5

oceans and outer space—these are concerns that affect all nations and that can be satisfactorily addressed only in a framework of international cooperation.

Here too we need to sustain a complex policy. We must resist tactics of confrontation; but our larger goal must be to shape new international relationships that will last over decades to come. We will not be stampeded by pressures or threats. But it is in our own interest to create an international economic system that all nations will regard as legitimate because they have a stake in it and because they consider it just.

As the world's strongest power, the United States could survive an era of economic warfare. But even we would be hurt, and no American true to the humane heritage of his country could find satisfaction in the world that confrontation would bring in its wake. The benefits of common effort are so apparent and the prospects of economic strife so damaging that there is no moral or practical alternative to a world of expanded collaboration.

Therefore at the World Food Conference in 1974, at the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly last September, and in the Conference on International Economic Cooperation now underway in Paris the United States has taken the lead in offering programs of practical cooperation. We have presented—and are vigorously following through—on a wide range of proposals to safeguard export earnings, accelerate industrial and agricultural growth, better conditions of trade and investment in key commodities, and meet the plight of the poorest countries. In every area of concern we have proposed forms of collaboration among all nations, including the other industrial countries, the newly wealthy oil producers, and the developing countries themselves.

It is the West—and overwhelmingly this Nation—that has the resources, the technology, the skills, the organizational ability, and the goodwill that attract and invite the cooperation of the developing nations. In the global dialogue among the industrial and developing worlds the Communist nations are conspicuous by their absence and, indeed, by their irrelevance.

Yet at the very moment when the industrial democracies are responding to the aspirations of the developing countries, many of the same coun-

tries attempt to extort what has, in fact, been freely offered. Lopsided voting, unworkable resolutions, and arbitrary procedures too often dominate the United Nations and other international bodies. Nations which originally chose nonalignment to shield themselves from the pressures of global coalitions have themselves formed a rigid, ideological, confrontationist coalition of their own. One of the most evident blocs in the world today is, ironically, the almost automatic alignment of the nonaligned.

The United States remains ready to respond responsibly and positively to countries which seriously seek justice and an equitable world economic system. But progress depends on a spirit of mutual respect, realism, and practical cooperation. Let there be no mistake about it: Extortion will not work and will not be supinely accepted. The stakes are too high for self-righteous rhetoric or adolescent posturing.

At issue is not simply the economic arrangements of the next quarter century but the legitimacy of the international order.

Technology and the realities of interdependence have given our generation the opportunity to determine the relationships between the developed and developing countries over the next quarter century. It is the quality of statesmanship to recognize that our necessity, our practical aspirations, and our moral purpose are linked. The United States is ready for that challenge.

## Moral Unity of the Great Democracies

Our efforts to build peace and progress reflect our deep-seated belief in freedom and in the hope of a better future for all mankind. These are values we share with our closest allies, the great industrial democracies.

The resilience of our countries in recovering from economic difficulty and in consolidating our cooperation has an importance far beyond our immediate well-being. For while foreign policy is unthinkable without an element of pragmatism, pragmatism without underlying moral purpose is like a rudderless ship.

Together the United States and our allies have maintained the global peace and sustained the world economy for more than 30 years. The spirit of innovation and progress in our societies has no match anywhere, certainly not in societies laying

6

claim to being "revolutionary." Rarely in history have alliances survived—let alone flourished—as ours have in vastly changing global and geopolitical conditions. The ideals of the industrial democracies give purpose to our efforts to improve relations with the East, to the dialogue with the Third World, and to many other spheres of common endeavor.

Our ties with the great industrial democracies are, therefore, not alliances of convenience but a union of principle in defense of values and a way of life.

It is in this context that we must be concerned about the possibility of Communist parties coming to power—or sharing in power—in Governments in NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] countries. Ultimately the decision must, of course, be made by the voters of the countries concerned. But no one should expect that this question is not of concern to this Government. Whether some of the Communist parties in Western Europe are, in fact, independent of Moscow cannot be determined when their electoral self-interest so overwhelmingly coincides with their claims. Their internal procedures—their Leninist principles and dogmas—remain the antithesis of democratic parties. And were they to gain power they would do so after having advocated for decades programs and values detrimental to our traditional ties.

By that record they would inevitably give low priority to security and Western defense efforts, which are essential not only to Europe's freedom but to maintaining the world balance of power. They would be tempted to orient their economies to a much greater extent toward the East. We would have to expect that Western European governments in which Communists play a dominant role would, at best, steer their countries' policies toward the positions of the nonaligned. The political solidarity and collective defense of the West—and thus NATO—would be inevitably weakened if not undermined. And in this country the commitment of the American people to maintain the balance of power in Europe—justified though it might be on pragmatic, geopolitical grounds—would lack the moral base on which it has stood for 30 years.

