-2-

I had the privilege of working with Golda during some phases of that process. I will not insult your intelligence by pretending that Golda was always easy to deal with. She did nothing to disprove Abba Eban's statement that Israelis define objectivity as 100% agreement with their point of view. And on the occasions when I did not immediately embrace the total validity of her considerations she showered on me the outrage reserved for the obtuseness of a specially favored nephew. My wife is fond of saying that some of the best dramatic performances she ever witnessed occurred during debates between Golda and me.

But I am proud that we always came to an agreement -- not reluctantly, not based on tests of strength but on a shared knowledge that the security of Israel is a moral imperative for all free peoples. We never differed in our conviction that a just peace cannot be an imposed peace. A just peace must be a peace which the participants accept and feel a stake in preserving. And therefore the process by which peace is made is almost as important as the final outcome. At each stage the parties must feel that it was their decision and not somebody else's that brought about the result.

We meet in the midst of another debate about peace in the Middle East. Given my own involvement in the conduct of foreign policy over eight years, I have thought it inappropriate since January to participate in a discussion of day-to-day tactics. But I would like to use this occasion to articulate a few general principles.

First, the desirability of peace can never be at issue. No people has suffered more from the absence of peace than the people of Israel, every square mile of whose country is drenched with the blood of its pioneers and whose existence has never been recognized by any of its neighbors. No people can be more aware of how fragile, and how precious, are the restraints that make men and nations civilized.

No people knows more vividly that morality must be more than a theory -- it must be a constant in human conduct. And no group of men and women understands more acutely that peace depends ultimately not on political arrangements but on the conscience of mankind. History is often cruel, and rarely logical and yet the wisest of realists are those who recognize that fate can indeed be shaped by human faith and courage. These qualities are what brought the state of Israel into being.

This spirit and pride must be nurtured by all friends of
Israel for they are the ultimate guarantee of Israel's future.

But faith and courage are not enough. The people of
Israel have seen too much of the transitoriness of human
intentions to entrust the destiny of their nation entirely
to professions and reassurances however sincere and honestly
intended. A peace to be lasting must be founded on the self-
interest of all the parties and for peace to be secure it must
leave Israel strong enough to protect its future by its own
efforts.

Second, the intentions or purposes of the government
of the United States cannot be at issue. No President would
knowingly risk the future of Israel. Nor would he make a
deal to undermine Israel's future for some global considerations.
My own acquaintance with President Carter, Secretary Vance
and their senior advisors convinces me that this Administration
would not deliberately put Israel's security at risk. But
there is always the danger that actions undertaken in good
faith may inadvertently produce unforeseen consequences. If
such a miscalculation took place either Israel would become
totally isolated or diplomacy would become abruptly deadlocked.
The art of diplomacy is to move events carefully and shape
them toward achievable ends so that neither the United States
nor Israel ever face such a stark, impossible choice. A
coordination of policies between Israel and the United States
is therefore imperative.

Third, the perspective of a superpower and those of
a small country may occasionally differ. The United States
has enormous strength; Israel has a much narrower margin of
safety. The United States can survive trial-and-error
diplomacy, because we can always rectify mistakes by redoubling
our efforts. But Israeli leaders cannot experiment; they have
only one try. If they guess wrong they risk the survival of
the nation. We therefore owe the people of Israel an under-
standing of its special circumstances -- all the more so as the
country has known only war or the threat of war since its
founding. At the same time, Israelis must understand the
importance of Middle East peace to the global concerns of
the United States and the Western world, which are indeed the
essential underpinning of Israel's own security.

Fourth, an over-all solution is of course the ultimate
prize. But realism forces us to recognize that to achieve
it involves issues of enormous complexity and parties with
an unequal commitment to peace. It also requires a process
that is bound to be protracted. Thus while striving for an
over-all settlement, we must take care not to foreclose other

-4-

opportunities that may arise to ease tensions and to enable
the peoples of the area to build confidence. We must
not give a veto to the most intransigent elements within
the area. We must not permit outside powers to emerge as
the advocates for a point of view that penalizes moderation.

Fifth, some structures develop their own momentum
that cannot be judged by formal declarations or abstract
blueprints. A Palestinian state on the West Bank is bound
to be an element of instability both for Jordan and for Israel;
it will compound the crisis not solve it. Such a state --
whatever the professions or guarantees -- must have objectives
that cannot be compatible with the tranquility of the Middle
East. It cannot be an accident that no attempt to create
such a state was ever made during the twenty years of Arab
rule in that territory.

Sixth, any peace settlement must of necessity involve
guarantees. But they must be worked out with great care and
with a sense for their limits. History should teach us that
guarantees by themselves are not a substitute for security.
No nation should be asked to abdicate its judgment of the
requirements of its survival. Care must be taken that
guarantees do not provide a pretext for an outside power to
intervene constantly in the affairs of the area. With
respect to bilateral US-Israeli treaty arrangements there
is the danger that the ratification process may produce a
debate that paradoxically hazards the friendship and close
cooperation which has served so well for a generation. In
short, guarantees require the most careful reflection and
study; at best they reinforce, they can not bring about
security.

Seventh, whatever the views about the desirability of
beginning the process of negotiations with a Geneva confer-
ence, so much effort has been invested in it that it has
become the touchstone of the prospects of peace. All parties
therefore have a stake in bringing such a conference into
being. At the same time we must recognize that when it is
finally assembled Geneva will be an important achievement, but
its primary significance will be procedural. Ahead of us
will be complex negotiations about frontiers, commitments
to peace, security arrangements, and other issues which will
test the wisdom and commitment of the parties.

-5-

These issues cannot be left to the pressures of a
conference; it is not too soon to explore them actively with
the parties. We cannot wait for Geneva to resolve all the
complexities that range from the relations of sub-groups
to the main conference to the concrete outlines of a definition
of peace. Especially as far as Israel is concerned it is
incompatible with our historic relationship to deal with
issues of such gravity in an atmosphere of self-imposed
deadlines. And it does not help those Arab leaders who have
had the wisdom and the courage to begin the journey towards
peace to raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

Geneva will be successful to the extent that Israel
and the United States end the cycle of fear and reassurance,
of outraged protest and soothing generalities and turn to the
elaboration of a common concrete approach. This requires
a willingness on one side to give the benefit of the doubt
and a readiness on the other to understand the anguish of
a people whose historic suffering precludes the abdication
of its own judgment, but whose martyrs guarantee that
the search for peace, while painful, will be dedicated and
committed.

