika] : 

My  delegation  believes  that  South  Africa  should 
continue  to  be  exposed,  over  and  over  again,  to  the 
blunt  expressions  of  the  abhorrence  of  mankind  for 
apartheid.  South  Africans  could  hear  of  this  abhor- 
rence only  from  afar  were  we  to  cast  them  from  our 
ranks,  beyond  the  range  of  our  voices. 

Our  analysis  is  that  expulsion  would  say  to  the 
most  hardened  racist  elements  in  South  Africa  that 
their  indifference  to  our  words  and  resolutions  had 
been  justified.  We  think  it  would  say  to  the  South 
Africans  that  we  have  not  heard,  or  do  not  wish  to 
encourage,  the  new  voices — the  voices  that  augur 
hope  of  change. 

We  believe  that  the  United  Nations  must  continue 
its  pressure  upon  South  Africa,  moving  step  by  step 
until  right  has  triumphed.  It  is  self-defeating  to  fire 
a  single  last  dramatic  salvo  with  only  silence  to  fol- 
low. History  holds  no  example  of  a  pariah  state  that 
reformed  itself  in  exile.  The  pariah  is  by  definition 
an  outlaw,  free  of  restraint.  There  is  no  record  of 
good  citizenship  in  the  land  of  Nod,  east  of  Eden, 
where  Cain,  the  first  pariah,  was  banished. 

My  delegation  has  another  grave  concern  about 
the  wisdom  of  expelling  South  Africa.  Even  if  this 
would  help  thwart  the  ugly  crime  of  apartheid,  ex- 
pulsion would  set  a  shattering  precedent  which  could 
gravely  damage  the  U.N.  structure. 

Mr.  President,  my  delegation  further  be- 
lieves that  the  expulsion  of  South  Africa 
would  reverse  the  evolution  of  the  United 
Nations  toward  ever  wider  membership. 

These  were  our  reasons  and  our  only  rea- 
sons. We  hold  them  no  less  deeply  than  those 
who  hold  a  different  view.  We  respect  that 
diff"erent  view,  and  we  expect  no  less  in  re- 
turn. We  also  expect  that  the  clear  words  of 
the  charter  will  be  honored.  This  Assembly 
may  be  master  of  its  procedures,  but  not  of 
our  charter,  which  remains  the  paramount 


811 


document  governing  our  existence  as  an  or- 
ganization based  on  law. 


SECOND   STATEMENT 

USUN  press  release  167  dated  November  12 

Mr.  President:  My  delegation  regrets  that 
we  have  no  choice  but  to  challenge  your  rul- 
ing. We  did  not  come  to  this  decision  lightly, 
and  we  do  so  only  because  of  the  overriding 
importance  of  the  issue,  the  fundamental 
rights  of  a  member  state  under  the  Charter 
of  the  United  Nations. 

There  is  also  an  obvious  conflict,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, between  your  ruling  and  the  legal 
opinion  given  to  this  Assembly  on  November 
11,  1970,  at  the  25th  session.  Further,  there 
is  a  conflict  between  your  ruling  and  the 
practice  that  the  General  Assembly  has  con- 
sistently followed  in  the  four  years  since 
then,  at  the  25th,  the  26th,  the  27th,  and  the 
28th  sessions  and  at  the  6th  special  session 
held  in  spring  this  year.  In  addition,  as  we 
all  know,  during  this  29th  session.  South  Af- 
rica was  allowed  to  vote  without  objection 
after  the  Assembly's  decision  on  its  creden- 
tials was  made. 

The  legal  opinion  given  at  the  25th  ses- 
sion remains  as  valid  today,  in  our  view,  as 
it  was  then.  It  affirms  that  under  the  charter 
the  Assembly  may  not  deprive  a  member  of 
any  of  the  rights  of  membership.  The  As- 
sembly may  be  master  of  its  rules  of  proce- 
dure, but  no  majority,  no  matter  how  large, 
can  ignore  or  change  the  clear  provisions  of 
the  charter  in  this  way. 

We  consider  it  to  be  a  violation  of  the  rules 
of  procedure  and  of  articles  5  and  6  of  the 
charter  for  the  Assembly  to  attempt  to  deny 
a  member  state  of  the  United  Nations  its 
right  to  participate  in  the  Assembly,  through 
this  type  of  unprecedented  action.  Article  5 
of  the  charter  expressly  lays  down  rules  by 
which  a  member  may  be  suspended.  Article 
6  of  the  charter  specifically  provides  the 
process  by  which  a  member  may  be  expelled. 
The  Assembly  is  not  empowered  to  deprive 
a  member  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
membership  other  than  in  accordance  with 
articles  5,  6,  and  19  of  the  charter.  In  our 

812 


view,  none  of  these  circumstances  applies  in 
this  case. 

At  the  25th  session  of  this  Assembly,  the 
then  Legal  Counsel  of  the  United  Nations 
ruled: 

.■Article  5  of  the  Charter  lays  down  the  following 
requirements  for  the  suspension  of  a  Member  State 
from  the  rights  and  privileges  of  membership: 

(a)  Preventive  or  enforcement  action  has  to  be 
taken  by  the  Security  Council  against  the  Member 
State  concerned; 

(b)  The  Security  Council  has  to  recommend  to  the 
General  Assembly  that  the  Member  State  concerned 
be  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  membership; 

(c)  The  General  Assembly  has  to  act  affirmatively 
on  the  foregoing  recommendation  by  a  two-thirds 
vote,  in  accordance  with  Article  18,  paragraph  2,  of 
the  Charter,  which  lists  "the  suspension  of  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  membership"  as  an  "important 
question". 

The  participation  in  meetings  of  the  General  As- 
sembly is  quite  clearly  one  of  the  important  rights 
and  privileges  of  membership.  Suspension  of  this 
right  through  the  rejection  of  credentials  would  not 
satisfy  the  foregoing  requirements  and  would  there^ 
fore  be  contrary  to  the  Charter. 

It  is  our  view  that  nothing  has  transpired 
in  the  General  Assembly  or  the  Security 
Council  to  affect  the  validity  of  that  ruling, 
Since  the  Security  Council  remains  seized  of 
the  range  of  South  African  questions,  there 
is  all  the  more  reason  why  the  Assembly  can- 
not properly  seek  to  take  action  to  deprive 
South  Africa  of  its  rights  of  membership 
The  effect  of  the  resolution  of  September  30, 
1974,  on  credentials  has  the  same  effect  as 
resolutions  of  previous  years. 

Mr.  President,  j'our  action  is  taken  in  the 
context  of  the  Assembly's  action  on  the  cre- 
dentials item.  The  policy  of  a  government  is 
not  a  legitimate  consideration  in  this  con- 
text. Those  policies  may  rightly  be  examined 
at  other  times  and  in  other  contexts  but  not 
here.  In  the  present  case  no  one  can  reason 
ably  argue  with  the  technical  propriety  of 
the  credentials  of  the  South  African  delega- 
tion. South  Africa  is  not  the  only  member 
state  whose  government  is  not  chosen  by 
free  elections  where  all  adults  are  entitled  to 
vote. 

In  our  view,  we  must  not  seek  to  change 
the  membership  regulations  to  convert  this 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 


into  an  organization  of  like-minded  govei-n- 
ments.  Were  we  to  apply  that  criterion,  we 
should  cease  to  be  a  universal  institution  and 
would  become  very  different  indeed. 

Those  facts  and  a  respect  for  the  charter 
have  led  past  Presidents  of  the  General  As- 
sembly to  rule  that  decisions  involving  the 
r.onacceptance  or  rejection  of  South  African 
credentials  constitute  an  expression  of  inter- 
national outrage  at  the  heinous  policy  of 
apartheid.  But  each  of  those  Presidents  has 
also  ruled  that  such  decisions  do  not  serve  to 
deprive  South  Africa  of  its  fundamental 
rights  of  membership — rights  which  include 
the  right  to  take  its  seat  in  the  General  As- 
sembly, to  speak,  to  raise  questions  and  make 
proposals,  and  to  vote. 

Mr.  President,  we  consider  that  your  rul- 
ing fails  to  take  into  account  that  law  of  the 
charter,  the  existing  legal  opinion,  and  the 
consistent  series  of  applicable  precedents. 
For  those  reasons  and  pursuant  to  rule  71, 
we  must  respectfully  challenge  your  ruling. 
We  request  that,  in  accordance  with  rule  71, 
you  put  this  challenge  immediately  to  a  vote. 
I  request  that  a  recorded  vote  be  taken.' 


U.S.  Discusses  Cyprus  Situation 
in  U.N.  General  Assembly 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
General  Assambly  by  U.S.  Representative 
John  Scali  on  November  1,  together  with  the 
text  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Assembly 
that  day. 


STATEMENT   BY  AMBASSADOR  SCALI 

USUN  press  release  158  dated  November  1 

The  present  state  of  affairs  on  Cyprus 
satisfies  no  one.  But  if  the  world  community 
is  to  contribute  constructively  to  the  im- 
provement of  this  problem,  it  must  do  more 
than  review  the  past  and  deplore  the  present. 


'The  Assembly  voted  91  to  22  (U.S.),  with  19  ab- 
stentions, to  uphold  the  President's  ruling  excluding 
the  delegation  of  South  Africa  from  the  work  of  the 
General  Assembly. 

December  9,   1974 


That  is  too  easy.  Neither  can  we  here  hope 
and  presume  to  dictate  the  specific  ingre- 
dients of  a  better  future.  What  we  can  and 
should  do  is  to  help  create  an  atmosphere 
where  meaningful  negotiation,  flexibility,  and 
compromise  are  possible. 

The  United  Nations  has  already  played 
an  important  part  in  achieving  what  progress 
has  so  far  occurred.  In  July  the  Security 
Council  achieved  a  cease-fire  on  Cyprus.  It 
also  created  a  framework  for  negotiations 
between  all  the  parties  and  established  the 
essential  principles  to  guide  those  negotia- 
tions. 

Secretary  General  Waldheim  has  been  a 
particularly  active  and  constructive  figure 
in  Cyprus.  He  has  personally  initiated  meet- 
ings between  Mr.  [Glafcos]  Clerides  and  Mr. 
[Rauf]  Denktash.  Further,  the  Secretary 
General's  Special  Representative,  Mr.  [Luis] 
Weckmann-Munoz,  continues  to  participate 
in  these  meetings.  The  Nicosia  talks  have — 
gradually,  to  be  sure,  but  nonetheless  suc- 
cessfully— produced  agreement  on  the  ex- 
change of  prisoners.  The  discussions  are 
continuing  and  are  focusing  on  other  pressing 
issues.  Most  important,  they  have  laid  a 
fragile,  but  for  that  reason  all  the  more 
critical,  foundation  of  confidence  and  co- 
operation upon  which  broadened  discussions 
can  be  based. 

The  U.N.  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees, 
in  cooperation  with  the  International  Com- 
mittee of  the  Red  Cross,  has  responded  to 
the  most  immediate  and  the  most  compelling 
aspects  of  the  Cyprus  tragedy.  His  assist- 
ance has  been  important  in  securing  the 
release  of  prisoners,  reuniting  families,  pro- 
viding relief  supplies,  and  ministering  to 
the  sick,  the  needy,  and  the  helpless. 

No  discussion  of  the  Cyprus  situation 
would  be  complete  without  mention  of  the 
U.N.  Force  in  Cyprus.  These  soldiers  for 
peace  have  conducted  themselves  in  a  magnifi- 
cent tradition  to  protect  and  assist  the  people 
of  Cyprus  and  to  maintain  world  peace.  They 
personify  the  highest  ideals  of  this  organi- 
zation. My  government  again  would  like  to 
express  its  deepest  gratitude  to  all  of  the 
nations  who  have  provided  contingents  to 
the  Force.   We  ask  the  Governments  of  Den- 

813 


mark,  Austria,  the  United  Kingdom,  and 
Canada  to  convey  our  sincere  condolences  to 
the  famiHes  of  those  men  who  have  given 
their  lives  in  the  cause  of  peace  and  in  the 
service  of  this  organization. 

The  United  States  has  worked  throughout 
the  recent  Cyprus  crisis  within  the  United 
Nations  and  also  directly  with  all  of  the 
parties.  We  have  sought  to  prevent  blood- 
shed, to  stop  the  fighting,  to  maintain  the 
peace,  and  to  encourage  progress  toward  a 
lasting  settlement.  Our  first  concern  during 
the  summer  was  to  defuse  the  immediate 
crisis  and  to  help  the  parties  talk  to  one 
another  again.  We  made  strenuous  attempts 
to  prevent,  and  then  to  confine,  the  military 
activities  on  the  island  which  took  place  in 
July  and  August.  Thereafter  the  United 
States  cooperated  with  the  United  Nations 
and  with  the  parties  most  directly  concerned 
in  arranging  a  cease-fire  which  still  holds 
today.  Further,  our  government  has  actively 
supported  efi'orts  in  Geneva,  in  pursuance  of 
Security  Council  Resolution  353,  to  establish 
the  outlines  of  a  lasting  settlement.  We  also 
vigorously  encouraged  discussions  between 
the  leaders  of  the  Greek  and  Turkish  Cypriot 
communities. 

The  United  States  continues  to  stand  ready, 
as  Secretary  Kissinger  recently  told  this 
Assembly,  "to  play  an  even  more  active  role 
than  in  the  past  in  helping  the  parties  find 
a  solution  to  the  centuries-old  problem  of 
Cyprus." 

My  government  has  also  responded  to  the 
real  and  immediate  human  needs  of  the 
people  of  Cyprus.  We  are  contributing  one- 
third  01  the  $22  million  which  the  U.N.  High 
Commissioner  for  Refugees  estimates  that 
he  will  need  before  the  end  of  this  year. 
Overall  U.S.  assistance  for  Cyprus  relief  this 
year  will  amount  to  over  $10  million.  We 
remain  prepared  to  make  additional  contri- 
butions as  they  are  needed.  We  urge  the 
international  community  to  continue  and  if 
possible  to  increase  its  humanitarian  eft'orts. 

The  numerous  and  varied  efi^orts  of  the 
United  Nations  and  of  its  individual  mem- 
bers have  served,  we  believe,  to  bring  the 
parties  closer.  They  have  helped  create  an 
atmosphere  in  which  negotiation  can  move 

814 


forward.  Our  continuing  concern  is  to  pro- 
vide assistance,  to  whatever  degree  the  par- 
ties consider  useful,  in  meeting  the  impera- 
tive, urgent  need  for  peace. 

The  United  Nations  has  a  long  history  of 
involvement  in  Cyprus.  Its  record  there  is 
honorable  and  its  achievement  substantial. 
Events  of  the  past  months  have  once  again 
demonstrated,  however,  that  peacekeeping  is 
not  a  substitute  for  peace.  We  have  once 
again  learned  that  only  the  parties  to  a  dis- 
pute can  truly  resolve  their  difi'erences. 

Those  who  are  friends  of  Cyprus  have  an 
obligation  to  do  their  best  to  encourage  and 
to  protect  all  genuine  efi^orts  by  these  parties 
to  work  out  such  a  settlement. 


TEXT   OF  RESOLUTION  ^ 

The  General  Assembly, 

Having  considered  the  question  of  Cyprus, 

Gravely  concerned  about  the  continuation  of  the 
Cyprus  crisis,  which  constitutes  a  threat  to  interna- 
tional peace  and  security, 

Mindful  of  the  need  to  solve  this  crisis  without  de- 
lay by  peaceful  means,  in  accordance  with  the  pur- 
poses and  principles  of  the  United  Nations, 

Having  heard  the  statements  in  the  debate  and 
taking  note  of  the  report  of  the  Special  Political 
Committee  on  the  question  of  Cyprus,'' 

1.  Calls  upon  all  States  to  respect  the  sovereignty, 
independence,  territorial  integrity  and  non-alignment 
of  the  Republic  of  Cyprus  and  to  refrain  from  all 
acts  and  interventions  directed  against  it; 

2.  Urges  the  speedy  withdrawal  of  all  foreign 
armed  forces  and  foreign  military  presence  and  per- 
sonnel from  the  Republic  of  Cyprus,  and  the  cessa- 
tion of  all  foreign  interference  in  its  affairs; 

3.  Considers  that  the  constitutional  system  of  the  year 
Republic  of  Cyprus  concerns  the  Greek  Cypriot  and  ])| 
Turkish  Cypriot  communities; 

4.  Commends  the  contacts  and  negotiations  taking 
place  on  an  equal  footing,  with  the  good  offices  of 
the  Secretary-General,  between  the  representatives 
of  the  two  communities,  and  calls  for  their  continua- 
tion with  a  view  to  reaching  freely  a  mutually  ac- 
ceptable political  settlement,  based  on  their  funda- 
mental and  legitimate  rights; 

5.  Considers  that  all  the  refugees  should  return  to 
their  homes  in  safety  and  calls  upon  the  parties  con 
cemed  to  undertake  urgent  measures  to  that  end; 


'U.N.  doc.  A/RES/3212  (XXIX);  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  on  Nov.  1  by  a  recorded  vote  of  117  (U.S.) 
to  0. 

=  U.N.  doc.  A/9820  [footnote  in  original]. 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 


ffliipro 
iiJerati 


6.  Exp7'esses  the  hope  that,  if  necessary,  further 
efforts  including-  negotiations  can  take  place,  within 
the  framework  of  the  United  Nations,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  implementing  the  provisions  of  the  present 
resolution,  thus  ensuring  to  the  Republic  of  Cyprus 
its  fundamental  right  to  independence,  sovereignty 
and  territorial  integrity; 

7.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  continue  to 
provide  United  Nations  humanitarian  assistance  to 
all  parts  of  the  population  of  Cyprus  and  calls  upon 
all  States  to  contribute  to  that  effort; 

8.  Calls  upon  all  parties  to  continue  to  co-operate 
fully  with  the  United  Nations  Peace-keeping  Force 
in  Cyprus,  which  may  be  strengthened  if  necessary; 

9.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  continue  to 
lend  his  good  offices  to  the  parties  concerned; 

10.  Further  reqtiests  the  Secretary-General  to 
bring  the  present  resolution  to  the  attention  of  the 
Security  Council. 


U.S.  Reaffirms  Support  of  Decade 
for  Action  To  Combat  Racism 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  Commit- 
tee III  (Social,  Htimanitarian  and  Cultural) 
of  the  U.N.  General  Assembly  by  U.S.  Rep- 
resentative Clarence  Clyde  Ferguson,  Jr.,  on 
October  U,  together  with  the  text  of  a  resolu- 
tion adopted  by  the  committee  on  October  10 
and  by  the  Assembly  on  November  6. 


STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR  FERGUSON 

USUN  press  release  127  dated  October  4 

As  we  all  know,  the  General  Assembly  met 
in  a  special  session  on  December  10  of  last 
year  to  declare  the  period  1973-83  as  the 
Decade  for  Action  to  Combat  Racism  and 
Racial  Discrimination.  It  was  fit  and  proper 
that  this  meeting  was  held  on  the  25th  anni- 
versary of  the  adoption  of  the  Universal  Dec- 
laration of  Human  Rights.  It  is  equally  fit 
and  proper  that  this  is  the  first  item  for  con- 
sideration before  this  committee,  the  com- 
mittee charged  with  primary  responsibility 
for  human  and  social  concerns. 
I  My  delegation  participated  in  the  discus- 
sions in  this  committee  and  in  the  ECOSOC 
[Economic  and  Social  Council]  which  re- 
sulted in  the  declaration  of  the  Decade  and 
the  program  for  action.  We  suggested  possi- 

December  9,    1974 


ble  courses  of  action,  some  of  which  were 
accepted,  others  not.  But  at  the  end  of  the 
deliberations,  our  Representative  to  the  last 
Assembly  endorsed  the  program  and  prom- 
ised the  support  of  my  government  to  the 
goals  of  the  program — to  eliminate  all  forms 
of  racism  and  racial  discrimination. 

Our  concerns  in  this  area  are  real  and  im- 
mediate. The  United  States  is  in  fact  a  multi- 
racial society.  We  must  deal  with  the  prob- 
lems of  racism  here  in  our  country  on  an 
everyday  basis.  Thus  our  adherence  to  the 
program  of  the  United  Nations,  in  partic- 
ular those  aspects  involving  national  actions 
by  member  states,  is  but  part  of  an  ongoing 
domestic  effort. 

Madam  Chairman,  I  had  not  intended  to 
treat  in  any  detail  the  situation  in  the  United 
States.  I  had  believed — and  it  is  perhaps  true 
— that  most  delegations  were  aware  of  our 
problems  deriving  from  racism  and  were 
aware  of  actions  taken  to  resolve  these  prob- 
lems and  were  cognizant  of  the  general  state 
of  progress  in  my  country.  My  beliefs  were 
shaken,  however,  when  a  few  days  ago  a  dis- 
tinguished Foreign  Minister  asserted  in  this 
Assembly  that  blacks  in  this  country  existed 
in  a  condition  akin  to  slavery.  I  myself  am  in 
the  forefront  of  those  recognizing  the  per- 
sistence of  racism — institutional  and  other- 
wise— in  our  society.  I  have  myself,  as  a 
lawyer  and  professor  of  law,  been  a  part  of 
the  struggle  to  eliminate  injustice  in  this 
country.  Even  now,  I  and  many  of  my  col- 
leagues are  concerned  with  excising  the  last 
vestiges  of  racism  from  our  foreign  policy 
establishment,  both  from  the  institutional 
sense  and  from  the  standpoint  of  substan- 
tive policy  formulation.  In  this  connection  it 
should  be  noted  that  a  large  part  of  the  prob- 
lem lies  in  the  attitudes  of  others  beyond  our 
shores.  I  trust.  Madam  Chairman,  you  will 
forgive  these  personal  references,  but  I  men- 
tion them  only  as  token  of  the  disappoint- 
ment wc  feel  when  hearing  assertions  such 
as  those  made  by  the  distinguished  Foreign 
Minister. 

Perhaps  some  instructive  examples  might 
be  drawn  from  our  past  decade  of  the  fight 
against  racism  in  the  United  States.  Just 
over  10  years  ago  we  experienced  the  brutal 

815 


assassination  of  the  president  of  the  Missis- 
sippi chapter  of  the  NAACP,  who  paid  with 
his  life  for  having  the  temerity  to  insist  that 
blacks  could  exercise  the  constitutionally  pro- 
tected right  to  vote.  Now,  10  years  later,  in 
the  very  region  of  the  country  which  had  so 
long  engaged  in  every  stratagem  and  subter- 
fuge, and  even  violence,  to  deny  blacks  this 
basic  political  right  of  citizenship  in  the 
United  States,  there  are  today  more  than 
500  black  elected  officials.  These  range  from 
Congressmen  to  state  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives, to  sheriffs,  to  county  executives 
and  mayors. 

Ten  years  ago  in  many  places  of  public  ac- 
commodation in  this  country,  non-whites,  no 
matter  what  their  status  or,  I  might  add, 
nationality  or  citizenship,  would  have  been 
barred  from  the  ordinary  privilege  of  decent 
lodging  and  food  and  entertainment.  Now, 
10  years  later,  no  such  problems  exist.  Ten 
years  ago  laws  based  on  a  combination  of 
racist  laws  and  regulations  inhibited  blacks 
from  enjoyment  of  almost  every  basic  right, 
from  that  of  education  to  freedom  of  choice 
in  marriage.  Now,  10  years  later,  major  ef- 
forts continue  to  remove  these  vestiges,  most 
of  which  have  been  eliminated. 

I  mention  these  as  illustrative  of  the  fact 
that  a  decade  of  sustained  action  can  in  fact 
change  the  human  condition.  It  is  also  illus- 
trative, however,  of  the  difficulty  and  com- 
plexity of  completely  eradicating  this  partic- 
ular human  disease. 

Examining  this  past  decade  in  the  United 
States  also  reveals  that  a  sustained  struggle 
on  all  fronts  benefits  the  entire  society  and 
not  just  simply  those  who  have  been  the  vic- 
tims of  racism  and  its  evil  practices.  In  the 
United  States  the  reinvigoration  of  the  move- 
ment for  equality  in  all  respects  for  women 
derived  almost  directly  from  the  struggle  of 
blacks  for  equal  justice.  We  have  also  seen 
that  others  who  had  similarly  been  victim- 
ized took  inspiration  and  courage  from  the 
demonstration  that  freedom  will  flow  to  those 
who  first  insist  they  will  not  live  in  a  condi- 
tion of  less  than  equality  and  human  dignity. 
In  the  last  decade  American  Indians,  our 
Latin   Americans,    and    our    Eskimos    have 


816 


joined  the  struggle  to  eradicate  racist  stains 
from  our  social  fabric. 

There  is  another  lesson  taught  by  our  last 
decade  of  experience.  That  lesson  is  simply 
that  freedom,  equality,  and  justice  do  not 
flow  automatically  from  grand  declarations 
or,  in  our  case,  from  the  grand  clauses  of  our 
Constitution.  A  just  society  requires  a  con- 
stant vigilance  and  a  constant  concern  and 
a  constant  action  lest  the  virulent  seeds  of 
racism  flower  anew.  In  looking  to  the  Dec- 
ade we  might  draw  a  final  lesson  from  our 
own  experience.  We  in  this  country  know 
from  bitter  experience  that  racist  practices 
often  take  subtle  disguises.  Poverty  often 
becomes  the  social  mechanism  by  which  ra- 
cist exploitation  persists.  Class  distinctions 
often  mask  racist  criteria.  In  our  own  soci- 
ety— a  society  largely  descended  from  immi- 
grants, albeit  some  of  our  ancestors  immi- 
grated involuntarily — we  found  that  the 
seemingly  innocent  concept  of  "country  of 
origin"  in  our  immigration  laws  was  in  fact 
the  cover  for  the  practice  of  racial  exclusiv- 
ity. Happily,  this  last  vestige  has  been  elim- 
inated. 

In  spite  of  the  progress  we  have  made,  we 
still  face  in  America  many  serious  problems 
which  must  continue  to  engage  our  best  ef- 
forts. It  is  significant  that  at  this  stage  in 
our  development,  our  efforts  are  not  directed 
toward  hortatory  declarations.  Rather,  we 
are  attempting  to  translate  words  into  real- 
ity— a  far  more  difficult  task,  but  one  that  is 
essential  for  all  of  us  if  this  Decade  is  to 
have  real  meaning. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  internationally 
the  evils  of  racism  are  most  evident  in  South 
Africa  and  Rhodesia.  We  share  with  our  col- 
leagues the  outrage  at  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  apartheid,  an  illegal  and  obnoxious 
violation  of  human  rights.  We  disagree  at 
points  on  the  methods  of  promoting  change. 
But  I  would  like  to  emphasize  that  our  rela- 
tions with  South  Africa  are  designed  not  to 
support  the  present  regime  but  to  promote 
peaceful  evolution  with  the  goal  that  all 
South  Africans  can  participate  fully  in  the 
social,  economic,  and  political  life  of  their 
country.   In   our   own   diplomatic   establish- 


Department  of  State  Bulletir 


Ml 
wall, 


ment  we  seek  to  demonstrate  our  commit- 
ment to  a  racially  just  society.  In  social  af- 
fairs we  do  not  discriminate  among  our 
guests.  Our  visitation-to-the-U.S.  program  is 
extended  to  white  and  black  South  Africans. 
We  insist  that  our  companies  wherever  pos- 
sible afford  equal  pay  for  equal  work.  On 
Rhodesia,  I  shall  only  note  the  continuing  ef- 
forts of  the  administration  to  obtain  the  re- 
peal of  the  Byrd  amendment. 

As  I  suggested,  southern  Africa  fully  de- 
serves the  concern  and  interest  that  has  been 
expressed  in  this  committee  and  in  the  other 
bodies  of  the  United  Nations.  But  the  trou- 
bling situation  there  should  not  blind  us  to 
the  evils  of  racism  in  other  parts  of  the  world 
or  establish  an  exclusive  target  for  our  ac- 
tions. Our  goal  in  this  Decade  for  Action  is 
to  seek  the  elimination  of  racism  and  racial 
discrimination  throughout  the  world  wher- 
ever it  appears  and  whatever  the  form  or, 
more  positively,  to  promote  racial  harmony 
among  all  the  peoples  of  the  world.  We  are 
interdependent  in  our  global  social  system 
no  less  so  than  in  our  economic  system. 

In  connection  with  the  international  ac- 
tivities of  my  government  in  support  of  the 
U.N.  Decade,  I  would  be  remiss  if  I  did  not 
make  special  mention  of  the  activities  of  the 
U.S.  National  Commission  for  UNESCO 
[U.N.  Educational,  Scientific  and  Cultural 
Organization].  The  Commission  has  estab- 
lished a  working  committee  to  organize  a 
major  conference  in  1975  for  the  purpose  of 
highlighting  U.S.  participation  in  the  U.N. 
Decade.  If  I  may  inject  a  personal  note,  Mrs. 
Whitney  Young,  who,  as  some  of  you  may 
recall,  was  a  member  of  our  delegation  to 
this  committee  last  year,  will  serve  as  co- 
chairman  of  the  working  committee. 

Madam  Chairman,  I  did  not  intend  this  as 
a  comprehensive  statement  of  all  U.S.  activi- 
ties in  this  area.  I  did  wish,  however,  to  re- 
affirm my  country's  commitment  to  the  Dec- 
ade for  Action  to  Combat  Racism  and  Racial 
Discrimination.  In  the  discussions  immedi- 
ately before  us,  we  will  be  faced  with  some 
specific  issues — the  draft  resolution  proposed 
by  ECOSOC,  the  organization  of  an  interna- 
tional conference,  to  name  but  two.  I  trust 


December  9,   1974 


that  we  can  move  swiftly  to  approve  the 
ECOSOC  resolution  and  to  begin  prepara- 
tions for  the  international  conference.^ 

May  I  in  closing  recall  the  words  of  Sec- 
retary Kissinger  delivered  before  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  last  week:  - 

.  .  .  beyond  peace,  beyond  prosperity,  lie  man's 
deepest  aspirations  for  a  life  of  dignity  and  justice. 
And  beyond  our  pride,  beyond  our  concern  for  the 
national  purpose  we  are  called  upon  to  serve,  there 
must  be  a  concern  for  the  betterment  of  the  human 
condition.  While  we  cannot,  in  the  brief  span  al- 
lowed to  each  of  us,  undo  the  accumulated  problems 
of  centuries,  we  dare  not  do  less  than  try. 

Madam  Chairman,  our  self-respect  and  the 
expectations  of  the  international  community 
demand  no  less  than  our  best  efforts. 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  3 

Decade  for  Action  to  Combat  Racism 
and  Racial  Discrimination 

The  General  Assembly, 

Recalling  its  resolution  2919  (XXVII)  of  15  No- 
vember 1972,  in  which  it  proclaimed  a  Decade  for 
Action  to  Combat  Racism  and  Racial  Discrimination, 

Recalling  its  resolution  3057  (XXVIII)  of  2  No- 
vember 1973,  in  which  it  reaffirmed  its  determina- 
tion to  achieve  the  total  and  unconditional  elimina- 
tion of  racism  and  racial  discrimination,  against 
which  the  conscience  and  sense  of  justice  of  mankind 
have  long  been  aroused  and  which  in  our  time  rep- 
resent serious  obstacles  to  further  progress  and  to 
the  strengthening  of  international  peace  and  secu- 
rity,' 

1.  Takes  note  of  Economic  and  Social  Council  res- 
olution 1863  (LVI)  of  17  May  1974; 

2.  Takes  note  with  appreciation  of  the  reports  of 
the  Secretary-General '"  submitted  in  accordance  with 
paragraphs  18  (f)  and  18  (h)  of  the  Programme  for 


'  The  draft  resolution  recommended  by  ECOSOC 
(Resolution  1863  (LVI)),  as  amended,  was  adopted 
by  the  committee  unanimously  on  Oct.  10. 

"  For  Secretary  Kissinger's  address  before  the 
General  Assembly  on  Sept.  23,  see  Bulletin  of  Oct. 
14,  1974,  p.  498. 

'A/RES/3223  (XXIX);  (text  from  U.N.  doc.  A/ 
9808);  adopted  by  the  Assembly  on  Nov.  6. 

*  For  text  of  Resolution  30bl,  which  includes  the 
Program  for  the  Decade  for  Action  to  Combat  Ra- 
cism and  Racial  Discrimination,  see  Bulletin  of 
Dec.  17,  1973,  p.  742. 

=  U.N.  doc.  E/5474,  E/5475;  see  also  A/9666  and 
Add.1-5.  [Footnote  in  original.] 


817 


the  Decade  for  Action  to  Combat  Racism  and  Racial 
Discrimination; 

3.  Condemns  the  intolerable  conditions  which  con- 
tinue to  prevail  in  the  southern  part  of  Africa  and 
elsewhere,  including  the  denial  of  the  i-ight  to  self- 
determination  and  the  inhumane  and  odious  applica- 
tion of  apartheid  and  racial  discrimination; 

4.  Reaffirms  its  recognition  of  the  legitimacy  of 
the  struggle  of  oppressed  peoples  to  liberate  them- 
selves from  racism,  racial  discrimination,  apartheid, 
colonialism  and  alien  domination; 

5.  Urges  all  Member  States  to  co-operate  loyally 
and  fully  in  achieving  the  goals  and  objectives  of  the 
Decade  by  taking  such  actions  and  measures  as: 

(a)  Implementing  United  Nations  resolutions 
bearing  on  the  elimination  of  racism,  apartheid,  ra- 
cial discrimination  and  the  liberation  of  peoples  un- 
der colonial  domination  and  alien  subjugation; 

(6)  Signing  and  ratifying  the  International  Con- 
vention on  the  Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Racial 
Discrimination,  the  International  Convention  on  the 
Suppression  and  Punishment  of  the  Crime  of  Apart- 
heid, the  International  Covenants  on  Human  Rights 
and  all  other  relevant  instruments; 

(c)  Formulating  and  executing  plans  to  realize 
the  policy  measures  and  goals  contained  in  the  Pro- 
gramme for  the  Decade; 

(d)  Reviewing  internal  laws  and  regulations  with 
a  view  to  identifying  and  rescinding  those  which  pro- 
vide for,  give  rise  to,  or  inspire  racial  discrimination 
or  apartheid; 

(e)  Supplying  the  Secretary-General  with  com- 
ments and  views  as  to  the  draft  agenda  and  timing 
of  the  world  conference  referred  to  in  paragraph  13 
(a)  of  the  Programme  for  the  Decade,  as  well  as  in 
relation  to  the  implementation  of  that  Programme; 

(/)  Complying,  when  due,  with  the  provisions  of 
paragraph  18  (e)  of  the  Programme  for  the  Decade, 
whereby  the  Secretary-General  will  circulate  a  ques- 
tionnaire, on  the  basis  of  which  the  Economic  and 
Social  Council  will  consider  every  two  years  action 
undertaken  or  contemplated  by  Governments  in  im- 
plementation of  their  programmes  for  the  Decade; 

6.  Requests  national  sports  federations  of  Member 
States  to  refuse  systematically  to  participate  in  all 
sports  or  other  activities  together  with  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  racist  regime  of  South  Africa; 

7.  Urges  all  States,  United  Nations  organs  and 
bodies,  the  specialized  agencies  and  intergovernmen- 
tal and  non-governmental  organizations  to  ensure, 
inter  alia: 

(a)  Immediate  temiination  of  all  measures  and 
policies,  as  well  as  military,  political,  economic  and 
other  activities,  which  enable  racist  regimes  in  the 
southern  part  of  Africa  to  continue  the  repression  of 
the  African  people; 

(6)  Full  support  and  assistance,  morally  and  ma- 
terially, to  the  peoples  which  are  victims  of  apart- 


818 


heid  and  racial  discrimination  and  to  the  liberatioi 

movements; 

8.  Calls  attention  to  the  vital  importance  of  ex 
amining  the  socio-economic  and  colonial  roots  of  ra 
cism,  apartheid  and  racial  discrimination  with  a  vie\ 
to  eliminating  them; 

9.  Stresses  the  importance  of  mobilizing  publi 
opinion  in  support,  morally  and  materially,  of  thi 
peoples  which  are  victims  of  racism,  apartheid,  ra 
cial  discrimination  and  colonial  and  alien  domina 
tion; 

10.  Commends  the  active  involvement  of  the  Com' 
mittee  on  the  Elimination  of  Racial  Discriminatioi 
in  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  for  th( 
Decade  within  its  competence  under  the  Interna- 
tional Convention  on  the  Elimination  of  All  Forms 
of  Racial  Discrimination; 

11.  Expresses  the  hope  that  adequate  resources 
will  be  made  available  to  the  Secretary-General  t< 
enable  him  to  undertake  the  activities  entrusted  t< 
him  under  the  Programme  for  the  Decade; 

12.  Decides  to  consider  at  its  thirtieth  session,  as 
a  matter  of  high  priority,  the  question  entitled  "Dec 
ade  for  Action  to  Combat  Racism  and  Racial  Dis 
crimination". 


I(  JlllSl 

liitefc 
Tie  I 


id 

■8,31 

port 
aio 


lipvei 
feiona 


iM 


k  int 
C( 


U.S.  Urges  Continued  Momentum 
in  Drug  Abuse  Control 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  Com- 
mittee III  (Social,  Humanitarian  and  Cut 
tural)  of  the  U.N.  General  Assembly  by  U.S 
Represeyitative  Clarence  Clyde  Ferguson, 
Jr.,  on  November  k- 

USUN  press  release  159  dated  November  4 

The  international  drug  abuse  problem  re- 
mains a  persistent  and  sinister  intruder  nol 
only  upon  the  world  stage  but  in  the  lives  oi 
millions.  Other  threats  to  the  peace  and  hap- 
piness of  innumerable  human  beings  hav 
come  and  gone,  and  many  more  are  likely  to 
appear  and  disappear  before  the  particularly 
pernicious  trade  in  illicit  drugs  is  brought 
under  adequate  control  by  the  world  commu- 
nity. 

I  would  hope,  however,  that  recognition 
of  the  tenacity  and  persistence  of  the  drug 
abuse  problem  will  not  be  interpreted  as 
grounds  for  despair.  Rather  we  should  per- 
ceive it  as  a  challenge  to  the  human  com- 
munity   to    eliminate   this    most   dangerous 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


:a 


lity 
Keari 
ntor 


fee- 


P«ts; 


few 


threat  to  the  happiness  and  health  of  its 
members.  I  believe  that  nations  acting  with- 
in their  borders  in  cooperation  with  each 
other  and  international  institutions  have  the 
means  which,  if  regularly  applied,  will 
eventually  bring  illicit  drugs  under  control. 
We  must  maintain  the  momentum  of  our 
past  efforts  without  relaxation  until  the  tide 
of  drug  abuse  subsides. 

The  United  States  intends  to  persevere, 
both  domestically  and  in   cooperation   with 

I  other  governments  and  international  organi- 
zations. We  intend  to  strengthen  the  bi- 
lateral programs  developed  over  recent 
years,  and  we  plan  to  maintain  our  vigorous 
support  for  the  international  organizations 
seized  of  the  problem  of  drug  control. 

In  a  proclamation  dated  October  18,  our 
President  called  upon  officials  at  every  level 
of  government,  upon  educators,  medical  pro- 
fessionals, and  leaders  in  all  community  ac- 
tivities to  rededicate  themselves  to  the  total 
banishment  of  drug  abuse  from  American 

'  life.  He  urged  all  Americans  to  commit 
themselves  wholeheartedly  to  what  he  de- 
scribed as  "this  supremely  important  hu- 
manitarian cause." 

This  last  year  has  been  a  significant  one 
for  international  narcotics  control  efforts. 
The  Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs  held  a 
productive  special  session  in  February, 
which  recommended  several  resolutions, 
later  adopted  by  ECOSOC  [Economic  and 
Social  Council],  which  should  prove  valuable 
in  strengthening  the  world  community's 
ability  to  attack  the  drug  problem.  The 
research  efforts  of  the  U.N.  Narcotics  Lab- 
oratory have  also  proceeded  smoothly.  They 
show  promise  of  providing  the  world  com- 
munity with  increased  knowledge  upon 
which  to  base  future  decisions  in  the  nar- 
cotics field. 

The  International  Narcotics  Control 
Board,  under  the  direction  of  its  new  Presi- 
dent, and  with  the  expert  assistance  of  its 
Secretary,  has  continued  to  fulfill  its  man- 
date with  vigor  and  imagination.  The  in- 
formation and  analyses  which  the  Board 
puts  at  the  disposition  of  the  international 
community  are  useful  not  only  to  an  under- 


standing of  the  licit  traffic  but  also  of  the 
illicit  traffic  and  the  general  supply  situation. 

We  hope  the  Board  will  continue  its 
achievement  as  its  responsibilities  multiply 
with  the  coming  into  force  of  the  Amending 
Protocol  to  the  Single  Convention  and  of  the 
Convention  on  Psychotropic  Substances. 

We  wish  to  urge  all  governments  to  ratify 
these  conventions  and  the  single  convention 
itself.  With  these  ratifications  we  may  then 
complete  the  international  system  for  con- 
trolling all  drugs  of  abuse,  both  natural  and 
manmade.  My  own  government  has  ratified 
two  of  these  conventions  and  is  presently 
considering  enabling  legislation  which  will 
permit  the  ratification  of  the  Convention  on 
Psychotropic  Substances. 

The  U.N.  Fund  for  Drug  Abuse  Control, 
under  the  Acting  Executive  Director,  has 
continued  the  development  of  programs  al- 
ready underway  to  respond  to  additional 
requests  from  governments  for  assistance 
in  combating  drug  abuse.  We  believe  it 
essential  that  the  work  of  the  Fund  be  con- 
tinued. We  urge  all  members  to  provide  it 
with  substantial  and  sustained  contributions 
to  enable  it  to  carry  out  its  responsibilities. 
Although  we  believe  there  is  still  room  for 
improvement  in  the  Fund's  programing,  op- 
erations, and  project  evaluation  procedures, 
we  note  with  satisfaction  the  speed  and 
flexibility  which  it  displayed  in  responding 
to  the  request  from  the  Government  of 
Turkey  for  technical  advice  on  control  pro- 
cedures. 

In  this  context,  I  believe  it  appropriate 
to  note  that  the  Turkish  Government,  after 
consultations  with  U.N.  narcotics  authori- 
ties, has  informed  us  that  it  has  decided  in 
principle  to  adopt  a  method  of  harvesting 
poppies  called  the  poppy  straw  process, 
which  involves  the  collection  by  the  Turkish 
Government  of  the  whole  poppy  pod  rather 
than  simply  the  opium  gum. 

While  we  believe  it  would  have  been  pref- 
erable that  the  ban  on  poppy  cultivation 
which  had  been  in  effect  for  two  years  had 
been  continued,  we  are  very  heartened  that 
the  Turkish  Government  has  decided  not  to 
produce  opium  but,  rather,  to  produce  in- 


December  9,   1974 


819 


stead  poppy  straw,  a  product  much  more 
amenable  to  efficient  control.  With  effective 
policing  to  assure  that  opium  gum  is  not 
illegally  extracted,  the  reflow  of  heroin  that 
has  so  long  concerned  so  much  of  the  world 
community  can  be  avoided. 

In  conclusion,  I  believe  it  fair  to  say  that 
past  efforts  toward  creating  an  effective 
international  system  for  controlling  drugs 
have  been  successful  in  giving  us  the  instru- 
ments needed  for  the  task.  There  is  still, 
however,  no  justification  for  self-satisfac- 
tion that  the  problem  is  solved.  Rather, 
the  world  community  must  utilize  all  avail- 
able instruments  with  skill,  imagination,  and 
determination  to  achieve  our  common  goal. 
We  therefore  urge  all  governments  to  con- 
tinue their  support  for  all  organizations 
dedicated  to  the  elimination  of  drug  abuse 
as  a  serious  social  problem. 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Antarctica 

The  Antarctic  treaty.  Signed  at  Washington  De- 
cember 1,  1959.  Entered  into  force  June  23,  1961. 
TIAS  4780. 

Accession  deposited:   German   Democratic  Repub- 
lic, November  19,  1974.' 


Atomic  Energy 

Protocol  suspending  the  agreement  of  July  15,  1968 
(TIAS  6524),  between  the  International  Atomic 
Energy  Agency,  the  Philippines,  and  the  United 
States  for  the  application  of  safeguards  and  pro- 
viding for  the  application  of  safeguards  pursuant 
to  the  nonproliferation  treaty  of  July  1,  1968 
(TIAS  6839) .  Signed  at  Vienna  February  21,  1973 
Entered  into  force:  October  16,  1974. 

Ocean  Dumping 

Convention  on  the  prevention  of  marine  pollution  byBjjjji.P 


0 


(mil 
fttiiJe 

tjtal 


dumping   of   wastes    and   other  matter,  with   an- 
nexes. Done  at  London,  Mexico  City,  Moscow,  and 
Washington  December  29,  1972.= 
Accession  deposited:  United  Arab  Emirates,  Au- 
gust 9,  1974. 

Pollution 

International  convention  for  the  prevention  of  pel 
lution   from   ships,    1973,   with   protocols   and   an- 
nexes. Done  at  London  November  2,  1973.= 
Signature:  Bulgaria,  November  8,  1974." 

Privileges  and  Immunities 

Convention  on  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the 
United  Nations.  Done  at  New  York  February  13, 
1946.  Entered  into  force  September  17,  1946;  fo^ 
the  United  States  April  29,  1970.  TIAS  6900. 
Accession  deposited:  German  Democratic  Repub- 
lic, October  4,  1974.' 


BILATERAL 


Bangladesh 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of  ag-1 
ricultural  commodities  of  October  4,  1974.  Effected  i 
by  exchange   of   notes   at   Dacca   October   29   andti 


»(* 


ifliviM 
we 

iaitlar: 
Sovffl 

b« 
EiME 

im 

lull  I 
tiCii 
low 

trslP 


fitiita 


November  8, 
8,  1974. 


1974.   Entered   into  force  NovemberM 


'-  With  declaration. 
=  Not  in  force. 
'  Subject  to  approval. 
"  With  reservation. 


asm 


m\] 

.\'ortki 
Fori 
of  Pi 

^silie 

teivat 
Itat 

Nile 
hi 

hiide 
Bilai 


Tons 


820 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Soil! 


INDEX     December  9,1 97 i     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1850 


Canada.  U.S. -Canada  Treaty  on  Extradition 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate  (message  from 
President   Ford) 805 

Cyprus.  U.S.  Discusses  Cyprus  Situation  in 
U.N.  General  Assembly  (Scali,  text  of  reso- 
lution)     813 

Economic    Affairs.    President   Ford    Maintains 

Current  Tariffs  on  Sugar  (statement)     .     .       804 

P>gypt.  Presidential  Determination  on  Sale  of 
200,000  Tons  of  Wheat  to  Egypt  (text)    .     .       805 

Energy 

Activation   of  the   Energy   Resources   Council 

(text  of  Executive  order) 806 

Secretary    Kissinger's    News    Conference    of 

November    15 781 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Simon  Discusses 
Energy  Proposals  (address  before  National 
Foreign   Trade    Convention) 794 

Human  Rights 

U.S.  Calls  for  Worldwide  Effort  To  Eliminate 
Torture  and  Inhuman  Treatment  of  Prison- 
ers (Percy,  text  of  resolution) 807 

U.S.  Reaffirms  Support  of  Decade  for  Action 
To  Combat  Racism  (Ferguson,  text  of  reso- 
lution)     815 

Japan 

President  Ford's   News  Conference  at   Sigma 

Delta  Chi  Convention   (excerpts)     ....       788 

Secretary    Kissinger's    News    Conference    of 

November    15 781 

Korea 

President  Ford's   News  Conference  at   Sigma 

Delta  Chi  Convention   (excerpts)     ....       788 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference  of 
November    15 781 

Middle  East 

President  Ford's   News  Conference  at   Sigma 

Delta  Chi  Convention    (excerpts)     ....       788 

Secretary    Kissinger's    News    Conference    of 

November    15 781 

Under  Secretary  Sisco  Discusses  Middle  East 

in  "Today"  Interview  (transcript)    ....       790 

Narcotics  Control.  U.S.  Urges  Continued  Mo- 
mentum in  Drug  Abuse  Control  (Ferguson)       818 

North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization.  President 
Ford  Reports  on  NATO's  Effect  on  Balance 
of  Payments  (message  to  the  Congress)  .     .       792 

Presidential  Documents 

Activation  of   the   Energy  Resources   Council 

(text  of  Executive  order) 806 

President  Ford  Maintains  Current  Tariffs  oii 

„  Sugar 804 

President  Ford  Reports  on  NATO's  Effect  on 

Balance   of   Payments 792 

President  Ford's   News  Conference  at  Sigma 

Delta  Chi  Convention   (excerpts)     ....       788 

Presidential  Determination  on  Sale  of  200,000 

Tons  of  Wheat  to  Egypt 805 

Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Convention  on  Pro- 
tection of  Diplomats 803 

U.S.-Canada  Treaty  on  Extradition  "Trans- 
mitted to  the  Senate 805 

South  Africa.  U.S.  Challenges  Ruling  To  Ex- 
clude South  Africa  From  General  Assem- 
bly  (Scali) gll 


Treaty  Information 

Current  -Actions 320 

Senate  .\sked  To  Approve  Convention  oii  Pro- 
tection of  Diplomats  (message  from  Presi- 
dent  Ford) go3 

U.S.S.R. 

President  Ford's   News  Conference  at  Sigma 

Delta  Chi  Convention   (excerpts)     ....       788 

Secretary    Kissinger's    News    Conference    of 

November    15 731 

United  Nations 

U.S.  Calls  for  Worldwide  Effort  To  Eliminate 
Torture  and  Inhuman  Treatment  of  Prison- 
ers (Percy,  text  of  resolution)     ....  807 

U.S.  Challenges  Ruling  To  Exclude  South  Af- 
rica From  General  Assembly  (Scali)    ...       811 

U.S.  Discusses  Cyprus  Situation  in  U.N.  Gen- 
eral Assembly    (Scali,  text  of  resolution)   .       813 

U.S.  Reaffirms  Support  of  Decade  for  Action 
To  Combat  Racism  (Ferguson,  text  of  reso- 
lution)     g]^5 

U.S.    Urges    Continued    Momentum    in    Drug 

Abuse    Control    (Ferguson) 818 

Name  Index 

Ferguson,  Clarence   Clyde,  Jr 815,818 

Ford,   President      .     .     .       788,792,803,804,805,806 

Kissinger,    Secretary 731 

Percy,  Charles  H .     '.     .       807 

Scali,  John g^  ^i^ 

Simon,    William    E .     .     .     '  794 

Sisco,  Joseph   J '      79Q 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:   November  1 8-24 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Release  issued  prior  to  November  18  which 
appears  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  is  No. 
501  of  November  15. 

Subject 

Kissinger:       news       conference, 

Tokyo. 
Caribbean     scholars    visit    U.S., 

Nov.  19-Dec.  9. 
U.S.    Advisory    Commission    on 

International   Educational  and 

Cultural  Affairs,  Dec.  9. 
Secretary's  Advisory  Committee 

on  Private  International  Law, 

Dec.  13. 
Sisco:  interview  on  "Today". 
Kissinger:       news       conference, 

Tokyo. 
Northwest     Atlantic      Fisheries 

Advisory    Committee,    Boston, 

Dec.  10. 
U.S.- Yugoslav       Scientific       and 

Technological  Cooperation 

Board. 


No. 

Date 

t503 

11/19 

*504 

11/19 

*505 

11/19 

*506     11/19 


507 
t508 

*509 
t510 


11/20 
11/20 

11/21 
11/22 


*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

us.  government  printing  office 

washington.  dc.  20402 


OFFICIAL   BUSINESS 


POSTAGE    AND    FEEIS    PAID 
U.S.     OCTVERNMCNT     PRIHTING     OFFICE 

Special   Fourth-Ciasf   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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


3 

/■3: 


7/. 


'/8S/ 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1851 


December  16,  1974 


WORLD  FOOD  CONFERENCE  MEETS  AT  ROME 

Addresses  by  Secretary  Kissinger  and  Secretary  of  Agriculture  Biitz 

and  Texts  of  Resolutions     821 

SOUTHERN  AFRICA  FIVE  YEARS  AFTER  THE  LUSAKA  MANIFESTO 
Address  by  Assistant  Secretary  Easum     838 

U.N.   COMMENDS  OUTER   SPACE   REGISTRATION   CONVENTION 
Statement  by  Thomas  H.  Kvchel  and  Texts  of  Resolutions     8U5 

U.S.  OPPOSES  U.N.  RESOLUTIONS  ON  QUESTION  OF  PALESTINE 
Statement  by  Ambassador  Scali  and  Texts  of  Resolutions     857 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


For  index  see   inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE    BULLETIN 


Kor  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Piintingc  Office 

Washington.   D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

'}'!  issues  plus  semiannual  indexes, 

domestic  $29.80.  foieiKn  $37.25 

Single  copy  60  cents 

Use     of    funds     for     printing     this    publication 

apjiroved     by     the     Director    of     the    Office     of 

Management   and   Budget    (January   29.    1971) . 

Not€ ."    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.  1851 
December  16,  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 
tlie  field  of  U.S.  foreign  relations  and 
on  tlie  work  of  the  Department  and 
tlie  Foreign  Service. 
The  BULLETIN  includes  selected 
press  releases  on  foreign  policy,  issued 
by  the  Wltite  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. 


World  Food  Conference  Meets  at  Rome 


The  World  Food  Conference  met  at  Rome 
November  5-16.  Following  are  texts  of  an 
address  made  before  the  conference  on  No- 
vember 5  by  Secretary  Kissinger,  an  address 
made  on  November  6  by  Secretary  of  Agri- 
ctdture  Earl  L.  Butz,  chairman  of  the  U.S. 
delegation,^  and  four  resolutions  adopted  by 
the  conference  on  November  16. 


ADDRESS  BY   SECRETARY   KISSINGER 

Press  release  477  dated  November  5 

We  meet  to  address  man's  most  funda- 
mental need.  The  threat  of  famine,  the  fact 
of  hunger,  have  haunted  men  and  nations 
throughout  history.  Our  presence  here  is 
recognition  that  this  eternal  problem  has 
now  taken  on  unprecedented  scale  and  ur- 
gency and  that  it  can  only  be  dealt  with  by 
concerted  worldwide  action. 

Our  challenge  goes  far  deeper  than  one 
area  of  human  endeavor  or  one  international 
conference.  We  are  faced  not  just  with  the 
problem  of  food  but  with  the  accelerating 
momentum  of  our  interdependence.  The 
world  is  midway  between  the  end  of  the 
Second  World  War  and  the  beginning  of  the 
21st  century.  We  are  stranded  between  old 
conceptions  of  political  conduct  and  a  wholly 
new  environment,  between  the  inadequacy  of 
the  nation-state  and  the  emerging  impera- 
tive of  global  community. 

In  the  past  30  years  the  world  came  to 
assume  that  a  stable  economic  system  and 
spreading  prosperity  would  continue  indefi- 
nitely. New  nations  launched  themselves 
confidently  on  the  path  of  economic  and  so- 
cial development;   technical   innovation  and 


'  For  names  of  other  members  of  the  U.S.  delega- 
tion, see  press  release  450  dated  Oct.  30. 


industrial  expansion  promised  steady  im- 
provement in  the  standard  of  living  of  all 
nations ;  surpluses  of  fuel,  food,  and  raw 
materials  were  considered  a  burden  rather 
than  a  blessing.  While  poverty  and  misery 
still  afflicted  many  parts  of  the  globe,  over 
the  long  run  there  was  universal  hope ;  the 
period  was  fairly  characterized  as  a  "revolu- 
tion of  rising  expectations." 

That  time  has  ended.  Now  there  are 
fundamental  questions  about  our  capacity  to 
meet  even  our  most  basic  needs.  In  1972, 
partly  due  to  bad  weather  around  the  globe, 
world  grain  production  declined  for  the  first 
time  in  two  decades.  We  were  made  omi- 
nously conscious  of  the  thin  edge  between 
hope  and  hunger,  and  of  the  world's  depend- 
ence on  the  surplus  production  of  a  few 
nations.  In  1973,  first  a  political  embargo 
and  then  abruptly  raised  prices  for  oil  curbed 
production  in  the  world's  factories  and  farms 
and  sharply  accelerated  a  global  inflation 
that  was  already  at  the  margin  of  govern- 
ments' ability  to  control.  In  1974,  the  inter- 
national monetary  and  trading  system  con- 
tinues under  mounting  stress,  not  yet  able 
to  absorb  the  accumulated  weight  of  repeated 
shocks,  its  institutions  still  struggling  to 
respond.  The  same  interdependence  that 
brought  common  advance  now  threatens  us 
with  common  decline. 

We  must  act  now  and  we  must  act  together 
to  regain  control  over  our  shared  destiny. 
Catastrophe  when  it  cannot  be  foreseen  can 
be  blamed  on  a  failure  of  vision  or  on  forces 
beyond  our  control.  But  the  current  trend 
is  obvious,  and  the  remedy  is  within  our 
power.  If  we  do  not  act  boldly,  disaster  will 
result  from  a  failure  of  will ;  moral  culpa- 
bility will  be  inherent  in  our  foreknowledge. 

The  political  challenge  is  straightforward : 
Will  the  nations  of  the  world  cooperate  to 


December   16,   1974 


821 


confront  a  crisis  which  is  both  self-evident 
and  global  in  nature?  Or  will  each  nation 
or  region  or  bloc  see  its  special  advantage 
as  a  weapon  instead  of  as  a  contribution? 
Will  we  pool  our  strengths  and  progress 
together  or  test  our  strengths  and  sink 
together  ? 

President  Ford  has  instructed  me  to  de- 
clare on  behalf  of  the  United  States :  We 
regard  our  good  fortune  and  strength  in  the 
field  of  food  as  a  global  trust.  We  recognize 
the  responsibilities  we  bear  by  virtue  of  our 
extraordinary  productivity,  our  advanced 
technology,  and  our  tradition  of  assistance. 
That  is  why  we  proposed  this  conference. 
That  is  why  a  Secretary  of  State  is  giving 
this  address.  The  United  States  will  make 
a  major  effort  to  match  its  capacity  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  challenge.  We  are  con- 
vinced that  the  collective  response  will  have 
an  important  influence  on  the  nature  of  the 
world  that  our  children  inherit. 

As  we  move  toward  the  next  century  the 
nations  assembled  here  must  begin  to  fashion 
a  global  conception.  For  we  are  irreversibly 
linked  to  each  other — by  interdependent  econ- 
omies and  human  aspirations,  by  instant 
communications  and  nuclear  peril.  The  con- 
temporary agenda  of  energy,  food,  and  in- 
flation exceeds  the  capacity  of  any  single 
government,  or  even  of  a  few  governments 
together,  to  resolve. 

All  nations — East  and  West,  North  and 
South — are  linked  to  a  single  economic  sys- 
tem. Preoccupation  with  narrow  advantage 
is  foredoomed.  It  is  bound  to  lead  to  sterile 
confrontations,  undermining  the  internation- 
al cooperation  upon  which  achievement  of 
national  objectives  depends.  The  poorest  and 
weakest  nations  will  suffer  most.  Discontent 
and  instabilities  will  be  magnified  in  all 
countries.  New  dangers  will  be  posed  to 
recent  progress  in  reducing  international 
tensions. 

But  this  need  not  be  our  future.  There  is 
great  opportunity  as  well  as  grave  danger 
in  the  present  crisis.  Recognition  of  our 
condition  can  disenthrall  us  from  outdated 
conceptions,  from  institutional  inertia,  from 
sterile  rivalries.  If  we  comprehend  our  re- 
ality and  act  upon  it,   we  can   usher  in  a 

822 


period  of  unprecedented  advance  with  con- 
sequences far  transcending  the  issues  before 
this  conference.  We  will  have  built  an  inter- 
national system  worthy  of  the  capacities 
and  aspirations  of  mankind. 

The  Food  Challenge 

We  must  begin  here  with  the  challenge 
of  food.  No  social  system,  ideology,  or  prin- 
ciple of  justice  can  tolerate  a  world  in  which 
the  spiritual  and  physical  potential  of  hun- 
dreds of  millions  is  stunted  from  elemental 
hunger  or  inadequate  nutrition.  National 
pride  or  regional  suspicions  lose  any  moral 
and  practical  justification  if  they  prevent  us 
from  overcoming  this  scourge. 

A  generation  ago  many  farmers  were  self- 
sufficient;  today  fuel,  fertilizer,  capital,  and 
technology  are  essential  for  their  economic 
survival.  A  generation  ago  many  nations 
were  self-sufficient;  today  a  few  food  ex- 
porters provide  the  margin  between  life  and 
death  for  many  millions. 

Thus  food  has  become  a  central  element 
of  the  international  economy.  A  world  of 
energy  shortages,  rampant  inflation,  and  a 
weakening  trade  and  monetary  system  will 
be  a  world  of  food  shortages  as  well.  And 
food  shortages  in  turn  sabotage  growth  and 
accelerate  inflation. 

The  food  problem  has  two  levels — first, 
coping  with  food  emergencies,  and  second, 
assuring  long-term  supplies  and  an  adequate 
standard  of  nutrition  for  our  growing  popu- 
lations. 

During  the  1950's  and  1960's,  global  food 
production  grew  with  great  consistency.  Per 
capita  output  expanded  even  in  the  food- 
deficit  nations;  the  world's  total  output  in- 
creased by  more  than  half.  But  at  the  pre- 
cise moment  when  growing  populations  and 
rising  expectations  made  a  continuation  of 
this  trend  essential,  a  dramatic  change  oc- 
curred: during  the  past  three  years,  world 
cereal  production  has  fallen;  reserves  have 
dropped  to  the  point  where  significant  crop 
failure  can  spell  a  major  disaster. 

The  longer  term  picture  is,  if  anything, 
starker  still.  Even  today  hundreds  of  millions 
of  people  do  not  eat  enough  for  decent  and 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 


productive  lives.  Since  increases  in  produc- 
tion are  not  evenly  distributed,  the  absolute 
numbers  of  malnourished  people  are,  in  fact, 
probably  greater  today  than  ever  before 
except  in  times  of  famine.  In  many  parts  of 
the  world  30  to  50  percent  of  the  children  die 
before  the  age  of  five,  millions  of  them  from 
malnutrition.  Many  survive  only  with  per- 
manent damage  to  their  intellectual  and  phys- 
ical capacities. 

World  population  is  projected  to  double 
by  the  end  of  the  century.  It  is  clear  that 
we  must  meet  the  food  need  that  this  entails. 
But  it  is  equally  clear  that  population  cannot 
continue  indefinitely  to  double  every  genera- 
tion. At  some  point  we  will  inevitably  ex- 
ceed the  earth's  capacity  to  sustain  human 
life. 

•  The  near-  as  well  as  the  long-term  chal- 
lenges of  food  have  three  components : 

— There  is  the  problem  of  production.  In 
the  face  of  population  trends,  maintaining 
even  current  inadequate  levels  of  nutrition 
and  food  security  will  require  that  we  pro- 
duce twice  as  much  food  by  the  end  of  this 
century.  Adequate  nutrition  would  require 
150  percent  more  food,  or  a  total  annual  out- 
put of  3  billion  tons  of  grain. 

— There  is  the  problem  of  distribution. 
Secretary  General  Marei  [Sayed  A.  Marei, 
of  Egypt,  Secretary  General  of  the  con- 
ference] estimates  that  at  the  present  rate 
of  growth  of  214  percent  a  year  the  gap 
between  what  the  developing  countries  pro- 
duce themselves  and  what  they  need  will 
rise  from  25  million  to  85  million  tons  a 
year  by  1985.  For  the  foreseeable  future, 
food  will  have  to  be  transferred  on  a  sub- 
stantial scale  from  where  it  is  in  surplus 
to  where  it  is  in  shortage. 

— There  is  the  problem  of  reserves.  Pro- 
tection against  the  vagaries  of  weather  and 
disaster  urgently  requires  a  food  reserve. 
Our  estimate  is  that  as  much  as  60  million 
tons  over  current  carryover  levels  may  be 
required. 

In  short,  we  are  convinced  that  the  world 
faces  a  challenge  new  in  its  severity,  its  per- 
vasiveness, and  its  global  dimension.  Our 
minimum  objective  of  the  next  quarter  cen- 


tury must  be  to  more  than  double  world  food 
production  and  to  improve  its  quality.  To 
meet  this  objective  the  United  States  pro- 
poses to  this  conference  a  comprehensive 
program  of  urgent  cooperative  worldwide 
action  on  five  fronts : 

— Increasing  the  production  of  food  ex- 
porters. 

— Accelerating  the  production  in  develop- 
ing countries. 

— Improving  means  of  food  distribution 
and  financing. 

— Enhancing  food  quality. 

— Insuring  security  against  food  emergen- 
cies. 

Let  me  deal  with  each  of  these  in  turn. 


Increased  Production  by  Food  Exporters 

A  handful  of  countries,  through  good  for- 
tune and  technology,  can  produce  more  than 
they  need  and  thus  are  able  to  export. 
Reliance  on  this  production  is  certain  to  grow 
through  the  next  decade  and  perhaps  beyond. 
Unless  we  are  to  doom  the  world  to  chronic 
famine,  the  major  exporting  nations  must 
rapidly  expand  their  potential  and  seek  to 
insure  the  dependable  long-term  growth  of 
their  supplies. 

They  must  begin  by  adjusting  their  agri- 
cultural policies  to  a  new  economic  reality. 
For  years  the.se  policies  were  based  on  the 
premise  that  production  to  full  capacity  cre- 
ated undesirable  surpluses  and  depressed 
markets,  depriving  farmers  of  incentives  to 
invest  and  produce.  It  is  now  abundantly 
clear  that  this  is  not  the  problem  we  face; 
there  is  no  surplus  so  long  as  there  is  an  un- 
met need.  In  that  sense,  no  real  surplus  has 
ever  existed.  The  problem  has  always  been  a 
collective  failure  to  transfer  apparent  sur- 
pluses to  areas  of  shortage.  In  current  and 
foreseeable  conditions  this  can  surely  be  ac- 
complished without  dampening  incentives 
for  production  in  either  area. 

The  United  States  has  taken  sweeping 
steps  to  expand  its  output  to  the  maximum. 
It  already  has  167  million  acres  under  grain 
production  alone,  an  increase  of  23  million 
acres  from  two  years  ago.    In  an  address 


December   16,    1974 


823 


to  the  Congress  last  month,  President  Ford 
asked  for  a  greater  effort  still ;  he  called 
upon  every  American  farmer  to  produce  to 
full  capacity.  He  directed  the  elimination  of 
all  restrictive  practices  which  raise  food 
prices ;  he  assured  farmers  that  he  will  use 
present  authority  and  seek  additional  author- 
ity to  allocate  the  fuel  and  fertilizer  they 
require;  and  he  urged  the  removal  of  re- 
maining acreage  limitations. 

These  efforts  should  be  matched  by  all 
exporting  countries. 

Maximum  production  will  require  a  sub- 
stantial increase  in  investment.  The  best 
land,  the  most  accessible  water,  and  the  most 
obvious  improvements  are  already  in  use. 
Last  year  the  United  States  raised  its  invest- 
ment in  agriculture  by  $2.5  billion.  The  U.S. 
Government  is  launching  a  systematic  survey 
of  additional  investment  requirements  and  of 
ways  to  insure  that  they  are  met. 

A  comparable  effort  by  other  nations  is 
essential. 

The  United  States  believes  that  coopera- 
tive action  among  exporting  countries  is  re- 
quired to  stimulate  rational  planning  and  the 
necessary  increases  in  output.  We  are  pre- 
pared to  join  with  other  major  exporters  in 
a  common  commitment  to  raise  production,  to 
make  the  necessary  investment,  and  to  begin 
rebuilding  reserves  for  food  security.  Im- 
mediately following  the  conclusion  of  this 
conference,  the  United  States  proposes  to 
convene  a  group  of  major  exporters — an 
Export  Planning  Group — to  shape  a  concrete 
and  coordinated  program  to  achieve  these 
goals. 

Production  in  Developing  Countries 

The  food-exporting  nations  alone  will  sim- 
ply not  be  able  to  meet  the  world's  basic 
needs.  Ironically  but  fortunately,  it  is  the 
nations  with  the  most  rapidly  growing  food 
deficits  which  also  possess  the  greatest  ca- 
pacity for  increased  production.  They  have 
the  largest  amounts  of  unused  land  and 
water.  While  they  now  have  35  percent  more 
land  in  grain  production  than  the  developed 
nations,  they  produce  20  percent  less  on  this 
land.   In  short,  the  largest  growth  in  world 

824 


food  production  can  and  must  take  place  in 
the  chronic  deficit  countries. 

Yet  the  gap  between  supply  and  demand 
in  these  countries  is  growing,  not  narrowing. 
At  the  current  growth  rate,  the  grain  sup- 
ply deficit  is  estimated  to  more  than  triple 
and  reach  some  85  million  tons  by  1985.  To 
cut  this  gap  in  half  would  require  accelerat- 
ing their  growth  rate  from  the  historically 
high  average  of  21,2  percent  per  annum  to 
31/0  percent — an  increase  in  the  rate  of 
growth  of  40  percent. 

Two  key  areas  need  major  emphasis  to 
achieve  even  this  minimum  goal :  new  re- 
search and  new  investment. 

International  and  national  research  pro- 
grams must  be  concentrated  on  the  special 
needs  of  the  chronic  food-deficit  nations,  and 
they  must  be  intensified.  New  technologies 
must  be  developed  to  increase  yields  and  re- 
duce costs,  making  use  of  the  special  fea- 
tures of  their  labor-intensive,  capital-short 
economies. 

On  the  international  plane,  we  must 
strengthen  and  expand  the  research  network 
linking  the  less  developed  countries  with  re- 
search institutions  in  the  industrialized 
countries  and  with  the  existing  eight  inter- 
national agricultural  research  centers.  We 
propose  that  resources  for  these  centers  be 
more  than  doubled  by  1980.  For  its  part,  the 
United  States  will  in  the  same  period  triple 
its  own  contribution  for  the  international 
centers,  for  agricultural  research  efforts  in 
the  less  developed  countries,  and  for  research 
by  American  universities  on  the  agricultural 
problems  of  developing  nations.  The  existing 
Consultative  Group  on  International  Agri- 
cultural Research  can  play  an  important  co- 
ordinating role  in  this  effort. 

The  United  States  is  gratified  by  the  prog- 
ress of  two  initiatives  which  we  proposed 
at  the  sixth  special  session  of  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  last  April :  the  Interna- 
tional Fertilizer  Development  Center  and  the 
study  on  the  impact  of  climate  change  on 
food  supply.  The  fertilizer  center  opened  its 
doors  last  month  in  the  United  States  with 
funds  provided  by  Canada  and  the  United 
States;  we  invite  wider  participation  and 
pledge   its    resources    to    the   needs    of   the 


Department  of  State  Bulletin' 


developing  nations.  And  the  important  study 
on  climate  and  food  supply  has  been  taken 
on  by  the  U.N.  World  Meteorological  Organi- 
zation  (WMO). 

National  as  well  as  international  research 
efforts  must  be  brought  to  bear.  The  United 
States  offers  to  share  with  developing  nations 
the  results  of  its  advanced  research.  We 
already  have  underway  a  considerable  range 
of  promising  projects:  to  increase  the  pro- 
tein content  of  common  cereals ;  to  fortify 
staple  foods  with  inexpensive  nutrients ;  to 
improve  plant  fixation  of  atmospheric  nitro- 
gen to  reduce  the  need  for  costly  fertilizers ; 
to  develop  new  low-cost,  small-scale  tools  and 
machines  for  the  world's  millions  of  small 
farmers. 

We  also  plan  a  number  of  new  projects. 
Next  year  our  space,  agriculture,  and  weath- 
er agencies  will  test  advanced  satellite  tech- 
niques for  surveying  and  forecasting  impor- 
tant food  crops.  We  will  begin  in  North 
America  and  then  broaden  the  project  to 
other  parts  of  the  world.  To  supplement  the 
WMO  study  on  climate,  we  have  begun  our 
own  analysis  of  the  relationship  between  cli- 
matic patterns  and  crop  yields  over  a  statisti- 
cally significant  period.  This  is  a  promising 
and  potentially  vital  contribution  to  rational 
planning  of  global  production. 

The  United  States  will  also  make  available 
the  results  of  these  projects  for  other 
nations. 

Finally,  President  Ford  is  requesting  the 
National  Academy  of  Sciences,  in  coopera- 
tion with  the  Department  of  Agriculture  and 
other  governmental  agencies,  to  design  a  far- 
reaching  food  and  nutrition  research  pro- 
gram to  mobilize  America's  talent.  It  is 
the  President's  aim  to  dedicate  America's 
resources  and  America's  scientific  talent  to 
finding  new  solutions,  commensurate  both 
with  the  magnitude  of  the  human  need  and 
the  wealth  of  our  scientific  capacities. 

While  we  can  hope  for  technological  break- 
throughs, we  cannot  count  on  them.  There 
is  no  substitute  for  additional  investment 
in  chronic  food-deficit  countries.  New  irriga- 
tion systems,  storage  and  distribution  sys- 
tems, production  facilities  for  fertilizer, 
pesticide,  and  seed,  and  agricultural  credit 


institutions  are  all  urgently  needed.  Much  of 
this  can  be  stimulated  and  financed  locally. 
But  substantial  outside  resources  will  be 
needed  for  some  time  to  come. 

The  United  States  believes  that  investment 
should  be  concentrated  in  strategic  areas, 
applying  existing,  and  in  some  cases  very 
simple,  technologies  to  critical  variables  in 
the  process  of  food  production.  Among  these 
are  fertilizer,  better  storage  facilities,  and 
pesticides. 

Modern  fertilizer  is  probably  the  most 
critical  single  input  for  increasing  crop 
yields;  it  is  also  the  most  dependent  on  new 
investment.  In  our  view,  fertilizer  produc- 
tion is  an  ideal  area  for  collaboration  be- 
tween wealthier  and  poorer  nations,  espe- 
cially combining  the  technology  of  the  de- 
veloped countries,  the  capital  and  raw 
materials  of  the  oil  producers,  and  the  grow- 
ing needs  of  the  least  developed  countries. 
Existing  production  capacity  is  inadequate 
worldwide;  new  fertilizer  industries  should 
be  created,  especially  in  the  developing  coun- 
tries, to  meet  local  and  regional  needs  for 
the  long  term.  This  could  be  done  most  ef- 
ficiently on  the  basis  of  regional  cooperation. 

The  United  States  will  strongly  support 
such  regional  efforts.  In  our  investment  and 
assistance  programs  we  will  give  priority  to 
the  building  of  fertilizer  industries  and  will 
share  our  advanced  technology. 

Another  major  priority  must  be  to  reduce 
losses  from  inadequate  storage,  transport, 
and  pest  control.  Tragically,  as  much  as  15 
percent  of  a  country's  food  production  is 
often  lost  after  harvesting  because  of  pests 
that  attack  grains  in  substandard  storage 
facilities.  Better  methods  of  safe  storage 
must  be  taught  and  spread  as  widely  as 
possible.  Existing  pesticides  must  be  made 
more  generally  available.  Many  of  these 
techniques  are  simple  and  inexpensive;  in- 
vestment in  these  areas  could  have  a  rapid 
and  substantial  impact  on  the  world's  food 
supply. 

To  plan  a  coherent  investment  strategy, 
the  United  States  proposes  the  immediate 
formation  of  a  Coordinating  Group  for  Food 
Production  and  Investment.  We  recommend 
that  the  World  Bank  join  with  the  Food  and 


December   16,   1974 


825 


Agriculture  Organization  and  the  U.N.  De- 
velopment Program  to  convene  such  a  group 
this  year.  It  should  bring  together  repre- 
sentatives from  both  traditional  donors  and 
new  financial  powers,  from  multilateral 
agencies,  and  from  developing  countries,  with 
the  following  mandate : 

— To  encourage  bilateral  and  international 
assistance  progi-ams  to  provide  the  required 
external  resources. 

— To  help  governments  stimulate  greater 
internal  resources  for  agriculture. 

— To  promote  the  most  effective  uses  of 
new  investment  by  the  chronic  deficit  coun- 
tries. 

The  United  States  has  long  been  a  major 
contributor  to  agricultural  development.  We 
intend  to  expand  this  contribution.  We  have 
reordered  our  development  assistance  priori- 
ties to  place  the  central  emphasis  on  food 
and  nutrition  programs.  We  have  requested 
an  increase  of  almost  $350  million  for  them 
in  our  current  budget.  This  new  emphasis 
will  continue  for  as  long  as  the  need  exists. 

For  all  these  international  measures  to  be 
effective,  governments  must  reexamine  their 
overall  agricultural  policies  and  practices. 
Outside  countries  can  assist  with  technology 
and  the  transfer  of  resources ;  the  setting  of 
priorities  properly  remains  the  province  of 
national  authorities.  In  far  too  many  coun- 
tries, farmers  have  no  incentive  to  make  the 
investment  required  for  increased  produc- 
tion because  prices  are  set  at  unremunera- 
tive  levels,  because  credit  is  unavailable,  or 
because  transportation  and  distribution  facil- 
ities are  inadequate.  Just  as  the  exporting 
countries  must  adjust  their  own  policies  to 
new  realities,  so  must  developing  countries 
give  a  higher  priority  for  food  production 
in  their  development  budgets  and  in  their 
tax,  credit,  and  investment  policies. 

Improving  Food  Distribution  and  Financing 

While  we  must  urgently  produce  more 
food,  the  problem  of  its  distribution  will 
remain  crucial.  Even  with  maximum  fore- 
seeable agricultural  growth  in  the  developing 
countries,  their  food  import  requirement  is 


likely  to  amount  to  some  40  million  tons  a 
year  in  the  mid-1980's,  or  nearly  twice  the 
current  level. 

How  is  the  cost  of  these  imports  to  be 
met? 

The  earnings  of  the  developing  countries 
themselves  of  course  remain  the  principal 
source.  The  industrialized  nations  can  make 
a  significant  contribution  simply  by  improv- 
ing access  to  their  markets.  With  the  immi- 
nent passage  of  the  trade  bill,  the  United 
States  reaffirms  its  commitment  to  institute 
a  system  of  generalized  tariff  preferences  for 
the  developing  nations  and  to  pay  special 
attention  to  their  needs  in  the  coming  multi- 
lateral trade  negotiations. 

Nevertheless  an  expanded  flow  of  food  aid 
will  clearly  be  necessary.  During  this  fiscal 
year  the  United  States  will  increase  its  food 
aid  contribution,  despite  the  adverse  weather 
conditions  which  have  affected  our  crops.  The 
American  people  have  a  deep  and  enduring 
commitment  to  help  feed  the  starving  and 
the  hungry.  We  will  do  everything  humanly 
possible  to  assure  that  our  future  contribu- 
tion will  be  responsive  to  the  growing  needs. 

The  responsibility  for  financing  food  im- 
ports cannot,  however,  rest  with  the  food 
exporters  alone.  Over  the  next  few  years 
in  particular,  the  financing  needs  of  the  food- 
deficit  developing  countries  will  simply  be 
too  large  for  either  their  own  limited  re- 
sources or  the  traditional  food  aid  donors. 

The  oil  exporters  have  a  special  responsi- 
bility in  this  regard.  Many  of  them  have 
income  far  in  excess  of  that  needed  to 
balance  their  international  payments  or  to 
finance  their  economic  development.  The 
continuing  massive  transfer  of  wealth  and 
the  resulting  impetus  to  worldwide  inflation 
have  shattered  the  ability  of  the  developing 
countries  to  purchase  food,  fertilizer,  and 
other  goods.  And  the  economic  crisis  has 
severely  reduced  the  imports  of  the  industri- 
alized countries  from  the  developing  nations. 

The  United  States  recommends  that  the 
traditional  donors  and  the  new  financial 
powers  participating  in  the  Coordinating 
Group  for  Food  Production  and  Investment 
make  a  major  effort  to  provide  the  food  and 
funds    required.     They   could   form   a    sub- 


1 


826 


Department   of  Slate   Bulletin 


committee  on  food  financing  which,  as  a 
first  task,  would  negotiate  a  minimum  global 
quantity  of  food  for  whose  transfer  to  food- 
deficit  developing  countries  over  the  next 
three  years  they  are  prepared  to  find  the 
necessary  finances. 