We consider the unity of the great industrial democracies crucial to all we do in the world. For this reason we have sought to expand our coopera-

tion to areas beyond our mutual defense—in improved political consultation, in coordinating our approaches to negotiations with the East, in reinforcing our respective economic policies, in developing a common energy policy, and in fashioning common approaches for the increasingly important dialogue with the developing nations. We have made remarkable progress in all these areas. We are determined to continue. Our foreign policy has no higher priority.

## Debate at Home

This then is the design of our foreign policy:

* We have the military and economic power together with our allies to prevent aggression.

* We have the self-confidence and vision to go beyond confrontation to a reduction of tensions and ultimately a more cooperative world.

* We have the resources, technology, and organizational genius to build a new relationship with the developing nations.

* We have the moral courage to hold high, together with our allies, the banners of freedom in a turbulent and changing world.

The challenges before us are monumental. But it is not every generation that is given the opportunity to shape a new international order. If the opportunity is missed, we shall live in a world of chaos and danger. If it is realized we will have entered an era of peace and progress and justice.

But we can realize our hopes only as a united people. Our challenge—and its solution—lies in our ourselves. Our greatest foreign policy problem is our divisions at home. Our greatest foreign policy need is national cohesion and a return to the awareness that in foreign policy we are all engaged in a common national endeavor.

The world watches with amazement—our adversaries with glee and our friends with growing dismay—how America seems bent on eroding its influence and destroying its achievements in world affairs through an orgy of recrimination.

They see our policies in Africa, the eastern Mediterranean, in Latin America, in East-West relations undermined by arbitrary congressional actions that may take decades to undo.

They see our intelligence system gravely damaged by unremitting, undiscriminating attack.

7

They see a country virtually incapable of behaving with the discretion that is indispensable for diplomacy.

They see revelations of malfeasance abroad on the part of American firms wreak grave damage on the political structures of friendly nations. What-ever wrongs were committed—reprehensible as they are—should be dealt with in a manner consistent with our own judicial procedures—and with the dignity of allied nations.

They see some critics suddenly pretending that the Soviets are 10 feet tall and that America, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is becoming a second-rate nation. They know these erroneous and reckless allegations to be dangerous, because they may, if continued, persuade allies and adversaries of our weakness, tempting the one to accommodation and the other to adventurism.

They see this Administration—which has been condemned by one set of critics for its vigorous reaction to expansionism in Southeast Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa—simultaneously charged by another group of opponents with permitting unilateral Soviet gains.

They see that the Administration, whose defense budgets have been cut some $39 billion by the Congress in the past seven years, is simultaneously charged with neglecting American defenses.

The American people see all this, too, and wonder when it will end. They know that we cannot escape either our responsibilities or the geopolitical realities of the world around us. For a great nation that does not manage events will soon be overwhelmed by them.

If one group of critics undermines arms control negotiations and cuts off the prospect of more constructive ties with the Soviet Union while another group cuts away at our defense budgets and intelligence services and thwarts American resistance to Soviet adventurism, both combined will—whether they have intended it or not—end by wrecking the Nation's ability to conduct a strong, creative, moderate, and prudent foreign policy. The result will be paralysis, no matter who wins in November. And if America cannot act, others will,

and we and all the free peoples of the world will pay the price.

So our problem is at once more complex and simpler than in times past. The challenges are unprecedented but the remedies are in our own hands. This Administration has confidence in the strength, resilience, and vigor of America. If we summon the American spirit and restore our unity, we will have a decisive and positive impact on a world which, more than ever, affects our lives and cries out for our leadership.

Those who have faith in America will tell the American people the truth:

* That we are strong and at peace;

* That there are no easy or final answers to our problems;

* That we must conduct a long-term and responsible foreign policy, without escape and without respite;

* That what is attainable at any one moment will inevitably fall short of the ideal;

* That the reach of our power and purpose has its limits;

* That nevertheless we have the strength and determination to defend our interests and the conviction to uphold our values; and finally

* That we have the opportunity to leave our children a more cooperative, more just, and more peaceful world than we found.

In this Bicentennial year we celebrate ideals which began to take shape around the shores of Massachusetts Bay some 350 years ago. We have accomplished great things as a united people; there is much yet to do. This country's work in the world is not a burden but a triumph—and the measure of greatness yet to come.