I am convinced that the problems that form the head-
lines of the day are soluble. In all my efforts in the
Middle East, whatever the temporary disagreements, we never
failed to develop a common position with our friends in Israel.
It was during Golda's term as Prime Minister and that of her
distinguished successor, that the steps were taken that give
us hope for even greater progress now. I have every confidence
that the present Israeli government will do no less. And
in my experience, at the end of the day, Israel has never
rejected a chance to make progress towards a settlement, or
to run risks for peace. I have no doubt that we will find a
willing -- if complicated -- partner in a dialogue that
emphasizes substance not procedure and in a quest that defines
specific objectives, not theoretical blueprints. The Jewish
people has not survived through the millenia by being found
wanting of vision in its hours of need. And the American
people have not been the hope of mankind through their history
by subordinating moral values to tactical expedience.

So let us end the controversies and turn to the future.
And Golda, whom we honor, watchful, deeply devoted, infinitely
caring, symbolizes our necessity and guarantees our opportunity.

-6-

Golda is an idealist without illusions. She believes in strength and at the same time yearns heart and soul for peace. Golda was a ferocious negotiator and a woman of powerful convictions. But, when she gave you her word, you could absolutely count on it. Once she made up her mind to do something, even if it was difficult and painful, she followed through with enormous courage and extraordinary ability. She was a true leader and a great statesman. And I am proud to say she was and remains a true friend.

Tonight it is appropriate that she is honored by the American Jewish Congress, whose very first convention, in 1918 in Philadelphia, she attended as a 20-year-old delegate from Milwaukee. No one better represents the indomitable spirit of her people. No one is so universally admired and loved. We owe it to Golda to build a world in which mothers need no longer fear for the future of their children, in which holocausts become attributes of an incomprehensible past, in which the struggles of Golda's generation will be validated by a world in which all peoples will at last live together in genuine security and turn their energies to the tasks of construction.

So you see, Golda, what you have made me do -- a long speech without the impatient interruption that would have long since been my lot in that little study in your residence where we spent so many hours that I shall always treasure.

There remains only for me to say: Golda, you have inspired us. May you live a long time, for your life is our glory.

It is a great personal honor for me to invite Golda Meir to the podium to give her this small token of our enormous affection, the Stephen Wise medallion.

The medallion reads: "Golda Meir: For a lifetime of courageous and inspiring leadership of the Jewish people."

- 12 -

PR#4

REMARKS BY THE SECRETARY

Rabbi Schindler, Rabbi Miller, Ambassador Dinitz, Mr. Hellman, I would like to express, first of all, my appreciation for the thoughtfulness of the Presidents Organization in insuring that every speaker here would have an accent. (Laughter)

I have had, as you can see, in recent years the opportunity that every Jewish mother dreams for her son, to do something for the peace of the world and never miss a meal. (Laughter)

So, as I am eating myself out of this job, I want to express my profound appreciation for the fact of this meeting, for the words that have been spoken, and for the genuine warmth of the atmosphere.

I have dealt with the Presidents Organization throughout my term as Secretary of State, and I need not tell you that they are composed of a rugged group of individualists, united only by a wary suspiciousness of all forms of government. (Laughter)

I have had also the privilege of dealing with the Israeli Ambassador, who is the Ambassador of the only country in the world where the representative in Washington can be criticized for having too close a relationship with the Secretary of State. (Laughter)

Now, as I understand it, the Ambassador has been accused, at the risk of his political career -- I would think correctly -- as being a friend of mine.

All I can tell you is, I don't know how he treats his opponents. (Laughter)

I have learned from him, and from the Presidents Organization, the wisdom of a remark made to me once by Abba Eban in what I thought was a joking way. "We Israelis and Jews consider objectivity a hundred percent agreement with our point of view." (Laughter)

I thought my friend, Abba Eban, was joking when he made that remark. (Laughter) I realized later that he was threatening me. (Laughter)

I was handed, yesterday, a speech which my associates thought it would be appropriate for me to read to this distinguished group. I will leave that assignment to my successor. (Laughter)

You and I have gone through a great deal together in recent years, and I thought that if this meeting made any sense, it

PR#4

-13-

would be if I spoke to you from the heart about some of
the considerations on my mind.

We have had, of necessity, a very complicated relationship.
From my point of view, probably no criticism has hurt me
more than if it came from this community. And probably from
your point of view, it was especially painful if disagreements
occurred between the Jewish community and the first Jewish
Secretary of State in American history.

I like to believe, with my friend Simcha, that the disagreements
never went to the heart of our relationship, that they
usually concerned tactics by which to achieve fundamentally
agreed objectives.

But I thought it was important for the future of Israel and
for the future of the Jewish people, that the actions that the
United States Government took were not seen to be the result
of a special, personal relationship, but that the support we
gave Israel reflected not my personal preferences alone, but
the basic national interests of the United States, transcending
the accident of who might be in office at any particular period.

I have never forgotten that thirteen members of my family died
in concentration camps, nor could I ever fail to remember what it
was like to live in Nazi Germany as a member of a persecuted
minority.

I believe, however, that the relationship of Israel to the
United States transcends these personal considerations. I
do not believe that it is compatible with the moral conscience
of mankind to permit Israel to suffer in the Middle East a
ghetto existence that has been suffered by Jews in many
individual countries throughout their history.

The support for a free and democratic Israel in the Middle
East is a moral necessity of our period, to be pursued by
every administration, and with a claim to the support of all
freedom-loving people all over the world.

So, we begin in our concerns with the moral and the human
dimension.

Beyond that, any nation has a right to live in security, and
not to be dependent for its survival on the good will of its
neighbors. It must be a basic principle of American policy
that Israel must be strong enough so that its decisions are
made by free choice, and are not imposed on it by a combination of
outside factors or by its neighbors.

And therefore, it must be a principle of American policy that
Israel must always be strong enough to defend itself, and that

PR#4

the United States must see to it that Israel is strong enough, because only then can a peace that is negotiated be lasting, and only then can peace be perceived to be just.

I have believed that an effort must be made to advance the prospects of peace in the Middle East. And no people can have a greater interest in it than those who for thousands of years have been subjected to the arbitrary will of many host countries-- for a nation that in its existence has never known recognition and acceptance by its immediate neighbors.

Historians will have to judge the methods that were appropriate. But that the relations between countries, divided by distrust, and suffering for a generation, could not be repaired easily and quickly, that the attempt to solve everything at once involved the risk of catastrophe, as well as the prospects of success, can never be overlooked.

The difference between statesmen and those who observe from the outside is that there are some experiments that statesmen cannot try, because the consequences of their failure would be too profound.