I  have  outlined  various  measures  to  ex- 
pand production,  to  improve  the  earning 
capacity  of  developing  countries,  to  generate 
new  sources  of  external  assistance.  But  it 
is  not  clear  that  even  these  measures  will  be 
sufficient  to  meet  the  longer  term  challenge, 
particularly  if  our  current  estimates  of  the 
gap  by  1985  and  beyond  prove  to  be  too 
conservative. 

Therefore  ways  must  be  found  to  move 
more  of  the  surplus  oil  revenue  into  long- 
term  lending  or  grants  to  the  poorer  coun- 
tries. The  United  States  proposes  that  the 
Development  Committee  created  at  the  re- 
cent session  of  the  Governors  of  the  World 
Bank  and  International  Monetary  Fund  be 
charged  with  the  urgent  study  of  whether 
existing  sources  of  financing  are  sufficient 
to  meet  the  expected  import  requirements  of 
developing  countries.  If  these  sources  are 
not  sufficient,  new  means  must  be  found  to 
supplement  them.  This  must  become  one  of 
the  priority  objectives  of  the  countries  and 
institutions  that  have  the  major  influence  in 
the  international  monetary  system. 

Enhancing  Food  Quality 

Supplies  alone  do  not  guarantee  man's  nu- 
tritional requirements.  Even  in  developed 
countries  with  ample  supplies,  serious  health 
problems  are  caused  by  the  wrong  kinds  and 
amounts  of  food.  In  developing  countries, 
the  problem  is  magnified.  Not  only  inade- 
quate distribution  but  also  the  rising  cost 
of  food  dooms  the  poorest  and  most  vulner- 
able groups — children  and  mothers — to  in- 
ferior quality  as  well  as  insufficient  quantity 
of  food.  Even  with  massive  gains  in  food 
production,  the  world  could  still  be  haunted 
by  the  specter  of  inadequate  nutrition. 

First,  we  must  understand  the  problem 
better.  We  know  a  good  deal  about  the  state 
of  global  production.  But  our  knowledge 
of  the  state  of  global  nutrition  is  abysmal. 


Therefore  the  United  States  proposes  that 
a  global  nutrition  surveillance  system  be 
established  by  the  World  Health  Organiza- 
tion (WHO),  the  Food  and  Agriculture 
Organization  (FAO),andthe  United  Nations 
Children's  Fund  (UNICEF).  Particular  at- 
tention should  be  devoted  to  the  special 
needs  of  mothers  and  young  children  and  to 
responding  quickly  to  local  emergencies  af- 
fecting these  particularly  vulnerable  groups. 
Nutrition  surveying  is  a  field  with  which 
the  United  States  has  considerable  experi- 
ence; we  are  ready  to  share  our  knowledge 
and  techniques. 

Second,  we  need  new  methods  for  combat- 
ing malnutrition.  The  United  States  invites 
the  WHO,  FAO,  and  UNICEF  to  arrange 
for  an  internationally  coordinated  program 
in  applied  nutritional  research.  Such  a  pro- 
gram should  set  priorities,  identify  the  best 
centers  for  research,  and  generate  the  neces- 
sary funding.  The  United  States  is  willing 
to  contribute  $5  million  to  initiate  such  a 
program. 

Third,  we  need  to  act  on  problems  which 
are  already  clear.  The  United  States  pro- 
poses an  immediate  campaign  against  two 
of  the  most  prevalent  and  blighting  efi'ects 
of  malnutrition:  vitamin  A  blindness  and 
iron-deficiency  anemia.  The  former  is  re- 
sponsible for  well  over  half  of  the  millions 
of  cases  of  blindness  in  less  developed  coun- 
tries; the  current  food  shortages  will  pre- 
dictably increase  this  number.  Iron-deficiency 
anemia  is  responsible  for  low  productivity 
in  many  parts  of  the  world.  Just  as  the 
world  has  come  close  to  eradicating  smallpox, 
yellow  fever,  and  polio,  it  can  conquer  these 
diseases.  There  are  available  new  and  rela- 
tively inexpensive  techniques  which  could 
have  a  substantial  impact.  The  United  States 
is  ready  to  cooperate  with  developing  coun- 
tries and  international  donors  to  carry  out 
the  necessary  programs.  We  are  prepared 
to  contribute  $10  million  to  an  international 
effort. 

Finally,  we  need  to  reflect  our  concern  for 
food  quality  in  existing  programs.  This  con- 
ference should  devote  special  attention  to 
food  aid  programs  explicitly  designed  to 
fight  malnutrition  among  the  most  vulner- 


December   16,    1974 


827 


able  groups.  The  United  States  will  increase 
funding  for  such  programs  by  at  least  $50 
million  this  year. 

Insuring  Against  Food  Emergencies 

The  events  of  the  past  few  years  have 
brought  home  the  grave  vulnerability  of 
mankind  to  food  emergencies  caused  by  crop 
failures,  floods,  wars,  and  other  disasters. 
The  world  has  come  to  depend  on  a  few  ex- 
porting countries,  and  particularly  the  United 
States,  to  maintain  the  necessary  reserves. 
But  reserves  no  longer  exist,  despite  the  fact 
that  the  United  States  has  removed  virtually 
all  of  its  restrictions  on  production  and  our 
farmers  have  made  an  all-out  effort  to  maxi- 
mize output.  A  worldwide  reserve  of  as 
much  as  60  million  tons  of  food  above  present 
carryover  levels  may  be  needed  to  assure  ade- 
quate food  security. 

It  is  neither  prudent  nor  practical  for 
one  or  even  a  few  countries  to  be  the  world's 
sole  holder  of  reserves.  Nations  with  a  his- 
tory of  radical  fluctuations  in  import  re- 
quirements have  an  obligation,  both  to  their 
own  people  and  to  the  world  community,  to 
participate  in  a  system  which  shares  that 
responsibility  more  widely.  And  exporting 
countries  can  no  longer  afford  to  be  caught 
by  surprise.  They  must  have  advance  infor- 
mation to  plan  production  and  exports. 

We  commend  FAO  Director  General  [A. 
H.]  Boerma  for  his  initiative  in  the  area  of 
reserves.  The  United  States  shares  his  view 
that  a  cooperative  multilateral  system  is 
essential  for  greater  equity  and  efficiency. 
We  therefore  propose  that  this  conference 
organize  a  Reserves  Coordinating  Group  to 
negotiate  a  detailed  agreement  on  an  inter- 
national system  of  nationally  held  grain  re- 
serves at  the  earliest  possible  time.  It  should 
include  all  the  major  exporters  as  well  as 
those  whose  import  needs  are  likely  to  be 
greatest.  This  group's  work  should  be  car- 
ried out  in  close  cooperation  with  other  inter- 
national efforts  to  improve  the  world  trading 
system. 

An  international  reserve  system  should  in- 
clude the  following  elements: 


— Exchange  of  information  on  levels  of 
reserve  and  working  stocks,  on  crop  pros- 
pects, and  on  intentions  regarding  imports 
or  exports. 

— Agreement  on  the  size  of  global  re- 
serves required  to  protect  against  famine  and 
price  fluctuations. 

— Sharing  of  the  responsibility  for  holding 
reserves. 

— Guidelines  on  the  management  of  na- 
tional reserves,  defining  the  conditions  for 
adding  to  reserves,  and  for  releasing  from 
them. 

— Preference  for  cooperating  countries  in 
the  distribution  of  reserves. 

— Procedures  for  adjustment  of  targets 
and  settlement  of  disputes  and  measures  for 
dealing  with  noncompliance. 

The  Promise  of  Our  Era 

The  challenge  before  this  conference  is 
to  translate  needs  into  programs  and  pro- 
grams into  results.   We  have  no  time  to  lose. 

I  have  set  forth  a  five-point  platform  for 
joint  action: 

— To  concert  the  efforts  of  the  major  sur- 
plus countries  to  help  meet  the  global  demand. 

— To  expand  the  capacity  of  chronic  food- 
deficit  developing  nations  for  growth  and 
greater  self-suflSciency. 

— To  transfer  resources  and  food  to  meet 
the  gaps  which  remain. 

— To  improve  the  quality  of  food  to  insure 
adequate  nutrition. 

— To  safeguard  men  and  nations  from 
sudden  emergencies  and  the  vagaries  of 
weather. 

I  have  outlined  the  contribution  that  the 
United  States  is  prepared  to  make  in  national 
or  multilateral  programs  to  achieve  each  of 
these  goals.  And  I  have  proposed  three  new 
international  groups  to  strengthen  national 
efforts,  coordinate  them,  and  give  them  global 
focus : 

— The  Exporters  Planning  Group. 
— The   Food   Production   and   Investment 
Coordinating   Group. 

— The  Reserves  Coordinating  Group. 


828 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


A  number  of  suggestions  have  been  made 
for  a  central  body  to  fuse  our  efforts  and 
provide  leadership.  The  United  States  is 
openminded  about  such  an  institution.  We 
strongly  believe,  however,  that  whatever  the 
mechanisms,  a  unified,  concerted,  and  com- 
prehensive approach  is  an  absolute  require- 
ment. The  American  delegation,  headed  by 
our  distinguished  Secretary  of  Agriculture, 
Earl  Butz,  is  prepared  to  begin  urgent  dis- 
cussions to  implement  our  proposals.  We 
welcome  the  suggestions  of  other  nations 
gathered  here.  We  will  work  hard,  and  we 
will  work  cooperatively. 

Nothing  more  overwhelms  the  human 
spirit,  or  mocks  our  values  and  our  dreams, 
than  the  desperate  struggle  for  sustenance. 
No  tragedy  is  more  wounding  than  the  look 
of  despair  in  the  eyes  of  a  starving  child. 

Once  famine  was  considered  part  of  the 
normal  cycle  of  man's  existence,  a  local  or 
at  worst  a  national  tragedy.  Now  our  con- 
sciousness is  global.  Our  achievements,  our 
expectations,  and  our  moral  convictions  have 
made  this  issue  into  a  universal  political 
concern. 

The  profound  promise  of  our  era  is  that 
for  the  first  time  we  may  have  the  technical 
capacity  to  free  mankind  from  the  scourge 
of  hunger.  Therefore,  today  we  must  pro- 
claim a  bold  objective — that  within  a  decade 
no  child  will  go  to  bed  hungry,  that  no  family 
will  fear  for  its  next  day's  bread,  and  that 
no  human  being's  future  and  capacities  will 
be  stunted  by  malnutrition. 

Our  responsibility  is  clear.  Let  the  nations 
gathered  here  resolve  to  confront  the  chal- 
lenge, not  each  other.  Let  us  agree  that  the 
scale  and  severity  of  the  task  require  a 
collaborative  effort  unprecedented  in  history. 
And  let  us  make  global  cooperation  in  food 
a  model  for  our  response  to  other  challenges 
of  an  interdependent  world :  energy,  inflation, 
population,  protection  of  the  environment. 

William  Faulkner  expressed  the  confidence 
that  "man  will  not  merely  endure:  he  will 
prevail."  We  live  today  in  a  world  so  com- 
plex that  even  only  to  endure,  man  must 
prevail.  Global  community  is  no  longer  a 
sentimental  ideal,  but  a  practical  necessity. 


National  purposes,  international  realities, 
and  human  needs  all  summon  man  to  a  new 
te.st  of  his  capacity  and  his  morality. 

We  cannot  turn  back  or  turn  away. 

"Human  reason,"  Thomas  Mann  wrote, 
"needs  only  to  will  more  strongly  than  fate 
and  it  is  fate." 


ADDRESS  BY  SECRETARY  OF  AGRICULTURE  BUTZ 

Department  of  Agriculture  press  release  dated  November  6 

The  number-one  responsibility  of  this  con- 
ference is  to  move  the  world  toward  a  higher 
level  of  food  production.  Its  success  in  guid- 
ing and  stimulating  farmers  to  grow  more 
food  will  be  the  ultimate  measure  of  its 
achievement — the  yardstick  by  which  history 
will  appraise  our  efforts  of  the  next  few 
years. 

There  are  other  subjects  to  consider,  of 
course.  There  is  the  matter  of  food  reserves. 
There  is  the  question  of  emergency  aid.  There 
is  the  subject  of  improved  storage,  handling, 
and  distribution  of  food.  There  is  the  need 
for  further  liberalization  of  trade  in  food- 
stuffs and  in  goods  that  are  exchanged  for 
foodstuffs.  These,  however,  are  issues  that 
arise  after  food  is  produced — not  before. 
We  are  not  here  to  talk  about  what  to  do  with 
less  food.  We  are  here  to  talk  about  what 
to  do  with  more  food. 

There  is  enormous  opportunity  to  produce 
more.  During  the  two  decades  of  the  1950's 
and  1960's,  grain  yields  increased  63  per- 
cent in  developed  nations  and  only  32  percent 
in  developing  countries.  Yet  many  of  the 
developing  countries  have  enormous  poten- 
tial, and  many  are  making  great  progress  in 
improving  yields  and  building  the  rural  in- 
stitutions necessary  for  continued  advance- 
ment. 

Many  of  the  answers  to  world  food  prob- 
lems in  the  future — 10  or  20  or  50  years 
from  now — lie  in  yet-unknown  methods  that 
await  discovery  in  laboratory  and  test  plot. 
Some  of  the  world's  most  spectacular  achieve- 
ments will  come  from  such  research,  as  they 
have  in  the  past. 

Much,    however,   remains   to   be   done   in 


December   16,    1974 


829 


5 


employing  the  technology  we  already  have. 
We  have  at  hand  tremendous  knowledge — of 
plant  and  animal  breeding  and  nutrition,  dis- 
ease and  pest  control,  mechanization,  farm 
management,  marketing,  and  other  farm 
sciences.  Merely  stopping  unnecessary  waste 
in  harvesting  and  storage  and  losses  to  in- 
sects and  other  pests  would  buy  the  world 
a  large  amount  of  time  as  we  seek  to  increase 
production. 

Finally,  as  we  address  ourselves  to  in- 
creasing production,  there  is  the  continuing 
challenge  of  identifying  those  factors  that 
cause  a  farmer  to  produce.  Farm  production 
is  not  a  constant.  There  is  a  world  of  dif- 
ference in  the  way  farmers  utilize  their  pro- 
ductive ability.  There  is  a  difference  from 
country  to  country,  from  region  to  region, 
from  farm  to  farm,  from  season  to  season — 
the  human  differential.  It  is  costly  to  pro- 
duce food — costly  in  human  effort,  in  capital 
investment,  and  increasingly  in  the  purchase 
of  production  inputs.  To  produce  at  high 
cost  requires  incentive. 

In  my  country,  farmers  respond  to  the 
incentive  of  profit.  The  opportunity  for 
farmers  to  own  and  operate  their  own  farms 
is  an  incentive.  The  desire  for  better  living, 
a  better  home,  and  education  for  the  children 
is  an  incentive.  Pride  in  being  a  farmer  is 
an  incentive.  The  opportunity  to  share  in 
the  progress  of  community  and  nation  is  an 
incentive.  In  modern  societies,  these  incen- 
tives are  closely  related  to  the  ability  to 
earn  a  fair  return  from  one's  investment — a 
decent  reward  for  one's  labor. 

I  strongly  suspect  that  this  is  true  in  other 
countries  as  well  as  my  own.  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  be  an  expert  in  the  ways  of  other 
nations  and  peoples.  But  I  ask  each  of  you : 
Is  it  not  true  that  your  farmers  respond  best 
when  they  are  rewarded  with  the  means  to 
live  better  and  provide  better  for  their  fam- 
ilies? Call  it  profit.  Call  it  by  another  name. 
It's  still  a  response  to  economic  rewards. 

In  our  own  country,  we  believe  that  the 
opportunity  to  gain  increased  returns  from 
the  market  will  result  in  substantially  larger 
production  in  the  year  ahead.  The  freeing 
of  cropland  from  our  former  system  of  pro- 
duction controls  has  already  had  a  great  im- 


pact on  our  agriculture.  As  recently  as 
1972,  our  farmers  were  holding  out  of  pro- 
duction, under  government  programs,  about 
one  hectare  for  every  five  hectares  that  were 
in  crops.  Government  programs  have  released 
all  of  this  land,  and  farmers  had  returned 
well  over  half  of  this  "set-aside"  cropland 
into  production  by  1974. 

We  expect  much  additional  land  will  be 
planted  for  harvest  in  1975.  The  incentive 
is  there  in  the  form  of  market  opportunity, 
the  opportunity  to  profit. 

Of  course  this  takes  time.  At  best  an  in- 
crease in  production  requires  months.  Often 
it  requires  years.  Meantime  people  must  eat. 
In  a  year  like  1974  the  subject  of  food  aid 
becomes  very  important.  This  conference 
will  spend  a  good  deal  of  time  on  the  ques- 
tion of  food  aid — how  best  to  administer  it 
and  where  best  to  assign  the  responsibility. 

The  United  States  welcomes  the  increased 
attention  that  other  developed  countries  are 
giving  to  their  own  national  food  aid  pro- 
grams. We  applaud  the  food  programs  of 
the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  and 
other  U.N.  organizations.  We  support  a 
further  broadening  of  food  aid  responsibility 
among  nations  and  international  organiza- 
tions. At  the  same  time,  the  United  States 
promises  to  increase  its  own  commitment  to 
international  food  aid. 

Even  in  this  year  of  short  supplies  and 
budget  restraints,  the  United  States  expects 
that  total  programing  under  its  Public  Law 
480  (Food  for  Peace)  program  will  exceed 
the  value  level  of  last  year.  In  the  current 
year,  we  will  be  shipping  more  wheat  and 
more  rice  than  last  year,  but  less  feed  grains 
and  vegetable  oils,  due  to  availabilities.  The 
United  States  has  responded  to  world  needs 
in  the  past.  We  are  doing  so  again  in  the 
current  year.  We  are  trying  to  be  flexible 
with  the  program  to  meet  real  needs  in  a 
time  when  supplies  are  tight  and  costly. 

The  other  subject  that  has  come  to  the  fore, 
along  with  food  aid,  is  the  question  of  food 
reserves.  As  I  have  already  noted,  the  best 
assurance  of  food  security  is  increased  pro- 
duction. We  cannot  conjure  a  reserve  out  of 
something  we  don't  have.  To  lock  away  a 
part  of  current  short  food  supplies  in  order 


830 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


that  the  future  might  be  more  secure  would 
call  for  less  consumption  this  year,  higher 
food  prices,  and  more  inflation.  These  are 
consequences  that  few  nations  would  wish 
to  entertain  at  the  present  time. 

Our  attitude  on  food  reserves  was  out- 
lined by  President  Ford  in  his  speech  to  the 
U.N.  General  Assembly  on  September  18. 
He  said: 

...  to  insure  that  the  survival  of  millions  of  our 
fellow  men  does  not  depend  upon  the  vagaries  of 
weather,  the  United  States  is  prepared  to  join  in  a 
worldwide  effort  to  negotiate,  establish,  and  maintain 
an  international  system  of  food  reserves.  This  sys- 
tem will  work  best  if  each  nation  is  made  responsible 
for  managing  the  reserves  that  it  will  have  avail- 
able. 

Thus  we  favor  an  internationally  coordi- 
nated but  nationally  held  system  of  reserves. 
We  will  cooperate  in  reasonable  international 
efforts  to  sustain  food  reserves  to  meet  emer- 
gencies. We  do  not  favor  food  reserves  of  a 
magnitude  that  would  perpetually  depress 
prices,  destroy  farmer  incentives,  mask  the 
deficiencies  in  national  production  efforts,  or 
substitute  government  subsidies  for  com- 
mercial trade. 

If  a  reserve  system  is  to  succeed,  it  re- 
quires a  free  exchange  of  adequate  produc- 
tion, stocks,  and  trade  information.  In  fact, 
such  an  exchange  is  essential  to  the  whole 
objective  of  improved  food  security  in  the 
world.  If  grain-producing  nations  are  to 
succeed  in  meeting  world  needs  for  both 
trade  and  aid,  they  must  have  adequate  infor- 
mation on  those  needs.  Importing  nations 
must  share  information  on  food  stocks  and 
needs.  Exporting  nations  must  share  infor- 
mation on  production  and  supplies. 

We  must  improve  our  methods  of  forecast- 
ing world  crop  yields,  measuring  global  har- 
vests, and  monitoring  national  food  needs  and 
utilization.  The  United  States  stands  ready 
to  make  such  information  readily  available 
and  to  share  freely  the  techniques  of  infor- 
mation gathering  and  forecasting. 

The  exchange  of  technology — really  the 
sharing  of  people,  their  skills,  and  ideas — 
contributes  enormously  to  world  understand- 
ing as  well  as  material  betterment.  The  400 
U.S.    agriculturalists    assigned    annually   to 


other  countries,  the  1,200  farm  scientists 
who  come  to  my  country,  the  thousands  of 
foreign  students  in  U.S.  colleges — these  rep- 
resent an  incalculable  contribution  to  the 
American  experience.  At  Purdue  University, 
where  I  was  associated  for  so  many  years, 
we  have  had  100  to  120  foreign  students  in 
agricultural  college  at  any  given  time.  Today, 
wherever  I  travel  in  the  world  I  meet  former 
Purdue  students  at  work  in  their  own  coun- 
tries. To  an  educator,  nothing  could  be  more 
satisfying. 

In  closing,  may  I  emphasize  that  the  ob- 
jectives of  this  great  conference  will  require 
sustained  effort — through  years  of  plenty  as 
well  as  in  years  of  tight  supply.  Historically 
the  concern  over  hunger  has  tended  to  wane 
and  wax  with  the  rise  and  fall  in  world  pro- 
duction. The  subject  is  too  serious  for  that; 
it  deserves  continued  high-level  effort  on  all 
fronts,  and  I  hope  that  this  conference  will 
be  the  beginning  of  such  a  sustained  drive. 

This  conference  must  be  remembered  as 
a  new  dawn  of  hope  and  opportunity  in  man's 
age-old  struggle  against  hunger  and  mal- 
nutrition. 


TEXTS  OF  RESOLUTIONS 


Resolution  I 

Objectives  and  strategies  of  food  production 

The  World  Food  Conference, 

Recalling  General  Assembly  resolution  3201  (S- 
VI)  and  3202  (S-VI)  of  1  May  1974,  concerning  the 
Declaration  and  the  Programme  of  Action  on  the 
Establishment  of  a  New  International  Economic  Or- 
der and  the  subsequent  ECOSOC  resolution  1911 
(LVII)  on  its  implementation,  as  adopted. 

Recalling  General  Assembly  Resolution  3180 
(XXVIII)  of  17  December  1973  on  the  World  Food 
Conference, 

Recognizing  that  past  trends  in  food  production 
and  productivity  in  the  majority  of  developing  coun- 
tries have  been  unsatisfactory,  for  reasons,  among 
others,  of  inadequate  socio-economic  structures,  in- 
sufficient investment  funds,  paucity  of  trained  man- 
power, and  unfavourable  trade  relations. 

Noting  that  if  these  trends  were  to  continue  the 


■  Adopted  by  the  conference  without  vote  on  Nov. 
16  (texts  from  U.N.  doc.  E/5587,  report  of  the  World 
Food  Conference  (provisional)). 


December   16,    1974 


831 


expected  increase  in  the  demand  for  food  in  these 
countries  will  raise  their  import  requirements  to  un- 
manageable proportions,  aggravate  malnutrition  and 
intensify  human  suffering, 

Expressiyig  concern  at  the  inadequate  performance 
of  agriculture,  including  livestock  and  fisheries,  in 
many  developing  countries  in  relation  to  the  targets 
of  the  Second  United  Nations  Development  Decade 
and  their  own  national  objectives,  at  the  new  con- 
straints created  by  the  scarcity  of  inputs  and  at  the 
inadequacy  of  the  present  level  of  resources  includ- 
ing development  assistance  flowing  to  agriculture 
in  these  countries. 

Considering  that  agricultural  production  in  the 
developing  countries  requires  the  availability  of  in- 
puts at  reasonable  prices, 

Stressing  that  an  increase  in  agricultural  produc- 
tivity and  sustained  expansion  of  food  production  in 
these  countries  at  a  rate  much  faster  than  in  the  past 
is  essential  in  order  to  meet  the  rapidly  growing  de- 
mand for  food,  due  to  rising  population  and  incomes, 
the  requirements  for  security  stocks  and  the  need  to 
raise  the  consumption  by  undernourished  people  to 
universally  accepted  standards. 

Recognizing  the  importance  of  fish  products  for 
the  improvement  of  quality  of  human  diet  and  the 
potential  for  increased  fish  production  especially  in 
developing  countries, 

Recognizing  that  in  many  developing  countries 
there  is  considerable  scope  for  increased  production 
through  bringing  new  land  under  cultivation  or 
through  more  intensive  use  of  land  already  under 
cultivation, 

Recognizi-ng  that  in  many  developing  countries 
large  quantities  of  food  are  lost  between  the  farm 
field  and  the  consumer  and  that  the  deterioration  in 
the  nutritional  value  of  food  before  it  reaches  the 
consumer  is  a  serious  problem, 

Considering  that  conditions  in  certain  developed 
countries  are  favourable  for  the  rapid  increase  of 
food  production  and  recognizing  that  some  countries 
can  produce  more  food  than  they  need  and  thus  are 
able  to  export;  that  reliance  on  this  production  to 
supply  the  growing  needs  of  the  developing  countries 
and  some  developed  countries  is  increasing;  that  for 
years  these  exporting  countries  have  been  concerned 
that  production  at  full  capacity  could  create  unde- 
sirable surpluses  and  thus  depressed  markets,  which 
would  deprive  farmers  of  incentives  to  invest  and 
to  produce,  and  that  in  view  of  the  present  and  pros- 
pective demand  for  food  in  the  world,  such  a  concern 
may  no  longer  be  relevant, 

Stressing  the  urgent  need  for  greater  efforts  by 
the  developing  countries  themselves  and  for  in- 
creased regional,  sub-regional  and  international  co- 
operation   for    agricultural '    development    in    these 


^  Including    livestock    and    fisheries.    [Footnote    in 
original.] 


countries,  as  part  of  the  International  Development 
Strategy  for  the  Second  United  Nations  Development 
Decade, 

Stressing  the  importance,  in  selecting  the  meas- 
ures to  be  taken  to  achieve  the  urgently  needed  in- 
creases in  food  output,  of  taking  into  account  the 
need  for  the  most  efficient  use  of  land  and  water  re- 
sources, the  short  and  long-term  effects  of  alterna- 
tive technologies  on  the  quality  of  the  environment, 

Affirming  that  in  order  to  solve  the  food  problem, 
highest  priority  should  be  given  to  policies  and  pro- 
grammes for  increasing  food  production  and  im- 
proving food  utilization  in  developing  countries,  so 
as  to  achieve  a  minimum  agricultural  growth  rate  of 
4  per  cent  per  annum,  placing  appropriate  emphasis 
on  (i)  providing  adequate  supplies  of  essential  in- 
puts, such  as  fertilizers,  pesticides,  quality  seeds, 
farm  and  fishery  equipment  and  machinery,  fuel, 
breeding  stock  and  water;  (ii)  ensuring  sufficient  in- 
centives to  farmers;  (iii)  developing  rural  infrastruc- 
tures, including  storage,  processing,  transportation, 
marketing,  input  supply  systems,  credit  and  educa- 
tional and  social  amenities;  (iv)  conser\-ation  and  im- 
provement of  existing  cultivated  and  cultivable  land; 
(v)  reclamation  and  development  of  new  land;  (vi) 
promoting  research  training  and  extension;  (vii) 
progressive  social  and  structural  transformation  of 
agriculture;  (viii)  active  participation  of  the  rural 
population,  particularly  small  farmers  and  landless 
workers  in  the  development  process,  and  (ix)  pro- 
viding the  necessary  financial  resources, 

1.  Resolves  that  all  governments  should  accept 
the  removal  of  the  scourge  of  hunger  and  malnu- 
trition, which  at  present  afflicts  many  millions  of 
human  beings,  as  the  objective  of  the  international 
community  as  a  whole,  and  accept  the  goal  that 
within  a  decade  no  child  will  go  to  bed  hungry, 
that  no  family  will  fear  for  its  next  day's  bread,  and 
that  no  human  being's  future  and  capacities  will  be 
stunted  by  malnutrition, 

2.  Calls  on  the  government  of  each  developing 
country  to: 

(i)  accord  a  high  priority  to  agricultural  and  fish- 
eries development; 

(ii)  formulate  food  production  and  food  utilization 
objectives,  targets  and  policies,  for  the  short,  me- 
dium and  long-term,  with  full  participation  of  pro- 
ducers, their  families,  and  farmers'  and  fishermens' 
organizations,  taking  into  account  its  demographic 
and  general  development  goals  and  consistent  with 
good  environment  practices; 

(iii)  take  measures  for  agrarian  reform  and  a 
progressive  change  in  the  socio-economic  structures 
and  relationships  in  rural  areas;  and 

(iv)  develop  adequate  supporting  ser\'ices  for  ag- 
ricultural and  fisheries  development,  including  those 
for  education,  research,  extension  and  training,  mar- 
keting, storage  and  processing,  transport,  as  well  as 


832 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


credit  facilities   and    incentives   to   enable   producers 
to  buy  the  required  inputs; 

3.  Calls  on  all  governments  able  to  furnish  ex- 
ternal assistance  to  substantially  increase  their  offi- 
cial development  assistance  to  agriculture  in  devel- 
oping countries,  especially  the  least  developed  and 
the  most  seriously  affected  countries,  including  capi- 
tal assistance  on  soft  terms,  technical  assistance, 
transfer  of  appropriate  technology  and  programme 
loans  for  imports  of  essential  inputs; 

4.  Requests  governments  to  make  arrangements 
whereby  developing  countries  will  have  access  to  in- 
puts such  as  fertilizer,  pesticides,  agricultural  ma- 
chinery and  equipment  in  sufficient  quantity  and  at 
reasonable  prices; 

5.  Urges  governments  to  respond  to  the  appeal  of 
the  Secretary-General  of  the  United  Nations  for 
contributions  to  the  Special  Programme,  the  urgent 
implementation  of  which  is  essential  for  ensuring 
progress  in  resolving  the  food  problem  of  the  devel- 
oping countries  seriously  affected  by  the  economic 
crisis,  and  to  contribute  generously  to  the  Tnterna- 
national  Fund  for  Agricultural  Development  pro- 
posed by  the  Conference; 

6.  Urges  the  developed  countries  concerned  to 
adopt  and  to  implement  agricultural  policies  which 
encourage  the  early  expansion  of  food  production 
while  taking  into  account  a  satisfactory  level  of  in- 
come for  producers  and  world  food  requirements  and 
the  need  of  maintaining  reasonable  prices  for  con- 
sumers, such  policies  should  not  impede  or  delay  the 
increase  in  food  production  by  developing  countries, 
both  for  domestic  consumption  and  for  export; 

7.  Requests  all  countries  to  reduce  to  a  minimum 
the  waste  of  food  and  of  agricultural  resources,  in 
particular  land,  water  and  all  forms  of  energy;  and 
to  ensure  the  rational  utilization  of  fisheries  re- 
sources; 

8.  Calls  on  the  regional  economic  commissions  to 
continue  their  important  contribution  to  the  task  of 
stimulating  co-ordinated  economic  development  in 
their  respective  regions,  by  co-operating  in  the  ef- 
forts in  this  direction  that  the  countries  in  those  re- 
gions are  making; 

9.  Urges  FAO  [Food  and  Agriculture  Organiza- 
tion] in  consultation  with  UNDP  [United  Nations 
Development  Program]  and  other  relevant  interna- 
tional institutions,  with  due  regard  for  national  sov- 
ereignty: 

(a)  to  formulate  economic,  social,  physical  and  bi- 
ological criteria  for  selecting  suitable  additional 
areas  for  food  production, 

(b)  to  make  an  inventory,  on  the  basis  of  these 
criteria,  of  the  areas  most  suitable  for  additional 
production, 

(c)  to  make  an  inventory  of  resources  available 
for  financing  additional  production,  and 


(d)  to  indicate  ways  and  means  for  carrying  out 
programmes  and  projects  for  additional  food  produc- 
tion; 

10.  Requests  the  World  Bank,  Regional  Banks, 
UNDP,  FAO,  UNIDO  [United  Nations  Industrial  De- 
velopment Organization]  and  other  international 
agencies,  through  modification  of  their  existing  poli- 
cies and  criteria  as  appropriate,  to  substantially  in- 
crease their  assistance  for  agriculture  and  fisheries 
in  developing  countries  giving  priority  to  pro- 
grammes and  projects  aimed  at  benefiting  the  poor- 
est groups  of  the  population  and  placing  equal  em- 
phasis on  both  economic  and  social  benefits;  simplify 
and  streamline  the  procedures  for  the  granting  of 
such  assistance;  and  mobilize  the  support  of  the  en- 
tire international  community  including  non-govern- 
mental organizations,  for  the  urgent  task  of  over- 
coming hunger  and  malnutrition. 


Resolution  XVII 

International  Undertaking  on  World  Food  Security 

The   World  Food  Conference, 

Stressing  the  urgent  need  for  ensuring  the  avail- 
ability at  all  times  of  adequate  world  supplies  of  ba- 
sic food-stuffs  particularly  so  as  to  avoid  acute  food 
shortages  in  the  event  of  widespread  crop  failure, 
natural  or  other  disasters,  to  sustain  a  steady  ex- 
pansion of  food  consumption  in  countries  with  low 
levels  of  per  capita  intake,  and  offset  fluctuations  in 
production  and  prices, 

Recognizing  that  very  low  levels  of  world  food 
stocks,  primarily  cereals,  pose  a  serious  threat  to 
consumption  levels  and  make  the  world  too  depend- 
ent on  the  vagaries  of  weather. 

Welcoming  the  progress  already  made  through 
FAO  [Food  and  Agriculture  Organization]  towards 
developing  a  common  approach  for  attaining  the  ob- 
jectives of  world  food  security,  and  noting  that  all 
major  food  producing  and  consuming  countries  sup- 
port these  objectives. 

Reaffirming  the  common  responsibility  of  the  en- 
tire international  community  in  evolving  policies  and 
arrangements  designed  to  ensure  world  food  secu- 
rity, and  in  particular  in  maintaining  adequate  na- 
tional or  regional  stocks  as  envisaged  in  the  proposed 
International  Undertaking  on  World  Food  Security, 

Recognizing  that  universal  participation  of  all 
producing  and  consuming  countries  is  essential  for 
the  achievement  of  the  global  objectives  of  world 
food  security,  and  stressing  the  importance  of  ad- 
herence to  the  objectives,  policies  and  guidelines  of 
the  proposed  International  Undertaking  by  all  Gov- 
ernments, taking  account  of  its  voluntary  nature  and 
the  sovereign  rights  of  nations, 

Recognizing  the  difficulties  currently  faced  es- 
pecially by  the  developing  countries  in  building  up 


December   16,    1974 


833 


stocks  through  lack  of  adequate  domestic  supplies  in 
excess  of  current  consumption  needs,  the  present 
high  prices  of  foodgrains  in  world  markets  and  the 
constraints  imposed  by  serious  balance  of  payments 
difficulties,  which  require  an  immediate  increase  in 
the  food  production  of  the  developed  countries  while 
the  developing  countries  are  simultaneously  assisted 
to  increase  their  food  production  and  build  up  their 
own  stocks, 

1.  Endorses  the  objectives,  policies  and  guidelines 
as  set  out  in  the  text  of  the  proposed  International 
Undertaking  on  World  Food  Security,'  invites  all 
Governments  to  express  their  readiness  to  adopt 
them  and  v>-ges  all  Governments  to  co-operate  in 
bringing  into  operation  the  proposed  International 
Undertaking  as  soon  as  possible; 

2.  Calls  for  the  early  completion  by  the  FAO 
bodies  of  the  operational  and  other  practical  ar- 
rangements required  for  the  implementation  of  the 
proposed  International  Undertaking,  including  the 
examination  of  practical  economic  and  administra- 
tive problems  involved; 

3.  Invites  Governments  of  all  major  food,  pri- 
marily cereals,  producing,  consuming  and  trading 
countries  to  enter  as  soon  as  possible  into  discussion 
in  appropriate  international  fora,  with  a  view  to  ac- 
celerating the  implementation  of  the  principles  con- 
tained in  the  proposed  International  Undertaking  on 
World  Food  Security,  and  also  with  a  view  to  study- 
ing the  feasibility  of  establishing  grain  reserves  to 
be  located  at  strategic  points; 

4.  Urges  Governments  and  the  concerned  inter- 
national and  regional  organizations  to  provide  the 
necessary  technical,  financial  and  food  assistance  in 
the  form  of  grants  or  on  specially  favourable  terms 
to  develop  and  implement  appropriate  national  food 
stocks  policies  in  developing  countries,  including  the 
extension  of  storage  and  transport  facilities,  within 
the  priorities  of  their  national  development  pro- 
gramme, so  that  they  are  in  a  position  to  participate 
effectively  in  a  world  food  security  policy. 


Resolution  XVIII 

An  improved  policy  for  food  aid 

The    World   Food   Conference, 

Recognizing  that,  while  the  ultimate  solution  to 
the  problem  of  food  shortages  in  developing  coun- 
tries lies  in  increased  production  in  these  countries, 
during  the  interim  period  food  aid  on  grant  basis 
and  any  additional  food  transfers  on  concessional  or 
agreed-upon  terms  to  developing  countries  will  con- 
tinue to  be  needed,  primarily  for  meeting  emergency 
and  nutritional  needs,  as  well  as  for  stimulating 
rural  employment  through  development  projects. 

Stressing  the  importance  of  evolving  a  longer-term 


*U.N.   doc.    E/CONF.65/4,   chapter   14,   annex    A. 
[Footnote  in  original.] 


food  aid  policy  to  ensure  a  reasonable  degree  of  con- 
tinuity in  physical  supplies, 

Noting  that  contrary  to  earlier  expectations,  the 
year  1974  has  failed  to  bring  the  good  harvest  needed 
for  the  replenishment  of  stocks  and  re-establishment 
of  a  reasonable  degree  of  security  in  world  food 
supplies,  and  expressing  concern  that  most  develop- 
ing countries  will  not  be  able  to  finance  their  in- 
creased food  import  bills  in  the  immediate  period 
ahead, 

Stressing  that  food  aid  should  be  provided  in 
forms  consonant  with  the  sovereign  rights  of  na- 
tions, neither  interfering  with  the  development  ob- 
jectives of  recipient  countries  nor  imposing  the  po- 
litical objectives  of  donor  countries  upon  them, 

Emphasizing  further  the  paramount  importance 
of  ensuring  that  food  aid  is  provided  in  forms  which 
are  voluntary  in  nature  and  are  consistent  with  the 
agricultural  development  plans  of  recipient  coun- 
tries with  the  ultimate  aim  of  promoting  their  long- 
term  development  efforts  and  ensuring  that  it  does 
not  act  as  a  disincentive  to  local  production  and 
cause  adverse  repercussions  on  the  domestic  market 
or  international  trade,  in  particular  of  developing 
countries. 

Taking  note  with  interest  of  the  work  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  at  its  twenty-ninth  session  on  the 
subject  of  strengthening  the  Office  of  the  United 
Nations  Disaster  Relief  Co-ordinator,  in  particular 
in  relation  to  disaster  preparedness  and  pre-disaster 
planning. 

Recognizing  the  need  to  increase  the  resources  of 
the  World  Food  Programme,  so  as  to  enable  it  to 
play  a  greater  and  more  effective  role  in  rendering 
development  assistance  to  developing  countries  in 
promoting  food  security  and  in  emergency  opera- 
tions, and  also  recognizing  the  need  to  increase  the 
resources  of  UNICEF  [United  Nations  Children's 
Fund],  to  enable  it  to  play  a  greater  role  in  meeting 
the  food  needs  of  children  in  emergency  operations, 

1.  Affirms  the  need  for  continuity  of  a  minimum 
level  of  food  aid  in  physical  terms,  in  order  to  in- 
sulate food  aid  programmes  from  the  effects  of  ex- 
cessive fluctuations  in  production  and  prices; 

2.  Recommends  that  all  donor  countries  accept 
and  implement  the  concept  of  forward  planning  of 
food  aid,  make  all  efforts  to  provide  commodities 
and/or  financial  assistance  that  will  ensure  in  physi- 
cal terms  at  least  10  million  tons  of  grains  as  food 
aid  a  year,  starting  from  1975,  and  also  to  provide 
adequate  quantities  of  other  food  commodities; 

3.  Requests  that  interested  cereals-exporting  and 
importing  countries  as  well  as  current  and  potential 
financial  contributors  meet  as  soon  as  possible  to 
take  cognizance  of  the  needs  and  to  consider  ways 
and  means  to  increase  food  availability  and  financ- 
ing facilities  during  1975  and  1976  for  the  affected 
developing  countries  and,  in  particular,  for  those 
most  seriously  affected  by  the  current  food  problem; 

4.  Urges   all    donor   countries   to    (a)    channel    a 


834 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


more  significant  proportion  of  food  aid  through  the 
World  Food  Programme,  (b)  consider  increasing 
progressively  the  grant  component  in  their  bilateral 
food  aid  programmes,  (c)  consider  contributing  part 
of  any  food  aid  repayments  for  supplementary  nu- 
trition programmes  and  emergency  relief,  (d)  pro- 
vide, as  appropriate,  additional  cash  resources  to 
food  aid  programmes  for  commodity  purchases  from 
developing  countries  to  the  maximum  extent  possi- 
ble; 

5.  Recommends  that  the  Intergovernmental  Com- 
mittee of  the  World  Food  Programme,  reconstituted 
as  recommended  in  Conference  resolution  XXI 
[XXII]  on  arrangements  for  follow-up  action,  be 
entrusted  with  the  task  of  formulating  proposals 
for  more  effective  co-ordination  of  multilateral,  bi- 
lateral and  non-governmental  food  aid  programmes 
and  of  co-ordinating  emergency  food  aid; 

6.  Recommends  that  Governments,  where  possible, 
earmark  stocks  or  funds  for  meeting  international 
emergency  requirements,  as  envisaged  in  the  pro- 
posed International  Undertaking  on  World  Food  Se- 
curity, and  further  recommends  that  international 
guidelines  for  such  emergency  stocks  be  developed 
as  a  part  of  the  proposed  Undertaking  to  provide 
for  an  effective  co-ordination  of  emergency  stocks 
and  to  ensure  that  food  relief  reaches  the  neediest 
and  most  vulnerable  groups  in  developing  countries; 

7.  Recommends  that  a  part  of  the  proposed  emer- 
gency stocks  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  World 
Food  Programme,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  in  order  to 
increase  its  capacity  to  render  speedy  assistance  in 
emergency  situations. 


Resolution  XXII 

Arrangements  for  foUow-np  action,  iyicluding  appro- 
priate operational  machinery  oyi  recommendations 
or  resolutions  of  the  Conference 

The   World  Food  Conference, 

Recognizing  that  an  assurance  of  adequate  world 
food  supplies  is  a  matter  of  life  and  death  for  mil- 
lions of  human  beings. 

Appreciating  the  complex  nature  of  the  world 
food  problem,  which  can  only  be  solved  through  an 
integrated  multi-disciplinary  approach  within  the 
framework  of  economic  and  social  development  as  a 
whole, 

Considering  that  collective  world  food  security 
within  the  framework  of  a  world  food  policy  should 
be  promoted  and  its  concept  further  defined  and  elab- 
orated, so  that  it  should  foster  the  acceleration  of 
the  process  of  rural  development  in  developing  coun- 
tries as  well  as  ensure  the  improvement  of  interna- 
tional co-operation. 

Appreciating  the  need  to  co-ordinate  and 
strengthen  the  work  of  the  international  agencies 
concerned,  and  to  ensure  that  their  operational  ac- 


tivities   are    co-ordinated    in    an    effective   and    inte- 
grated world  food  policy, 

Recognizing  in  particular  the  need  for  improved 
institutional  arrangements  to  increase  world  food 
production,  to  safeguard  world  food  security,  to  im- 
prove world  food  trade,  and  to  ensure  that  timely 
action  is  taken  to  meet  the  threat  of  acute  food 
shortages  or  famines  in  the  different  developing  re- 
gions, 

1.  Calls  upon  the  General  Assembly  to  establish 
a  World  Food  Council,  at  the  ministerial  or  plenipo- 
tentiary level,  to  function  as  an  organ  of  the  United 
Nations  reporting  to  the  General  Assembly  through 
the  Economic  and  Social  Council,  to  serve  as  a  co- 
ordinating mechanism  to  provide  over-all,  integrated 
and  continuing  attention  for  the  successful  co-ordi- 
nation and  follow-up  of  policies  concerning  food  pro- 
duction, nutrition,  food  security,  food  trade  and  food 
aid,  as  well  as  other  related  matters,  by  all  the 
agencies  of  the  United  Nations  system; 

2.  Takes  note  of  the  fact  that  interagency  meet- 
ings between  the  Secretary-General  of  the  United 
Nations  and  the  heads  of  the  specialized  agencies 
provide  an  opportunity  for  considering  necessary 
constitutional  amendments  to  improve  the  function- 
ing of  the  United  Nations  system; 

3.  Requests  that  the  present  resolution  be  taken 
into  account  in  such  consultations  with  a  view  to  fa- 
cilitating its  early  implementation; 

4.  Recommends  that: 

(a)  The  World  Food  Council  should  consist  of 
members,   nominated   by   the   Economic   and 


Social  Council  and  elected  by  the  General  Assembly, 
taking  into  consideration  balanced  geographical  rep- 
resentation. The  Council  should  invite  the  heads  of 
United  Nations  agencies  concerned  to  attend  its  ses- 
sions; 

(b)  The  Council  should  elect  its  President  on  the 
basis  of  geographical  rotation  and  approve  its  rules 
of  procedure.  It  should  be  sei-viced  within  the  frame- 
work of  FAO  [Food  and  Agriculture  Organization], 
with  headquarters  at  Rome; 

(c)  The  Council  should  review  periodically  major 
problems  and  policy  issues  affecting  the  world  food 
situation,  and  the  steps  being  proposed  or  taken  to 
resolve  them  by  Governments,  by  the  United  Na- 
tions system  and  its  regional  organizations,  and 
should  further  recommend  remedial  action  as  appro- 
priate. The  scope  of  the  Council's  review  should  ex- 
tend to  all  aspects  of  world  food  problems  in  order 
to  adopt  an  integrated  approach  towards  thsir  solu- 
tion; 

(d)  The  Council  should  establish  its  own  pro- 
gramme of  action  for  co-ordination  of  relevant 
United  Nations  bodies  and  agencies.  While  doing  so, 
it  should  give  special  attention  to  the  problems  of 
the  least  developed  countries  and  the  countries  most 
seriously  affected; 

(e)  The   Council    should    maintain    contacts    with, 


December   16,    1974 


835 


receive  reports  from,  grive  advice  to,  and  make  rec- 
ommendations to  United  Nations  bodies  and  agen- 
cies with  regard  to  the  formulation  and  follow-up 
of  world  food  policies; 

(f)  The  Council  should  work  in  full  co-operation 
with  regional  bodies  to  formulate  and  follow-up  poli- 
cies approved  by  the  Council.  Committees  to  be  es- 
tablished by  these  regional  bodies  should  be  serviced 
by  existing  United  Nations  or  FAO  bodies  in  the  re- 
gion concerned; 

5.  Recommends  further  that  the  FAO  establish  a 
Committee  on  World  Food  Security  as  a  standing 
committee  of  the  FAO  Council.  The  Committee 
should  submit  pei-iodic  and  special  reports  to  the 
World  Food  Council.  The  functions  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  World  Food  Security  should  include  the  fol- 
lowing: 

(a)  to  keep  the  current  and  prospective  demand, 
supply  and  stock  position  for  basic  food-stuffs  under 
continuous  review,  in  the  context  of  world  food  se- 
curity, and  to  disseminate  timely  information  on  de- 
velopments; 

(b)  to  make  periodic  evaluations  of  the  adequacv 
of  current  and  prospective  stock  levels,  in  aggre- 
gate, in  exporting  and  importing  countries,  in  order 
to  assure  a  regular  flow  of  supplies  of  basic  food- 
stuffs to  meet  requirements  in  domestic  and  world 
markets,  including  food  aid  requirements,  in  time 
of  short  crops  and  serious  crop  failure; 

(c)  to  review  the  steps  taken  by  Governments  to 
implement  the  proposed  International  Undertaking 
on  World  Food  Security; 

(d)  to  recommend  such  short-term  and  long-term 
policy  action  as  may  be  considered  necessary  to  rem- 
edy any  difficulty  foreseen  in  assuring  adequate  ce- 
real supplies  for  minimum  world  food  security; 

6.  Recommends  further  that  the  Intergovernmental 
Committee  of  the  World  Food  Programme  be  recon- 
stituted so  as  to  enable  it  to  help  evolve  and  co- 
ordinate short-term  and  longer-term  food  aid  poli- 
cies recommended  by  the  Conference,  in  addition  to 
discharging  its  existing  functions.  The  reconstituted 
Committee  should  be  called,  and  function  as,  the 
Committee  on  Food  Aid  Policies  and  Programmes. 
The  Committee  should  submit  periodical  and  special 
reports  to  the  World  Food  Council.  The  functions  of 
the  Committee  on  Food  Aid  Policies  and  Programmes 
should  include  the  following: 

(a)  to  provide  a  forum  for  intergovernmental 
consultations  on  national  and  international  food  aid 
programmes  and  policies,  with  particular  reference 
to  possibilities  of  securing  improved  co-ordination 
between  bilateral  and  multilateral  food  aid; 

(b)  to  review  periodically  general  trends  in  food 
aid  requirements  and  food  aid  availabilities; 

(c)  to  recommend  to  Governments,  through  the 
World  Food  Council,  improvements  in  food  aid  poli- 


cies and  programmes  on  such  matters  as  programme 
priorities,  composition  of  food  aid  commodities  and 
other  related  subjects; 

7.  Recommends  further  that  the  Governing  Board 
of  the  proposed  International  Fund  for  Agricultural 
Development  should  submit  information  periodically 
to  the  World  Food  Council  on  the  programmes  ap- 
proved by  the  Board.  The  Board  should  take  into 
consideration  the  advice  and  recommendations  of 
the  Council; 

8.  Recommends  that  the  World  Food  Council 
should  receive  periodic  reports  from  UNCTAD 
[United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade  and  Develop- 
ment], through  the  Economic  and  Social  Council,  on 
the  world  food  trade  situation,  as  well  as  on  the  ef- 
fective progress  to  increase  trade  liberalization  and 
access  to  international  markets  for  food  products  ex- 
ported by  developing  countries.  UNCT.A.D  should 
take  into  consideration  the  advice  and  recommenda- 
tions of  the  Council  on  these  matters.  The  Council 
should  also  seek  to  arrange  for  the  receipt  of  rele- 
vant information  from  the  GATT  [General  Agree- 
ment on  Tariffs  and  Trade].  In  its  recommendation 
on  food  trade  matters,  the  Council  should  pay  par- 
ticular attention  to  the  resolutions  and  recommenda- 
tions of  the  Conference; 

9.  Requests  the  FAO  to  initiate  urgent  steps, 
through  its  Commission  on  Fertilizers,  for  follow- 
ing up  on  Conference  resolution  [III]  on  Fertilizers, 
and  to  take  appropriate  initiatives  with  respect  to 
fertilizers,  pesticides,  fungicides  and  herbicides, 
working  in  close  co-operation  with  UNIDO  and 
IBRD  [United  Nations  Industrial  Development  Or- 
ganization; International  Bank  for  Reconstruction 
and  Development],  and  other  agencies.  The  FAO 
Commission  on  Fertilizers  should  submit  periodic 
reports  to  the  World  Food  Council,  and  should  be 
guided  by  the  advice  and  recommendations  of  the 
Council; 

10.  Requests  FAO  to  examine  its  ability  to  follow 
up  on  Conference  resolution  XVI  on  the  Global  In- 
formation System  and  Early- Warning  System  in 
Food  and  Agriculture,  with  a  view  to  recommending 
to  the  FAO  Council,  at  its  sixty-fifth  session  in 
1975,  any  new  arrangements  which  may  be  neces- 
sary with  respect  to  its  activities  in  this  field,  and 
to  initiate  whatever  other  arrangements  may  be  nec- 
essary to  facilitate  global  coverage  as  called  for  by 
the  above-mentioned  resolution,  drawing  upon  the 
help  in  this  regard  of  ECOSOC,  if  necessary,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  International  Wheat  Council  and  other 
organizations.  Periodic  reports  on  progress  should  be 
submitted  to  the  World  Food  Council; 

11.  Requests  the  Economic  and  Social  Council  to 
consider  on  an  urgent  basis,  and  make  recommenda- 
tions whether  or  not  rearrangements  in  the  United 
Nations  system  or  new  institutional  bodies  may  be 
justified  in  order  to  ensure  effective  follow-up  on 
Conference  resolution  V  on  nutrition,  examining  nu- 


836 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


tritional  activities  within  bodies  such  as  the  United 
Nations,  the  specialized  agencies,  in  particular  FAO 
and  WHO  [World  Health  Organization],  UNICEF 
[United  Nations  Children's  Fund],  and  the  World 
Food  Programme,  and  also  giving  appropriate  at- 
tention to  nutritional  programmes  being  conducted 
on  a  bilateral  basis; 

12.  Requests  the  Consultative  Group  on  Inter- 
national Agricultural  Research  (CGIAR)  and  the 
Technical  Advisory  Committee  to  assume  leadership 
in  following  up  on  the  research  aspect  of  Conference 
resolution  IV  on  research; 

13.  Requests  FAO,  IBRD,  UNDP  [United  Nations 
Development  Program]  and  other  relevant  interna- 
tional organizations  and  interested  Governments  to 
investigate  the  desirability  of  introducing  an  orga- 
nizational approach,  along  the  lines  of  the  Consulta- 
tive Group-Technical  Advisory  Committee  for  Agri- 
cultural Research,  for  other  sectors  such  as  exten- 
sion, agricultural  credit  and  rural  development; 

14.  Requests  the  IBRD,  FAO  and  UNDP  to  or- 
ganize a  Consultative  Group  on  Food  Production  and 
Investment  in  Developing  Countries  (CGFPI),  to  be 
composed  of  bilateral  and  multilateral  donors  and 
representatives  of  developing  countries,  chosen  as  in 
the  case  of  the  CGI.A.R,  to  be  staffed  jointly  by  the 
IBRD,  FAO  and  UNDP,  and  invites  this  Consulta- 
tive Group  to  keep  the  World  Food  Council  informed 
of  its  activities  to  increase,  co-ordinate,  and  improve 
the  efficiency  of  financial  and  technical  assistance  to 
agricultural  production  in  developing  countries; 

15.  Recommeyids  that  the  main  functions  of  the 
CGFPI  should  be  (a)  to  encourage  a  larger  flow  of 
external  resources  for  food  production,  (b)  to  im- 
prove the  co-ordination  of  activities  of  different 
multilateral  and  bilateral  donors  providing  financial 
and  technical  assistance  for  food  production  and  (c) 
to  ensure  a  more  effective  use  of  available  resources; 

16.  Anticipating  the  possibility  that  such  meas- 
ures as  may  be  agreed  to  provide  financial  assistance 
to  developing  countries  for  procurement  of  food  and 
necessary  food  production  inputs,  particularly  fer- 
tilizers and  pesticides,  and  for  investment  in  food 
production  and  distribution  systems,  may  not  fulfil 
all  needs,  requests  the  Development  Committee  es- 
tablished by  the  IBRD  and  IMF  [International  Mon- 
etary Fund]  to  keep  under  constant  review  the  ade- 
quacy of  the  external  resources  available  for  these 
purposes,  especially  to  the  less  advantaged  coun- 
tries, and  to  consider  in  association  with  the  CGFPI 
new  measures  which  may  be  necessary  to  achieve 
the  required  volume  of  resources  transfers. 


U.S. -Yugoslav  Scientific  Cooperation 
Board  Meets  at  Washington 

Joint  Statement  ' 

The  U.S. -Yugoslav  Joint  Board  on  Scien- 
tific and  Technological  Cooperation  met  at 
Washington,  D.C.  November  19-21,  1974. 

The  Board  reviewed  a  number  of  projects 
in  a  wide  range  of  fields  and  approved  a 
number  of  them  for  financing  from  the  U.S.- 
Yugoslav Joint  Fund  established  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Agreement  between  the  United 
States  and  Yugoslav  Governments  on  May 
18,  1973. 

The  Board  noted  that  the  U.S. -Yugoslav 
Scientific  and  Technological  Research  Pro- 
gram has  made  a  tangible  contribution  in  a 
number  of  fields  and  stressed  the  importance 
that  new  sources  of  funding  be  developed. 
The  Board  noted  with  pleasure  the  intention 
of  a  number  of  United  States  Government 
agencies  to  make  additional  funds  available 
for  the  program. 

The  United  States  was  represented  by  Dr. 
Oswald  H.  Ganley,  Director,  Oflice  of  Soviet 
and  Eastern  European  Scientific  and  Tech- 
nological Programs,  Bureau  of  Oceans  and 
International  Environmental  and  Scientific 
Aff'airs,  Department  of  State,  and  Chairman 
of  the  Board;  and  Mr.  William  H.  Mills,  Sci- 
entific Attache,  American  Embassy,  Bel- 
grade. Yugoslavia  was  represented  by  Dr. 
Edo  Pirkmajer,  Secretary  General  of  the 
Scientific  Unions  of  Slovenia  and  a  Member 
of  the  Federal  Coordinating  Committee  for 
Science  and  Technology;  and  Mr.  Milos  Ra- 
jacic,  Scientific  Counselor,  Embassy  of  the 
Socialist  Federal  Republic  of  Yugoslavia. 

The  Board  agreed  that  its  next  meeting 
would  take  place  in  Yugoslavia  in  the  Spring 
of  1975. 


'  Issued  at  Washington  Nov.  22  (press  release  510 
dated  Nov.  22). 


December   16,    1974 


837 


Southern  Africa  Five  Years  After  the  Lusaka  Manifesto 


Addi'ess  by  Donald  B.  Easum 
Assistant  Secretary  for  African  Affairs  ^ 


As  you  well  know,  black  American  interest 
in  and  concern  for  Africa  are  not  of  recent 
vintage.  This  interest  and  concern  span  many 
years.  They  can  be  found  in  the  various,  of- 
ten philosophical,  "Back  to  Africa"  themes 
that  date  to  the  18th  century. 

One  of  the  first  black  American  scholars 
to  focus  on  Africa  was  the  late  Dr.  W.  E.  B. 
Dubois.  He  gave  expression  to  many  of  his 
views  while  serving  as  editor  of  the  Crisis, 
the  organ  of  the  National  Association  for  the 
Advancement  of  Colored  People.  In  1916,  for 
e.xample.  Dr.  Dubois  proposed  to  the  NAACP 
board  that  an  Encyclopedia  Africana  be  pub- 
lished in  1919  to  mark  the  300th  anniversary 
of  the  permanent  landing  of  black  slaves  at 
Jamestown,  Virginia.  Dr.  Dubois  suggested 
in  1917  that  the  association  take  steps  at  the 
Versailles  Peace  Conference  to  secure  recog- 
nition of  the  rights  of  Africans. 

The  NAACP  was  in  the  vanguard  of  or- 
ganized efforts  to  help  the  African  peoples. 
The  organization  supported  the  various  Pan- 
African  Congresses  organized  by  Dr.  Dubois. 
A  manifesto  issued  at  the  second  such  Con- 
gress, held  in  London  in  1921,  contained 
these  words : 

This  is  a  world  of  men,  of  men  whose  likenesses 
far  outweigh  their  differences,  who  mutually  need 
each  other  in  labor  and  thought  and  dream,  but  who 
can  successfully  have  each  other  only  on  terms  of 
equality,  justice  and  mutual  respect. 

The  decades  since  World  War  II  have  wit- 
nessed a  dramatic  flowering  of  these  concepts 


'  Made  before  a  symposium  on  black  America  and 
Africa  at  the  Patterson  School  of  Diplomacy  and  In- 
ternational Commerce,  University  of  Kentucky,  Lex- 
ington, Ky.,  on  Nov.  26. 


of  equality  and  justice.  For  black  Americans, 
this  period  saw  important  advances  in  mak- 
ing a  reality  for  all  Americans  of  the  state- 
ments and  goals  of  our  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence and  our  Constitution.  For  Africans, 
this  was  a  period  of  great  transition  as  co- 
lonialism gave  way  to  independent  nation- 
hood in  most  of  the  vast  African  continent. 

The  period  of  the  sixties  saw  a  remarkable 
growth  and  strengthening  of  programs  of 
black  studies  and  African  studies  on  Ameri- 
can campuses.  These  programs  have  served 
to  broaden  both  the  base  and  the  scope  of 
black  American  interest  in  Africa,  as  well  as 
to  substantially  inform  the  American  white 
community  regarding  the  black  experience 
in  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Worlds.  This 
rising  awareness  of  the  black  experience  has 
brought  a  greater  knowledge  of  and  interest 
in  the  issues  of  racial  equality  and  decoloni- 
zation in  Africa. 

It  has  been  in  the  southern  tier  of  Africa 
that  Dubois'  prescription  of  "equality,  justice 
and  mutual  respect"  was  least  observed.  This 
is  where — in  Mozambique  and  Angola — 14 
million  blacks  were  ruled  by  600,000  whites 
and  the  basic  decisions  concerning  peoples' 
lives  were  being  made  thousands  of  miles 
away  in  Lisbon.  This  is  where — in  Rhodesia 
— a  white  minority  regime  representing 
250,000  whites  refused  to  provide  more  than 
5  million  blacks  with  adequate  human  and 
civil  rights  in  the  society.  This  is  where — in 
South  West  Africa,  or  Namibia,  as  it  is  prop- 
erly called — South  Africa  defied  U.N.  de- 
mands to  permit  self-determination  for  a 
territory  in  which  blacks  constitute  88  per- 
cent of  a  total  population  of  some  750,000. 


838 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


And  this  is  where — in  South  Africa — 21  mil- 
lion non-whites  (18  million  blacks,  2.5  mil- 
lion coloreds,  700,000  Indians)  are  relegated 
to  the  separate  and  unequal  status  of  apart- 
heid by  the  decisions  of  a  government  rep- 
resenting 4  million  whites. 

At  a  meeting  in  Lusaka  in  April  1969  the 
leaders  of  13  independent  east  and  central 
African  states  issued  a  statement  of  their 
position  on  this  state  of  affairs.  The  countries 
were  Burundi,  the  Central  African  Republic, 
Chad,  Congo,  Ethiopia,  Kenya,  Rwanda,  So- 
malia, Sudan,  Tanzania,  Uganda,  Zaire,  and 
Zambia.  Their  unanimous  affirmation  of 
certain  principles  was  to  be  called  the  Lusaka 
Manifesto  on  Southern  Africa.  In  this  man- 
ifesto the  13  countries  declared: 

.  .  .  the  principle  of  human  equality,  and  all  that 
flows  from  it,  is  either  universal  or  it  does  not  exist. 
The  dignity  of  all  men  is  destroyed  when  the  man- 
hood of  any  human  being  is  denied. 

Before  addressing  themselves  to  the  par- 
ticular condition  of  equality  and  freedom  in 
the  Portuguese  African  territories,  Rhodesia, 
South  West  Africa,  and  the  Republic  of  South 
Africa,  the  signers  of  the  manifesto  had 
this  to  say  concerning  their  commitment  to 
these  principles : 

By  this  Manifesto  we  wish  to  make  clear,  beyond 
all  shadow  of  doubt,  our  acceptance  of  the  belief 
that  all  men  are  equal,  and  have  equal  rights  to  hu- 
man dignity  and  respect,  regardless  of  colour,  race, 
religion,  or  sex.  We  believe  that  all  men  have  the 
right  and  the  duty  to  participate,  as  equal  members 
of  the  society,  in  their  own  government.  We  do  not 
accept  that  any  individual  or  group  has  any  right  to 
govern  any  other  group  of  sane  adults,  without  their 
consent,  and  we  affirm  that  only  the  people  of  a  so- 
ciety, acting  together  as  equals,  can  determine  what 
is,  for  them,  a  good  society  and  a  good  social,  eco- 
nomic, or  political  organisation. 

.  .  .  We  recognise  that  at  any  one  time  there  will 
be,  within  every  society,  failures  in  the  implementa- 
tion of  these  ideals.  We  recognise  that  for  the  sake 
of  order  in  human  affairs,  there  may  be  transitional 
arrangements  while  a  transformation  from  group 
inequalities  to  individual  equality  is  being  effected. 
But  we  affirm  that  without  an  acceptance  of  these 
ideals — without  a  commitment  to  these  principles  of 
human  equality  and  self-determination — there  can 
be  no  basis  for  peace  and  justice  in  the  world. 

None  of  us  would  claim  that  within  our  own  States 
we  have  achieved  that  perfect  social,  economic  and 
political  organisation  which  would  ensure  a  reason- 


able standard  of  living  for  all  our  people  and  estab- 
lish individual  security  against  avoidable  hardship 
or  miscarriage  of  justice.  On  the  contrary,  we  ac- 
knowledge that  within  our  own  States  the  struggle 
towards  human  brotherhood  and  unchallenged  hu- 
man dignity  is  only  beginning.  It  is  on  the  basis  of 
our  commitment  to  human  equality  and  human  dig- 
nity, not  on  the  basis  of  achieved  perfection,  that  we 
take  our  stand  of  hostility  towards  the  colonialism 
and  racial  discrimination  which  is  being  practised  in 
Southern  Africa.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  their  commit- 
ment to  these  universal  principles  that  we  appeal  to 
other  members  of  the  human  race  for  support. 

If  the  commitment  to  these  principles  existed 
among  the  States  holding  power  in  Southern  Africa, 
any  disagreements  we  might  have  about  the  rate  of 
implementation,  or  about  isolated  acts  of  policy, 
would  be  matters  affecting  only  our  individual  rela- 
tionships with  the  States  concerned.  If  these  com- 
mitments existed,  our  States  would  not  be  justified 
in  the  expressed  and  active  hostility  towards  the 
regimes  of  Southern  Africa  such  as  we  have  pro- 
claimed and  continue  to  propagate. 

The  truth  is,  however,  that  in  Mozambique,  An- 
gola, Rhodesia,  South-West  Africa,  and  the  Repub- 
lic of  South  Africa,  there  is  an  open  and  continued 
denial  of  the  principles  of  human  equality  and  na- 
tional self-determination. 

It  was  five  years  ago  that  the  Lusaka 
Manifesto  was  i.ssued.  What  is  the  situation 
today? 

I  have  just  returned — only  two  days  ago — 
from  a  five-week  trip  to  the  countries  of 
southern  Africa.  Three  of  these  countries 
were  signers  of  the  Lusaka  Manifesto;  three 
were  among  its  targets. 

In  Lusaka,  I  attended  Zambia's  10th  inde- 
pendence anniversary  celebrations  as  an  of- 
ficial guest  of  President  Kaunda.  In  Zaire,  I 
visited  one  of  the  world's  largest  hydroelec- 
tric power  installations,  located  downstream 
from  Kinshasa  in  the  gorges  of  the  Zaire 
River  near  the  sea.  In  Tanzania,  I  partici- 
pated in  discussions  of  U.S.  assistance  pro- 
grams in  education  and  transportation.  In 
Malawi,  President  Banda  invited  me  to  at- 
tend the  opening  of  his  Parliament  and  tour 
the  new  capital  city  of  Lilongwe.  In  Bots- 
wana, I  examined  one  of  the  world's  largest 
beef  slaughterhouses  and  packing  plants.  In 
Lesotho,  government  officials  reviewed  with 
me  the  status  of  joint  U.S. -World  Bank  ef- 
forts to  help  combat  erosion  and  solve  the 
rural  employment  problem.  In  Swaziland,  I 
discussed  Peace  Corps  assistance  in  teaching 


December   16,    1974 


839 


and  health  and  looked  at  new  possibilities  for 
U.S.  private  investment. 

I  spent  a  week  in  the  Republic  of  South 
Africa,  visiting  Cape  Town,  Johannesburg, 
Pretoria,  and  Durban — including  areas  where 
blacks  and  coloreds  are  assigned  to  live  in 
the  outskirts  of  Johannesburg  and  Cape 
Town,  respectively.  And  I  have  just  come 
from  Mozambique  and  Angola,  the  last  two 
stops  on  my  trip,  both  of  which  are  moving 
to  full  independence  from  Portugal. 

I  met  with  the  Presidents  or  Prime  Mini- 
sters of  every  country  I  visited,  but  I  also 
talked  with  traditional  chiefs  and  village 
mayors,  with  trade  union  leaders  and  church- 
men, with  students  and  civil  servants,  with 
businessmen  and  politicians,  and  with  teach- 
ers and  farmers. 

I  can  report  to  you  that  two  major  issues 
dominated  the  thoughts  of  my  hosts.  They 
concerned,  first  of  all,  human  dignity  and 
racial  equality  in  southern  Africa,  and, 
secondly,  decolonization  and  national  self- 
determination.  And  these  same  issues  were 
dominant  daily  themes  in  the  press,  the  radio, 
and — where  it  existed — the  television  output 
in  these  countries  during  the  period  of  my 
visits. 

It  was  as  if  the  Lusaka  Manifesto  had  been 
issued  only  yesterday,  rather  than  five  years 
ago. 

Human  Dignity  and  Racial  Equality 

Why  were  human  dignity  and  racial  equal- 
ity of  such  important  concern  to  the  people 
with  whom  I  met?  Let  me  illustrate  why. 

In  the  Republic  of  South  Africa  today,  the 
life  of  every  citizen  of  whatever  race  or  color 
is  controlled  by  a  system — which  is  also  a 
philosophy — called  apartheid  or  separateness. 
This  apartheid  concept  is  institutionalized 
and  endorsed  by  an  elaborate  set  of  laws, 
regulations,  and  practices  that  imposes  sep- 
arate status  on  the  almost  21  million  mem- 
bers of  the  South  African  society  that  the 
government  classifies  as  non-white.  Within 
what  are  called  their  Bantustans  or  home- 
lands. South  African  blacks  will  be  able  to 
vote,  own  property,  and  move  freely  from 
one  place  to  another.  They  will  not  have  such 


rights  elsewhere.  These  homeland  areas  con- 
stitute 13  percent  of  the  national  territory. 
Some  70  percent  of  the  nation's  population 
is  being  assigned  to  live  in  these  areas.  This 
is  a  system  legislated  by  the  South  African 
Parliament,  where  seats  are  held  only  by 
whites.  The  other  racial  groups  are  not  rep- 
resented in  this  Parliament. 

This  is  what  many  of  the  people  I  met  on 
this  trip  wanted  to  talk  about.  Remember  that 
of  the  nine  countries  I  visited  outside  the 
Republic  of  South  Africa,  six  border  on  the 
Republic  or  on  South  West  Africa.  One  of 
these,  Lesotho,  is  totally  surrounded  by  the 
Republic  of  South  Africa.  Another,  Swazi- 
land, is  bordered  on  three  sides  by  South 
Africa.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  workers 
from  these  countries  are  employed  in  South 
African  mines,  farms,  and  factories,  where 
they  learn  about  and  are  subject  to  apartheid. 

South  Africa's  system  of  separateness  re- 
stricts both  whites  and  non-whites  to  desig- 
nated living  areas,  strictly  circumscribes  the 
rights  of  blacks  to  own  property  or  engage  in 
trade,  and  excludes  blacks  from  entering 
white  urban  areas  unless  they  are  required  to 
be  there  to  serve  white  employers.  The  sys- 
tem excludes  blacks  from  most  skilled  jobs 
and  does  not  allow  them  to  join  registered 
trade  unions  or  to  bargain  collectively. 

The  South  African  Government  says  that 
these  practices  are  necessary  to  protect  and 
advance  its  policy  of  "separate  development." 
Separate  development,  as  currently  defined  by 
South  African  Government  officials,  means 
the  creation  of  a  bloc  of  black  states  that  are 
to  be  politically  independent  and  economically 
interdependent.  One  of  these  eight  home- 
lands, the  Transkei,  is  scheduled  to  become 
at  least  nominally  independent  within  the 
next  few  years. 

This  vast  program  requires  moving  masses 
of  people,  both  black  and  white,  but  primarily 
black,  from  the  places  they  now  inhabit  to 
new  locations.  If  you  are  black,  you  are  as- 
signed to  the  homeland  designated  for  the 
particular  racial  group  to  which  you  belong — 
or  "tribe,"  to  use  the  term  one  encounters  in 
South  Africa. 

The  theory  behind  the  elaborate  structure 
of  rules  and  regulations  designed  to  keep  the 


840 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


races  apart  in  the  Republic  of  South  Africa 
is  that  the  separation  is  necessary  in  order 
to  avoid  ethnic  frictions  and  thus  preserve 
harmony  and  stability  in  the  society.  These 
conditions  are  believed  to  be  essential  for 
the  protection  of  traditional  cultures,  in- 
cluding white  culture,  and  for  the  continu- 
ance of  the  economic  growth  that  is  bringing 
increasing  prosperity  to  both  the  white  and 
non-white  populations. 

The  Issue  of  Decolonization 

The  second  major  preoccupation  of  black 
leaders  in  the  countries  I  visited  was  decol- 
onization and  national  self-determination. 
This  is  no  new  concern.  Ever  since  the  full 
tide  of  self-determination  in  the  1960's, 
which  brought  many  of  these  countries  to 
full  independence,  African  leaders  have 
worked  to  bring  about  the  decolonization  of 
these  parts  of  Africa  where  self-determina- 
tion was  still  denied.  With  regard  to  the 
choice  they  made  between  force  or  peaceful 
means  for  achieving  decolonization,  the  Lu- 
saka Manifesto  was  once  again  instructive. 
It  spoke  as  follows : 

We  have  always  preferred,  and  we  still  prefer, 
to  achieve  [liberation]  without  physical  violence.  We 
would  prefer  to  negotiate  rather  than  destroy,  to 
talk  rather  than  kill  ....  If  peaceful  progress  to 
emancipation  were  possible,  or  if  changed  circum- 
stances were  to  make  it  possible  in  the  future,  we 
would  urge  our  brothers  in  the  resistance  move- 
ments to  use  peaceful  methods  of  struggle  even  at 
the  cost  of  some  compromise  on  the  timing  of 
change.  But  while  peaceful  progress  is  blocked  by 
actions  of  those  at  present  in  power  in  the  States 
of  Southern  Africa,  we  have  no  choice  but  to  give 
to  the  peoples  of  those  territories  all  the  support  of 
which  we  are  capable  in  their  struggle  against  their 
oppressors. 

Thus  it  was  that  the  independent  countries 
of  black  Africa  and  their  Organization  of 
African  Unity  encouraged  and  gave  support 
to  a  variety  of  liberation  movements — some- 
times called  terrorists,  sometimes  called  free- 
dom fighters,  depending  on  one's  point  of 
view — in  an  effort  to  bring  freedom  from 
continued  colonial  rule. 

But  African  leaders  remained  open  to  the 
possibility  of  dialogue  and  peaceful  persua- 


sion if  circumstances  were  to  permit.  And, 
indeed,  following  the  change  of  government 
in  Lisbon  in  April  of  this  year,  circumstances 
did  so  permit  in  three  of  the  territories  to 
which  the  Lu.saka  Manifesto  addre.ssed  itself; 
that  is,  Portuguese  Guinea,  Mozambique,  and 
Angola.  With  the  assistance  of  such  countries 
as  Senegal,  Algeria,  Zaire,  Tanzania,  and 
Zambia — to  name  only  the  principal  ones — 
talking  replaced  fighting. 

As  a  result  of  negotiations  between  the 
new  Portuguese  Government  and  the  leaders 
of  the  PAIGC  [African  Party  for  the  Inde- 
pendence of  Portuguese  Guinea  and  Cape 
Verde]  liberation  movement,  Portugal  rec- 
ognized the  independence  of  the  new  Repub- 
lic of  Guinea-Bissau  in  September.  The 
United  States  warmly  welcomed  the  Portu- 
guese action. 

In  Mozambique,  where  I  had  conversations 
with  the  Portuguese  High  Commissioner, 
Admiral  Crespo,  and  with  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter of  the  Transitional  Government,  Joaquim 
Chissano  of  the  FRELIMO  [Liberation 
Front  of  Mozambique]  liberation  movement, 
independence  is  scheduled  for  June  of  next 
year.  In  Angola,  where  I  met  with  members 
of  the  junta,  the  Portuguese  have  offered  in- 
dependence to  the  territory  and  have  begun 
discussions  with  the  liberation  movements  on 
ways  to  bring  it  about. 

These  developments  in  Portuguese-speak- 
ing Africa  have  been  greeted  with  great  en- 
thusiasm and  gratification  throughout  black 
Africa,  where  they  are  viewed  as  a  giant 
leap  forward  toward  complete  decoloniza- 
tion in  southern  Africa.  But  those  with  whom 
I  spoke  insisted  that  the  effort  could  not  be 
slackened  so  long  as  self-determination  was 
not  yet  a  fact  in  Rhodesia  and  in  Namibia. 
Let's  look  at  those  two  cases  for  a  moment. 

You  will  recall  that  the  minority  white 
government  in  Rhodesia  unilaterally  de- 
clared its  independence  of  the  United  King- 
dom in  1965.  The  United  Kingdom  has  never 
accepted  this  action,  and  the  United  Nations 
has  imposed  economic  sanctions  against  the 
illegal  regime.  Negotiations  have  consistently 
faltered  because  of  the  Rhodesian  regime's 
unwillingness  to  offer  terms  acceptable  to  the 
black  majority  and  the  United  Kingdom. 


December   16,    1974 


841 


As  for  Namibia,  the  United  Nations  in 
1966  terminated  South  Africa's  mandate 
from  the  League  of  Nations  to  administer 
this  territory.  The  World  Court  in  1971  af- 
firmed the  validity  of  the  U.N.  decision  and 
held  that  South  Africa's  continued  adminis- 
tration of  the  territory  is  illegal.  But  South 
Africa  has  refused  to  give  up  its  control  of 
the  area. 

Black  African  leaders  with  whom  I  met, 
without  exception,  stressed  their  conviction 
that  self-determination  in  Namibia  and  Rho- 
desia is  now  more  than  ever  a  pillar  of  their 
countries'  policies  in  southern  Africa.  They 
see  South  Africa  as  holding  the  key  to  solu- 
tions of  both  problems.  They  believe  these 
solutions  can  and  must  be  achieved  by  peace- 
ful persuasion  and  negotiation  rather  than 
by  force  or  violence. 

They  want  South  Africa  to  withdraw  from 
Namibia  and  permit  the  area  to  decide  its 
own  future.  They  want  South  Africa  to  re- 
move its  police  forces  from  Rhodesia  and  to 
cease  all  support  of  the  Smith  regime  and 
apply  economic  sanctions  against  it  as  pro- 
vided for  by  U.N.  decisions.  Finally,  they 
want  South  Africa  to  abandon  its  present 
racial  policies  and  take  prompt  steps  to  as- 
sure full  dignity  and  equality  for  all  South 
Africans,  of  whatever  race  or  color. 

U.S.  Position  on  Southern  Africa 

What  is  the  position  of  the  U.S.  Govern- 
ment on  these  issues? 

With  regard  to  Rhodesia,  the  United  States 
continues  to  look  to  the  United  Kingdom  as 
responsible  for  achieving  a  constitutional  so- 
lution to  Rhodesia's  illegally  declared  inde- 
pendence, which  is  not  recognized  by  any  na- 
tion. The  U.S.  Government  would  welcome  a 
negotiated  solution  that  would  be  acceptable 
both  to  the  United  Kingdom  and  to  the  black 
majoi-ity  of  the  Rhodesian  population.  We 
are  convinced  that  a  solution  to  the  Rho- 
desian problem  can  and  must  be  found 
through  peaceful  rather  than  violent  means. 
We  believe  the  Lusaka  Manifesto  still  speaks 
to  this  point. 

Economic  sanctions  voted  by  the  United 


Nations  are  intended  to  provide  Rhodesians 
with  an  incentive  to  reach  a  peaceful  settle- 
ment. With  the  exception  of  imports  of 
chrome  and  certain  other  Rhodesian  miner- 
als under  the  Byrd  amendment,  the  record 
of  U.S.  adherence  to  these  sanctions  has 
been  good.  In  December  of  last  year  the  Sen- 
ate voted  repeal  of  this  amendment.  Presi- 
dent Ford  has  expressed  his  support  for 
repeal,  and  we  are  hopeful  of  a  favorable 
vote  soon  in  the  House. 

The  United  States  has  supported  the  U.N. 
call  for  withdrawal  of  South  African  police 
and  armed  personnel  from  Rhodesia.  We  note 
with  interest  Prime  Minister  Vorster's  re- 
cent statement  that  "all  who  have  influence" 
on  the  Rhodesian  problem  "should  bring  it 
to  bear  upon  all  parties  concerned  to  find  a 
durable,  just  and  honorable  solution." 

With  regard  to  Namibia,  the  United  States 
accepts  the  conclusions  of  the  World  Court 
advisory  opinion  of  1971  affirming  the  U.N. 
decision  of  1966,  which  declared  terminated 
the  South  African  mandate  from  the  League 
of  Nations  for  South  West  Africa.  This  deci- 
sion obliges  all  states  to  avoid  acts  that 
would  imply  recognition  of  the  legitimacy  of 
South  Africa's  administration  of  the  terri- 
tory. The  U.S.  Government  carefully  avoids 
any  such  actions.  The  U.S.  Government  dis- 
courages U.S.  investment  in  Namibia,  has 
cut  off  official  commercial  facilities  for  trade 
with  Namibia,  and  has  made  clear  that  it 
will  not  intervene  on  behalf  of  the  interests 
of  any  American  investor  who  engaged  him- 
self in  Namibia  after  October  1966.  The 
United  States  closely  follows  developments 
in  the  territory  and  has  protested  South  Af- 
rican violations  of  the  rights  and  well-being 
of  the  inhabitants. 

We  hope  that  a  formula  may  soon  be  found 
that  would  provide  for  prompt  and  peaceful 
self-determination  by  the  people  of  Namibia. 
We  are  heartened  by  recent  public  indica- 
tions that  the  South  African  Government  is 
willing  to  accept  the  principle  of  self-deter- 
mination in  the  territory,  with  all  options 
open. 

I  need  not  remind  this  audience  of  the  U.S. 
Government's  position  concerning  South  Af- 


842 


Department  of  State  Bulletin!  i^ 


rica's  racial  policies.  We  have  many  times, 
in  many  forums,  condemned  South  Africa's 
approach  to  the  question  of  race  and  color. 
Apartheid,  or  enforced  separation  of  the 
races,  is  utterly  repugnant  to  us. 

South  Africa's  racial  policies  continue  to 
inhibit  our  official  relationships  with  that 
government.  W^  have  sir.ce  1962  maintained 
a  strict  embargo  on  the  sale  or  shipment  of 
arms  or  military  equipment  of  any  sort  to 
South  Africa.  This  is  despite  contrary  mili- 
tary supply  policies  of  certain  other  govern- 
ments and  continuing  pressure,  for  balance 
of  payments  and  other  reasons,  for  resump- 
tion of  U.S.  sales.  We  continue  to  maintain 
the  ban  instituted  seven  years  ago  on  U.S. 
naval  visits  to  South  Africa.  We  have  no  in- 
tention of  embarking  on  any  kind  of  military 
or  naval  collaboration  with  South  Africa. 

While  we  impose  these  and  other  con- 
straints on  our  relationship  with  South  Af- 
rica, we  maintain  lines  of  communication 
open  to  all  elements  of  South  Africa's  popu- 
lation— non-white  as  well  as  white — in  our 
continuing  efforts  to  elicit  understanding  of 
our  policies  and  to  contribute  to  a  nonviolent 
resolution  of  South  Africa's  racial  problems. 

We,  with  Britain  and  France,  recently  ve- 
toed the  expulsion  of  South  Africa  from  the 
United  Nations  in  the  belief  that  South  Af- 
rica should  continue  to  be  exposed,  as  Am- 
bassador Scali  said,  "to  the  blunt  expressions 
of  the  abhorrence  of  mankind  for  apartheid." 
Furthermore,  expulsion  was  opposed  because 
it  would  set  a  precedent  which  could  gravely 
damage  the  U.N.  structure. 

Basic  to  U.S.  policy  are  efforts  to  encour- 
age positive  change  in  South  Africa.  Conse- 
quently, the  U.S.  Government  encourages 
American  firms  in  South  Africa  to  adopt, 
maintain,  or  expand  enlightened  employment 
practices  in  their  dealings  with  all  their  em- 
ployees. 

It  is  a  matter  of  record  that  non-white 
workers  in  South  Africa  are  not  accorded 
equal  treatment  with  white  workers,  a  con- 
dition that  has  led  some  American  citizens 
and  organizations  to  demand  that  American 
firms,  which  now  total  more  than  300,  with- 
draw from  South  Africa. 


The  U.S.  Government  does  not  control  de- 
cisions by  American  firms  to  invest  in  South 
Africa.  Such  decisions  rest  entirely  with  the 
companies  and  their  shareholders.  Withdraw- 
ing from  or  remaining  in  South  Africa  is  an 
issue  to  be  weighed  by  the  companies  and 
shareholders  concerned.  The  U.S.  Govern- 
ment has  no  legal  authority  to  take  action  in 
either  direction. 

Many  South  Africans  of  all  racial  groups 
have  made  it  clear  that  they  want  American 
firms  to  remain  and  to  take  the  lead  in  rais- 
ing the  level  and  quality  of  employment  and 
in  increasing  educational  and  training  oppor- 
tunities for  non-white  employees. 

The  U.S.  Government  shares  this  view. 
About  two  years  ago,  the  Bureau  of  African 
Aff'airs  sent  to  American  firms  doing  busi- 
ness in  South  Africa  a  message  which  dis- 
cussed employment  practice  goals  that  would 
improve  the  working  conditions  of  their  non- 
white  employees  in  South  Africa.  This  mes- 
sage suggested  mechanisms  that  could  be 
used  or  were  being  used  by  American  compa- 
nies to  achieve  these  goals. 

The  industrial  relations  picture  in  South 
Africa  is  undergoing  change.  We  have  re- 
cently asked  American  companies  in  South 
Africa  to  give  increased  attention  to  improv- 
ing their  channels  of  communication  with 
their  employees  of  all  races,  including  being 
prepared  to  engage  in  collective  bargaining 
with  representatives  of  unregistered  black 
trade  unions.  Our  request  stresses  the  de- 
sirability of  discussions  and  negotiations 
with  legitimate  representatives  of  black 
workers.  It  was  read  by  a  U.S.  official  at  the 
annual  meeting  two  months  ago  of  the  Trade 
Union  Council  of  South  Africa.  It  has  been 
well  received.  The  Johannesburg  Star  called 
this  development  "a  commendable  step"  and 
the  Rand  Daily  Mail  observed  that  "once 
again  the  stimulus  to  change  in  South  Af- 
rica's labor  field  is  coming  from  abroad." 

All  this  supports  our  belief  that  American 
trade  and  investment  can  be  useful  in  im- 
proving the  lot  of  non-white  South  Africans. 

We  welcome  recent  statements  by  Prime 
Minister  Vorster  concerning  South  Africa's 
desire  to  work  for   peace  and   stability   in 


December   16,    1974 


843 


southern  Africa.  We  welcome  the  words  of 
the  South  African  Permanent  Representa- 
tive, Ambassador  Botha,  at  the  United  Na- 
tions when  he  stated : 

Let  me  put  it  very  clearly:  The  whites  of  South 
Africa  as  well  as  the  Government  of  South  Africa 
are  as  much  concerned  about  the  implementation  of 
human  rights,  human  freedoms,  human  dignity  and 
justice  as  any  other  nation  or  government  of  the 
world. 

We  and  all  the  world  await  news  of  the  im- 
plementation of  these  declarations. 

The  talk  of  change  in  South  Africa  was 
being  heard  on  all  sides  during  my  recent 
visit  there.  Many  South  Africans  cited  a  va- 
riety of  changes  that  they  said  had  already 
taken  place  over  the  past  few  years.  Many  of 
these  changes  had  to  do  with  what  South 
Africans  themselves  call  "petty  apartheid," 
such  as  separate  beaches,  park  benches, 
buses,  and  elevators  for  different  racial 
groups.  Some  people  argued  that  these 
changes  in  fact  presage  the  eventual  end  of 
the  apartheid  structure.  But  how  far  away 
is  this  eventuality? 

Whatever  the  answer  to  that  question, 
there  is  an  air  of  expectancy  in  southern  Af- 
rica today.  Black  African  leaders  in  the  Re- 
public and  outside  are  watching  carefully  for 
actions  by  the  South  African  Government 
that  will  match  words. 

Just  a  week  ago  the  President  of  Botswana, 
Sir  Seretse  Khama,  made  the  following  state- 
ment before  the  opening  of  his  Parliament 
(I  remind  you  that  Botswana  is  a  country 
whose  southern  border  joins  South  Africa 
across  a  distance  of  more  than  800  miles)  : 

We  have  always  made  clear  that  before  there  can 
be  any  prospect  of  a  peaceful  solution  to  the  prob- 
lems of  this  region  of  Africa,  the  governments  of 
the  white-ruled  states  of  the  region  should  first  dem- 
onstrate positively  a  willingness  to  change  their  ra- 
cial policies.  Without  such  a  commitment  to  change, 
violence  will  remain  the  only  way  to  bring  about 
change  in  white-ruled  Southern  Africa.  This  is  the 
message  which  we  put  out  to  the  world  in  the  Lusaka 
Manifesto. 

Now,  at  last,  there  are  indications  that  the  South 
African  Government  is  not  only  ready  to  bring  about 
the  desired  changes  in  South  Africa  itself,  but  is 
prepared  to  use  its  influence  to  bring  about  similar 


844 


changes  in  Rhodesia.  This,  indeed,  as  President 
Kaunda  recently  obser\'ed,  is  the  voice  of  reason  for 
which  we  have  long  been  waiting.  Given  this  attitude 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Vorster's  government,  there  is 
every  hope  that  the  problems  of  Rhodesia,  Namibia, 
and  South  Africa  will  be  resolved  without  further 
bloodshed.  This,  in  turn,  will  open  up  unlimited  pros- 
pects of  stability,  cooperation,  and  development  in 
Southern  Africa.  For  these  reasons,  I  welcome  the 
recent  indications  of  possible  change  in  this  part  of 
.Africa.  I 

The  United  States  has  many  times  both 
privately  and  publicly  made  it  clear  that  it, 
too,  welcomes  these  indications. 

Southern  Africa  is  a  region  of  vast  re- 
sources, rich  and  diverse,  human  and  physi- 
cal. Their  alchemy  could  be  uniquely  con- 
tributive  to  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  all 
of  Africa  and  beyond,  provided  the  warning 
of  53  years  ago  by  the  Second  Pan-African 
Congress  is  heeded.  Let  me  remind  us  all  of 
ju.st  what  that  warning  was: 

This  is  a  world  of  men,  of  men  whose  likenesses 
far  outweigh  their  differences,  who  mutually  need 
each  other  in  labor  and  thought  and  dream,  but  who 
can  successfully  have  each  other  only  on  terms  of 
equality,  justice  and  mutual  respect. 

In  closing,  I  would  like  for  you  to  journey 
with  me  back  to  the  England  of  1647,  an 
England  that  had  experienced  civil  war.  In 
the  parish  church  of  St.  Mary's  in  Putney, 
England,  representatives  of  the  army  gath- 
ered to  hold  one  of  the  most  important  po- 
litical debates  of  all  times.  Men  of  the  stature 
of  Oliver  Cromwell  met  to  discuss  the  future 
of  their  country,  with  debate  centered  mainly 
on  human  rights  versus  property  rights. 

Cromwell's  son-in-law,  Henry  Ireton,  ar- 
gued persuasively  that  unless  a  man  owned 
property  he  should  not  have  a  voice  in  gov- 
ernment. This  view  was  rejected  by  Col. 
Thomas  Rainborough,  who  countered  with 
an  argument  as  persuasive  and  as  valid  to- 
day as  then :  "I  think  that  the  poorest  He 
that  is  in  England  hath  a  life  to  live  as  well 
as  the  greatest  He ;  and,  therefore,  truly,  sir, 
I  think  it  clear  that  every  man  that  is  to  live 
under  a  government  ought,  first,  by  his  own 
consent,  to  put  himself  under  that  govern- 
ment." 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


tie' 


if  oil 


Mr. 

Jrfem 
Irme 
tkis  c 
yen 
k  ai 
Eesoi 
Ibei 
IS  to 
leacefi 
if  exci 
iMch 
lined 
Bnca 

it  in 
biiiiif 
di 
a 
ttperii 
if  our 


Mil 

We' 

•f  thii 

«rkv 

k 


hm 


THE  UNITED   NATIONS 


^    U.N.  Commends  Outer  Space  Registration  Convention 

enti  "^  "^ 

Ml 

m 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  Commit- 
k  \tee  I  (Political  and  Security)  of  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  by  U.S.  Representative 
Thomas  H.  Kuchel  on  October  15,  together 
with  the  texts  of  resolutions  adopted  by  the 
committee  on  October  18  and  by  the  Assem- 
bly on  Noiiember  12. 


itw 


ofi 


rica 


1,  ar- 


i» 


STATEMENT  BY  MR.   KUCHEL 

USUN  press  release  134  dated  October  15 

Mr.  Chairman  [Carlos  Ortiz  de  Rozas,  of 
Argentina] :  It  is  a  pleasure  and  an  honor 
for  me  to  participate  in  the  deliberations  of 
this  committee  under  your  distinguished 
leadership,  and  I  look  forward  to  a  construc- 
tive and  meaningful  debate  on  the  peaceful 
uses  of  outer  space. 

I  believe  it  is  an  auspicious  beginning  for 
us  to  discuss  recent  developments  in  the 
peaceful  uses  of  outer  space.  This  is  an  area 
of  exciting  new  promise  for  us,  an  area  in 
which  we  have  already  shown  that  the  com- 
bined intellectual  and  scientific  genius  of 
men  can  accomplish  feats  which  were  not  so 
long  ago  thought  quite  impossible.  And  now 
it  is  an  area  to  which  we  are  increasingly 
looking  for  help  in  solving  many  of  the  prac- 
tical daily  problems  of  this  planet.  This  has 
been  an  important  year  both  in  context  of 
experiments  undertaken  and  in  the  context 
of  our  discussions  about  how  we  as  an  inter- 
national community  might  better  go  about 
organizing  ourselves  to  develop  further  the 
peaceful  uses  of  outer  space. 

We  wish  to  join  with  the  other  members 
of  this  committee  in  appreciation  of  the 
work  which  the  Outer  Space  Committee  and 
its  Legal  Subcommittee  have  done  in  com- 


December   16,    1974 


pleting  the  draft  Convention  on  Registra- 
tion of  Objects  Launched  into  Outer  Space. 
This  is  the  fourth  treaty  negotiation  suc- 
cessfully concluded  by  the  Legal  Subcom- 
mittee and  approved  by  the  full  committee  in 
less  than  a  decade.  In  1966  the  Outer  Space 
Treaty  was  completed.  In  1967  the  Astronaut 
Assistance  and  Return  Agreement  was  final- 
ized, in  1971  the  Outer  Space  Liability  Con- 
vention, and  now  in  1974  the  Registration 
Convention. 

My  government  is  pleased  to  have  been  a 
major  participant  in  the  negotiation  of  each 
of  these  agreements,  and  we  welcome  the 
completion  of  the  Registration  Convention 
as  a  useful  formalization  on  a  mandatory 
basis  of  the  voluntary  U.N.  registration  sys- 
tem which  has  been  followed  since  1961. 

When  the  voluntary  system  was  first 
adopted,  we  and  others  considered  that  it 
could  be  useful  for  the  international  commu- 
nity to  have  available  a  central  census  of  ob- 
jects launched  into  outer  space.  Under  that 
voluntary  system  the  United  States  adopted 
the  practice  of  reporting  on  its  launchings  at 
approximately  two-  to  three-month  intervals; 
and  in  order  to  help  keep  the  central  regis- 
try current,  we  have  from  the  very  begin- 
ning also  reported  when  U.S.  space  objects 
have  deorbited  or  when  such  objects  have 
split  into  several  fragments  with  diff^erent 
orbits. 

Nearly  all  U.N.  member  states  that  have 
conducted  space  activities  have  reported  at 
least  on  the  fact  of  launchings.  Registration 
statements  have  been  filed  by  Canada, 
France,  Italy,  Japan,  the  Soviet  Union,  the 
United  Kingdom,  and  the  United  States.  Now 
that  we  are  about  to  cross  the  threshold  of 
adopting  a  mandatory  prescribed  system,  we 


845 


hope  that  participation  in  this  system  will 
become  universal. 

The  U.S.  Representative  to  the  Legal  Sub- 
committee session  in  May  gave  a  detailed 
statement  on  our  interpretation  of  the  Reg- 
istration Convention,  and  so  I  will  not  at- 
tempt to  go  through  the  agreement  article 
by  article.'  Many  difficult  compromises  were 
reached  in  the  negotiation  of  this  conven- 
tion, and  we  believe  the  agreement  which 
resulted  is  a  reasonable  one  accommodating 
diverse  interests,  which  will  prove  to  be  a 
useful  addition  to  the  developing  body  of  in- 
ternational law  relating  to  the  peaceful  ex- 
ploration and  use  of  outer  space. 

We  are  also  at  an  advanced  stage  of  ne- 
gotiations on  a  new  treaty  which  will  elab- 
orate on  the  provisions  of  the  1967  Outer 
Space  Treaty  regarding  exploration  of  and 
activities  on  the  Moon  and  other  celestial 
bodies.  We  hope  that  acceptable  solutions 
will  be  found  to  the  few  remaining  issues, 
particularly  that  concerning  the  natural  re- 
sources of  celestial  bodies,  and  that  this 
agreement  will  soon  be  successfully  com- 
pleted and  approved  by  the  United  Nations. 

Beyond  acknowledging  our  satisfaction 
with  completion  of  the  Registration  Conven- 
tion, we  also  look  forward  to  the  other  future 
work  of  the  Outer  Space  Committee,  work 
which  is  obviously  filled  with  a  great  deal  of 
challenge  as  we  again  address  a  number  of 
issues  of  far-reaching  significance. 

Direct  Broadcasting  by  Satellites 

At  the  request  of  the  General  Assembly, 
the  Outer  Space  Committee,  through  its  Le- 
gal Subcommittee,  is  engaged  in  a  serious 
effort  to  draft  guiding  principles  which 
should  be  followed  in  future  direct  interna- 
tional broadcasting  of  television  signals  by 
satellite.  Considerable  attention  has  been  fo- 
cused for  several  years  on  the  complex  ques- 
tions raised  by  the  possibilities  of  such 
broadcasting;  and  the  Working  Group  on  Di- 
rect Broadcast  Satellites  held  a  number  of 


^  For  a  U.S.  statement  made  in  the  Legal  Sub- 
committee on  May  31,  see  Bulletin  of  July  8,  1974, 
p.  68. 


846 


constructive    sessions    addressing   technical, 
economic,  political,  and  legal  issues. 

Reviewing  the  situation  in  light  of  our  pre- 
vious consideration  of  direct  broadcasting 
problems,  early  this  year  my  government 
concluded  that  the  most  productive  course 
for  us  to  follow  would  be  to  attempt  at  this 
time  to  reach  agreement  on  the  considerable 
range  of  issues  on  which  agreement  now 
seems  possible  and  to  allow  ourselves  more 
time  to  work  out  the  fundamental  differ- 
ences that  continue  to  exist  in  some  of  the 
other,  much  more  difficult  areas. 

In  March  of  this  year  at  the  fifth  session 
of  the  Working  Group  on  Direct  Broadcast 
Satellites  the  United  States  introduced  a  set 
of  voluntary  principles  which  we  believe  rep- 
resent a  realistic  area  of  agreement  in  line 
with  the  views  expressed  by  the  members  of 
the  Outer  Space  Committee.'-  These  proposed 
guidelines  include  among  others  that  inter- 
national direct  television  broadcasting 
should  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  in- 
ternational law,  including  in  particular  the 
U.N.  Charter  and  the  Outer  Space  Treaty, 
and  in  light  of  the  Friendly  Relations  Dec- 
laration and  the  Universal  Declaration  of 
Human  Rights.  Such  broadcasting  should  bei 
within  the  technical  parameters  and  proce- 
dures of  the  ITU  [International  Telecom- 
munication Union]  and  its  radio  regulations. 

In  addition,  those  draft  principles  seek  to 
encourage  the  free  and  open  exchange  of  in- 
formation and  ideas  while  respecting  the 
differences  among  cultures  and  maximizing 
the  beneficial  use  of  new  space  communica- 
tions technologies.  We  would  envisage  that 
the  sharing  among  states  of  the  benefits 
from  direct  broadcasting  should  increas- 
ingly include,  as  practical  difficulties  are 
overcome,  opportunities  for  access  to  the  use 
of  this  technology  for  the  purpose  of  sending 
as  well  as  receiving  broadcasts. 

We  believe  that  states  and  international 
oi'ganizations  and  other  appropriate  entities 
should  cooperate  in  strengthening  the  capa- 
bility of  interested  states,  in  particular  the 


trcdw 
fivei!' 
tersai 
{rams 


tiie,  a 
arts,  a 


ingto 


j  so  tlta 
'■  nade 

I  for  Ml 
he 
.  to  the 


, 


-  For  a  U.S.  statement  and  text  of  a  U.S.  working 
paper,  see  Bulletin  of  Apr.  22,  1974,  p.  445. 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


tkU 
ft 

in?  to 
teemi 
plexii 


Ihelssi 

The 
ownii 
or  so 


titopi 
it  has 
intht 
thattl 
even  I 


Detemi 


I 


developing  countries,  to  make  use  of  this 
technology  as  it  may  become  available.  We 
believe  that  such  efforts  should  include  in- 
creased training  in  technical  and  program 
production  fields,  with  consideration  being 
given  to  the  establishment  of  regional  cen- 
ters and  to  the  expanded  exchange  of  pro- 
grams and  personnel.  In  addition,  it  is  our 
belief  that  international  professional  asso- 
ciations such  as  those  in  the  fields  of  medi- 
cine, agriculture,  engineering,  education,  the 
arts,  and  law  may  have  a  great  contribution 
to  make  thorough  use  of  international  direct 
broadcasting  in  solving  social  development 
problems. 

In  the  U.S.  draft  principles  we  did  not  at- 
tempt to  resolve  all  outstanding  issues  relat- 
ing to  future  direct  television  broadcasting. 
Instead,  we  attempted  to  suggest  acceptable 
formulations  of  principles  which  we  felt 
could  be  generally  agreed  in  the  near  future 
so  that  some  meaningful  progress  could  be 
made  in  developing  international  standards 
for  conduct  in  this  area. 

In  consonance  with  this  approach,  at  least 
to  the  extent  of  deciding  on  the  order  of 
priority  in  which  issues  should  be  addressed, 
the  Legal.  Subcommittee  began  last  May  to 
draft  specific  language  for  principles  relat- 
ing to  direct  broadcasting.  That  subcommit- 
tee made  a  beginning  in  an  extremely  com- 
plex field,  and  we  look  forward  to  a  contin- 
uation of  these  thorough  and  constructive 
negotiations  when  that  subcommittee  meets 
again  this  coming  February. 

The  Issue  of  Prior  Consent 

The  United  States  did  not,  either  in  our 
own  draft  principles  on  direct  broadcasting 
or  so  far  in  our  debates  in  the  Legal  Sub- 
committee, address  what  is  probably  the 
most  controversial  and  vexatious  issue  in- 
volved: that  of  prior  consent.  There  were 
two  primary  reasons  for  our  position.  First, 
it  has  become  apparent  from  our  discussions 
in  the  direct  broadcasting  working  group 
that  there  is  not  anything  close  to  agreement 
even  on  the  definition  of  the  issue  itself. 
Second,  we  do  not  believe  that  the  consider- 


able differences  which  separate  members  of 
the  Outer  Space  Committee  can  readily  be 
closed  without  a  good  deal  more  work. 

One  of  several  points  which  must  be  seri- 
ously considered  in  the  context  of  a  system  of 
prior  consent  is  that  such  a  principle  could 
rule  out  direct  broadcasting  for  entire  re- 
gions. Because  a  satellite  beam  would  usu- 
ally cover  many  states,  one  country's  objec- 
tion to  international  broadcasts  could  pro- 
hibit many  others  from  receiving  such 
broadcasts,  even  if  they  specifically  desired 
to  receive  them.  This  is  a  point  which  we  be- 
lieve must  be  seriously  considered  and  a 
point  the  implications  of  which  must  be  ad- 
dressed by  each  state  in  light  of  its  own  re- 
gional context. 

My  government,  for  its  part,  does  not  be- 
lieve that  the  international  community's  in- 
terests would  be  well  served  by  establishing 
a  right  to  prohibit  an  international  direct 
television  broadcast  by  withholding  advance 
consent,  through  whatever  means,  to  such 
broadcasts.  Any  such  broadcasts  would  need 
to  be  conducted  with  sensitivity  to  the  re- 
ceiving audiences,  but  in  our  view  this  would 
be  strongly  in  the  interests  of  potential 
broadcasters  as  well  as  those  of  the  poten- 
tial listeners,  and  an  appropriate  and  effec- 
tive way  to  insure  such  sensitivity  would  be 
through  voluntarily  agreed  performance 
standards  among  broadcasters. 

We  recognize  that  there  are  many  legiti- 
mate concerns  about  the  possible  interna- 
tional impact  of  direct  broadcasting  technol- 
ogy, and  we  believe  that  these  concerns  must 
be  addressed  in  a  direct  and  open  manner. 
However,  our  strongly  held  view  is  that  the 
solution  to  those  concerns  lies  in  the  future 
development  and  use  of  this  new  technology 
in  an  effective  and  constructive  way,  rather 
than  in  the  inhibition  of  what  contains  at 
least  the  potential  for  great  contributions; 
for  example,  in  the  educational  and  social 
communications  fields.  We  would  all  benefit, 
I  believe,  from  an  increased  and  open  ex- 
change of  ideas,  rather  than  from  less.  In 
this  world  of  rapidly  increasing  contacts  and 
interaction  among  states  we  need  to  know 
and    understand    more    about    each    other, 


December   16,    1974 


847 


rather  than  less ;  indeed,  we  can  hardly  af- 
ford not  to  take  whatever  steps  are  possible 
to  clarify  and  understand  our  differences  as 
well  as  our  common  areas  of  agreement. 

This  kind  of  understanding  obviously  must 
involve  an  exchange  of  ideas,  not  simply  a 
one-way  conveyance.  Thus  my  government 
proposed  that  there  should  be  increased  op- 
portunity, as  practical  difficulties  are  over- 
come, for  access  to  the  use  of  this  technology 
for  sending  as  well  as  for  receiving  broad- 
casts. We  must  obviously  be  realistic  about 
the  practical  limitations  on  initial  participa- 
tion, but  at  the  same  time  we  must  keep  in 
focus  the  necessity  for  increasing  this  par- 
ticipation as  it  becomes  possible. 

Remote  Sensing  by  Satellite 

Another  major  area  to  which  the  Outer 
Space  Committee  and  its  subsidiary  bodies 
have  paid  considerable  attention  during  this 
past  year  is  that  of  remote  sensing  of  the 
earth  and  its  environment  by  satellite.  The 
Legal  Subcommittee  in  its  13th  session  was 
able  for  the  first  time  to  focus  significantly 
on  the  legal  aspects  of  such  remote  sensing. 
The  views  of  many  states,  including  my  own, 
were  expressed  in  some  detail  at  that  meet- 
ing, and  a  number  of  proposals  for  interna- 
tional guidelines  or  instruments  were  intro- 
duced. That  subcommittee  had  the  benefit  of 
the  extensive  and  productive  discussions  in 
recent  meetings  of  the  Working  Group  on 
Remote  Sensing. 

The  U.S.  remote  sensing  program  has  from 
the  very  start  been  based  on  a  system  of  ex- 
tensive international  cooperation,  both  in  de- 
veloping the  experiments  to  be  used  and  in 
interpreting  the  data  which  are  derived.  We 
have  since  the  beginning  of  our  National 
Aeronautics  and  Space  Administration's 
(NASA)  program  insisted  that  the  data  de- 
rived from  all  of  these  experiments  be  made 
available  to  all  interested  parties  so  that  the 
maximum  amount  of  scientific  investigation 
and  the  maximum  range  of  potential  bene- 
fits from  our  space  program  could  be  real- 
ized. We  have  participated  in  complex  and 
fascinating  international  efforts  to  learn 
more  about  the  world  in  which  we  live  by 

848 


utilizing  the  unique  point  of  view  from  a 
platform  in  outer  space.  The  information 
derived  can  be  of  tremendous  value  to  all  of 
us  and  to  our  common  welfare.  Hence  we 
have  established  a  system  in  which  no  one  is 
barred  on  political  or  any  other  grounds 
from  the  opportunity  to  obtain  as  much  of 
this  data  about  our  earth  and  our  environ- 
ment as  anyone  else  who  inhabits  this  planet. 

We  believe  that  our  policy  of  providing 
open  access  to  the  data  derived  from  remote 
sensing  activities  is  in  specific  conformity 
with  a  major  goal  of  the  1967  Outer  Space 
Treaty:  namely,  that  states  should  conduct 
activities  in  outer  space  for  the  benefit  and 
in  the  interests  of  all  countries,  irrespective 
of  their  degree  of  economic  or  scientific  de- 
velopment. In  addition,  article  XI  of  that 
treaty  calls  on  states  to  inform  the  Secre- 
tary General  of  the  nature,  conduct,  loca- 
tions, and  results  of  such  activities.  The 
Outer  Space  Treaty  was  foresighted  in  cov- 
ering not  only  freedom  of  exploration  but 
also  the  use  of  outer  space.  The  primary  fo- 
cus, in  fact,  was  on  the  possibility  that  space 
technology  could  be  used  as  a  new  tool  to 
improve  certain  conditions  on  earth.  Our  re- 
mote sensing  experiments  are  specifically  and 
directly  oriented  toward  fulfilling  that  prin- 
ciple by  developing  our  ability  to  acquire 
useful  and  beneficial  data  about  the  world  in 
which  we  live. 

Recently,  however,  some  states  have  ques- 
tioned whether  a  system  of  open  data  avail- 
ability should  be  maintained  on  the  interna- 
tional level.  A  number  of  suggestions  have 
been  made  that  data  concerning  one  state 
should  not  be  made  available  to  another 
state  without  the  first  state's  advance  per- 
mission. In  the  view  of  the  United  States, 
such  a  policy  would  not  only  fail  to  protect 
the  states  who  have  expressed  such  con- 
cerns ;  it  would  also  be  likely  to  exacerbate 
any  imbalance  which  might  exist  among  dif- 
ferent states  as  they  endeavor  to  interpret 
and  use  this  data. 

It  is  technologically  and  economically  in- 
feasible  to  separate  the  images  from  these 
satellites  along  the  lines  of  political  borders; 
and  hence  we  would  here,  too,  be  faced  with 
a  situation  in  which  data  for  a  region  might 

Department  of   State   Bulletin 


1 


not  be  available  because  of  the  lack  of  con- 
sent from  one  state  in  that  region.  In  addi- 
tion, as  our  own  experience  and  that  of  oth- 
ers who  have  participated  in  the  ERTS 
[Earth  Resources  Technology  Satellite]  ex- 
periments have  shown,  perhaps  the  greatest 
advantage  which  a  satellite-borne  sensing 
system  gives  us  is  the  ability  to  observe  and 
study  the  earth  on  a  regional  and  global  ba- 
sis. It  would  be  most  unfortunate  for  the  in- 
ternational community  not  to  be  able  to  ben- 
efit from  the  broader  approach. 

An  open  system  of  data  dissemination 
guarantees  that  all  states  can  be  assured  of 
access  to  any  data  that  any  other  state  may 
have  obtained  from  such  a  program.  If  a 
state  which  conducts  remote  sensing  were 
unable  to  share  freely  the  data  obtained  with 
all  other  interested  parties,  as  a  practical 
matter  a  system  of  irregular  and  hence  dis- 
criminatory data  dissemination  would  be  vir- 
tually inevitable.  Only  a  launching  state 
might  be  able  to  obtain  the  most  important 
benefits  from  this  unique  means  of  gather- 
ing information,  and  we  for  one  would  find 
this  most  unnecessary  and  most  regrettable. 

The  United  States  has  no  intention  of  im- 
posing our  data  on  anyone  who  does  not  de- 
sire it.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  do  not 
wish  to  deny  to  our  own  citizens  the  data  de- 
rived from  a  possible  future  U.S.  program. 
Because  of  our  open  political  system  and  be- 
cause of  certain  universal  aspects  of  human 
nature,  it  seems  to  us  as  a  practical  matter 
that  even  with  restricted  dissemination  some 
states  would  obtain  data  while  others  would 
not.  This  would  inevitably  lead  to  imbal- 
anced  dissemination,  whereas  at  the  present 
time  we  have  attempted  to  maintain  a  sys- 
tem in  which  all  countries,  rich  or  poor, 
would  have  an  equal  opportunity  for  access 
to  such  data. 

In  any  case,  these  and  other  related  ques- 
tions will  be  the  subject  of  our  continued 
discussions  in  the  Outer  Space  Committee 
and  its  subsidiary  bodies,  and  we  look  for- 
ward to  those  further  exchanges  of  views. 

The  Outer  Space  Committee  has  requested 
that  we  endorse  two  recommendations  on 
this  particular  subject:  First,  that  the  Legal 
Subcommittee  should  consider  the  legal  im- 


plications of  remote  sensing  at  its  next  ses- 
sion, and  second,  that  the  Secretary  General 
should  undertake  studies  of  the  organiza- 
tional and  financial  requirements  of  possible 
global  and  regional  centers  for  dis.semination 
of  remote  sensing  data.  We  support  these  rec- 
ommendations and  believe  that  a  practical 
understanding  of  the  organizational  and  fi- 
nancial aspects  of  disseminating  remote 
sensing  data  constitutes  an  essential  basis 
for  fruitful  consideration  of  the  legal  as- 
pects. 

The  role  of  the  United  Nations  itself  in 
the  outer  space  area,  in  particular  the  work 
of  the  U.N.  space  applications  program,  con- 
ducted under  the  leadership  of  the  Expert 
on  Space  Applications,  was  reviewed  this 
past  .spring  by  the  Scientific  and  Technical 
Subcommittee.  That  subcommittee  decided 
to  approve  the  substance  of  the  program  pro- 
posed for  1975,  with  the  understanding  that 
the  Expert  will  seek  all  possible  ways  to 
carry  it  out  within  the  same  financial  limita- 
tions as  the  1974  program. 

My  government  believes  that,  taking  into 
account  the  serious  financial  situation  facing 
all  U.N.  programs  and  activities,  the  need  is 
great  to  focus  on  ways  to  increase  the  efi^ec- 
tiveness  of  the  space  applications  program  by 
channeling  its  limited  resources  into  activi- 
ties that  will  be  of  the  greatest  benefit  to  the 
most  countries,  particularly  the  developing 
countries.  In  this  connection,  we  fully  share 
the  feeling  expressed  by  the  subcommittee  at 
its  last  session  that  the  whole  purpose  of  the 
space  applications  program  and  its  proper 
and  effective  coordination  should  be  given 
in-depth  review  by  the  subcommittee  in  1975. 

Cooperation  in  Space  Programs 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  say  a  few  words 
about  the  actual  programs  which  the  United 
States  has  undertaken  this  year  in  the  peace- 
ful exploration  and  use  of  outer  space.  Inter- 
national cooperation  in  space  has  become  a 
fact  of  life,  and  a  new  fabric  of  interna- 
tional scientific  and  technical  relationships 
has  emerged,  rich  in  present  value  and  bright 
with  prospects  for  the  future. 

I  am  proud  of  the  part  that  the  United 


December   16,    1974 


849 


states  has  played  in  developing  the  scientific 
and  technical  means  for  the  exploration  and 
use  of  outer  space.  I  am  even  more  proud  of 
the  efforts  we  have  undertaken  to  promote 
bilateral  and  multilateral  cooperation  in  this 
field,  cooperation  which  is  based  on  common 
interests  among  many  nations.  We  have  un- 
dertaken that  cooperation  through  a  system 
of  free  and  open  associations  to  which  na- 
tions contribute  according  to  their  interests, 
skills,  and  means. 

The  Skylab  program,  completed  last  Feb- 
ruary, struck  the  world  as  a  demonstration 
of  what  man  can  do  in  space,  particularly  in 
overcoming  adversity.  Less  dramatic  but 
perhaps  even  more  significant  was  its  dem- 
onstration of  how  manned  orbiting  labora- 
tories can  serve  as  international  research  fa- 
cilities. Four  foreign  experiments  flew  on 
Skylab:  Belgian,  French,  Japanese,  and 
Swiss.  In  addition,  a  British  scientist  acted 
as  a  consultant  in  a  NASA  welding  experi- 
ment, and  physicians  from  the  Federal  Re- 
public of  Germany  and  the  United  Kingdom 
joined  the  Skylab  biomedical  team  to  evalu- 
ate effects  of  long-duration  space  flight  on 
crews.  Correlated  astronomical  sounding 
rocket  programs  were  conducted  with  Ger- 
many and  the  United  Kingdom,  and  foreign 
guest  investigators  from  France,  Japan,  and 
the  United  Kingdom  participated  in  the  Sky- 
lab solar  telescope  programs. 

One  of  Skylab's  most  significant  payload 
components  was  its  Earth  Resources  Exper- 
iment Package  (EREP),  a  complement  to 
ERTS-1,  launched  in  1972.  Using  data  from 
both  ERTS-1  and  EREP,  some  140  foreign 
investigations  have  involved  scientists  from 
37  countries  and  two  international  organi- 
zations. In  addition,  Brazil  and  Canada  have 
established  their  own  ERTS  data  acquisi- 
tion and  processing  facilities,  and  plans  for 
similar  stations  are  underway  in  Europe, 
Africa,  and  Asia.  Last  June,  the  Government 
of  Italy,  acting  through  the  Italian  company 
Telespazio,  agreed  to  build  a  ground  station 
to  receive  data  from  NASA  experimental 
earth  resources  satellites. 


Cooperative  satellite  launchings,  one  of 
the  oldest  and  most  productive  cooperative 
activities  in  space,  continued  last  August 
with  the  NASA  launching  of  the  Nether- 
lands Astronomy  Satellite,  an  ultraviolet 
telescope  for  the  study  of  stars  and  stellar 
objects.  Earlier  in  the  year,  an  Italian  crew 
successfully  launched  from  the  San  Marco 
platform  a  NASA  Scout  rocket  to  place  in 
equatorial  orbit  a  joint  Italian-U.S.  satellite 
which  will  investigate  the  upper  atmosphere. 
On  this  very  day,  October  15,  an  Italian  crew 
is  scheduled  to  use  a  NASA  Scout  launcher 
to  orbit  a  United  Kingdom  satellite  which 
will  continue  studies  of  stellar  X-ray  sources. 
If  this  trilateral  project  is  successful,  it  will 
bring  to  21  the  number  of  satellites  launched 
in  NASA  cooperative  programs. 

In  addition  to  cooperative  satellite  proj- 
ects, NASA  launches  on  a  cost-reimbursable 
basis  satellites  which  other  countries  have  de- 
veloped as  parts  of  their  national  programs. 
This  assistance  is  provided  on  a  nondiscrim- 
inatory basis  for  projects  with  peaceful  pur- 
poses which  are  consistent  with  obligations 
under  relevant  international  arrangements. 
There  have  been  two  such  launchings  so  far 
this  year.  In  March  NASA  launched  the 
United  Kingdom's  X-4  satellite,  an  experi- 
mental satellite  dedicated  to  demonstrating 
some  new  approaches  to  small  satellite  sub- 
systems. In  July  NASA  launched  Aeros-B,  a 
German  satellite  which  will  investigate  the 
upper  layers  of  the  Earth's  atmosphere.  In 
mid-December  NASA  expects  to  launch  Sym- 
phonie,  the  French-German-  experimental 
communications  satellite.  This  will  bring  the 
total  number  of  international  reimbursable 
satellite  launchings  to  10.  In  addition,  NASA 
has  launched  18  communications  satellites  on 
behalf  of  Intelsat. 

Last  year  we  reported  that  after  almost 
four  years  of  negotiations,  NASA  and  the 
European  Space  Research  Organization 
(ESRO)  had  agreed  to  the  development  in 
Europe  of  a  manned  orbital  laboratory,  deS' 
ignated  Spacelab.  It  would  be  used  with  the' 
U.S.  Space  Shuttle  in  manned  missions  for 


850 


Department  of  State  Bulletirl|g,j  , 


space  science  in  the  1980's.  NASA  and  ESRO 
have  continued  and  expanded  their  planning 
efforts  for  the  use  of  Spacelab,  enlisting  rep- 
resentatives of  a  broad  variety  of  disciplines, 
including  physics  and  astronomy,  life  sci- 
ences, communications  and  navigation,  earth 
observations,  and  materials  processing. 

A  quick  look  at  some  of  the  major  events 
in  the  years  ahead  suggests  the  momentum 
and  continuity  of  international  space  coop- 
eration. 

Before  the  next  cycle  of  U.N.  Outer  Space 
Committee  meetings  begins  early  next  year, 
we  will  have  launched  Helios-A,  the  first  of 
two  solar  probes  developed  in  cooperation 
with  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany.  The 
spacecraft,  developed  in  our  largest  cooper- 
ative satellite  project  to  date,  will  carry 
seven  German  and  three  U.S.  experiments  to 
within  28  million  miles  of  the  sun,  closer 
than  any  spacecraft  has  flown  before.  We 
expect  these  experiments  to  yield  data  on 
solar  behavior  which  will  help  us  better  un- 
derstand solar  effects  on  Earth. 

Early  in  1975  NASA  will  launch  a  second 
Earth  Resources  Technology  Satellite.  Es- 
sentially the  twin  of  ERTS-1,  it  will  permit 
investigators  throughout  the  world  to  con- 
tinue their  experimentation  with  remotely 
sensed  data.  Thirty-six  countries  and  four 
international  organizations  have  been  as- 
sured data  for  their  proposed  studies. 

Next  summer  will  see  the  start  of  the 
Satellite  In.structional  Television  Experi- 
ment (SITE),  conducted  in  cooperation  be- 
tween NASA  and  the  Indian  Space  Research 
Organization.  The  satellite,  ATS-6,  is  al- 
ready in  geostationary  orbit  and  is  being 
employed  in  instructional  and  medical  data 
transmission  experiments  to  remote  areas 
of  the  United  States.  In  the  coming  months 
the  satellite  will  also  be  used  in  educational 
broadcasts  to  schools  in  Brazil.  Next  sum- 
mer the  satellite  will  be  moved  eastward  to 
a  station  over  eastern  Africa  from  where  it 
will  be  able  to  relay  a  television  signal  to 
viewers  in  India.  The  Indian  Government 
will  then  use  it  for  about  four  hours  a  day 


to  conduct  the  SITE  experiment. 

In  this  experiment,  India  is  developing 
its  own  programs  on  improved  agricultural 
methods,  family  planning  and  hygiene, 
school  instruction  and  teacher  education, 
and  occupational  skills.  The  program  will 
originate  from  Indian  ground  stations  and 
will  be  received  by  augmented  television  sets 
of  Indian  design  and  manufacture.  The  U.S. 
contribution  is  to  make  the  satellite  avail- 
able as  a  relay  station  for  one  year.  We 
share  the  eagerness  with  which  nations 
throughout  the  world  look  forward  to  the 
results  of  their  effort  to  apply  space  tech- 
nology to  problems  of  economic  and  social 
development. 

And  last,  permit  me  to  mention  the  Apollo- 
Soyuz  Test  Project,  the  joint  U.S.-U.S.S.R. 
flight  to  test  compatible  rendezvous  and 
docking  systems  for  future  manned  space- 
craft. We  expect  the  flight  to  take  place  on 
schedule  in  July  1975.  The  necessary  com- 
patible hardware  is  undergoing  final  test- 
ing, and  the  flight  crews  and  flight  con- 
trollers of  both  countries  are  well  into  their 
intensive  joint  training.  A  successful  mis- 
sion will  contribute  to  a  rescue  capability 
for  future  manned  space  flights  and  broaden 
opportunities  for  U.S.  and  Soviet  space  co- 
operation in  the  years  ahead.  At  this  stage, 
joint  manned  flight  operations  of  necessity 
fall  to  the  nations  with  manned  flight  pro- 
grams. We  believe,  however,  that  the  flight 
has  a  broader  significance,  not  simply  just 
for  what  men  may  accomplish  together  in 
space  but  for  what  they  may  accomplish 
together  on  earth. 

Cooperation  in  space  is  obviously  a  pres- 
ent reality.  This  cooperation  has  yielded 
practical  benefits  to  both  developed  and  de- 
veloping countries.  Projects  now  scheduled 
to  fly  justify  the  hope  of  more  gains  to 
come.  Let  us  be  alert  in  maintaining  an 
international  environment  which  encourages 
nations  to  work  together  in  their  common 
interest,  to  the  limits  of  human  imagination 
and  skill,  to  the  ends  of  the  universe  and 
beyond. 


December   16,    1974 


851 


RESOLUTION   3234    (XXIX)  =* 

International  Co-operation  in  the  Peaceful  Uses 
of  Outer  Space 

The  General  Assembly, 

Recalling  its  resolution  3182  (XXVIII)  of  18  De- 
cember 1973, 

Having  considered  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space,* 

Reaffirming  the  common  interest  of  mankind  in 
furthering  the  exploration  and  use  of  outer  space 
for  peaceful   purposes. 

Recalling  its  resolution  1721  B  (XVI)  of  20  De- 
cember 1961,  in  which  it  expressed  the  belief  that 
the  United  Nations  should  provide  a  focal  point  for 
international  co-operation  in  the  peaceful  explora- 
tion and  use  of  outer  space, 

Reaffirming  further  its  belief  that  the  benefits  de- 
riving from  space  exploration  can  be  extended  to 
States  at  all  stages  of  economic  and  scientific 
development,  if  Member  States  conduct  their  space 
programmes  with  a  view  to  promoting  maximum 
international  co-operation,  including  the  widest  pos- 
sible exchange  of  information  in  this  field,  and  the 
expansion  of  international  programmes  for  the  prac- 
tical applications  of  space  technology  to  develop- 
ment, 

Reaffirming  the  importance  of  international  co- 
operation in  developing  the  rule  of  law  in  the  peace- 
ful  exploration  and  use  of  outer  space, 

1.  Endorses  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space; 

2.  Invites  States  which  have  not  yet  become  Par- 
ties to  the  Treaty  on  Principles  Governing  the 
Activities  of  States  in  the  Exploration  and  Use  of 
Outer  Space,  including  the  Moon  and  Other  Celestial 
Bodies,  the  Agreement  on  the  Rescue  of  Astronauts, 
the  Return  of  Astronauts  and  the  Return  of  Objects 
Launched  into  Outer  Space  and  the  Convention  on 
International  Liability  for  Damage  Caused  by  Space 
Objects  to  give  early  consideration  to  ratifying  or 
acceding  to  those  international  agreements,  so  that 
they  may  have  the  broadest  possible  eff'ect; 

3.  Notes  with  satisfaction  that  the  Committee  on 
the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space  has  completed 
the  text  of  the  draft  Convention  on  Registration  of 
Objects   Launched  into  Outer   Space; 

4.  Notes  with  appreciation  the  useful  work  car- 
ried out  by  the  Legal  Sub-Committee  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space  in  the 
field    of    the    progressive    development    and    of    the 


'  Adopted  by  the  Assembly  on  Nov.  12  (text  from 
U.N.  doc.  A/9812). 

'  Official  Records  of  the  General  Assembly,  Twen- 
ty-ninth Session,  Supplement  No.  20  (A/9620). 
[Footnote  in  original.] 


codification  of  the  law  of  outer  space; 

5.  Notes  that,  in  responding  to  the  request  of  the 
General  Assembly,  the  Legal  Sub-Committee  and 
the  Committee  itself  have  achieved  further  progress 
towards  the  completion  of  the  draft  treaty  relating 
to  the  Moon; 

6.  Recommends  that  the  Legal  Sub-Committee 
should  consider  at  its  fourteenth  session,  with  the 
same  high  priority: 

(a)  The  draft  treaty  relating  to  the  Moon  with 
a  view  to  completing  it  as  soon  as  possible; 

(b)  The  elaboration  of  principles  governing  the 
use  by  States  of  artificial  satellites  for  direct  tele- 
vision broadcasting  with  a  view  to  concluding  an 
international  agreement  or  agreements,  in  ac- 
cordance with  General  Assembly  resolution  2916 
(XXVII); 

(c)  The  legal  implications  of  remote  sensing  of 
the  earth  from  space,  taking  into  account  the 
various  views  of  States  expressed  on  the  subject, 
including  proposals  for  draft  international  instru- 
ments; 

7.  Notes,  in  this  context,  that  the  delegations  of 
Argentina  and  Brazil  have  introduced,  during  the 
present  session  of  the  General  Assembly,  draft  basic 
articles  of  a  Treaty  on  Remote  Sensing  of  Natural 
Resources  by  Means  of  Space  Technology  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Legal  Sub-Committee  at  its 
fourteenth   session; 

8.  Also  recommends  that  the  Legal  Sub-Commit- 
tee should  consider  at  its  fourteenth  session,  as 
time  permits,  matters  relating  to  the  definition 
and/or  delimitation  of  outer  space  and  outer  space 
activities; 

9.  Notes  with  appreciation  the  useful  work  car- 
ried out  by  the  Working  Group  on  Direct  Broadcast 
Satellites,  inter  alia,  in  facilitating  the  work  of  the 
Legal  Sub-Committee  in  elaborating  principles  gov- 
erning the  use  by  States  of  artificial  earth  satellites 
for  direct  television  broadcasting; 

10.  Recominends  that  the  Committee  on  the  Peace- 
ful Uses  of  Outer  Space,  bearing  in  mind  the  useful 
contribution  that  the  Working  Group  on  Direcl 
Broadcast  Satellites  can  make  to  its  work,  should 
consider  reconvening  the  Working  Group  if  or  wher 
it  deems  it  useful; 

11.  Notes  with  satisfaction  that,  in  promoting  in 
ternational  co-operation  in  the  application  of  spaei 
technology,  the  Scientific  and  Technical  Sub 
Committee  and  its  Working  Group  on  Remoti 
Sensing  of  the  Earth  by  Satellites  have  given  con 
siderable  attention  to  the  potential  use  of  remot' 
sensing  of  the  earth  by  satellites  in  developmen 
programmes  of  all  countries,  especially  of  develop 
ing  countries; 

12.  Welcomes  the  various  efforts  envisaged  with 
view  to  making  more   readily  available  the  benefit 


852 


Department  of  State   Bulleti 


of  this   new  technology   to   all    countries,   especially 
developing  countries; 

13.  Welcomes  further,  as  a  valuable  step  in  the 
efforts  to  find  appropriate  patterns  for  the  possible 
international  organization  of  an  operational  remote- 
sensing  system  or  systems,  the  request  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space 
that  the  Secretary-General  undertake  studies  on  the 
organizational  and  financial  requirements  of  global 
and  regional  centres  for  remote  sensing; 

14.  Endorses  the  opinion  that  further  studies  by 
the  Scientific  and  Technical  Sub-Committee  of  or- 
ganizational and  financial  questions  relating  to  re- 
mote sensing  of  the  earth  from  space  should  pro- 
gress, together  witli  consideration  by  the  Legal  Sub- 
Committee  of  the  legal  aspects  of  remote  sensing 
of  the  earth  from  space  as  a  matter  of  priority; 

15.  Commends  the  Working  Group  on  Remote 
Sensing  of  the  Earth  by  Satellites  for  its  accom- 
plishment in  assessing  the  cun-ent  stage  of  develop- 
ment of  remote  sensing  and  in  facilitating  under- 
standing of  the  potential  benefits  of  this  new  space 
application  for  development,  especially  that  of  the 
developing  countries; 

16.  Notes  with  approval  that  the  Committee  on 
the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space,  having  considered 
the  various  recommendations  made  by  its  Scientific 
and  Technical  Sub-Committee  with  regard  to  the 
work  of  the  Working  Group  on  Remote  Sensing  of 
the  Earth  by  Satellites,  as  set  out  in  the  final 
report  of  the  Working  Group,''  agreed  to  the  recom- 
mendation that  the  Scientific  and  Technical  Sub- 
Committee,  at  its  twelfth  session  in  1975,  should 
give  to  remote  sensing  the  priority  accorded  to  it 
in  paragraph  49  of  the  Committee's  report; 

17.  Welcomes  the  continuing  progress  achieved  in 
developing  the  United  Nations  programme  on  space 
applications  into  a  significant  means  of  promoting 
international  co-operation  in  this  field,  as  set  out  in 
paragraphs  .35  to  41  of  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space  and  in 
paragraph  29  of  the  report  of  the  Scientific  and 
Technical  Sub-Committee,"  and  recommends  that,  in 
order  to  facilitate  further  progress  in  space  appli- 
cations, the  Committee  should  explore  the  desir- 
ability of  expanding  the  programme  in  the  future, 
including  the  possibility  of  improving  its  effective- 
ness, taking  especially  into  account  the  needs  of 
the  developing  countries; 

18.  Endorses  the  United  Nations  programme  on 
space  applications,  as  referred  to  in  paragraph  41 
of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Peaceful  Uses 
of  Outer  Space  and  in  paragraph  29  of  the  report 
of  the  Scientific  and  Technical  Sub-Committee,  and 
recommends  the  continuing  development  of  the  pro- 


'  U.N.  doc.  A/AC.105/125.   [Footnote  in  original.] 
'U.N.  doc.  A/AC.105/131.   [Footnote  in  original.] 


gramme,  taking  especially  into  account  the  needs  of 
the  developing  countries; 

19.  Notes  with  appreciation  that  several  Member 
States  have  offered  educational  and  training  facili- 
ties, under  United  Nations  sponsorship,  in  the  prac- 
tical application  of  space  technology  and  draws  the 
attention  of  Member  States,  particularly  the  devel- 
oping countries,  to  those  opportunities  as  outlined 
in  paragraphs  .35  to  38  and  41)  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee   on   the    Peaceful    Uses   of   Outer   Space; 

20.  Further  notes  with  appreciation  the  actions, 
as  mentioned  in  paragraph  37  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee,  of  several  Member  States  in  serving 
as  hosts  to  the  United  Nations-sponsored  panels, 
seminars  and  workshops  in  1973  and  1974,  and  in 
agreeing  to  serve  as  hosts  to  the  United  Nations- 
sponsored  panels,  seminars  and  workshops  in  1975; 

21.  Further  notes  the  value  of  United  Nations 
panels  and  training  seminars  in  various  fields  of 
space  application  and  hopes  that  Member  States 
will  continue  to  offer  to  serve  as  hosts  to  these 
panels  and  training  seminars  with  a  view  to  the 
widest  possible  spread  of  information  and  sharing 
of  costs  in  this  new  area  of  development,  especially 
that  of  the   developing  countries; 

22.  Commends  to  the  attention  of  Member  States 
the  questionnaire,  recently  communicated  to  them 
for  their  reply,  which  has  been  prepared  for  the 
purpose  of  facilitating  future  planning  of  a  more 
effective  United  Nations  programme  on  space  appli- 
cations with  particular  regard  to  the  needs  of 
the  developing  countries  for  assistance  in  this  field; 

23.  Recommends  that,  in  accordance  with  para- 
graph 57  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space,  the  specialized 
agencies,  such  as  the  International  Telecommu- 
nication Union,  the  International  Civil  Aviation 
Organization  and  the  Inter-Governmental  Maritime 
Consultative  Organization,  having  existing  respon- 
sibilities or  programmes  of  studies  pertaining  to  the 
geostationary  orbit,  should  provide  the  Scientific 
and  Technical  Sub-Committee  at  its  next  session 
with  background  information  brought  up  to  date 
on  the  subject; 

24.  Approves  continuing  sponsorship  by  the 
United  Nations  of  the  Thumba  Equatorial  Rocket 
Launching  Station  in  India  and  the  CELPA  Mar 
del  Plata  Station  in  Argentina,  expresses  its  satis- 
faction at  the  work  being  carried  out  at  those 
ranges  in  relation  to  the  use  of  sounding  rocket 
facilities  for  international  co-operation  and  training 
in  the  peaceful  and  scientific  exploration  of  outer 
space,  and  recommends  that  Member  States  should 
continue  to  give  consideration  to  the  use  of  those 
facilities   for  space   research   activities; 

25.  Recalls  the  principles  governing  the  operation 
of  such  United  Nations-sponsored  facilities  as  set 
forth  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Peaceful 


December   16,    1974 


853 


Uses  of  Outer  Space  in  1962  '  and  originally  en- 
dorsed by  the  General  Assembly  in  resolution  1802 
(XVII);  " 

26.  Agrees  with  the  Committee  on  the  Peaceful 
Uses  of  Outer  Space,  as  set  out  in  paragraph  45 
of  its  report,  that  proper  co-ordination  is  necessary 
for  activities  within  the  United  Nations  system  re- 
lating to  the  peaceful  uses  of  outer  space; 

27.  Recalls  its  interest  in  receiving  information 
concerning  discussions  in  the  Inter-Governmental 
Maritime  Consultative  Organization  regai'ding  the 
use  of  maritime  satellites,  particularly  in  view  of 
the  International  Conference  on  the  Establishment 
of  an  International  Maritime  Satellite  System, 
scheduled  to  take  place  in  1975; 

28.  Reiterates  its  request  to  the  World  Meteoro- 
logical Organization  to  pursue  actively  the  imple- 
mentation of  its  tropical  cyclone  project,  while  con- 
tinuing and  intensifying  its  other  related  action 
programmes,  including  the  World  Weather  Watch 
and,  especially,  the  efforts  being  undertaken  towards 
obtaining  basic  meteorological  data  and  discovering 
ways  and  means  to  mitigate  the  harmful  effects  of 
tropical  storms  and  to  remove  or  minimize  their 
destructive  potential,  and  looks  forward  to  its  re- 
port thereon  in  accordance  with  General  .Assembly 
resolutions  2914  (XXVII)  of  9  November  1972  and 
3182   (XXVIII)   of  18  December  1973; 

29.  Notes  with  appreciation  that  the  specialized 
agencies,  in  particular  the  World  Meteorological 
Organization,  the  International  Telecommunication 
Union,  the  United  Nations  Educational,  Scientific 
and  Cultural  Organization,  the  Food  and  .Agriculture 
Organization  of  the  United  Nations  and  the  Inter- 
Governmental  Maritime  Consultative  Organization, 
have  continued  to  take  an  active  part  in  the  United 
Nations  programme  for  the  promotion  of  interna- 
tional co-operation  in  the  peaceful  uses  of  outer 
space,  including  the  practical  application  of  space 
technology; 

30.  Requests  the  specialized  agencies  and  the  In- 
ternational Atomic  Energy  Agency  to  continue,  as 
appropriate,  to  provide  the  Committee  on  the 
Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space  with  progress  re- 
ports on  their  work  relating  to  the  peaceful  uses 
of  outer  space  and  to  examine,  and  report  thereon 
to  the  Committee,  the  particular  problems  that  may 
arise  from  the  use  of  outer  space  in  the  fields 
within  their  competence  and  that  should,  in  their 
opinion,  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mittee; 

31.  Requests  the  Committee  on  the  Peaceful  Uses 
of  Outer  Space  to  continue  its  work,  as  set  out  in 
the  present  and  previous  resolutions  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  to  report  to  the  Assembly  at  its 
thirtieth  session. 


^Official  Records  of  the  General  Assembly,  Seven- 
teenth Sessio7i,  Annexes,  agenda  item  27,  document 
A/5181.  [Footnote  in  original.] 


854 


RESOLUTION   3235    (XXIX)  ^ 

Convention  on  Registration  of  Objects 
Launched  into  Outer  Space 

The  General  Assembly, 

Reaffirming    the    importance    of    international    co- 
operation in  the  field  of  the  exploration  and  peaceful 


h(ir 

111* 

iltlO' 

8(0 
'!.  ii 

letin 


uses  of  outer  space,   including  the   Moon   and  other  iljip 
celestial   bodies,   and   of   promoting   the   law   in   this 
new  field  of  human  endeavour, 

Desiring,  in  the  light  of  the  Treaty  on  Principles 
Governing  the  .-Activities  of  States  in  the  Explora- 
tion and  Use  of  Outer  Space,  including  the  Moon 
and  Other  Celestial  Bodies,  the  .Agreement  on  the 
Rescue  of  Astronauts,  the  Return  of  .Astronauts 
and  the  Return  of  Objects  Launched  into  Outer 
Space  and  the  Convention  on  International  Liability 
for  Damage  Caused  by  Space  Objects,  to  make  pro- 
vision for  registration  by  launching  States  of  space 
objects  launched  into  outer  space  with  a  view, 
inter  alia,  to  providing  States  with  additional  means 
and  procedures  to  assist  in  the  identification  of 
space  objects, 

Bearing  in  mind  its  resolution  3182  (XXVIII)  of 
18  December  1973,  in  which  it  requested  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space  to 
consider  as  a  matter  of  priority  the  completion  of 
the  text  of  the  draft  Convention  on  Registration  of 
Objects  Launched  into  Outer  Space, 

Having  considered  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space, 

Noting  with  satisfaction  that  the  Committee  on 
the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space  and  its  Legal 
Sub-Committee  have  completed  the  text  of  the  draft 
Convention  on  Registration  of  Objects  Launched 
into  Outer  Space, 

1.  Commends  the  Convention  on  Registration  of' 
Objects  Launched  into  Outer  Space,  the  text  of 
which   is  annexed   to  the  present   resolution; 

2.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  open  the 
Convention  for  signature  and  ratification  at  the 
earliest  possible  date;  I  'il ' 

3.  Expresses  its  hope  for  the  widest  possible  ad- 
herence to  this  Convention. 


.U, 
tttkf 
ipa« 

liiiita 
ftn 

Mil 

«2« 
'i  pi 
Suto 
hi 
ioven 
ioj  ai 
aJO 
it  K 


iiiohi 
'ined, 
faera 
Dfii'i 
'ml  I 

HtioB 

Ik 
ts 
Jtilar, 
niitrik' 
stma 
seof 


ANNEX 

Convention  on  Registration  of  Objects 
Launched  into  Outer  Space 

The  States  Parties  to  this  Convention, 

Recognizing  the  common   interest  of  all   mankind 

in  furthering  the  e.xploration  and  use  of  outer  space 

for  peaceful  purposes. 

Recalling  that  the  Treaty  on  Principles  Govern- 
ing the  Activities  of  States  in  the  Exploration  and 
Use  of  Outer  Space,  including  the  Moon  and  Other 


*  Adopted  by  the  Assembly  on  Nov.  12   (text  from 
U.N.  doc.  A/9812). 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


btkii 
aiaceo 

Brtsof 

«?Sts 
anieil 


*it(ir 
ftfspat 
Priats « 


Celestial  Bodies  of  27  January  1967  affirms  that 
States  shall  bear  international  responsibility  for 
their  national  activities  in  outer  space  and  refers 
to  the  State  on  whose  registry  an  object  launched 
into  outer  space  is  carried, 

Recalling  also  that  the  Agreement  on  the  Rescue 
of  Astronauts,  the  Return  of  Astronauts  and  the 
Return  of  Objects  Launched  into  Outer  Space  of 
22  April  1968  provides  that  a  launching  authority 
shall,  upon  request,  furnish  identifying  data  prior 
to  the  return  of  an  object  it  has  launched  into  outer 
space  found  beyond  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
launching  authority, 

Recalling  further  that  the  Convention  on  Interna- 
tional Liability  for  Damage  Caused  by  Space  Objects 
of  29  March  1972  establishes  international  rules 
and  procedures  concerning  the  liability  of  launching 
States  for  damage  caused  by  their  space  objects, 

Desiring,  in  the  light  of  the  Treaty  on  Principles 
Governing  the  Activities  of  States  in  the  Explora- 
tion and  Use  of  Outer  Space,  including  the  Moon 
and  Other  Celestial  Bodies,  to  make  provision  for 
the  national  registration  by  launching  States  of 
space  objects  launched   into  outer  space. 

Desiring  further  that  a  central  register  of  objects 
launched  into  outer  space  be  established  and  main- 
tained, on  a  mandatory  basis,  by  the  Secretary- 
General   of  the  United   Nations, 

Desiring  also  to  provide  for  States  Parties  addi- 
tional means  and  procedures  to  assist  in  the  identifi- 
cation  of   space  objects. 

Believing  that  a  mandatory  system  of  registering 
objects  launched  into  outer  space  would,  in  par- 
ticular, assist  in  their  identification  and  would 
contribute  to  the  application  and  development  of 
international  law  governing  the  exploration  and 
use  of  outer  space, 

Have  agreed  on  the  following: 

Article  I 
For  the  purposes  of  this  Convention: 

(a)    The  term  "launching  State"  means: 

(i)  A  State  which  launches  or  procures  the 
launching  of  a  space  object; 

(ii)  A  State  from  whose  territory  or  facility  a 
space  object  is  launched; 

(h)  The  term  "space  object"  includes  component 
parts  of  a  space  object  as  well  as  its  launch  vehicle 
and  parts  thereof; 

(c)  The  term  "State  of  registry"  means  a  launch- 
ing State  on  whose  registry  a  space  object  is 
carried  in  accordance  with  article  IL 

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  appro- 
priate registry  which  it  shall  maintain.  Each  launch- 


ing State  shall  inform  the  Secretary-General  of 
the  United  Nations  of  the  establishment  of  such  a 
registry. 

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,  bearing  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  agree- 
ments concluded  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  condi- 
tions under  which  it  is  maintained  shall  be  deter- 
mined 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 
information  in  this  Register. 

Article  IV 

1.  Each  State  of  registry  shall  furnish  to  the 
Secretary-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; 
(6)    An   appropriate  designator  of  the  space  ob- 
ject  or  its   registration   number; 

(e)    Date  and   territory  or  location   of  launch; 

(d)  Basic   orbital    parameters,   including: 

(i)  Nodal  period, 

(ii)  Inclination, 

(iii)  Apogee, 

(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  object  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  registra- 
tion number  referred  to  in  article  IV,  paragraph   1 
(6),  or  both,  the  State  of  registry  shall  notify  the 


December   16,    1974 


855 


Secretary-General  of  this  fact  when  submitting  the 
information  regarding  the  space  object  in  accord- 
ance 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  pos- 
sessing space  monitoring  and  tracking  facilities, 
shall  respond  to  the  greatest  extent  feasible  to  a 
request  by  that  State  Party,  or  transmitted  through 
the  Secretary-General  on  its  behalf,  for  assistance 
under  equitable  and  reasonable  conditions  in  the 
identification  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  event  giving  rise  to  the  re- 
quest. Arrangements  under  which  such  assistance 
shall  be  rendered  shall  be  the  subject  of  agreement 
between  the  parties  concerned. 

Article  VII 

1.  In  this  Convention,  with  the  exception  of  articles 
VIII  to  XII  inclusive,  references  to  States  shall  be 
deemed  to  apply  to  any  international  intergovern- 
mental organization  which  conducts  space  activities 
if  the  organization  declares  its  acceptance  of  the 
rights  and  obligations  provided  for  in  this  Conven- 
tion and  if  a  majority  of  the  States  members  of 
the  organization  are  States  Parties  to  this  Conven- 
tion and  to  the  Treaty  on  Principles  Governing 
the  Activities  of  States  in  the  Exploration  and  Use 
of  Outer  Space,  including  the  Moon  and  Other 
Celestial   Bodies. 

2.  States  members  of  any  such  organization  which 
are  States  Parties  to  this  Convention  shall  take  all 
appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  the  organization 
makes  a  declaration  in  accordance  with  paragraph  1 
of  this  article. 

Article  VIII 

1.  This  Convention  shall  be  open  for  signature 
by  all  States  at  United  Nations  Headquarters  in 
New  York.  Any  State  which  does  not  sign  this  Con- 
vention before  its  entry  into  force  in  accordance 
with  paragraph  3  of  this  article  may  accede  to  it 
at  any  time. 

2.  This  Convention  shall  be  subject  to  ratification 
by  signatory  States.  Instruments  of  ratification 
and  instruments  of  accession  shall  be  deposited  with 
the  Secretary-General  of  the  United  Nations. 

•3.  This  Convention  shall  enter  into  force  among 
the  States  which  have  deposited  instruments  of  rati- 
fication on  the  deposit  of  the  fifth  such  instrument 


856 


with   the    Secretary-General   of  the    United    Nations. 

4.  For  States  whose  instruments  of  ratification 
or  accession  are  deposited  subsequent  to  the  entry 
into  force  of  this  Convention,  it  shall  enter  into 
force  on  the  date  of  the  deposit  of  their  instru- 
ments of  ratification  or  accession. 

5.  The  Secretary-General  shall  promptly  inform 
all  signatory  and  acceding  States  of  the  date  of 
each  signature,  the  date  of  deposit  of  each  instru- 
ment of  ratification  of  and  accession  to  this  Conven- 
tion, the  date  of  its  entry  into  force  and  other 
notices. 

Article  IX 

Any  State  Party  to  this  Convention  may  propose 
amendments  to  the  Convention.  Amendments  shall 
enter  into  force  for  each  State  Party  to  the  Con- 
vention accepting  the  amendments  upon  their  ac- 
ceptance by  a  majority  of  the  States  Parties  to  the 
Convention  and  thereafter  for  each  remaining  State 
Party  to  the  Convention  on  the  date  of  acceptance 
by  it. 

Article  X 

Ten  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of  this 
Convention,  the  question  of  the  review  of  the 
Convention  shall  be  included  in  the  provisional 
agenda  of  the  United  Nations  General  Assembly  in 
order  to  consider,  in  the  light  of  past  application  of 
the  Convention,  whether  it  requires  revision.  How- 
ever, at  any  time  after  the  Convention  has  been 
in  force  for  five  years,  at  the  request  of  one  third 
of  the  States  Parties  to  the  Convention  and  with 
the  concurrence  of  the  majority  of  the  States 
Parties,  a  conference  of  the  States  Parties  shall  be 
convened  to  review  this  Convention.  Such  review 
shall  take  into  account  in  particular  any  relevant 
technological  developments,  including  those  relating 
to  the  identification  of  space  objects. 

Article  XI 

Any  State  Party  to  this  Convention  may  give 
notice  of  its  withdrawal  from  the  Convention  one 
year  after  its  entry  into  force  by  written  notification 
to  the  Secretary-General  of  the  United  Nations. 
Such  withdrawal  shall  take  effect  one  year  from 
the  date  of  receipt  of  this  notification. 

Article  XII 

The  original  of  this  Convention,  of  which  the 
Arabic,  Chinese,  English,  French,  Russian  and 
Spanish  texts  are  equally  authentic,  shall  be  de- 
posited with  the  Secretary-General  of  the  United 
Nations,  who  shall  send  certified  copies  thereof  to 
all   signatory   and   acceding   States. 

In  Witness  Whereof  the  undersigned,  being  duly 
authorized  thereto  by  their  respective  Governments 
have  signed  this  Convention,  opened  for  signature 
at  New  York  on . 


Department  of  State  Bulletir 


U.S.  Opposes  U.N.   Resolutions  on  Question  of  Palestine 


Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  by  U.S.  Representative 
John  Scali  on  November  21,  together  with 
the  texts  of  resolutions  adopted  by  the  As- 
sembly on  November  22. 


STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR   SCALI 

USUN  press  release  176  dated  November  21 

The  question  of  Palestine,  as  the  speakers 
who  have  preceded  me  have  amply  demon- 
strated, has  commanded  more  attention  from 
the  United  Nations  than  almost  any  other 
single  issue.  The  United  Nations  has  not  re- 
solved the  basic  conflict  in  the  Middle  East, 
but  it  has  limited  the  terrible  consequences 
of  this  dispute.  As  we  once  again  confront 
this  issue,  it  is  fitting  that  we  remind  our- 
selves of  the  long  and  honorable  history  of 
the  U.N.'s  efforts  to  maintain  the  peace.  We 
also  should  pay  tribute  to  those  who  serve  in 
the  U.N.  peace  forces  in  the  area  and  to 
those  who  provide  humanitarian  assistance 
to  the  victims  of  war. 

We  must  not  forget  the  thousands  of  hu- 
man beings  who  have  suffered  and  who  con- 
tinue to  suffer  from  this  conflict. 

Those  who  seek  a  genuine  resolution  of  the 
Middle  East  problem  must  keep  ever  in  mind 
the  continuing  plight  of  people  who  have 
left  their  homes  because  of  this  conflict  and 
have  been  unable  to  return.  Continuing  ef- 
forts by  the  international  community  to  al- 
leviate the  hardships  of  these  people  are  es- 
sential, but  these  efforts  alone  are  not  a  solu- 
tion. 

Only  a  just  and  lasting  solution  of  the 
Arab-Israeli  dispute  can  halt  the  killing, 
stop  the  suffering,  and  heal  the  wounds.  The 
goal  of  this  organization  must  be  to  seek 
ways  to  promote  movement  to  that  end  while 


avoiding  any  measure  which  might  make 
such  movement  more  difficult. 

Last  year's  outbreak  of  war  in  the  Middle 
East  demonstrated  for  the  fourth  time  in  a 
quarter  century  that  military  force  cannot  re- 
solve the  issues  which  divide  Arab  and  Is- 
raeli. It  must  be  clear  by  now  that  more  vio- 
lence cannot  bring  peace.  It  will  only  inten- 
sify hatreds,  complicate  differences,  and  add 
to  the  sum  of  human  misery. 

The  sole  alternative  to  the  sterile  pursuit 
of  change  through  violence  is  negotiation. 
This  path  is  less  dramatic,  but  in  the  end  it 
is  far  more  likely  to  produce  acceptable 
change.  The  great  achievement  of  the  past 
year  has  been  that  the  parties  to  the  conflict 
have  at  last  accepted  this  alternative  and 
that  they  have  for  the  first  time  begun  to 
make  it  work.  A  landmark  in  this  effort,  and 
in  Arab-Israeli  relations,  is  set  forth  in  Se- 
curity Council  Resolution  338,  in  which  the 
Security  Council  for  the  first  time  called  for 
immediate  negotiations  "between  the  parties 
concerned  under  appropriate  auspices  aimed 
at  establishing  a  just  and  durable  peace." 

The  acceptance  by  the  parties  of  the  nego- 
tiating process  set  in  motion  by  Resolution 
338  has  led  to  the  convening  of  the  Geneva 
Peace  Conference  and  to  the  subsequent,  suc- 
cessful efforts  to  negotiate  separate  disen- 
gagement agreements  between  the  forces  of 
Egypt  and  Israel,  and  Syria  and  Israel.  In 
each  of  these  disengagement  agreements  the 
parties  reaffirmed  their  acceptance  of  the 
principle  of  a  step-by-step  negotiated  settle- 
ment. They  did  so  by  agreeing  to  Include  the 
following  statement  as  the  final  paragraph 
of  each  accord : 

This  agreement  is  not  regarded  ...  as  a  final 
peace  agreement.  It  constitutes  a  first  step  toward 
a  final,  just  and  durable  peace  according  to  the  pro- 
visions of  Security  Council  Resolution  338  and  with- 
in the  framework  of  the  Geneva  Conference. 


December   16,   1974 


857 


The  consequences  of  a  possible  breakdown 
in  this  negotiating  process  cannot  be  over- 
emphasized. War  has  ravaged  the  Middle 
East  four  times  in  26  years  because  people 
did  not  believe  that  constructive  dialogue  be- 
tween the  parties  was  possible.  A  fifth  war 
would  threaten  the  security  of  every  country 
and  produce  no  permanent  gains  for  any. 

The  primary  objective  of  the  U.S.  Govern- 
ment therefore  has  been  to  maintain  the  mo- 
mentum of  the  negotiating  process.  Secretary 
Kissinger  recently  returned  from  a  visit  to 
the  Middle  East  where  he  explored  with 
every  leader  he  consulted  in  the  area  the  vi- 
tal question  of  how  to  continue  building  on 
the  progress  already  achieved.  The  answer 
to  this  paramount  question  still  hangs  in  the 
balance. 

If  the  negotiating  process  is  to  continue, 
each  party  must  remain  committed  to  negoti- 
ating. Each  must  be  prepared  to  accept  a  ne- 
gotiated peace  with  the  others,  and  each  must 
be  prepared  to  see  decisions  on  how  to  pro- 
ceed evolve  through  understandings  among 
the  parties.  This  is  how  the  Geneva  Peace 
Conference  was  convened,  under  the  cochair- 
manship  of  the  Soviet  Union  and  the  United 
States.  This  is  why,  when  the  parties  agreed 
to  attend  that  conference,  they  also  agreed 
that  the  role  of  other  participants  would  be 
discussed  at  the  conference. 

The  foundation  of  such  steps  toward  peace 
is  the  acceptance  by  all  parties  of  the  princi- 
ples of  Resolution  338 — to  engage  in  the 
give-and-take  of  negotiation  with  the  objec- 
tive of  achieving  a  permanent  peace  settle- 
ment among  them  on  a  basis  that  all  parties 
can  accept.  If  any  of  the  parties  rejects  this 
governing  principle  or  questions  the  right  to 
exist  of  any  of  the  parties  to  the  negotiation, 
our  best  hopes  for  negotiation  and  for  peace 
are  lost.  Certainly  it  must  be  understood  by 
all  that  Israel  has  a  right  to  exist  as  a  sov- 
ereign, independent  state  within  secure  and 
recognized  boundaries. 

In  the  course  of  this  debate  there  have 
been  speakers  who  have  sought  to  equate 
terror  with  revolution,  who  profess  to  see 
no  difference  between  the  slaughter  of  inno- 
cents and  a  struggle  for  national  liberation. 


There  are  those  who  wish  to  compare  the 
American  Revolution  and  the  many  other 
wars  of  liberation  of  the  past  200  years  with 
indiscriminate  terrorism. 

If  there  were  instances  during  the  Amer- 
ican Revolution  where  innocent  people  suf- 
fered, there  was  no  instance  where  the  revo- 
lutionary leadership  boasted  of  or  condoned 
such  crimes.  There  were  no  victims,  on  either 
side,  of  a  deliberate  policy  of  terror.  Those 
who  molded  our  nation  and  fought  for  our 
freedom  never  succumbed  to  the  easy  excuse 
that  the  end  justifies  the  means. 

We  hope  that  all  member  nations  will  re- 
afl[irm  their  support  for  a  negotiated  settle- 
ment in  the  Middle  East  and  their  support 
for  Security  Council  Resolutions  242  and 
338.  We  know  that  these  resolutions  are  the 
basis  on  which  progress  so  far  has  been  pos- 
sible. We  believe  they  remain  the  best  hope 
for  continued  progress.  To  seek  to  alter  them 
not  only  risks  dangerous  delay  but  could  de- 
stroy prospects  for  peace  in  the  foreseeable 
future. 

Certainly  we  can  all  accept  the  fact  that 
negotiations  can  take  place  only  when  the 
parties  are  willing  to  negotiate.  My  govern- 
ment is  convinced — and  the  successes  of  the 
past  year  strengthen  our  conviction — that 
the  only  way  to  keep  the  parties  committed 
to  negotiations  is  to  move  forward  through  a 
series  of  agreements,  each  substantial  enough 
to  represent  significant  progress,  yet  each 
limited  enough  for  governments  and  peoples 
to  assimilate  and  accept.  Each  of  these  steps 
helps  attitudes  to  evolve,  creates  new  confi- 
dence, and  establishes  new  situations  in 
which  still  further  steps  can  be  taken.  With 
this  approach,  the  parties  have,  over  the 
past  year,  succeeded  in  taking  the  first  sub- 
stantial steps  in  decades  toward  reconciling 
their  differences. 