I believe now that there are some prospects for peace in the Middle East. The influence of hostile outside powers is less than at any time in decades. The influence of radical elements within the Middle East has been reduced. But it is an effort that requires patience and wisdom, and above all a profound understanding for the dilemma of a people like Israel, which cannot afford to make a mistake, and which cannot entrust itself simply to abstract declarations of good will. Because if a mistake is made, it is likely to be irrevocable.

Rabbi Schindler pointed out that maybe I am glad to be rid of this group, but I do not believe I will ever be rid of this group. (Laughter and Applause) And frankly, I do not want ever to be rid of this group, though I may retract this in a few months.. (Laughter)

The problems of security and of peace in the Middle East will be with us for as long as we can see. I will remain dedicated, as a friend of Israel, and as a friend of this group, for as long as I live. And I want you to know that this meeting has meant a great deal to me. Throughout their history, Jews have been saying to themselves, "Next year in Jerusalem."

I would like to think that sometime soon, we can say this in its deepest sense, in an Israel that is secure, that is accepted, that is at peace. And it will always mean a great deal to me to have worked with this group, and with my friends in Israel, to

PR#4

15

achieve this objective.

Thank you. (Applause)

* * * * *

THE CHAIRMAN: My friends, no words need be spoken, because what we have felt cannot be captured by words. It belongs to that realm of the intimate which cannot be encompassed by earthbound language.

We have sought our brother and we have found him, and we are profoundly grateful for this experience.

Courtesy demands that our speaker leave first. When he does, and without further benefit of clergy, this beautiful meeting stands adjourned.

Thank you. (Applause)

* * * * *

The Secretary
of State

Speech

October 19, 1976

New York, N.Y.

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

MORAL PROMISE AND PRACTICAL NEEDS

Secretary Henry A. Kissinger before the Synagogue Council of America 50th Anniversary Jubilee Dinner.

Americans are today in the midst of the quadrennial debate about our past, our present, and the future we hope to create. It is a dramatic demonstration of the strength of our democracy and the greatness of our Nation. Whatever the outcome, Americans should take pride that they have once again shown the vigor of a free society which gives hope to the countless millions around the world who are dominated by oppressive regimes and intolerant ideologies.

It is also—let us be frank—a time of confusion and of exaggeration. Some tell us we are weak; others tell us we are strong. Some tell us that our prestige is declining; others assert that our global influence for peace and progress has never been greater. Some tell us we are in retreat around the world; others tell us we have never been more respected, more successful abroad than we are today.

As Secretary of State I am, of course, detached from partisan debate, although I seem to find my sympathies, for some reason, lying with "others" rather than the "some."

But no matter how strongly Americans may disagree on specific issues, the history of the post-war period has left no doubt about the nature of our global responsibility. Without America's commitment there can be no real security in the world. Without our dedication there can be no progress. Without our strength peoples all over the world will live in fear. Without our faith they will live in despair.

America's contribution to world affairs has derived from our conviction that while history is often cruel, fate can be shaped by human faith and courage. Our optimism has enabled us to understand that the greatest achievements were a dream before they became a reality. We have learned through experience, as few people have, that all that is creative is ultimately a moral affirmation—the faith that dares in the absence of certainty; the courage to go forward in the face of adversity.

All of us here are deeply concerned about the survival and security of Israel. But we also know that the fate of even our closest friends cannot be assured in a vacuum. Peace, progress, and justice will not be securely won for America or Israel unless they are embedded in a peaceful, progressive, and just international order. The task of building such an order is the fundamental challenge of our time.

No people has experienced more of man's exaltation—and man's depravity—than the Jewish people. The Jewish people know that survival requires unending struggle. But they know as well that peace, if it is to be more than a prophet's dream, must rest on the conscience of mankind made real by the concrete efforts of all peoples and all nations.

America, because of its own heritage, is perennially engaged in such a search of its conscience. How does our foreign policy serve moral ends? How can America carry forward its role as a humane example and champion of justice in a world in which power is still often the final arbiter? How do we secure both our existence and our

PR 519

2

values? How do we reconcile ends and means, principle and survival?

These questions have been asked throughout our history; they are being posed again today, as they should. But they require more than simple answers and easy slogans.

There is no doubt that policy without moral purpose is like a ship without a rudder, drifting aimlessly from crisis to crisis. A policy of pure calculation will be empty of both vision and humanity. It will lack not only direction but also roots and heart. Americans have always held the view that America stood for a moral purpose above and beyond its material achievements.

But we must recall as well that policy is the art of the possible, the science of the relative. We live in a world of 150 sovereign states, profound ideological differences, and nuclear weapons. Our power is enormous, but it is still finite. A truly moral policy must relate ends to means and commitments to capabilities. America, to be true to itself, must keep its eyes on distant horizons; we must also keep our feet planted firmly in reality. We must learn to distinguish morality from moralizing. We must remember that the invocation of lofty principles has led, in our history, as frequently to abdication as to overcommitment. Either tendency would be disastrous for international order and our well-being.

The challenge of American foreign policy is to live up to America's moral promise while fulfilling the practical needs of world order. How we meet it will determine the peace and progress of America and of the world.

This is the subject I would like to discuss with you today.

## Ideals and Foreign Policy

From its beginning, Americans have believed that this country had a moral significance that transcended its geographic, military, or economic power. Unique among the nations of the world, America was created as a conscious act by men dedicated to a set of political and ethical principles they believed to be of universal applicability. Small wonder, then, that Santayana concluded that: "Being an American is, of itself, almost a moral condition."

But this idealism has also been in constant tension with another deep-seated strain in our historical experience. Since De Tocqueville, it has

been frequently observed that we are a pragmatic people—common-sensical, undogmatic, and undoctrinaire—a nation of practical energy, ingenuity, and spirit. We have made tolerance and compromise the basis of our domestic political life. We have defined our basic goals—justice, liberty, equality, and progress—in open and libertarian terms, enlarging opportunity and freedom rather than coercing a uniform standard of conduct.

America has been most effective internationally when we have combined our idealistic and our pragmatic traditions. The Founding Fathers were idealists who launched a new experiment in human liberty. But they were also sophisticated men of the world; they understood the European balance of power and manipulated it brilliantly to secure their independence. For a century thereafter, we devoted our energies to the development of our continent, content to influence the world by moral example. Shielded by two oceans and the British Navy and blessed by a bountiful nature, we came to believe our special situation was universally valid, even for nations whose narrower margin of survival meant that their range of choices was far more limited than our own. We disparaged power even as we grew strong; we tended to see our successes as the product not of fortunate circumstances but of virtue and purity of motive.

As our power grew we became uncomfortable with its uses and responsibilities and impatient with the compromises of day-to-day diplomacy. Our rise to the status of a great power was feared and resisted by many Americans who foresaw only a process of deepening involvement in a morally questionable world.