It  is  my  government's  firm  conviction  that 
the  way  to  move  toward  a  situation  more  re- 
sponsive to  Palestinian  interests  is  not 
through  new  resolutions  or  dramatic  par- 
liamentary maneuvers,  but  by  weaving  the 
Palestinian  interests  into  the  give-and-take 
of  the  negotiating  process.  Through  this  ev- 
olutionary process,  Palestinian  interests  can 


858 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


be   better    reflected    in    the    new    situations 
which  are  created. 

The  U.S.  Government  thus  believes  that 
the  most  important  contribution  this  Assem- 
bly can  now  make  toward  resolving  the  issue 
before  us  is  to  help  establish  an  international 
climate  in  which  the  parties  will  be  encour- 
aged to  maintain  the  momentum  toward 
peace.  We  are  equally  convinced  that  the  le- 
gitimate interests  of  the  Palestinian  people 
can  be  promoted  in  this  negotiating  process 
and  that  these  negotiations  will  lead  to  a  just 
and  lasting  peace  for  all  peoples  in  the  Mid- 
dle East. 

TEXTS   OF  RESOLUTIONS 

Resolution  3236  (XXIX)' 

Question  of  Palestine 

The  General  Assembly, 

Having  considered  the  question  of  Palestine, 

Having  heard  the  statement  of  the  Palestine  Lib- 
eration Organization,  the  representative  of  the  Pal- 
estinian people. 

Having  also  heard  other  statements  made  during 
the  debate, 

Deeply  concerned  that  no  just  solution  to  the  prob- 
lem of  Palestine  has  yet  been  achieved  and  recog- 
nizing that  the  problem  of  Palestine  continues  to  en- 
danger international  peace  and  security, 

Recognizing  that  the  Palestinian  people  is  entitled 
to  self-determination  in  accordance  with  the  Charter 
of  the  United  Nations, 

Expressing  its  grave  concern  that  the  Palestinian 
people  has  been  prevented  from  enjoying  its  inalien- 
able rights,  in  particular  its  right  to  self-determina- 
tion. 

Guided  by  the  purposes  and  principles  of  the  Char- 
ter, 

Recalling  its  relevant  resolutions  which  affirm  the 
right  of  the  Palestinian  people  to  self-determination, 

1.  Reaffirms  the  inalienable  rights  of  the  Pales- 
tinian people  in  Palestine,  including: 

(a)  The  right  to  self-determination  without  ex- 
ternal interference; 

(b)  The  right  to  national  independence  and  sov- 
ereignty; 

2.  Reaffirms  also  the  inalienable  right  of  the  Pal- 
estinians to  return  to  their  homes  and  property  from 


which  they   have  been  displaced   and  uprooted,   and 
calls  for  their  return; 

3.  Emphasizes  that  full  respect  for  and  the  reali- 
zation of  these  inalienable  rights  of  the  Palestinian 
people  are  indispensable  for  the  solution  of  the  ques- 
tion of  Palestine; 

4.  Recognizes  that  the  Palestinian  people  is  a 
principal  party  in  the  establishment  of  a  just  and 
durable  peace  in  the  Middle  East; 

5.  Further  recognizes  the  right  of  the  Palestinian 
people  to  regain  its  rights  by  all  means  in  accord- 
ance with  the  purposes  and  principles  of  the  Charter 
of  the  United  Nations; 

6.  Appeals  to  all  States  and  international  organi- 
zations to  extend  their  support  to  the  Palestinian 
people  in  its  struggle  to  restore  its  rights,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Charter; 

7.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  establish 
contacts  with  the  Palestine  Liberation  Organization 
on  all  matters  concerning  the  question  of  Palestine; 

8.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  report  to  the 
General  Assembly  at  its  thirtieth  session  on  the  im- 
plementation of  the  present  resolution; 

9.  Decides  to  include  the  item  entitled  "Question 
of  Palestine"  in  the  provisional  agenda  of  its  thir- 
tieth session. 


Resolution  3237  (XXIX)- 

Observer  status 
for  the  Palestine  Liberation  Organization 

The  General  Assembly, 

Having  considered  the  question  of  Palestine, 

Taking  into  consideration  the  universality  of  the 
United  Nations  prescribed  in  the  Charter, 

Recalling  its  resolution  3102  (XXVIII)  of  12  De- 
cember 1973, 

Taking  into  account  Economic  and  Social  Council 
resolutions  1835  (LVI)  of  14  May  1974  and  1840 
(LVI)  of  15  May  1974, 

Noting  that  the  Diplomatic  Conference  on  the  Re- 
affirmation and  Development  of  International  Hu- 
manitarian Law  Applicable  in  Armed  Conflicts,  the 
World  Population  Conference  and  the  World  Food 
Conference  have  in  effect  invited  the  Palestine  Lib- 
eration Organization  to  participate  in  their  respec- 
tive deliberations. 

Noting  also  that  the  Third  United  Nations  Con- 
ference on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  has  invited  the  Pales- 
tine Liberation  Organization  to  participate  in  its  de- 
liberations as  an  observer, 

1.  Invites  the  Palestine  Liberation  Organization 
to  participate  in  the  sessions  and  the  work  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  the  capacity  of  observer; 


'U.N.  doc.  A/RES/3236  (XXIX);  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  on  Nov.  22  by  a  vote  of  89  to  8  (U.S.), 
with  37  abstentions. 


^U.N.  doc.  A/RES/3237  (XXIX);  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  on  Nov.  22  by  a  vote  of  95  to  17  (U.S.), 
with  19  abstentions. 


December   16,    1974 


859 


2.  Invites  the  Palestine  Liberation  Organization 
to  participate  in  the  sessions  and  the  worlt  of  all  in- 
ternational conferences  convened  under  the  auspices 
of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  capacity  of  observer; 

3.  Considers  that  the  Palestine  Liberation  Orga- 
nization is  entitled  to  participate  as  an  observer  in 
the  sessions  and  the  work  of  all  international  con- 
ferences convened  under  the  auspices  of  other  or- 
gans of  the  United  Nations; 

4.  Reqiiests  the  Secretary-General  to  take  the  nec- 
essary steps  for  the  implementation  of  the  present 
resolution. 


TREATY   INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Energy 

Agreement  on  an  international  energy  program. 
Done  at  Paris  November  18,  1974.  Enters  into 
force  on  the  10th  day  following  the  day  on  which 
at  least  six  states  holding  at  least  60  percent  of 
the  combined  voting  weights  have  deposited  a  no- 
tification of  consent  to  be  bound  or  an  instrument 
of  accession;  applicable  provisionally  by  all  signa- 
tory states,  to  the  extent  possible  not  inconsistent 
with  their  legislation,  as  from  18th  November, 
1974. 

Signatures :  Austria,  Belgium,  Canada,  Denmark, 
Federal  Republic  of  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Ja- 
pan, Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Switzerland,  Turkey,  United  Kingdom,  United 
States. 


Telecommunications 

International  telecommunication  convention  with  an- 
nexes and  protocols.  Done  at  Malaga-Torremolinos 
October  25,  1973.' 
Accession  deposited:  Bahrain,  October  21,  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. 
Ratification  deposited:  Brazil,  November  25,  1974. 

Wills 

Convention  providing  a  uniform  law  on  the  form  of 
an  international  will,  with  annex.  Done  at  Wash- 
ington October  26,  1973.' 
Signature:  France,  November  29,  1974. 


BILATERAL 


I 


Egypt 

.\greement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of  ag- 
ricultural commodities  of  June  7,  1974  (TIAS 
7855).  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Cairo  No- 
vember 10,  1974.  Entered  into  force  November  10, 
1974. 

Viet-Nam 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of  ag- 
ricultural commodities  of  August  29,  1972  (TIAS 
7452).  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Saigon 
November  11,  1974.  Entered  into  force  November 
11,  1974. 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of  ag- 
ricultural commodities  of  November  9,  1973  (TIAS 
7768).  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Saigon  No- 
vember 11,  1974.  Entered  into  force  November  11, 
1974. 


'  Not  in  force. 


860 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


INDEX     December  16,  ion     Vol.  LXXI,  No.  J851 


Africa.  Southern  Africa  Five  Years  After  the 
Lusaka  Manifesto  (Easum) 838 

Food.  World  Food  Conference  Meets  at  Rome 

(Kissinger,  Butz,  texts  of  resolutions)     .     .       821 

Foreign  Aid.  World  Food  Conference  Meets  at 
Rome  (Kissinger,  Butz,  texts  of  resolutions)       821 

Middle  East.  U.S.  Opposes  U.N.  Resolutions 
on  Question  of  Palestine  (Scali,  texts  of 
resolutions) 857 

Science.  U.S. -Yugoslav  Scientific  Cooperation 
Board  Meets  at  Washington  (.joint  state- 
ment)      837 

Space.  U.N.  Commends  Outer  Space  Registra- 
tion Convention  (Kuchel,  texts  of  resolu- 
tions)       845 

Treaty  Information.  Current  Actions      .     .     .       860 
United  Nation.s 

U.N.    Commends    Outer    Space     Registration 

Convention  (Kuchel,  texts  of  resolutions)     .       845 

U.S.    Opposes    U.N.    Resolutions   on    Question 

of  Palestine   (Scali,  texts  of  resolutions)     .       857 

World  Food  Conference  Meets  at  Rome  (Kis- 
singer, Butz,  texts  of  resolutions)    ....       821 

Yugoslavia.  U.S. -Yugoslav  Scientific  Coopera- 
tion Board  Meets  at  Washington  (joint 
statement) 837 


Name  Index 

Butz,   Earl   L 821 

Easum,  Donald  B 838 

Kissinger,  Secretary 821 

Kuchel,  Thomas   H 845 

Scali,  John 857 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 

Press  Releases:   November  25-December  1 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  November  25  which 
appear  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Noa. 
477  of  November  5,  and  510  of  November  22. 


No.        Date 


Subje<'t 


t511  11/25  Kissinger:  news  conference, 
Vladivostok,  Nov.  24. 

t511A  11/25  Kissinger:  news  conference, 
Vladivostok,  Nov.  24. 

t512  11/25  Kissinger:  remarks  to  press, 
Tokyo. 

1513  11/26     Kissinger,  Chiao  Kuan-Hua:  ex- 

change of  toasts,  Peking,  Nov. 
25. 

1514  11/29     Kissinger,  Chiao  Kuan-Hua:  ex- 

change of  toasts,  Peking,  Nov. 
28. 


t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

us.  government  printing  office 

washington.  dc.  20402 


OFFICIAL   BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES   PAID 
U.S.     OOVERNMEHT     PRIKTING     OFFICE 

Special   Fourth-Class   Role 
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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


/J. 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 

Volume  LXXI       •        No.  1852       •        December  23,  1974 


PRESIDENT  FORD'S  VISIT  TO  JAPAN,  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  KOREA, 

AND  THE  SOVIET  UNION 

Remarks  by  President  Ford,  Joint  Communiques,  and  U.S.-U.S.S.R.  Statement 
on  Limitation  of  Strategic  Offensive  Arms     866 

President  Ford's  Neivs  Conference  at  Washington  December  2     861 

Secretary  Kissinger's  Neivs  Conferences  at  Tokyo  and  Vladivostok     883 


THE   OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 

For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE    BULLETIN 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

WashinKton,  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.  1852 
December  23,  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 
tlie  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  tlie  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. 


President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  December  2 


Following  are  excerpts  relating  to  foreign 
policy  from  the  transcript  of  a  news  confer- 
ence held  by  President  Ford  in  the  audito- 
rium of  the  Executive  Office  Building  on  De- 
cember 2.^ 

President  Ford:  Good  evening.  Perhaps  I 
can  anticipate  some  of  your  questions  by 
summarizing  my  recent  visits  to  Japan,  the 
Republic  of  Korea,  and  the  Soviet  Union. 

In  Japan,  we  succeeded  in  establi.shing  a 
new  era  of  relations  between  our  two  coun- 
tries. We  demonstrated  our  continuing  com- 
mitment to  the  independence  and  to  the  se- 
curity of  South  Korea.  At  Vladivostok  we 
put  a  firm  ceiling  on  the  strategic  arms  race, 
which  heretofore  has  eluded  us  since  the  nu- 
clear age  began.  I  believe  this  is  something 
for  which  future  generations  will  thank  us. 

Finally,  Secretary  Kissinger's  mission 
maintained  the  momentum  in  China  with  the 
People's  Republic  of  China. 

My  meetings  at  Vladivostok  with  General 
Secretary  Brezhnev  were  a  valuable  oppor- 
tunity to  review  Soviet-American  relations 
and  chart  their  future  course.  Although  this 
was  our  original  purpose.  Secretary  Brezhnev 
and  I  found  it  possible  to  go  beyond  this  get- 
acquainted  stage. 

Building  on  the  achievements  of  the  past 
three  years,  we  agreed  that  the  prospects 
were  favorable  for  more  substantial  and, 
may  I  say,  very  intensive  negotiations  on  the 
primary  issue  of  a  limitation  of  strategic 
arms. 

In  the  end,  we  agreed  on  the  general  frame- 
work  for   a   new  agreement  that   will   last 


'  For  the  complete  transcript,  see  Weekly  Compila- 
tion of  Presidential  Documents  dated  Dec.  9,  1974. 


through  1985.  We  agreed  it  is  realistic  to 
aim  at  completing  this  agreement  next  year. 
This  is  possible  because  we  made  major 
breakthroughs  on  two  critical  issues : 

— Number  one,  we  agreed  to  put  a  ceiling 
of  2,400  each  on  the  total  number  of  inter- 
continental ballistic  missiles,  submarine- 
launched  missiles,  and  heavy  bombers. 

— Two,  we  agreed  to  limit  the  number  of 
missiles  that  can  be  armed  with  multiple  war- 
heads, MIRV's.  Of  each  side's  total  of  2,400, 
1,320  can  be  so  armed. 

These  ceilings  are  well  below  the  force 
levels  which  would  otherwise  have  been  ex- 
pected over  the  next  10  years  and  very  sub- 
stantially below  the  forces  which  would  re- 
sult from  an  all-out  arms  race  over  that 
same  period. 

What  we  have  done  is  to  set  firm  and  equal 
limits  on  the  strategic  forces  of  each  side, 
thus  preventing  an  arms  race  with  all  its 
terror,  instability,  war-breeding  tension,  and 
economic  waste. 

We  have,  in  addition,  created  the  solid  ba- 
sis from  which  future  arms  reductions  can 
be  made  and,  hopefully,  will  be  negotiated. 

It  will  take  more  detailed  negotiations  to 
convert  this  agreed  framework  into  a  com- 
prehensive accord,  but  we  have  made  a  long 
step  toward  peace  on  a  basis  of  equality,  the 
only  basis  on  which  an  agreement  was  possi- 
ble. 

Beyond  this,  our  improved  relations  with 
the  other  nations  of  Asia  developed  on  this 
journey  will  continue  to  serve  the  interests 
of  the  United  States  and  the  cause  of  peace 
for  months  to  come.  Economy,  energy,  secu- 
rity, and  trade  relations  were  discussed, 
which  will  be  of  mutual  benefit  to  us  all. 


December  23,   1974 


861 


I  would  like  to  repeat  publicly  my  thanks 
and  gratitude  for  the  hospitality  extended  to 
me  by  all  of  my  hosts  and,  through  me,  to  the 
American  people. 

Miss  Thomas  [Helen  Thomas,  United  Press 
International],  I  am  glad  to  respond  to  your 
question. 

Q.  Mr.  Presidoit,  this  pact  permits  the 
miclear  buildup  to  go  ahead.  Since  you  ivant 
to  cut  government  spending,  hoiv  many  bil- 
lions of  dollars  will  this  cost  the  American 
people  over  the  years,  and  also,  do  you  think 
that  the  Russians  stalled  last  Jidy  because 
they  kneiv  that  Mr.  Nixon  was  doomed  in  the 
Presidency  and  preferred  to  deal  with  his 
successor? 

President  Ford:  I  would  like  to  correct,  if 
I  might,  one  impression.  This  does  not  per- 
mit an  agreed  buildup.  It  puts  a  cap  on  fu- 
ture buildups,  and  it  actually  reduces  a  part 
of  the  buildup  at  the  present  time. 

It  is  important,  I  should  say,  however,  in 
order  for  us  to  maintain  equality,  which  is  a 
keystone  of  this  program,  to  have  an  ade- 
quate amount  of  military  expenditures.  But  I 
can  say  this  without  hesitation  or  qualifica- 
tion: If  we  had  not  had  this  agreement,  it 
would  have  required  the  United  States  to  sub- 
stantially increase  its  military  expenditures 
in  the  strategic  areas. 

So,  we  put  a  cap  on  the  arms  race.  We  ac- 
tually made  some  reductions  below  present 
programs.  It  is  a  good  agreement,  and  I 
think  that  the  American  people  will  buy  it, 
because  it  provides  for  equality  and  it  pro- 
vides for  a  negotiated  reduction  in  several 
years  ahead. 

Mr.  Cormier  [Frank  Cormier,  Associated 
Press] . 

Q.  Mr.  President,  there  are  reports  that 
you  and  Mr.  Brezhnev  made  some  progress 
in  maybe  fashioning  a  complementary  ap- 
proach to  negotiations  in  the  Middle  East. 
More  specifically,  perhaps  the  Soviets  uwuld 
agree  to  try  to  persuade  the  PLO  [Palestine 
Liberation  Organization]  to  acknoivledge 
that  Israel  has  a  right  to  exist,  and  we  then 
might  try  to  persuade  Israel  to  talk  to  the 
PLO.  Is  there  any  truth  to  this? 


President  Foid:  Mr.  Cormier,  Mr.  Brezh- 
nev and  I  did  discuss  at  some  length  our  dif- 
ferent views  on  the  settlement  of  the  Middle 
East.  There  are  some  differences,  but  they 
are  not  as  major  as  it  would  appear. 

We  indicated  that,  in  our  judgment,  it  was 
important  for  continuous  progress  to  be 
made,  perhaps  with  negotiations  between  Is- 
rael and  one  or  more  of  the  other  Arab  na- 
tions. 

We  also  agreed  that  at  a  certain  point  a 
Geneva  Conference  might  be  the  final  an- 
swer. So,  as  we  discussed  our  what  appeared 
to  be  different  views  at  the  outset,  I  think 
we  came  to  an  agreement  that  it  was  in  the 
interest  of  the  nations  in  the  Middle  East, 
the  interest  of  the  world  at  large,  that  both 
parties  make  a  maximum  eft'ort  to  keep  ne- 
gotiations going. 

We  think  our  step-by-step  approach  is  the 
right  one  for  the  time  being,  but  we  don't 
preclude  the  possibility  of  a  Geneva  Confer- 
ence. 

Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  that  this  is  going  to  reduce  a 
part  of  the  buildup.  Does  that  mean,  then, 
that  we  are  going  to  spoid  less  on  defense 
)u'xt  year  tJia)i  we  are  spending  this  year? 

President  Ford:  It  does  not  mean  that,  be- 
cause only  a  part  of  our  total  defense  pro- 
gram is  related  to  strategic  arms  research, 
development,  deployment,  and  operations  and 
maintenance.  We  do  have  an  obligation  with- 
in the  limits  of  2,400  on  delivery  systems  and 
1,320  on  MIRV's  to  keep  our  forces  up  to 
that  level. 

And  I  think  we  can,  with  about  the  same 
expenditure  level  for  the  next  fiscal  year  as 
at  the  present. 

But  in  the  other  programs,  in  our  tactical 
forces  and  other  military  programs,  there  is 
an  inflationary  cost.  The  military  has  that  in- 
flation just  like  you  and  I  do,  so  we  will  prob- 
ably have  to  increase  our  military  budget 
next  year  just  to  take  care  of  the  costs  of  in- 
flation. 

Yes. 

Q.  Just  to  follow  up,  ive  are  not  quite  to 
that  ceiling  yet,  are  we?  Do  you  intend  to 


862 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


stay  below  that  ceiling,  or  are  yon  going  to 
try  to  reach  tliat  ceiling? 

President  Ford:  I  intend  to  stay  below  the 
ceiling.  That  is  the  agreement,  but  we  do  have 
an  obligation  to  stay  up  to  that  ceiling,  and 
the  budget  that  I  will  recommend  will  keep 
our  strategic  forces  either  up  to  or  aimed  at 
that  objective. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  since  it  is  widely  be- 
lieved the  Soviet  Union  has  larger  rockets 
capable  of  carrying  heavier  payloads  and  be- 
ing MIRV'ed  to  a  larger  extent,  carrying 
more  warheads,  can  you  tell  us  what  the  rel- 
ative position  would  be  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Soviet  Unioyi  in  terms  of  war- 
heads if  each  side  goes  to  the  maxinuim 
number  of  1,320  on  the  MIRV'ed  limit? 

President  Ford:  On  delivery  systems,  we 
are  equal.  On  the  MIRV'ing,  we  are  equal.  I 
think  the  question  you  are  asking  is  throw 
weight.  It  is  recognized  that  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion has  a  heavier  throw  weight,  but  the 
agreement  does  not  preclude  the  United 
States  from  increasing  its  throw-weight  ca- 
pability. 

A  number  of  years  ago,  our  military  de- 
cided that  we  wanted  smaller  missiles  that 
were  more  accurate.  That  has  been  the  deci- 
sion of  our  military. 

Now,  if  the  military  decides  at  the  present 
time  that  they  want  to  increase  the  throw 
weight,  we  have  that  right  under  the  agree- 
ment, and  I  can  tell  you  that  we  have  the  ca- 
pability to  do  so. 

So,  if  there  is  an  inequality  in  throw 
weight,  it  can  be  remedied  if  our  military 
recommended  and  the  Congress  appropriates 
the  money. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  if  you  find  the  Soviet 
Union  leaning,  then,  toivard  getting  the  max- 
imum throiv  iveight  or  the  maximum  number 
of  loarheads  on  their  MIRV  missiles,  would 
you  then  recommend  that  the  United  States 
accelerate  and  move  from  smaller  missiles 
to  larger  ones? 

President  Ford:  The  Soviet  military  guide- 
lines were  for  heavier  missiles,  heavier  throw 
weight.  Our  military  took  a  different  point 


of  view  some  years  ago.  The  Soviet  Union 
is  limited  as  to  delivery  systems  and  as  to 
MIRV's  within  the  delivery  systems.  They 
cannot  go  beyond  those. 

The  agreement  gives  us  the  flexibility  to 
move  up  in  throw  weight  if  we  want  to.  It 
does  not  preclude  the  Soviets  from  increasing 
throw  weight,  but  I  think  for  good  reasons 
they  have  no  justification  for  doing  so. 

Yes,  Mr.  Sperling  [Godfrey  Sperling, 
Christian  Science  Monitor]. 

Q.  Wouldn't  your  stated  accomplishments 
in  Russia  have  carried  more  long-rayige 
credibility  if  they  had  been  put  initially  and 
then  described  later  on  in  less  sanguine  and 
more  modest  terms? 

President  Ford:  Well,  if  I  understand  the 
question,  when  I  came  back  a  week  ago  yes- 
terday, we  did  not  have  in  writing  what  is 
called  an  aide  memoire,  which  was  the  spe- 
cific agreement  in  writing  that  General  Sec- 
retary Brezhnev  and  I  had  agreed  to  ver- 
bally. That  has  now  been  received. 

Until  that  had  been  received  and  we  had 
checked  it  out,  we  felt  it  was  wise  to  speak 
in  generalities.  I  am  giving  to  you  and  to  the 
American  people  tonight  the  specific  figures. 
They  are,  I  think,  constructive.  It  is  a  good 
agreement.  It  is  an  agreement — if  I  might 
repeat — that  puts  a  cap  on  the  arms  race,  it 
makes  some  reductions,  and  it  gives  us  an  op- 
portunity to  negotiate. 

So,  I  don't  think  a  week's  delay  in  the  spe- 
cifics has  handicapped  our  presentation. 

Q.  More  specifically,  tvhat  percentage  of 
the  state  of  progress  in  Russia  was  yours, 
and  how  much  was  Mr.  Nixon's? 

President  Ford:  Well,  I  don't  really  think 
I  ought  to  get  into  an  evaluation  of  that.  The 
United  States  has  been  working  on  a  stra- 
tegic arms  limitation  agreement  for  three  or 
four  years.  I  think  we  made  headway  in 
SALT  One.  I  think  we  have  made  a  real 
breakthrough  in  SALT  Two. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  I  ivould  like  to  get  back 
to  the  cost  of  missiles  for  one  moment,  if  we 
may.  I  understand  ive  are  now  spending 
about  $15  billion  a  year  in  strategic  arms, 


December  23,    1974 


863 


and  there  is  an  ei/onnoiis  amount  of  missile 
building  to  be  done  under  this  agreemeyit 
over  the  next  10  years,  both  in  MIRV's  and 
in  throw  iveight.  Will  our  costs  continue  at 
about  the  level  they  are  now  for  the  next  10 
years,  or  will  it  be  more? 

President  Ford:  My  best  judgment  is  that 
our  strategic  arms  cost  will  hold  relatively 
the  same.  It  will  not  be  substantially  ex- 
panded other  than  for  any  increase  resulting 
from  inflation. 

Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  under  the  agreement  the 
U.S.  tactical  nuclear  iveapons  at  the  forward 
bases  in  Europe  were  not  i)icluded.  Do  you 
expect  that  they  will  be  reduced  or  elim- 
inated tinder  some  future  mutual  balanced 
force  reduction  agreement  with  the  Soviet 
Union? 

President  Ford:  One  of  the  very  significant 
benefits  of  the  agreement  from  Vladivostok 
was  the  fact  we  didn't  have  to  include  in  the 
2,400  or  the  1,320 — either  the  delivery  sys- 
tems or  the  MIRV's — as  far  as  the  forward- 
base  systems  were  concerned. 

I  am  sure  you  know  we  are  involved  in  mu- 
tual balanced  force  reductions  in  Western 
Europe.  When  we  get  closer  to  an  agreement 
there — and  I  hope  we  will ;  we  are  presently 
negotiating  in  Vienna  in  this  area — it  is 
hopeful  that  we  can  make  some  reductions 
both  in  numbers  of  military  personnel  be- 
tween ourselves  and  the  allies  on  the  one 
side  and  the  Warsaw  Pact  nations  and  the 
Soviet  Union  on  the  other,  as  well  as  any 
arms  reductions. 

Q.  Beyond  your  hope,  is  that  a  commitment 
that  you  made  to  the  Soviet  leaders  in  Vladi- 
vostok? 

President  Ford:  No,  we  made  no  agree- 
ment concerning  the  mutual  balanced  force 
reductions.  We  did  agree  to  continue  nego- 
tiations. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  are  you  satisfied  that 
the  Soviets  are  carrying  out  the  spirit  and 
the  letter  of  the  1972  arms  limitation  agree- 
ments ? 


President  Ford:  We  know  of  no  violations, 
either  on  the  part  of  the  Soviet  Union  or  by 
ourselves.  There  have  been  some  allegations 
that  the  Soviet  Union  has  violated  the  SALT 
One  agreement.  We  don't  think  thej'  have. 

There  are,  however,  some  ambiguities. 
When  the  SALT  One  agreement  was  agreed 
to,  there  was  established  a  Standing  Consul- 
tative Commission  made  up  of  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion and  the  United  States.  That  Commission 
can  meet  twice  a  year  to  analyze  any  allega- 
tions as  to  violations  of  SALT  One.  It  is  our 
intention  to  call  for  a  meeting  of  that  group — 
I  think  in  January  of  next  year — to  analyze 
any  of  the  ambiguities  that  have  been  al- 
leged. We  don't  think  there  have  been  any 
violations,  but  I  have  a  responsibility  to  find 
out,  and  we  intend  to  follow  through  under 
the  agreed  procedure  of  the  1972  agreements. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  since  there  is  no  limit 
in  this  agreement  on  throw  iveight,  and  since 
there  is  no  limit  on  multiple  warheads,  and 
since  additio)ial  multiple  warheads  could  be 
put  on  the  bigger  missiles,  more  or  less  ad 
infinitum,  how  can  you  say  that  this  is  a  lid 
or  cap  0)1  the  arms  race? 

President  Ford:  Well,  it  certainly,  number 
one,  puts  a  limit  on  the  delivery  systems — 
2,400 — and  as  I  indicated  at  the  outset,  this 
does  result  in  a  cutback  as  far  as  the  Soviet 
Union  is  concerned. 

The  1,320  limitation  on  MIRV's  does  put  a 
lid  on  the  planned  or  programed  program  for 
ourselves  as  well  as  the  Soviet  Union. 

Now,  the  throw-weight  problem  is  one  that 
we  can  remedy  if  we  want  to.  Our  military 
took  a  dift'erent  point  of  view  some  years 
ago  when  they  designed  our  ballistic  missiles, 
but  we  have  that  flexibility. 

Now,  if  we  decide  to  go  to  a  heavier  throw 
weight,  we  can  add  on  a  MIRV'ed  missile  a 
greater  number  of  individual  warheads.  That 
is  a  choice  of  flexibility  that  we  have,  and  I 
think  it  is  one  of  the  benefits  of  this  agree- 
ment. 

Q.  You  woiddn't  describe  that  as  an  arms 
race  ? 

President  Ford:  Well,  it  is  an  attempt,  if 


864 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


our  military  wanted  to  achieve  an  equality 
in  this  particular  area.  We  have  equality  on 
delivery  systems  and  the  right  to  MIRV 
from  those  delivery  systems.  In  the  other,  if 
it  is  our  choice,  we  can  go  up  in  throw  weight. 
Yes,  Sarah  [Sarah  McLendon,  McLendon 
News  Service]. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  I  tvant  to  ask  you,  ivhat 
about  conventional  weapons?  We  have  heard 
from  Senator  {Barry']  Goldivater,  and  we 
have  heard  from  Admiral  Zumwalt  \_Adm. 
Elmo  R.  Zumivalt,  Jr.,  former  Chief  of  Na- 
val Operations]  that  ive  are  very  iveak  on 
conventional  iveapons  and  ive  need  more  of 
those,  rather  than  the  kind  that  you  have  in 
your  agreement. 

President  Ford:  Well,  of  course,  this  agree- 
ment, Sarah,  was  limited  to  strategic  arms. 
We  hope,  as  I  indicated  a  moment  ago,  to 
continue  our  negotiations  for  the  mutual  bal- 
anced force  reductions  in  Europe.  That,  of 
course,  would  have  a  limit  on  the  conven- 
tional weapons. 

In  the  meantime,  I  think  it  is  of  manda- 
tory importance  for  the  United  States  to 
maintain  its  conventional  capability — the 
Army,  the  Navy,  the  Air  Force,  the  Ma- 
rines— because  the  United  States,  through  a 
responsible  military  program,  can  maintain 
the  peace.  If  we  cut  back  our  defense  in  con- 
ventional weapons,  I  think  we  will  have 
weakened  our  position  for  the  maintenance 
of  peace.  I  don't  intend  to  propose  a  budget 
in  that  regard. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  do  you  think  that  we  can 
do  both  of  these,  then ? 

President  Ford:  I  think  so. 

Q.  To  follotv  up  on  Frank  Cormier's  ques- 
tion, did  you  and  Mr.  Brezhnev  discuss  some 
kind  of  a  trade-off  ivhereby  Israel  woidd  deal 
with  the  PLO  and  the  PLO  woidd  recognize 
Israel's  right  to  exist  as  a  state? 

President  Ford:  We  didn't  get  into  that 
detail.  Israel  has  indicated  that  it  would  not 
negotiate  with  the  PLO.  We  have  no  way  of 
forcing  them  to  do  so. 

The  discussion  between  Mr.  Brezhnev  and 


myself,  as  far  as  the  Middle  East  was  con- 
cerned, was  to  state  our  position  and  their 
position;  and  as  we  discussed  it,  I  think  we 
came  to  a  higher  degree  of  agreement  in 
that  our  position  was  understood  by  them 
and  the  prospect  of  a  Geneva  agreement  was 
understood  by  us. 

Q.  /  understand  you  tvould  like  to  devote 
about  half  of  the  news  confereyice  to  domes- 
tic affairs,  and  I  think  we  are  about  at  the 
halfway  point. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  this  question  perhaps 
goes  back  to  the  earlier  part  of  the  neivs 
conference,  but  it  has  an  economic  impact — 
and  that  is  how  much  it  ivill  cost  to  reach  the 
ceiling  ivhich  you  negotiated  tvith  Mr.  Brezh- 
nev, and  ivhen  do  you  expect  that  the  United 
States  ivill  reach  this  ceiling? 

President  Ford:  As  I  indicated  in  answer 
to  an  earlier  question,  I  think  we  must  con- 
tinue our  present  strategic  research  develop- 
ment, deployment,  maintenance  programs. 
And  we  are  going  to  move  into  the  present 
program  some  additional  new  weapons  sys- 
tems—the B-1  aircraft,  the  Trident  sub- 
marine. The  net  result  is  that  costs  will 
probably  go  up  as  we  phase  out  some  and 
phase  in  some  and  phase  out  others.  Now, 
the  total  annual  cost  will  be  relatively  the 
same  plus  the  co.st  of  inflation. 

Q.  Is  it  $18  billion? 

President  Ford:    It  is  in  that  ball  park. 

Q.  And  for  hotv  many  years  do  you  ex- 
pect this  to  continue,  Mr.  President? 

President  Ford:  Until  we  are  able  to  ne- 
gotiate a  reduction  below  the  2,400  delivei-y 
systems  and  the  1,320  MIRV  systems. 

Q.  To  follow  up  the  qtiestion  that  is  reach- 
ing but  is  still  in  the  economic  ball  park, 
if  the  ceiling  works,  will  there  ever  be  a 
saving,  an  actual  saving,  in  expenditures 
for  strategic  iveapons? 

President  Ford:  Very,  very  definitely,  and 
that   is   the   fundamental   question  that  we 


December  23,   1974 


865 


have  answered.  If  there  had  been  no  ceiling 
of  2,400  on  launchers  and  1.320  on  MIRV's, 
we  would  have  had  an  arms  race.  The 
Soviet  Union  had  plans  and  programs,  we 
believe,  to  substantiallj'  increase  the  number 
of  launchers  and  to  substantially  go  beyond 
1,320  on  the  MIRV's. 

And  we  have  the  capability.  And,  I  think, 
if  there  had  been  an  arms  race  with  the 
Soviet  Union  going  higher  and  higher  and 
higher,  we  as  a  nation,  for  our  own  security, 
would  have  been  forced  to  do  precisely  the 
same. 

So,  Mr.   Brezhnev  and  I  agreed  that  w'e 


first  had  to  cap  the  arms  race,  both  in 
launchers  and  in  MIRV's.  We  have  done 
that,  and  I  wish  to  compliment  Mr.  Brezhnev 
because  his  opening  statement,  if  I  can  para- 
phrase it,  was  that  he  and  I,  his  country  and 
ours,  had  an  obligation  to  not  indulge  in 
an  arms  race,  to  put  a  cap  on  the  proposed 
expenditures  in  both  categories. 

It  was  a  statesmanlike  approach  at  the  out- 
set, and  because  he  believed  that  and  be- 
cause I  believe  it,  I  think  we  made  substan- 
tial progress,  and  I  strongly  defend  what 
we  did. 

Tlie  press:  Thank  you,  Mr.  President. 


President  Ford  Visits  Japan,  the  Republic  of  Korea,  and  the  Soviet   Union 


President  Ford  made  a  state  visit  to  Japan 
November  18-22,  visited  Korea  November 
22-23,  and  met  with  Leonid  I.  Brezhnev, 
General  Secretary  of  the  Commuttist  Party 
of  the  Soviet  Union,  at  Vladivostok  Novem- 
ber 23-2U.  Folloiving  are  remarks  and  toasts 
by  President  Ford  during  the  trip  and  the 
texts  of  joint  communiques  issued  at  Tokyo 
and  Seoid,  a  joint  U.S.-Soviet  statement  on 
limitation  of  strategic  offensive  arms  issued, 
at  Vladivostok,  and  a  joint  U.S.-Soviet  com- 
munique signed  at  Vladivostok. 


DEPARTURE   REMARKS,   THE  WHITE   HOUSE, 
NOVEMBER   17 

white  House  press  release  dated   November    17 

Let  me  just  say  a  word  or  two,  and  at 
the  outset  thank  all  of  my  friends  for  coming 
out  to  see  us  off. 

I  think  this  trip  has  great  significance, 
both  as  to  timing  and  as  to  substance.  We 
all  live  in  an  interrelated  world;  no  longer 
can  we,  in  the  United  States,  think  in  the 
terms  of  isolationism.  What  we  do  overseas 
has  great  significance  for  some  of  the  prob- 
lems that  we  have  here  at  home. 


This,  I  think,  can  be  defined  as  a  quest 
for  peace,  to  broaden  it,  to  strengthen  it ; 
and  as  I  said  in  Arizona  earlier  this  week,  I 
would  rather  travel  1,000  miles  for  peace 
than  take  a  single  step  for  war. 

We  are  visiting  three  great  countries.  The 
first  is  Japan,  the  first  visit  of  an  American 
President,  a  state  visit,  to  that  great  coun- 
try. We  have  a  special  relationship  with 
Japan,  and  although  we  are  separated  by  the 
broadest  of  oceans,  we  have  the  closest  of 
friendships. 

We  also  will  be  stopping  in  the  Republic 
of  Korea,  a  courageous  and  brave  ally,  an 
ally  that  joins  with  us  in  preserving  peace 
in  that  part  of  the  world. 

The  trip  to  the  Soviet  Union  has  special 
significance.  There  has  been  a  tremendous 
efl'oi't  over  the  years  to  broaden  an  effort  of 
peace  throughout  the  world,  and  I  look  for- 
ward to  participating  in  the  ever-increasing 
strengthening  of  our  ties  with  the  Soviet 
Union. 

I  go  with  optimism.  I  think  we,  as  Ameri- 
cans, can  be  optimistic  about  the  progress 
that  has  been  made  and  will  be  made.  I  go 
with  a  dedication  of  service  to  my  fellow 
Americans  and  a  pride  in  our  great  country. 

Thank  you  very,  very  much. 


866 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


THE  VISIT  TO   JAPAN 

Toast  at  Luncheon  Given  by  Kakuel  Tanaka, 
Prime  Minister  of  Japan,  Tokyo,  November  19 

White  House  press  release   (Tokyo)    dated  November   19 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  Excellencies,  gentle- 
men :  The  reception  that  I  received  upon 
arriving  in  Japan  and  the  warm  reception 
received  during  the  day  today  is  further  proof 
of  the  great  hospitality  that  the  Japanese 
people  have  for  the  Americans. 

This  very  kind  and  gracious  hospitality — 
the  warm  reception — is  typical  of  the  attitude 
of  the  Japanese  Government  and  the  Japa- 
nese people.  When  I  stopped  in  Anchorage 
on  the  way  to  Japan,  the  last  words  I  said 
to  my  fellow  Americans  were  that  although 
Japan  and  the  United  States  were  separated 
by  the  broadest  of  oceans,  they  were  on  the 
other  hand  the  warmest  of  friends. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  you  spent  many  years 
in  your  Parliament,  and  I  spent  better  than 
25  years  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  I  have  a  great  liking  for  the  Con- 
gress.   I  called  it  my  home  outside  home. 

I  can't  speak  with  any  personal  relation- 
ship to  the  Congress  a  hundred-plus  years 
ago  when  they  were  alleged  to  be  lacking 
in  civilization,  but  I  would  have  to  say  in 
defense  of  the  Congress  today — whether  I 
agree  with  what  they  do  or  not,  they  are 
better  behaved.    [Laughter.] 

Let  me  assure  you,  Mr.  Prime  Minister, 
Mrs.  Ford  deeply  regrets  she  is  not  with  me 
on  this  trip.  She  had  long  looked  forward 
to  visiting  Japan,  meeting  the  Japanese 
people,  and  she  is  terribly  disappointed  that 
it  is  impossible  for  her  to  be  here  on  this 
occasion.  I  spoke  with  her  on  the  telephone 
this  morning.  That  didn't  help  any,  because 
of  her  desire  to  be  here.  But  I  can  say  that 
she  is  here  in  spirit,  if  not  in  person,  and 
she  will  come  on  some  other  occasions. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  the  United  States  is 
a  nation  of  citizens  with  many  backgrounds, 
many  ancestors.  Some  of  our  very  finest 
citizens  have  a  Japanese  ancestry.  We  are 
proud  of  the  tremendous  contributions  that 
they  make  to  a  better  America.  We  are 
proud   of   them    because    of   the   significant 


contributions  they  have  made  to  our  culture, 
to  our  indu.stry,  to  our  trade,  to  our  educa- 
tion, and  to  our  government. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  the  dialogue  that  we 
began  in  Washington  and  which  we  have 
continued  here  in  Tokyo  indicates  that  we 
have  many,  many  basic  ties  and  many  areas 
of  common  purpose.  We  have  many  prob- 
lems, but  the  frank  and  open  discus-sions 
that  we  have  had  and  will  continue  to  have 
involving  areas  of  prosperity  on  a  world- 
wide basis  and  peace  on  a  global  basis  are 
beneficial  to  your  country  and  to  ours  and 
to  the  world  as  a  whole. 

Our  two  countries,  by  working  together, 
can  significantly  contribute  to  world  peace, 
and  we  will.  Our  two  nations,  cooperating 
with  one  another,  can  make  a  significant 
contribution  to  prosperity  in  both  of  our 
countries  and  to  the  world  at  large. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  we  must  discuss  and 
coordinate  our  economic  policies  in  an  era 
of  energy  shortages  and  some  international 
monetary  crises.  We  must  work  together 
in  order  to  produce  and  distribute,  make 
available  the  need  of  mankind  for  food 
throughout  the  world. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  we  must  join  to- 
gether in  helping  those  nations  throughout 
the  world  that  are  less  fortunate  than  we. 
We  have  in  the  past,  and  we  will  expand 
those  eff'orts  in  the  future. 

In  contemplating  these  problems,  the  ex- 
pansion of  peace  and  the  betterment  of  the 
world  economically,  it  is  good  to  know  that 
we  can  discuss  the  issues  and  problems  in  an 
attitude  and  an  atmosphere  of  mutual  under- 
standing in  a  spirit  of  good  will. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  let  us  join  in  a  toast 
which  honors  the  friendship  and  the  collab- 
oration between  our  people  and  our  nations ; 
this  is  a  characterization  of  what  is  good  for 
all  and  in  the  best  interests  of  each.  To 
Japan. 

Toast  at  Banquet  Given  by  the  Emperor, 
The  Imperial  Palace,  Tokyo,  November  19 

white  House  press  release    (Toyko)   dated  November  19 

Your  Majesty:  I  am  honored  to  be  the 
guest  of  Your  Imperial  Majesties,  and  it  is 


December  23,   1974 


867 


with  a  very  deep  sense  of  this  special  moment 
that  I  speak  this  evening. 

The  first  state  visit  of  an  American  Presi- 
dent to  Japan  is  an  occasion  of  very  great 
importance  to  all  of  us.  Your  gracious 
hospitality  symbolically  honors  the  213  mil- 
lion Americans  that  I  have  the  honor  to 
represent.  I  can  reassure  Japan  that  the 
United  States  is  determined  to  perpetuate  the 
unique  ties  that  link  our  two  nations  for 
the  common  good. 

Though  separated  by  the  broadest  of 
oceans,  Your  Majesty,  we  have  achieved  be- 
tween our  two  nations  the  closest  of  friend- 
ships. Our  relationship  transcends  that  of 
governments  and  heads  of  states.  Each  year 
the  ties  binding  Americans  with  Japanese 
increase:  trade,  science,  culture,  spoi'ts,  and 
many  other  areas,  including  cherished  per- 
sonal contact  between  individuals. 

We  share  a  common  devotion  to  moral 
and  to  spiritual  strength.  Our  paths  are  not 
always  identical,  but  they  all  lead  in  the 
same  direction — that  of  world  peace  and 
harmonious  relations  among  mankind. 

Let  us  continue  to  seek  understanding 
with  each  other  and  among  all  peoples,  Your 
Majesty.  Let  us  trade.  Let  us  share  and 
perpetuate  the  prosperity  of  both  nations. 
Let  us  work  together  to  solve  common  prob- 
lems, recognizing  the  interdependence  of  the 
modern  world  in  which  we  all  live. 

America,  I  can  assure  you.  Your  Majesty, 
is  determined  to  do  its  part.  It  is  in  a 
spirit  of  respect,  the  spirit  of  admiration  for 
the  Japanese  nation,  in  dedication  of  our 
continuing  collaboration,  and  with  sincere 
and  deep-felt  confidence  in  the  future,  that 
I  offer  a  toast  to  the  health  and  to  the  well- 
being  of  Your  Imperial  Majesties. 

Address  Before  the  Japan  Press  Club, 
Imperial  Hotel,  Tokyo,  November  20 

White  House  press  release  (Tokyo)  dated  November  20 

As  the  first  American  President  to  visit 
Japan  while  in  office,  I  greet  you  on  this 
unprecedented  occasion.  I  thank  the  Japa- 
nese Press  Club  for  inviting  me  and  the 
National  Television  Network  of  Japan  for 


the  opportunity  to  speak  directly  to  the 
people  of  Japan. 

I  deeply  appreciate  the  excellent  coverage 
of  my  visit  by  the  exceptional  news  media 
of  Japan.  I  have  always  sought  a  good  work- 
ing relationship  with  the  American  journal- 
ists and  have  the  same  feeling  toward  their 
Japanese  colleagues.  It  has  been  my  objec- 
tive at  all  times  to  treat  journalists  and  all 
other  people  in  the  same  manner  that  I  would 
like  to  be  treated. 

I  bring  the  warmest  greetings  of  the 
American  people.  Our  bipartisan  political 
leadership  in  the  American  Congress  sends 
its  very  best  wishes.  The  distinguished  lead- 
ers of  both  of  America's  national  political 
parties  have  asked  me  to  tell  you  of  the  very 
high  value  that  all  Americans  attach  to  our 
partnership  with  Japan. 

It  is  the  American  custom  for  the  Presi- 
dent to  make  a  report  every  year  to  the 
Congress  on  our  state  of  the  Union.  In  the 
same  spirit,  I  thought  the  people  of  Japan 
might  welcome  a  report  on  the  state  of  an- 
other union — the  unity  of  American  and  Jap- 
anese mutual  aspirations  for  friendship  as 
Americans  see  that  relationship. 

In  my  hometown  of  Grand  Rapids,  Michi- 
gan, a  Japanese  company  is  now  assembling 
musical  instruments.  Not  only  are  the  in- 
struments harmonious  in  the  melodies  they 
produce,  but  the  labor-management  relation- 
ship followed  by  the  Japanese  created  a  model 
of  harmony  between  workers  and  business. 

In  a  nearby  community,  Edmore,  another 
Japanese  firm  is  manufacturing  small  elec- 
trical motors.  This  is  yet  another  Japanese 
enterprise  that  has  injected  new  energy,  new 
good  will,  in  our  industrial  life.  There  are 
similar  examples  throughout  America,  and 
we  welcome  them. 

The  time  has  long  passed  when  Americans 
speak  only  of  what  we  contributed  to  your 
society.  Today  traffic  flows  in  both  directions. 
We  are  both  learning  from  each  other. 

To  signify  the  value  the  United  States  at- 
taches to  partnership  with  Japan,  I  chose  this 
to  make  my  first  overseas  trip.  I  also  met  with 
your  Ambassador  to  the  United  States  on  the 
first  day  that  I  assumed  office,  August  9. 


868 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


I  have  long  admired  the  richness  and  the 
diversity  of  Japan's  culture,  the  products  of 
your  industry,  the  ingenuity,  creativity,  and 
the  energy  of  your  people,  your  courage  as 
a  fountain  of  resourcefulness  in  a  troubled 
world. 

My  only  regret  is  that  Mrs.  Ford  could 
not  join  me  on  this  visit  in  respon.se  to  your 
very  kind  invitation.  We  both  hope  that  she 
can  come  at  some  later  date. 

Americans  are  very  proud  of  the  way  that 
we  and  the  Japanese  have  worked  together 
during  the  postwar  period.  We  have  had 
some  disagreements.  But  we  have  remained 
friends  and  we  have  remained  partners.  To- 
gether we  created  conditions  under  which 
both  nations  could  prosper.  Together  we  ex- 
panded our  relations  in  trade  and  travel. 

The  reality  of  America's  economic,  politi- 
cal, and  strategic  interdependence  with  Japan 
is  very  obvious. 

America  is  Japan's  greatest  customer  and 
supplier.  Japan  is  America's  greatest  over- 
seas trading  partner.  Japan  is  the  best  for- 
eign customer  for  America's  agricultural 
products. 

The  total  trade  between  our  two  nations 
has  doubled  since  1970.  It  will  surpass  $20 
billion  in  1974.  American  investments  in 
Japan  are  the  largest  of  any  foreign  state. 
Japan's  investment  in  America  is  growing 
rapidly  and  accounts  for  one-fifth  of  all 
Japanese  investment  abroad. 

The  flow  of  Japanese  visitors  to  the  United 
States  has  grown  from  some  50,000  in  1966 
to  over  700,000  in  1974.  This  is  also  a  two- 
way  street.  Over  350,000  Americans  visited 
Japan  last  year,  accounting  for  nearly  one- 
half  of  all  foreign  visitors. 

Together  we  removed  the  legacies  of  World 
War  II.  The  reversion  of  Okinawa  eliminated 
the  last  vestige  of  that  war  from  our  agenda. 
We  have  made  independent  but  mutually 
compatible  efforts  to  improve  our  relations 
with  the  Soviet  Union  and  the  People's  Re- 
public of  China.  We  have  devised  better 
channels  for  open  consultation.  I  particular- 
ly want  you  to  know  that  I  understand  the 
dangers  of  taking  each  other  for  granted. 

As  we  talk  to  each  other,   we  must  ask 


each  other  what  we  regard  as  the  central 
needs  of  our  times. 

First,  of  course,  is  peace.  Americans  and 
Japanese  know  the  value  of  peace.  We  want 
to  devote  our  resources  and  ourselves  to 
building  things,  not  tearing  them  down.  We 
do  not  want  to  send  our  sons  into  battle 
again. 

The  alliance  between  Japan  and  the  United 
States  has  helped  to  secure  peace  and  can 
continue  to  help  secure  it.  That  alliance  is 
not  directed  against  any  other  country.  It 
does  not  prevent  us  from  improving  our 
relations  with  other  countries. 

Our  alliance  does  not  signify  that  both 
nations  subscribe  fully  to  identical  attitudes 
or  identical  styles.  It  does  signify,  however, 
that  we  clearly  share  a  common  resolve  to 
maintain  stability  in  East  Asia,  to  help  in 
the  development  of  other  countries  that  need 
our  help,  and  to  work  together  to  encourage 
diplomatic  and  political  rather  than  military 
solutions  to  world  problems. 

Our  alliance  was  forged  by  peoples  who 
saw  their  national  interest  in  friendship  and 
in  cooperation.  I  am  confident  that  our  re- 
lations will  remain  solid  and  very  substantial. 
I  pledge  that  we  shall  work  to  make  it  so. 

Peace,  however,  cannot  be  our  sole  con- 
cern. We  have  learned  that  there  are  many 
international  threats  and  dangers  that  can 
aff'ect  the  lives  of  our  citizens.  We  face 
dwindling  supplies  of  raw  materials  and 
food.  We  face  international  economic  prob- 
lems of  great  complexity.  We  must  be  more 
stringent  in  conservation  than  ever  before. 

We  have  worked  together  to  solve  the 
problems  of  the  cold  war.  We  succeeded 
because  we  worked  together.  Now  we  con- 
front these  new  and  even  more  complicated 
problems. 

The  Japanese  reformer  Sakuma  Shozan 
wrote  some  lines  in  1854  that  provide  an 
insight  for  1974.   Sakuma  said,  and  I  quote: 

When  I  was  20,  I  knew  that  men  were  linked  to- 
gether in  one  province;  when  I  was  30,  I  knew  that 
they  were  linked  together  in  one  nation;  when  I  was 
40,  I  knew  they  were  linked  together  in  one  world  of 
five  continents. 

Now,  120  years  later,  the  links  between 


December  23,   1974 


869 


nations  are  closer  than  ever.  Modern  tech- 
nology has  made  the  world  one.  What  each- 
man  or  each  nation  does,  or  fails  to  do,  affects 
every  other. 

Some  Americans  wondered  why  I  decided 
to  accept  your  invitation  to  come  to  Japan 
at  a  time  when  we  have  unsolved  problems 
at  home.  I  replied  to  those  Americans  that 
many  of  the  problems  we  have  at  home  are 
not  just  American  problems  but  the  problems 
of  the  world  as  a  whole.  Like  others,  we 
suffer  from  inflation.  Like  others,  we  face 
recession.  Like  others,  we  have  to  deal  with 
rising  prices  and  potential  shortages  of  fuels 
and  raw  materials.  America  cannot  solve 
those  problems  alone.  Nations  can  only  solve 
those  problems  by  working  together. 

Just  as  we  worked  together  to  maintain 
peace,  we  can  work  together  to  solve  to- 
morrow's problems. 

Our  two  nations  provide  the  world  with 
a  model  of  what  can  be  achieved  by  inter- 
national cooperation.  We  can  also  provide 
a  model  for  dealing  with  the  new  difficulties. 
We  both  have  great  technological  skills  and 
human  resources,  great  energy,  and  great 
imagination. 

We  both  acknowledge  the  responsibility  to 
developing  states.  We  envisage  the  orderly 
and  peaceful  sharing  of  essential  national 
resources.  We  can  work  together  to  meet  the 
global  economic  issues. 

We  believe  that  we  are  not  just  temporary 
allies.  We  are  permanent  friends. 

We  share  the  same  goals — peace,  develop- 
ment, stability,  and  prosperity.  These  are 
not  only  praiseworthy  and  essential  goals 
but  common  goals. 

The  problems  of  peace  and  economic  well- 
being  are  inextricably  linked.  We  believe 
peace  cannot  exist  without  prosperity,  pros- 
perity cannot  exist  without  peace,  and  neither 
can  exist  if  the  great  states  of  the  world  do 
not  work  together  to  achieve  it.  We  owe 
this  to  ourselves,  to  each  other,  and  to  all 
of  the  Japanese  and  the  American  peoples. 

America  and  Japan  share  the  same  na- 
tional  pastime — baseball.    In  the  game   of 


baseball,  two  teams  compete.  But  neither  can 
play  without  the  other  nor  without  common 
respect  for  each  other  and  for  the  rules  of 
the  game. 

I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  giving  you  my 
views  on  the  world  we  live  in.  Now  let  me 
tell  you,  the  Japanese  people,  a  little  bit 
about  the  American  people.  The  American 
people  have  faced  some  difficult  times  in  our 
history.  They  know  they  will  face  others  in 
the  future.  Their  burdens  are  enormous, 
both  at  home  and  abroad.  Some  observers, 
including  American  observers,  say  that 
Americans  have  lost  their  confidence,  their 
sense  of  responsibility,  and  their  creativity. 
It  is  not  true. 

I  have  traveled  over  much  of  my  country 
during  the  past  year.  Each  time,  I  return 
to  Washington  refreshed.  Our  people  are 
determined  and  realistic.  Our  people  ai"e 
vigorous.  They  are  solving  their  problems 
in  countless  towns  and  cities  across  the 
country.  They  continue  to  understand  that 
history  has  placed  great  responsibilities  on 
American  shoulders.  Americans  are  ready 
and  willing  to  play  their  part  with  the  same 
strength  and  the  same  will  that  they  have 
always  shown  in  the  past. 

Americans  also  know  that  no  nation,  how- 
ever strong,  can  hope  to  dictate  the  course 
of  history  by  it.self .  But  the  ability  to  under- 
stand the  basic  issue,  to  define  our  national 
interest,  and  to  make  common  cause  with 
others  to  achieve  common  purposes  makes  it 
possible  to  influence  events.  And  Americans 
are  determined  to  do  that  for  constructive 
purposes  and  in  the  true  spirit  of  inter- 
dependence. 

In  that  spirit,  let  me  make  a  pledge  to 
you  today.  As  we  face  the  problems  of  the 
future,  the  United  States  will  remain  faith- 
ful in  our  commitments  and  firm  in  the 
pursuit  of  our  common  goals.  We  intend 
not  only  to  remain  a  trustworthy  ally  but  a 
reliable  trading  partner. 

We  will  continue  to  be  suppliers  of  goods 
you  need.  If  shortages  occur,  we  will  take 
special  account  of  the  needs  of  our  traditional 


870 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


trading  partners.  We  will  not  compete  with 
our  friends  for  their  markets  or  for  their 
resources. 

We  want  to  work  with  them. 

The  basic  concepts  of  our  foreign  policy 
remain  unchanged.  Those  concepts  have  a 
solid  bipartisan  and  popular  support.  The 
American  people  remain  strong,  confident, 
and  faithful.  We  may  sometimes  falter,  but 
we  will  not  fail. 

Let  me,  if  I  might,  end  on  a  personal  note. 
It  is  a  privilege  to  be  the  first  American 
President  to  visit  Japan  while  in  office.  It 
is  also  a  very  great  pleasure.  I  look  forward 
to  seeing  Kyoto,  the  ancient  capital  of  Japan. 

Japan  has  preserved  her  cultural  integrity 
in  the  face  of  rapid  modernization.  I  have 
never  believed  all  change  is  neces.sarily  good. 
We  must  try  to  apply  the  enduring  values 
of  the  past  to  the  challenges  and  to  the 
pressures  of  our  times.  Americans  can  learn 
from  Japan  to  respect  traditions  even  as  wo, 
like  you,  plunge  ahead  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  20th  century. 

I  also  look  forward  to  another  deep  priv- 
ilege. Yesterday  during  my  call  upon  His 
Imperial  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Japan,  I 
renewed  our  invitation  for  the  Emperor  to 
visit  the  United  States.  It  would  be  a  great 
pleasure  to  be  the  first  American  President 
to  welcome  the  Emperor  of  Japan  to  Wash- 
ington and  to  show  His  Imperial  Majesty 
our  national  shrines  and  treasures,  including 
the  graceful  Japanese  cherry  trees  whose 
blossoms  provide  a  setting  for  the  monu- 
ments to  the  great  heroes  of  our  own  past. 

I  hope  that  my  visit  shall  be  the  first  of 
many  by  American  Presidents.  I  hope  that 
the  leaders  of  our  two  countries  will  follow 
the  example  that  our  peoples  have  already 
set,  to  visit  each  other  frequently  and  freely 
as  our  nations  move  together  to  deal  with 
the  many  common  problems  and  concerns 
that  will  affect  the  lives  of  all  our  citizens 
and  all  humanity. 

I  said  in  my  first  Presidential  address  to 
the  Congress  that  my  administration  was 
based  on  communication,  conciliation,  com- 


promise, and  cooperation.  This  concept  also 
guides  my  view  of  American  policy  toward 
Japan. 

We  both  have  much  work  to  do.  Let  us  do 
it  together.  Let  us  also  continue  the  quest 
for  peace.  I  would  rather  walk  a  thousand 
miles  for  peace  than  take  a  single  step 
toward  war. 

Toast  at  Reception  Given  by  Japanese  Diet, 
Hotel  Okura,  Tokyo,  November  20 

White  House  press  release  (Tokyo)  dated  November  20 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  deeply  grateful  for 
the  very  kind  remarks  and  the  toast  given 
to  me  and  to  my  country.  It  is  very  signifi- 
cant that  I  have  an  opportunity  of  joining 
with  the  members  of  your  Diet. 

I  am  sure  all  of  you  have  recognized  that 
I  spent  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  my  political 
life  as  a  member  of  our  legislative  body,  the 
House  of  Representatives — or  your  Parlia- 
ment. 

This  was  a  great  experience  for  me.  I 
think  it  is  quite  significant  in  addition  that 
the  first  American  President  who  visited 
your  great  country  was  an  individual  who 
had  spent  some  time  in  the  Parliament  or 
the  Legislature,  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, and  the  United  States  Senate,  as  Vice 
President. 

This,  in  my  judgment,  gives  a  President 
a  broader  perspective  of  the  problems,  of 
the  solutions.  It  has  always  been  my  feeling 
that  a  person  who  has  served  in  a  Parliament 
or  in  a  legislative  body  is  extremely  well 
qualified  to  understand  the  views  of  the 
people  of  a  country,  a  person  who  is  well 
qualified  to  seek  a  consensus  or  a  solution  to 
the  problems,  whether  they  be  at  home  or 
abroad. 

One  of  my  very  top  staff  members,  a 
number  of  years  ago,  Mr.  [Donald]  Rums- 
feld, initiated  with  members  from  your 
Parliament  an  exchange  between  Japanese 
parliamentarians  and  legislators  from  our 
Congress.  It  is  my  judgment  that  this  ex- 
change is  a   very,   very  important   way   of 


December  23,    1974 


871 


building  a  constructive  relationship  between 
your  country  and  our  country. 

I  was  never  privileged  to  participate  in 
the    Japanese-American    interparliamentary 
group,  or  exchange  group,  as  I  understand 
it  is  called.    I  did  have  an  opportunity  as  a 
Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives — 
our  Congress — to  be  a  member  of  the  Inter- 
parliamentary Union  delegation  on  three  or 
four  occasions.    And  I  found  this  exchange 
between  parliamentarians   of   great  benefit, 
a  tremendous  asset,  and   I  hope  and  trust 
that  in  the  years  ahead  this  exchange  be- 
tween members  of  parliamentary  groups  will 
broaden,  will  be  more  extensive— it  will  be 
very  helpful  to  each  country,  to  all  countries. 
Let   me    conclude   by    saying   that    I    am 
honored  to  be  among  a  group  that  I  grew 
up  with  in  politics  in  my  country.    I  under- 
stand your  problems ;  I  understand  each  and 
every   one    of   you.     I    was    always    in   the 
minority  in  our  Congress.   We  always  were 
trying  to  challenge  the  majority.    We  had 
many  dift'erences,  but  I  have  found  that  in 
the  differences  in  a  parliamentary  group  in 
our  country— and  I  believe  in  yours— that 
you  can  disagree  without  being  disagreeable, 
which  in  my  opinion  is  a  true  test  of  the 
strength  and  the  character  of  a  parliamen- 
tary body. 

The  discussions  that  I  have  had  with  your 
government  have  been  constructive  in  seek- 
ing to  solve  problems— domestic,  interna- 
tional. 

The  great  opportunity  that  I  had  to  meet 
with  your  Emperor  and  Empress,  His  Maj- 
esty and  Her  Majesty— it  has  been  a  great 
experience  for  me,  and  I  thank  them  and 
the  people  of  Japan  for  being  so  warm  in 
their  welcome.  I  will  report  to  my  people 
in  the  United  States  that  they  have  great 
friends  in  Japan,  that  our  governments  are 
working  together  to  seek  solutions  to  the 
problems  on  a  worldwide  basis  and  between 
us,  as  two  governments. 

We  are  friends,  we  will  work  together, 
and  we  have  a  great  future— the  United 
States  with  the  Government  of  Japan.    And 


it  is  therefore  my  privilege  and  honor  to 
offer  a  toast  to  your  government  and  to 
your  people  on  behalf  of  my  government  and 
the  American  people. 

Toast  at  Reception  by  Nongovernmental 
Organizations  '  Hotel  Okura,  November  20 

White  House  iness  release  (Tokyo)  dated  November  20 

It  is  a  very  high  honor  and  a  very  rare 
privilege  for  me  to  have  the  opportunity  of 
joining  with  all  of  you  on  this  occasion. 

The  trip  by  me  as  the  first  American 
President  in  office  coming  to  Japan  has  been 
a  memorable  one,  one  that  I  shall  never  for- 
get. The  opportunity  to  meet  with  Their 
Majesties,  the  opportunity  to  meet  with  your 
high  government  officials,  the  opportunity  to 
share  some  thoughts  with  the  members  of  the 
Diet,  the  opportunity  to  have  a  governmental 
exchange  at  the  highest  level  is  of  course 
of  great  significance. 

It  has  been  my  experience  in  25  years  of 
political  life,  when  I  served  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  to  work  hand-in-glove 
with  other  members  of  the  legislative  branch 
and  of  course,  in  later  years  as  a  member 
of  the  leadership,  to  work  with  the  legisla- 
tive and  executive  branch. 

And,  of  course,  in  the  last  13  or  so  months, 
I  have  had  the  opportunity  of  serving  in  two 
offices  in  the  executive  branch. 

I  have  learned,  over  a  period  of  26  years 
serving  in  the  Federal  Government,  that  all 
wisdom,  all  support  for  policies,  doesn't  nec- 
essarily come  from  government,  but  primar- 
ily from  people  in  nongovernmental  organi- 
zations and  individuals  who  are  not  directly 
connected  with  government  itself. 

And  as  I  understand  it,  this  group  here 
on  this  occasion  is  a  nongovernmental  group 
of  Japanese  and  Americans  who  have  spent 
a  great  deal  of  your  time  working  together 
in  a  nongovernmental  capacity  to  support 
a  greater  unity  between  our  country,  the 
United  States,  and  your  country,  Japan. 


'  Given   by   the   .\merica-Japan    Society,   Inc.,   and 
the  Japan-U.S.  Economic  Council. 


872 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


I  compliment  you,  and  I  thank  you.  Your 
contribution  is  of  tremendous  significance. 
Governments  themselves  can't  do  it. 

Decisions  can  be  made  at  the  government 
level,  and  in  our  society  that  is  essential. 
But  if  those  decisions  are  not  supported,  if 
those  decisions  are  not  explained  by  people 
in  positions  of  responsibility  in  nongovern- 
mental areas,  it  is  impossible  for  those  deci- 
sions to  be  successful. 

I  learned  that  early  in  my  career  in  poli- 
tics. I  always  could  be  more  successful  in 
working  to  find  a  solution  if  I  had  the  sup- 
port not  only  among  politicians  but  by  those 
people,  whether  they  were  in  management, 
in  labor,  in  education,  in  local  government. 
So  I  am  deeply  grateful  for  what  you  have 
done  in  the  past,  and  I  strongly  urge  that 
you  continue  these  efforts  in  the  future, 
because  the  Japanese  Government  and  the 
United  States  Government,  after  the  two 
days  of  talks  we  have  had,  yesterday  and 
today,  are  embarking  on  a  stronger  unity, 
a  stronger  program  of  helping  both  in  the 
maintenance  of  peace  and  the  stimulation  of 
prosperity.  And  this  is  what  we  want  in 
Japan  and  in  America  and  what  we  want  for 
the  rest  of  the  world. 

And  so  what  you  do  is  of  tremendous  sig- 
nificance. What  you  do  in  explaining  to  the 
thousands  of  Americans  who  are  here  in 
Japan,  what  the  Japanese  who  are  here  can 
do  to  explain  to  the  millions  of  Japanese, 
will  not  only  be  better  for  Japan  and  the 
United  States  but  will  be  better  for  the 
world. 

And  I  congratulate  you,  I  thank  you,  and 
I  wish  you  well.  And  may  I  offer  a  toast  at 
this  point  to  the  Government  of  Japan  and 
the  millions  and  millions  of  Japanese. 

Toast  at  Dinner  in  Honor  of  the  Emperor, 
State  Guest  House,  Tokyo,  November  20 

white  House  press  release  (Tokyo)  dated  November  20 

Your  Majesties :  I  am  honored  to  have 
the  privilege  of  welcoming  Your  Imperial 
Majesties   to   this   dinner    this   evening.     It 


permits  me  to,  in  a  small  way,  in  a  symbolic 
gesture,  to  reciprocate  the  wonderful  hos- 
pitality so  graciously  extended  to  me  this 
week. 

It  has  been  a  period  of  enlightenment  for 
me,  and  I  will  take  home  an  inspiring  im- 
pression of  the  possibilities  available  for  an 
even  greater  friendship,  greater  cooperation 
and  interdependence  of  our  two  nations. 

America  is  now  approaching  its  national 
bicentennial.  Tonight  I  would  like  to  recall 
another  meaningful  event  114  years  ago, 
on  May  14,  1860.  That  was  the  day  when 
the  first  diplomatic  mission  ever  sent  by 
Japan  to  another  nation  arrived  in  Washing- 
ton, D.C.,  our  national  capital. 

I  am  very  pleased.  Your  Majesties,  to  pre- 
sent on  this  evening  to  all  of  our  distin- 
guished guests  a  token  of  the  durability  of 
American-Japanese  friendship.  It  is  a  medal 
bearing  the  likeness  of  President  Buchanan, 
who  had  the  honor  of  welcoming  the  Japa- 
nese delegation  to  the  historic  East  Room 
of  the  White  House.  Since  that  occasion,  the 
American  Government  has  never  ceased  to 
look  to  the  East  as  well  as  to  the  West. 

Our  visitors  then  regarded  us  as  Ameri- 
cans, as  strange  creatures  and  observed  us 
in  every  detail.  It  was  with  equal  fascina- 
tion that  we  viewed  our  Japanese  visitors. 
We  learned  from  each  other  then,  and  I  and 
we  are  continuing  to  learn  today. 

The  most  important  lesson  that  I  have 
learned  during  this  visit  corresponds  with 
a  brilliant  insight  of  one  of  the  Japanese 
envoys  on  the  first  mission  to  the  United 
States.  The  occasion  was  a  visit  to  the  New 
York  home  of  the  widow  of  Commodore 
Perry.  The  Japanese  envoy  expressed  a  very 
deep  emotion  at  the  realization  that  he  was 
in  the  home  of  Commodore  Perry  and  said — 
and  I  quote :  "The  time  has  come  when  no  na- 
tion may  remain  isolated  and  refuse  to  take 
part  in  the  affairs  of  the  rest  of  the  world." 

That  concept  is  even  more  compelling  to- 
day. The  links  between  our  two  nations  can 
serve  as  a  model  for  a  world  increasingly 


December  23,   1974 


873 


aware  of  the  need  for  greater  international 
cooperation. 

Accordingly,  in  recalling  that  first  Japa- 
nese delegation  to  Washington,  I  pledge  that 
my  government  will  not  isolate  itself  from 
the  world  or  from  Japan. 

On  behalf  of  the  nation  that  I  am  privi- 
leged to  represent,  to  lead,  I  reaffirm  the 
spirit  of  friendship  that  endures  between  us. 
I  reaffirm  my  determination  to  see  that  warm 
relationship   continues  and  grows. 

Your  Majesties,  in  that  spirit  and  with  a 
heart  filled  with  faith  in  the  future  and  ap- 
preciation for  our  guests,  I  off"er  a  toast  to 
the  health  and  to  the  well-being  of  Your 
Imperial  Majesties. 

Joint  Communique  Issued  at  Tokyo  November  20 

Joint  Communique  Between  President  Gerald  R. 
Ford  and  Prime  Minister  Kakuei  Tanaka 

I 

President  Ford  of  the  United  States  of  America 
paid  an  official  visit  to  Japan  between  November  18 
and  22  at  the  invitation  of  the  Government  of  Japan. 
President  Ford  met  Their  Majesties  the  Emperor 
and  Empress  of  Japan  at  the  Imperial  Palace  on  No- 
vember 19. 

II 

In  discussions  held  on  November  19  and  20,  Presi- 
dent Ford  and  Prime  Minister  Tanaka  agreed  on  the 
following  common  purposes  underlying  future  rela- 
tions between  the  United  States  and  Japan. 

1.  The  United  States  and  Japan,  Pacific  nations 
sharing  many  political  and  economic  interests,  have 
developed  a  close  and  mutually  beneficial  relation- 
ship based  on  the  principle  of  equality.  Their  friend- 
ship and  cooperation  are  founded  upon  a  common  de- 
termination to  maintain  political  systems  respecting 
individual  freedom  and  fundamental  human  rights 
as  well  as  market  economies  which  enhance  the  scope 
for  creativity  and  the  prospect  of  assuring  the  well- 
being  of  their  peoples. 

2.  Dedicated  to  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  the 
evolution  of  a  stable  international  order  reflecting 
the  high  purposes  and  principles  of  the  Charter  of 
the  United  Nations,  the  United  States  and  Japan 
will  continue  to  encourage  the  development  of  con- 
ditions in  the  Asia-Pacific  area  which  will  facilitate 
peaceful  settlement  of  outstanding  issues  by  the  par- 
ties most  concerned,  reduce  international  tensions, 
promote  the  sustained  and  orderly  growth  of  devel- 
oping countries,  and  encourage  constructive  relation- 


ships among  countries  in  the  area.  Each  country  will 
contribute  to  this  task  in  the  light  of  its  own  respon- 
sibilities and  capabilities.  Both  countries  recognize 
that  cooperative  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  Japan  under  the  Treaty  of  Mutual  Cooperation 
and  Security  constitute  an  important  and  durable 
element  in  the  evolution  of  the  international  situa- 
tion in  Asia  and  will  continue  to  plan  an  effective 
and  meaningful  role  in  promoting  peace  and  stabil- 
ity in  that  area. 

.3.  The  United  States  and  Japan  recognize  the 
need  for  dedicated  efforts  by  all  countries  to  pursue 
additional  arms  limitation  and  arms  reduction  meas- 
ures, in  particular  controls  over  nuclear  armaments, 
and  to  prevent  the  further  spread  of  nuclear  weap- 
ons or  other  nuclear  explosive  devices  while  facili- 
tating the  expanded  use  of  nuclear  energy  for  peace- 
ful purposes.  Both  countries  underline  the  high 
responsibility  of  all  nuclear-weapon  states  in  such 
efforts,  and  note  the  importance  of  protecting  non- 
nuclear-weapon  states  against  nuclear  threats. 

4.  The  United  States  and  Japan  recognize  the  re- 
markable range  of  their  interdependence  and  the 
need  for  coordinated  responses  to  new  problems  con- 
fronting the  international  community.  They  will  in- 
tensify efforts  to  promote  close  cooperation  among 
industrialized  democracies  while  striving  steadily  to 
encourage  a  further  relaxation  of  tensions  in  the 
world  through  dialogue  and  exchanges  with  coun- 
tries of  different  social  systems. 

5.  In  view  of  the  growing  interdependence  of  all 
countries  and  present  global  economic  difficulties,  it 
is  becoming  increasingly  important  to  strengthen  in- 
ternational economic  cooperation.  The  United  States 
and  Japan  recognize  the  necessity  of  the  construc- 
tive use  of  their  human  and  material  resources  to 
bring  about  solutions  to  major  economic  problems. 
The  establishment  of  an  open  and  harmonious  world 
economic  system  is  indispensable  for  international 
peace  and  prosperity  and  a  primary  goal  of  both  na- 
tions. The  United  States  and  Japan  will,  to  this  end, 
continue  to  promote  close  economic  and  trade  rela- 
tions between  the  two  countries  and  participate  con- 
structively in  international  efforts  to  ensure  a  con- 
tinuing expansion  of  world  trade  through  negotia- 
tions to  reduce  tariff  and  other  trade  distortions  and 
to  create  a  stable  and  balanced  international  mone- 
tary order.  Both  countries  will  remain  committed  to 
their  international  pledges  to  avoid  actions  which  ad- 
versely affect  the  economies  of  other  nations. 

6.  The  United  States  and  Japan  recognize  the  need 
for  a  more  efficient  and  rational  utilization  and  dis- 
tribution of  world  resources.  Realizing  the  impor- 
tance of  stable  supplies  of  energy  at  reasonable 
prices  they  will  seek,  in  a  manner  suitable  to  their 
economies,  to  expand  and  diversify  energy  supplies, 
develop  new  energy  sources,  and  conserve  on  the  use 
of  scarce  fuels.  They  both  attach  great  importance 


874 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


to  enhancing  cooperation  among  consuming  coun- 
tries and  they  intend,  in  concert  with  other  nations, 
to  pursue  harmonious  relations  with  producing  na- 
tions. Doth  countries  agree  that  further  interna- 
tional cooperative  efforts  are  necessary  to  forestall 
an  economic  and  financial  crisis  and  to  lead  to  a  new 
era  of  creativity  and  common  progress.  Recognizing 
the  urgency  of  the  world  food  problem  and  the  need 
for  an  international  framework  to  ensure  stable  food 
supplies,  the  United  States  and  Japan  will  partici- 
pate constructively  in  multilateral  efforts  to  seek 
ways  to  strengthen  assistance  to  developing  coun- 
tries in  the  field  of  agriculture,  to  improve  the  sup- 
ply situation  of  agricultural  products,  and  to  assure 
an  adequate  level  of  food  reserves.  They  recognize 
the  need  for  cooperation  among  food  producers  and 
consumers  to  deal  with  shortage  situations. 

7.  For  the  well-being  of  the  peoples  of  the  world, 
a  steady  improvement  in  the  technological  and  eco- 
nomic capabilities  of  developing  countries  must  be  a 
matter  of  common  concern  to  all  nations.  In  recogni- 
tion of  the  importance  of  assisting  developing  coun- 
tries, particularly  those  without  significant  natural 
resources,  the  United  States  and  Japan  will,  individu- 
ally and  with  the  participation  and  support  of  other 
traditional  aid-donors  and  those  newly  able  to  as- 
sist, maintain  and  expand  programs  of  cooperation 
through  assistance  and  trade  as  those  nations  seek 
to  achieve  sound  and  orderly  growth. 

8.  The  United  States  and  Japan  face  many  new 
challenges  common  to  mankind  as  they  endeavor  to 
preserve  the  natural  environment  and  to  open  new 
areas  for  exploration  such  as  space  and  the  oceans. 
In  broad  cooperation  with  other  countries,  they  will 
promote  research  and  facilitate  the  exchange  of  in- 
formation in  such  fields  as  science,  technology  and 
environmental  protection,  in  an  effort  to  meet  the 
needs  of  modern  society,  improve  the  quality  of  life 
and  attain  more  balanced  economic  growth. 

9.  The  United  States  and  Japan  recognize  that 
their  durable  friendship  has  been  based  upon  the  con- 
tinued development  of  mutual  understanding  and 
enhanced  communication  between  their  peoples,  at 
many  levels  and  in  many  aspects  of  their  lives.  They 
will  seek  therefore  to  expand  further-  cultural  and 
educational  interchange  which  fosters  and  serves  to 
increase  such  understanding. 

10.  In  the  spirit  of  friendship  and  mutual  trust, 
the  United  States  and  Japan  are  determined  to  keep 
each  other  fully  informed  and  to  strengthen  the 
practice  of  frank  and  timely  consultations  on  poten- 
tial bilateral  issues  and  pressing  global  problems  of 
common  concern. 

11.  Friendly  and  cooperative  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  Japan  have  grown  and  deepened 
over  the  years  in  many  diverse  fields  of  human  en- 
deavor. Both  countries  reaffirm  that,  in  their  totality, 
these  varied  relationships  constitute  major  founda- 


tion stones  on  which  the  two  countries  base  their  re- 
spective foreign  policies  and  form  an  indispensable 
element  supporting  stable  international  political  and 
economic  relations. 

Ill 

This  first  visit  to  Japan  by  an  incumbent  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  of  America  will  add  a  new 
page  to  the  history  of  amity  between  the  two  coun- 
tries. 


THE  VISIT  TO  THE   REPUBLIC   OF  KOREA 

Arrival,  KImpo  International  Airport, 
Seoul,  November  22 

White  House  press  release  (Seoul)  dated  November  22 

Mr.  President,  Excellencies,  ladies  and 
gentlemen :  I  am  very  pleased  to  return  to 
the  Republic  of  Korea,  our  faithful  ally,  on 
a  mission  of  peace.  Twenty-one  years  have 
elap.sed  since  I  was  last  here  in  Korea.  I  was 
then  a  Congressman,  a  Member  of  our 
House  of  Representatives. 

Now  I  return  as  the  third  American  Presi- 
dent to  visit  you  while  in  office.  President 
Eisenhower  came  here  in  1952  and  again  in 
1960.  President  Johnson  came  in  1966.  Those 
visits  as  well  as  mine  demonstrate  a  close 
involvement  of  different  American  adminis- 
trations over  a  quarter  of  a  century.  They 
reflect  the  same  reality — our  long  and  friend- 
ly ties  to  the  Korean  people. 

When  I  came  to  Korea  in  1953,  I  saw  a 
heartrending  scene.  The  Republic  of  Korea 
had  been  ravaged  by  war.  You  had  made 
great  sacrifices  to  repel  aggression.  Your 
economy  was  in  ruins.  I  was  deeply  saddened 
by  what  I  saw,  but  I  was  inspired  by  the 
determination  of  the  Korean  people  to  re- 
build. 

Today  I  am  very  happy  to  return.  I  want 
to  see  the  great  progress  that  so  many  have 
described  so  very  vividly.  I  want  to  see  for 
myself  what  you  have  built  upon  the  ashes 
of  war. 

I  am  here,  Mr.  President,  to  reaffirm  our 
friendship  and  to  give  it  new  life  and  mean- 
ing. Nothing  binds  nations  together  closer 
than  to  have  fought  side   by  side   for  the 


December  23,    1974 


875 


same  cause.  Two  times  we  have  stood  to- 
gether, here  as  well  as  in  Viet-Nam,  to  pre- 
serve the  peace,  to  preserve  the  stability 
of  Asia  and  the  world.  We  can  never  forget 
this. 

Though  we  have  been  together  with  you 
in  war,  America's  deepest  hope  is  for  a 
world  of  peace.  Let  us  now  join  to  preserve 
peace  and  to  prevent  any  recurrence  of 
hostilities.  That  is  our  continuing  commit- 
ment, which  I  today  reaffirm. 

I  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  President,  for 
this  heartwarming  welcome.  My  only  re- 
gret is  that  my  wife,  Mrs.  Ford,  is  not  here 
at  my  side.  She  sends  her  greetings  to  the 
great  Korean  people.  She  looks  forward  to 
hearing  in  detail  from  me  personally  about 
this  visit. 

You  were  most  gracious,  Mr.  President, 
to  invite  me.  I  am  proud  to  come  here  on 
this  my  first  overseas  journey  as  President 
of  the  United  States. 

Toast  at  Dinner  Given  by  President  Park, 
Capitol  Building,  Seoul,  November  22 

White  House  press  release  (Seoul)  dated  November  22 

Mr.  President,  distinguished  guests,  ladies 
and  gentlemen  :  I  am  greatly  honored  by  this 
occasion  and  appreciate  the  gracious  hospi- 
tality you  have  accorded  us  this  evening. 

The  warmth  shown  by  the  Korean  people 
exceeds  even  that  which  I  remember  from 
my  previous  visit  to  Korea,  this  very  hospi- 
table land. 

I  am  very,  very  much  impressed  by  the 
dynamism  of  the  Korean  society,  the  energy 
and  vitality  of  the  Korean  people,  and  the 
charm  and  the  beauty  of  the  Korean  women. 

Mr.  President,  I  wish  that  I  had  time  to 
see  not  only  the  impressive  landmarks  of 
the  Korean  miracle  of  material  progress  but 
also  the  famous  historical  shrines  of  your 
great  country.  On  another  day  perhaps,  Mr. 
President,  my  wife  and  myself  and  our 
family  can  come,  and  certainly  we  would  like 
to  return. 

Mr.  President,  it  was  a  great  pleasure  to 
meet  the  leaders  of  many  sectors  of  the 
Korean  society  here  tonight.  In  particular,  I 


am  pleased  to  see  the  Speaker,  and  the  other 
members  of  the  National  Assembly,  includ- 
ing representatives  of  the  various  major 
political  parties. 

Having  spent,  Mr.  President,  a  quarter  of 
a  century  of  my  life  in  parliament,  or  our 
Congress,  I  place  a  great  value  in  the  legis- 
lative process  of  a  representative  govern- 
ment. 

I  came  to  your  country,  Mr.  President,  to        I 
demonstrate  America's  continued  determina-        " 
tion  to  preserve  peace  in  Korea,  in  Asia,  and 
throughout  the  world.    Koreans  and  Ameri- 
cans were  friends  in  war.    We  will  remain 
friends  in  peace. 

America  seeks  world  peace  for  the  good 
of  all  and  at  the  expense  of  none. 

Today,  Mr.  President,  I  enjoyed  a  reward- 
ing and  a  very  inspiring  visit  with  your  peo- 
ple. I  also  drew  great  encouragement  by 
meeting  with  the  armed  forces  of  our  Amer- 
ican troops  in  which  all  of  us  take  such  great 
pride. 

I  pledge  to  you,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
United  States  will  continue  to  assist  and  to 
support  you.  Our  relationship  and  our  dia- 
logue will  continue. 

We  live  in  a  time  of  new  international  re- 
alities and  new  opportunities  for  peace  and 
progress  in  Asia  and  elsewhere.  President 
Park,  your  statesmanlike  initiative  in  open- 
ing a  dialogue  with  the  North  contributed 
constructively  to  efi'orts  to  find  a  peaceful 
and  just  solution  to  the  Korean  problem. 
With  the  perseverance  and  with  the  courage 
so  typical  of  the  American  [Korean]  people, 
I  trust  you  will  prevail  in  this  effort. 

Let  us  recognize  the  new  world  in  which 
we  all  live.  Let  us  envisage  the  interdepend- 
ence of  all  nations,  large  and  small.  When  we 
plan  for  such  new  international  problems  as 
energy  shortages  and  financial  crises,  the 
United  States  considers  the  interests  of  all 
nations.  We  will  continue  to  consult  with  you 
in  common  interests  and  in  common  prob- 
lems. 

America  has  great  confidence  in  the  people 
of  Korea,  just  as  we  have  great  confidence 
in  ourselves  in  America. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  here  on  a  mission  of 


876 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


peace.  It  is  my  deepest  hope  that  the  entire 
world  will  lift  its  gaze  and  broaden  its  vision. 
I  have  said  before,  but  I  repeat  here  tonight, 
I  would  rather  walk  a  thousand  miles  for 
peace  than  take  a  single  step  for  war. 

Mr.  President,  the  relationship  between 
our  two  peoples  was  first  formalized  as  long 
ago  as  May  22,  1882.  The  preamble  to  that 
treaty  spoke  of  permanent  relations  based 
upon  amity  and  friendship.  We  have  proven 
that  by  more  than  diplomatic  phrases.  Our 
relationship  has  endured  through  war  and 
through  peace. 

The  welcome  you  accorded  me  today  is 
symbolic  of  our  very  close  tie.s — it  demon- 
strated the  great  strength  of  the  friendship 
between  our  two  peoples.  I  was  greatly 
touched,  Mr.  President,  by  the  outpouring  of 
good  will  from  the  countless  thousands  and 
thousands  of  people  who  greeted  me  so 
warmly.  Their  cheers,  I  am  sure,  were  not 
only  for  me  as  an  individual,  but  for  the 
United  States  of  America  and  our  213  mil- 
lion of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent. 

I  wish  to  thank  every  Korean  that  I  saw 
today  on  behalf  of  all  of  the  American  people. 

Today  I  visited  a  very  beautiful  cemetery 
and  the  monument  to  the  brave  Koreans  who 
fell  in  battle.  They  fought  side  by  side  with 
Americans.  And  let  the  continued  friendship 
of  our  two  nations  pay  tribute  to  the  memory 
of  the  supreme  sacrifices  of  your  courageous 
men  and  our  own. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  ask  you  to  rise 
and  to  join  me  in  a  toast  to  my  distinguished 
host,  President  Park,  and  to  the  great  people 
of  the  Republic  of  Korea. 

Joint  Communique  Issued  at  Seoul  November  22 

Joint  Communique  Between  President  Gerald  R. 
Ford  and  President  Park  Chung  Hee 

At  the  invitation  of  President  Park  Chung  Hee 
of  the  Republic  of  Korea,  President  Gerald  R.  Ford 
of  the  United  States  of  America  visited  the  Republic 
of  Korea  on  November  22  and  23,  1974,  to  exchange 
views  on  the  current  international  situation  and  to 
discuss  matters  of  mutual  interest  and  concern  to 
the  two  nations. 

During  the  visit  the  two  Presidents  held  discus- 
sions on  two   occasions.    Present  at  these  meetings 


were  Prime  Minister  Kim  Chong  Pil,  Secretary  of 
State  Henry  Kissinger,  Foreign  Minister  Kim  Dong 
Jo,  Presidential  Secretary  General  Kim  Chung  Yum, 
Ambassador  Richard  L.  Sneider,  Ambassador  Hahm 
Pyong  Choon  and  other  high  officials  of  both  Govern- 
ments. President  Ford  also  visited  American  forces 
stationed  in  the  Republic  of  Korea. 

President  Ford  laid  a  wreath  at  the  Memorial 
of  the  Unknown  Soldiers.  He  also  visited  the  grave 
of  Madame  Park  Chung  Hee  and  expressed  his 
deepest  personal  condolences  to  President  Park  on 
her  tragic  and  untimely  death. 

The  two  Presidents  reaffirmed  the  strong  bonds 
of  friendship  and  cooperation  between  their  two 
countries.  They  agreed  to  continue  the  close  co- 
operation and  regular  consultation  on  security  mat- 
ters and  other  subjects  of  mutual  interest  which 
have  characterized  the  relationship  between  the 
Republic  of  Korea  and  the  United  States. 

The  two  Presidents  took  note  of  significant  politi- 
cal and  economic  changes  in  the  situation  in  Asia 
in  recent  years.  They  recognized  that  the  allied 
countries  in  the  area  are  growing  stronger  and 
more  prosperous  and  are  making  increasing  con- 
tributions to  their  security  as  well  as  to  that  of  the 
region.  President  Ford  explained  that  the  United 
States,  as  a  Pacific  power,  is  vitally  interested  in 
Asia  and  the  Pacific  and  will  continue  its  best 
efi^ort  to  ensure  the  peace  and  security  of  the  region. 
President  Park  expressed  his  understanding  and 
full  support  for  United  States  policies  directed 
toward  these  ends. 

President  Park  described  the  efforts  being  made 
by  the  Republic  of  Korea  to  maintain  a  dialogue 
with  North  Korea,  designed  to  reduce  tensions  and 
establish  peace  on  the  Korean  Peninsula,  and  to 
lead  eventually  to  the  peaceful  unification  of  Korea. 
President  Park  affirmed  the  intention  of  the  Republic 
of  Korea  to  continue  to  pursue  the  dialogue  despite 
the  failure  of  the  North  Korean  authorities  to  re- 
spond with  sincerity  thus  far.  President  Ford  gave 
assurance  that  the  United  States  will  continue  to 
support  these  efforts  by  the  Republic  of  Korea  and 
expressed  the  hope  that  the  constructive  initiatives 
by  the  Republic  of  Korea  would  meet  with  positive 
responses   by  all   concerned. 

The  two  Presidents  discussed  the  current  United 
Nations  General  Assembly  consideration  of  the 
Korean  question.  They  agreed  on  the  importance 
of  favorable  General  Assembly  action  on  the  Draft 
Resolution  introduced  by  the  United  States  and 
other  member  countries.  Both  expressed  the  hope 
that  the  General  Assembly  would  base  its  considera- 
tion of  the  Korean  question  on  a  recognition  of  the 
importance  of  the  security  arrangements  which  have 
preserved  peace  on  the  Korean  Peninsula  for  more 
than   two   decades. 

President  Park  explained  in  detail  the  situation 
on  the   Korean   Peninsula,  and  described  the  threat 


December  23,    1974 


877 


to  peace  and  stability  of  hostile  acts  by  North 
Korea,  exemplified  most  recently  by  the  construc- 
tion of  an  underground  tunnel  inside  the  southern 
sector  of  the  Demilitarized  Zone. 

The  two  Presidents  agreed  that  the  Republic 
of  Korea  forces  and  American  forces  stationed  in 
Korea  must  maintain  a  high  degree  of  strength 
and  readiness  in  order  to  deter  aggression.  Presi- 
dent Ford  reaflfirmed  the  determination  of  the  United 
States  to  render  prompt  and  effective  assistance 
to  repel  armed  attack  against  the  Republic  of  Korea 
in  accordance  with  the  Mutual  Defense  Treaty  of 
1954  between  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  the  United 
States.  In  this  connection,  President  Ford  assured 
President  Park  that  the  United  States  has  no  plan 
to  reduce  the  present  level  of  United  States  forces 
in   Korea. 

The  two  Presidents  discussed  the  progress  of  the 
Modernization  Program  for  the  Republic  of  Korea 
armed  forces  and  agreed  that  implementation  of 
the  program  is  of  major  importance  to  the  security 
of  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  peace  on  the  Korean 
Peninsula.  President  Ford  took  note  of  the  increas- 
ing share  of  the  defense  burden  which  the  Republic 
of  Korea  is  able  and  willing  to  assume  and  affirmed 
the  readiness  of  the  United  States  to  continue  to 
render  appropriate  support  to  the  further  develop- 
ment of  defense  industries  in  the  Republic  of  Korea. 

President  Ford  expressed  his  admiration  for  the 
rapid  and  sustained  economic  progress  of  the  Re- 
public of  Korea,  accomplished  in  the  face  of  various 
obstacles,  including  the  lack  of  sufficient  indigenous 
natural  resources  and  continuing  tensions  in  the 
area.  President  Park  noted  with  appreciation  the 
United  States  contribution  to  Korea's  development 
in  the   economic,   scientific   and  technological    fields. 

The  two  Presidents  examined  the  impact  of  recent 
international  economic  developments.  They  agreed 
that  the  two  countries  should  continue  to  foster 
close  economic  cooperation  for  their  mutual  benefit, 
and  that  they  should  guide  their  economic  policies 
toward  each  other  in  the  spirit  of  closer  inter- 
dependence among  all  nations.  They  shared  the 
view  that  coordination  of  their  policies  on  new 
problems  confronting  the  international  community 
is  necessary.  P>oth  Presidents  expressed  mutual 
satisfaction  over  the  continuing  growth  of  substan- 
tial bilateral  economic  relations  which  have  been 
beneficial  to  both  countries.  They  agreed  that  con- 
tinued private  foreign  investment  in  Korea  by  the 
United  States  and  other  foreign  countries  is  desir- 
able. It  was  agreed  that  international  efi'orts  should 
focus  on  the  reduction  of  trade  distortions,  estab- 
lishment of  a  framework  for  ensuring  stable  food 
supplies,  and  realization  of  stable  supplies  of  energy 
at  reasonable  prices. 

President  Park  expressed  his  high  expectations 
and  respect  for  the  efforts  being  made  by  President 
Ford  to  establish  world  peace  and  to  restore  world 
economic  order. 


On  behalf  of  the  members  of  his  Party  and  the 
American  people,  President  Ford  extended  his  deep- 
est thanks  to  President  Park  and  all  the  people  of 
the  Republic  of  Korea  for  the  warmth  of  their  recep- 
tion and  the  many  courtesies  extended  to  him  during 
the  visit. 

President  Ford  cordially  invited  President  Park 
to  visit  the  United  States  of  America  and  President 
Park  accepted  the  invitation  with  pleasure.  The 
two  Presidents  agreed  that  the  visit  would  take 
place  at  a  time  of  mutual  convenience. 


THE  VISIT  TO  THE  SOVIET  UNION 

Toast  at  Luncheon  Given  by  General  Secretary 
Brezhnev,  Vladivostok,  November  24 

White  House  press  release  (Vladivostok)  dated  November  24 

Let  me  say  a  few  words  if  I  might  about 
the  very  special  significance  of  this,  our  first 
official  meeting. 

The  world  has  been  accustomed  in  recent 
years  to  regular  meetings  between  the  lead- 
ers of  the  Soviet  Union  and  the  American 
people. 

Cooperation  between  our  two  countries  has 
intensified  both  in  tempo  and,  more  impor- 
tant, in  substance  during  the  past  few  years. 
As  a  result,  all  people,  Mr.  General  Secre- 
tary, have  a  better  chance  to  live  in  peace 
and  security  today. 

The  fact  that  these  meetings  have  become 
more  regular  testifies  to  the  significance  at- 
tached to  them  by  both  countries.  In  these 
meetings,  we  are  able  to  conduct  our  discus- 
sions in  a  businesslike  and  a  constructive 
way.  We  are  able  to  make  important  prog- 
ress on  the  issues  that  concern  our  countries. 

Mr.  General  Secretary,  I  look  forward  to 
continuing  the  close  working  relationship  de- 
veloped between  the  leaders  of  our  two  coun- 
tries. In  my  first  address  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  I  pledged  to  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion to  continue  America's  commitment  to  the 
course  followed  in  the  last  three  years. 

Mr.  General  Secretary,  I  personally  reaf- 
firm that  pledge  to  you  now.  As  nations  with 
great  power,  we  share  a  common  responsi- 
bility not  only  to  our  own  people  but  to  man- 
kind as  a  whole. 

We  must  avoid,  of  course,  war  and  the  de- 
struction that  it  would  mean.  Let  us  get  on 


878 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


with  the  business  of  controlling  arms,  as  I 
think  we  have  in  the  last  24  hours.  Let  us 
contribute,  through  our  cooperation,  to  the 
resolution  of  the  very  great  problems  facing 
mankind  as  a  whole. 

Mr.  General  Secretary,  the  problems  of 
food,  population,  and  energy  are  not  con- 
fined to  any  one  country  or  to  countries  at 
an  early  stage  of  economic  development. 
They  affect  people  everywhere.  If  this  age 
is  to  be  remembered  favorably  in  the  history 
books,  it  will  be  because  we  met  our  respon- 
sibilities— your  country  and  my  country  and 
our  friends  and  allies  throughout  the  world. 

May  I  propose  a  toast  to  our  joint  search 
for  solutions  to  the  problems  facing  mankind 
and  a  toast  to  you,  Mr.  General  Secretary, 
and  to  those  associated  with  you  in  your  gov- 
ernment and  to  the  people  of  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion and  to  the  people  of  the  world,  who  will 
benefit  from  your  efforts  and,  hopefully, 
mine.  To  the  General  Secretary. 


Joint  Statement  on  Strategic  Offensive  Arms 
Issued  at  Vladivostok  November  24 

Joint  U.S.-Soviet  Statement 

During  their  working  meeting  in  the  area  of 
Vladivostok  on  November  23-24,  1974,  the  President 
of  the  US.\  Gerald  R.  Ford  and  General  Secretary 
of  the  Central  Committee  of  the  CPSU  L.  I.  Brezh- 
nev discussed  in  detail  the  question  of  further 
limitations  of  strategic  offensive  arms. 

They  reaffirmed  the  great  significance  that  both  the 
United  States  and  the  USSR  attach  to  the  limitation 
of  strategic  offensive  arms.  They  are  convinced  that 
a  long-term  agreement  on  this  question  would  be 
a  significant  contribution  to  improving  relations 
between  the  US  and  the  USSR,  to  reducing  the 
danger  of  war  and  to  enhancing  world  peace.  Having 
noted  the  value  of  previous  agreements  on  this 
question,  including  the  Interim  Agreement  of  May 
26,  1972,  they  reaffirm  the  intention  to  conclude  a 
new  agreement  on  the  limitation  of  strategic  offen- 
sive arms,  to  last  through  1985. 

As  a  result  of  the  exchange  of  views  on  the  sub- 
stance of  such  a  new  agreement,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  of  America  and  the  General 
Secretary  of  the  Central  Committee  of  the  CPSU 
concluded  that  favorable  prospects  exist  for  com- 
pleting the  work  on  this  agreement  in  1975. 

Agreement  was  reached  that  further  negotiations 
will  be  based  on  the  following  provisions. 

1.  The  new  agreement  will  incorporate  the  rele- 


vant provisions  of  the  Interim  .Agreement  of  May 
26,  1972,  which  will  remain  in  force  until  October 
1977. 

2.  The  new  agreement  will  cover  the  period  from 
October  1977  through  December  31,  1985. 

3.  Based  on  the  principle  of  equality  and  equal 
security,  the  new  agreement  will  include  the  follow- 
ing limitations: 

a.  Doth  sides  will  l)e  entitled  to  have  a  certain 
agreed  aggregate  number  of  strategic  delivery 
vehicles; 

b.  Both  sides  will  be  entitled  to  have  a  certain 
agreed  aggregate  number  of  ICBMs  and  SLBMs 
[intercontinental  ballistic  missiles;  submarine- 
launched  ballistic  missiles]  equipped  with  multiple 
independently  targetable  warheads   (MIRVs). 

4.  The  new  agreement  will  include  a  provision 
for  further  negotiations  beginning  no  later  than 
1980-1981  on  the  question  of  further  limitations 
and  possible  reductions  of  strategic  arms  in  the 
period  after  1985. 

5.  Negotiations  between  the  delegations  of  the 
U.S.  and  USSR  to  work  out  the  new  agreement 
incorporating  the  foregoing  points  will  resume  in 
Geneva  in  January  1975. 

November  24,  1974. 

Joint  Communique  Signed  at  Vladisvostok 
November  24 

Joint  US-SoviET  Communique 

In  accordance  with  the  previously  announced 
agreement,  a  working  meeting  between  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  of  America  Gerald  R. 
Ford  and  the  General  Secretary  of  the  Central 
Committee  of  the  Communist  Party  of  the  Soviet 
Union  L.  I.  Brezhnev  took  place  in  the  area  of  Vladi- 
vostok on  November  23  and  24,  1974.  Taking  part 
in  the  talks  were  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States  of  America  and  Assistant  to  the 
President  for  National  Security  Aff'airs,  Henry  A. 
Kissinger  and  Member  of  the  Politburo  of  the 
Central  Committee  of  the  CPSU,  Minister  of  For- 
eign Affairs  of  the  USSR,  A.  A.  Gromyko. 

They  discussed  a  broad  range  of  questions  deal- 
ing with  American-Soviet  relations  and  the  current 
international  situation. 

Also  taking  part  in  the  talks  were: 

On  the  American  side  Walter  J.  Stoessel,  Jr., 
Ambassador  of  the  USA  to  the  USSR;  Helmut 
Sonnenfeldt,  Counselor  of  the  Department  of  State; 
Arthur  A.  Hartman,  Assistant  Secretary  of  State 
for  European  Affairs;  Lieutenant  General  Brent 
Scowcroft,  Deputy  Assistant  to  the  President  for 
National  Security  Affairs;  and  William  Hyland, 
official  of  the  Department  of  State. 

On  the  Soviet  side  A.  F.  Dobrynin,  Ambassador 


December  23,   1974 


879 


of  the  USSR  to  the  USA;  A.  M.  Aleksandrov, 
Assistant  to  the  General  Secretary  of  the  Central 
Committee  of  the  CPSU;  and  G.  M.  Korniyenko, 
Member  of  the  Collegium  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  the  USSR. 

I 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Soviet 
Union  reaffirmed  their  determination  to  develop 
further  their  relations  in  the  direction  defined  by 
the  fundamental  joint  decisions  and  basic  treaties 
and  agreements  concluded  between  the  two  States  in 
recent  years. 

They  are  convinced  that  the  course  of  American- 
Soviet  relations,  directed  towards  strengthening 
world  peace,  deepening  the  relaxation  of  interna- 
tional tensions  and  expanding  mutually  beneficial 
cooperation  of  states  with  different  social  systems 
meets  the  vital  interests  of  the  peoples  of  both 
States  and  other  peoples. 

Both  Sides  consider  that  based  on  the  agreements 
reached  between  them  important  results  have  been 
achieved  in  fundamentally  reshaping  American- 
Soviet  relations  on  the  basis  of  peaceful  coexistence 
and  equal  security.  These  results  are  a  solid  founda- 
tion for  progress  in  reshaping  Soviet-American 
relations. 

Accordingly,  they  intend  to  continue,  without  a 
loss  in  momentum,  to  expand  the  scale  and  intensity 
of  their  cooperative  efforts  in  all  spheres  as  set 
forth  in  the  agreements  they  have  signed  so  that 
the  process  of  improving  relations  between  the  US 
and  the  USSR  will  continue  without  interruption 
and  will  become  irreversible. 

Mutual  determination  was  expressed  to  carry  out 
strictly  and  fully  the  mutual  obligations  undertaken 
by  the  US  and  the  USSR  in  accordance  with  the 
treaties    and    agreements   concluded    between    them. 

II 

Special  consideration  was  given  in  the  course  of 
the  talks  to  a  pivotal  aspect  of  Soviet-American 
relations:  measures  to  eliminate  the  threat  of  war 
and  to  halt  the  aiins  race. 

Both  sides  reaffirm  that  the  Agreements  reached 
between  the  US  and  the  USSR  on  the  prevention 
of  nuclear  war  and  the  limitation  of  strategic  arms 
are  a  good  beginning  in  the  process  of  creating 
guarantees  against  the  outbreak  of  nuclear  conflict 
and  war  in  general.  They  expressed  their  deep  be- 
lief in  the  necessity  of  promoting  this  process  and 
expressed  their  hope  that  other  states  would  con- 
tribute to  it  as  well.  For  their  part  the  US  and  the 
USSR  will  continue  to  exert  vigorous  efforts  to 
achieve   this   historic  task. 

A  joint  statement  on  the  question  of  limiting 
strategic  offensive  arms  is  being  released  separately. 

Both  sides  stressed  once  again  the  importance 
and  necessity  of  a  serious  effort  aimed  at  prevent- 


ing the  dangers  connected  with  the  spread  of  nuclear 
weapons  in  the  world.  In  this  connection  they 
stressed  the  importance  of  increasing  the  effective- 
ness of  the  Treaty  on  the  Non-Proliferation  of 
Nuclear  Weapons. 

It  was  noted  that,  in  accordance  with  previous 
agreements,  initial  contacts  were  established  be- 
tween representatives  of  the  US  and  of  the  USSR 
on  questions  related  to  underground  nuclear  ex- 
plosions for  peaceful  purposes,  to  measures  to 
overcome  the  dangers  of  the  use  of  environmental 
modification  techniques  for  military  purposes,  as 
well  as  measures  dealing  with  the  most  dangerous 
lethal  means  of  chemical  warfare.  It  was  agreed  to 
continue  an  active  search  for  mutually  acceptable 
solutions  of  these  questions. 

Ill 

In  the  course  of  the  meeting  an  exchange  of  views 
was  held  on  a  number  of  international  issues: 
special  attention  was  given  to  negotiations  already 
in  progress  in  which  the  two  Sides  are  participants 
and  which  are  designed  to  remove  existing  sources 
of  tension  and  to  bring  about  the  strengthening  of 
international  security  and  world  peace. 

Having  reviewed  the  situation  at  the  Conference 
on  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe,  both  Sides 
concluded  that  there  is  a  possibility  for  its  early 
successful  conclusion.  They  proceed  from  the  assump- 
tion that  the  results  achieved  in  the  course  of  the 
Conference  will  permit  its  conclusion  at  the  highest 
level  and  thus  be  commensurate  with  its  importance 
in  ensuring  the  peaceful  future  of  Europe. 

The  USA  and  the  USSR  also  attach  high  impor- 
tance to  the  negotiations  on  mutual  reduction  of 
forces  and  armaments  and  associated  measures  in 
Central  Europe.  They  agree  to  contribute  actively 
to  the  search  for  mutually  acceptable  solutions  on 
the  basis  of  principle  of  undiminished  security  for 
any  of  the  parties  and  the  prevention  of  unilateral 
military  advantages. 

Having  discussed  the  situation  existing  in  the 
Eastern  Mediterranean,  both  Sides  state  their  firm 
support  for  the  independence,  sovereignty  and  terri- 
torial integrity  of  Cyprus  and  will  make  every  efl'ort 
in  this  direction.  They  consider  that  a  just  settle- 
ment of  the  Cyprus  question  must  be  based  on  the 
strict  implementation  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by 
the  Security  Council  and  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  United  Nations  regarding  Cyprus. 

In  the  course  of  the  exchange  of  views  on  the 
Middle  East  both  Sides  expressed  their  concern 
with  regard  to  the  dangerous  situation  in  that 
region.  They  reaffirmed  their  intention  to  make 
every  effort  to  promote  a  solution  of  the  key  issues 
of  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  that  area  on  the 
basis  of  the  United  Nations  resolution  338,  taking 
into  account  the  legitimate  interests  of  all  the  peo- 
ples of  the   area,  including  the   Palestinian   people, 


880 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


and  respect  for  the  right  to  independent  existence  of 
all  States  in  the  area. 

The  Sides  believe  that  the  Geneva  Conference 
should  play  an  important  part  in  the  establishment 
of  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East,  and 
should  resume  its  work  as  soon  as  possible. 

IV 

The  state  of  relations  was  reviewed  in  the  field 
of  commercial,  economic,  scientific  and  technical 
ties  between  the  USA  and  the  USSR.  Both  Sides 
confirmed  the  great  importance  which  further  prog- 
ress in  these  fields  would  have  for  Soviet-American 
relations,  and  expressed  their  firm  intention  to  con- 
tinue the  broadening  and  deepening  of  mutually 
advantageous   cooperation. 

The  two  Sides  emphasized  the  special  impor- 
tance accorded  by  them  to  the  development  on  a 
long  term  basis  of  commercial  and  economic  co- 
operation, including  mutually  beneficial  large-scale 
projects.  They  believe  that  such  commercial  and 
economic  cooperation  will  ser\-e  the  cause  of  in- 
creasing the   stability  of  Soviet-American  relations. 

Both  Sides  noted  with  satisfaction  the  progress 
in  the  implementation  of  agreements  and  in  the 
development  of  ties  and  cooperation  between  the  US 
and  the  USSR  in  the  fields  of  science,  technology 
and  culture.  They  are  convinced  that  the  continued 
expansion  of  such  cooperation  will  benefit  the 
peoples  of  both  countries  and  will  be  an  important 
contribution  to  the  solution  of  world-wide  scientific 
and  technical   problems. 

The  talks  were  held  in  an  atmosphere  of  frankness 
and  mutual  understanding,  reflecting  the  construc- 
tive desire  of  both  Sides  to  strengthen  and  develop 
further  the  peaceful  cooperative  relationship  between 
the  USA  and  the  USSR,  and  to  ensure  progress  in 
the  solution  of  outstanding  international  problems 
in  the  interests  of  preserving  and  strengthening 
peace. 

The  results  of  the  talks  provided  a  convincing 
demonstration  of  the  practical  value  of  Soviet- 
American  summit  meetings  and  their  exceptional 
importance  in  the  shaping  of  a  new  relationship 
between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
Soviet  Union. 

President  Ford  reaffirmed  the  invitation  to  L.  I. 
Brezhnev  to  pay  an  official  visit  to  the  United  States 
in  1975.  The  exact  date  of  the  visit  will  be  agreed 
upon  later. 


For  the  United  States 
of  America: 

Gerald  R.  Ford 


For  the  Union  of  Soviet 
Socialist  Republics: 

L.  I.  Brezhnev 


President  of  the  United  General  Secretary 

States  of  America  of  the  Central  Committee 

of  the  CPSU 

November  24,  1974 


ARRIVAL  REMARKS,   ANDREWS  AIR  FORCE  BASE, 
NOVEMBER   24 

White  House  press  lelease  dated  Novembei-  24 

Mr.  Speaker,  my  very  dear  friends  in  the 
Congress,  members  of  the  Cabinet,  distin- 
guished guests,  my  fellow  Americans:  I 
thank  you  all  very,  very  much  for  coming 
out  this  evening  and  welcoming  us  so  very 
warmly. 

Since  I  left  Washington  eight  days  ago,  I 
have  traveled  some  17,000  miles  for  the  pur- 
pose of  peace  and  not  a  single  step  toward 
war.  And  every  one  of  those  miles,  in  my 
opinion,  was  most  worthwhile.  But  as  al- 
ways when  we  return  to  our  homeland,  my 
companions  and  myself  are  very,  very  happy 
to  be  here. 

Secretary  Kissinger  has  a  few  more  miles 
to  go  on  this  trip,  but  I  will  assure  him  that 
this  warm  welcome  includes  him  as  well. 

Thursday  is  Thanksgiving.  I  cannot  help 
but  reflect  on  the  many,  many  blessings  that 
we  Americans  have.  We  do  have  some  very 
serious  problems,  but  we  have  much,  much 
more  to  be  thankful  for.  America  is  a  strong 
country;  Americans  are  very  strong  people. 
We  are  free,  and  we  are  blessed  with  good 
friends  and  allies. 

On  my  trip  I  talked  with  the  leaders  of 
two  of  our  allies,  Japan  and  Korea.  In  both 
nations,  I  saw  how  much  they  value  their 
relationship  with  us.  We  will  continue  to 
work  together  to  strengthen  our  ties. 

The  visit  to  Japan  marked  my  first  trip 
outside  North  America  since  becoming  Pres- 
ident, and  it  was  the  first  time  that  a  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  has  visited  that 
energetic  and  productive  island  nation. 

Our  trip  was  historic  for  another  reason ; 
for  it  marked  a  change  in  our  relationship. 
In  the  past  the  central  concern  of  our  alli- 
ance was  military  security.  This  security  re- 
lationship has  now  been  broadened  to  in- 
clude energy  and  food.  I  am  particularly 
hopeful  that  by  working  together  with  Ja- 
pan, one  of  the  world's  most  technically  ad- 
vanced societies,  we  will  be  able  to  make  a 
substantial  joint  contribution  to  resolving 
the  energy  crisis. 


December  23,    1974 


881 


Japan  emerged  from  the  destruction  of 
war  with  a  deep  commitment  to  peace.  In 
Korea,  a  sturdy  people  rebuilt  a  nation  from 
the  ashes  of  another  conflict.  Only  a  little 
over  20  years  ago,  Korea  was  a  battleground. 
Today  it  is  a  showcase  of  economic  develop- 
ment. 

Just  over  tw'o  decades  ago,  American  fight- 
ing men  were  battling  over  the  rugged  moun- 
tains of  Korea.  Today  the  major  burden  of 
Korea's  defense  is  borne  by  the  Koreans 
themselves.  American  servicemen  are  sta- 
tioned there,  but  like  their  comrades  in  Eu- 
rope and  elsewhere,  they  are  there  to  help  an 
ally  maintain  the  peace,  not  to  do  the  job 
alone. 

A  highlight  of  the  trip  for  me  was  the  op- 
portunity to  meet  with  our  soldiers  in  Korea 
and  to  have  lunch  with  them  in  one  of  their 
camps.  They  are  outstanding  fighting  men 
and  women  doing  a  fine  job.  We  can  all  be 
very  proud  of  them. 

The  final  stop  on  our  trip  was  the  Soviet 
Union.  The  meetings  with  General  Secretary 
Brezhnev,  I  am  pleased,  went  very,  very  well. 
They  represent  both  a  beginning  and  a  con- 
tinuation. They  were  the  beginning  of  what 
I  hope  will  be  a  productive  personal  relation- 
ship between  Mr.  Brezhnev  and  myself.  We 
both,  I  believe,  came  away  from  Vladivostok 
with  mutual  respect  and  a  common  deter- 
mination to  continue  the  search  for  peace. 

They  were  a  continuation  because  we  main- 
tained the  steady  improvement  of  our  rela- 
tions begun  three  years  ago.  We  talked,  as 
American  and  Soviet  leaders  have  in  the 
past,  about  the  Middle  East,  European  secu- 
rity, and  other  bilateral  relations.  We  often 
agreed,  but  not  always.  When  we  did  not,  we 
stated  our  difl'erences  quite  frankly. 

But  on  perhaps  the  most  important  issue 
facing  the  Soviet  and  American  peoples,  the 
further  limitation  of  strategic  arms,  we 
found  a  large  measure  of  agreement.  We 
discussed  the  issue  fully,  and  in  the  end  we 
established  a  sound  basis  for  a  new  agree- 
ment that  will  constrain  our  military  com- 


petition over  the  next  decade.  The  under- 
standing we  reached  resulted  from  an  inten- 
sive round  of  give-and-take,  the  kind  of  give- 
and-take  negotiations  that  recognized  the 
legitimate  security  of  both  sides. 

Many  details  remain  to  be  worked  out  by 
our  negotiators,  but  ceilings  on  the  strategic 
forces  of  both  nations  have  been  accepted.  A 
good  agreement  that  will  serve  the  interests 
of  the  United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union  is 
now  within  our  grasp.  Vladivostok  was  an 
appropriate  ending  to  a  journey  designed  to 
strengthen  ties  with  old  friends  and  expand 
areas  of  agreement  with  old  adversaries. 

I  believe  we  accomplished  what  we  set  out 
to  achieve  and  perhaps  more.  And  in  that 
process  I  pray  that  we  have  done  all  we  could 
to  advance  the  cause  of  peace  for  all  Ameri- 
cans and  for  all  mankind. 


Death  of  U  Thant,  Former 
U.N.   Secretary  General 

Statement  by  Pi-esidoit  Ford  ' 

I  have  learned  with  great  sorrow  of  the 
death  of  former  United  Nations  Secretary 
General  U  Thant.  Above  all,  he  was  a  man 
of  peace.  His  distinguished  leadership  in  the 
world  community  for  a  decade  won  him  wide 
respect  and  the  gratitude  of  all  who  cherish 
world  peace.  He  gave  unselfishly  of  himself 
in  the  highest  tradition  of  service  to  man- 
kind, and  the  world  is  better  for  the  example 
he  set. 

U  Thant's  loyalty  was  not  to  any  one 
power  or  ethnic  bloc,  but  to  humanity;  and 
it  is  in  this  same  universal  spirit  that  all  men 
will  mourn  his  passing.  On  behalf  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  I  extend  con- 
dolences to  his  family. 


'Issued  on  Nov.  25  (text  from  White  House  press 
release) . 


882 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conferences  at  Tokyo  and  Vladivostok 


Following  are  transcripts  of  news  confer- 
ences held  by  Secretary  Kissinger  at  Tokyo 
on  November  19  and  20,  at  Vladivostok  on 
November  2i  at  1:35  a.m.  and  1^:18  p.m.,  and 
at  Tokyo  on  November  25. 


TOKYO,   NOVEMBER   19 

Press  release  503  dated  November  19 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Ladies  and  gentle- 
men, I  will  confine  myself  to  the  meeting  be- 
tween the  President  and  the  Prime  Minister 
this  morning,  which  was  attended  by  the  two 
Foreign  Ministers  and  two  other  individuals 
on  each  side. 

We  concentrated  in  this  initial  meeting 
first  on  stressing  the  great  importance  that 
the  United  States  attaches  to  its  relationship 
with  Japan  for  peace  in  the  Pacific,  peace  in 
the  world,  and  for  the  economic  progress  of 
our  two  countries  as  well  as  of  all  other 
countries. 

This  led  to  a  discussion  of  two  related 
questions,  the  problem  of  food  and  the  prob- 
lem of  energy.  With  respect  to  the  problem 
of  food,  the  President  pointed  out  the  in- 
terest that  the  United  States  has  in  an  or- 
derly long-term  evolution  of  world  agricul- 
tural policy  as  we  have  presented  it  at  the 
World  Food  Conference,  and  in  this  context 
he  assured  the  Prime  Minister  that  Japan 
could  count  on  a  stable  level  of  supplies  of 
agricultural  supplies  from  the  United  States. 
There  were  further  discussions  on  agricul- 
tural issues,  and  it  was  agreed  that  they 
would  be  continued  tomorrow  when  the  Pres- 
ident and  the  Prime  Minister  met  again. 

With  respect  to  the  problem  of  energy,  the 
President  stressed  to  the  Prime  Minister  the 
importance  the  United  States  attaches  to  the 
program  that  we  outlined  last  week  of  soli- 


darity among  the  consumers.  He  made  very 
clear  that  this  is  not  intended  in  any  sense  to 
lead  to  any  confrontation  with  the  producers 
but,  rather,  to  pave  the  way  for  a  construc- 
tive dialogue  between  consumers  and  pro- 
ducers for  the  common  benefit  of  both. 

The  Japanese  side  explained  the  special 
problems  of  Japan  in  terms  of  its  heavy  de- 
pendence on  imported  oil  and  the  difference 
in  the  proportion  of  the  consumption  of  en- 
ergy between  the  United  States  and  Japan, 
in  that  Japan  consumes  about  70  percent  of 
its  oil  for  industrial  consumption  and  only 
30  percent  for  personal  use  while  in  the 
United  States  the  opposite  percentage  ob- 
tains, so  that  the  margin  for  reductions  in 
consumption  in  Japan  is  more  limited  than 
in  the  United  States.  But  within  that  frame- 
work the  Japanese  point  of  view  was  one  that 
seemed  to  us  sympathetic  to  our  general  ap- 
proach, and  we  pointed  out  that  we  would 
put  more  emphasis  on  the  development  of  al- 
ternative sources  and  that  we  would  share 
the  results  of  research  and  development  and 
technological  innovation  with  Japan  with  re- 
spect to  the  new  sources  of  energy. 

There  was  a  general  recognition  that  Ja- 
pan and  the  United  States  should  cooperate 
on  the  usual  matters  of  bilateral  relations 
but  also  on  the  whole  area  of  stability  of  in- 
ternational aff'airs  and  progress  toward 
peace. 

The  discussions  on  all  of  these  items  as 
well  as  others  will  be  continued  tomorrow 
morning  when  the  President,  the  Prime  Min- 
ister, and  their  advisers  will  meet  again. 

I  will  be  glad  to  take  questions. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  ivere  the  Japanese  sym- 
pathetic to  your  specific  proposal  in  Chicago 
about  the  reduction  of  importing  oil,  or  did 
their  situation  preclude  that? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  we  did  not  have 


December  23,    1974 


883 


a  chance  this  morning  to  go  into  every  as- 
pect of  my  proposal.  I  think  that,  first  of  all, 
my  specific  proposal  was  that  the  importa- 
tion of  oil  should  be  kept  level  through  a 
combination  of  measures  of  conservation  and 
the  development  of  new  sources  of  energy. 

It  may  be  that  the  mix  in  Japan  between 
conservation  and  development  of  new  sources 
has  to  be  different  than  in  the  United  States ; 
and  as  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned, 
we  do  not  feel  that  exactly  the  same  formula 
or  exactly  the  same  percentage  has  to  be  ap- 
plied to  every  country,  but  that  rather  there 
must  be  understanding  for  the  particular 
situation  of  each  country. 

I  would  say  that  there  was  sympathy  to 
the  general  approach  and  that  we  will  have 
to  work  out  in  subsequent  discussions  the 
particular  manner  in  which  it  can  be  imple- 
mented for  each  country. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretarii,  did  your  statement  to 
the  Japanese  indicating  they  could  count  on 
a  stable  level  of  agricultural  products  indi- 
cate that  Japan  is  going  to  have  a  special 
position  in  America's  agricultural  export 
market  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  As  we  attempted  to 
make  clear  at  the  World  Food  Conference, 
we  believe  that  the  whole  problem  of  world 
agriculture  has  to  be  approached  on  a  more 
systematic  and  planned  basis.  And  the  vari- 
ous proposals  we  made  there,  some  of  which 
got  lost  in  the  debate  about  food  aid — the 
various  proposals  that  we  made  there  were 
all  designed  to  assure  a  stable  level  of  ex- 
pectations and  a  more  careful,  systematic 
approach  on  an  overall  basis. 

Now,  on  the  one  hand,  we  of  course  have  a 
free  market  for  agricultural  products.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  have  set  up  a  system 
which  amounts  to  some  voluntary  alloca- 
tions by  the  contacts  between  our  major 
companies  and  the  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture. 

So,  without  using  the  word  "preferred,"  I 
think  one  can  say  that  the  President  indi- 
cated that  the  United  States,  insofar  as  it  is 
within  our  power  of  the  government — and 
the    government    will    have    a    considerable 


voice   in  it — will   see  to   it  that  Japan  can 
count  on  a  stable  level  of  imports. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  ivill  the  Japanese  agree 
to  import  America)i  beef — or  was  that  dis- 
cussed? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  question  was 
discussed,  yes. 

Q.  What  was  the  conclusion?  Were  there 
iniy  indications  they  anight  agree  to  let  Amer- 
ican meat  enter  their  country? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  don't  want  to 
speak  for  the  Japanese  Government,  but  my 
impression  was  that  the  President's  point 
will  be  taken  very  seriously. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  does  not  the  promise  of 
a  stable  supply  of  U.S.  agricultural  products 
mean  that  ive  ivill  not  resort  to  putting  off 
imports  in  order  to  curb  rising  food  prices 
as  we  did  tvith  soybeans  in  1973  and  wheat? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  you  know, 
we  have  asked  major  importers  from  the 
United  States  to  give  us  some  indication  of 
their  requirements  over  a  period  toward 
which  we  can  plan.  It  does  mean  that  under 
foreseeable  circumstances  we  will  not  impose 
export  control. 

But  we  would  like  to  have  an  informal  ar- 
rangement with  the  key  importers  in  which 
we  can  have  some  idea  of  their  requirements 
over  a  period  of  time.  This  is  not  a  major 
problem  with  Japan,  with  which  we  have  a 
very  satisfactory  relationship  in  this  respect. 

Q.  Was  Korea  [inaudible] 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have  not  yet  had 
a  chance  to  discuss  the  problem  of  Korea 
except  in  the  context  of  our  general  desire 
to  maintain  peace  and  stability  in  the  area. 
This  is  a  subject  which,  if  it  comes  up,  will 
be  discussed  in  greater  detail  tomorrow. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  have  you  had  a  chance 
to  discuss  China  and/or  the  Soviet  Union? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  has  been  a 
discussion  by  the  President  of  his  meeting 
with  the  General  Secretary  in  Vladivostok, 
and   his   general   approach   toward   detente. 


884 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


and  also  the  connection  between  our  friend- 
ship with  Japan  and  the  general  approach 
to  the  Soviet  Union. 

There  has  only  been  a  general  reference 
to  the  relationships  with  the  People's  Repub- 
lic of  China.  It  was  agreed,  however,  that 
I  would  stop  in  Tokyo  on  my  return  from 
Peking  to  brief  the  Japanese  Government 
about  my  meetings  in  Peking. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  what  is  on  your  agenda 
with  your  meeting  tonight  with  the  Finance 
Minister  [Masayoshi  Ohira]  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  Finance  Min- 
ister was  an  old  friend  with  whom  I  worked 
closely  in  his  previous  portfolio.  He  re- 
quested the  meeting,  and  it  does  not  have 
any  fixed  agenda,  but  I  would  assume  that 
we  will  discuss  some  of  the  problems  of 
energy  and  food  and  any  other  subject  that 
he  may  wish  to  raise,  but  I  would  expect 
those  two  to  be  the  principal  items. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  the  matter  of  the 
ratio  of  consumption  for  industrial  versus 
private  use  of  fuel,  did  Prime  Minister 
Tanaka  make  any  suggestions  to  President 
Ford  of  the  possibility  of  reducing  U.S.  con- 
sumption in  its  proportion  or  ratio? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  the  goals  of 
consumption  restraint  in  the  United  States 
were  publicly  stated  by  the  President  in 
October.  They  were  reaffirmed  by  me  at  the 
request  of  the  President  in  my  speech  last 
Thursday.  They  state  both  the  restraint  on 
consumption  for  the  next  year  and  the  over- 
all restraints  on  imports  and  the  develop- 
ment of  new  sources  of  energy  over  the  next 
10  years. 

The  President  has  made  clear  that  these 
consumption  restraints  will  be  met  either  by 
voluntary  action  or  by  other  action.  There 
was  no  discussion  of  how  this  relates  at  this 
time  to  any  measures  that  other  countries 
would  take. 

We  will,  however,  have  technical  discus- 
sions with  Japan  within  the  next  month  to 
go  into  the  details  of  the  implications  of  our 
proposal  and  how  it  could  be  put  on  a  multi- 
lateral basis. 


Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  tvas  there  any  discus- 
sion of  the  nuclear  controversy  or  security 
treaty  in  general? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  was  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  nuclear  problem.  The  Presi- 
dent expressed  his  understanding  for  the 
special  sensitivities  of  Japan  with  regard 
to  this  matter.  It  was  agreed  that  the  nu- 
clear issue  would  be  handled  as  it  has  been 
handled  throughout  within  the  framework 
of  the  Mutual  Security  Treaty  and  that  any 
special  problems  in  connection  with  it  would 
be  handled  on  the  basis  of  bilateral  discus- 
sions between  Foreign  Minister  Kimura  and 
myself  and  within  the  framework  of  Ameri- 
can understanding  for  the  special  sensitivi- 
ties of  Japan  with  respect  to  this  issue. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  you  disctiss  resumed 
fighting  in  the  Middle  East,  and  did  you 
discuss  with  the  Japanese  your  plan  for  a 
step-by-step  negotiation  ? 

Secretary  Kissiriger:  We  have  not — first 
of  all,  as  I  pointed  out  in  Washington  before 
we  left,  we  do  not  expect  renewed  fighting 
in  the  Middle  East  in  the  immediate  future. 
We  did  not  yet  have  an  opportunity  to  go 
into  detail  on  the  evolution  of  the  negotia- 
tions in  the  Middle  East.  There  will  be  a 
meeting,  of  course,  again  between  the  Prime 
Minister  and  the  President  tomorrow  morn- 
ing, and  my  associates  and  I  will  be  meeting 
with  the  Foreign  Minister  for  several  hours 
in  the  afternoon;  and  I  am  cei'tain  that  by 
the  end  of  the  day  these  issues  will  have 
been  discussed. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  even  tho7igh  you  did  not 
go  into  detail,  has  Japan  begun  to  make  any 
form  of  a  request  for  the  way  that  the  diplo- 
macy in  the  Middle  East  is  to  be  conducted? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  am  having  trouble 
hearing  you,  Barry  [Barry  Schweid,  Asso- 
ciated Press]. 

Q.  I  am  sorry.  With  regard  to  Japan's 
need  for  oil  and  their  interest  in  the  Middle 
East,  have  they  begun  to  lodge  a  special 
appeal  with  you  as  to  how  that  diplomacy 
should  be  conducted? 


December  23,   1974 


885 


Secretary  Kissmger:   No. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  the  President  in- 
vite the  Emperor  to  the  United  States  in  the 
near  future? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  President  ex- 
tended an  invitation  to  His  Majesty  to  visit 
the  United  States  for  1975,  and  we  are 
pleased  to  report  that  this  invitation  has 
been  accepted.  We  look  forward  to  this  visit. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  did  not  quite  under- 
stand. On  the  nuclear  issue,  you  mean  it 
has  been  brotight  up  by  the  Japanese  as  a 
problem  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  I  made  clear 
that  the  issue  has  been,  as  I  explained,  the 
special  sensitivities  of  Japan  with  respect 
to  nuclear  weapons,  and  then  I  have  ex- 
plained our  reaction. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  ivhut  did  the  President 
say  about  Vladivostok  and  China? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  President  and 
the  Prime  Minister  discussed  the  role  of 
detente  in  current  diplomacy  and  how  we 
believe  that  our  relations  with  the  Soviet 
Union,  as  well  as  the  People's  Republic  of 
China,  can  contribute  to  stability  in  the 
Pacific  area.  We  also  stressed,  however,  that 
the  close  friendship  between  Japan  and  the 
United  States  was  one  of  the  prerequisites 
for  the  effectiveness  of  this  policy,  and  he 
gave  the  Prime  Minister  a  brief  preview  of 
the  subjects  likely  to  be  discussed  in  Vladi- 
vostok. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  said  that  the  Presi- 
dent had  told  the  Prime  Minister  about  our 
oivn  program  for  restricting  our  own  oil 
consumption  through  voluntary  and  other 
means.  Did  the  President  indicate  that 
7ve  would  be  going  to  involuntary  means 
shortly? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Elfin 
[Mel  Elfin,  Newsweek],  I  did  not  say  that 
the  President  explained  our  program.  The 
question  to  which  I  replied  was  whether 
we  would  allocate  consumption  restraints  on 
the  basis  of  the  relative  personal  users ;  and 


I  said  that  our  overall  program  of  consump- 
tion restraints,  of  import  restraints,  in- 
volved both  restraint  on  consumption  as  well 
as  the  development  of  new  sources,  that  with 
respect  to  that,  the  American  goal  for  con- 
sumption restraint  had  been  publicly  stated. 
It  was  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  repeated 
to  the  Prime  Minister,  because  it  is  well 
known ;  and  I  pointed  out  that  the  President 
is  committed  to  achieving  these  restraints 
on  consumption  for  next  year,  and  on  im- 
ports over  a  10-year  period  through  a  com- 
bination of  consumption  restraints  and  new 
sources,  and  that  he  will  achieve  it  either 
through  voluntary  restraints  or  through 
other  measures  that  have  not  yet  been  de- 
cided upon. 

I  am  afraid  I  can  take  only  one  more 
question  because  I  have  to  meet  ex-Prime 
Minister  Sato. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  a  question. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  will  take  two 
then.   This  gentleman  and  you. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  in  connection  ivith  the 
sources  of  energy  for  Japan  and  the  Uyiited 
States,  ivas  there  any  disciissioyi  of  the 
Siberiayi  oilfields  and  possible  development? 
Was  that  reviewed  in  any  ivay? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  This  is  one  of  the 
issues  which  we  expect  to  discuss  before  we 
leave  here.  It  has  not  as  yet  come  out,  but 
we  are  prepared  to  discuss  it. 

Q.  What  are  ive  prepared  to  say? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  will  discuss  it 
at  the  briefing  after  our  meeting. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  in  connection  ivith  the 
nuclear  question,  and  your  sensitivity  to  the 
Japanese  sensitivity  since  their  introduction 
of  nuclear  weapons,  did  you  assure  the  Japa- 
nese that  we  have  never,  and  ivould  never, 
introduce  nuclear  weapons  even  in  a  transit 
situation? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  will  not  go 
beyond  what  I  have  said.  The  question  of 
nuclear  weapons  will  be  discussed  within 
the  context  of  the  Mutual  Security  Treaty, 


886 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


and  it  will  be  handled  as  it  has  been  handled 
within  that  framework. 

I  am  afraid  I  must  turn  it  over  to  Ron 
Nessen  [Ronald  H.  Nessen,  Press  Secretary 
to  President  Ford].  Thank  you  very  much. 


TOKYO,   NOVEMBER   20 

Press  release  508  dated  November  20 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Ladies  and  gentle- 
men, let  me  sum  up  the  communique,  the 
meeting  of  the  President  with  the  Prime 
Minister  this  morning,  and  the  meeting  be- 
tween the  Foreign  Minister  and  myself  this 
afternoon,  because  they  all  cover  similar 
topics. 

First  of  all,  let  me  take  this  occasion  on 
behalf  of  everybody  on  the  American  delega- 
tion to  thank  the  Japanese  Government  for 
the  excellence  of  the  arrangements,  cordial- 
ity, the  hospitality  with  which  we  have  been 
received,  and  for  the  meticulousness  of  the 
planning. 

Secondly,  before  I  get  into  any  of  the  spe- 
cifics, I  would  like  to  say  that  perhaps  the 
most  important  result  of  the  visit — beyond 
any  of  the  specifics  that  were  discussed — has 
been  the  frankness,  cordiality,  and  complete- 
ness of  our  exchanges.  And  the  reference  in 
the  communique  to  the  fact  that  this  first 
visit  by  the  incumbent  President  will  add  a 
new  page  to  the  history  of  amity  between 
the  two  countries  was  put  into  practice  in 
the  discussions. 

The  discussions  today  concentrated  pri- 
marily in  the  morning  on  an  elaboration  of 
the  review  of  the  international  situation  that 
was  begun  yesterday  which  is  based  on  the 
premise  that  Japan  and  the  United  States 
must  understand  each  other's  purposes  and 
harmonize  them  in  the  common  interest  of 
the  two  countries  and  of  world  peace. 

There  was  a  review  of  Chinese  relation- 
ships, Soviet  relationships,  and  indeed,  a  re- 
view of  the  whole  world  situation.  There 
were  discussions  of  the  Middle  East.  For- 
eign Minister  Kimura  told  us  about  his  meet- 
ings with  the  Egyptian  leaders  on  his  recent 
trip,  and  we  exchanged  views  as  to  the  pros- 


pects of  peace  in  the  Middle  East.  And  we 
believe  that  there  are  possibilities  for  hope- 
ful negotiations. 

But  there  was  a  general  understanding 
that  security  in  the  present  age  cannot  be 
confined  to  military  matters  but  that  the  co- 
operation between  Japan  and  the  United 
States  in  the  field  of  energy,  in  the  field  of 
food,  represents  a  new  and  positive  dimen- 
sion of  the  security  which  must  be  added  to 
this  already  established  military  security — 
traditional  security — relationship. 

There  was,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  an  ex- 
change of  views  in  which  the  Japanese  told 
us  about  developments  in  the  latest  ex- 
changes in  September  on  the  occasion  of  the 
U.N.  General  Assembly  and  Japanese  and 
Chinese  relationships,  and  we  did  the  same 
with  respect  to  U.S.-Chinese  relationships. 

Of  course,  as  you  know,  at  the  request  of 
the  President,  I  am  returning  here  after  the 
trip  to  Vladivostok  and  after  my  visit  to 
Peking  to  brief  the  Japanese  leaders  about 
those  developments. 

We  consider  the  exchanges  here  to  have 
been  of  an  extraordinarily  useful  and  impor- 
tant character,  and  they  lay  the  basis  for  a 
new  era  of  partnership  between  Japan  and 
the  United  States. 

Now  I  will  be  glad  to  answer  your  ques- 
tions. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  are  you  saying  that  the 
results  of  the  visit  exceeded  the  expectations 
of  the  President,  and  if  so,  in  ivhat  specific 
ways  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  would  say  that  the 
results  of  the  visit  achieved  perhaps  the  opti- 
mum of  what  one  had  hoped  for.  We  have 
always  attached  the  greatest  importance  to 
the  friendship  between  Japan  and  the  United 
States. 

One  can  never,  in  advance  of  any  visit  or 
any  exchange  of  views,  predict  how  intense 
and  how  far-ranging  the  exchange  will  ac- 
tually be.  But  I  would  say  this  exchange  has 
been  as  candid,  as  frank,  and  as  constructive 
as  any  I  have  attended  since  I  have  been  in 
Washington  and  has  had  the  most  positive 
results. 


December  23,    1974 


887 


Q.  Are  there  any  specific  results  yov  can 
cite? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  that  the  ap- 
proach that  was  taken  to  the  question  of  en- 
ergy, the  question  of  food,  to  the  realization 
of  the  interdependence  of  the  present  world 
economy  and  world  political  structure,  was 
i)f  very  considerable  scope. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  were  your  meetings 
with  officials  other  than  the  Prime  Minister 
and  the  Foreign  Minister — specifically  the 
International  Trade  Minister  [Yasnhiro  Na- 
kasone]  and  Mr.  [Masayoshi]  Ohira — de- 
signed  to  deterynine  in  any  tvay  ivhether  Jap- 
anese policy  ivoidd  continue  as  it  is  regardless 
of  what  happened? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  meeting  with  Fi- 
nance Minister  Ohira  and  Minister  Nakasone 
were  at  the  request  of  those  two  Ministers, 
and  they  were  not  initiated  by  us.  They  were, 
however,  natural  requests. 

The  Finance  Minister,  as  you  know,  was 
Foreign  Minister  until  August,  and  I  worked 
closely  with  him  until  that  time.  We  estab- 
lished a  very  close  working  relationship  and, 
of  course,  the  problem  of  energy  and  food 
has  implications  also  for  finance. 

Minister  Nakasone  was  a  student  of  mine 
at  Harvard,  and  I  have  never  been  in  Japan 
without  having  seen  him,  and  it  would  have 
been  unnatural  for  me  to  refuse  to  see  him 
when  he  suggested  a  meeting. 

In  other  words,  the  meetings  were  in  no 
way  designed  to  deal  with  the  Japanese  do- 
mestic situation  or  to  gain  any  particular 
reassurances.  We  believe  the  Japanese  policy 
is  likely  to  remain  stable. 

Q.  Was  the  Japanese  Foreign  Minister 
sanguine  about  the  prospects  of  a  peaceful 
negotiation  in  the  Middle  East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  the  Japanese 
Foreign  Minister  ought  to  speak  for  him- 
self, and  he  of  course  visited  in  the  Middle 
East  only  Cairo. 

As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  don't  know  if 
"sanguine"  is  exactly  the  right  word.  I  have 
indicated  that  I  believe  there  are  possibili- 
ties for  a  step-by-step  approach.  I  recognize 


that  the  situation  in  the  Middle  East  is  ex- 
tremely complicated  and  that  there  are  many 
issues  involved. 

I  do  believe,  however,  that  with  the  de- 
termination and  the  good  will,  there  are  pos- 
sibilities for  progress  in  the  Middle  East,  and 
I  think  the  Japane.se  Foreign  Minister  should 
speak  for  himself,  though  I  did  not  have  the 
impression  that  he  disagreed  with  my  views. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  you  seek  a  specific 
commitment  from  the  Japanese  Government 
to  participate  in  the  financial  safety  net,  and 
if  so,  what  was  the  government's  reaction? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  did  not  go  into 
the  detail  of  every  individual  measure  that 
I  have  proposed.  We  discussed  in  general 
terms  the  importance  of  consumer  coopera- 
tion along  the  lines  of  my  speech  and  of  a 
dialogue  that  would  grow  out  of  this  with 
the  producers.  We  will  have  further  dis- 
cussions on  the  individual  measures  and  on 
the  implementation  of  the  program,  but  I 
had  the  impression  that  there  was  a  general 
sympathy  to  the  approach. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  ivas  there  anything  in 
section  3  of  the  communique  dealing  ivith 
nuclear  weapons  control  that  shoidd  he  in- 
terpreted as  referring  to  the  question  of 
transit  of  nuclear  weapons  in  Japan? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  discussed  that  sub- 
ject yesterday. 

Q.  I  understand,  b2tt  the  communique  did 
not  refer  to  that. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Not  beyond  anything 
I  have  said  since  yesterday. 

Q.  As  specifically  as  you  can,  were  any 
assurances  given  Japan  about  pooling  of 
energy  resources  by  the  United  States  shoidd 
there  be  another  oil  squeeze? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  must  say,  begin- 
ning a  question  as  specifically  as  you  have 
wounds  me  deeply.  It  is  also  against  my 
professorial  training. 

Q.  As  generally  as  you  would  like. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  sharing  of  oil 
supplies  is  part  of  the  emergency  program 


888 


Department   of  State   Bulletin 


that  was  ratified  last  week  and  that  will  be 
formally  adopted  this  week.  There  were  no 
additional  commitments  made. 

However,  the  United  States  has  made  it 
clear  that  it  believes  that  consumer  solidar- 
ity is  an  important  element  in  overcoming 
the  difficulties  produced  by  the  energy  crisis 
and  that  it  will  work  closely  with  the  Japa- 
nese Government  and  other  interested  gov- 
ernments in  dealing  with  this  issue  on  the 
basis  of  consumer  solidarity.  And  I  repeat, 
I  believe  we  had  very  fruitful  and  construc- 
tive exchanges  on  that  range  of  issues. 

Q.  Were  there  any  additional  agreements? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  was  no  dis- 
cussion on  going  beyond  the  emergency  pro- 
gram that  has  just  been  adopted  three  or 
four  days  ago,  so  there  was  no  reason  to 
reach  any  additional  agreements. 

Q.  You  said  the  United  States  is  prepared 
to  maintain  a  stable  food  supply  to  Japan. 
Do  you  contemplate  being  able  to  increase 
the  level  of  supply  to  meet  the  increasing 
demand  in  Japan? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Let  me  explain  the 
U.S.  basic  approach  to  the  food  problem, 
which  we  reviewed  again  today  in  some  de- 
tail in  my  meeting  with  the  Foreign  Minis- 
ter and  on  which  I  believe  there  is  a  general 
agreement.  And  it  is  an  appi'oach  that  got 
overshadowed  by  the  debate  on  food  aid. 

The  United  States  believes  that  the  basic 
problem  of  world  food  supply  requires  some 
structural  adjustment.  There  is  now  in  the 
underdeveloped  countries  a  food  shortage  of 
about  25  million  tons  which  will  increase — 
may  increase — to  as  much  as  85  million  tons 
over  a  decade.  We  therefore  believe  that  it 
is  important  to  increase  agricultural  produc- 
tion in  the  underdeveloped  countries  and  to 
provide  food  reserves  to  cushion  against 
emergencies. 

In  both  of  these  efforts,  we  believe  that 
the  Japanese  Government  will  cooperate 
with  us,  especially  with  respect  to  the  under- 
developed countries,  which  is  a  problem  of 
technology.  And  we  will  have  some  ex- 
changes on  that  subject. 

To  the  degree  that  food  production  rises 


in  those  countries,  more  food  supplies  will 
also  become  available  in  the  United  States. 
To  answer  your  question  specifically,  we  will 
give  special  attention  to  the  needs  of  Japan. 
We  will,  in  planning  our  own  export,  also 
try  to  do  this  on  a  more  long-term  basis 
than  has  been  the  case  in  the  past,  and  we 
will  have  intense  consultations  with  Japan 
on  what  can  be  done  to  assure  their  needs. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  Japanese  officials  were 
basically  sympathetic  to  your  oil  proposal. 
Wliat  have  they  learned  since  last  Friday, 
when  they  were  basically  unsympathetic? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  was  not  here  last 
Friday,  so  I  don't  know  what  they  said  last 
Friday.  I  can  only  say  what  they  said  this 
week. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  have  you  had  any  re- 
quests for  a  meeting  by  either  Mr.  [Takeo] 
Fukuda  or  Mr.  [Takeo]  Miki,  and  in  par- 
ticular, Mr.  [Erusaburo]  Shina?  If  so,  have 
yon  met  them  or  have  you  talked  ivith  them 
any  other  way? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  not  had  a 
request  for  a  meeting.  I  have  run  into  Mr. 
Fukuda  at  social  functions  as  I  have  also 
with  Mr.  Miki,  but  just  to  exchange  a  few 
words,  and  neither  of  them  requested  a 
meeting. 

Q.  Were  there  any  discussions  on  Korea? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  was  just  a 
very  brief  discussion  about  the  relationship 
between  Korean  security  and  the  security  of 
Japan.  But  there  was  no  detailed  further 
discussions. 

Q.  Do  you  have  any  plans  to  see  Le  Due 
Tho  in  Peking? 

Secretary  Kissinger:    No. 

Q.  When  you  are  traveling  there? 

Secretary  Kissinger:    No. 

Q.  In  Moscow? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  no  plans  to 
see  Le  Due  Tho  anywhere. 

Q.  Never? 


December  23,   1974 


889 


Secretary  Kissinger:  "Never"  is  a  very 
long  time,  but  I  have  no  plans  to  see  Le  Due 
Tho  on  his  current  trip,  which  I  understand 
is  to  last  two  weeks.  I  read  that  in  the  news- 
papers. But  1  have  no  plans  to  meet  Le 
Due  Tho. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  the  President  seems  to 
spend  a  lot  of  his  time  in  ceremonial  activi- 
ties here.  Wasn't  it  an  nnusnal  sort  of  pro- 
gram ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  the  President 
spent  a  considerable  amount  of  time  on  the 
bilateral  talks.  In  addition,  he  spent  some 
time  on  ceremonial  activities,  which,  as  I 
explained  before  we  came  here,  constitute 
an  important  element  in  the  symbolism  of 
the  relationship  and  in  the  mood,  which  is 
such  an  important  attribute  in  which  deci- 
sions tend  to  be  made  in  this  country. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  you  tell  vs  whif 
Mr.  Rumsfeld  [Donald  Rumsfeld,  Assistant 
to  the  President]  is  accompanying  you  to 
China? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  When  we  were  fly- 
ing across  the  Pacific,  Mr.  Rumsfeld  sug- 
gested that  maybe  on  my  next  trip  to  China 
I  would  take  him  along.  I  then  said,  "Well, 
as  long  as  you  are  here  this  time,  why  don't 
we  see  whether  we  can  still  arrange  it?" 

I  asked  the  President  what  he  thought 
about  it,  and  the  President  thought  it  would 
be  a  good  idea  if  his  chief  of  staff  had  some 
exposure  to  China.  The  explanation  is  as 
simple  as  this.  It  was  an  off-the-cuff  idea 
that  occurred  to  us  as  we  were  crossing  the 
Pacific.  I  believe  it  will  be  helpful  to  have 
the  President's  chief  of  staff  have  some  ex- 
posure to  China,  but  it  has  no  profound 
significance  beyond  this. 

Q.  On  the  nuclear  issue,  ivhat  kind  of 
further  understandings  came  out  between 
you  and  the  President  and  the  Japanese 
leaders  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  mentioned  yester- 
day the  discussions,  and  of  course  there  are 
always  discussions  within  the  framework— 
the  Mutual  Security  Treaty  that  permits  is- 
sues to  be  raised— and  as  I  have  said,  we 

890 


will  take  into  account  the  very  special  sen- 
sitivities of  the  Japanese  people  with  respect    : 
to  nuclear  weapons. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  you  talk  about  U.S. 
aud  .Japan's  general  approach  to  Siberian 
development  planning? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  Japanese  side 
explained  to  us  the  general  approach  to  Si- 
berian development  planning.  We  are  in  no 
position  to  make  any  judgments  until  the 
trade  bill  and  the  Export-Import  Bank  bill 
have  been  passed  by  our  Congress.  And 
therefore  we  will  have  to  defer  any  decision 
and  consideration  of  these  issues  until  that 
time. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  in  your  discussions  with 
Japanese  officials  and  former  officials,  have 
you  made  any  inquiries  into  the  state  of  Jap- 
anese domestic  politics? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  haven't  made  any 
inquiries  into  the  state  of  Japanese  domestic 
polities.  It  is  impossible  to  have  lunch  with 
press  people  without  being  told  certain 
things,  but  you  must  be  as  familiar  with 
those  as  I  am. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  the  answer  that  the 
President  gave  in  Phoenix  on  the  siibject  of 
the  PLO  [Palestine  Liberation  Organization] 
was  a  bit  confusing.  At  one  point  he  referred 
to  the  desirability  of  Israel  negotiating  with 
the  parties,  and  another  time  he  was  saying 
negotiations  among  nations.  Could  you  say 
whether  the  United  States  favors  negotia- 
tions with  Israel  arid  the  PLO? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  I  went  into 
that  issue  in  detail  at  my  press  conference  on 
Friday  before  we  left  Washington.  I  made 
clear  "then  that  the  United  States  is  not  urg- 
ing anybody  to  negotiate  with  anybody  else 
and  any  negotiation  is  of  course  up  to  the 
parties  concerned.  And  it  is  our  understand- 
ing that  Israel  has  refused  to  negotiate  with 
the  PLO. 

Q.  What  was  meant  ivhen  the  President 
said  today  at  the  press  club,  "We  will  not 
compete  with  our  friends  for  their  markets 
or  for  their  resources."  Is  there  a  carving 


Deparfment  of  State   Bulletin 


up  of  sectio)is  of  the   world  into  Japa7iese 
markets  and  into  American  markets? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  what  the 
President  had  in  mind  is  we  do  not  look  at 
our  relationship  with  Japan  in  terms  of  com- 
petition but  that  the  relationship  between 
the  industrial  nations  and  especially  between 
Japan  and  the  United  States  in  the  Pacific 
area  should  be  on  the  basis  of  cooperation 
and  that  in  an  expanding  world  economy 
there  is  sufficient  place  for  both  of  us.  There 
is  no  carving  up  of  markets  that  was  dis- 
cussed or  is  contemplated. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  think  the  next 
time  an  American  President  visits  Japan, 
visits  Tokyo,  he  could  do  it  without  having 
25,000  police  mobilized  for  his  visit? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  the  security  ar- 
rangements for  the  visit  of  any  President 
are  of  course  up  to  the  host  government,  and 
it  is  natural  that  they  would  tend  to  over- 
insure  his  safety. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  I  would  like  to  say  fur- 
ther, your  statement  yesterday  about  the 
U.S.  position  on  industrial  oil  cotisumers  and 
their  cooperation  seems  milder  than  the  tone 
of  your  speech  in  Chicago  just  before  yon 
left.  Is  that  a  correct  interpretation,  and  if 
so,  has  the  position  softened  as  a  residt  of 
talks  with  the  Japanese? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Our  position  is  un- 
changed. Our  position  is  that  the  industrial 
oil  consumers  have  to  cooperate  and  estab- 
lish some  basic  principles  before  there  can 
be  a  productive  dialogue  with  the  producers. 
This  position  has  not  softened.  It  is  not  a 
position  of  confrontation  either,  because  we 
believe  that  the  ultimate  solution  must  be 
found  on  a  cooperative  basis. 

In  developing  cooperation  among  the  con- 
sumers, obviously  consideration  has  to  be 
given  to  the  special  circumstances  of  indi- 
vidual countries  in  applying  these  various 
measures  that  were  proposed.  This  is  what  I 
intended  to  point  out  yesterday.  But  the  po- 
sition remains  as  I  outlined  it  on  Thursday. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  there  has  been  renewed 
specidation — /  know  you  answered  this  last 


Friday — but  there  has  been  renewed  specu- 
lation that  the  fact  that  you  and  the  Presi- 
dent are  meeting  Mr.  Brezhnev  in  Vladivos- 
tok has  been  a  source  of  irritation  in  Peking. 
Is  there  any  substance  to  that? 

Secretary  Kissiyiger:  We  have  had  no  indi- 
cation whatever  from  Peking  directly  or  in- 
directly through  any  sources  that  have 
reached  us  that  it  is  a  source  of  irritation  to 
Peking.  I  repeat,  we  have  had  opportunity  to 
obtain  Peking's  views. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  your  Chicago  speech, 
you  said  you  had  the  i?npression.  the  Japanese 
Government  was  sympathetic  to  the  ap- 
proach spelled  out  in  that  speech.  When  do 
you  anticipate  seeing  some  concrete  evidence 
of  that? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  believe  that  over 
the  next  month  concrete  exchanges  will  be- 
gin on  the  implementation  of  these  ideas 
with  various  consuming  countries,  and  I 
think  that  my  statement  will  then  be  proved 
correct. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  in  view  of  the  Japanese 
expression  yesterday  of  their  difficulty  with 
reducing  their  energy  consumption  by  the 
standards  you  outlined  in  Chicago,  did  you 
give  them  any  refinement,  especially  for  Ja- 
pan to  think  about  over  the  next  month  or  so? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  it  is  very  im- 
portant to  separate  two  things — the  basic 
approach  and  individual  technical  applica- 
tions of  it  on  a  Presidential  trip  with  the 
relatively  limited  amount  of  time  that  is 
available.  The  conversations  have  to  concen- 
trate on  the  basic  approach.  They  cannot  go 
into  the  details  of  all  the  technical  matters. 

Secondly,  as  I  pointed  out  yesterday,  we 
did  not  say  consumption  had  to  be  reduced 
by  10  percent  in  every  country.  We  said  that 
over  a  period  of  10  years,  imports  should  be 
kept  level  by  the  whole  group  on  the  basis  of 
consumption  restraints  and  the  development 
of  new  sources  of  energy.  The  precise  appor- 
tionment within  the  group  of  either  consump- 
tion restraints  or  the  bringing  into  being  of 
new  sources  of  energy  has  to  be  discussed. 

I  would  like  to  remind  you  the  same  prob- 


December  23,   1974 


891 


lems  existed  when  the  emergency  sharing 
program  was  first  proposed  last  February, 
and  it  took  about  three  or  four  months  to 
work  out  all  the  details.  This  is  a  technically 
highly  complex  issue,  but  we  are  on  the 
whole  encouraged  by  the  talks  that  took 
place  here. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  how  does  the  President 
feel  about  his  first  big  foreign  trip? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  he  feels  ex- 
tremely good  about  it. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  to  you  about  it  and  say 
why? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  He  talked  to  me 
about  it  in  the  two  minutes  from  the  south 
wing  of  the  [Hotel]  Okura  to  the  main  build- 
ing, and  therefore  I  don't  think  he  could 
give  me  all  the  refinements  of  his  judgment 
in  that  period. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  now  that  we  are  going 
to  leave  Japan  and  go  to  Korea,  can  you  tell 
us  whether  the  President  is  going  to  express 
any  degree  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  degree 
of  political  oppression  in  South  Korea? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have  stated  the 
importance  that  we  attach  to  the  security  of 
South  Korea.  We  have  also,  I  believe,  made 
clear  our  general  view  with  respect  to  the 
form  of  domestic  conduct  we  prefer,  but  I 
do  not  want  to  predict  now  what  the  Presi- 
dent will  discuss  in  his  private  talks  with 
President  Park. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  there  has  been  consider- 
able talk  in  the  Defense  Department  over  the 
last  few  years  about  reducing  the  size  of 
U.S.  troops  in  South  Korea.  Are  7jou  about 
to  do  that  noiv?  Has  the  decision  been  made 
to  do  that?  Is  that  why  you  are  going  to 
Korea? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  are  not  going  to 
South  Korea  in  order  to  discuss — much  less 
to  announce — any  reduction  of  forces.  We 
are  going  to  South  Korea  for  the  reason  that 
I  indicated  before.  It  is  an  ally.  It  is  a 
country  whose  security  is  important  not  only 
to  the  United  States  but  also  to  Japan,  and 


it  would  have  created  all  the  wrong  impres- 
sions for  the  President  to  be  in  Japan  and 
not  pay  the  visit  over  such  a  short  distance 
to  Korea. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  the  President  and 
Tanaka  discuss  the  implications  of  the  In- 
dian nuclear  explosion? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Not  in  my  presence, 
and  I  was  present  at  all  the  meetings. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  I  believe  you  did  not 
answer  the  last  question,  which  was:  Are  we 
going  to  reduce  the  troops  in  South  Korea? 
Your  answer  ivas,  We  are  not  going  to  dis- 
cuss, much  less  announce,  it.  But  are  we 
going  to  reduce? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  know  of  no  plans. 
There  are  no  plans  to  reduce  troops  in 
Korea. 

I  will  take  two  more  questions. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  is  it  your  understanding 
that  Israel  is  refusing  to  negotiate  with 
PLO,  Palestinians  in  general,  or  only  those 
Palestinians  ivho  want  a  separate  Pales- 
tinian state? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  haven't  had  an  op- 
portunity to  learn  all  the  refinements  of  the 
Israeli  position  on  that  point.  My  under- 
standing is  that  they  will  not  negotiate  with 
the  PLO,  and  I  am  not  familiar  with  any 
other  group  that  labels  itself  Palestinian 
that  has  come  forward  as  a  candidate  for 
negotiations. 

Last  question. 

Q.  Have  you  received  any  explanation 
why  the  Japanese  Parliament  hasn't  yet  been 
presented  with  a  bill  to  ratify  the  nuclear 
Nonproliferation  Treaty,  and  are  you  satis- 
fied with  the  explanations? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Since  we  have  not 
I'eceived  such  an  explanation  on  this  trip,  I 
can't,  obviously,  express  any  satisfaction  or 
dissatisfaction  with  it.  The  United  States 
favors  the  ratification  of  the  Nonprolifera- 
tion Treaty. 

The  press:    Thank  you. 


892 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


VLADIVOSTOK,   NOVEMBER   24,    1:35   A.M. 

Press  release  511 A  dated  November  25 

Ronald  H.  Nessen,  Piess  Secretary  to 
President  Ford:  Gentlemen,  as  you  can  see, 
the  Secretary  will  brief  you  on  today's  meet- 
ing. 

Let  me  quickly  run  through  the  sequence 
of  events  so  the  Secretary  can  devote  his 
time  to  substance. 

The  first  meeting  lasted  from  6: 15  to  8: 15 
and  all  the  participants  who  are  listed  in  the 
briefing  that  Jack  [John  W.  Hushen,  Deputy 
Press  Secretary]  gave  you  took  part  in  that. 
There  was  then  a  half-hour  break,  during 
which  the  President  and  the  Secretary  took 
a  walk.  The  meetings  resumed  at  8:45  and 
lasted  until  11:30. 

The  second  meeting  lasted  from  8:45  to 
11:30.  The  President,  the  General  Secretary, 
the  Secretary  of  State,  and  the  Foreign  Min- 
ister attended  that.  Then  there  was  a  half- 
hour  break  from  11:30  until  midnight. 

The  last  meeting  lasted  from  midnight 
until  12:30.  The  four  participants,  plus 
Ambassador  [Anatoliy  F.]  Dobrynin,  took 
part  in  that.  The  dinner  was  then  postponed. 
The  President  walked  back  to  his  dacha  with 
his  staff  and  had  a  snack,  about  which  I  will 
tell  you  later. 

The  schedule  for  tomorrow  is  for  the 
meetings  to  resume  at  10  o'clock  until  ap- 
proximately 2  o'clock,  at  which  time  the 
dinner  that  was  canceled  tonight  will  take 
place — at  2  o'clock. 