In the early decades of this century we sought to reconcile the tension between ideals and interests by confining ourselves to humanitarian efforts and resort to our belief in the preeminence of law. We pioneered in relief programs; we championed free trade and the cause of foreign investment. We attempted to legislate solutions to international conflicts—we experimented with arbitration, conciliation, judicial arrangements, treaties to abolish war, neutrality legislation, collective security systems.

These efforts to banish the reality of power were aborted by our involvement in two World Wars. While we had a clear security interest in a Europe free from domination by any one power we clothed that interest in assertions that we

3

would do battle for universal moral objectives—"a war to end all wars" or the unconditional surrender of the aggressor.

Disillusionment set in as the outcome of both World Wars necessarily fell short of expectations. After the first war, a tide of isolationist sentiment rose, in which moral proclamations were coupled with an unwillingness to undertake concrete commitments. We were loath to face a world of imperfect security, alliances of convenience, recurrent crises, and the need for a political structure that would secure the peace.

We undertook our first sustained period of peacetime world leadership in the decades after World War II, with a supreme self-assurance fortunately matched by overwhelming material superiority. And we faced an antagonist whose political system and actions on the world scene explicitly threatened the very existence of our most cherished principles.

In a period of seemingly clear-cut, black-and-white divisions, we harbored few doubts about the validity of our traditional approach. We saw economic problems around the world—which we had solved successfully in our own country—and sought to overwhelm them with the sheer weight of resources, often with startling success. We projected our domestic experience overseas and assumed that economic progress automatically led to political stability. And in the process, without making a conscious decision to do so, we were trying to shape the world to our design.

## Complexities of the Contemporary World

Our postwar policy was marked by great achievements—the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, the resistance to aggression, the encouragement of decolonization. But we no longer live in so simple a world.

We remain the strongest nation and the largest single influence in international affairs. For 30 years our leadership has sustained world peace, progress, and justice. Our leadership is no less needed today, but it must be redefined to meet changing conditions. Ours is no longer a world of American nuclear monopoly but one of substantial nuclear equivalence. Ours is no longer a world of two solid blocs and clear-cut dividing lines but one of proliferating centers of power and influence. Ours is no longer a world amenable to national or

regional solutions but one of economic interdependence and common global challenges.

Thus for the first time in American experience, we can neither escape from the world nor dominate it. Rather, we—like all other nations in history—must now conduct diplomacy with subtlety, flexibility, persistence, and imagination if we are to preserve and forward our national goals.

We can no longer impose our own solutions; yet our action or inaction will influence events, often decisively. We cannot banish power from international affairs, but we can use our vast power wisely and firmly to deter aggression and encourage restraint. We can encourage the resolution of disputes through negotiation. We can help construct more equitable relations between developed and developing nations and a wider community of interest among all nations. And we must continue to stand for freedom and human dignity in the world.

These are worthy goals. They can be achieved. But they summon a different dimension of moral conviction than that of a simpler past. They require the stamina to persevere amid ambiguity and endless exertion—the courage to hold fast to what we believe in while recognizing that at any one time our hopes are likely to be only partially fulfilled.

We must always keep in mind that it was precisely under the banners of universal moralistic slogans that a decade and a half ago we launched into adventures that divided our country and undermined our international position. It is only in the last few years that we have finally begun to bring our commitments into line with our capabilities.

Clearly we must maintain our values and our principles; but we risk disaster unless we relate them to concepts of the national interest and international order that are based not on impulse but on a sense of steady purpose that can be maintained by the American people for the long term.

This is not a choice between morality and pragmatism. We cannot escape either and still remain true to our national character or to the needs of the world community. Our cause must be just, but it must prosper in a world of sovereign nations and competing wills. We can achieve no positive ends unless we survive, and survival has its practical necessities. Neither moralistic rhetoric nor ob session with pure power politics will produce a

4

foreign policy worthy of our opportunity—or adequate for our survival.

## Morality of Ends and Means

America—and the community of nations—today faces inescapable tasks.

* We must maintain a secure and just peace.

* We must create a cooperative and beneficial international order.

* We must defend the rights and the dignity of man.

Each of these challenges has both a moral and a practical dimension. Each involves important ends—but ends that are sometimes in conflict. When that is the case we face the real moral dilemma of foreign policy: the need to choose between valid ends and to relate our ends to means.

Peace. In an age when nuclear cataclysm threatens mankind's very survival, peace is a fundamental moral imperative. Without it nothing else we do or seek can ultimately have meaning. Let there be no mistake about it: Averting the danger of nuclear war and limiting and ultimately reducing destructive nuclear arsenals is a moral, as well as political, act.

In the nuclear age traditional power politics, the struggle for marginal advantages, the drive for prestige and unilateral gains must yield to an unprecedented sense of responsibility. History teaches us that balances based on constant tests of strength have always erupted into war. But common sense tells us that in the nuclear age history cannot be permitted to repeat itself. Every President, sooner or later, will conclude with President Eisenhower that "there is no alternative to peace."

But peace, however crucial, cannot be our *only* goal. To seek it at any price would render us morally defenseless and place the world at the mercy of the most ruthless. Mankind must do more, as Tacitus said, than make a desert and call it peace.

There will be no security in a world whose obsession with peace leads to appeasement; but neither will there be security in a world in which mock tough rhetoric and the accumulation of arms is the sole measure of competition. We owe our

people a convincing justification for their exertions; we can spare no effort to bequeath to future generations a peace more hopeful than an equilibrium of terror.

Barely four years ago demonstrations in the streets demanded "peace" as overriding all other considerations; today policies of conciliation are frequently denounced as unilateral concessions. Both extremes falsify our challenge. In the search for peace we are continually called upon to strike balances—between strength and conciliation, between the need to defend our values and our interests and the need to take into account the views of others, between partial and total settlements.

The task of foreign policy is to find that balance between competing ends and between ends and means. The problems of timing, method, feasibility impose themselves on any conscientious policy decision. There are certain experiments that cannot be tried, not because the goals are undesirable but because the consequences of failure would be so severe that not even the most elevated goals can justify the risk.

The Middle East provides a vivid example. No people yearn for comprehensive peace more than the people of Israel, whose existence has not been recognized by any of its neighbors throughout its history. There are those who argue that in the aftermath of the 1973 war the entire complex of Arab-Israeli issues—borders, peace obligations, refugees—should have been approached simultaneously at one conference. But the proponents of this course ignore the fact that at the time it would probably have proved disastrous—the United States had no diplomatic relations with several of the key Arab countries, the Soviet Union was in effect the lawyer for the Arab cause, an oil embargo was still in effect, and hostility between the Arab states and Israel remained at the flashpoint.

Under such conditions the chances for success of a comprehensive approach were slight and the penalties for failure were far-reaching—a continuation of the oil embargo, a prolonged freeze in U.S. relations with the Arab world, the corresponding growth of Soviet influence, strains with our allies in Europe and Japan, the increased isolation of Israel and the likelihood, therefore, of a resolution of the Middle East war in even more difficult circumstances.

5

We chose to proceed step-by-step on those issues where room for agreement seemed to exist. We sought to establish a new relationship with the Arab world, to reduce the Soviet capacity for exploiting tensions, and to build a new sense of confidence in the parties directly involved so that overall solutions would someday be possible. We approached peace in stages but with the intention of ultimately merging individual steps into a comprehensive solution.

In the brief space of 18 months three agreements were reached—two between Egypt and Israel and one between Syria and Israel. As a result the possibilities of achieving a genuine peace are greater today than they have ever been.

Deep suspicions remain, but the first important steps have been taken. The beginnings of mutual trust—never before in evidence—are emerging. Some Arab states, for the first time, are openly speaking of peace and ending a generation of conflict. The capacity of outside countries to exacerbate tensions has been reduced. The step-by-step approach has thus brought us to a point where comprehensive approaches are the logical next step. The decision before us now is not whether but how the next phase of negotiations should be launched. And we will engage in it—together with our Israeli friends—with new hope and confidence.

**International Cooperation.** America's second moral imperative is the growing need for global cooperation.

We live in a world of more than 150 countries, each asserting sovereignty and claiming the right to realize its national aspirations. Clearly no nation can fulfill *all* its goals without infringing on the rights of others. Hence, compromise and common endeavors are inescapable on some issues, at least. The growing interdependence of states in the face of the polarizing tendencies of nationalism and ideologies makes imperative the building of world community.

We live in an age of division—division between East and West and between the advanced industrial nations and the developing nations. Clearly a world in which a few nations constitute islands of wealth in a sea of poverty, disease, and despair is fundamentally insecure and morally intolerable. Those nations that consider themselves dispossessed will

become the seedbed of upheaval. But the tactics of confrontation with which some of the developing nations have pursued their goals are also both intolerable and unsafe.

The challenge of world community will require realistic assumptions and actions by North and South alike. The industrial nations should not be obsessed with guilt or wedded to the status quo. The developing nations should not seek to gain their objectives through extortion or blackmail. What is required all around is a serious dedication to the requirements of cooperation without which neither group can achieve its goals.

The objectives of the developing nations are clear: They want economic development, a role in international decisions that affect them, and a fair share of global economic benefits. The goals of the industrial nations are equally clear: widening prosperity, an open world system of trade and investments with expanding markets for North and South, and reliable and equitable development of the world's resources of food, energy, and raw materials.

The goals of both sides can be achieved only if they are seen as complementary rather than antagonistic. The process of building a new era of international economic relationships will continue through the rest of this century. If those relationships are to be equitable and lasting, negotiation and compromise among diverse and contending interests will clearly be required. Above all a moral act will be necessary: on the part of the industrial nations, a willingness to make—while there is still time for conciliation—the sacrifices necessary to build a sense of community; and on the part of the developing nations, a readiness to forego blackmail and extortion—now, before the world is irrevocably split into contending camps—and to seek progress through cooperation.

For its part the United States is committed to the path of cooperation, to build a stable and creative world which all nations—new and old, weak and strong, rich and poor—have a stake in preserving because they had a part in its shaping.

**Human Values.** Our third moral imperative is the nurturing of human values. It is the tragedy of our times that the very tools of technology that have made ours the most productive century in the history of man have also served to subject millions

6

to a new dimension of intimidation and suffering and fear.

Individual freedom of conscience and expression is the proudest heritage of our civilization. All we do in the search for peace, in the struggle for greater political cooperation, and for a fair and flourishing international economy is rooted in our belief that only liberty permits the fullest expression of mankind's creativity. We know that technological progress without justice mocks humanity, that national unity without freedom is a hollow triumph, and that nationalism without a consciousness of human community—including a concern for human rights—is likely to become an instrument of oppression and a force for evil.

It is our obligation, as the world's leading democracy, to dedicate ourselves to assuring freedom for the human spirit. But responsibility compels also a recognition of our limits. Our alliances—the political relationships built up between ourselves and other nations over the years—serve the cause of peace by strengthening regional and world security. If well conceived, they are not favors to others but a recognition of common interests. They should be withdrawn when those interests change; they should not, as a general rule, be used as levers to extort a standard of conduct or to punish acts with which we do not agree.

In many countries—whatever our differences with their internal structures—the people are unified in seeking our protection against outside aggression. In many countries our foreign policy relationships have proved to be no obstacle to the forces of change. And in others the process of American disengagement has eroded the sense of security, creating a perceived need for greater internal discipline, while at the same time diminishing our ability to influence the domestic practices we criticize.

There is no simple answer to the dilemma a great democracy faces under such circumstances. We have a moral, as well as a practical, obligation to stand up for our values and to combat injustice. Those who speak out for freedom and expose the transgressions of repressive regimes do so in the best American tradition. They can have—and have had—a dramatic and heartening impact. But there are also times when an effort to teach another country a moral lesson can backfire on the values we seek to promote.

This Administration has believed that we must bend every effort to enhance respect for human rights but that a public crusade is frequently not the most effective method. Our objective has been results, not publicity. We were concerned—and with good reason—that when such sensitive issues are transformed into tests of strength between Governments, the impulse for national prestige will defeat the most worthy goals. We have generally opposed attempts to deal with sensitive international human rights issues through legislation—not because of the moral view expressed, which we share, but because legislation is almost always too inflexible, too public, and too heavyhanded a means to accomplish what it seeks.

Through quiet diplomacy, this Administration has brought about the release or parole of hundreds of prisoners throughout the world and mitigated repressive conditions in numerous countries. But we have seldom publicized specific successes.

The most striking example has been the case of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. The number of Soviet Jews who were permitted to emigrate in 1968 was 400; by 1973 that number had risen to 35,000. The reason for this quantum leap lies largely in persistent but private approaches to the Soviet Government and the parallel overall improvement in U.S.-Soviet relations. Hundreds of hardship cases were dealt with in quiet personal discussions by the President or his senior officials. No public announcement or confrontation ever took place. But the results were there for all to see. When even greater advances were sought by confrontation and legislation, the result was tragic. Today Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union has dropped to approximately 10,000 a year.

I stress this not to score debating points against men whose seriousness of purpose and dedication to Jewish emigration I greatly respect. Rather it is to indicate that moral ends are often not enough in themselves. The means used also have a moral quality and moral consequences.