I  will  give  you  further  details  later,  but 
I  think  at  this  point  you  would  like  to  hear 
about  the  substance  of  the  meetings  from 
Secretary  Kissinger. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  can't  go  into  too 
much  substance,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I 
am  here  primarily  because  I  promised  some 
of  you  on  the  airplane  that  I  would  be  here. 

There  were  two  major  topics  discussed  to- 
day on  the  train  ride.^  For  about  an  hour 
and  a  half,  there  was  a  general  review  of 


'  President  Ford  was  greeted  at  Vozdvishenka  Air- 
port in  Ussuriysk  by  General  Secretary  Brezhnev 
on  Nov.  23;  they  traveled  by  train  to  Vladivostok. 


U.S.-Soviet  relations  and  the  world  situa- 
tion. It  was  a  get-acquainted  session  between 
the  President  and  the  General  Secretary. 
And  I  think  it  went  very  well. 

All  the  rest  of  the  discussions  this  evening 
concerned  SALT — that  is,  all  of  the  discus- 
sions that  Ron  Nessen  mentioned  dealt  with 
the  subject  of  SALT. 

I  think  that  you  remember,  as  I  told  you, 
I  believe  that  progress  was  made  in  October. 
I  think  that  we  went  further  along  the  road 
that  was  charted  in  October.  We  went  into 
considerable  detail  and  many  aspects  of  it, 
and  we  will  continue  the  discussions  to- 
morrow morning.  And  certainly,  enough 
has  already  been  discussed  to  give  impetus 
to  the  negotiations  in  Geneva. 

Now,  how  much  more  precise  we  can  be 
tomorrow,  what  further  details  can  be  de- 
veloped, that  remains  to  be  seen,  and  we 
will  of  course  brief  you  after  the  session 
tomorrow  and  let  you  have  the  results. 

We  will  undoubtedly  discuss  other  issues 
tomorrow,  including  the  Middle  East  and 
Europe,  but  today,  the  exclusive  focus  after 
the  train  ride  was  on  SALT. 

Barry  [Barry  Schweid,  Associated  Press]. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  did  you  say  that  there 
ivonld  be  nothing  left  to  discuss  because  you 
have  already  achieved  the  optimum  of  what 
you  expected  to  achieve  at  this  meeting? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  if  we  had  al- 
ready achieved  the  optimum  that  is  achiev- 
able, there  would  not  be  anything  left  to 
discuss  tomorrow. 

We  had  a  very  satisfactory  talk  today.  I 
didn't  have  any  very  precise  expectations 
about  what  we  could  get.  I  talked  to  a 
number  of  you,  and  I  think  I  had  explained 
that  we  will  try  to  build  on  the  discussions 
of  October.  That  has  been  done.  How  much 
further  we  can  go — we  are  really  now  in 
areas  of  considerable  technical  complexity 
and  relationship  of  various  types  of  forces 
to  each  other,  but  I  would  expect  that  we 
will  make  some  further  progress  tomorrow 
morning.  In  fact,  I  am  reasonably  confident 
that  we  will. 

Helen  [Helen  Thomas,  United  Press  In- 
ternational] . 


December  23,   1974 


893 


Q.  Do  you  knoiv  if  %ohat  has  happened 
today  could  be  called  a  breakthrough? 

Secreary  Kissinger:  No,  I  would  not  call 
this  a  breakthrough.  The  last  time  I  used 
the  word  "breakthrough"  I  suffered  from  it 
for  months  to  come. 

I  think,  certainly,  enough  was  discussed 
today  to  help  the  negotiators  considerably. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  ivas  there  a  specific  pro- 
posal that  ivas  put  forward  by  one  side  or 
the  other? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  sequence  of 
events  has  been  as  follows:  In  October,  in 
Moscow,  the  Soviet  Union  made  a  proposal, 
or  advanced  considerations,  that  I  consid- 
ered that  we  have  described  as  constructive. 
Building  on  these  considerations,  the  United 
States  made  some  counterproposals  which 
will  be  before  the  Soviet  leaders  when  we 
meet  today. 

The  Soviet  leaders,  in  turn,  advanced  some 
considerations  of  their  own  to  which  the 
President,  in  turn,  responded  today;  so  it  is 
a  process  in  which  the  views  of  the  two 
sides  are  being  brought  closer  without  as  yet 
being  identical  but  we  are  in  the  same  gen- 
eral ball  park.  We  are  talking  about  the 
same  thing,  on  the  same  principles,  and  each 
exchange  refines  the  issues  more  clearly  and 
brings  them  closer. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  are  you  talking  about 
MIRV's?  Can  you  give  ns  any  specifics  of 
what  area  you  are  talking  about? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  are  talking  about 
comprehensive  limitations  including  num- 
bers as  well  as  MIRV's. 

Q.  Including  numbers? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Including  overall 
numbers  as  well  as  MIRV's. 

Q.  Do  you  think  now  that  you  have  come 
closer  to  your  goal  in  1975  on  an  agreement? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  we 
have  come  closer  to  our  goal  of  having  an 
agreement  in  1975. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  when  you  say  overall 


894 


numbos,  as  well  as  MIRV's,  you.  are  talking  i 
about  total  delivery  systems  or  are  you  talk- 
ing about  total  warheads  or  what? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  this  is  one  of 
the  issues  that  is  being  discussed.  But 
generally  speaking,  we  are  talking  about 
total  delivery  systems. 

Q.  Total  delivery  systems? 

Secretary  Kissinger :  Yes. 

Q.   What— 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Total  delivery  sys- 
tems. 

Q.  Has  this  been  one  of  the  subjects  of 
discussion,  hoiv  to  define  the  number  that  you 
then  will  make  known? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  obviously,  when 
you  discuss  strategic  limitations,  you  discuss 
what  sort  of  numbers  would  be  considered 
appropriate  as  well  as  how  you  would  then 
define  them  and  this  is  part  of  the  discussion. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  to  follow  up  what  I  asked' 
before,  as  I  understand  the  events  as  you  de- 
scribed them,  the  sequence,  today  the  Soviets 
came  forward  with  a  proposal  modifying 
their  vieivs  on  what  we  had  given  them  ear- 
lier ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Today,  the  Soviets  re- 
sponded to  what  we  put  before  them,  which 
in  turn  was  the  response  to  what  they  had 
put  before  us  in  October.  That  is  correct. 

Q.  And  when  ivas  it  that  ive  gave  this  re- 
sponse to  them  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Oh,  let's  see.  I  guess 
on  the  Tuesday  or  Wednesday,  whenever  I 
had  lunch  with  Ambassador  Dobrynin.  I 
guess  on  Wednesday  before  we  left  on  the 
trip. 

Q.  And  it  was  at  that  lunch? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  is  right. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  in  connection  with  this 
meeting,  are  you  optimistic? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  am  optimistic  about 
this  meeting,  yes. 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


nan 
isiK 
intt 


S( 
atmi 
reas 


Pres 


loii 


Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  how  do  the  two  men  get 
along?  Is  there  anything  you  can  tell  ns 
about  your  personal  view? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  the  impres- 
sion that  the  two  men  get  along  excellently. 
On  the  train  ride,  the  atmosphere  was 
friendly  and  was  turning  to  cordiality  to- 
ward the  end.  The  subject  of  strategic  arms 
is  not  one  that  lends  itself  to  small  talk,  but 
in  the  breaks  there  was  an  easy  relationship, 
and  I  think  both  sides  are  conscious  of  the 
responsibility  they  have  in  trying  to  make 
progress  in  this  area  and  are  conducting 
themselves  accordingly.  I  think  the  relation- 
ship between  the  two  men  is  good. 

Q.  Was  the  absence  of  the  Watergate 
ever — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  it  is  a  different 
atmosphere  from  the  one  in  July  for  many 
reasons. 

Q.  Hoiv  so? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  in  any  event, 
President  Nixon  was  a  lameduck  President, 
leaving  Watergate  aside.  President  Ford  has 
announced  that  he  is  running  for  reelection 
in  1976,  so  he  is  not  a  lameduck  President. 

In  July,  for  a  variety  of  reasons,  things 
were  not  ripe  for  an  agreement.  I  think  now 
— I  am  not  saying  things  are  ripe  for  an 
agreement  here,  but  I  think  both  sides  are 
making  a  very  serious  effort  to  come  to  an 
agreement  during  1975. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  President  Ford  to  run  to 
improve  his  negotiating  stance? 


Secretary    Kissinger: 
that  question? 


Would    you    repeat 


Q.  Did  you  urge  President  Ford  to  run  to 
improve  his  negotiating  stance? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Did  I  urge  him  to  run 
to  improve — that  he  run?  Oh,  did  I  urge  him 
to  run? 

Q.  Yes. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  saw  that  article.  I 
am  not  involved  in  domestic  politics,  and  any- 


one who  takes  my  advice  on  that  is  in  deep 
trouble. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  would  you  say  that  the 
amount  of  time  you  spent  on  SALT  today  and 
the  canceled  dinner  indicate  that  you  are  be- 
hind schedide  in  terms  of  your  own  expecta- 
tions of  the  pace  of  this  meeting? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No,  I  would  say  that 
we  have  gotten  into  technical  subjects  of  a 
complication  that  might  indicate  the  oppo- 
site. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  the  walk  that  you  took 
with  the  President — ivas  this  just  for  relaxa- 
tion, or  was  it  necessary  to  discuss  with  the 
President  in  private  certain  decisions  or 
other  ynatters? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  It  was  to  take  relaxa- 
tion in  private. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  considering  the  decision 
to  go  for  a  10-year  treaty  was  a  decision  by 
a  lameduck  President,  is  it  still  the  way  to  go 
about  this?  Has  there  been  any  change  in 
your  assessment? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  am  not  saying  that 
a  lameduck  President  cannot  make  correct 
decisions. 

Q.  I  realize  that. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  am  saying  a  lame- 
duck President  runs  up  against  the  difficulty 
that  his  protagonists  know  the  time  limit  of 
his  term  in  office,  and  I  think  that  the  deci- 
sion to  go  for  a  10-year  agreement  was  ab- 
solutely the  correct  one — remains  the  correct 
one. 

Q.  There  were  suggestions  that  it  was  an 
option  that  was  not  the  top  option,  but  it  was 
an  option  just  taking  what  coidd  be — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  The  fact  of  the 
matter  is  that  when  we  analyzed  in  July,  we 
were  talking  primarily  about  a  five-year 
agreement,  five  years  from  now.  As  we  ana- 
lyzed the  difficulties  we  faced,  we  came  uni- 
laterally to  the  conclusion  that  to  try  to  re- 
solve these  difficulties  would  not  be  worth  it 


December  23,   1974 


895 


I 


because  both  sides  would  be  straining  against 
the  date  that  the  agreement  would  last  and 
therefore  the  breakout  considerations  would 
almost  dominate  the  agreement  itself.  So, 
President  Nixon  and  I  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  in  any  event  the  effort  that  would  have 
to  be  put  into  negotiating  a  five-year  agree- 
ment and  then  selling  it  at  home  would  not 
really  be  worth  it  in  terms  of  its  substantive 
merit  and  therefore  we  did  not  attempt  to 
narrow  the  gap  by  concession  here  or  there 
which  could  have  kept  the  project  going  but, 
rather,  moved  it  into  a  framework  which 
seemed  on  substance  more  promising. 

Q.  Has  the  progress  been  such  that  some 
sort  of  agreement  will  be  signed  here,  and  is 
there  any  change  in  our  plans  to  leave  to- 
morrow? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  I  am  certain  that 
we  will  leave  tomorrow.  It  may  be  a  few 
hours  later  in  the  day  than  had  been  tenta- 
tively planned. 

There  is  no  possibility  of  signing  a  SALT 
agreement  here.  Whatever  is  provisionally 
agreed  to  here  will  have  to  be  spelled  out  in 
very  detailed  negotiations  which  are  going 
to  be  extremely  complicated  and  which  can 
easily  fail.  What  we  can  do  here  is  reach 
orders  of  magnitude,  of  directions  in  which 
to  go,  relationship  of  various  categories  to 
each  other.  That  sort  of  thing  can  be  done 
here. 

Spelling  this  out,  what  it  means,  what  re- 
straints are  necessary,  what  inspection,  what 
requirements  there  are  for  this,  there  is  not 
enough  technical  expertise  here,  and  in  any 
event  it  is  inconceivable  that  an  agreement 
will  be  signed  here.  How  the  guidelines  will 
be  given,  that  remains  to  be  seen  after  the 
session  tomorrow  morning. 

Q.  /  take  it  that  the  Soviets  are  willing, 
hoivever,  to  go  into  more  detail  here  than  yon 
anticipated.  You  are  saying  that  the  Soviet 
Government  is  eager  to  sign,  an  agreement 
next  year.  How  much  will  the  chance  be  im- 
proved now? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  really  would 
rather  wait  with  making  an  estimate  on  that 

896 


after  the  session  tomorrow.  I  would  think  the 
chances  have  been  somewhat  improved. 

Q.  Is  it  fair  to  say  that  the  Soviets  were 
ivilling  to  go  into  more  detail  here  than  what 
you  had  anticipated? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  I  thought  that 
there  was  a  possibility  that — we  knew  the 
order  of  magnitude  of  the  discussion,  be- 
cause we  had  reached  a  point  where  a  spe- 
cific set  of  considerations  had  been  put  be- 
fore us.  We  had  replied  in  somewhat  those 
terms. 

We  expect  the  answer  to  come  back  again 
in  those  terms,  but  the  discussion  obviously 
required  some  detailed  analyses.  I  think  that 
it  has  gone  reasonably  well. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  ivould  you  please  specu- 
late on  what  considerations,  political  or  oth- 
erivise,  may  have  prompted  the  Russians  to 
move  in  this  direction  and  come  this  far  and 
this  much  progress? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Don't  go  overboard 
yet  on  progress.  I  am  trying  to  give  you  a 
sense  of  movement.  I  have  always  stressed 
that  this  is  a  very  difficult  subject,  and  it  is 
quite  possible  that  when  we  resume  tomor- 
row, it  will  turn  out  that  we  will  not  go  fur- 
ther than  where  we  have  reached  tonight.  I 
think  both  sides  have  realized,  and  I  think 
the  Soviet  side  has  also  realized,  that  at  some 
point  we  will  be  so  deeply  involved  on  both 
sides  in  the  next  round  of  weapons  develop- 
ment and  procurement  that  that  cycle  will 
become  irreversible.  The  cycles  can  really  be 
mastered  only  at  certain  strategic  intervals, 
and  once  they  have  gone  a  certain  time, 
whatever  that  particular  cycle  is  will  tend  to 
be  completed,  and  one  has  to  wait  for  the 
next  one  to  come  around. 

I  think  that  realization  that  we  have  been' 
stressing  for  a  year,  I  think  it  is  now  ac- 
cepted by  both  sides.  And  it  is  obvious  that 
if  the  race  continues  that  the  United  States 
will  have  to  enter  certain  areas  of  weapons 
development  that  it  would  prefer  not  to  have 
to  do.  I  think  it  was  a  combination  of  factors 
like  this  that  has  accounted  for  the  progress 
of  the  discussions  of  recent  months. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  seem   to  carefully\ 
Department  of  State   Bulletir 


iiiidf 

h 
licve 


litis 
'   1( 


sides 


ISjij 

Sofii 


delineate  between  a  provisional  agreement 
and  a  formal  signing.  Is  there  a  'possihilit ij 
that  by  the  time  you  leave  here  tomorroiv 
evening  you  might  have  reached  a  provisional 
understanding? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  have  always  be- 
lieved, and  have  said  so,  that  out  of  this 
meeting  some  guidelines  to  the  negotiators 
could  emerge,  and  some  guides  will  certainly 
emerge.  Now,  whether  they  will  take  the 
form  of  announced  guidelines  or  simply  a 
general  agreement  to  instruct  the  delegation, 
it  is  still  too  early  to  say. 

I  don't  know  what  you  would  call  a  provi- 
sional agreement.  There  will  not  be  a  binding 
agreement;  there  will  not  be  an  agreement 
that  reflects  itself  in  the  actions  of  the  two 
sides  at  this  meeting. 

Q.  The  question  then  is  whether  you  are 
going  to  sign  or  not  going  to  sign. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  we  cannot  say 
until  after  the  meeting  tomorrow,  but  it  de- 
pends on  what  you  mean  by  "announce." 
There  will  certainly  be  something  about 
SALT  in  the  communique. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  you  say  whether  or 
not  the  Soviets  want  to  have  our  tactical  nu- 
clear weapons  in  Europe  counted  into  num- 
bers, strategic  weapons? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  don't  think  I 
should  go  into  all  the  individual  details,  but 
when  I  said  that  the  discussions  concerned 
the  relationship  of  various  categories  of 
weapons  to  each  other,  that  has  been  one  of 
the  questions — overseas  systems  has  been 
one  of  the  questions  that  in  the  past  has 
been  raised. 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  in  the  past,  you  talked 
about  the  desirability  of  tryiyig  to  work  out 
an  agreement  that  woidd  in  fact  be  more  sim- 
ple than  the  complex  arrangements  that  have 
previously  been  discussed.  Are  we  in  fact 
saying  in  our  response  that  both  we  and  the 
Soviets  have  started  moving  toward  this 
more  simple,  more  basic  formulation? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  it  is 
hard  to  answer  this  in  the  abstract.  I  think 


it  is  probably  fair  to  say  that  we  are  moving 
toward  simplicity,  yes,  but  that  is  a  very 
relative  concept. 

Q.  Do  you  have  any  limit  on  the  amount  of 
time  you  will  devote  to  the  SALT,  and  how 
much  time  are  you  prepared  to  spend  on  the 
Middle  East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  These  meetings  are 
not  clocked,  and  both  of  the  principals  are 
fairly  gregarious  and  easygoing  so  you  get 
into  a  topic  and  it  runs,  and  we  are  not 
leaving  on  a  scheduled  airliner  or  from  a 
regular  airport.  So,  we  will  talk  about  the 
Middle  East  as  long  as  either  side  has  some- 
thing to  say  about  it.  There  is  no  fixed  time. 
We  are  prepared  to  discuss  it. 

Q.  In  that  connection,  Mr.  Secretary,  you 
also  said  that  you  woidd  take  advantage,  in 
the  negotiations,  of  the  momentum  that  has 
built  up.  Are  you  building  up  the  kind  of  mo- 
mentum  now  that  would  require  the  benefit 
from  the  additional  time  here?  Do  you  feel 
pressured — the  fact  that  we  are  sitting  here 
at  2  o'clock  in  the  morning — against  some 
kind  of  a  deadline? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No,  because  we  don't 
have  anything  that  we  must  finish  here.  We 
didn't  come  here  to  make  an  agreement.  We 
are  not  going  to  make  an  agreement  here. 
We  have  come  here  principally,  as  I  said  be- 
fore we  left,  for  the  two  leaders  to  have  an 
opportunity  to  get  to  know  each  other  and  to 
review  Soviet-American  relations,  hopefully 
to  give  some  impetus  to  the  SALT  negotia- 
tions. That  probably  will  be  achieved. 

Beyond  that,  we  have  no  necessity — no  in- 
tention, in  fact — to  reach  any  specific  agree- 
ments because,  after  all,  the  two  principals 
are  going  to  meet  again  for  a  much  more  ex- 
tended summit  when  the  General  Secretary 
visits  the  United  States  in  the  spring. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  why  haven't  the  two 
principals  met  alone,  President  Ford  and 
Brezhnev  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  They  will  certainly 
meet  alone  before  the  end  of  the  visit  here. 

The  press:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 


December  23,   1974 


897 


VLADIVOSTOK,   NOVEMBER  24,  4:18   P.M. 

Press  release  511  dated  November  2.5 

Secretary  Kissinger:  If  you  are  all  through 
with  reading  the  joint  statement,  let  me  deal 
with  that.  There  is  also  a  communique  which 
we  will  distribute,  and  if  it  should  not  be  fin- 
ished by  the  time  when  I  get  through  with 
the  joint  statement,  I  will  talk  from  it. 

The  joint  statement,  in  our  judgment, 
marks  the  breakthrough  with  the  SALT  ne- 
gotiations that  we  have  sought  to  achieve  in 
recent  years  and  produces  a  very  strong  pos- 
sibility of  agreement,  to  be  signed  in  1975. 

Perhaps  the  best  way  to  talk  about  it 
would  be  to  go  back  to  the  history  of  the  ne- 
gotiations, starting  with  the  summit  in  July 
and  the  conclusion  of  the  discussions  since 
then,  in  relation  to  some  specific  issues  be- 
fore us. 

In  all  of  the  discussions  on  SALT,  there  is 
the  problem  of  aggregate  numbers  and  then 
there  is  the  problem  of  the  numbers  of  weap- 
ons with  certain  special  characteristics  such 
as  MIRV's.  And  finally,  there  is  the  problem 
of  duration  of  the  agreement. 

In  July,  we  were  talking  about  an  exten- 
sion of  the  interim  agreement  for  a  period  of 
two  to  three  years,  and  we  attempted  to  com- 
pensate for  the  inequality  of  numbers  in  the 
interim  agreement  by  negotiating  a  differen- 
tial in  our  favor  of  missiles  with  multiple 
warheads. 

This  negotiation  was  making  some  prog- 
ress. But  it  was  very  difficult  to  establish  a 
relationship  between  aggregate  numbers.  It 
would  be  an  advantage  on  aggregate  numbers 
on  one  side  and  an  advantage  in  multiple 
warheads  on  the  other.  All  the  more  so  as  we 
were  talking  about  a  time  period  between 
1974  and  at  the  end  of  1979,  during  which 
various  new  programs  of  both  sides  were 
going  into  production  at  the  precise  moment 
that  the  agreement  would  have  lapsed.  That 
is  to  say,  the  United  States  was  developing 
the  Trident  and  the  B-1,  both  of  which  will 
be  deployed  in  the  period  after  1979,  and  the 
Soviet  MIRV  development  would  really  not 
reach  its  full  evolution  until  the  period  1978 
to  1979. 


898 


In  other  words,  while  we  were  negotiating 
the  five-year  agreement  we  became  extremely 
conscious  of  the  fact  that  it  would  lapse  at 
the  moment  that  both  sides  would  have  the 
greatest  concern  about  the  weapons  pro- 
grams of  the  other.  And  this  was  the  origin 
of  the  10-year  proposal  and  the  negotiation 
for  a  10-year  agreement  that  emerged  out  of 
the  July  summit. 

No  preparatory  work  of  any  significance 
could  be  undertaken  in  July  on  the  summit, 
so  that  when  President  Ford  came  into  office, 
the  preparations  for  a  10-year  agreement 
started  practically  from  scratch. 

Now,  in  a  period  of  10  years,  the  problem 
of  numbers  has  a  diff"erent  significance  than 
in  the  shorter  period,  because  over  that  pe- 
riod of  time,  one  would  have  to  account, 
really,  for  two  deployments  of  a  cycle  that  is 
usually  a  five-year  eft'ort.  And  also,  inequali- 
ties that  might  be  bearable  for  either  side  in 
a  five-year  period  would  become  much  more 
difl^cult  if  they  were  trying  over  a  10-year 
period. 

Finally,  since  we  considered  that  any 
agreement  that  we  signed  with  respect  to 
numbers  should  be  the  prelude  to  further  ne- 
gotiations about  reduction,  it  was  very  im- 
portant the  debates  for  reduction  for  both 
sides  represent  some  equivalence  that  per- 
mitted a  reasonable  calculation. 

I  won't  repeat  on  this  occasion  all  the  in- 
ternal deliberations  through  which  we  went, 
the  various  options  that  were  considered. 
There  were  five  in  number,  but  various  com- 
binations of  quantitative  and  qualitative  re- 
straints seem  possible  for  the  United  States. 

Finally,  prior  to  my  visit  to  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion in  October,  President  Ford  decided  on  a 
proposal  which  did  not  reflect  any  of  the  op- 
tions precisely  but  represented  an  amalga- 
mation of  several  of  the  approaches.  This 
we  submitted  to  the  Soviet  leaders  about  a 
week  before  my  visit  to  the  Soviet  Union  in 
October,  and  it  led  to  a  Soviet  counterpro- 
posal which  was  in  the  general  framework  of 
our  proposal  and  which,  I  have  indicated  to 
you,  marked  a  substantial  step  forward  on 
the  road  to  an  agreement. 

It  was  discussed  in  great  detail  on  the  oc- 


Deparlment  of  State  Bulletin 


leof 


rf« 


casion  of  my  visit  in  October.  The  Soviet 
counterproposal  was  studied  by  the  President 
and  his  advisers,  and  it  caused  us  to  submit 
another  refinement,  or  an  answer  to  the  So- 
viet counterproposal,  about  a  week  before 
we  came  here,  and  then  most  of  the  discus- 
sions last  night,  all  of  the  discussions  last 
night,  and  about  two  and  a  half  hours  this 
morning,  were  devoted  to  the  issue  of  SALT. 

President  Ford  and  the  General  Secretary, 
in  the  course  of  these  discussions,  agreed 
that  a  number  of  the  issues  that  had  been 
standing  in  the  way  of  progress  should  be 
resolved  and  that  guidelines  should  be  issued 
to  the  negotiators  in  Geneva,  which  we  ex- 
pect to  reconvene  in  early  January. 

They  agreed  that  obviously,  as  the  joint 
statement  says,  the  new  agreement  will  cover 
a  period  of  10  years;  that  for  the  first  two 
years  of  that  period,  the  provisions  of  the 
interim  agreement  will  remain  in  force,  as 
was  foreseen  in  the  interim  agreement,  that 
after  the  lapse  of  the  interim  agreement,  both 
sides  could  have  equal  numbers  of  strategic 
vehicles,  and  President  Ford  and  General 
Secretary  Brezhnev  agreed  substantially  on 
the  definition  of  strategic  delivery  vehicles. 

During  the  10-year  period  of  this  agree- 
ment, they  would  also  have  equal  numbers  of 
weapons  with  multiple  independent  reentry 
vehicles,  and  that  number  is  substantially 
less  than  the  total  number  of  strategic  vehi- 
cles. 

There  is  no  compensation  for  forward- 
based  systems  and  no  other  compensations. 
In  other  words,  we  are  talking  about  equal 
numbers  on  both  sides  for  both  MIRV's  and 
for  strategic  delivery  vehicles,  and  these 
numbers  have  been  agreed  to  and  will  be  dis- 
cussed with  congressional  leaders  after  the 
President  returns. 

The  negotiations  will  have  to  go  into  the 
details  of  verifications,  of  what  restraints  will 
be  necessary,  how  one  can  define  and  verify 
missiles  which  are  independently  targeted. 
But  we  believe  that  with  good  will  on  both 
sides,  it  should  be  possible  to  conclude  a  10- 
year  agreement  by  the  time  that  the  General 
Secretary  visits  the  United  States  at  the 
summit,  and  at  any  rate,  we  will  make  a  ma- 


0    December  23,    1974 


jor  efi'ort  in  that  direction. 

As  I  said,  the  negotiations  could  be  difl^cult 
and  will  have  many  technical  complexities, 
but  we  believe  that  the  target  is  achievable. 
If  it  is  achieved,  it  will  mean  that  a  cap  has 
been  put  on  the  arms  race  for  a  period  of  10 
years,  that  this  cap  is  substantially  below 
the  capabilities  of  either  side,  that  the  ele- 
ment of  insecurity,  inherent  in  an  arms  race 
in  which  both  sides  are  attempting  to  an- 
ticipate not  only  the  actual  programs  but  the 
capabilities  of  the  other  side,  will  be  sub- 
stantially reduced  with  levels  achieved  over 
a  10-year  period  by  agreement. 

The  negotiations  for  reductions  can  take 
place  in  a  better  atmosphere,  and  therefore 
we  hope  that  we  will  be  able  to  look  back  to 
this  occasion  here  as  the  period  of — as  the 
turning  point  that  led  to  putting  a  cap  on  the 
arms  race  and  was  the  first  step  to  a  reduc- 
tion of  arms. 

Now,  I  will  be  glad  to  take  your  questions. 
Barry  and  then  Peter  [Barry  Schweid,  As- 
sociated Press ;  Peter  Lisagor,  Chicago  Daily 
News]. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  excuse  me,  but  are 
bombers  under  "a"? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes. 

Q.  Bombers  are  included.  When  you  say 
no  cotnpensation,  you  mean  ivhat  we  have  in 
Europe  counts  against  ourselves? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No. 

Q.  Excuse  me. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  What  I  mean  is  for- 
ward bases,  which  are  not  included  in  these 
totals. 

Q.  They  don't  count  in  this? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Strategic  bombers 
are  included. 

Q.  Yes. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Forward-base  sys- 
tems are  not  included. 

Q.  My  question  follows  on  that.  What  are 
the  advantages  for  the  Russians  in  agreeing 


899 


on  the  numbers  of  MIRV's  being  equal,  that 
they  would  not  raise  questions  about  com- 
pensating for  our  forward-base  system? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  that  we 
should  ask  the  General  Secretary  for  an  ex- 
planation of  why  he — I  can  explain  to  you 
our  point  of  view  on  these  matters,  but  I  be- 
lieve that  both  sides  face  this  problem. 

The  arms  race  has  an  impetus  from  at 
least  three  sources:  one,  political  tension; 
second,  the  strategic  plans  of  each  side ;  and 
third,  the  intent  of  each  side  to  anticipate 
what  the  other  side  might  do.  The  most  vol- 
atile of  those  in  a  period  of  exploding  tech- 
nology is  the  last  one. 

There  is  an  element  that  is  driving  the 
arms  race  of  insuring  one's  self  against  the 
potentialities  of  the  other  side  that  accel- 
erates it  in  each  passing  year.  I  would  sup- 
pose that  the  General  Secretary  has  come  to 
the  same  conclusion  that  we  have,  that  what- 
ever level  you  put  for  a  ceiling,  it  is  enough 
to  destroy  humanity  several  times  over,  so 
that  the  actual  level  of  the  ceiling  is  not  as 
decisive  as  the  fact  that  a  ceiling  has  been 
put  on  it  and  that  the  element  of  your  self- 
fulfilling  prophecy  that  is  inherent  in  the 
arms  race  is  substantially  reduced. 

I  would  assume  that  it  was  considerations 
such  as  these  that  induced  the  General  Sec- 
retary to  do  this. 

Q.  My  question  derives  from  the  fact  that 
no  bargainer  would  put  himself  at  a  disad- 
vantage, and  I  am  just  wondering  what, 
from  our  standpoint,  would  be  the  net  ad- 
vantage of  maintaining  our  forward  bases 
without  the  Soviets  complaining  that  there 
is  some  imbalance  or  some  inequality  or  in- 
equation in  the  overall  piirpose. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  you  know, 
the  Soviet  Union  had  maintained  that  for- 
ward-base systems  should  be  included  in  the 
totals,  and  this  was  one  of  the  big  obstacles 
to  an  agreement  previously.  The  progress 
that  has  been  made  in  recent  months  is  that 
the  Soviet  Union  gradually  gave  up  asking 
for  compensation  for  the  forward-base  sys- 
tems partly  because  most  of  the  forward-base 


900 


systems,  or  I  would  say  all  of  them,  are  not 
suitable  for  a  significant  attack  on  the  So- 
viet Union.  At  any  rate,  this  is  an  element 
that  has  disappeared  from  the  negotiation  ;  (ju 
in  recent  months. 


Q.  Secretary  Kissinger,  have  you  reached- 
agreement  on  the  number  of  MIRV  vehicles 
or  the  number  of  MIRV  warheads? 


ittur. 

COJStl 


Secretary  Kissinger:  The  number  of 
MIRV'ed  vehicles.  The  number  of  warheads  i  C' 
could  differ,  and  of  course,  there  are  some  '*' 
differentials  in  the  throw  weight  of  indi-ji''f'' 
vidual  missiles  at  any  given  period,  though  j*'' 
there  is  nothing  in  the  agreement  that  pre-  *W''J 
vents  the  United  States,  if  it  wishes  to,  from  <;  Cj^ 
closing  the  throw-weight  gap.  We  are  notfcm 
going  to  do  it  just  to  do  it.  '^^^^ 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,    when  was   the  discus-  Jp™ 
sion  of  SALT  matters  concluded,  and  was     n 
that  time  used  to  discuss  any  other  matter? 

k 


Secretary  Kissinger:  The  discussion  o: 
SALT  matters  was  concluded  around  12 :30,  i 
and  all  the  time  between  12  :30  and  the  time  I 
I  came  over  here  was  devoted  to  other  mat- 
ters. The  discussions  were  practically  unin- 
terrupted, and  I  will  get  into  these  other 
matters  after  we  are  finished  with  SALT. 

Q.  I  have  a  question  on  the  delivery  vehi- 
cles. 


Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes. 


lillb 
towtl 
race, 
racei 
of  im 


Q.  You  speak  of  equality,  ivhich  I  take  tc •h\s\ 
mean  some  level  that  is  roughly  an  equality  We 
of  total  U.S.  delivery  vehicles  in  a  TiJMD,  agreec 
mix  and  the  same  on  the  other  side.  other 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  is  right.  J,, 

Q.  Woidd  this,  therefore,  involve  a  largerl^ku 
number  of  total  U.S.  vehicles  than  existea\ik]i[ 
under  SALT  One  or  by  taking  in  the  bomben 
are  you  still  maintaining  roughly  the  samt 
number  of  land  bases? 


forces 


Secretary  Kissinger:  By  agreement,  we 
are  not  giving  up  the  number  until  the  Presi- 
dent has  had  enough  opportunity  to  brief, 
but  roughly  speaking,  the  total  number  is 
composed  of  a  combination  of  missiles,   oi 


Department  of  State  Bulletii 


heti 


fecr, 


Heiemb, 


land-based  missiles,  submarine  missiles, 
bombers,  and  certain  other  categories  of 
weapons  that  would  have  the  characteristics 
of  strategic  weapons.  The  total  number  that 
accurately  is  equal,  and  each  side,  with  some 
constraints  but  not  very  major  ones,  has  es- 
sentially the  freedom  to  mix — that  is  to  say 
the  composite  force — in  whatever  way  it 
wants.  There  are  some  constraints. 

Q.  Is  there  any  further  constraint  on  the 
total  throw  weight  that  one  side  or  another 
side  conld  have?  Under  SALT  One,  as  I  re- 
member, there  was  a  limit  on  the  number  of 
heavy  missiles. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  constraints  of 
SALT  One  with  respect  to  the  number  of 
heavy  missiles  are  carried  over  into  this 
agreement. 

Q.  Up  to  1985? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Up  to  1985. 

Q.  Throughout  the  whole  period  of  the 
agreement,  you  said  there  will  be  a  substan- 
tial reduction.  Is  this  approximately — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  I  am  saying  it 
will  be  the  objective  of  the  United  States 
now  that  we  have  achieved  a  cap  on  the  arms 
race.  We  have  achieved  a  cap  on  the  arms 
race  if  we  can  solve  the  technical  problems 
of  implementing  the  agreement  that  was 
made  here ;  but  I  believe,  with  good  will, 
that  should  be  possible. 

We  have  always  assumed  that  once  we 
agreed  on  numbers,  we  could  solve  all  the 
other  problems,  that  from  the  basis  of  the 
cap  that  has  been  put  on  the  arms  race — so 
that  both  sides  now  have  a  similar  starting 
isjj  point — it  will  be  the  U.S.  objective  to  bring 
jjjjli  about  a  substantial  reduction  of  strategic 
(jiSj  forces;  but  there  has  not  yet  been  an  agree- 
ment to  any  reduction,  obviously. 


*' 


Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  is  there  any  provision  hi 
here  concerning  other  types  of  modernization 
— improvements,  for  example,  of  MIRV's? 
Was  there  any  limitation  of  MIRV's  dis- 
cussed? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No,  there  is  no  such 


December  23,    1974 


limitation,  but  this  is  something  that  can 
still  be  raised  in  the  discussions;  but  there  is 
no  such  limitation. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  does  this  initial 
statement  have  to  do  ivith  the  Trident  and 
B-1  program,  if  anything? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Each  side  has  the 
right  to  compose — what  it  means  is  that  the 
Trident  and  the  B-1  program  had  to  be  kept 
within  the  total  number  of  the  ceiling  that 
will  be  established  by  the  agreement.  But 
except  for  the  limitations  on  heavy  missiles, 
the  rest  of  the  composition  of  the  force  is  up 
to  each  side. 

Q.  Are  these  limits  higher  than  the  exist- 
ing forces  of  both  sides  and  will  both  have 
xueapons  to  reach  the — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  By  the  United 
States.  This  is  somewhat  more  complex  to 
calculate,  depending  on  what  weapons  you 
count.  For  the  Soviet  Union,  it  is  clearly  be- 
low the  limits,  and  for  both  sides,  it  is  sub- 
stantially below  their  capability. 

Q.  Will  either  side  reduce  its  arms  totals? 
I  tvas  not  quite  certain  of  your  answer. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  would  say  yes.  But 
I  think  you  will  know  about  that  better  when 
the  numbers  become  more — 

Q.  Dr.  Kissinger,  would  you  identify  for 
us  what  the  main  hangup  was  in  the  five  ear- 
lier options,  and  what  mix  the  President  de- 
cided upon  that  was  the  key  to  advancing  an 
acceptable  proposal? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  big  hangup  ear- 
lier was  the  combination  of  time  periods  and 
perhaps  the  complexity  of  the  proposals; 
that  is  to  say,  when  you  are  trying  to  calcu- 
late what  advantage  in  the  number  of  war- 
heads compensates  for  a  certain  advantage 
in  the  number  of  launchers,  you  get  into  an 
area  of  very  great  complexity,  and  when  you 
are  dealing  with  a  short,  or  relatively  short, 
time  period,  you  face  the  difficulty  that  each 
side  throughout  this  time  period  will  be  pre- 
paring for  what  happens  during  the  break- 
out period. 


901 


So,  those  were  the  big  hangups  through 
July.  What  I  believe  contributed  to  this 
agreement  was,  first,  that  with  a  10-year 
program  we  were  able  to  put  to  the  Soviet 
Union  a  scheme  that  was  less  volatile  than 
what  we  had  discussed  earlier  for  the  reasons 
of  the  breakout  problem. 

Secondly,  I  believe  that  one  of  the  problems 
that  was  raised  yesterday — namely,  that 
they  were  dealing  with  a  new  President — 
may  have  influenced  Soviet  decisions  because 
it  created  a  longer  political  stability. 

Thirdly,  the  discussions,  I  think  it  can  be 
safe  to  say,  moved  from  fairly  complex  pro- 
posals to  substantially  more  simple  ones,  and 
this  permitted  both  sides  finally  to  come  to 
an  agreement. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  if  the  goal  at  the  end  of 
the  road  is  the  signing  of  a  strategic  arms 
limitation  treaty,  in  terms  of  percentages 
how  far  down  that  road  does  this  joint  state- 
ment put  lis  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Whenever  I  have 
given  percentages  and  made  predictions,  I 
have  got  into  enormous  difficulties.  I  would 
say  I  would  stick  by  my  statement  earlier.  I 
would  say  that  we  are  over  the  worst  part  of 
the  negotiation  if  both  sides  continue  to  show 
the  same  determination  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment that  they  did  earlier. 

The  issues  that  are  before  us  now  are  es- 
sentially technical  issues;  that  is  to  say, 
they  are  issues  of  verifications,  issues  of  col- 
lateral restraints,  issues  of  how  you  identify 
certain  developments.  But  those  are  issues 
on  which  substantial  studies  were  made  be- 
fore we  made  our  original  proposals,  and 
therefore,  had  we  not  believed  that  they  were 
soluble,  we  would  not  have  made  the  pro- 
posals, so  we  think  that  it  is  going  to  be  a 
very  difficult  negotiation  which  could  fail. 
But  I  think  we  are  well  down  the  road. 

Q.  Sir,  a  couple  of  clarifiers,  if  I  may,  that 
I  am  not  clear  on.  Do  I  understand  that  there 
will  be  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  U.S. 
MlRV's?  A7id  secondly,  is  there  some  liynit 
on  throw  weight?  Is  that  what  you  are  say- 
ing or  did  I  hear  you  wrong? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  There  is  no  re- 
902 


straint  on  throw  weight  except  the  restraint  '. 
that  is  produced  by  the  continuation  of  the  ! 
ban — of  the  limitation  of  heavy  missiles,  and 
there  is  a  restraint  on  the  number  of  vehi-  | 
cles  that  can  be  MIRV'ed.  j 

What  was  the  first  part  of  the  question  ? 

Q.  Are  we  past  that  point  ivhere  ive  have  \. 
to  cut  back? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  We  are  not  past  i 
that  point,  but  we  could  easily  go  past  that  | 
point  if  we  wanted  to.  ; 

Q.  I  realize  that,  but  we  are  not  physically 
past  that  point. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  But  don't  forget, 
the  Soviets  have  not  even  begun  to  MIRV 
their  missiles  yet.  We  are  well  down  the  road 
toward  that  goal. 

Q.  I  realize  we  have  a  larger  plan  at  the 
moment.  My  question  is  ivhether  we  have  to 
start  to  subtract. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  do  not  have  to 
start  subtracting. 

Q.  One  other  clarification  question.   This< 
aggregate  number  is  yet  to  be  agreed  upon? 


Secretary  Kissinger: 
agreed  upon. 


No,  that  number  is 


Q.  It  has  been  agreed  upon? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  numbers  in  both 
"a"  and  "b"  have  been  agreed  upon. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  would  you  please — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  And  the  President 
will  discuss  them  with  the  congressional  lead- 
ers, but  both  leaders  thought  that  they  did 
not  want  to  include  them  in  this  statement. 

Q.  Well,  they  ivould  then  be  included  in  a 
treaty ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Yes. 

Q.  Ratified? 

Secretary  Kissijiger:  In  other  words,  the 
agreement  will  not  fail  because  of  the  num- 
bers. The  numbers  have  been  set  and  the  defi- 
nition of  what  is  counted  in  each  number  has 
already  been  set. 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 

i 


Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  yon  are  saying  in 
"^t     effect  is  that  you  have  already  fixed  the  ceil- 
ing, hut  you  are  not  prepared  yet  to  disclose 
what  that  ceiling  is  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  is  right. 

Q.  And  that  ivill  be  disclosed  at  what 
point  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Oh,  I  would  expect 
during  the  week  and  certainly  no  later  than 
Iby  the  time  the  instructions  are  drafted  for 
ithe  delegation. 


iOD! 

Btpj 
Sttl 


iberi 


ey  di 


If  ki 

)crte| 


Q.  Mr.  Kissinger,  does  this  not  mean — in 
\other  words,  will  not  our  MIRV  reduction 
\be  considerably  greater  than  theirs  if  we 
\have  many  more,  and  ivill  not  their  reduc- 
\tion  in  nuclear  missiles  be  greater  than  ours 
{because  they  are  allowed  to  have  more  in 
1972? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  when  you  are 
talking  about  a  10-year  program,  I  would 
say  within  a  10-year  program  in  the  absence 
of  an  agreement  both  of  these  questions  are 
highly  theoretical,  because  over  a  10-year  pe- 
riod both  we  and  they  could  easily  go  over 
the  total  number  of  permitted  vehicles  and 
easily  go  over  the  total  number  of  MIRV  ve- 
hicles. 

In  starting  from  the  present  programs  I 
think  it  is  correct  to  say  that  this  strain  on 
the  Soviet  total  numbers  is  going  to  be 
greater  and  the  strain  on  our  MIRV  num- 
bers is  going  to  be  greater ;  but  in  practice  it 
comes  out  about  the  same,  because  there  is 
no  question  that,  if  we  both  kept  going,  the 
numbers  of  MIRV'ed  vehicles  would  soon 
reach  a  point  where  even  the  most  exalted 
military  planner  would  find  it  difficult  to  find 
a  target  for  the  many  warheads  that  are 
going  to  be  developed. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  believe  that  this 
will  be  acceptable  to  the  congressional  lead- 
ers, particularly  those — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  this  will  cer- 
tainly be  acceptable  to  the  congressional  lead- 
ers that  have  been — 

Q.  Including  Senator  Jackson? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  am  sure  you 
can  find  a  more  convincing  spokesman  for 


Senator  Jackson  than  me,  but  it  would  meet 
many  of  the  criticisms  that  he  has  made  in 
the  past.  It  meets  the  point  that  has  been 
made  by  critics  of  the  interim  agreement,  in 
my  view,  only  about  the  inequality  in  num- 
bers, because  as  I  pointed  out  on  many  occa- 
sions, the  inequality  in  numbers  was  not 
created  by  the  interim  agreement — that  ex- 
isted when  the  interim  agreement  was  signed 
and  it  simply  froze  the  situation  that  existed 
on  the  day  the  interim  agreement  was  signed 
for  a  five-year  period.  But  at  any  rate,  what 
was  acceptable  for  a  five-year  period  was  not 
acceptable  for  a  15-year  period — 5  plus  10 — 
and  therefore  that  principle  of  equality  has 
to  be  maintained  here. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  one  last  question,  please. 
Woidd  you  address  yourself  to  the  question 
of  good  faith  on  this?  This  is  very  important 
and  will  be  a  very  important  agreement  to 
the  security  of  the  people  of  both  nations. 
What  will  you  say  as  a  statement  of  faith  and 
a  guarantee? 

Secreta7-y  Kissinger:  When  the  security  of 
both  countries  is  involved  and  the  national 
survival  of  both  countries  is  involved,  you 
cannot  make  an  agreement  which  depends 
primarily  on  the  good  faith  of  either  side. 
And  what  has  to  be  done  in  the  negotiations 
that  are  now  starting  is  to  assure  adequate 
verifications  of  the  provisions  of  the  agree- 
ment. We  think  that  this  is  no  problem,  or 
no  significant  problem,  with  respect  to  the 
total  numbers  of  strategic  vehicles.  It  may  be 
a  problem  with  respect  to  determining  what 
is  a  MIRV'ed  vehicle.  Nevertheless  we  be- 
lieve that  that,  too,  is  soluble,  though  with 
greater  difficulty  than  determining  the  total 
numbers. 

Good  faith  is  involved  in  not  pressing 
against  the  legal  limits  of  the  agreements  in 
a  way  that  creates  again  an  element  of  the 
insecurity  that  one  has  attempted  to  remove 
by  fixing  the  ceiling  or,  to  put  it  another  way, 
by  putting  a  cap  on  the  arms  race.  But  I 
think  that  the  agreement  will  be  very  viable, 
and  that  the  element  of  good  faith  is  not  the 
principal  ingredient  in  releasing  the  agree- 
ment, though  it  was  an  important  element  in 
producing  the  agreement. 


gulletD  December  23,   1974 


903 


Mr.  Nessen:  Mr.  Secretary,  you  are  going 
to  miss  your  tour  if  you  don't  leave  now. 
Also,  we  are  now  passing  out  the  joint  com- 
munique. The  Secretary  wants  to  make  this 
tour. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Let  me  take  another 
question. 

Q.  /  want  to  get  this  right.  Do  I  under- 
stand ivhile  you  are  putting  a  cap  on  the  fu- 
ture numbers,  this  agreed-upon  total  is  high- 
er than  what  each  side  has  now  in  aggre- 
gate. The  combination? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  did  not  say  this,  no. 

Q.  That  is  the  inference  I  get. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  said  specifically  it 
is  lower  than  what  the  Soviet  Union  has  and 
in  our  case  it  depends  on  how  you  compose 
the  total  number. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  was  there  any  discus- 
sion on  what  each  side  will  do  for  resuming 
the  work  of  the  Geneva  Conference  on  the 
Middle  East  as  soo)i  as  possible? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No. 

Q.  Does  that  mean  the  end  of  your  oivn 
efforts,  for  example,  in  the  area? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  This  is  a  phrase 
that  was  also  in  the  summit  communique, 
and  it  has  always  been  assumed  that  my  ef- 
forts are  compatible  with  the  prospective  ef- 
forts of  the  Geneva  Conference. 

Q.  To  what  extent  did  the  talks  get  into 
the  Middle  East  situation,  Mr.  Secretary? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  was  a  rather 
lengthy  discussion  of  the  Middle  East.  Let 
me  go  through  the  topics  that  were  discussed 
in  addition. 

There  was  discussion  of  the  Middle  East, 
of  the  European  Security  Conference,  and 
forces  in  Europe  and  a  number  of  issues 
connected  with  bilateral  relations.  These  were 
the  key  other  topics  that  were  discussed. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  about  your  discussions 
on  the  Middle  East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  there  is 
an  agreement  by  both  sides  that  the  situation 

904 


has  elements  of  danger,  that  an  effort  should  j*'''^' 
be  made  to  defuse  it.  We  are  not  opposed  to  [»!*'" 
the  Geneva  Conference,  and  we  have  always .  §,  1 
agreed  that  it  should  be  reconvened  at  an  ap-  jfflrf 
propriate  time  and  we  agree  to  stay  in  fur-  0 
ther  touch  with  each  other,  as  to  measures 

that  can  be  taken  to  alleviate  the  situation. 

spcilt: 

Q.  What  role  does  the  Soviet  Union  think  U's 
the  PLO  [Palestine  Liberation  Organization]     n  < 
should  play  in  the  negotiations?  How  shouUk 
they  be  recognized,  and  how  shoidd  they —     ■!  \ 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  think  the  So-' 
viet  view  has  been  publicly  stated.  We  did 
not  go  into  the  modalities  of  how  they  would;  Sw 
execute  it  since  we  made  our  position  clear  fi^stii 
at  the  United  Nations  last  week.  IW 

Q.  Specifically  the  trade  reform  bill  in  the 
United  States.  mm 


Secretary  Kissinger. 
upon. 


That  was  touched  ^ 


ftK!r?!f 


Q.  Where  did  you  leave  the  ESC? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  European  Secu- 
rity Conference.  We  had  a  detailed  discussion 
of  all  the  issues  before  the  European  Security 
Conference  in  which,  as  you  all  know.  For- 
eign Minister  Gromyko  is  one  of  the  world's 
leading  experts,  and  we  sought  for  means  to 
move  the  positions  of  East  and  West  closer 
together,  and  we  hope  that  progress  can  ac- 
celerate. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  can-  you  compare  the 
progress  made  on  nuclear  iveapons  with  the 
progress  made  by  the  Soviets  with  the  Mid- 
dle East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Not  even  remotely. 

Q.  You  did  not  make  any  progress  on  the 
Middle  East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  don't  think  that 
progress  on  the  Middle  East  is  for  us  to 
make,  and  it  was  a  different  order  of  dis 
cussion.  The  progress  on  SALT  was  a  major 
step  forward  to  the  solution  of  a  very  difficult 
problem.  The  discussions  on  the  Middle  East 
I  think  may  have  contributed,  and  we  hope 
will  contribute,  to  a  framework  of  restraint 
in  enabling  the  two  countries  that  have  such 

Department  of  State   Bulletin 


Imeetiii 

JForeig 
lind  t( 


tor 
Foreig 
krou? 

'  Seer 

tkanje 
tion,  ai 
specific 


\  vital  interest  in  the  area  to  stay  in  touch 
with  each  other,  but  it  cannot  be  compared. 

Q.  How  miich  time  do  you  estimate,  Mr. 
Secretary,  you  speut  discussing  the  Middle 
East? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  How  much  time  was 
spent?  I  didn't  keep  track  of  it.  An  hour,  but 
that  is  a  rough  order  of — 

Q.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 

Q.  Was  there  a  question  of  future  sale  of 
any  U.S.  commodities  with  the  Soviet  Union ? 

Q.  Questions — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  didn't  hear  the 
question  either,  but  it  dealt  with  economics  so 
I  don't  want  to  answer  it. 

rOKYO,  NOVEMBER  25 

Press  release  512  dated  November  25 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  you  tell  us  about 
your  meeting  ivith  the  Japanese  Foreign 
Minister? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  had  a  very  good 
meeting  in  the  spirit  of  partnership  that  was 
strengthened  last  week,  and  I  briefed  the 
Foreign  Minister  about  our  visit  to  Korea 
and  the  Soviet  Union.  He  in  turn  told  me 
about  his  conversations  with  the  French  For- 
eign Minister.  And  I  thought  it  was  a  very 
friendly  and  satisfactory  meeting. 

Q.  And  you  discussed  the  latest  develop 
mMments  on  SALT? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  explained  to  the 
Foreign  Minister  in  great  detail  the  break- 
through that  was  achieved  in  SALT. 


itcly. 


leE; 


■itraii 


Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  do  you  foresee  in 
the  China  visit? 


Secretary  Kissinger:  We  will  have  an  ex- 
change of  views  and  a  review  of  the  situa- 
(f  I    tion,  as  we  do  on  an  annual  basis.  I  have  no 
specific  expectations. 


Q.  Is  there  anything  to  the  reports  that 
this  visit  to  China  is  meant  to  reassure  the 
Chinese  ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No.  It  was  scheduled 


Bulleli 


December  23,   1974 


for  a  long  time,  and  it's  a  regular  annual 
visit.  It  has  no  purpose  of  reassuring — 

Q.  And  obviously  SALT  will  be  discussed 
there? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  will  give  the 
Chinese  a  report  of  it,  but  it  is  not  the  pur- 
pose of  my  visit.  The  purpose  of  my  visit  was 
agreed  a  long  time  ago  before  the  Vladivos- 
tok trip  was  scheduled.  It  is  in  terms  of 
Chinese-American  relations,  and  it  is  not 
based  on  any  need  of  specific  reassurance. 


Secretary  Kissinger  Makes  Visit 
to  the  People's  Republic  of  China 

Secretary  Kissinger  visited  the  People's 
Republic  of  China  November  25-29.  Follow- 
ing are  exchanges  of  toasts  by  Secretary 
Kissinger  and  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
Chiao  Kuan-hua  at  a  banquet  given  by  the 
Foreign  Minister  on  November  25  and  at  a 
banquet  given  by  Secretary  Kissinger  on  No- 
vember 28,  together  with  the  text  of  a  com- 
munique issued  at  Peking  and  Washington  on 
November  29. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS,   NOVEMBER  25 


Press  release  513  dated  November  26 

Foreign  Minister  Chiao 

The  Honorable  Secretary  of  State  and  Mrs. 
Kissinger,  all  the  other  American  guests, 
comrades  and  friends  :  The  last  three  years  or 
more.  Dr.  Kissinger  has  come  a  long  way 
across  the  ocean  to  visit  our  country  on  six 
occasions.  We  are  glad  that  he  has  now  come 
to  Peking  again,  providing  our  two  sides 
with  an  opportunity  to  continue  the  exchange 
of  views  on  the  normalization  of  Sino-Amer- 
ican  relations  and  on  international  issues  of 
common  interest.  Here  I  wish  to  bid  welcome 
to  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger,  to  Mrs.  Kis- 
singer, who  is  in  China  for  the  first  time,  and 
to  the  other  American  guests  accompanying 
the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  visit. 

A  year  has  elapsed  since  the  last  visit  of 

905 


Mr.  Secretary  of  State.  In  this  year  the  in- 
ternational situation  has  undergone  great 
changes,  which  further  demonstrate  that  the 
current  international  situation  is  character- 
ized by  great  disorder  under  heaven.  The  en- 
tire world  is  amidst  intense  turbulence  and 
unrest.  This  reflects  the  sharpening  of  vari- 
ous contradictions  and  is  something  inde- 
pendent of  man's  will.  The  history  of  man- 
kind always  moves  forward  amidst  turmoil. 
In  our  view,  such  turmoil  is  a  good  thing,  and 
not  a  bad  thing. 

The  Chinese  and  American  peoples  have  al- 
ways been  friendly  to  each  other.  After  more 
than  two  decades  of  estrangement,  the  door 
was  opened  for  exchanges  between  the  two 
countries,  and  the  friendly  relations  between 
the  two  peoples  have  developed.  Here  we 
ought  to  mention  the  pioneering  role  Mr. 
Richard  Nixon  played  in  this  regard,  and  we 
also  note  with  appreciation  President  Ford's 
statement  that  he  would  continue  to  imple- 
ment the  Shanghai  communique. 

China  and  the  United  States  have  different 
social  systems,  and  there  are  differences  be- 
tween us  on  a  series  of  matters  of  principle. 
But  this  does  not  hinder  us  from  finding 
common  ground  on  certain  matters.  It  is  al- 
ways beneficial  for  the  two  sides  to  have  can- 
did exchanges  of  views  and  increase  mutual 
understanding.  On  the  whole,  Sino-American 
relations  have  in  these  years  been  moving 
ahead.  We  believe  that  the  current  visit  of 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State  will  contribute  to  the 
further  implementation  of  the  principles  es- 
tablished in  the  Shanghai  communique. 

I  propose  a  toast  to  the  friendship  between 
the  Chinese  and  American  peoples,  to  the 
health  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and  Mrs. 
Kissinger,  to  the  health  of  all  the  other  Amer- 
ican guests,  and  to  the  health  of  all  com- 
rades and  friends  present  here. 

Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Vice  Premier  [Teng  Hsiao-ping],  Mr. 
Foreign  Minister,  distinguished  guests, 
friends :  I  appreciate  this  warm  reception  on 
my  seventh  visit  to  China,  which  is  all  the 


906 


flesi 
■  Vice 


more  meaningful  to  me  because  I  am  accom- 
panied by  my  wife  and  by  my  children.  I  am 
glad  that  they  can  share  what  to  the  Amer- 
ican people  and  to  all  of  us  in  public  life  will 
always  be  one  of  the  most  significant  initia- 
tives of  American  foreign  policy. 

The  beginning  of  the  process  of  normaliza- 
tion of  relations  with  the  People's  Republic 
of  China,  and  its  continuation  in  the  years 
since  then,  has  not  been  a  matter  of  expedi- 
ency but  a  fixed  principle  of  American  for- 
eign policy. 

Since   I   was  here   last,   there  have   been 
many    changes    internationally    and    some 
changes  in  the  United  States.  But  it  was  no  ; 
accident  that  the  new  American  President 
saw  your  ambassador  the  first  afternoon  he 
was  in  office,  within  a  few  hours  of  having  | 
taken  his  oath  of  office,  and  that  he  reaf- 
firmed on  that  occasion  that  we  would  con- 
tinue to  pursue  the  principles  of  the  Shang-  , 
hai  communique  and  that  we  would  continue 
to  follow  the  goal  of  normalization  of  rela- 
tions with  the  People's  Republic  of  China.       | 

And  President  Ford  has  sent  me  here  to  ' 
continue  the  fruitful  exchanges  of  views  that 
we  have  had  in  every  year,  to  continue  the  i 
process  of  normalization,  and  to  affirm  again 
the  fixed  principles  of  American  foreign  pol- 
icy. 

I  look  forward  to  my  talks  with  the  Vice 
Premier   and   the   Foreign   Minister.    I   am 
glad  that  I  have  already  had  an  opportunity 
to  see  the  Prime  Minister  and  to  recall  the'teruii 
many  occasions  of  previous  visits  when  wejfiew 
exchanged  views. 

We  live  in  a  period  of  great  change  and  a 
period   that  is   characterized   by  much   up-'"'  — 
heaval.   We   believe   that   this  change  must 
lead  to  a  new  and  better  order  for  all  of  thejpniici] 
peoples  of  the  world,  and  it  is  to  this  goalfprinm 
that  American  foreign  policy  is  dedicated.     '  kr^ 

We  consider  the  exchanges  on  these  sub-j  ^^ 
jects  as  well  as  others  with  the  leaders  of  thejleave. 
People's  Republic  of  China  of  the  greatestkof  juj,, 
consequence.  |  kohi^ 

We  agree  that  in  the  last  years,  relations jskm.j 


KCHi 

ten 

';  ie([eli 

Mr, 

Im 
Ual! 
liketi 
warm 

yb 

Thf 
iuipor 
le  w( 
lenta 

Idi 
entlit 
Wi 
OB  c 
proble 
standi 
timiin, 
tkelir 
yondt 


between  our  two  countries  have  moved  ahead 
steadily.  I  am  here  to  continue  this  process, 


Department  of  State  Bulletir  Hi 

II 


to  the, 
Mao,  t( 


'Keitibi 


!  and  I  am  confident  that  it  will  succeed. 

So,  I  would  like  to  propose  a  toast  to  the 
friendship  of  the  American  and  Chinese  peo- 
ples and  to  the  health  and  long  life  of  the 
Vice  Premier  and  the  Foreign  Minister,  and 
to  the  health  and  long  life  of  Chairman  Mao, 
and  to  our  lasting  friendship. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS,   NOVEMBER  28 

Press  release  514  dated  November  29 

Secretary  Kissinger 

Mr.  Vice  Premier,  Mr.  Foreign  Minister, 
friends :  On  behalf  of  all  my  colleagues,  on 
behalf  of  my  wife  and  my  children,  I  would 
like  to  thank  our  Chinese  hosts  for  the  very 
warm  and  very  friendly  reception  we  have 
had  here. 

The  Foreign  Minister  and  I  reached  a  very 
important  agreement  today,  which  is  that 
we  would  keep  our  toasts  short,  to  spare  the 
mental  agility  of  the  press  which  is  here. 

I  do  want  to  say  that  this  visit,  my  sev- 
enth to  the  People's  Republic,  continues  the 
progress  that  has  been  made  on  each  previ- 
ous occasion.  We  reviewed  international 
problems  and  deepened  our  common  under- 
standing. We  committed  ourselves  to  con- 
tinuing the  process  of  normalization  along 
the  lines  of  the  Shanghai  communique.  Be- 
yond the  formal  exchanges,  we  gained  a  bet- 
ter understanding  of  the  Chinese  point  of 
view,  which  we  will  take  seriously  into  ac- 
count in  conducting  our  foreign  policy. 

I  said  when  I  arrived  here  that  the  process 
of  improving  relations  between  the  People's 
Republic  and  the  United  States  is  a  fixed 
principle  of  American  foreign  policy.  This 
principle  was  reaffirmed  and  strengthened 
during  our  conversations. 

So,  my  colleagues  and  I  and  my  family 
leave  with  very  warm  feelings  and  a  feeling 
of  substantive  satisfaction.  In  this  spirit,  I 
would  like  to  propose  a  toast  to  the  friend- 
ship of  the  Chinese  and  American  peoples, 
to  the  good  health  and  long  life  of  Chairman 
Mao,  to  the  good  health  and  long  life  of  Pre- 


December  23,   1974 


mier  Chou  En-lai,  to  the  good  health  and  long 
life  of  the  Vice  Premier  and  the  Foreign  Min- 
ister. Gail  bei. 


Foreign  Minister  Chiao 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State  and  Mrs.  Kissinger, 
all  the  other  American  guests,  comrades  and 
friends :  First  of  all,  on  behalf  of  all  my  Chi- 
nese colleagues  present,  I  wish  to  thank  Sec- 
retary of  State  Kissinger  for  giving  this 
banquet  tonight  to  entertain  us. 

In  the  last  few  days,  our  two  sides  have,  in 
a  candid  spirit,  reviewed  the  development  of 
the  international  situation  over  the  past  year 
and  exchanged  views  on  international  issues 
of  common  interest  and  the  question  of  Sino- 
American  relations.  This  has  increased  our 
mutual  understanding  and  deepened  our  com- 
prehension of  our  common  points.  Both  sides 
have  expressed  their  readiness  to  work,  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  established  in 
the  Shanghai  communique,  for  the  continued 
advance  of  Sino-American  relations. 

Dr.  Kissinger  and  his  party  are  leaving 
Peking  tomorrow  for  a  visit  to  Soochow  be- 
fore returning  home.  Here  we  wish  them  a 
pleasant  journey. 

I  propose  a  toast  to  the  friendship  between 
the  Chinese  and  American  peoples,  to  the 
health  of  President  Ford,  to  the  health  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  Mrs.  Kissinger,  to  the 
health  of  all  the  other  American  guests,  and 
to  the  health  of  all  comrades  and  friends 
present  here.  Gan  bei. 


TEXT  OF  JOINT   COMMUNIQUE 

Joint  U.S.-PRC  Communique 

Dr.  Henry  A.  Kissinger,  U.S.  Secretary  of  State 
and  Assistant  to  the  President  for  National  Secu- 
rity Affairs,  visited  the  People's  Republic  of  China 
from  November  25  through  November  29,  1974.  The 
U.S.  and  Chinese  sides  held  frank,  wide-ranging 
and  mutually  beneficial  talks.  They  reaffimied  their 
unchanged  commitment  to  the  principles  of  the 
Shanghai  Communique.  The  two  Governments  agreed 
that  President  Gerald  R.  Ford  would  visit  the  Peo- 
ple's Republic  of  China  in  1975. 


907 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


Aviation 

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:  Colombia,  December  4,  1974; 
Iraq,  September  10,  1974. 

Cultural  Property 

Convention  on  the  means  of  prohibiting  and  prevent- 
ing the  illicit  import,  export  and  transfer  of  owner- 
ship of  cultural  property.  Adopted  at  Paris  No- 
vember 14,  1970.  Entered"into  force  April  24,  1972.^ 
Ratification  deposited:  Zaire,  September  23,  1974. 

Cultural  Relations 

Agreement  on  the  importation  of  educational,  scien- 
tific and  cultural  materials,  with  protocol.  Done  at 
Lake  Success  November  22,  1950.  Entered  into 
force  May  21,  1952;  for  the  United  States  Novem- 
ber 2,  1966.  TIAS  6129. 

Notification  of  succession:   Zambia,   November   1, 
1974. 

Maritime  Matters 

Convention  on  the  Intergovernmental  Maritime  Con- 
sultative Organization.  Done  at  Geneva  March  6, 
1948.  Entered  into  force  March  17,  1958.  TIAS 
4044. 

Acceptance    deposited:    Colombia,    November    19, 
1974. 

Oil  Pollution 

International  convention  relating  to  intervention  on 

the  high  seas  in  cases  of  oil  pollution  casualties, 

with  annex.  Done  at  Brussels  November  29,  1969.- 

Extension  by  the  United  Kingdom  to:  Hong  Kong, 

November  12,  1974. 


Safety  at  Sea 

Convention  on  the  international  regulations  for  pre- 
venting collisions  at   sea,   1972,  with   regulations. 
Done  at  London  October  20,  1972.- 
Extension  by  the  United  Kingdom  to:  Hong  Kong, 
October  30,  1974. 


»a 


iCliia. 


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.'' 
Signatiire:  Hungary,  November  6,  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. 
Ratification  deposited:  Spain,  December  2,  1974. 


Itorete 
Tiky 


lipm 


BILATERAL 


Flesidf 


Chile 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  for  sales  of  ag-  S"* 
ricultural  commodities  of  October  25,  1974.  Ef-  ^''j 
fected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Santiago  Novera-  fora 
ber  22,  1974.  Entered  into  force  November  22,  1974. ,'  He 

Pakistan 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities. 
Signed  at  Islamabad  November  23,  1974.  Entered 
into  force  November  23,  1974. 

Syria 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities.  |  L,t 
Signed  at  Damascus  November  20,  1974.  Entered  iteiiifi 
into  foi'ce  November  20,  1974.  to  2 


Ij  tOSSt; 
Ml 
MS' 

Mk 
kl 
fereta 

Ult 


Trinidad  and  Tobago 

Agreement  extending  and  amending  the  agreement 
of  June  20,  1968,  as  amended  and  extended,  relat- 
ing to  a  program  of  technical  assistance  in  the  field 
of  tax  administration.  Effected  by  exchange  of 
notes  at  Port-of-Spain  October  22  and  November 
12,  1974.  Entered  into  force  November  12,  1974. 


ftisiiiei 


Korea 
Presidei 
'lier2 


'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 


-  Not  in  force. 

^  With  a  reservation. 


908 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


I 


INDEX     December  23, 197 Ji      Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1S52 


m 


m 


ErE 


China.  Secretary  Kissinger  Makes  Visit  to  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  (Chiao,  Kissin- 
ger, joint  communique) 905 

Disarmament 

President  Ford  Visits  Japan,  the  Republic  of 
Korea,  and  the  Soviet  Union  (remarks, 
toasts,  communiques,  joint  U.S. -Soviet  state- 
ment on  limitation  of  strategic  offensive 
arms) 866 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  Decem- 
ber 2   (e.xcerpts) 861 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conferences  at 
Tokyo  and  Vladivostok 883 

(Energy.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ences at  Tokyo  and  Vladivostok 88-S 

Japan 

(President  Ford  Visits  Japan,  the  Republic  of 
Korea,  and  the  Soviet  Union  (remarks, 
toasts,  communiques,  joint  U.S. -Soviet  state- 
ment on  limitation  of  strategic  offensive 
arms) 866 

IPresident  Ford's  News  Conference  of  Decem- 
ber 2   (excerpts) 861 

'Secretary    Kissinger's    News    Conferences    at 

Tokyo  and  Vladivostok 883 

IKorea 

'President  Ford  Visits  Japan,  the  Republic  of 
Korea,  and  the  Soviet  Union  (remarks, 
toasts,  communiques,  joint  U.S. -Soviet  state- 
ment on  limitation  of  strategic  offensive 
arms) 866 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  Decem- 
ber 2   (excerpts) 861 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conferences  at 
Tokyo  and  Vladivostok 883 

Middle  East 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  Decem- 
ber 2   (excerpts) 861 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conferences  at 
Tokyo  and  Vladivostok .■     .       883 

Presidential  Documents 

Death    of    U    Thant,    Former   U.N.    Secretary 

General       882 

President  Ford  Visits  Japan,  the  Republic  of 

Korea,  and  the  Soviet  Union 866 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  Decem- 
ber 2   (excerpts) 861 


Treaty  Information.  Current  .Actions   ....       908 

U.S.S.R. 

President  Ford  Visits  Japan,  the  Republic  of 
Korea,  and  the  Soviet  Union  (remarks, 
toasts,  communiques,  joint  U.S. -Soviet  state- 
ment on  limitation  of  strategic  offensive 
arms) 866 

President  Ford's  News  Conference  of  Decem- 
ber 2   (excerpts) 861 

Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conferences  at 
Tokyo  and  Vladivostok 883 

United  Nations.  Death  of  U  Thant,  Former 
U.N.  Secretary  General  (statement  by  Pres- 
ident  Ford) 882 

Name  I  tide. V 

Chiao,   Kuan-hua 905 

Ford,    President 861,866,882 

Kissinger,  Secretary 883,905 


Checklist  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  December  2—8 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  December  2  which 
appear  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos. 
503  of  November  19,  508  of  December  20,  511, 
511.A.,  and  512  of  November  25,  513  of  Novem- 
ber 26,  and  514  of  November  29. 

Xo.         Date  Subject 

*515  12/2  Program  for  the  official  visit  of 
the  Chancellor  of  the  Federal 
Republic  of  Germany,  Helmut 
Schmidt,  Dec.  4-7. 

1516  12/3  Kissinger:  Senate  Finance  Com- 
mittee. 

"517  12/3  Claxton  receives  John  Jacob  Rog- 
ers Award. 

t518     12/7     Kissinger:  news  conference. 

*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


13 


/■ 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

us.  government  printing  office 

washington.  dc.  20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES   PAID 
U.S.      OaVERNMENT     PRIKTINQ     OFFICE 

Sp«ciat   Fourth-Clasi   Rote 
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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


/ 


'■3: 


V'A 


V^S3 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

BULLETIN 


Volume  LXXI 


No.  1853 


December  30,  1974 


SECRETARY    KISSINGER'S    NEWS    CONFERENCE  OF   DECEMBER  7     909 

THE  TRADE  REFORM  ACT  AND  TODAY'S  ECONOMIC  PROBLEMS 
Address  by  President  Ford     920 

SECRETARY  KISSINGER  CALLS  FOR  EARLY  PASSAGE 

OF  TRADE  REFORM  ACT 

Stateynent  Before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance     935 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


Boston  'rubl:c  Librniv 
Superintendent  of  Documents 

JAN  2  8  1975 


Sectel 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1853 
December  30,  1974 


Ski 

jiesft 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

.^2  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, 
a    weekly    publication    issued    by    the 
Office   of   Media   Services,   Bureau   of 
Public  Affairs,  provides  the  public  and 
interested  agencies  of  tlie  government 
with   information  on   developments  in 
the  field  of  U.S.  foreign  relations  and 
on   the   work  of  tlie   Department  and 
the  Foreign  Service. 
Tlie     BULLETIN     includes     selected 
press  releases  on  foreign  policy,  issued 
by  tlie  White  House  and  tlie  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. 


oils 
U 


mysel 
As 


isab! 
Istr( 
actioi 
To 
tote 
has  I 
to  a 
abili' 
trill 


terii 


h 


Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Conference  of  December  7 


Press  release  518  dated   December  7 

Secretary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  my  apolo- 
gies for  having  made  you  come  in  on  Satur- 
day. I  had  planned  to  do  this  on  Monday  but 
forgot  that  I  have  a  congressional  appearance 
on  Monday  afternoon  and  Foreign  Minister 
[of  Israel  Yigal]  Allon  on  Monday  morning. 

I'd  like  to  begin  by  reading  a  brief  state- 
ment on  military  aid  to  Turkey,  which  I  am 
doing  on  behalf  of  the  President  as  well  as 
myself. 

As  you  know,  Congress  in  October  enacted 
legislation  which  will  cut  off  military  assist- 
ance to  Turkey  on  December  10.  As  you  are 
also  aware,  the  Senate  has  now  acted  to 
extend  the  period  prior  to  such  a  cutoff.  It 
is  absolutely  essential,  and  the  President  and 
I  strongly  urge,  that  the  House  take  similar 
action  immediately. 

To  begin  with,  the  congressional  decision 
to  terminate  military  assistance  to  Turkey 
has  not  served  the  purpose  it  was  designed 
to  accomplish.  Rather,  it  undermines  the 
ability  of  the  U.S.  Government  to  assist  in 
bringing  about  a  just  settlement  of  the  tragic 
conflict  on  Cyprus. 

We  had  made  progress  with  the  Turkish 
Government  in  the  development  of  steps  de- 
signed to  make  possible  the  initiation  of  ne- 
gotiations. 

Congressional  action  in  October  setting  a 
terminal  date  for  military  assistance  con- 
tributed substantially  to  the  difficulties  that 
have  prevented  the  beginning  of  negotiations. 
Unless  the  Congress  acts  now  to  permit  the 
continued  flow  of  military  assistance,  further 
efforts  by  the  United  States  to  assist  in  re- 
solving the  crisis  will  be  thwarted  and  our 
ability  to  play  a  future  useful  role  will  be 
undermined. 

The  United  States  has  made  it  clear  that  it 


does  not  approve  of  actions  taken  by  Turkey 
on  Cyprus.  We  have  equally  made  clear  that 
Turkey  should  display  flexibility  and  a  con- 
cern for  the  interests  of  the  other  parties  in 
that  dispute. 

The  United  States  will  continue  to  do  all  it 
can  to  assist  the  parties  in  arriving  at  an 
equitable  and  enduring  resolution  of  the  Cy- 
prus problem.  But  if  we  are  deprived  of  dip- 
lomatic flexibility,  there  will  be  little  that  we 
will  be  able  to  accomplish. 

Even  more  important,  the  U.S.  military  as- 
sistance to  Turkey  is  not,  and  has  never  been, 
granted  as  a  favor.  It  has  been  the  view  of 
the  U.S.  Government  since  1947  that  the 
security  of  Turkey  is  vital  to  the  security  of 
the  eastern  Mediterranean,  to  NATO  Europe, 
and  therefore  to  the  security  of  the  Atlantic 
community. 

These  are  the  reasons,  and  these  alone, 
that  we  grant  military  assistance.  They  were 
compelling  when  we  first  decided  to  grant 
such  aid.  They  are  equally  compelling  today. 

In  1947,  our  commitment  to  assist  Greece 
and  Turkey  marked  the  turning  point  in  the 
building  of  a  security  system  which  has  con- 
tributed to  Western  security.  Are  we  now  to 
establish  a  new  turning  point  which  will 
mark  the  end  of  our  commitment  to  a  system 
which  has  served  the  free  countries  so  well? 

The  security  interests  of  the  West  may  be 
irreparably  damaged  unless  the  Congress 
takes  immediate  action  to  permit  military 
assistance  to  Turkey  to  continue. 

This  statement  is  made  on  behalf  of  the 
President  as  well  as  myself. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  wonder  if  you  would 
care  to  use  this,  what  I  assume  is  a  first  pub- 
lic opportunity  to  answer  the  critics  of  the 
Vladivostok  agreement.  I  had  in  mind  espe- 
cially two  points.  One,  the  argument  that  the 


December  30,    1974 


909 


number  you  agreed  upon  in  Vladivostok  is  too 
high  and  really  woiddn't  stop  the  nuclear 
arms  race.  And,  second,  that  the  throiv- 
weight  issue,  tvhich  a  senior  official  called  a 
phony  issue,  ivouldti't  be  phony,  would  he 
more  serious,  if  the  Soviets  started  MIRV'ing 
[multiple  independently  targetable  reentry 
vehiclesi  their  large  7nissiles. 

The  Vladivostok  Strategic  Arms  Agreement 

Secretary  Kissi))ger:  Let  me  make  a  few 
comments  about  the  Vladivostok  agreement. 

Throughout  the  SALT  Two  [Strategic 
Arms  Limitation  Talks]  negotiations,  our 
negotiators  strove  for  the  following  objec- 
tives : 

— One,  to  achieve  a  ceiling  on  the  number 
of  total  delivery  vehicles. 

— Second,  to  achieve  a  ceiling  on  the  num- 
ber of  MIRV'ed  delivery  vehicles. 

— Third,  to  have  these  ceilings  equal. 

— Fourth,  not  to  count  forward-based  sys- 
tems. 

— Fifth,  not  to  count  the  British  and 
French  nuclear  forces. 

— Sixth,  not  to  give  compensation  to  any 
other  geographic  factors. 

— And  then  we  thought  other  technical  ob- 
jectives, such  as  the  freedom  to  mix,  which 
means  that  each  side  should  be  free  to  com- 
pose its  strategic  forces  substantially  accord- 
ing to  its  best  judgment. 

All  of  these  objectives  were  achieved  in  the 
SALT  Two  negotiations. 

Now,  with  respect  to  the  total  numbers. 
The  significance  of  the  numbers  is  that  for 
the  first  time  in  the  nuclear  age,  a  ceiling 
has  been  put  on  the  strategic  forces  of  both 
sides.  For  the  first  time  in  the  nuclear  age, 
for  a  10-year  period  the  arms  race  will  not  be 
driven  by  the  fear  of  what  the  other  side 
might  be  able  to  do  but  only  by  the  agreed 
ceilings  that  have  been  established. 

This  can  be  justly  described  as  a  major 
breakthrough,  and  its  significance  becomes 
all  the  more  clear  if  one  compares  the  num- 
bers not  with  some  hypothetical  model  that 
one  might  have  in  mind  but  with  what  would 


have  happened  in  the  absence  of  this  agree- 
ment. 

In  order  to  reach  these  numbers,  the  So- 
viet Union  will  have  slightly  to  reduce  its 
strategic  forces,  by  some  5  percent,  I  would 
guess.  If  this  agreement  had  not  been 
reached,  all  our  intelligence  estimates  agreed 
that  both  with  respect  to  MIRV's  and  with 
respect  to  total  numbers  of  forces  that  the 
Soviet  Union  would  build  would  be  consider- 
ably larger  than  those  foreseen  in  the  agree- 
ment, giving  us  the  problem  of  whether  we 
were  to  match  these  forces  or  whether  we 
would  permit  a  growing  numerical  gap 
against  us  to  arise.  So  it  is  not  a  fair  com- 
parison to  compare  these  figures  with  some 
abstract  model  but  only  with,  one,  the  reality 
of  existing  strategic  forces,  and,  second,  what 
would,  according  to  the  best  judgment  of  our 
intelligence  community,  have  happened  in  the 
absence  of  such  an  agreement. 

\A'ith  respect  to  the  argument  that  at  this 
level  a  substantial  capacity  for  overkill  ex- 
ists, this  would  be  true  at  almost  any  fore- 
seeable level,  or  at  any  level  that  has  been 
publicly  suggested  by  any  of  the  protagonists 
in  this  debate.  This  is  a  problem  that  is  in- 
herent in  the  nature  of  nuclear  weapons  and 
in  the  size  of  existing  nuclear  stockpiles. 