And whatever honest differences of opinion may have existed between concerned individuals about the problem of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union, this Administration remains dedicated to the objective. It will spare no effort to increase the flow of emigrants once again and will

7

cooperate with the relevant organizations in that
effort.

The issue of human rights is not—as I have
said—an easy one and it should be presented with a
full awareness of its complexity. The experience of
the last decade should have taught us that we
ought not to exaggerate our capacity to foresee, let
alone to shape, social and political change in other
societies. With this painful lesson in mind, let me
state the principles that guide the actions of the
Ford Administration.

* Human rights are a legitimate international concern and have been so defined in international agreements for more than a generation.

* The United States will further the cause of human rights in appropriate international forums and in exchanges with other Governments. We will use all our influence to encourage humane conduct within and between nations.

* We will be mindful of the limits of our reach; we will be conscious of the difference between public postures that satisfy our self-esteem and policies that bring positive results.

* We will never forget that the victims of our failures—of omission or commission—are human beings and thus the ultimate test of all we do.

We thus return to the central problem of ends and means. If every nation of the world presses for the immediate implementation of all of its values, hopes, and desires, eternal conflict is inevitable. If we insist that others accept all our moral preferences, are we then ready to use military force to protect those who do as we urge? And if those who refuse our prescriptions are deprived of our support, what will we do if the isolation of these Governments tempts external pressures or attack by other countries even more repressive? Will we have served moral ends if we thereby jeopardize our own security?

If we back up universal moral claims with power, we take upon ourselves the role of the world's policeman—a role which the American people have rejected in a decade of turmoil. But if we fail to back up these claims, we will lose relevance and credibility; we will be conducting a policy of self-gratification without effectiveness and ultimately without stature. Is it more moral to attempt what cannot be accomplished and fail than

to make only those commitments that we know we
can keep?

There is nothing more essential for Americans
today than the need to recognize the inevitable and
inescapable tension between our moral aims—
which of necessity are stated in universal terms—
and the constant imperative of choice that is
imposed upon us by competing goals and finite
resources. The making and implementing of foreign
policy is, like life, a constant effort to strike the
right balance between the best we want and the
best we can have, between the ends we seek and
the means we adopt. We need moral strength to
select among often agonizing choices and a sense of
ethical purpose to navigate between the shoals of
difficult decisions. But we need as well a mature
sense of means, lest we substitute wishful thinking
for the requirements of survival. The ultimate test
of morality in foreign policy is not only the values
we proclaim but what we are willing and able to
implement.

Conclusion

I have discussed the dilemmas of moral choice
not to counsel resignation but as a message of
hope. Fond as we are of self-flagellation—especially
in years divisible by four—Americans can take
pride in the achievements of their foreign policy in
recent years, which have both a moral and a
practical foundation.

* We have ended the war we found and preserved the peace.

* We have restructured and strengthened our partnerships with the industrial democracies and our sister republics in this hemisphere.

* We have opened new relationships with ad-
versaries.

* We have begun to curb the nuclear arms race.

* We have helped to sow the seeds of peace in
the Middle East and begun the process of concilia-
tion in southern Africa.

* We have put forth and begun to implement a comprehensive agenda for cooperation between the industrial and developing worlds to combat poverty, ignorance, disease, misery, and hunger.

* We have worked with others on new global challenges that transcend boundaries and ideologies—the problems of pollution, of sharing the resources of the sea, of the transfer of technology.

8

* We have defended our values and interests around the globe.

But an agenda of such scope inevitably remains unfinished. Great opportunities lie before us.

* The industrial democracies can usher in a new and dynamic period of creativity in their relations with each other and lay the foundation for a new approach to the developing world.

* We have an early opportunity to place a ceiling on strategic nuclear arsenals and move on from there to reduce them.

* We can build on the promising foundations of the new relationship with the People's Republic of China.

* We have the possibility of major progress toward peace in the Middle East while strengthening our commitment to the security and survival of Israel.

* We can help the peoples of Africa reach for conciliation, human justice, and development rather than violence and hatred.

* We can see to it that the atom is used for mankind's benefit, not its destruction.

* The developing countries can become true partners in the international community.

* All countries can work together to fashion a global community both on land and in the vast domains of the oceans.

In pursuing these goals we must have the courage to face complexity and the inner conviction to deal with ambiguity; we must be prepared to look behind easy slogans and recognize that great goals can only be reached by patience and often only in gradual stages.

A world of turmoil and danger cries out for structure and leadership. The times summon a steady, resolute, purposeful, and self-assured America. This requires confidence—the leaders' confidence in their values, the public's confidence in its Government, and the Nation's collective confidence in the worth of its objectives. It is time to remind ourselves that while we may disagree about means, as Americans we all share the same dreams—peace, prosperity, and justice in our Nation and throughout the world.

Many years ago Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that no nation could long endure "half slave and half free," and touched the conscience of a nation. Today people the world over cry out for liberty, dignity, respect; and they look with hope and longing to America—for we have touched the conscience of all mankind. If we hold to our ideals, if we set our sights high but without self-indulgence, the generations that come after us may at last be able to say that no man is a slave and no man a master.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S.A.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20520

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
STA-501

PR #237

Governor Mandel, Senators Mathias and Beall, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am grateful for the honor you do me today. After the events of the past few weeks, I had come to believe that I would never again receive a kind word from a "conservative" organization.

The state of Maryland will have an increasing number of out of state visitors in the next few weeks. I also am a visitor, but with a different motive. All I want is a quiet and friendly town to seek asylum.

I want to take a few moments this evening to recall some of our basic objectives and opportunities in the world — the permanent interests and concerns for which this nation is responsible, and why our commitment to the security and survival of Israel is an essential element of our global policy.

We have been committed for thirty years to the maintenance of global peace. No other nation has the strength to do so without us. The United States for thirty years has been the engine of the world economy and the promoter of economic development. No other nation has the resources or technology or managerial skill to do so alone.

Without our commitment there can be no security; without our dedication there can be no progress. This role is not an act of altruism but a matter of vital self-interest. Upheavals in key areas — such as the Middle East — menace our friends and allies, jeopardize our prosperity, and raise the risk of global confrontation. The Middle East war of 1973 brought a confrontation with the Soviet Union and contributed to the most severe recession in the postwar period.

But neither peace nor progress comes inevitably or automatically. These goals are mere abstractions if they are not pursued with strength, vision and conviction. For a generation America has been the leader in maintaining the balance of power, in offering help to friends to ensure their survival, in mediating conflicts, in building and sustaining international cooperation for economic progress. We could not have done so without our strength; we would not have done so without our convictions.

Today we can be proud of where we stand.

After 35 years of continual tensions and intermittent conflict, America is now at peace; no American is at war anywhere in the world. Militarily, our power is vast and growing, superior in technology and in the most important categories of strategic strength. We have solid and secure allies. Our readiness and our resolve deter wars and buttress global stability.

Economically, the United States and the great industrialized democracies have shown once again the resiliency and basic vigor of free economies. We have successfully come through a period of recession and inflation induced in large part by drastic and unwarranted oil price increases. The solidarity of our major alliances has dramatically proved itself in a new sphere of common endeavor — economic recovery and energy policy — adding another dimension of unity above and beyond our collective defense.

Our founding fathers were men of faith and vision.

PR #237

-3-

Americans have always believed that what we did mattered not just for ourselves but for all mankind. We have been the bulwark of democracy, a refuge for those fleeing persecution, and the most humanitarian nation in history.

Since the end of World War II global peace and prosperity have depended to an extra-
ordinary degree upon America. Throughout this period America's might has always
been used to defend, never to oppress. So it will be in the future.

The relationship between America and Israel rests fundamentally on this moral basis. If the world is to be peaceful and equitable, the conduct of nations must have an ethical foundation. Those who have suffered from its absence, who have been victimized by arbitrary power — and no people has been more than the Jewish people — know in their bones how without ethical principles the ruthless will rule and the weak will suffer. Peace with justice must have a special meaning for a people — like the Jewish people — who have, through history, sought it so fervently, but experienced it so rarely.

For all these reasons, Americans look upon Israel as a loyal friend committed, as are we, to the principles of freedom and democracy. We value the part we played in creating the State of Israel and in sustaining its survival. The United States can never ignore its moral responsibility for the fate of nations which rely upon us as the ultimate defender of their survival and freedom. We are thoroughly convinced that Israel's survival is inseparable from the future of human dignity and we shall never forget that Israel's security has a special claim on the conscience of mankind.

Nor will we forget that the true strength of friendship lies in our honesty and candor with each other. Our relationship with Israel is too important for us to delude ourselves with less than our honest opinions. We do not prove our friendship by ignoring the realities we both face. We undermine our common future if, for temporary expediency, we tell each other fairy tales. We prove our good intentions by working together with dedication, facing hardship and reality for the common good, and above all by never forgetting how important our partnership is for all that we each seek in the world.

America's aim is a just and lasting peace in the Middle East — and so is Israel's.
During the United Nations consideration of the Palestine question over 25 years
ago, an American diplomat expressed the hope that, "the day will come when the Jews
and Arabs in the Middle East will live together in the true spirit of Christian
brotherhood." We may be amused by the phrase, but it reflects a basic aspiration.
Israel is entitled to live with its neighbors in the same sense of safety and
normalcy that is taken for granted almost everywhere else in the world.

The United States and Israel can debate over tactics but never over the basic
reality that our relationship with each other is special for reasons that transcend
tactics. What ties us together is not legal documents but a moral connection which
cannot be severed.

A Strong Defense

The second strand of American policy is a realistic appreciation of the importance of American strength. Aspirations for a better world are empty without the strength to implement them. No one should understand better than the Jewish people that

PR #237

-4-

weakness is not a virtue and that righteousness alone is no protection in a world of insecurity and injustice.

There can be no security without equilibrium, and no safety without the restraint which a balance of power imposes. Only when the rights of nations are respected by necessity, when accommodation supplants force, can mankind's energies be devoted to the realization of its higher aspirations.

For thirty years the United States has occupied a central place in the global balance of stability. Our strength or our weakness, our effectiveness or ineffectiveness, affect decisively the calculations of nearly every nation in the world and determine our ability to shape events to our purposes. We cannot surrender one strategic part of the world to those who oppose us and remain secure and unchallenged in another. So those who want America strong in one part of the world have a special obligation to keep it strong in all strategically important areas. Nations, wherever they are located, that rely on us cannot fail to be affected whenever America abdicates responsibility — whether in Asia or in Africa.

The American people have never been comfortable with weakness. We have never relished abdication. And when it is imposed on us by domestic divisions it has its inevitable reaction. It is reassuring to see the American people once again emphatically united on the necessity of a strong defense. This year's defense budget will allow us to continue to improve our military forces — to ensure that no other nation can threaten us, our interests, or our friends.

As President Kennedy wrote, "we did not ask to be the watchman on the walls of freedom." But circumstances have made us so. History taught us that our own tranquility depends on global stability. From Waterloo to Sarajevo, America benefitted from the stability of a world balance of power which maintained global security and prevented international war. That responsibility now rests, in large measure, with us. It is a responsibility we cannot skirt.

The United States will keep its friends and allies strong enough to defend themselves with our support — to ensure that peace is seen clearly by their adversaries to be the only feasible course.

We will not fail to provide for Israel's security. American aid to Israel was $437 million in Fiscal Year 1973; since then it has increased to 2.3 billions of dollars for the current fiscal year — a five-fold increase in three years. Israel now receives about a third of our total foreign assistance. Israel has received $6 billion in aid since its founding; we have proposed $4.1 billion for the next two years. Those who opportunistically question our dedication to the security of Israel should examine these statistics.

## Maintaining a Stable Peace

Strength alone is not enough. It is useful only in the service of a concept of the national interest, and wielded with creativity, wisdom and compassion to shape the course of events. Thus our true strength is not military power, but the dedication of a free people which knows its responsibility, which has a vision of what it seeks and the courage to seek it.

-5-

The United States has never been defeated for lack of military power. All our recent setbacks from Indo-China to Angola have been self-inflicted; they have occurred because of divisions among ourselves that paralyzed our action.

Together there is little we cannot do. Divided, there is little we can attempt.

The most urgent challenge before America is a national consensus on our purposes and objectives. As a nation, we must maintain the balance of power and have the vision to fulfill positive aspirations. There is no ultimate safety in a balance of terror constantly contested. We must vigilantly protect our own security, and that of our allies and friends, but we must also seek to build habits of communications and relationships of cooperation. With respect to our adversaries, we are determined to resist moves to gain unilateral benefits by military pressure, direct or indirect. The United States will not accept any further Angolas. At the same time, we owe it to ourselves, and to the world, to seek to push back the shadow of nuclear holocaust, to slow the strategic arms race, to resolve political problems through negotiation, and to expand our relations on the basis of strict reciprocity.

This process is meant to serve, not to sacrifice, our interests and values. The state of relations between the United States and the Communist powers is vastly better today for us and for global peace than it was ten years ago — when crises were frequent, when communication was rudimentary, and when the world did not have the luxury of criticizing efforts to reduce tensions.