So,  I  repeat,  the  significance  of  this  agree- 
ment is  that  for  a  10-year  period  it  means 
that  the  arms  race  will  not  be  driven  by  the 
fear  of  each  side  of  the  building  capabilities 
of  the  other  side. 

Now  the  argument  that  it  does  not  stop  the 
qualitative  arms  race.  It  is  of  course  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  stop  qualitative  changes 
in  the  best  of  circumstances,  because  it  is 
very  difficult  to  control  what  one  is  not  able 
to  describe,  which  is  inherent  in  the  nature 
of  technological  change. 

However,  it  reduces  substantially  the  in- 
centive of  an  unlimited  qualitative  arms 
race.  The  nightmare  in  qualitative  changes 
has  always  been  the  linkage  of  qualitative 
change  with  quantity.  And  it  is  the  combina- 
tion of  technological  improvement  with  in- 
creases in  numbers  that  has  produced  the 
various  models  for  strategic  superiority  that 
people  were  concerned  about. 


910 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


It  is  extremely  difficult  to  conceive  how, 
under  the  provisions  of  this  agreement,  fore- 
seeable technological  changes,  if  either  side 
acts  with  a  moderate — with  even  a  modicum 
of  circumspection — can  produce  strategic  su- 
periority. 

And  this  gets  to  the  throw-weight  point 
and  to  the  adjective  "phony"  as  applied  to 
the  throw-weight  point.  It  is  rather  difficult 
to  be  drawn  into  a  debate  about  an  adjective 
taken  out  of  context  from  a  deep-background 
discussion.  But  let  me  sum  up  my  views  with 
respect  to  throw  weight. 

Throw  weight  is,  of  course,  one  measure  of 
strategic  power.  Throw  weight  is  significant 
when  it  is  converted  into  numbers  of  war- 
heads and  if  these  warheads  are  of  sufficient 
accuracy  to  threaten  a  definable  part  of  the 
opposing  side's  target  system.  It  therefore  is 
a  function  both  of  the  power  of  the  weapons 
and  of  the  vulnerability  of  the  targets.  If 
one  side  acquires  additional  throw  weight, 
the  other  side  has  the  choice  either  of  in- 
creasing its  throw  weight  or  reducing  the 
vulnerability  of  the  targets.  For  example, 
putting  larger  throw-weight  missiles  into 
our  holes  does  not  reduce  the  vulnerability  of 
our  silos.  It  increases  the  vulnerability  of  So- 
viet silos. 

The  major  target  system  that  is  threatened 
by  increases  of  throw  weights  are  land-based 
silos.  Over  a  period  of  10  years,  these  are 
likely  to  become  vulnerable  on  both  sides,  re- 
gardless of  the  throw  weight  that  either  side 
has,  simply  by  improvement  in  accuracy  and 
improvements  in  yield. 

Under  the  agreement,  the  United  States 
has  the  ability  to  increase  its  throw  weight 
substantially  if  it  is  judged  in  our  interests 
to  do  so.  Even  though  there  is  a  limitation 
on  building  new  silos,  our  existing  silos  can 
accommodate  missiles  of  a  throw  weight 
many  times  larger  than  the  one  we  now  have. 
And  if  we  increased  them  by  the  permitted 
15  percent,  we  can  increase  the  throw  weight 
even  more.  So  there  is  no  efi"ective  limit  on 
the  increase  in  our  throw  weight  if  we  decide 
to  match  the  Soviet  throw  weight. 

We  must  remember,  moreover,  that  the  de- 
cision  to   accept   the   differential   in    throw 


weight  was  made  six  years  ago,  or  10  years 
ago,  as  a  unilateral  decision  by  the  United 
States  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  agree- 
ment. 

But  the  major  point  I  want  to  make  is 
this :  We  have  the  possibility  of  increasing 
our  throw  weight.  We  have  also  the  possibil- 
ity of  increasing  the  invulnerability  of  our 
forces  by  reducing  reliance  on  land-based 
silos  and  increasing  the  number  of  our  sub- 
marine-based mi.ssiles. 

We  will  not  match  throw  weight  simply 
for  the  abstract  purpose  of  being  equal  in 
every  category.  We  will  take  whatever  meas- 
ures are  necessary  to  assure  the  invulnera- 
bility of  our  forces  and  to  maintain  strategic 
equivalence.  If  we  should  determine  that  we 
need  to  increase  our  throw  weight,  we  will 
do  so,  and  there  is  nothing  in  this  agreement 
to  constrain  us  from  doing  so.  And  therefore 
from  this  point  of  view,  the  throw-weight 
argument  is  an  unreal  issue. 

International  Energy  Policy 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  am  sure  there  may  be 
more  questions  about  SALT,  but  I  can't  think 
of  them  at  the  moment,  so  I  would  like  to 
ask  you  ivhether — 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  am  able  to  answer 
without  a  specific  question.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Three  tveeks  ago  in  Chicago  you  made 
a  major  speech  calling  for  international  co- 
operation to  attack  the  energy  problem  and 
achieve  a  basis  of  consumer  solidarity.  Now, 
have  you  had  any  indications  that  this  is 
going  anywhere,  that  it  is  making  an  im- 
pression in  Europe,  and  in  that  coyinection, 
do  you  intend  next  week,  while  you  are  over 
there  in  Brussels,  to  work  on  this  at  all? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  history  of  the 
discussion  with  respect  to  consumer  solidarity 
since  the  Washington  Energy  Conference 
has  been  that  in  fact  there  has  always  been 
more  progress  than  has  been  generally  ap- 
parent. 

For  example,  in  the  interval  between  the 
Washington  Energy  Conference  last  Febru- 
ary and  October  of  this  year,  there  was  set 


December  30,    1974 


911 


up  the  International  Energy  Agency  and  the 
system  of  emergency  sharing,  which  creates 
at  least  a  safety  net  in  the  case  of  some  new 
embargo. 

Since  then,  I  have  made  specific  proposals 
on  how  to  take  the  next  step  in  conservation 
and  financial  solidarity  at  Chicago. 

We  have  had  preliminary  explorations 
with  other  consumers  on  that  subject,  spe- 
cifically with  the  Federal  Republic  and  with 
Japan  and  with  others.  And  we  are  optimis- 
tic that  the  basic  objectives  of  my  Chicago 
speech  can  be  realized  and  will  be  realized. 

There  will  be  technical  disagreements 
about  the  size  of  the  fund  and  other  matters 
of  this  kind,  but  I  am  basically  optimistic 
that  the  objectives  that  we  set  ourselves  will 
be  achieved,  perhaps  in  an  undramatic  fash- 
ion. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  to  put  another  ivay  the 
same  question— ivhy  is  it  that  the  United 
States  has  not  yet  announced  its  oivn  pro- 
gram of  conservation  measures? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  President,  as  he 
stated  in  his  October  speech  to  the  Congress, 
wanted  to  give,  and  intends  to  give,  the  sys- 
tem of  voluntary  restraints  a  maximum  op- 
portunity to  work.  The  President  went  over 
my  Chicago  speech  in  great  detail  before  I 
gave  it.  He  is  fully  aware  of  the  domestic 
implications  of  the  international  program  we 
have  set  forth.  And  based  on  extensive  con- 
versations I  have  had  with  him,  I  am  certain 
that  the  United  States  will,  in  a  measurable 
time,  take  the  measures  that  are  indicated  by 
our  program. 

Strategic  Arms  Limitation 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  to  return  to  the  SALT 
question  again,  a  senior  American  official 
was  quoted  as  sayirig  that  the  figures  agreed 
on  MIRV  levels  could  have  been  lower.  What 
did  he  mean?  If  they  could  have  been  lower, 
why  were  they  not  lower? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  There  are  too  many 
senior  officials  speaking  on  background. 
[Laughter.] 


Q.  I  would  think  so,  also,  sir. 


I 


Secretary  Kissinger:  I  was  saying  that  the 
MIRV    limits    resulted    substantially    from 
American  proposals  and  not  from  Soviet  pro-     ^ 
posals.  Basically,  the  judgment  of  our  De-     i 
fense  Department  was  that  once  the  MIRV's 
went  beyond  the  point  where,  over  a  period     , 
of  time,  the  land-based  missiles  might  become     | 
vulnerable,  a  diff'erence  of  a  few  hundred  was 
not  decisive.    And  therefore  we  geared  the 
MIRV  limits  to  a  minimum  program  that  we 
had  established  as  being  in  the  interest  of  our 
own  security  and  made  the  proposed  number 
consistent  with  that  program.  No  major  at- 
tempt was  made  to  see  whether  a  hundred 
less  would  have  worked. 

Q.  Well,  isn't  that  one  of  the  major  points 
in  which  the  agreement  is  being  criticized; 
namely,  that  these  differences  amount  to,  for 
example,  in  the  case  of  a  Trident  submarine, 
a  difference  of  2U  missiles  can  involve  an  ex- 
penditure of  over  a  billion  dollars  per  sub- 
marine. Is  that  not  the  basis  for  the  criti- 
cism by  Senator  Jackson,  particularly,  that 
the  agreement  can  result  in  the  expenditure 
of  additioyml  billions  of  dollars  beyond  ivhich 
the  United  States  originally  planned  its  own 
program? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  is  certainly  in- 
correct. These  levels  do  not  involve  expendi- 
tures   beyond    the    levels    that    the    United 
States   had   planned.    But   what   the   critics 
would  also  point  out   is  that  the  levels  at 
which  we  would  have  had  to  spend  if  the 
arms  programs  of  both  sides  had  gone  on  in 
an  unconstrained  manner — the  very  people 
who   had    insisted    all    along   on    numerical 
equality  are  now  accusing  us  of  having  too- 
high  levels  of  arms,  at  a  level  of  equality  be- 
low the  existing  Soviet  forces  and  substan- 
tially below  the  foreseeable   Soviet  forces. 
Therefore  the  alternative  to  this  agreement 
in  an  unconstrained  situation,  according  to 
the  very  dicta  of  equality,  would  have  been 
that  we  would  have  had  to  spend  considerably 
more  than  we  will  have  to  spend  under  this 
agreement.    And    this    agreement    does    not 
make  us  spend  any  more  than  we  had  planned 
to  spend  to  begin  with. 


912 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


I 


Q.  I  thought  Secretary  [of  Defense  James 
/?.]  Schlesinger  yesterday  indicated  that  it 
wotild,  sir. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  think  Secretary 
Schlesinger  indicated  yesterday  that  in  com- 
posing our  forces,  some  additional — I  do  not 
believe  that  he  meant  to  indicate  that  it  re- 
quired additional  expenditures  beyond  those 
planned.  He  may  have  meant  to  indicate  that 
it  might  involve  additional  expenditures  be- 
yond those  that  are  now  being  spent. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  tve  have  become  so  in- 
ured to  catastrophe  that  the  figures  2,^00  and 
1,320  have  an  almost  reasonable  sound.  But 
the  projection  has  been  made  that  by  1985 
iDider  this  agreement  the  United  States  will 
have  about  11,000  tvarheads  and  the  Soviet 
Union  8,000  or  9,000.  What  woidd  the  war- 
head figure  have  been  without  this  agree- 
ment? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  without  this 
agreement,  on  the  projections  of  Soviet 
forces,  they  could  have  ranged  anywhere 
from  20,000,  certainly  above  11,000,  even  for 
the  Soviet  forces.  And  again,  I  repeat,  one 
has  to  compare  here  what  would  have  hap- 
pened without  the  agreement. 

Secondly,  one  has  to  analyze  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  fact  that  a  ceiling  exists  so  that 
now,  as  I  said  before,  the  arms  race  is  not 
driven  by  the  expectations  of  each  side  or  the 
worst  fears  of  each  side. 

Thirdly,  when  people  say  one  should  have 
held  out  for  lower  numbers,  the  operational 
significance  of  holding  out  for  lower  num- 
bers would  be  a  substantially  increased  budg- 
et for  our  strategic  forces  next  year.  The 
only  way  we  could  plausibly  have  achieved 
lower  numbers  is  to  begin  building  up  our 
strategic  forces  dramatically  in  order  to  pro- 
duce an  incentive  to  reduce  numbers  on  the 
other  side.  On  the  basis  of  existing  trends, 
where  the  gap  would  be  increasing  against 
us  if  we  didn't  increase  our  numbers,  the  in- 
centive to  achieve  ceilings  would  decline  and 
not  increase.  And  therefore  all  these  proposi- 
tions must  be  seen  in  terms  of  the  alterna- 
tives and  not  simply  as  abstract  statements  of 
desirable  objectives. 


Q.  The  projected  figures  I  gave  are  ceiling 
figures,  but  do  they  not  also  represent  the  in- 
herent and  enormous  overkill  of  which  you 
spoke ? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  word  "overkill" 
is  a  figure  of  speech.  If  either  side  aims  to 
exterminate  the  civilian  population  of  the 
other,  then  it  represents  overkill.  If  you  want 
strategic  forces  for  specific  military  objec- 
tives, then  whether  it  represents  overkill 
gets  you  into  complicated  areas  of  strategic 
analysis. 

If  the  figure  had  been  200  less,  this  so- 
called  overkill  problem  would  not  have  been 
substantially  afl'ected. 

Once  you  have  achieved  a  ceiling  on  stra- 
tegic forces  and  a  ceiling  on  MIRV's,  it  is 
our  judgment  that  the  follow-on  negotiations 
for  reductions  will  be  a  lot  easier  than  they 
will  be  under  conditions  where  both  sides  are 
still  increasing  their  forces.  Because  the  very 
argument  that  I  have  made  of  why  it  was 
not  decisively  diff'erent  whether  the  level  was 
2,400  or  2,200  or,  for  that  matter,  2,000  will 
then  work  in  favor  of  the  reductions. 


Relations  With  the  People's  Republic  of  China 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  your  last  trip  to 
China,  the  announcement  came  that  Presi- 
dent Ford  xvould  be  going  there  next  year. 
And  also  he  has  mentioned  that  he  wanted 
to  maintain  the  momentum  of  development 
of  relatioyis.  What  effect  ivill  this  have  on  our 
relations  ivith  the  Republic  of  China  on  Tai- 
wan, and  what  effect  does  it  have  toward  es- 
tablishing relations  with  the  mainland? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have  stated  con- 
stantly since  the  signing  of  the  Shanghai 
communique  that  our  objective  was  to  bring 
about  over  a  period  of  time  normalization  of 
relations  between  the  People's  Republic  of 
China  and  the  United  States. 

The  visit  of  the  President,  following  on  the 
discussions  that  I  have  had  in  Peking,  will 
be  one  further  step  along  that  route.  The 
timing,  the  methods,  and  the  forms  remain 
to  be  determined  as  time  goes  on. 


December  30,    1974 


913 


Visit  of  Canadian  Prime  Minister 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  believe  the  Tru- 
deau-Ford  meetings  last  week  did  anything 
to  alleviate  a  possible  trade  tuar  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States,  and  could  you 
give  US  your  explanation  for  the  rather  cold 
reception  given  to  Trudeaii  by  the  adminis- 
tration? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  First  of  all,  I  think 
that  the  meetings  between  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter and  the  President  contributed  substan- 
tially to  the  improvement  of  relations  be- 
tween the  two  countries  and  to  the  dialogue 
between  the  two  countries. 

I  read  that  Prime  Minister  Trudeau  was 
given  a  cold  reception.  This  was  certainly  not 
our  intention.  It  was  an  unofficial  visit;  it 
was  always  understood  to  be  an  informal 
visit.  We  followed  the  protocol  that  is  used 
for  these  visits. 

I  attended  all  the  meetings.  And  the  rela- 
tionship between  the  Prime  Minister  and  the 
President  was  unusually  cordial.  And  in  fact, 
after  the  formal  part  was  over— I  don't  know 
whether  that  was  announced,  but  the  Presi- 
dent took  Trudeau  to  the  family  quarters, 
and  the  Prime  Minister  and  the  President 
and  the  two  Foreign  Ministers  sat  around 
and  had  drinks  for  another  hour. 

So  I  just  don't  agree  that  it  was  a  cool  re- 
ception. The  meeting  was  extremely  cordial. 
And  insofar  as  good  personal  relations  be- 
tween leaders  contribute  to  easing  foreign 
policy  decisions,  I  think  it  made  a  major  con- 
tribution. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  the  backdown  on  the 
oil,  ivill  the  United  States  retaliate  in  ayxy 
way? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  backdown  on  the 
oil  is  a  complicated  problem,  because  it  is  a 
major  domestic  issue  in  Canada.  And  I  think 
this  is  an  issue  that  Canada  and  we  will  have 
an  opportunity  to  discuss  over  many  months. 


U.S.  Reaction  to  U.N.  Bloc  Voting 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  Ambassador  Scali  made 
a  speech  to  the  United  Nations  yesterday 
that  indicates  we  are  taking  a  new  tack,  a 


914 


T 

new  policy,  toward  that  organization.  Cotdd 
you  expand  on  that,  please?  | 

Secretary  Kissinger:  We  have  been  dis- 
turbed by  some  of  the  trends  in  the  United 
Nations. 

We  believe  that  it  is  unfortunate  that  there 
is  a  bloc  that  votes  automatically,  regardless 
of  the  merits  of  the  dispute.  And  we  have 
some  questions  about  the  procedures  that 
were  adopted  on  various  deliberations.  We 
believe  that  if  the  United  Nations  is  to  ful- 
fill its  functions,  it  is  essential  for  the  de- 
bates in  the  General  A.ssembly  to  be  related 
at  least  to  some  extent  to  the  merits  of  the 
dispute  rather  than  to  automatic  voting  pat- 
terns. And  I  think  there  must  be  a  scrupulous 
observance  of  the  charter  and  of  the  proce- 
dures. 

We  thought  it  was  desirable  for  Ambassa- 
dor Scali  to  express  our  concerns. 

Middle  East  Diplomacy 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  there  were  two  rather 
interesting  developments  in  the  Middle  East 
in  the  last  couple  of  days.  One — Prime  Minis- 
ter Rabin's  statement  that  Israel  tvas  pre- 
pared to  make  far-reaching  territorial  com- 
promises. And  a  day  or  so  before  that,  a 
story  in  Ha'Aretz  in  2vhich  Rabin  was  said 
to  be  willing  to  drop  Israel's  previous  demand 
for  a  declaration  of  nonbelligerency  from 
Egypt  in  return  for  demilitarization  of  the 
Sinai  and  creating  a  de  facto  situation.  To 
what  extent  do  you  believe  that  these  ap- 
parent concessions  have  made  it  easier  for  a 
new  round  of  negotiations  to  begin  with 
Egypt? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  as  you  know, 
Foreign  Minister  Allon  is  coming  here  to- 
morrow. And  to  put  minds  at  ease,  I  will  be 
meeting  him  at  the  airport. 

Foreign  Minister  Allon  will  be  here  to- 
morrow. We  will  then  have  discussions  as 
to  what  the  next  steps  might  be. 

We  have  felt  very  strongly  that  this  phase 
of  Middle  East  diplomacy  should  be  done 
with  a  minimum  of  public  declarations.  And 
I  don't  believe  that  I  would  be  contributing  to 
progress  by  adding  my  voice  to  all  of  the 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 


perhaps  excessive  speculations  that  have 
already  been  made.  We  hope  that  progress 
can  be  achieved. 


Emigrafion  From  Soviet  Union 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  this  week  you  assured 
the  Senate  Foreign  Relations  Committee  that 
through  interested  groups  yon  ivould  know 
ivhether  the  Russians  were  violating  certain 
agreements  they  had  reached  with  you. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Senate  Finance  Com- 
mittee. 

Q.  Right — Finance.  My  accent.  But  at  the 
same  time,  you  testified  that  you  could  only 
speculate  whether  the  decline  by  aboiit  W 
percent  in  197U  was  a  residt  of  decisions  by 
applicants  or  whether  it  was  affected  by  our 
administration's  inability  to  live  up  to  the 
terms  of  the  trade  agreement.  Which  state- 
ment is  operative? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  said  that  we  would 
know  whether  applicants  would  be  restrained 
from  applying,  whether  there  would  be  ha- 
rassment of  applicants,  whether  visas  would 
be  granted  in  relation  to  the  numbers  of  ap- 
plications, through  a  variety  of  sources. 

We  are  still  operating  under  the  old  guide- 
lines where  nobody  is  claiming  that  these 
three  principles  are  being  rigidly  observed. 
So  we  still  are  reasonably  confident  that  what 
I  said  is  achieveable — that  is,  that  we  will 
know  whether  there  is  interference  with  ap- 
plications. 

Q.  But  you  don't  knoiv  yet. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Not  that  I  would 
want  to  speculate  publicly. 


Steps  To  Solve  the  Energy  Problem 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  you  talked  before  about 
the  energy  problem.  I  woidd  like  to  go  back 
to  that.  You  said  the  United  States  will  in  the 
measurable  period  of  time  take  certain  steps. 
Is  the  administration  now  considering  steps 
such  as  higher  taxes  on  gasoline  purchases 
or  restrictions  on  gasoline  purchases?  Are 
those   concrete   steps   you  are   considering? 


A)id  is  the  measurable  period  of  time  you  are 
talking  about  when  the  President  has  to  ad- 
dress the  nation  at  the  time  of  the  state  of 
the  Union? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  have  some 
idea  of  the  program  the  President  is  now 
considering.  I  think  the  announcement  of 
such  a  program  obviously  has  to  be  left  to 
the  President.  I  would  be  surprised  if  it 
were  delayed  much  beyond  the  address  to  the 
Congress  when  it  reassembles.  And  that  this 
is  the  time  period  in  which  I  think  the  deci- 
sions will  be  taken.  What  the  specific  meas- 
ures are,  I  think  I  will  have  to  leave  for 
Presidential  announcement. 

Q.  It  goes  beyond  volunteer  efforts. 

Secretary  Kissinger:  That  is  my  impres- 
sion. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  the  international 
aspects  of  that,  you  referred  earlier  to  your 
belief  that  the  program  for  financial  assist- 
ance to  deficit  countries,  the  $25  billion  pro- 
gram, would  be  achieved  ultimately  despite 
some  technical  objections  to  the  form  and  the 
size  of  it.  Coidd  you  be  more  explicit,  sir? 
Prime  Minister  Trudeau  has  expressed  pub- 
licly his  preference  to  go  the  IMF  [Inter- 
national Moyietary  Fuyid]  route.  So  did  West 
German  Chancellor  Schmidt.  And  could  you 
also  tell  us  what  your  hopes  are  for  bringing 
France  into  a  degree  of  cooperation  with  the 
industrial  nations'  policy? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  With  respect  to  the 
financial  facility,  the  decision  that  the  in- 
dustrial nations  have  to  make  is  whether 
they  will  finance  their  deficits,  at  least  to 
some  extent,  by  their  own  efforts  or  whether 
they  want  to  put  themselves  into  a  position 
of  being  completely  dependent  on  the  pro- 
ducers for  financing  those  deficits.  This  is 
an  essentially  political  decision  that  they  have 
to  make. 

We  believe  that  it  is  important  for  the 
consuming  nations  to  create  at  least  some 
financial  mechanisms  to  take  care  of  at  least 
some  of  the  most  difficult  problems  asso- 
ciated with  the  balance  of  payments. 

We  found  in  the  initial  discussions  of  the 


December  30,    1974 


915 


emergency  sharing  program  that  many  tech- 
nical objections  were  voiced,  which  as  the 
program  became  refined,  were  overcome.  I 
still  believe  that  when  the  problem  of  finan- 
cial solidarity  is  viewed  in  its  wider  perspec- 
tive, as  something  other  than  a  purely  tech- 
nical financial  problem,  but  something  hav- 
ing to  do  with  the  political  solidarity  and  in 
some  respects  the  domestic  tranquillity  of 
the  advanced  consuming  nations,  that  the 
advantages  of  doing  it  initially  through 
methods  such  as  we  proposed  will  become 
overriding. 

Now,  with  respect  to  France — we  have  al- 
ways favored  French  participation  in  the  ef- 
forts that  we  are  proposing.  The  French 
have  suggested  a  producer  conference. 

We  are  not  opposed  to  a  producer  confer- 
ence in  principle.  But  it  is  misleading  to  give 
the  impression  that  there  is  no  consumer- 
producer  dialogue  going  on  now.  The  United 
States  is  engaged  in  an  active  consumer- 
producer  dialogue  through  a  number  of  com- 
missions we  have  set  up,  such  as  with  Saudi 
Arabia  and  Iran,  through  the  frequent  ex- 
changes we  have  with  Algeria.  So  we  are  en- 
gaged in  a  very  active  consumer-producer 
dialogue.  The  question  we  face  is  whether 
we  want  a  consumer-producer  conference  in 
which  all  the  consumers,  or  most  of  the  con- 
sumers, meet  most  of  the  producers  in  a 
multilateral  framework. 

The  only  advantage  of  a  multilateral 
framework  is  if  there  is  a  degree  of  consumer 
solidarity  and  a  degree  of  consumer  agree- 
ment as  to  basic  appi'oaches.  Otherwise  the 
producer  conference  will  merely  repeat  the 
bilateral  dialogues  that  are  already  going  on. 

Therefore  the  United  States  is  prepared 
in  principle  to  go  along  with  a  producer 
dialogue  on  a  multilateral  basis  if  it  is 
preceded  by  consumer  cooperation.  And  we 
are  prepared  to  find  mechanisms  by  which 
France  can  associate  itself  with  this  con- 
sumer cooperation. 

It  is  our  impression  that  this  problem  is 
soluble.  It  is  certainly  soluble  from  our  side, 
because  we  have  no  interest  at  all  to  exclude 
France,  and  I  think  it  is  in  the  common 
interest   of  both   consumers   and   producers 


916 


that  we  proceed  by  the  methods  that  I  have 
outlined. 


Possibilities  of  Cyprus  Negotiations 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  in  connection  with  your 
opening  statement  on  aid,  the  aid  bill  and 
the  possible  damage  that  woidd  be  done  by 
the  House  turning  down  the  aid  hill,  on  the 
relationship  with  Turkey.  You  have  said  a 
number  of  times  in  the  past  that  you  have 
been  on  the  verge  of  achieving  a  break- 
through on  the  Cyprus  question.  Where  does 
that  stand  now?  Can  you  offer  the  House 
any  hope  that  if  they  approve  the  bill  that 
at  some  period  before  the  cutoff  date  you 
will  be  able  to  achieve  a  breakthrough? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Let  me  make  two 
separate  points : 

First,  military  aid  to  Turkey  is  not  given 
primarily  in  the  context  of  the  Cyprus  ques- 
tion. Military  aid  to  Turkey  is  part  of  the 
overall  defense  of  the  free  world.  It  has 
always  been  considered  as  an  essential  part 
of  NATO,  and  given  the  foreseeable  crises 
in  the  eastern  Mediterranean,  it  would  seem 
to  us  axiomatic  that  one  should  not  drive 
Turkey  out  of  a  defense  relationship  with 
the  United  States  at  this  particularly  crucial 
period. 

So  the  fundamental  point  we  are  making 
is  that  military  assistance  to  Turkey  is  not 
a  favor  we  do  to  Turkey.  It  is  a  reflection 
of  a  basic  relationship. 

Secondly,  on  negotiations  with  respect  to 
Cyprus,  the  United  States  has  indicated  on 
a  number  of  occasions  that  in  our  view,  con- 
cessions should  be  made  by  Turkey — that  we 
would  use  our  influence  in  that  direction. 
And  we  have  talked  to  the  Greek,  Cypriot, 
and  Turkish  Governments  in  that  sense. 

The  congressional  action  in  October  pro- 
vided a  major  setback  to  these  efforts.  The 
domestic  crisis  in  Turkey  was  another  prin- 
cipal factor. 

We  believe  that  over  a  period  of  the  next 
few  months,  progress  in  getting  negotia- 
tions started  can  be  achieved.  Indeed,  it 
was  my  intention,  well  known  to  the  parties 
long   before   this   issue   came    up — and   the 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


appointments  had  been  made — to  talk  to 
both  the  Turkish  and  Greek  Foreign  Min- 
isters at  some  length  within  the  framework 
of  the  NATO  meeting  to  see  whether  matters 
could  not  be  moved  forward. 

Now  I  would  like  to  emphasize  that  the 
question  of  military  aid  to  Turkey  does  not 
indicate  any  particular  predeliction  toward 
Turkey — nor  does  it  indicate  any  support 
for  Turkey  on  the  particular  issues  that  are 
before  us  in  Greek-Turkish  negotiations  or 
on  the  Cypriot  issue.  It  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
context  of  the  overall  security  of  the  West. 

I  do  believe  that  progress  is  possible  in 
negotiations  on  Cyprus,  and  the  United 
States  is  certainly  prepared  to  use  its  in- 
fluence in  the  direction  that  I  have  indicated. 

Incentives  for  Restraint  by  Superpowers 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  last  Tuesday,  during 
your  second  session  before  the  Senate  Fi- 
nance Committee,  you  were  asked  by  Senator 
Byrd  [Harry  F.  Byrd,  Jr.']  to  confirm  that 
Soviet  action  during  the  October  war  was 
a  violation  of  the  May  1972  U.S. -Soviet  agree- 
ment on  detente.  And  you  candidly  admitted 
that  Soviet  action  was  indeed  iyi  violation 
of  that  agreement.  What  has  happened  since 
the  last  war  to  indicate  to  you  that  Soviet 
action  during  another  war,  if  another  war 
ivould  erupt  in  the  Middle  East,  would  not 
be  a  violation? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  My  answer  —  the 
question  was  a  little  more  specific,  and  my 
answer  was  more  precise. 

The  question  was:  If  the  Soviet  Union 
encouraged  other  countries  to  participate  in 
the  war  in  the  Middle  East,  that  this  would 
constitute  a  violation  of  the  principles  that 
have  been  established.  And  I  would  have  to 
say  that  if  the  Soviet  Union  encouraged 
other  countries  to  participate,  this  would  be 
considered  a  violation  of  the  principles. 

We  are  seeking  to  produce  the  maximum 
incentives  for  Soviet  restraint  on  a  global 
basis,  including  the  Middle  East,  through  a 
variety  of  measures,  including  of  course 
direct  conversations  on  the  subject. 

I  would  say  that  in  fact  the  SALT  agree- 


ment ought  to  provide  incentives  for  re- 
straint if  it  is  viewed  as  it  should  be — as 
a  political  and  not  only  a  military  decision. 
What  the  Soviet  Union  will  do  in  a  specific 
crisis,  I  cannot  now  foretell.  Our  attitude, 
in  any  event,  is  clear :  We  do  not  believe  that 
either  of  the  superpowers  should  encourage 
a  widening  of  any  conflict  that  might  arise. 

Foreign  Investment  in  the  United  States 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  as  you  are  aware,  sir, 
the  governments  of  the  Middle  Eastern 
countries  and  citizens  of  those  countries  are 
using  their  oil  money  to  buy  into  Western 
i)idustries,  most  recently  in  Germany,  and 
there  teas  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  buy 
into  Lockheed  Aircraft  in  this  country.  Yes- 
terday, the  Secretary  of  Defense  indicated 
some  reservations  about  any  third  countries 
and  their  nationals  buying  into  key  Ameri- 
can industries,  particularly  defense  iyidus- 
tries  and  particularly  those  which  have 
access  to  classified  information. 

What  could  you  tell  us  is  the  official  U.S. 
position  on  this,  and  have  we  made  repre- 
sentations to  other  governments? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  No,  we  have  not 
made  representations  to  other  governments, 
partly  because  we  are  not  absolutely  clear 
what  the  nature  of  the  representation  is  that 
we  ought  to  be  making — since,  on  the  one 
hand,  we  are  trying  to  get  them  to  spend 
oil  income  in  this  country. 

What  we  are  doing  is  to  start  a  study 
on  the  implications  of  substantial  invest- 
ments, at  least  in  the  United  States — how 
we  can  keep  track  of  them  and  what  the 
complete  implications  are,  or  at  least  to  iden- 
tify the  dangers  against  which  we  should 
guard.  We  have  just  begun  thinking  about 
this,  and  it  will  take  us  several  weeks  to 
form  a  clear  judgment. 

U.S.  Policy  Toward  Expropriation 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  this  morning  the  Vene- 
zuelan Government  annoymced  nationaliza- 
tion of  U.S.  Steel  and  Bethlehem  Steel  the 
first  of  the  year.  Now  the  companies,  appar- 


December  30,    1974 


917 


1 


enthj,  have  agreed  to  the  terms  of  the  settle- 
ments, so  that  legalities  don't  arise—but  I 
was  wondering  xvhether  you,  in  general,  have 
any  attitude  toward  this  and  whether  you 
foresee  any  trend  in  Latin  America  along 
this  line? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  Well,  I  have  not  yet 
seen  the  precise  terms  of  the  settlement.  It 
is  my  understanding  that  the  expropriation 
was  negotiated  with  the  companies,  and  my 
impression  is  that  the  companies  are  not 
dissatisfied  by  the  terms. 

The  U.S.  position  is  that  while  we  do  not 
recommend  expropriation,  and  indeed,  while 
it  runs  counter  to  the  investment  of  private 
capital,  which  may  be  one  of  the  best  sources 
for  the  underdeveloped  countries  of  capital, 
we  do  not,  as  a  government,  object  to  it  if 
there  is  fair  compensation  and  due  legal 
process.  And  this  seems  to  have  been  the 
case  in  Venezuela,  though  I  want  to  study 
the  precise  terms. 

Need  for  Solidarity  Among  Energy  Consumers 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  let's  just  get  back  to 
your  Chicago  speech.  What  kind  of  time 
scale  do  you  envisage,  and  when  do  you  think, 
and  how  ivill  you  certify  that  the  consumers 
have  made— in  the  main— expressed  sufficient 
solidarity  to  the  producers;  and  in  that  sense, 
how  do  you  envisage  bringing  France  into  it? 
Secretary  Kissinger:  We  believe  that  sub- 
stantial progress  toward  consumer  solidarity 
can  be  made  within  the  next  three  or  four 
months.  We  will  know  when  adequate  con- 
sumer solidarity  has  been  achieved.  We  have 
rather  clear  ideas.  They  are,  after  all,  the 
yardsticks  that  we  have  laid  down  in  the 
Chicago  speech. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  won't  pretend  that 
there  is  consumer  solidarity  when  there  isn't, 
and  if  there  isn't,  we  will  continue  our  own 
consumer-producer  dialogue. 

Q.  Well,  at  ivhat  point— I  mean  at  what 
point  do  you  think  France  can  be  persuaded 
that  she  has  made  the  right  gestures? 


Secretary  Kissinger:  We  are  not  interested 
in  gestures — we  are  interested  in  reality.  And 
we  are  not  looking  for  excuses  by  which 
to  pretend  that  solidarity  has  been  achieved. 

There  is  a  rather  clear  program — progress 
toward  a  program — that  would  enable  us 
to  proceed  with  a  multilateral  producer  dia- 
logue, and  we  think  this  can  be  settled 
amicably  and  with  good  will. 

I  believe  that  the  conversations  between 
President  Ford  and  the  French  President  in 
Martinique  are  going  to  make  major  progress 
toward  this  objective— at  least  this  is  the 
attitude  with  which  we  will  approach  it. 


Complex  Middle  East  Negotiations 

Q.  At  Rabat — but  before  the  [Yasir]  Ara- 
fat visit  to  the  General  Assembly,  where  he 
was  hailed— President  Sadat  of  Egypt  prom- 
ised you  that  he  would  continue  along  ivith 
your  step-by-step  strategy  on  the  Middle 
East. 

Now  that  position  of  Egypt  seems  a  good 
deal  more  awkward  than  it  may  have  seemed 
at  the  time,  and  you  are  seeing  Allan,  and 
Mr.  Brezhnev  is  going  to  Cairo  in  January. 
Is  Egypt  still  able  to  deliver  on  this  promise, 
and  ivhat  initiatives  do  you  have  with  the 
Egyptians  between  now  and  the  Brezhnev 
visit? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  As  I  have  pointed  out, 
we  believe  that  the  next  phase  of  Middle 
East  diplomacy  will  be  most  effective  if  we 
don't  speculate  about  the  intentions  of  vari- 
ous parties. 

I  have  heard  nothing  so  far  to  indicate 
that  the  positions  that  were  publicly  an- 
nounced at  the  beginning  of  November  have 
changed.  Obviously,  the  Middle  East  is  a 
volatile  area  in  which  conditions  can  change. 
I  have  not  heard  anything  to  this  effect,  nor 
do  I  have  any  indication  that  it  has  hap- 
pened, so  we  just  have  to  see  what — 

Q.  To  follow  up — when  are  you  going  to 
see  your  next  Egyptian  official?  And  where? 


918 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Secretary  Kissinger:  No  plans  exist,  right 
now,   for  my   seeing  any   Egyptian   official. 

The  SALT  Agreement  and  Defense  Spending 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  Senator  Jackson,  in  the 
tnemorandnm  he  distribtded  yesterday,  called 
0)1  his  colleagues  to  send  back  the  SALT 
agreement  as  it  stands  noiv,  on  the  grounds 
that  the  numbers  are  too  high.  What  would 
be  the  effect  on  overall  political  relationships 
with  the  Soviet  Union  if  in  fact  you  were 
not  able  to  get  approval  of  the  agreement, 
if  in  fact  it  were  signed  with  the  numbers 
as  they  are  now? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  I  would  say  two 
things : 

If  the  Senate  or  the  Congress  wants  to  send 
back  the  agreement  to  us  with  instructions 
to  get  lower  numbers,  they  better  send  with 
it  an  authorization  in  the  appropriations 
bill  for  $5-$10  billion  to  increase  our  stra- 
tegic forces.  It  doesn't  make  any  sense  to 
instruct  us  to  get  better  numbers  without 
at  the  same  time  being  prepared  to  pay 
the  price  of  the  arms  buildup  that  will  be 
the  only  possible  incentive  by  which  an 
agreement  for  lower  numbers  could  be 
achieved.  Of  course  the  point  might  then 
also  be  reached  at  which  2,400  would  repre- 
sent a  reduction  of  the  overall  forces  of  both 
sides — and  so  some  theoretical  satisfaction 
might  be  achieved  politically. 

One  would  have  to  say  that  the  Soviet 
Union  made  very  major  concessions  in  Vladi- 


vostok. Anybody  familiar  with  the  nego- 
tiating record  must  know  that  the  Soviet 
Union  gave  up  its  position  on  a  whole  range 
of  issues.  Now,  if  this,  too,  leads  to  a  divisive 
debate  in  the  United  States,  and  if  the 
pattern  of  the  trade  bill  is  repeated,  I  think 
then  the  Soviet  Union  will  only  be  able  to 
conclude  that  a  political  detente  with  us  faces 
domestic  difficulties  of  an  insuperable  nature 
in  the  United  States. 

And  therefore  I  believe  that  the  conse- 
quences of  such  an  action  would  be  extremely 
serious  on  the  political  level.  And  the  conse- 
quences in  terms  of  the  arms  race  would 
be  equally  serious.  To  refuse  this  agreement 
without  being  prepared  for  a  massive  in- 
crease in  defense  spending,  especially  on 
strategic  forces,  would  compound  all  the 
difficulties  that  we  confront. 

The  South  Korean  Regime  and  U.S.  Aid 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  when  you  were  in  South 
Korea  with  President  Ford,  did  you  discuss 
with  President  Park  the  release  of  the  politi- 
cal prisoners  and  the  restoration  of  a  demo- 
cratic government,  in  view  of  the  strong 
congressional  opposition  to  further  military 
aid  to  such  a  repressive  regime? 

Secretary  Kissinger:  The  Presidential 
Press  Secretary  pointed  out  in  Korea  that 
the  subject  wa^  discussed,  but  it  wouldn't 
be  appropriate  to  go  into  detail. 

The  press:  Mr.  Secretary,  thank  you  very 
much  for  your  time  this  morning. 


December  30,    1974 


919 


The  Trade  Reform  Act  and  Today's  World  Economic  Problems 


Address  by  President  Ford 


It  is  a  great  privilege  and  a  very  high 
honor  to  have  the  opportunity  of  participat- 
ing in  this  American  Conference  on  Trade. 
And  at  the  outset,  let  me  assure  you  that  I 
thank  you  and  I  congratulate  you  on  the 
magnificent  efforts  that  you  have  made  dur- 
ing the  day  and  previously,  and  I  exhort  you 
to  continue  your  efforts  until  we  are  success- 
ful in  the  achievement  of  the  objective  that 
has  been  determined,  which  is  in  the  best 
interest  of  our  country. 

Within  the  last  several  weeks,  I  traveled 
about  halfway  around  the  world.  I  met 
leaders  of  Japan,  Korea,  and  the  Soviet 
Union,  and  I  am  here  tonight  to  call  on 
you,  my  fellow  Americans,  to  come  with  me 
on  an  even  greater  journey,  a  journey  that 
could  be,  without  a  question  of  a  doubt,  the 
most  important  in  our  lives,  yours  and  mine, 
and  will  affect  countless  of  Americans  for 
many,  many  years  to  come. 

It  is,  very  simply  put,  to  redefine,  to  re- 
shape, the  role  of  the  United  States  in  world 
trade.  Those  of  you  who  are  serious  and 
cognizant,  and  all  of  you  are,  about  the 
problems  we  face  on  this  globe,  you  know 
that  it  is  a  new  world  out  there.  We  are 
witnessing  today  a  worldwide  economic 
revolution. 

New,  acute  economic  problems  and  con- 
cerns have  moved  onto  the  world  scene  with 
startling  swiftness.  Nations,  large  as  well 
as  small,  are  redefining  their  national  in- 
terests.  Some  talk  in  terms  of  economic  bloc 


1  Made  at  Washington  on  Dec.  3  before  the 
American  Conference  on  Trade,  sponsored  by  a 
number  of  business,  agriculture,  consumer,  and  civic 
organizations  (text  from  Weekly  Compilation  of 
Presidential  Documents  dated  Dec.  9). 


or  area  advantages.  And  there  are  those 
who  face  the  increasing  threat  of  a  simple, 
very  stark  reality — survival. 

The  United  States  and  most  nations  face 
the  most  serious  economic  challenge  of 
the  postwar  period.  Problems  of  energy, 
food,  inflation,  recession,  pose  unprecedented 
threats  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  They 
threaten  employment ;  they  threaten  income ; 
they  jeopardize  international  economic  co- 
operation ;  and  they  menace  political  and 
security  relationships  that  the  United  States 
has  taken  a  generation  to  construct. 

Unless  we  approach  these  problems  con- 
structively and  cooperatively  with  our  prin- 
cipal trading  partners,  we  in  the  world  may 
face  a  crisis  of  the  most  serious  proportions. 

These  times  call  for  positive,  constructive 
American  leadership.  The  United  States  can- 
not afford  to  drift  in  a  sea  of  international 
uncertainty  at  a  time  when  its  highest  eco- 
nomic interests  call  for  very  decisive  actions. 
We  cannot  honestly  claim  leadership  of  the 
free  world  if  we  do  not  influence — with  prac- 
tical policies  and  real  purpose — greater  eco- 
nomic cooperation. 

We  must  be  under  no  illusion  that  we  can 
go  it  alone.  I  think  that  is  why  all  of  you 
are  here  tonight  and  why  I  am  here.  And 
that  is  the  reason  the  journey  we  undertake 
here  must  go  on  vigorously,  effectively,  and 
constructively.  The  word  must  go  out  from 
here  tonight  to  the  American  people  and 
to  the  people  of  other  nations,  and  especially 
our  friends  in  the  Congress,  that  America 
has  made  a  very  serious  decision:  We  must 
pass  the  Trade  Reform  Act — now.  It  is 
essential  to  the  future  of  the  United  States 
trade  policy  and  that  of  the  world  as  well. 


920 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


The  health  of  our  domestic  economy  and  the 
stren^h — yes,  the  very  structure — of  our 
international  economic  relations  are  deeply 
involved. 

The  Congress  must  act — and  I  say  this 
with  the  utmost  seriousness — or  its  inaction 
will  gravely  affect  my  efforts  or  anybody 
else's  efforts  to  turn  our  economy  upward. 
It  will  severely  limit  my  ability,  or  the  abil- 
ity of  anybody  else,  to  work  for  international 
economic  cooperation  abroad. 

You  and  I  know  that  this  legislation  will, 
in  all  probability,  be  long  delayed,  possibly 
stymied  forever,  if  it  is  not  passed  in  the 
current  session  of  this  Congress.  From  a 
very  practical  point  of  view,  it  means  that 
for  the  next  year  or  more  when  the  economic 
situation  calls  for  decisive  decisions,  I  will 
serve  as  your  President  without  the  power 
to  fulfill  my  responsibilities  in  the  crucial 
area  of  our  nation's  trade. 

This  vital  bill,  the  trade  reform  bill,  has 
been  pending  before  Congress  for  nearly 
two  years.  Actually,  no  President  of  the 
United  States  has  had  the  authority  to  nego- 
tiate international  trade  matters  since  1967. 
International  trade  relations  have  not  been 
really  revamped  since  that  time.  It  has  been 
40  years,  as  we  look  back  over  the  pages  of 
history,  since  passage  of  the  nation's  historic 
and  fundamental  Trade  Agreements  Act  of 
1934. 

The  central  issue  of  trade  reform  is  the 
close  interrelationship  between  our  domestic 
economy  on  the  one  hand  and  our  economic 
international  relations.  And  let  us  look  at 
this  important  interrelationship  for  just  a 
moment. 

Admittedly,  the  American  economy  is  in 
a  recession  at  the  present  time.  Inflation 
pressures  are  many.  Fear  of  unemployment 
is  increasing  among  our  people. 

The  highest  priority  of  this  administra- 
tion in  the  weeks  and  months  ahead,  as  has 
been  said  since  I  took  ofRce  four  months  ago, 
will  be  to  attack  these  growing  and  changing 
economic  problems.  And  one  of  the  most 
effective  ways  to  start  is  to  pass  the  trade 
reform  legislation  in  our  national  self- 
interest. 

Obviously,  I  will  need  the  full  cooperation 


of  the  Congress.  That  is  essential  for  all  213 
million  Americans.  I  will.  And  I  have 
certainly  welcomed  the  comments  by  the 
Senate  Majority  Leader,  Mike  Mansfield,  for 
bipartisan  cooperation.  I  commend  the  Sen- 
ate Committee  on  Finance  and  Chairman 
Russell  Long  for  acting  with  restraint  and 
not  attaching  unrelated  amendments. 

The  international  economy  faces  very  sim- 
ilar difficulties.  Inflation  is  a  worldwide 
problem.  Most  of  the  economies  of  the  in- 
dustrialized world  have  swung  into  a  down- 
ward cycle,  partly  as  a  consequence  of  in- 
flationary distortions. 

International  cooperation  is  absolutely 
essential  if  the  world  is  to  conquer  this  twin 
illness  of  global  recession  and  global  infla- 
tion. We  in  the  United  States  must  develop 
a  coordinated  domestic  and  international 
approach  to  inflation  and  to  recession.  Trade 
is  vital,  essential,  critical,  to  that  program. 

Two-way  trade  for  America  amounted  to 
$163  billion  for  the  first  10  months  of  this 
calendar  year.  Those  are  the  latest  figures. 
This  leaves  our  current  trade  balance  at  a 
deficit  of  some  $2.3  billion.  This  is  due 
chiefly  to  the  huge  increase  in  the  cost  of 
imported  oil.  In  the  first  10  months  of  this 
year,  oil  imports  cost  us  $20.1  billion  com- 
pared to  $7.8  billion  for  all  of  1973.  Thus, 
without  the  enormous  increase  in  oil  costs, 
we  would  have  a  good-sized  surplus  this 
year.  The  United  States  enjoyed  a  $1.3  bil- 
lion surplus  last  year.  This  is  important 
to  note:  Our  exports  for  the  first  10  months 
of  this  year  are  running  at  an  annual  rate  of 
36  percent  above  1973. 

These  exports  add  up  to  many  jobs  for 
Americans  in  all  parts  of  our  country  and 
in  all  sectors  of  our  society.  Some  3  million 
American  workers  owe  their  livelihood  to 
our  American  exports — from  stevedores  to 
aircraft  machinists  to  white-collar  workers 
staflling  American  corporations.  Even  the 
smallest  of  our  business  organizations  in 
this  country,  three  out  of  five  successful 
American  exporters  have  fewer  than  100 
employees.  More  than  20  percent  of  Ameri- 
can farm  income  derives  from  sales  abroad. 

Trade — everybody  in  this  room  knows — 
is  the  bread-and-butter  issue  to  workers  and 


December  30,   1974 


921 


^ 


businesses  in  our  communities,  large,  small, 
in  all  parts  of  our  50  states.  That  means 
farms  on  the  one  hand,  business  on  the 
other,  and  industry  as  a  whole. 

Over  the  years  the  effect  of  trade  on  our 
economy  has  been  highly  favorable.  The 
U.S.  economy — consumers,  workers — benefits 
from  imports  as  well  as  exports.  The  explana- 
tion is  relatively  simple:  Our  total  imports 
for  the  first  10  months  of  this  year  amounted 
to  approximately  $83  billion.  About  $37  bil- 
lion of  that  figure  were  essential  to  American 
production — metals,  foods,  chemicals,  miner- 
als, including  oil. 

Many  American  businesses  are  heavily  de- 
pendent on  imported  materials.  Let  me  offer 
just  a  couple  of  specific  examples  of  how  im- 
ports help  us  as  an  industrial  nation. 

We  are  almost  entirely  dependent  on  for- 
eign countries  for  such  vital  materials  as 
chromium,  platinum,  titanium,  manganese. 
More  than  85  percent  of  our  aluminum  comes 
from  overseas ;  so  does  most  of  our  bauxite. 

When  we  add  the  vigor  from  these  imports 
to  the  strength  of  exporting,  we  can  see  the 
significance  of  trade  to  America's  economic 
health.  Trade  adds  to  the  income,  the  income 
of  the  American  labor  force,  and  to  our  eco- 
nomic preeminence  in  the  world  at  large. 

There  will  be  no  plus  in  our  balance  of 
trade  this  year  because  of  the  severe,  high 
cost  of  importing  oil.  Otherwise,  we  could  be 
and  would  be  very  much  in  the  black. 

Naturally,  I  consider  the  price  we  are  pay- 
ing for  oil  as  much  too  high.  It  is  raising 
havoc  on  our  domestic  economy.  If  you  deduct 
the  increased  cost  of  oil  imports,  the  United 
States  exhibits  a  favorable  trade  balance  of 
nearly  $8  billion  during  the  first  six  months 
of  1974. 

Oil  price  increases  are  upsetting  the  en- 
tire international  economic  system.  The  ad- 
justments, the  answers  must  come  from  in- 
ternational bargaining,  from  international 
cooperation,  and  that  is  the  top  priority  of 
this  administration. 

The  overall  effect  of  our  trade  is  highly  fa- 
vorable, but  the  Trade  Reform  Act  makes 
specific  provision  to  assist  those  who  might  be 
adversely  affected  by  imports.  No  sectors  of 


our  economy  will  be  left  to  face  serious  dis- 
ruptions. The  legislation  clearly  states — and 
I  will  vigorously  support  such  provisions — 
that  we  will  assist  workers,  firms,  communi- 
ties adversely  affected  by  imports. 

In  these  very  difficult  times,  it  may  be 
tempting  for  some  in  our  great  country  to 
turn  inward.  Powerful  forces  in  this  country 
are  not  only  thinking  but  actually  urging  an 
inward  course  on  legislation,  not  only  in  the 
Trade  Reform  Act  but  in  many  other  pieces 
of  legislation.  This,  in  my  judgment,  would 
reverse  American  postwar  trade  and  other 
policies  and  would  be  enormously  harmful 
to  us  as  to  the  rest  of  the  globe,  our  allies  as 
well  as  our  adversaries. 

It  is  my  strong  feeling — and  I  say  this 
with  the  deepest  conviction — let  us  turn  out- 
ward to  view  the  complex  picture  of  interna- 
tional trade.  Our  nation  lives  and  acts  in  the 
world  community  within  a  very  intricate 
framework.  It  is  the  framework  of  political, 
security,  and  economic  ties  that  binds  nations 
everywhere  together. 

There  are  those  in  the  world  who  believe 
that  unilateral  and  bilateral  action  promoting 
their  own  self-interest  is  the  quickest  and  the 
most  promising  solution  to  their  problems.  I 
categorically  reject  that  view.  We  must  be- 
lieve, and  I  certainly  do,  that  this  policy  can 
only  lead  to  conflict — an  unending  series  of 
flareups  and  disputes  in  all  parts  of  the 
world. 

In  contrast,  the  United  States  believes — 
and  I  am  committed  to  this  policy  if  the  Con- 
gress will  urgently  let  me  negotiate — that  the 
only  real  answer  is  the  long-range  solution 
of  total  world  cooperation.  I  seek  multilateral 
solutions  to  common  problems  that  will  bene- 
fit all  nations,  but  I  need  the  Trade  Refonn 
Act,  and  I  need  it  now,  if  the  President  of 
the  United  States  is  to  have  any  voice  in  the 
international  scene. 

Let  me  spell  out,  if  I  might,  some  of  the 
consequences  if  I  do  not  obtain  this  legisla- 
tion from  this  Congress  before  it  adjourns. 

The  coming  GATT  [General  Agreement 
on  Tariffs  and  Trade]  international  trade 
negotiations  involving  105  members  would 
be  dealt  a  crippling  setback.  I  would  lack  the 


922 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


necessary  legislative  authority  to  implement 
my  accords  or  any  accords;  therefore  it 
would  be  virtually  impossible  to  arrive  at 
any  substantial  trade  agreements. 

The  U.S.  international  political,  military, 
economic  commitments  would  be  seriously 
undermined.  This,  in  my  opinion,  would  en- 
courage unrest  and  would  certainly  encour- 
age world  instability. 

But  let's  be  even  more  precise,  if  I  might. 
In  energy.  Secretaries  Kissinger  and  Bill  Si- 
mon [William  E.  Simon,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury]  are  working  diligently  on  inter- 
national cooperation.  But  this  cooperation 
cannot  be  one  in  a  world  involved  with  in- 
creasing strife  in  trade. 

The  international  monetary  system  needs 
significant  improvement.  If  we  slide  back 
into  trade  wars,  we  undermine  our  honest  ef- 
forts to  keep  the  international  monetary  sys- 
tem functioning  effectively.  Friendly  trade  is 
a  must  if  we  are  to  improve  our  market  im- 
balances. 

Trade  is  necessary  so  that  developing  coun- 
tries can  pay  back  various  forms  of  outside 
assistance.  Some  of  the  developing  nations 
are  directly  involved  in  our  own  growth. 
They  own  raw  materials  and  other  commodi- 
ties in  short  supply  essential  to  our  develop- 
ment. 

The  Trade  Reform  Act  offers  me  sufficient 
negotiating  authority  to  achieve  a  substan- 
tial reduction  in  tariff  levels  on  a  worldwide 
basis.  It  would  allow  me  to  work  toward 
greater  market  access  for  U.S.  products 
abroad,  adding  innumerable  thousands  of 
jobs  in  our  own  50  states. 

This  means  jobs  for  Americans.  That 
means  a  healthier  economy.  That  means  Con- 
gress has  a  duty  and  an  obligation  to  pass 
this  legislation  now. 

Let  me  use  one  other  fact,  if  I  might.  I  can 
assure  you  from  my  recent  experiences  that 
the  Soviets  are  not  sitting  back.  They  are  not 
looking  for  a  seat  as  a  spectator.  They  want 
and  they  will  get  part  of  the  action. 

The  Soviets  are  ready  to  trade — politically, 
economically — but  it  will  take  time.  It  will 
take  negotiation  on  the  one  hand,  some  very 
hard  bargaining  on  the  other.  We  have  made 


a  good  beginning  politically,  a  breakthrough 
on  controlling  the  latest  generation  of  nuclear 
weapons,  a  breakthrough  for  peace.  Let  us 
make  the  same  breakthrough  for  trade  essen- 
tial for  detente  and  progress  around  the 
world. 

In  1973,  the  United  States  achieved  a  trade 
surplus  of  more  than  $1  billion  from  the  So- 
viet Union.  Another  $900  million  surplus 
came  from  other  Communist  countries 
around  the  world.  Trade  with  these  nations 
was,  therefore,  a  very  crucial  factor  in  our 
overall  ti-ade  surplus  of  $1.7  [$1.3]  billion  in 
1973. 

The  Soviets  will  not  deal  unless  we  work 
to  achieve  mutually  beneficial  economic  poli- 
cies, including  the  elimination  of  discrimina- 
tion against  their  trade,  and  unless  we  are 
willing  to  provide  appropriate  levels  of  credit 
within  the  framework  established  by  the  Con- 
gress. 

Let's  be  very  clear  about  this.  Our  com- 
petitive trading  partners  of  Western  Europe 
and  Japan  are  issuing  credits  to  Communist 
countries  with  which  they  are  now  trading. 
Their  record  shows  that  the  Soviet  credit  is 
good.  The  credits  we  issue  are  small  com- 
pared to  our  Western  trading  partners. 

The  world  today  looks  to  the  United  States 
of  America  for  leadership.  We  have  provided 
this  since  the  end  of  World  War  II.  We  did 
not  provide  it  prior  to  World  War  II.  There- 
fore I  would  find  it  inexcusable,  as  would 
many  Members  of  Congress  and  many  Amer- 
icans, if  this  legislation  were  to  die  as  a  re- 
sult of  delay  and  procrastination. 

The  Congress  and  the  executive  branch 
have  cooperated  more  closely — and  I  might 
say  at  a  greater  length — on  this  bill  than  in 
any  other  single  piece  of  legislation  in  the 
past  six  years.  I  can  recount  in  the  four 
months  that  I  have  been  President  a  number 
of  meetings  with  various  Senators,  various 
other  Members  of  the  Congress,  in  trying  to 
find  a  reasonable,  constructive  compromise 
on  how  we  might  move  this  legislation  for- 
ward. And  I  can  assure  you  that  I  will  per- 
sonally continue  these  efforts  in  the  remain- 
ing weeks  of  this  session  of  the  Congress. 

And  let  me  add  this,  if  I  might.  And  I  see 


December   30,    1974 


923 


how  many  members  of  my  Cabinet  are  here — 
three,  four.  They  are  being  told  tonight,  and 
everybody  in  their  departments,  that  this  is 
the  job  of  higliest  priority — to  get  this  legis- 
lation through  between  now  and  adjourn- 
ment. And  I  will  add  a  P.S.  If  they  don't  get 
it  through,  they  are  at  fault,  and  you  are, 
too.  [Laughter.] 

Well,  let  me  just  conclude  with  these  ob- 
servations and  comments.  I  would  find  it  in- 
excusable if  this  legislation  were  to  become 
encumbered  with  nonrelated  or  nongermane 
amendments.  This  is  somewhat  technical,  but 
those  of  us  who  have  struggled  in  the  Con- 
gress for  some  time  know  precisely  what  it 
means.  These  would  be  unrelated  amend- 
ments, not  related  to  the  fundamentals  of 
trade  legislation  under  any  circumstances. 

They  would  be  amendments  that  had  no 
prior  consideration  at  all  in  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Finance.  They  would  be  extraneous 
to  the  subject  matter  that  has  brought  all  of 
you  to  the  Nation's  Capital. 

I  think  the  time  has  come ;  it  is  far  too  se- 
rious for  this  important  legislation  to  be  en- 
cumbered by  these  nonrelated  or  nongermane 
amendments.  So,  as  you  go  through  the  halls 
and  into  the  offices  on  Capitol  Hill,  make  the 
point  strongly,  effectively,  that  this  legisla- 
tion must  stand  on  its  own  and  should  not  be 
overwhelmed  with  amendments  that  have  no 
relationship  to  trade  per  se. 

At  this  critical  moment  in  our  legislative 
history  on  this  legislation,  I  don't  think  we 
can  afford  the  gamesmanship  of  nonrelated, 
nongermane  amendments. 

I  see  some  former  colleagues  of  mine  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  In  the  main,  we 
were  able  to  keep  nongermane  amendments 
out  of  the  House  version  of  the  bill.  The  bur- 
den is  now  on  the  United  States  Senate  to  do 
exactly  the  same. 

And  let  me  conclude  with  these  final  ob- 
servations, if  I  might.  I  happen  to  believe 
that  a  society  is  great  if  its  people  think 
greatly,  if  its  people  act  greatly,  and  this  is  a 
moment  for  greatness  in  America. 

The  journey  which  we  together  have 
started  here  tonight  has  no  end.  For  the  labor 
we  undertake  will  never  be  complete — to  help 
build  a  world  economy  that  will  contribute  to 


the  health  and  prosperity  of  people  every- 
where throughout  this  globe. 

Every  nation  must  carry  its  share  of  that 
great  burden  to  uplift  itself  on  the  one  hand 
and  others  as  we  move  ahead.  Every  nation 
must  reach  out,  out  to  others,  to  work  to- 
gether, to  share  in  sweat  and  in  sacrifice,  se- 
cure in  the  knowledge  that  none  will  have  to 
go  it  alone.  This  truly,  as  I  see  it,  could  be 
one  of  the  world's  finest  hours.  With  your 
help,  with  our  cooperation,  and  with  the  dedi- 
cation of  everybody,  we  can  make  it  so. 

Thank  you  very,  very  much. 


Letters  of  Credence 

Grenada 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
State  of  Grenada,  Marie  J.  Mclntyre,  pre- 
sented her  credentials  to  President  Ford  on 
November  29.' 

Honduras 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Republic  of  Honduras,  Roberto  Lazarus,  pre- 
sented his  credentials  to  President  Ford  on 
November  29.' 

Luxembourg 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Grand  Duchy  of  Luxembourg,  Adrien  F.  J. 
Meisch,  presented  his  credentials  to  Presi- 
dent Ford  on  November  29.' 

United  Arab  Emirates 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
United  Arab  Emirates,  Saeed  Ahmad  Gho- 
bash,  presented  his  credentials  to  President 
Ford  on  November  29.' 

Uruguay 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Oriental  Republic  of  Uruguay,  Jose  Perez 
Caldas,  presented  his  credentials  to  Presi- 
dent Ford  on  November  29.^ 


li 


1  For  texts  of  the  .■Embassador's  remarks  and  the 
President's  reply,  see  Department  of  State  press 
release  dated  Nov.  29. 


924 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


Chancellor  Schmidt  of  the   Federal   Republic   of   Germany 
Visits  the  United  States 


Helmut  Schmidt,  Chancellor  of  the  Fed- 
eral Repidlic  of  Germayiy,  made  an  official 
visit  to  the  United  States  December  Jt-7.  He 
met  with  President  Ford  and  other  gov- 
ernment officials  in  Washington  December 
5-6.  Folloiviug  are  an  exchange  of  greetings 
between  President  Ford  and  Chancellor 
Schmidt  at  a  welcoming  ceremony  on  the 
South  Lawn  of  the  White  House  on  December 
5  and  their  exchange  of  toasts  at  a  White 
House  dinner  that  evening,  together  with 
the  text  of  a  joint  statem,ent  issued  on 
December  6. 


REMARKS  AT  WELCOMING   CEREMONY 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  December  9 

President  Ford 

Chancelloi-  Schmidt,  gentlemen :  I  am  de- 
lighted to  welcome  you  here  in  Washington, 
our  Nation's  Capital,  on  behalf  of  the  Ameri- 
can people. 

This  is  your  first  visit,  Mr.  Chancellor,  to 
the  United  States  as  the  leader  of  the  Ger- 
man Federal  Government.  It  comes  at  an 
historic  time  for  both  of  our  countries. 

We  in  the  United  States  are  on  the  eve 
of  our  bicentennial.  One  of  the  things  that 
we  are  particularly  aware  of  is  the  prom- 
inent role  played  by  men  and  women  of 
German  descent  in  the  building  of  America 
over  the  past  two  centuries.  They  have 
made  tremendous  contributions  in  fields  as 
widespread  as  education  and  science,  culture 
and  the  arts. 

A  few  months  ago  the  Federal  Republic 
of  Germany  marked  its  own  25th  anniver- 
sary. During  this  quarter  century  the  Fed- 
eral Republic  has  become  one  of  the  world's 


leading  political  and  economic  powers,  and 
also  one  of  its  most  responsible. 

Throughout  this  entire  period  of  relations 
between  our  two  countries,  it  has  been 
marked  by  a  very  close  friendship  and  a 
very  close  cooperation,  and  we  are  particular- 
ly proud  of  that  association. 

Mr.  Chancellor,  we  live  in  demanding 
times.  In  the  effoi't  to  solve  the  formidable 
economic  and  political  problems  confronting 
us  today,  close  cooperation  and  mutual  help 
have  become  infinitely  more  important  than 
ever.  Only  by  working  together  can  we 
overcome  the  current  diflRculties  facing  our 
economies  and  international  economy. 

I  believe  we  can  do  it,  and  speaking  for 
the  American  people,  I  appreciate  the  support 
your  government  has  shown  for  strengthened 
economic  cooperation  in  the  international 
field. 

We  also  recognize  your  international  con- 
tributions in  dealing  with  the  problems  of 
energy,  food,  and  financial  pressures. 

A  keystone,  of  course,  of  our  present  and 
future  cooperation  is  the  Atlantic  alliance. 
At  a  time  when  all  members  of  the  alli- 
ance confront  budgetary  diflficulties,  difficult 
choices  for  all  of  them,  we  applaud  and  en- 
dorse your  country's  positive  attitude  toward 
maintaining  the  strength  of  NATO. 

We  also  appreciate,  Mr.  Chancellor,  your 
cooperation  in  helping  to  assure  that  no 
nation  bear  an  unfair  burden  of  the  cost  of 
our  common  defense. 

We  will  have  many  important  issues  to 
discuss  today  and  tomorrow,  Mr.  Chancellor. 
I  look  forward  to  those  discussions  in  full 
confidence  that  these  talks  will  contribute 
significantly  to  our  efforts  in  creating  more 
stable  political  and  economic  conditions 
throughout   the   world.     I   know   that   your 


December  30,   1974 


925 


visit  will  further  strengthen  the  already 
close  friendship  and  partnership  between  the 
Federal  Republic  and  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Chancellor,  America  bids  you  and  your 
party  a  most  cordial  welcome. 

Chancellor  Schmidt 

Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen: 
Thank  you,  Mr.  President,  very  much  for 
your  warm  welcome  and  for  the  kind  words, 
regardful  words,  addressed  to  me  and  my 
party. 

As  you  said,  it  is  not  my  first  visit  to  the 
United  States,  but  the  first  time  that  I  have 
come  to  this  country  as  the  head  of  govern- 
ment of  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany. 

I  am  particularly  glad  to  have  this  oppor- 
tunity so  soon  after  you,  Mr.  President,  have 
assumed  your  oflfice  in  order  to  exchange 
views  on  the  main  questions  which  do  con- 
cern us. 

In  today's  world  we  are  faced  with  a 
multitude  of  difficult  problems  whose  solu- 
tions will  make  unprecedented  demands  on 
our  countries  and  will  require  us  to  harness 
our  strength  in  the  common  effort. 

The  world  is  threatened  by  severe  economic 
disruption.  The  Middle  East  conflict,  whose 
settlement  your  administration  is  working  so 
hard  to  bring  about,  and  the  energy  crisis, 
which  followed  in  its  wake,  have  suddenly 
opened  our  eyes  to  the  fragile  nature  of  the 
foundations  on  which  our  economic  and  so- 
cial and  political  stability  does  rest. 

The  strengthening  of  these  foundations  is 
a  task  that  does  concern  us  all,  and  which 
we  can  only  master  through  broad  interna- 
tional cooperation,  as  you  said. 

We  in  Germany  are  conscious  of  this  chal- 
lenge, and  we  are  preparing  ourselves  to 
meet  it.  In  this  search  we  do  attach  specific 
importance  to  close  cooperation  and  consulta- 
tion between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  Europe  and  my  own  country. 

The  partnership  between  the  United  States 
and  Europe  has  stood  the  test.  It  has  existed 
for  more  than  25  years  in  the  Atlantic 
alliance,  which  was  strengthened  by  the 
Declaration  of  Ottawa  in  the  middle  of  this 
year.     It    has    also    reflected    our    common 

926 


efforts  to  promote  detente  in  Europe  and  in 
the  world. 

We  are  resolved  to  do  everything  within 
our  capability  to  strengthen  and  to  further 
develop  this  partnership. 

The  untroubled  friendship  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Federal  Republic  of 
Germany  seems  to  be  an  excellent  basis  for 
this,  and  it  is  my  firm  conviction  that  our 
meeting,  Mr.  President,  will  bring  us  closer 
to  this  goal. 

Thank  you  very  much. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 


Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  December  9 

President  Ford 

Mr.  Chancellor:  It  is  a  great  privilege  and 
a  pleasure  for  me  and  our  people  to  have 
you  and  your  Foreign  Secretary,  Mr.  Gen- 
scher,  and  the  others  from  your  party  visit- 
ing us  in  Washington  on  this  occasion. 

We,  of  course,  feel  that  this  gathering  is  a 
reaffirmation  of  the  longstanding  friendship 
of  your  people  as  well  as  ours,  your  govern- 
ment as  well  as  ours,  a  friendship  that  has 
a  very  broad  base  in  military  security,  eco- 
nomic relations,  people-to-people  relations. 

Of  course,  the  pages  of  history  in  the 
United  States  are  filled  with  contributions 
made  over  the  200  years  of  our  nation's 
history,  contributions  made  by  people  from 
your  country. 

It  goes  back  as  far  as  Baron  Von  Steuben, 
who  was  probably  the  finest  military  train- 
ing officer  as  well  as  a  fighting  officer,  who 
took  a  pretty  ragged  American  outfit  at 
Valley  Forge  and  made  it  capable  and  com- 
petent to  meet  the  challenges  in  the  next 
spring. 

And,  of  course,   Abraham  Lincoln  had  a      | 
very  outstanding  German  who  was  a  mem-      " 
ber  of  his  Cabinet,  who  contributed  signifi- 
cantly to  our  history  in  that  day  and  that      I 
era.  ' 

Of  course,  the  contribution  by  people  from 
Germany  to  our  country  also  includes  the 
arts,  it  includes  science,  it  includes  litera- 
ture.    And   as   Larry   Brown   and    I   know, 

Department  of  State  Bulletin 


there  are  some  outstanding  Germans  who 
have  contributed  to  our  proficiency  in  ath- 
letics. One  who  may  come  to  mind  for  some 
of  us  in  the  older  age  group,  Lou  Gehrig, 
was  probably  a  legendary  baseball  player 
in  our  athletic  history,  and  his  ancestry,  of 
course,  was  that  of  your  country. 

But  with  the  people  who  have  helped  to 
make  America  great,  and  those  that  are 
working  with  us  today  in  the  field  of  the 
military,  the  economic  areas,  the  rapport  I 
think  is  good  for  not  only  each  of  us  but 
for  the  world  at  large. 

Twenty-five  years  of  your  history  has 
been  a  period  of  25  years  of  close  personal 
relationship  to  the  United  States,  and  vice 
versa. 

We  seem  to  have  the  same  philosophical 
views,  the  same  ideological  opinions  as  to 
how  you  can  move  ahead.  We  tend  to  sub- 
scribe in  America  to  the  views  of  one  of 
Germany's  greatest  minds,  one  of  the  world's 
greatest — I  am  told,  as  I  read  history — 
Goethe.  He  once  wrote  that  we  can  only 
earn  our  freedom  and  our  existence  by 
struggling  for  it  every  day. 

For  25  years,  day  in  and  day  out,  the 
Federal  Republic  and  the  United  States  have 
worked  together  for  a  freer,  better  world 
in  a  spirit  of  mutual  friendship  and  great 
mutual  respect. 

So,  it  is  my  privilege,  Mr.  Chancellor,  in 
the  spirit  of  our  friendship  and  cooperation 
and  mutual  interest,  to  offer  a  toast  to  you 
and  all  that  you  embody  and  that  of  your 
great  country:  To  the  Chancellor  and  to 
the  Federal  Republic  and  its  people. 

Chancellor  Schmidt 

Mr.  President,  Mrs.  Ford,  ladies  and 
gentlemen:  I  would  like  to  thank  you,  Mr. 
President,  for  the  kind  and  warm  words 
you  have  addressed  to  my  party  and  to  me. 
I  think  one  of  the  two  of  us  has  to  confess 
to  this  distingui.shed  gathering  that,  despite 
the  fact  that  we  did  not  intend  to  solve  any 
bilateral  problems  between  ourselves,  be- 
cause we  don't  have  any  bilateral  problems 
[laughter],  nevertheless  we  did  make  a  bi- 
lateral agreement  just  tonight  insofar  as  we 


agreed  to  put  away  the  speeches  which  were 
made  for  us.  [Laughter.] 

And  so,  the  President  did  and  I  am  going 
to  do  it,  but  we  allowed  for  just  one  quota- 
tion from  the  speeches.  You  will  later  on 
detect  me,  or  observe  me,  looking  to  my 
paper  once.  But  before  so  doing,  I  would 
like  to  point  out  that  I  think  you  were  espe- 
cially generous,  Mr.  President,  in  talking 
of  the  last  25  years  of  our  really  very  good 
and  ever-improving  relationship,  a  relation- 
ship between  your  great  country  and  ours. 

You  were  very  gracious  not  to  mention 
periods  of  history  before  that — I  will  not 
dig  into  it.  But  I  would  like  to  say  that  my 
compatriots  and  I  myself,  we  are  really 
thankful  for  the  great  help  which  we  have 
received  from  your  people  immediately  after 
the  war  and  that  we  also  are  thankful  for 
having  had  your  assistance,  your  standing 
firm  on  matters  vital  for  our  own  sake;  for 
instance,  for  your  standing  firm  on  Berlin 
all  these  years. 

You  have  just  come  back  to  the  United 
States  from  a  meeting  with  the  number-one 
man  of  the  Soviet  Union.  From  what  I 
understand  from  your  report  to  us,  you 
have  clearly  added  one  step  further  in  the 
policy  of  bringing  about  balance  in  the 
world  and  the  stability  of  that  balance,  and 
bringing  about  detente,  if  you  wish  to  call 
it  that,  a  policy  which  we  have  followed, 
both  of  our  nations,  both  of  our  govern- 
ments, parallel  to  each  other,  as  we  have  all 
these  long  decades  followed  in  common  the 
policy  of  making  ourselves  capable,  if  need 
should  arise,  to  defend  ourselves  against 
threats  or  pressures  from  outside. 

It  seems  to  me  that  so  far  we  have  been 
very  successful  together  with  our  other 
partners  within  the  Atlantic  alliance.  In 
the  meantime,  new  problems  have  come  up 
which  we  did  not  foresee  10  years  ago, 
referring  to  the  Middle  East  or  referring  to 
the  oil  price  explosion — I  think  one  might 
call  it  an  explosion — and  all  our  economies 
so  far  have  not  adapted  to  that  enormous 
change,  whether  it  is  in  the  field  of  real 
incomes,  whether  that  is  in  the  field  of 
balance  of  payments,  whether  it  is  in  the 
field  of  aggravating  the  process  of  inflation. 


December  30,    1974 


927 


We  have  talked  at  length  today,  and  also 
your  Secretaries  and  aides  and  my  party 
have  talked  at  length,  about  economic  prob- 
lems. We  have  exchanged  our  analyses,  we 
have  exchanged  our  attitudes,  our  plans  for 
future  actions.  Advice  was  given  freely  and 
taken  from  both  sides — this  is  the  point 
where  I  have  to  look  to  my  paper  [laughter] 
— because  I  wrote  down  in  my  own  hand- 
writing a  little  quote. 

I  think  it  is  from  some  American.  He  is 
not  as  famous  as  Goethe.  Nevertheless,  it 
reads:  "Free  advice  is  the  kind  that 
costs  you  nothing  unless  you  act  upon  it." 
[Laughter.] 

So,  I  warn  you,  Mr.  President,  to  be  care- 
ful in  acting  upon  our  advice,  and  we  will 
be  careful  on  our  side  as  well. 

But  coming  back  to  a  more  serious  aspect 
of  the  matter,  I  think  I  could  say  on  behalf 
of  my  party,  especially  my  colleague  Gen- 
scher,  and  the  rest,  that  we  were  very  thank- 
ful for  this  free  exchange  of  analyses  and 
thoughts  and  of  the  plans  we  might  put 
into  operation  in  the  next  time,  because  we 
do  really  feel  that  your  great  country,  five 
times  as  big — I  mean  in  economic  size — than 
ours  and  our  second  biggest  in  terms  of 
foreign  trade,  we  do  really  feel  that  both  our 
responsibilities,  vis-a-vis  the  world's  econ- 
omy as  a  whole  and  the  other  partners  in 
the  free-world  economy,  request  from  us 
that  we  try  as  much  as  one  can  to  coordinate 
our  economic  policies  as  we  have  coordinated 
our  defense  policies,  as  we  have  coordinated 
our  detente  policies,  as  we  tried  to  coordi- 
nate our  policies  all  over  the  globe. 

Now,  at  this  present  stage  I  think  in  the 
economic  field  there  lies  a  great  part  of  our 
faith,  not  only  of  your  people,  also  of  ours, 
also  of  other  peoples  in  the  world. 

If  the  economic  future  becomes  bleak  and 
uncertain,  economic  uncertainty  and  eco- 
nomic failure  can  lead  to  economic  unrest 
not  only,  but  also  social  unrest  and  also 
domestic  political  unrest  in  a  number  of 
countries,  not  in  the  first  instance  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  not  in  the  first 
instance  in  our  country,  but  we  might  be 
infected  in  the  course  of  time. 


I  think  all  my  compatriots  heard  with 
great  satisfaction  what  you  said  this  after- 
noon about  you  would  not  permit  an  aggra- 
vation of  the  downward  trend  of  the  econ- 
omy, which  at  present  is  characterizing  all 
our  economies. 

I  am  not  going  to  too  much  dig  into  that 
field.  I  only  wanted — using  this  as  an  ex- 
ample, the  economic  exercise  of  ours  as  an 
example — to  express  again,  sir,  our  grati- 
tude for  this  really  free  and  frank  and  can- 
did exchange  of  views  and  to  express  our 
gratitude  for  the  endeavor  on  both  sides  to 
coordinate  and  harmonize  our  policies,  which 
in  fact  does  not  mean  that  both  of  our  parts 
have  to  exactly  operate  along  the  same  lines, 
but  means  that  we  will  have  to  follow  com- 
plementary policies  in  order  to  achieve  the 
same  goal  that  we  have  in  common. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  would  like  to  rise 
and  drink  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  our  charming  hostess. 


TEXT  OF  JOINT  STATEMENT 

Joint  United  States-Federal  Republic  of 
Germany  Statement 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America 
Gerald  R.  Ford  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Federal 
Republic  of  Germany  Helmut  Schmidt  met  in  Wash- 
ington on  December  5  and  6,  1974.  They  reaffirmed 
the  relationship  of  friendship  and  trust  and  confi- 
dence between  the  United  States  and  the  Federal 
Republic  of  Germany,  and  they  held  wide-ranging 
talks  embracing  international  and  economic  prob- 
lems, security  and  defense  policy,  and  current  East- 
West  discussions.  Secretary  of  State  and  Assistant 
to  the  President  for  National  Security  Affairs  Henry 
A.  Kissinger  and  Foreign  Minister  Hans  Dietrich 
Genscher  participated  in  the  discussions  between 
the  President  and  the  Chancellor  and  held  comple- 
mentary talks.  In  the  economic  talks,  the  President 
was  joined  by  members  of  his  Economic  Policy 
Board  and  the  Chancellor  was  accompanied  by 
representatives  of  labor  and  business. 

The  President  and  the  Chancellor  reviewed  the 
world  economic  situation  in  depth  and  explored 
effective  solutions  for  current  economic  problems. 
They  were  agreed  that  international  energy  prob- 
lems, the  sharp  increases  in  world  prices,  the  con- 
traction of  economic  activities,  and  large-scale  pay- 
ments imbalance  constitute  a  severe  threat  to 
political  and  social   stability  in   many  countries.    A 


928 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


creative  new  effort  to  coordinate  economic  policies 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Federal  Republic 
of  Germany,  together  with  its  partners  in  the  Euro- 
pean Community,  will  be  required  to  master  these 
difficulties. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Federal 
Republic  of  Germany  recognize  the  responsibility 
which  falls  to  them  for  ensuring  a  prosperous  inter- 
national economy  and  safeguarding  world  trade.  In 
this  context  they  attach  great  significance  to  the 
upcoming  multilateral  trade  negotiations.  They  re- 
affirmed their  international  pledges  to  avoid  trade 
and  payments  restrictions  which  adversely  affect 
other  countries. 