Our policy in the Middle East, similarly, is designed to serve our most positive goals. The extraordinary steps that have been taken in the last few years between Arab states and Israel have brought us progress undreamed of a few short years ago. The process of negotiation between the parties is continuing; the United States remains in a pivotal position to promote a balanced negotiation, to support friends and dampen conflicts. The Middle East today is at a moment of unprecedented opportunity:

- Israel has shown in negotiation the boldness for which it is renowned in battle, and that in turn has made possible concrete political steps toward a durable peace settlement.

- Some of the Arab countries are now at last speaking openly and wisely of making peace and bringing an end to generations of conflict.

- The United States has shown that its determination and ability to promote a just and enduring solution between the parties, to prevent this region from again becoming the focal point of global crisis.

- If we continue to conduct our relationship with the major outside powers with reason and firmness, we can move toward a global environment of restraint that will enhance even further the possibilities of constructive negotiation and progress.

The negotiations ahead in the Middle East will present difficult obstacles and difficult decisions. We understand the complexity of Israel's position. Any negotiation will require Israel to exchange territory in return for political and therefore much less concrete concessions. Even Israel's ultimate goals — a peace treaty and recognition from its neighbors — are inherently intangible. But they

PR #237

-6-

would be the greatest step towards security since the creation of the state. We
do not underestimate the dilemmas and risks that Israel faces in a negotiation.
But they are dwarfed by a continuation of the *status quo*. And we recognize our
obligation, as the principal support for Israel's security, to be understanding of
Israel's specific circumstances in the process of negotiations.

All of us who are friends of Israel and who are at the same time dedicated to further
progress toward peace understand Israel's uncertainties — and at the same time we
share her hope. There will be no imposed solutions; there should be negotiations
between the parties that will eventually have to live in peace.

It is a delicate but careful process, because no American and no friend of Israel
can be ignorant of what is at stake. Much work and many dangers — most immediately
the situation in Lebanon — remain but the peace process has come further than all
but a very few dared hope.

As the process continues, the United States will not weaken Israel by failing to
perceive her needs, or by failing to understand its worries, or by abandoning our
fundamental commitment to its survival and security. In this process there is hope;
in stagnation there are mounting dangers. Together we can achieve what a few years
ago seemed a vain dream: a Middle East whose nations live at peace and with a
consciousness of security.

## A Prosperous World Economic Order

A fourth element of American foreign policy is our commitment to sustain the world economic order. A dominant issue of international relations for the next generation will be the economic division of our planet between North and South — industrial and developing — which has become as pressing an issue as the division between East and West. I have just returned from Nairobi, from addressing a meeting of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, where I put forward new ideas for multilateral cooperation.

Peace would be fragile, indeed, in a world of economic stagnation or frustration,
in an era of economic warfare or unremitting hostility between the industrial world
and the developing world. In the last few years the world community has been
reminded dramatically by the oil embargo and the ensuing recession of the extent to
which economic relations are an essential foundation of the international order.
Bold new policies are needed to make the international economic system more secure
and more dynamic. Therefore, just as we seek to move beyond a balance of power in
East-West relations, so must we transcend tests of strength in North-South relations
in favor of more creative and constructive relationships in tune with the sweep of
human aspirations.

We do so in our own self-interest. As the world's strongest power, the United States
could survive an era of economic warfare. But the American people would not be true
to ourselves were we to turn our backs on the legitimate hopes of tens of millions
for a better life. Our own self-interest requires us to use our preeminent economic
strength to strengthen and build upon the interdependence of all nations in the
global economy.

PR #237

-7-

No other country has our opportunity to build long-term relations of partnership in helping nations to develop their resources and economies. All over the globe American economic strength is admired and sought; it should be seen by us not as a "give-away" but as an unmatchable advantage which can be creatively used to strengthen our diplomacy for peace and the prospects of a stable and just world order.

Israel too has made a great contribution to the cause of constructive relations between the advanced and the developing countries. The imagination and creativity which the pioneering settlers of Israel used to make the desert bloom have been generously offered to many developing countries. We support those initiatives and we will do what we can to assist them.

Israel faces serious economic difficulties in the years ahead, partly because — let us face it squarely — Moses had some shortcomings as a petroleum geologist. In place of natural resources, Israel's economy must be driven by creativity, hard work and determination — assets which fortunately are in abundance in that little country. To prosper, Israel must have access to world markets, and countries and companies that wish to trade with her must be free to do so.

The United States will continue to help Israel's economy overcome world recession, higher petroleum prices and the costs of a strong national defense. The United States is committed to ending restrictions on Israel's rights to trade and on the rights of others to trade with Israel. Steps toward peace in the political and military field must include steps to end the economic warfare.

## America and Israel

As America makes progress toward all its broad objectives of global peace and well-being, the world is made safer for all countries that rely on us. But if legislative battles and domestic divisions weaken America's leadership, it will not be America alone which pays the price. Our friends and allies will grievously suffer.

Americans and Israelis must work together creatively and boldly in the challenging period ahead. Diplomacy at its best is a process of creation, not of passive reactions to events. For Americans and Israelis above all, who have always shaped actions out of purposes, there is no excuse for political wrangling that in perilous times makes coherent and purposive action impossible.

America has a special responsibility. Never has there been any question about our physical power. As our economy rebounds from recession, there is every reason for confidence about our long-term — and indeed permanent — superiority in the economic and technological strength that is the basis of our military power as well as of our economic welfare. The challenge to us at this point in our history is whether we can restore the consensus and national confidence that can make this power effective for our goals.

I am optimistic. We are not weak; we are only hesitant. It lies within us to remedy our difficulties.

The former Foreign Minister of France, Maurice Couve de Murville, said on the floor of the French Assembly three days ago: "The instability in the world is above all a result of the American crisis caused by the defeat in Viet-Nam and the Watergate affair, rather than by the increase in Soviet power . . ."

PR #237

-8-

Americans know that when all is said and done, there cannot be peace for one nation. There must be peace for all nations, or all are in jeopardy.

The world looks to us. This is one fact that I have found whatever continent I have visited — Africa, Latin America, Asia, or Europe. Although we no longer enjoy the preponderant power we once had, we are still the strongest single country, and a nation recognized throughout the world for its honesty, its decency and unselfishness. If we persevere, if we use our great moral and physical influence to maintain the balance of power, promote world prosperity, mediate conflicts, and put our considerable weight on the scales of justice — if in short we do as we have always done — we will usher in an unparalleled period of progress and peace.

President Roosevelt once said that his generation of Americans had a rendezvous with destiny. Let it be said of our generation of Americans that they have had a rendezvous with peace and with progress.

* * * * *