The  President  and  the  Chancellor  agreed  that  in 
current  circumstances  they  both  have  a  responsi- 
bility to  manage  their  domestic  economic  policies 
so  as  simultaneously  to  strengthen  output  and  em- 
ployment and  to  avoid  new  inflationary  impulses. 
They  affirmed  that  both  countries  have  a  need  to 
encourage  investment,  to  combat  rising  unemploy- 
ment, and  to  act  to  increase  confidence  in  the  finan- 
cial and  the  economic  outlook.  They  recognized 
that  the  two  countries  are  at  different  points  in 
their  fight  against  inflation,  and  that  policies  will 
take  that  fact  into  account.  They  are  determined 
not  to  permit  a  serious  deterioration  in  their  econo- 
mies to  occur.  If  necessary,  they  will  step  in  with 
adequate  measures  to  prevent  it. 

The  United  States  and  the  Federal  Republic  of 
Germany  agreed  that  determination  and  cooperation 
are  also  necessary  in  dealing  with  energy-related 
problems.  They  underlined  the  importance  of  the 
International  Energy  Agency  set  up  within  the 
framework  of  the  Organization  for  Economic  Co- 
operation and  Development  [OECD]  to  coordinate 
the  energy  policies  of  the  industrialized  countries. 
They  attach  particular  importance  to  measures  to 
reduce  dependence  on  imported  energy  through  con- 
servation, more  economic  use  of  energy,  and  opening 
up  of  alternative  sources.  They  stressed  the  need 
for  cooperation  in  the  field  of  research,  notably  in 
relation  to  coal   processing  and   gasification. 

Despite  cooperative  efforts  to  reduce  dependence 
on  energy  imports,  the  President  and  the  Chancellor 
recognized  that  in  the  coming  year  there  will  con- 
tinue to  be  large  scale  imbalances  in  trade  among 
nations  and  a  corresponding  necessity  for  large 
international  flows  of  funds.  They  recognized  that 
these  flows  for  the  most  part  have  been,  and  in 
all  probability  will  continue  to  be,  handled  by  exist- 
ing private  and  official  channels.  At  the  same  time 
they  agreed  on  the  necessity  of  close  cooperation 
among  the  financial  authorities  to  insure  the  con- 
tinued safe  and  orderly  functioning  of  financial 
institutions  in  their  expanding  international  roles. 
They  agreed  on  the  importance  of  the  International 
Monetary  Fund  and  other  multilateral  financial 
agencies  being  in  a  position  in  1975  to  provide  flex- 


ible responsive  financial  assistance  to  any  member 
nation  facing  international  payments  difficulties 
arising  from  the  rapidly  changing  world  economic 
situation.  In  addition,  to  insure  that  industrial  coun- 
tries which  follow  prudent  and  cooperative  economic 
and  energy  policies  have  access  to  adequate  financial 
resources  in  case  of  need,  the  President  and  the 
Chancellor  agreed  that  early  consideration  should 
be  given  by  these  nations  to  the  establishment  of 
a  supplementary  financial  safety  net  in  the  frame- 
work of  the  OECD. 

The  President  and  the  Chancellor  also  stressed 
their  determination  to  improve  cooperation  with  the 
oil-producing  countries.  They  expressed  the  con- 
viction that  further  economic  progress  in  the  world, 
both  in  the  developing  and  the  developed  countries, 
can  only  be  resolved  by  means  of  world-wide  co- 
operation. 

The  United  States  and  the  Federal  Republic  of 
Germany  recognize  the  necessity  of  international 
cooperation  to  improve  the  international  food  situa- 
tion. They  will  undertake  prompt  discussions  on  an 
international  system  of  nationally-held  grain  re- 
serves, increased  global  food  production  and  sub- 
stantial growth  in  food  output  in  developing  coun- 
tries in  order  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  major 
food  problems  in  the  future.  Both  recognize  the 
need  for  cooperation  between  food  producers  and 
consumers  to  ensure  equitable  adjustment  to  short- 
ages  and   deficits. 

The  discussions  on  political  questions  centered  on 
the  North  Atlantic  Alliance,  the  evolution  of  East- 
West  relations,  and  the  situation  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean and  in  the  Near  East. 

The  President  and  the  Chancellor  reviewed  the 
progress  of  matters  before  the  Alliance  on  the  eve 
of  the  NATO  Ministerial  meeting  to  be  convened 
next  week  in  Brussels.  They  agreed  on  the  con- 
tinuing importance  to  the  Allies  of  maintaining 
their  political  cohesion  and  strong  defenses  as  the 
indispensable  prerequisites  for  continued  efforts  to 
advance  the  process  of  East-West  detente.  Against 
the  background  of  current  challenges  to  their 
strength  and  solidarity,  they  reaffirmed  their  sup- 
port for  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  on  Atlantic 
Relations  signed  by  Allied  Heads  of  Government 
in  June  1974. 

The  President  and  the  Chancellor  reiterated  their 
resolve  to  contribute  to  the  process  of  detente  and 
the  growth  of  cooperation  between  East  and  West. 
President  Ford  reviewed  the  SALT  negotiations  in 
the  light  of  his  talks  with  General  Secretary  Brezh- 
nev in  Vladivostok.  They  noted  with  satisfaction 
that  it  has  been  agreed  to  aim  for  limitations  on 
strategic  nuclear  weapons  on  the  basis  of  equality. 
The  Chancellor  expressed  his  appreciation  for  the 
progress  achieved  in  Vladivostok  which  he  con- 
sidered most  important  for  the  pursuit  of  the  policy 
of  detente  and  safeguarding  peace.    President  Ford 


December  30,    1974 


929 


and  Chancellor  Schmidt  agreed  that  the  understand- 
ings of  Vladivostok  would  have  a  salutary  effect 
on  the  overall  development  of  East- West  relations. 
The  two  delegations  also  discussed  the  state  of 
negotiations  in  Vienna  on  mutual  and  balanced  force 
reductions  [MBFR]  in  Central  Europe.  They  con- 
firmed their  shared  view  that  the  aim  of  MBFR 
should  be  to  arrive  at  a  common  ceiling  for  forces 
of  both  alliance  systems. 

Both  sides  expressed  the  hope  that  the  Conference 
on  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe  would  soon 
complete  its  initial  consideration  of  texts  dealing 
with  all  items  on  the  agenda.  It  would  then  be 
possible  to  enter  into  the  final  stage  of  the  negotia- 
tions. They  agreed  that  certain  progress  had  re- 
cently been  made  in  reaching  agreement  on  such 
areas  as  family  reunification  and  improved  access 
to  printed  information.  They  noted,  however,  that 
important  texts  still  remain  to  be  agreed,  especially 
with  regard  to  the  Declaration  of  Principles  govern- 
ing Relations  between  States. 

The  President  and  Secretary  of  State  Kissinger 
reviewed  the  United  States'  efforts  to  contribute  to 
progress  toward  the  achievement  of  a  just  and 
lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East.  Both  sides  empha- 
sized the  importance  of  the  disengagement  agree- 
ments and  of  further  results  in  the  negotiating 
process. 

As  to  developments  in  the  Eastern  Mediterranean, 
both  sides  stressed  the  responsibility  of  the  parties 
immediately  concerned.  They  stated  their  readiness 
to  encourage  Greece,  Turkey,  and  Cyprus  in  the 
search  for  a  mutually  acceptable  settlement  of  the 
dispute  on  the  basis  of  the  independence  and  terri- 
torial integrity  of  the  Republic  of  Cyprus. 

The  German  side  reviewed  the  state  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany  with  the 
GDR  [German  Democratic  Republic]  and  of  the 
issue  of  foreign  representation  of  West  Berlin  by 
the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany.  Both  sides  wei-e 
agreed  on  the  importance  of  maintaining  and  de- 
veloping the  ties  between  the  Federal  Republic  of 
Germany  and  West  Berlin  as  well  as  full  and  com- 
plete implementation  of  all  other  parts  of  the 
Quadripartite  Agreement. 

The  President  and  the  Federal  Chancellor  re- 
affirmed the  attachment  of  their  Governments  and 
peoples  to  the  high  purposes  of  the  United  Nations. 
They  reviewed  the  proceedings  of  the  current  Gen- 
eral Assembly  and  expressed  their  hope  that  the 
spirit  of  cooperation  would  prevail  over  divergences 
and  divisions  so  that  the  cause  of  international 
harmony,  cooperation  and  a  sound  and  enduring 
peace  would  be  furthered. 

The  President  and  the  Chancellor  agreed  to  re- 
main in  close  touch  with  one  another,  and  to  consult 
on  all  matters  of  mutual  interest  as  might  be  re- 
quired in  the  future. 


Prime  Minister  Trudeau  of  Canada 
Visits  Washington 

Pierre  Elliott  Trudeau,  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada,  visited  Washington  December  U- 
Following  is  an  exchange  of  toasts  between 
President  Ford  and  Prime  Minister  Trudeau 
at  a  dinner  in  the  Blue  Room  at  the  White 
House  that  evening. 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  dated  December  9 

PRESIDENT  FORD 

Mr.  Prime  Minister  and  gentlemen:  Let 
me  say  at  the  outset  we  are  delighted  to  have 
you  as  our  guests.  I  must  say  on  behalf  of 
my  wife,  she  made  a  very  special  effort.  This 
is  the  first  opportunity  she  has  had  to  have 
this  room  for  this  purpose,  and  she  said  she 
hoped  that  you  would  enjoy  the  atmosphere 
and  setup.  And  if  you  say  yes,  I  will  tell  her. 

Let  me,  on  a  more  serious  note,  say  that 
we  are  delighted  to  have  you  here  because 
of  our  deep  respect  and  affection  for  you  as 
the  leader  of  one  of  our  great  friends  and 
allies. 

Let  me  add,  if  I  might,  that  we  in  the 
United  States  know  of  no  other  country 
where  the  United  States  has  some  4,000  or 
5,000  miles  of  border,  when  you  consider 
not  only  the  north  and  south  and  also  Alaska. 
And  so  there  is  a  great  reason  for  us  to 
have  a  rapport  and  a  particular  affection, 
people  to  people  and  country  to  country. 

And  I  might  say  the  first  trip  that  I  ever 
took  out  of  the  United  States — I  was  quite 
young  and  quite  thrilled — was  the  trip  that 
I  took  from  Detroit  to  Windsor.  [Laughter.] 
They  didn't  preclude  me  from  going  to 
Windsor,  and  I  had  no  trouble  getting  back. 
[Laughter.] 

But  that  was  a  thrill  to  me,  and  it  was 
my  first  trip  out  of  our  country  and  to  a 
foreign  country. 

But  my  memories  of  that  trip  left  me  with 
a  great  remembrance  of  the  relationship  that 
our  country  has  with  yours.  The  truth  is, 
of   course,   good   friends   often   have   many 


930 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


differences,  and  among  friends  differences 
fortunately  can  be  better  debated  or  dis- 
cussed than  they  can  when  a  different  rela- 
tionship exists. 

I  have  heard  it  said  many  times — and  Rog 
Morton  formerly  served  in  the  Congress — 
and  Gale  McGee  and  George  Aiken  and  Bob 
McEwin ;  I  hope  I  haven't  missed  any  of  the 
Members  of  Congress — we  often  say  in  the 
Congress  that  you  can  disagree  without  being 
disagreeable.  And  that  is  the  way  I  think 
our  relations  between  your  country  and  ours 
has  proceeded  in  the  past,  and  I  hope  will 
proceed  in  the  future. 

We  do  have  some  differences.  I  felt  that 
our  meeting  today  was  one  of  the  most  con- 
structive, one  of  the  most  friendly,  and  with 
each  of  us  expressing  where  we  had  some 
differences.  It  was  a  point  of  view  and  an 
understanding.  If  you  have  an  understand- 
ing, I  think  you  can  come  to  reasonable  and 
rational  conclusions. 

I  look  forward  to  subsequent  meetings 
with  you  to  broaden  our  personal  friendship 
and  to  expand  our  two  national  relation- 
ships. It  has  been  a  pleasure  for  me  to  get 
to  know  your  Ambassador.  He  did  present 
to  me  about  a  week  or  10  days  ago  a  very 
thoughtful  gift  on  behalf  of  your  govern- 
ment commemorating  the  1976  Olympics, 
which  are  to  be  held  in  Montreal. 

It  brought  to  my  mind  the  fact  that  in 
1976  we  are  celebrating  our  200th  anniver- 
sary. I  hope  that  the  people  that  come  to 
your  Olympics — and  I  hope  to  come  if  you 
will  invite  me,  Mr.  Prime  Minister;  I  like 
that  snow,  you  know — and  that  some  of  the 
visitors  that  come  to  the  United  States  will 
go  to  Montreal  and  Canada,  and  vice  versa. 

But  speaking  of  Montreal,  I  have  had  the 
privilege  a  long  time  ago  of  skiing  at  Mont 
Tremblant  and  Saint  Jovite,  which  I  thought 
was  tremendous  and  I  still  do.  And  that  was 
another  experience  that  gave  me  a  great 
affection  and  admiration  for  the  people  of 
Canada. 

So,  with  my  personal  affection  for  you  and 
the  Canadian  people  and  the  United  States 
strong  conviction  about  our  relationship,  to 
you  and  your  country,  if  I  might,  I  would 


like  to  offer  a  toast  to  you.  Prime  Minister 
of  Canada,  and  to  the  Canadian  people  and 
to  the  Queen. 


PRIME  MINISTER  TRUDEAU 

Mr.  President,  gentlemen,  and  friends: 
When  Canadians  travel  abroad,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, they  spend  all  the  time  explaining  to 
other  people  how  they  are  different  from 
the  Americans.  There  is  a  great  belief  in 
other  lands  that  Canadians  and  Americans 
are  exactly  the  same.  I  am  particularly  dis- 
tressed to  find  this  when  we  are  dealing  with 
the  Common  Market.  We  are  different,  and 
we  have  different  problems  and  different 
economic  requirements. 

But  it  does  happen  that  we  have  to  show 
how  similar  we  are  and  how  close  our  two 
peoples  are.  And  the  best  example,  I  can 
find,  when  I  have  to  explain  that  kind  of 
thing,  is  to  talk  about  in  summer,  in  the 
baseball  stadium  in  Montreal  where  tens  of 
thousands  of  Canadians  get  together  to 
cheer  for  the  Canadian  team  against  the 
visiting  American  team  when  every  one  of 
the  players  on  both  sides  is  American. 
[Laughter.]  When  I  have  stayed  in  some  of 
your  American  cities,  it  is  another  story.  In 
winter  in  your  hockey  forums,  they  cheer  for 
the  local  team,  and  probably  95  percent  of 
the  players  on  both  sides  are  Canadians — 
and  the  best  ones. 

And  this,  I  think,  shows  really  how  close 
the  people  are  in  their  goals,  in  their  ways 
of  living,  in  their  love  of  sports,  in  their 
values,  even  in  standards  of  their  own  lives. 

And  that  makes  your  job  and  mine,  Mr. 
President,  so  much  easier  when  we  meet. 
We  find  that  most  of  the  subjects  which  have 
to  be  discussed  between  heads  of  govern- 
ments or  heads  of  states  when  they  meet, 
in  our  case,  have  been  settled  by  the  people 
themselves.  The  figure  I  was  giving  you 
this  afternoon  of  66  percent  of  the  trade 
between  our  two  countries  being  free  trade, 
tariff  free,  and  it  will  be  81  percent  if  that 
trade  reform  bill  gets  passed  in  the  form 
that  it  went  to  the  Senate  committee. 


December  30,    1974 


931 


So  much  of  this  is  done  by  the  people 
themselves  in  the  trade  area,  in  the  cultural 
area,  and  the  knowledge  of  each  other  by  the 
constant  visits  across  the  border,  that  when 
we  meet  it  is  always  a  pleasant  occasion. 

As  you  said,  and  I  realized  this  afternoon, 
we  can  talk  to  each  other  in  complete  candor. 
We  know  how  the  electorates  and  the  press 
and  the  House  of  Representatives  or  the 
Senate  or  the  House  of  Commons  will  react 
to  various  situations.  And  it  is  so  much — 
we  talk  the  same  language — it  is  so  much 
easier  to  deal  with  problems  in  this  context. 

You,  as  President,  have  been  exposed  to 
the  electorates  much  more  frequently  than  I 
have.  I  daresay  that  I  have  walked  in  the 
valley  of  the  shadow  and  feel  a  little  more 
closer  than  you  have.  But  I  think  we  would 
both  agree  that  our  peoples,  Canadian  and 
the  American  peoples,  would  cease  to  sup- 
port us  overnight  if  they  thought  that  we 
were  embarking  on  courses  which  were  not 
friendly,  which  were  not  based  on  coopera- 
tion and  understanding,  on  the  desire  to 
solve  any  differences  that  arise  in  that 
spirit  of  friendship  rather  than  the  spirit  of 
hostility. 

We,  as  your  neighbors,  realize  the  impor- 
tance of  the  leadership  that  the  United 
States  is  giving  to  today's  world.  Your  great 
success  in  Vladivostok  is  something  that  was 
received  in  Canada  with  immense  satisfac- 
tion. We  know  that  in  matters  of  Atlantic 
security,  detente,  and  disarmament — we 
know  that  we  can  follow  your  lead  because 
the  principles  on  which  your  policies  are 
based  are  the  same  as  ours.  And  I  think  you 
know  that  you  can  trust  us  to  support  those 
principles  in  areas  we  consider  essential. 

For  these  reasons,  I  must  say  our  tasks 
are  easier,  and  I  think  we  should  renew  the 
resolves  that  we  mentioned  to  each  other 
earlier  that  we  will  continue  this  type  of 
meeting  on  an  informal,  nonprotocol,  or  the 
minimum  protocol. 

It  has  a  great  advantage  for  us  to  gather 
around  a  table  such  as  this,  a  very  beautiful 
one.  Mrs.  Ford  will  be  told  that  we  were 
struck  by  its  beauty  and  the  warmth  of  this 
room  and  the  repast.  Did  she  do  the  cook- 
ing?   [Laughter.] 


As  far  as  the  Olympics  are  concerned,  we 
very  much  hope  you  will  come  and  you  will 
come  before  that,  and  that  perhaps,  per- 
chance, we  will  find  some  way  of  being  the 
forerunners  in  some  ski  race — 

President  Ford:  I'm  too  young!  [Laugh- 
ter]. 

Prime  Minister  Trudeau:  — prepared  to 
test  for  the  winter  Olympics  wherever  they 
happen. 

Mr.  President,  we  hope  you  will  come  be- 
fore that,  that  you  will  find  it  convenient,  as 
your  predecessor  did,  to  talk  on  a  very  in- 
formal basis  even  by  phone  or  by  quick  visits 
in  and  out  which  do  away  with  all  formality, 
permit  us  to  come  to  the  point  right  quickly, 
and  to  solve  whatever  small  problems  we 
may  have. 

So  with  this  in  mind  and  in  the  hopes 
that  our  friendship  of  which  we  talked  and 
the  candor  with  which  we  talked,  will  be 
brought  out  in  the  spirit  of  cooperation  and 
understanding  and  the  fairness  with  which 
all  our  meetings  together  are  inspired,  I 
would  ask  our  guests  here  to  raise  their 
glasses  in  a  toast  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States. 


Foreign  Service  Dead  Honored 
at  Memorial  Ceremony 

Following  are  remarks  made  by  Secretary 
Kissinger  and  Thomas  Boyatt,  President  of 
the  American  Foreign  Service  Association, 
at  an  AFSA  memorial  ceremony  on  Novem- 
ber 15,  Foreign  Service  Day. 

Press  release  502  dated  November  18 

MR.   BOYATT 

Mr.  Secretary,  distinguished  guests,  ladies 
and  gentlemen:  In  1933  the  American  For- 
eign Service  Association  established  a  me- 
morial plaque  to  commemorate  those  of  our 
colleagues  losing  their  lives  under  tragic, 
heroic,  or  otherwise  inspirational  circum- 
stances in  the  service  of  this  country  abroad. 

The  first  name  on  that  list,  William  Pal- 


932 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


frey,  dates  from  1780.  In  the  two  centuries 
which  have  elapsed  since  then,  110  names 
have  been  added — 35  in  the  last  decade,  10 
in  the  last  two  years.  And  today  it  is  our  sad 
duty  and  our  privilege  to  honor  11  addi- 
tional colleagues  whose  names  are  on  the 
plaque.  Those  colleagues  are: 

Everett  D.  Reese,  AID,  killed  in  1955  in  Viet-Nam 
when  the  plane  he  was  riding  in  was  shot  down. 

Thomas  Ragsdale,  Department  of  Agriculture, 
serving  with  AID,  captured  in  1968  during  the 
Tet  offensive.  His  body  was  found  after  the  cease- 
fire. 

Donald  V.  Freeman,  AID,  killed  in  1967  by  Viet- 
namese machinegun  fire. 

Albert  A.  Farkas,  AID,  killed  by  sniper  fire  in  the 
Vinh  Long  area  in  1968. 

Robert  W.  Brown,  Jr.,  Department  of  Defense, 
serving  with  AID,  killed  by  the  Viet  Cong  in  1968. 

Robert  W.  Hubbard,  Department  of  Defense,  serv- 
ing with  AID,  killed  in  Hue  in  1968. 

Rudolph  Kaiser,  AID,  died  in  a  Viet  Cong  ambush 
in  the  Mekong  Delta  in  1972. 

John  Paul  Vann,  Associate  Director  for  AID, 
killed  in  a  helicopter  in  a  night  battle  in  Kontuni 
in  1972. 

John  S.  Patterson,  vice  consul  in  Hermosillo,  Mex- 
ico, slain  in  1974  while  being  held  captive  by  kid- 
nappers. 

Rodger  P.  Davies,  Ambassador  to  Cyprus,  struck 
down  by  sniper  fire  in  Nicosia  during  a  mob  at- 
tack this  year  on  the  American  Embassy. 

We  all  know  what  these  terrible  losses 
mean.  Our  colleagues  involved  lost  their 
lives.  The  families  lost  loved  ones.  We  lost 
friends.  And  this  nation  lost  dedicated,  ef- 
fective, and  brave  public  servants. 

Earlier  this  year,  in  a   public  forum  in 
New  York  City,  former  Secretary  Dean  Rusk 
said   the   following:    "The   gallantry  of  the 
'    Foreign  Service  in  posts  of  danger  and  hard- 
'    ship  is  deeply  moving  if  seldom  recorded." 
Well,  we  are  here  today  to  make  such  a 
record.  And  we  call  upon  our  fellow  citizens 
in  the  Congress  and  the  public  at  large  to 
I    bear  witness  to  the  professionalism  and  ded- 
ication of  Foreign  Service  people  in  life.  And 
let  us  never  forget  that  even  as  we  talk  hun- 
dreds,   and    maybe   thousands,    of   our   col- 
leagues are  overseas  facing  assassins'  bul- 
lets, kidnappings,  hijacking,  skijacking,  mob 
action,  or  deadly  disease,   as  well   as  their 
courage  and  sacrifice  and  death. 

We  invited  President  Ford  to  be  at  this 


ceremony  today,  and  he  very  much  wanted  to 
be  here,  but  his  duties  would  not  permit  it. 
He  has  asked  me  to  read  the  following  mes- 
sage to  you : 

I  send  my  warmest  greetings  to  all  who  partici- 
pate in  this  special  ceremony  at  the  Department  of 
State  to  pay  tribute  to  eleven  members  of  the  For- 
eign Service  who  lost  their  lives  abroad  in  service 
to  their  country.  These  men,  whose  names  have 
been  added  to  the  memorial  plaque  maintained  by 
the  American  F'oreign  Service  Association,  will  be 
part  of  an  honored  roster  of  heroism  spanning  al- 
most two  centuries — from  William  Palfrey  in  1780 
to  Ambassador  Rodger  Davies  in  1974.  These  dedi- 
cated Foreign  Service  personnel  will  always  be  an 
inspiring  example  of  courage  and  devotion. 

This  occasion  also  gives  me  an  opportunity  to  ex- 
press our  nation's  appreciation  to  all  the  men  and 
women  of  our  Foreign  Service  for  their  selfless  dedi- 
cation, both  at  home  and  abroad,  in  helping  to  guar- 
antee world  peace  and  the  future  well-being  of  our 
country. 

J  would  now  like  to  call  on  Secretary  Kis- 
singer, who  also  has  a  message  for  us:  Sec- 
retary Kissinger. 

SECRETARY   KISSINGER 

Mr.  Boyatt,  ladies  and  gentlemen:  We 
meet  here  on  a  somber  occasion  which  re- 
minds us  that  the  most  important  word  is 
the  word  "service"  when  we  talk  of  the  For- 
eign Service. 

We  think  here  not  only  of  what  our  friends 
have  accomplished  who  are  no  longer  with  us 
but  what  they  attempted  to  do.  Most  of  our 
work  is  mundane  and  ordinary.  And  in  the 
day-to-day  business  of  diplomacy  we  forget 
that — we  sometimes  forget — that  what  we 
are  really  here  for  is  to  build  and  to  preserve 
the  peace.  No  generation  has  had  a  more 
noble  and  a  more  important  task,  because  no 
generation  has  faced  the  risks  of  ours  or  has 
confronted  a  world  in  such  turmoil,  with 
such  suffering,  and  with  such  opportunity 
for  lasting  change. 

I  did  not  know  all  of  those  whom  we  honor 
today,  but  I  worked  with  some  of  them.  And 
therefore  we  are  not  dealing  with  statistics, 
but  with  a  human  experience.  And  all  of  us 
have  been  associated — all  of  us  here  have 
been  associated  with  all  of  the  men  involved. 

They  went  to  posts  in  which  they  knew 


December  30,   1974 


933 


that  their  mission  was  to  help  bring  the 
peace  or  to  alleviate  suffering  but  where  they 
might  become  the  symbol  for  hatred  or  the 
object  of  a  blind  retribution.  But  they  went 
and  did  their  duty.  And  in  so  doing  they  en- 
nobled all  of  us  and  reminded  us  that  noth- 
ing is  more  important  than  to  bring  about  a 
world  in  which  such  sacrifices  will  no  longer 
be  necessary  and  in  which  our  officers  can 
serve  abroad  under  conditions  that  would 
fulfill  the  hopes  and  aspirations  of  those  who 
gave  their  lives  and  of  their  families. 

So  we  think  of  them  with  pride  and  affec- 
tion and  as  an  inspiration  to  the  best  in  the 
Foreign  Service. 

Thank  you. 


Additional   Food  for  Peace  Wheat 
To  Be  Sent  to  Bangladesh 

AID  press  release  74-80  dated  November  8 

Bangladesh,  plagued  by  severe  floods  and 
food  shortages,  will  receive  an  additional 
100,000  metric  tons  of  wheat  and  wheat 
flour  on  concessional  terms  under  the  U.S. 
Department  of  Agriculture's  Food  for  Peace 
program,  USDA  and  the  Agency  for  In- 
ternational Development  announced  on  No- 
vember 8. 

Severe  monsoon  flooding  struck  Bangla- 
desh this  summer  and  destroyed  or  dam- 
aged large  quantities  of  stored  and  standing 
rice.  The  concessional  wheat  sale  announced 
on  November  8,  along  with  a  similar  sale 
of  150,000  tons  of  U.S.  wheat  and  rice  in 
October,  will  help  Bangdalesh  alleviate  its 
major  food  shortage.  The  100,000  tons  of 
wheat  and  wheat  flour,  valued  at  $18.9  million 
in  the  export  market,  will  provide  almost  a 
pound  of  wheat  per  day  for  7'/>  million 
people  for  one  month. 

The  first  shipments  of  wheat  under  the 


earlier  sale  should  arrive  in  Bangladesh  in 
early  December.  Under  the  terms  of  the 
new  sale,  the  United  States  is  to  be  repaid 
in  U.S.  dollars  over  40  years,  with  no  repay- 
ment of  principal  due  in  the  first  10  years. 
Interest  is  payable  at  2  percent  during  the 
first  10  years  and  3  percent  thereafter. 

The  agreement  also  allows  the  Government 
of  Bangladesh  to  sell  the  grain  on  the  open 
market  and  to  use  the  proceeds  for  rehabili- 
tation and  development  programs,  particular- 
ly those  intended  to  increase  the  nation's 
food  production,  as  well  as  direct  relief.  In- 
cluded would  be  more  research  in  solving 
the  problems  of  small  farmers,  strengthen- 
ing formal  and  informal  training  programs, 
better  food  storage  and  distribution  facili- 
ties, and  improved  land  and  water  manage- 
ment. 

Previous  emergency  assistance  for  flood 
relief  has  totaled  $3,086,865.  The  U.S.  relief 
efforts  included  a  cash  donation  by  U.S. 
Ambassador  Davis  Eugene  Boster  to  the 
Prime  Minister's  Relief  Fund,  an  airlift  from 
Guam  of  596  tents  and  14,946  blankets,  and 
an  airlift  from  the  United  States  of  133,000 
pounds  of  Civil  Defense  protein-fortified 
biscuits.  The  first  500-ton  shipment  of  an 
additional  6,000  tons  of  biscuits  was  sched- 
uled to  arrive  on  November  8.  AID  also 
provided  vegetable  seeds  from  the  United 
States. 

In  addition,  AID  has  authorized  the  use  of 
$4  million  under  a  previously  committed  AID 
relief  and  rehabilitation  grant  for  purchase 
within  Bangladesh  of  building  materials  to 
help  restoration  of  flood-damaged  homes  and 
for  purchase  of  locally  available  seeds  to  per- 
mit the  farmers  to  replant  crops. 

Since  Bangladesh  achieved  independence  in 
in  1971,  the  United  States  has  granted  or 
loaned  on  concessional  terms  more  than  $500 
million  toward  the  economic  development  of 
the  South  Asian  nation. 


934 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


THE   CONGRESS 


Secretary  Kissinger  Calls  for  Early  Passage  of  Trade  Reform  Act 


Stateme)it  by  Secretary  Kissinger  ' 


Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  [Senator  Russell 
B.  Long  of  Louisiana],  for  this  opportunity 
to  appear  before  your  committee  and  par- 
ticularly for  your  patience  while  scheduling 
difficulties  were  being  worked  out. 

Let  me  first  address  the  question  of  why 
the  administration  places  such  a  high  priority 
on  passage  of  the  Trade  Reform  Act — a 
priority  which  has  increased  since  the  bill 
was  first  introduced.  At  a  time  when  the 
economic  stability  of  the  world  has  been 
severely  shaken  and  difficult  times  still  lie 
ahead,  it  is  of  critical  importance  to  demon- 
strate that  the  nations  of  the  world  can  still 
resolve  critical  economic  problems  and  con- 
duct their  trading  relationships  in  a  spirit 
of  compromise  and  a  recognition  of  inter- 
dependence. 

There  are  many  causes  of  the  current 
worldwide  economic  crisis.  But  one  of  the 
principal  problems  is  the  unwillingness  of 
too  many  nations  to  face  the  facts  of  inter- 
dependence. The  application  of  ever  more 
restrictive  trade  practices,  the  insistence  on 
the  unfettered  exploitation  of  national  advan- 
tage, threatens  the  world  with  a  return  to  the 
beggar-thy-neighbor  policies  of  the  thirties. 

The  U.S.  Government  has  repeatedly  urged 
the  nations  of  the  world  to  raise  their  sights 
and  to  avoid  ruinous  confrontation.  In  the 
fields  of  food  and  energy  we  have  made  far- 
reaching  and  detailed  proposals  to  give  effect 


'  Made  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance 
on  Dec.  'A  (text  from  press  release  516).  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. 


to  the  principles  of  interdependence  for  the 
common  benefit.  The  trade  negotiations  which 
will  be  made  possible  by  the  bill  before  you 
are  part  of  this  overall  design. 

The  major  trading  nations  stand  today 
uneasily  poised  between  liberalized  trade 
and  unilateral  restrictive  actions  leading 
toward  autarky.  If  they  choose  the  second 
course,  global  economic  difficulties  will  be 
magnified  and  an  international  economic 
crisis  will  be  upon  us.  This  in  turn  will 
make  all  other  international  problems  more 
difficult  to  solve.  For  such  a  catastrophe  to 
result  from  our  failure  to  act  would  be  a 
blow  to  international  stability  of  potentially 
historic  proportions. 

In  my  testimony  before  this  committee  of 
March  7,  1974,  I  stated  the  objectives  of  the 
Trade  Act  to  be  as  follows: 

— A  mutual  reduction  of  trade  barriers 
among  industrialized  countries. 

— A  joint  response  by  industrialized  coun- 
tries to  the  aspirations  of  developing  coun- 
tries which  require  the  expansion  of  exports 
to  sustain  their  development  programs. 

— A  normalization  of  trade  relations  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  countries 
of  Eastern  Europe  and  the  Soviet  Union. 

— A  new  start  on  emerging  trade  issues 
that  are  not  covered  under  the  present  trade 
rules  and  procedures. 

— Finally,  the  preservation  and  enhance- 
ment of  a  global  multilateral  economic  rela- 
tionship and  the  dampening  of  tendencies 
toward  discriminatory  arrangements  among 
selected  groups  of  countries. 


December  30,    1974 


935 


Mr.  Chairman,  the  importance  of  these 
objectives  has  been  emphasized  by  events 
since.  I  am  confident  that  current  economic 
problems  can  be  solved.  We  should  bear  in 
mind  that  the  foreign  policy  implications 
of  the  Trade  Reform  Act  are  not  limited 
to  those  provisions  on  which  I  wish  to  direct 
my  main  comments — our  trade  relations  with 
Communist  countries  and  generalized  pref- 
erences for  developing  countries.  The  bill 
in  its  entirety  is  an  absolutely  essential  tool 
if  the  United  States  is  to  be  in  a  position 
to  manage  effectively  its  overall  relations — 
political  and  economic — at  a  time  when  the 
world  economy  is  at  a  critical  point. 

The  Emigration  Issue 

Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  asked  me  to  re- 
turn to  your  committee  to  comment  specifi- 
cally on  the  emigration  issue  as  it  relates 
to  title  IV  of  the  trade  bill,  a  problem  dealt 
with  in  the  Jackson-Vanik  amendment  to 
title  IV. 

Let  me  state  at  the  outset  that  I  deal  with 
this  matter  with  considerable  misgiving  be- 
cause what  is  said  on  this  occasion  could,  if 
not  handled  with  utmost  care,  deal  a  serious 
setback  both  to  the  cause  of  freer  emigration 
from  the  U.S.S.R.  and  to  the  more  hopeful 
trend  in  U.S. -Soviet  relations  that  has  been 
maintained  for  the  last  few  years  and  was 
recently  strengthened  in  the  President's  meet- 
ing with  Mr.  Brezhnev  [Leonid  I.  Brezhnev, 
General  Secretary  of  the  Communist  Party 
of  the  Soviet  Union]  in  Vladivostok. 

As  you  are  well  aware,  the  administration 
since  the  beginning  of  detente  had  been 
making  quiet  representations  on  the  issue  of 
emigration.  We  were  never  indifferent  to, 
nor  did  we  condone,  restrictions  placed  on 
emigration.  We  understood  the  concerns  of 
those  private  American  groups  that  expressed 
their  views  on  this  troubling  subject.  We 
believed,  based  on  repeated  Soviet  statements 
and  experience,  that  making  this  issue  a 
subject  of  state-to-state  relations  might  have 
an  adverse  effect  on  emigration  from  the 
U.S.S.R.  as  well  as  jeopardize  the  basic 
relationship  which  had  made  the  steadily 
rising  emigration  possible  in  the  first  place. 


We  were  convinced  that  our  most  effective 
means  for  exerting  beneficial  influence  was 
by  working  for  a  broad  improvement  in  re- 
lations and  dealing  with  emigration  by 
informal  means. 

It  is  difficult,  of  course,  to  know  the  precise 
causes  for  changes  in  emigration  rates.  We 
know  that  during  the  period  of  improving 
relations  and  quiet  representations,  it  rose 
from  400  in  1968  to  about  33,500  in  1973. 
We  believe  that  increase  as  well  as  recent 
favorable  actions  on  longstanding  hardship 
cases  was  due  at  least  in  part  to  what  we 
had  done  privately  and  unobtrusively.  We 
are  also  convinced  that  these  methods  led 
to  the  suspension  of  the  emigration  tax  in 
1973.  We  can  only  speculate  whether  the 
decline  by  about  40  percent  in  1974  was  the 
result  of  decisions  of  potential  applicants 
or  whether  it  was  also  affected  by  the  admin- 
istration's inability  to  live  up  to  the  terms 
of  the  trade  agreement  we  had  negotiated 
with  the  Soviet  Union  in  1972. 

Nevertheless,  we  were  aware  that  sub- 
stantial opinion  in  the  Congress  favored  a 
dift'erent  approach.  We  recognized  that  if 
our  government  was  to  be  equipped  with  the 
necessary  means  for  conducting  an  effective 
foreign  policy  it  would  be  necessary  to  deal 
with  the  emigration  issue  in  the  trade  bill. 
As  I  stated  in  my  previous  testimony  before 
this  committee,  we  regard  mutually  beneficial 
economic  contact  with  the  U.S.S.R.  as  an 
important  element  in  our  overall  effort  to 
develop  incentives  for  responsible  and  re- 
strained international  conduct. 

I  therefore  remained  in  close  contact  with 
leaders  of  the  Congress  in  an  effort  to  find 
a  means  of  reconciling  the  different  points 
of  view.  I  remember  that  I  was  urged  to  do 
so  bj'^  several  members  of  this  committee 
when  I  testified  before  you  on  March  7  of 
this  year.  Shortly  afterwards,  I  began  meet- 
ing regularly  with  Senators  Jackson,  Ribicoff, 
and  Javits  to  see  whether  a  compromise 
was  possible  on  the  basis  of  assurances  that 
did  not  reflect  formal  governmental  com- 
mitments but  nevertheless  met  widespread 
humanitarian  concerns. 

We  had,  as  you  know,  been  told  repeatedly 
that  the  Soviet  Union  considered  the  issue 


936 


Department  of  State   Bulletin 


of  emigration  a  matter  of  its  own  domestic 
legislation  and  practices  not  subject  to  in- 
ternational negotiation.  With  this  as  a  back- 
ground, I  must  state  flatly  that  if  I  were  to 
assert  here  that  a  formal  agreement  on 
emigration  from  the  U.S.S.R.  exists  between 
our  governments,  that  statement  would 
immediately  be  repudiated  by  the  Soviet 
Government. 

In  early  April,  the  three  Senators  agreed 
to  an  approach  in  which  I  would  attempt  to 
obtain  clarifications  of  Soviet  domestic  prac- 
tices from  Soviet  leaders.  These  explanations 
could  then  be  transmitted  to  them  in  the 
form  of  a  letter  behind  which  our  government 
would  stand. 

My  point  of  departure  was  statements  by 
General  Secretary  Brezhnev  during  his  visit 
to  the  United  States  in  1973  to  both  our 
executive  and  Members  of  Congress  to  the 
effect  that  Soviet  domestic  law  and  practice 
placed  no  obstacles  in  the  way  of  emigra- 
tion. In  conversations  with  Foreign  Minister 
Gromyko  in  Geneva  in  April,  in  Cyprus  in 
May,  and  in  Moscow  in  July,  we  sought  to 
clarify  Soviet  emigration  practices  and  So- 
viet intentions  with  respect  to  them.  It 
was  in  these  discussions  that  information 
was  obtained  which  subsequently  formed  the 
basis  of  the  correspondence  with  Senator 
Jackson,  with  which  you  are  familiar. 

In  particular,  we  were  assured  that  Soviet 
law  and  practice  placed  no  unreasonable  im- 
pediments in  the  way  of  persons  wishing  to 
apply  for  emigration;  that  all  who  wished 
to  emigrate  would  be  permitted  to  do  so 
except  for  those  holding  security  clearances ; 
that  there  would  be  no  harassment  or  punish- 
ment of  those  who  applied  for  emigration; 
that  there  would  be  no  discriminatory  cri- 
teria applied  to  applicants  for  emigra- 
tion; and  that  the  so-called  emigration  tax, 
which  was  suspended  in  1973,  would  remain 
suspended. 

It  was  consistently  made  clear  to  us  that 
Soviet  explanations  applied  to  the  definition 
of  criteria  and  did  not  represent  a  commit- 
ment as  to  numbers.  If  any  number  was 
used  in  regard  to  Soviet  emigration  this 
would  be  wholly  our  responsibility ;  that  is, 
the   Soviet   Government  could    not   be   held 


accountable  for  or  bound  by  any  such  figure. 
This  point  has  been  consistently  made  clear 
to  Members  of  Congress  with  whom  we  have 
dealt. 

Finally,  the  discussions  with  Soviet  leaders 
indicated  that  we  would  have  an  opportunity 
to  raise  informally  with  Soviet  authorities 
any  indication  we  might  have  that  emigration 
was  in  fact  being  interfered  with  or  that 
applicants  for  emigration  were  being  sub- 
jected to  harassment  or  punitive  action. 

The  points  I  have  just  cited  have  always 
been  the  basis  for  mv  contacts  with  Senators 
Jackson,  Javits,  and  Ribicoff.  I  may  add  that 
these  points  have  been  reiterated  to  us  by 
Soviet  leaders  on  several  occasions,  including 
in  President  Ford's  initial  contacts  with 
Soviet  representatives  and  most  recently  at 
Vladivostok. 

All  these  clarifications  were  conveyed  to 
the  three  Senators  and  eventually  led  to  the 
drafting  of  the  exchange  of  correspondence 
published  by  Senator  Jackson  on  October  18. 
The  process  took  much  time,  however,  be- 
cause of  the  administration's  concern  that 
there  be  no  misleading  inference — specifically 
that  there  be  no  claim  to  commitments  either 
in  form  or  substance  which  in  fact  had  not 
been  made. 

Within  a  week  of  being  sworn  in.  Presi- 
dent Ford  took  a  direct  and  personal  interest 
in  settling  the  issues  yet  outstanding.  He 
met  or  had  direct  contact  with  the  three 
Senators  (as  well  as  with  you,  Mr.  Chair- 
man) on  several  occasions.  He  discussed  the 
subject  with  leading  Soviet  ofl^cials.  These 
contacts  and  conversations  eventually  re- 
sulted in  the  drafting  of  two  letters,  one 
from  me  to  Senator  Jackson  and  one  from 
the  Senator  to  me.  The  first  of  these  letters 
contains  the  sum  total  of  the  assurances 
which  the  administration  felt  in  a  posi- 
tion to  make  on  the  basis  of  discussions  with 
Soviet  representatives.  The  second  letter  con- 
tained certain  interpretations  and  elabora- 
tions by  Senator  Jackson  which  were  never 
stated  to  us  by  Soviet  officials.  They  will, 
however,  as  my  letter  to  Senator  Jackson 
indicated,  be  among  the  considerations  which 
the  President  will  apply  in  judging  Soviet 
performance  when  he  makes  his  determina- 


December  30,    1974 


937 


tion  on  whether  to  continue  the  measures 
provided  for  in  the  trade  bill;  i.e.,  extension 
of  governmental  credit  facilities  and  of  most- 
favored-nation  (MFN)  treatment.  We  recog- 
nize of  course  that  these  same  points  may 
be  applied  by  the  Congress  in  reaching  its 
own  decisions  under  the  procedures  to  be 
provided  in  the  trade  bill. 

With  the  exchange  of  correspondence 
agreed,  it  became  possible  to  work  out  a 
set  of  procedures — which,  I  understand,  has 
now  been  offered  as  Senate  amendment 
2000 — whereby  the  President  will  be  author- 
ized to  waive  the  provisions  of  the  original 
Jackson-Vanik  amendment  and  to  proceed 
with  the  granting  of  MFN  and  Eximbank 
[Export-Import  Bank]  facilities  for  at  least 
an  initial  period  of  18  months.  These  pro- 
cedures will  also  provide  for  means  whereby 
the  initial  grants  can  be  continued  for  addi- 
tional one-year  periods. 

Thus,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  a  satisfac- 
tory compromise  was  achieved  on  an  unprece- 
dented and  extraordinarily  sensitive  set  of 
issues.  I  cannot  give  you  any  assurance  con- 
cerning the  precise  emigration  rate  that  may 
result,  assuming  that  the  trade  bill  is  passed 
and  MFN  is  extended  to  the  U.S.S.R.  As  I 
noted  earlier,  it  is  difficult  to  know  fully  the 
the  causes  of  past  changes  in  Soviet  emigra- 
tion rates.  However,  I  do  believe  that  we 
have  every  right  to  expect,  as  my  letter  to 
Senator  Jackson  said,  that  the  emigration 
rate  will  correspond  to  the  number  of  appli- 
cants and  that  there  will  be  no  interference 
with  applications.  If  some  of  the  current  esti- 
mates about  potential  applicants  are  correct, 
this  should  lead  to  an  increase  in  emigration. 

I  believe  it  is  now  essential  to  let  the  pro- 
visions and  understandings  of  the  compro- 
mise proceed  in  practice.  I  am  convinced  that 
additional  public  commentary,  or  continued 
claims  that  this  or  that  protagonist  has  won, 
can  only  jeopardize  the  results  we  all  seek. 
We  should  not  delude  ourselves  that  the  com- 
mercial measures  to  be  authorized  by  the 
trade  bill  will  lead  a  powerful  state  like  the 
Soviet  Union  to  be  indifferent  to  constant 
and  demonstrative  efforts  to  picture  it  as 
yielding  in  the  face  of  external  pressure;  nor 


can  we  expect  extended  debates  of  domestic 
Soviet  practices  by  responsible  U.S.  public 
figures  and  officials  to  remain  indefinitely 
without  reaction.  We  should  keep  in  mind 
that  the  ultimate  victims  of  such  claims  will 
be  those  whom  all  of  us  are  trying  to  help. 

Therefore  I  respectfully  ask  that  your 
questions  take  account  of  the  sensitivity  of 
the  issues.  There  will  be  ample  opportunity 
to  test  in  practice  what  has  been  set  down 
on  paper  and  to  debate  these  matters  again 
when  the  time  for  stocktaking  foreseen  in 
the  legislation  comes.  With  this  caveat,  I 
shall  of  course  answer  your  questions  to  the 
best  of  my  ability. 

As  I  indicated  to  this  committee  in  March, 
we  seek  improved  relations  with  the  Soviet 
Union  because  in  the  nuclear  age  we  and 
the  Soviets  have  an  overriding  obligation  to 
reduce  the  likelihood  of  confrontation.  We 
have  profound  differences  with  the  Soviet 
Union,  and  it  is  these  very  differences  which 
compel  any  responsible  administration  to 
make  a  major  effort  to  create  a  more  con- 
structive relationship.  In  pursuing  this 
policy,  we  are  mindful  that  the  benefits  must 
be  mutual  and  that  our  national  security 
must  be  protected.  With  respect  to  title  IV 
of  the  trade  reform  bill,  we  believe  we  are 
now  in  a  position  to  meet  these  vital  concerns 
adequately  while  at  the  same  time  bringing 
important  economic  and  political  benefits  to 
the  United  States. 

Generalized  Tariff  Preferences 

I  would  be  remiss  if  I  did  not  also  take 
this  opportunity  to  comment  briefly  on  an- 
other part  of  the  trade  bill  which  has  impor- 
tant foreign  policy  implications. 

You  will  recall,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I 
wrote  to  you  in  September  to  express  my 
strong  support  for  title  V  of  the  Trade 
Reform  Act  because  I  consider  the  prompt 
implementation  of  a  meaningful  system  of 
generalized  preferences  important  to  U.S. 
relations  with  developing  countries.  I  am 
gratified  that  this  committee  has  agreed  to 
endorse  the  concept  of  generalized  tariff  pref- 
erences. I  have,  however,  serious  questions 


938 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


about  the  decision  of  your  committee  to  ex- 
clude automatically  certain  categories  of 
developing  countries  from  the  benefits  of 
these  preferences. 

The  concerns  which  these  amendments  re- 
flect are,  I  believe,  shared  by  all  in  both  the 
executive  and  legislative  branches  of  our 
government.  I  am  not  opposed  to  having 
these  concerns  put  on  the  record. 

However,  these  amendments,  as  we  under- 
stand them,  would  result  in  the  automatic 
denial  of  preferences  to  a  number  of  impor- 
tant developing  countries.  Such  automaticity 
could  work  to  our  disadvantage.  For  example, 
would  it  be  in  our  interest  to  exclude  all 
members  of  the  Organization  of  Petroleum 
Exporting  Countries,  including  those  which 
did  not  participate  in  last  year's  oil  embargo? 

Moreover,  many  of  the  countries  affected — 
including  those  who  can  play  a  role  in  help- 
ing prevent  renewed  conflict  in  the  Middle 
East — are  just  those  with  which  we  are  now 
actively  engaged  in  efforts  to  strengthen  our 
relations  and  to  work  out  mutually  acceptable 
solutions  to  diflRcult  economic  and  political 
problems. 

With  respect  to  the  automatic  denial  of 
preferences  to  countries  expropriating  U.S. 
property,  the  Congress  recognized  last  year 
that  inflexible  sanctions  are  not  effective  in 
promoting  the  interests  of  American  citizens 
or  businesses  abroad  and  modified  the  Hick- 
enlooper  amendment  to  authorize  the  Presi- 
dent to  waive  its  sanctions  when  required 
for  our  national  interest.  The  same  author- 
ity should  be  provided  in  the  Trade  Act. 

This  committee  has  made  several  changes 
in  title  V  which  we  consider  to  be  distinct 
improvements.  At  the  same  time,  I  believe 
that  title  V,  as  pasi3ed  by  the  House,  contains 
ample  authority  to  provide  or  to  deny  gen- 
eralized preferences  to  any  country  whenever 
it  is  in  the  overall  interest  of  the  United 
States  to  do  so.  I  can  assure  you  that  the 
administration  will  keep  Congress  fully  in- 
formed in  advance  of  the  basis  for  any  deci- 
sions on  beneficiary  status.  I  am  confident 
that  you  and  your  committee  will  give  serious 
consideration  to  the  problems  I  have  raised. 

The  trade  bill  is  one  of  the  most  impor- 


tant measures  to  come  before  the  Congress  in 
many  years.  It  is  essential  to  our  hopes  for 
a  more  stable,  more  prosperous  world.  This 
Congress  in  the  time  remaining  to  it  thus 
has  an  opportunity  to  contribute  to  the  con- 
struction of  a  safer  and  more  peaceful  world. 

Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Agreement 
on  International  Epizootics  Office 

Message  From  President  Ford  ' 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

To  receive  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate  to  accession,  I  transmit  herewith  the 
International  Agreement  for  the  Creation  at 
Paris  of  an  International  Office  of  Epizootics, 
originated  in  Paris  on  January  25,  1924. 

In  the  nearly  fifty  years  of  its  existence, 
the  International  Ofliice  of  Epizootics  (OIE) 
has  become  the  most  important  organization 
in  international  control  of  animal  diseases. 
Its  current  79-nation  membership  includes 
most  major  developed  countries  other  than 
the  United  States.  The  OIE  provides  timely 
warnings  to  its  members  of  animal  disease 
outbreaks,  a  form  of  exchange  of  technical 
information,  and  other  valuable  services.  In 
these  times  of  increased  concern  about  food 
availability  at  home  and  abroad,  the  United 
States  is  obliged  to  help  protect  that  supply. 
The  cost  of  participation  in  OIE  is  small 
when  weighed  against  its  potential  benefits. 
Also  the  United  States  can  make  its  scien- 
tific and  managerial  experience  in  disease 
control  available  through  OIE  in  an  effec- 
tive way  to  underline  our  international  in- 
terest in  food  supply. 

I,  therefore,  recommend  that  the  Senate 
grant  early  and  favorable  consideration  to 
the  Agreement  and  give  its  advice  and  con- 
sent to  accession. 

Gerald  R.  Ford. 

The  White  House,  December  2,  197 Jf. 


'  Transmitted  on  Dec.  2  (text  from  White  House 
press  release)  ;  also  printed  as  S.  Ex.  M,  93d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  which  includes  the  texts  of  the  agreement 
and  the  report  of  the  Department  of  State. 


December  30,    1974 


939 


U.N.  Disengagement  Observer  Force 
in  Israel-Syria  Sector  Extended 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
Security  Council  by  U.S.  Representative  John 
Scali  on  November  29,  together  with  the  te.rt 
of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Council  that 
day. 

STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR   SCALI 

USUN  press  release  181  date<l  November  29 

Since  there  are  no  additional  members  who 
wish  to  speak,  I  should  like  to  express  the 
views  of  the  United  States  on  the  subject 
before  us. 

The  establishment  of  UNDOF  six  months 
ago,  like  that  of  UNEF  [U.N.  Emergency 
Force]  before  it,  marked  a  major  step  for- 
ward on  the  path  to  a  lasting  Middle  East 
peace.  That  this  road  was  long  and  difficult, 
that  it  would  try  men's  patience  and  test 
their  good  will,  no  one  doubted  then  or 
doubts  now.  Nevertheless  what  this  Council 
did  in  establishing  the  two  Middle  East  peace- 
keeping forces  was  no  small  thing.  The  U.N. 
peacekeeping  provides  a  deterrent  to  renewed 
war  after  four  tragic  devastating  conflicts. 
It  offers  time  for  passions  to  cool  and  for 
prudence  and  reason  to  prevail.  In  short, 
it  ofl'ers  to  those  who  would  grasp  it  an 
opportunity  to  move  ahead  toward  peace. 

By  extending  UNDOF's  mandate  today, 
the  Security  Council  has  demonstrated  anew 
its  awareness  of  the  critical  role  this  Force 
plays  in  helping  to  preserve  the  disengage- 
ment between  Syrian  and  Israeli  forces.  My 
government  at  this  time  wishes  to  pledge 
anew  that  we  will  continue  the  search  for 
a  just  and  enduring  peace  through  negotia- 
tions under  Security  Council  Resolutions  242 
and  338. 

My  government  warmly  welcomes  the 
Council's  action  today  in  extending  the  man- 


date of  UNDOF.  The  resolution  we  have 
adopted  with  no  dissenting  votes  assures  the 
continuing  operation  of  UNDOF  for  another 
six  months  under  the  same  mandate  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  recommendation  which  the 
Secretary  General  has  made  in  his  lucid  and 
comprehensive  report  of  November  27. 

I  have  spoken  already  of  the  patience  and 
good  will  that  are  so  indispensable  to  peace 
in  the  Middle  East.  These  qualities  were 
sorely  needed  in  the  recent  negotiations 
leading  to  agreement  on  the  extension  of 
UNDOF.  My  government  is  pleased  to  have 
been  of  assistance  in  this  effort.  May  I 
take  this  opportunity,  on  behalf  of  my  gov- 
ernment, to  pay  a  sincere  tribute  to  the 
Governments  of  Syria  and  Israel  for  their 
determination  to  overcome  all  obstacles  in 
the  cause  of  peace  and  justice  for  their 
peoples. 

I  take  special  pleasure  in  extending  my 
government's  deep  appreciation  to  the  Secre- 
tary General  for  his  continuing  efforts  and 
to  his  Headquarters  staff.  Their  dedicated, 
tireless  efforts  have  kept  UNDOF  operat- 
ing efficiently.  Our  congratulations  go  also 
to  the  interim  Force  commander,  to  the 
officers  and  men  of  UNDOF,  and  to  the  UNT- 
SO  [United  Nations  Truce  Supervision  Orga- 
nization] Military  Observers  assigned  to 
UNDOF  for  the  exemplary  manner  in  which 
they  have  performed  their  duties.  I  have 
spoken  on  a  number  of  occasions  of  our 
admiration  for  these  men  and  of  our  appre- 
ciation for  the  hardships  and  sacrifice  which 
they  must  endure.  Some  of  these  soldiers 
have  given  their  lives  so  that  other  men, 
women,  and  children  in  the  Middle  East 
might  live.  We  mourn  in  particular  at  this 
time  the  brave  men  who  have  died  on  the 
UNDOF  front,  and  we  ask  the  delegations 
of  Canada  and  Austria  to  convey  our  sin- 
cere condolences  to  their  bereaved  families. 

The  Secretary  General  in  his  report  and 
many  members  of  this  Council  in  their  state- 
ments have  emphasized  the  importance  of 
moving  toward  settlement  of  the  underlying 
problems  of  the  Middle  East  conflict.  My 
government  shares  this  sense  of  urgency.  In 
the  months  ahead  we  shall  be  bending  every 
effort  to  advance  step  by  step  along  the  road 


940 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


that  leads  to  a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the 
Middle  East. 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  ' 

The  Security  Council, 

Having  considered  the  report  of  the  Secretary- 
General  on  the  United  Nations  Disengagement  Ob- 
server Force  (S/11563), 

Having  noted  the  efforts  made  to  establish  a  dura- 
ble and  just  peace  in  the  Middle  East  area  and  the 
developments  in  the  situation  in  the  area, 

Expressing  concent  over  the  prevailing  state  of 
tension  in  the  area, 

Reaffirming  that  the  two  agreements  on  disen- 
gagement of  forces  are  only  a  step  towards  the  im- 
plementation of  Security  Council  resolution  338 
(1973), 

Decides : 

(a)  To  call  upon  the  parties  concerned  to  imple- 
ment immediately  Security  Council  resolution  338 
(1973); 

(b)  To  renew  the  mandate  of  the  United  Nations 
Disengagement  Observer  Force  for  another  period  of 
six  months; 

(c)  That  the  Secretary-General  will  submit  at  the 
end  of  this  period  a  report  on  the  developments  in 
the  situation  and  the  measures  taken  to  implement 
Security  Council  resolution  338  (1973). 


U.S.  Gives  Views  on  Guidelines 
for  U.N.   Peacekeeping  Operations 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  Spe- 
cial Political  Committee  of  the  U.N.  Gen- 
eral Assembly  by  U.S.  Representative  Joseph 
M.  Segel  on  November  19. 

USUN  press  release  173  dated  November  19 

I  am  pleased  to  present  the  views  of  the 
U.S.  delegation  to  this  committee  as  it  con- 
siders the  report  of  the  Special  Committee 
on  Peacekeeping  Operations.-  Developments 
in  the  past  year  have,  we  believe,  confirmed 
the  importance  of  the  special  committee's 
work  as  well  as  the  necessity  to  continue  the 


'U.N.  doc.  S/RES/363  (1974);  adopted  by  the 
Council  on  Nov.  29  by  a  vote  of  13  to  0,  with  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  and  Iraq  not  participat- 
ing in  the  vote. 

^U.N.  doc.  A/9827. 


effort  to  agree  upon  guidelines  for  the  con- 
duct of  future  peacekeeping  operations  under 
the  authority  of  the  Security  Council. 

Secretary  of  State  Kissinger,  in  address- 
ing the  28th  General  Assembly,  noted  that 
"The  time  has  come  to  agree  on  peacekeeping 
guidelines  so  that  thi.s  organization  can  act 
swiftly,  confidently,  and  effectively  in  future 
crises."  Since  then,  the  United  Nations  has 
had  to  deal  urgently  with  two  crises,  in  the 
Middle  East  and  in  Cyprus,  requiring  the 
launching  of  one  new  operation  and  the  re- 
inforcement of  another. 

The  practical  experience  of  these  peace- 
keeping operations  and  the  recognition  of  the 
need  for  guidelines  to  facilitate  future  peace- 
keeping operations  have  affected  the  work  of 
the  special  committee  and,  in  particular,  its 
working  group.  We  are  encouraged  by  the 
working  group's  accomplishment  in  drafting 
alternative  paragraphs  which  reflect  the 
range  of  views  on  particular  questions  and 
present  concrete  language  on  which  the  next 
series  of  discussions  can  focus.  It  is  certain 
that  substantially  more  work  will  be  neces- 
sary, but  the  issues  have  become  more  clearly 
defined  and  significant  progress  has  thus 
been  made. 

One  of  the  fundamental  questions  facing 
the  special  committee  is  the  degree  of  gen- 
erality, or  of  detail,  to  be  reflected  in  such 
guidelines.  My  government  continues  to  be- 
lieve that  the  ability  of  the  Security  Council 
to  operate  flexibly  during  crises  enhances 
its  capability  to  meet  the  problems  unique  to 
each  operation.  The  establishment  and  func- 
tioning of  the  U.N.  Emergency  Force  in  the 
Middle  East  demonstrates  that  detailed  peace- 
keeping guidelines,  agreed  in  advance,  are 
not  required  to  mount  a  successful  operation. 
The  U.N.  Force  in  Cyprus,  modified  to  meet 
new  conditions,  has  provided  similar  lessons. 
These  two  operations,  tailored  as  they  are  to 
conditions  in  each  area,  underscore  the  im- 
portance of  not  losing  flexibility. 

Clearly,  the  central  purpose  to  be  served 
by  agreed  guidelines  is  to  outline  the  division 
of  responsibilities  between  the  principal  U.N. 
organs  involved  in  peacekeeping,  especially 
the  Security  Council  and  the  Secretary  Gen- 
eral.  If  peacekeeping  operations  are  to  be 


December  30,    1974 


941 


launched  promptly  and  managed  effectively, 
it  is  essential  that  general  responsibilities 
be  appropriately  delineated.  But  it  is  also 
essential  to  provide  for  the  practical  and  ef- 
ficient resolution  of  rapidly  changing  daily 
operating  problems. 

The  Security  Council  has  primary  respon- 
sibility under  the  charter  for  the  maintenance 
of  international  peace  and  security.  In  this 
connection,  it  is  responsible  for  authorizing 
peacekeeping  operations  and  bears  the  ulti- 
mate responsibility  for  the  direction  of  each 
operation.  We  believe  that  in  exercising  this 
general  responsibility  the  Security  Council 
should,  in  the  formula  proposed  for  article 
1  of  the  draft  guidelines,  "determine  the  pur- 
pose and  mandate  of  a  peace-keeping  force, 
its  approximate  size,  the  duration  of  its  ex- 
istence and  manner  of  its  termination,  and 
such  other  matters  as  it  considered  neces- 
sary in  establishing  the  purpose  and  terms 
of  the  mandate." 

In  order  to  accommodate  views  that  en- 
visage broader  immediate  responsibilities  for 
the  Security  Council,  the  United  States  is 
now  prepared  to  include  among  the  Council's 
responsibilities  approval  of  the  peacekeeping 
force  commander  and  of  the  composition  of 
the  force.  In  both  cases,  the  Secretary  Gen- 
eral would  make  the  initial  recommendations. 
Mr.  Chairman,  these  are  significant  conces- 
sions. We  hope — indeed  we  expect — that  they 
will  be  reciprocated  in  the  same  spirit  of 
accommodation. 

Once  the  operation  is  underway,  the  Se- 
curity Council  might  best  exercise  its  con- 
tinuing responsibilities  by  such  measures  as 
requiring  regular  reports  from  the  Secre- 
tary General  on  the  conduct  of  the  operation 
and  reviewing  periodically  the  work  of  the 
peacekeeping  force.  If  a  need  to  do  so  is 
perceived,  the  Security  Council  might  also 
establish  an  advisory  or  consultative  com- 
mittee, perhaps  under  article  29  of  the 
charter,  to  assist  in  its. work. 

Within  the  overall  mandate  established  by 
the  Security  Council,  we  believe  the  Secre- 
tary General  should  be  assured  sufficient  dis- 
cretion  to  enable  him  and  the  force  com- 


mander responsible  to  him  to  effectively 
carry  cut  their  responsibilities  in  directing 
the  actual  activities  of  the  force,  without 
day-to-day  intervention  by  the  Security 
Council.  The  Secretary  General's  responsi- 
bilities should  certainly  include  taking  deci- 
sions on  administrative  and  logistical  ques- 
tions, since  his  primary  concern  is  to  see 
that  the  operations  authorized  by  the  Se- 
curity Council  are  managed  properly  and 
efficiently. 

In  this  connection,  the  Secretary  General 
must  have  at  his  disposal  integrated  and 
efficient  military  units.  While  due  regard 
should  be  paid  to  achieving  adequate  geo- 
graphic representation  in  the  composition  of 
the  force,  we  believe  that  more  attention 
should  be  paid  to  creating  a  force  that  can 
successfully  carry  out  its  mission.  The  com- 
position of  the  force  should  thus  take  into 
consideration  the  nature  of  the  dispute, 
where  the  force  will  serve,  and  the  views  of 
the  host  countries.  It  is  therefore  necessary 
that  both  the  Security  Council  and  the  Secre- 
tary General  maintain  sufficient  freedom  of 
action  concerning  the  selection  and  composi- 
tion of  the  force's  components  to  insure 
that  the  highest  possible  professional  stand- 
ards may  be  achieved. 

The  guidelines  might  constructively  in- 
clude provisions  enabling  the  Secretary 
General  to  make  standby  arrangements  for 
future  peacekeeping  operations,  including 
model  agreements  with  hosts  and  troop  con- 
tributors, a  continuing  inventory  of  troop 
offers,  facilities,  or  services  that  member 
nations  would  make  available,  and  a  roster 
of  potential  commanders. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
differences,  some  fundamental  but  others 
less  difficult,  .still  exist  over  the  nature  and 
scope  of  peacekeeping  guidelines.  The  United 
States  continues  to  believe  that  the  work 
underway  to  reconcile  these  differences  is 
significant  and  that  an  agreed  set  of  general 
principles  can  be  developed  by  the  special 
committee.  We  do  not  exclude  the  possibility 
that  some  differences  will  not  be  fully  re- 
solved in  the  negotiations  to  establish  initial 


942 


Department   of   State   Bulletin 


Kuidelines.  However,  if  not,  they  can  be  left 
to  ad  hoc  resoKition  by  the  Security  Council, 
as  problems  arise  and  as  we  have  done  to 
date,  with  the  hope  that  later  agreement  will 
permit  us  to  further  improve  the  guidelines. 
Moreover,  we  believe  the  guidelines  should 
remain  flexible  enough  so  that  they  may 
evolve  as  we  gain  experience. 

We  remain  open  to  constructive  dialogue 
on  this  effort.  Moreover,  we  have  expressed 
our  willingness  to  reach  a  compromise  on 
outstanding  issues  that  would  on  the  one 
hand  accommodate  diverse  views  and  on  the 
other  provide  the  most  positive  background 
for  the  effective  discharge  of  this  organiza- 
tion's peacekeeping  responsibilities.  We  all 
know  that  these  responsibilities  are  central 
to  the  purposes  and  ideals  of  the  United 
Nations,  and  we  must  for  that  reason  re- 
commit ourselves  to  the  task  entrusted  to 
the  special  committee.  After  nine  years  of 
work,  while  the  end  is  not  yet  in  sight  we 
must  persevere  to  a  successful  conclusion  of 
our  collective  efforts.  It  will  have  to  be  done 
sooner  or  later.  Let  us  grasp  every  oppor- 
tunity to  complete  this  vital  task  sooner 
rather  than  later. 


United   Nations  Documents: 
A  Selected   Bibliography 

Mimeographed  or  processed  documents  (such  as 
those  listed  below)  may  be  consulted  at  depository 
libraries  in  the  United  States.  U.N.  printed  publica- 
tions may  be  purchased  from  the  Sales  Section  of 
the  United  Nations,  United  Nations  Plaza,  N.Y. 
10017. 


Economic  and  Social  Council 

Statistical  Commission: 

International  trade  reconciliation  study.  Report  of 
the  Secretary  General.  E/CN.3/454.  June  5,  1974. 
81pp. 

Statistics  of  the  developing  countries  in  the  Sec- 
ond United  Nations  Development  Decade.  Inter- 
national technical  assistance  in  statistics,  1975- 
79.  Report  of  the  Secretary  General.  E/CN.3/ 
446.   June  6,  1974.    61  pp. 

Statistics  of  the  environment.  Report  of  the  Secre- 
tary General.  E/CN.3/452.  June  14,  1974.  32  pp. 

Program  objectives :  implementation  and  prospects. 


Regional  conferences  of  statisticians  and  similar 
bodies.  Report  by  the  Secretary  General.  E/ 
CN.3/466.   June  24,  1974.    19  pp. 

Statistics  of  the  distribution  of  income,  consump- 
tion, and  accumulation;  draft  guidelines  for  the 
developing    countries.    Report   of    the    Secretary 
General.   E/CN.3/462.   July  5,  1974.   59  pp. 
Collective  economic  security.  Report  of  the  Secretary 

General.   E/5529.   June  6,  1974.    15  pp. 
World  Food  Conference.  Report  of  the  Preparatory 

Committee  on  its  second  session.   E/5533.  June  11, 

1974.   .38  pp. 
World  Population  Conference  background  papers: 

Population  policies  and  programs.  Prepared  by 
the  U.N.  Secretariat.  E/CONF.60/CBP/21.  June 
20,  1974.  53  pp. 


TREATY   INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Agriculture 

Amended  constitution  of  the  International  Rice 
Commission.  Approved  at  the  11th  session  of  the 
F.\0  Conference,  Rome,  November  23,  1961. 
Entered  into  force  November  23,  1961.  TIAS  5204. 
Acceptance  deposited:   Kenya,  November  4,  1974. 

Narcotic  Drugs 

Protocol  amending  the  single  convention  on  narcotic 
drugs,  1961.  Done  at  Geneva  March  25,  1972.' 
Accession  deposited:  Lesotho,  November  4,  1974. 

Telecommunications 

Partial  revision  of  the  radio  regulations,  1959,  as 
amended  (TIAS  4893),  to  allocate  frequency  bands 
for  space  radiocommunication  purposes.  Done  at 
Geneva  November  8,  1963.  Entered  into  force  Jan- 
uary 1,  1965.  TIAS  5603. 

Notification    of    approval:    Cuba,    September    30, 
1974. 

Partial  revision  of  the  radio  regulations,  1959,  as 
amended  (TIAS  4893,  5603,  6332,  6590),  on  space 
telecommunications,  with  annexes.  Done  at  Geneva 
July  17,  1971.  Entered  into  force  January  1,  1973. 
TIAS  7435. 

Notification  of  approval:  Pakistan,  September  7, 
1974.= 

Telegraph  regulations,  with  appendices,  annex,  and 


'  Not  in  force. 

'  Confirmed  reservations  made  in  final  protocol. 


December  30,    1974 


943 


final  protocol.  Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.  En- 
tered into  force  September  1,  1974.'' 
Notification  of  approval:  Hungary,  September  30, 

1974. 
Telephone    regulations,    with    appendices    and    final 
protocol.  Done  at  Geneva  April  11,  1973.  Entered 
into  force  September  1,  1974.' 
Notification  of  approval:  Hungary,  September  30, 

1974. 
International    telecommunications    convention,    with 
annexes  and  protocols.  Done  at  Malaga-Torremo- 
linos  October  25,  1973.' 
Ratification   deposited:   Singapore,   September    16, 

1974. 

Trade 

Declaration  on  the  provisional  accession  of  the  Phil- 
ippines to  the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and 
Trade   done   at  Geneva   August   9,    1973.    Entered 
into  force  September  9,  1973.  TIAS  7839. 
Acceptances:  Australia,  October  9,  1974;  Pakistan, 

October  16,  1974. 
Ratification     deposited:     Austria,     September     24, 

1974. 


BILATERAL 


Iran 

Joint  communique  concerning  U.S. -Iran  relations 
and  establishment  of  a  Joint  Commission  for  co- 
operation in  various  fields.  Issued  at  Tehran  No- 
vember 2,  1974.  Entered  into  force  November  2, 
1974. 

Italy 

Agreement  extending  the  agreement  of  April  30 
and  June  12,  19(59  (TIAS  6809),  regarding  the 
launching  of  NASA  satellites  from  the  San  Marco 
Range.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Rome  No- 
vember 25  and  26,  1974.  Entered  into  force  Novem- 
ber 26,  1974. 

Jamaica 

.Agreement  relating  to  the  provision  of  helicopters 
and  related  assistance  to  Jamaica  in  connection 
with  a  program  to  interdict  the  illicit  narcotics 
traffic  between  Jamaica  and  the  United  States 
(Operation  Buccaneer).  Effected  by  exchange  of 
notes  at  Kingston  August  9  and  21  and  Septem- 
ber 23,  1974.  Entered  into  force  September  23, 
1974. 

Tunisia 

Agreement  relating  to  a  program  of  grants  of  mili- 
tary equipment  and  materiel  to  Tunisia.  Effected 
by  exchange  of  notes  at  Tunis  September  12  and 
October  25,  1974.  Entered  into  force  October  25, 
1974,  effective  July  1,  1974. 


DEPARTMENT  AND  FOREIGN   SERVICE 


Confirmations  I 

The  Senate  on  December  2  confirmed  the  follow- 
ing nominations: 

Theodore  R.  Britton,  Jr.,  to  be  Ambassador  to 
Barbados  and  to  serve  concurrently  as  .Embassador 
to  the  State  of  Grenada. 

Frank  C.  Carlucci  to  be  Ambassador  to  Portugal. 

Charles  W.  Robinson  to  be  Under  Secretary  of 
State  for  Economic  Affairs. 


'  Not  in  force. 

■'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:   December  9— 15 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
fice of  Press  Relations,  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  December  9  which 
appear  in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos. 
502  of  November  15,  516  of  December  3,  and 
518  of  December  7. 

No.         Date  Subject 

Kissinger:  Churchill  centenary 
dinner,  Dec.  7. 

Kissinger,  Esenbel:  exchange  of 
remarks,  Brussels. 

Kissinger,  Bitsios:  exchange  of 
remarks,  Brussels. 

Kissinger,  Van  der  Stoel:  re- 
marks to  press,  Brussels. 

Kissinger,  Esenbel:  remarks  to 
press,  Brussels,  Dec.  11. 

U.S. -Spain  cooperation  talks: 
communique. 

Kissinger,  Dr.  J.  H.  Van  Roi.jen: 
remarks  upon  Secretary  Kis- 
singer's receipt  of  the  Wateler 
Peace  Prize,  Brussels,  Dec.  11. 

Watson  receives  Replogle 
Award. 

Economic  and  technical  assist- 
ance to  Portugal. 

Kissinger,  Esenbel:  remarks  to 
press,  Brussels,  Dec.  12. 

Kissinger,  Callaghan:  remarks 
to  press,  Brussels. 

Kissinger:  news  conference, 
Brussels. 

*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


t519 

12/10 

*520 

12/11 

*521 

12/11 

*522 

12/11 

*523 

12/12 

1524 

12/12 

*525 

12/12 

*526 

12/13 

1527 

12/13 

*528 

12/13 

*529 

12/13 

1530 

12/13 

944 


Department  of  State  Bulletin 


INDEX      December  JO,  197 J,      Vol.  LXXI,  No.  1853 


Bangladesh.     Additional      Food      for      Peace 

Wheat  To  Be  Sent  to  Bangladesh     ....       9.34 

Barbados.    Britton    confirmed    as    Ambassador       944 

Canada 

Prime    Minister    Trudeau    of    Canada    Visits 

Washington    (Ford,    Trudeau) 930 

Secretary    Kissinger's     News     Conference    of 

December    7        909 

China.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ence   of    December    7 909 

Congress 

Confirmations  (Britton,  Carlucci,  Robinson)  944 
Secretary  Kissinger  Calls  for  Early  Passage 
of  Trade  Reform  -Act  (statement  before 
Senate  Committee  on  Finance)  ....  935 
Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Agreement  on 
International  Epizootics  Office  (message 
from   President   Ford) 939 

Department  and  Foreign  Service 

Confirmations     (Britton,    Carlucci,    Robinson)       944 
Foreign   Service    Dead   Honored    at   Memorial 

Ceremony     (Kissinger,     Boyatt)     ....       932 

Developing  Countries.  Secretary  Kissinger 
Calls  for  Early  Passage  of  Trade  Reform 
Act  (statement  before  Senate  Committee 
on    Finance)        935 

Disarmament.     Secretary     Kissinger's     News 

Conference   of   December   7 909 

Economic   Affairs 

Robinson    confirmed    as    Under   Secretary   for 

Economic    Affairs        944 

Secretary     Kissinger's    News    Conference    of 

December    7        909 

Energy.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ence   of    December    7 909 

Food.  Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Agreement 
on  International  Epizootics  Office  (message 
from    President    Ford)         939 

Foreign  Aid 

Additional  Food  for  Peace  Wheat  To  Be  Sent 

to     Bangladesh        934 

Secretary     Kissinger's    News    Conference    of 

December    7 .       909 

Germany.  Chancellor  Schmidt  of  the  Federal 
Republic  of  Germany  Visits  the  United 
States    (Ford,   Schmidt,  joint  statement)     .       925 

Grenada 

Britton    confirmed    as    Ambassador     ....       944 
Letters  of  Credence   (Mclntyre) 924 

Honduras.     Letters  of  Credence   (Lazarus)     .       924 

Israel.  U.N.  Disengagement  Observer  Force 
in  Israel-Syria  Sector  E.xtended  (Scali,  text 
of    resolution ) 940 

Korea.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ence   of    December    7 909 

Luxembourg.     Letters    of   Credence    (Meisch)       924 

Middle     East.     Secretary     Kissinger's     News 

Conference   of   December   7 909 


Portugal.   Carlucci   confirmed   as   Ambassador       944 

Presidential  Documents 

Chancellor  Schmidt  of  the  Federal  Republic  of 

Germany  Visits  the  United  States  .  .  .  925 
Prime    Minister    Trudeau    of    Canada    Visits 

Washington 930 

Senate    Asked    To     Approve     Agreement    on 

International  Epizootics  Office  ....  939 
The    Trade    Reform    Act   and    Today's    World 

Economic    Problems 920 

Syria.  U.N.  Disengagement  Observer  Force 
in  Israel-Syria  Sector  Extended  (Scali,  text 
of    resolution) 940 

Trade 

Secretary  Kissinger  Calls  for  Early  Passsage 
of  Trade  Reform  Act  (statement  before 
Senate    Committee    on    Finance)     ....       935 

The   Trade    Reform    Act    and    Today's    World 

Economic    Problems    (Ford 920 

Treaty   Information 

Current     Actions         943 

Senate  Asked  To  Approve  Agreement  on 
International  Epizootics  Office  (message 
from    President    Ford)         939 

Turkey.  Secretary  Kissinger's  News  Confer- 
ence   of    December    7 909 

U.S.S.R. 

Secretary  Kissinger  Calls  for  Early  Passage 
of  Trade  Reform  Act  (statement  before 
Senate    Committee    on    Finance)     ....       935 

Secretary     Kissinger's    News    Conference    of 

December    7        909 

United    Arab    Emirates.   Letters   of   Credence 

(Ghobash) 924 

United   Nations 

Secretary    Kissinger's     News    Conference    of 

December    7        909 

U.N.  Disengagement  Observer  Force  in 
Israel-Syria  Sector  Extended  (Scali,  text  of 
resolution) 940 

United   Nations   Documents 943 

U..S.    Gives    Views    on    Guidelines    for    U.N. 

Peacekeeping  Operations    (Segel)     ....       941 

Uruguay.  Letters  of  Credence  (Perez  Cal- 
das)         924 

Name  Index 

Boyatt,    Thomas 932 

Britton,  Theodore  R.,  Jr 944 

Carlucci,     Frank     C         944 

Ford,    President 92,0,  925,  930,  939 

Ghobash,  Saeed  Ahmad 924 

Kissinger,    Secretary 909,  932,  935 

Lazarus,   Roberto        924 

Mclntyre,   Marie  J 924 

Meisch,    Adrien    F.    J 924 

Perez  Caldas,  Jose 924 

Robinson,   Charles   W 944 

Scali,    John        940 

Schmidt,    Helmut        925 

Segel,    Joseph    M        941 

Trudeau,  Pierre  Elliott 930 


Superintendent    of    Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  office 

washington.  dc.  20402 

officiai.  business 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES   PAID 
U.S.     aOVERNMBNT     PRIMTINa     OFFICE 

Special    Fourth-Clast   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,  Office 
of  Media  Services  (PA/MS),  Department  of  State, 
Washington,  D.C.  20520. 


BOSTON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 


3  9999  06352  791  3 


I