Americans have always made history rather than let history chart our course. We, the present generation of Americans, will do no less. So let this year mark the end of our divisions. Let it usher in an era of national reconciliation and rededication by all Americans to their common destiny. Let us have a clear vision of what is before us—glory and danger alike—and go forward together to meet it.

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

March 11, 1976

No. 121-B

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
FOLLOWING THE ADDRESS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE
BOSTON WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
MARCH 11, 1976

**AMBASSADOR HENRY CABOT LODGE [Chairman of the Boston World Affairs Council]:** Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for an inspiring utterance.

I realize the hour is late. On the other hand, I think many of you here would like to hear the Secretary answer a few questions. So we will compromise, and we will have three questions.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, as one of your classmates at Harvard, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to ask you the first question. In your opinion, what are the three greatest dangers to world peace, in rank order of priority? [Laughter]

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** One of my classmates at Harvard — and I am always grateful when they ask a question rather than make a statement — asked me to rank the three greatest dangers to world peace in order.

I frankly hadn't thought about the problem in those terms. [Laughter]

I would have to repeat what I said in my prepared remarks, that the greatest problem we face today is the perception of other countries, not of our physical weakness, because that word has not yet spread beyond our internal debate, but about our ability to understand the requirements of the world equilibrium and of our willingness to act on this. This is the single biggest danger to world peace that now exists.

Beyond that, I think any reader of newspapers can make his own projections.

The Middle East is the single most complicated area we confront, in the sense that it is an area where the intensity of feeling is such that the decisions of governments could get out of the control of those who want to preserve global peace. And therefore it is the single most dangerous area.

The others I wouldn't want to range in any particular order.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, if we agree to drop the term "detente," what substitute or phrase would you recommend in this atmosphere?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** First of all, there was nothing particularly new about this Presidential observation. The President had made the same comment in August last year in a speech to the American Legion, in which he pointed out that one problem was that no one understood what the word "detente" meant — it being of foreign derivation. But he also made clear that the policy that we pursued will continue.

For further information contact:

PR #121-B

-2-

I have attempted in my prepared remarks to explain what we understand by the policy that has been called "detente" — the combination of firmness in the face of pressure, but the absolute necessity never to forget that we must build a better world.

I have no great preference as between terms, and I have been dancing around myself trying to find one — the "easing of tensions," "relaxation of tensions" — but we may well wind up with the old word again. It has happened before. [Laughter]

**QUESTION:** Dr. Kissinger, on behalf of Houghton Mifflin, your former — and we hope your future — publisher, when may we expect delivery of your memoirs? [Laughter]

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, at the moment I am keeping many people disciplined and from utter despair by keeping open the possibility that I may not write any memoirs. [Laughter] But I have really not thought about writing them. There are many people who are attempting to expedite the time when I can turn pen to paper. And when that point is reached, then I will think about it. But I really haven't thought about this question. But I appreciate your — [Laughter]

**********

REMARKS TO THE PRESS BY THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER,
SECRETARY OF STATE, AND ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER YIGAL
ALLON, FOLLOWING THEIR AFTERNOON MEETING, MARCH 12, 1976

[L.C.]

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Foreign Minister Allon was taking a trip in the Western Hemisphere, in Latin America, and I took the occasion to invite him here to have lunch with me. We don't have any urgent problems that need an immediate solution, and therefore we concentrated on a general review of the situation -- with particular emphasis on the peace process in the Middle East and on bilateral relations between Israel and the United States, which are very good. The talks were conducted in a very friendly and very warm atmosphere, and it was a very welcome opportunity for us to have this chance to review ideas with an old, good friend and we hope that Yigal will come back very soon and very often. Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: Well, I was delighted to receive the invitation of Secretary Kissinger. It was a good idea to complete my trip to Latin America here in this great city to have our usual talk which, while reviewing mutual problems, assessing situations, exchanging views, and as the Secretary said just now, there was not a specific problem on which we had to make any decision, and I do hope that progress will be achieved in our area and will give us a further opportunity to go ahead, which is the declared policy of the Government of Israel.

QUESTION: Did you elaborate on Israel's newly stated policy of trying to negotiate an end to the state of war with the Arabs? Did you give any specifics, for example, what Israel might be willing to give up in exchange?

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: No, this is too early to discuss. The Secretary of State was told in good time what were our general intentions, and I think it will take time until the situation is clarified, because any agreement needs at least two sides. But we didn't have to go into details now.

QUESTION: What do you foresee as the next step in this peace process?

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: It's hard to predict, particularly in the Middle East. But Israel will be delighted if there would be parties for further negotiations.

QUESTION: Mr. Minister, what do you say to allegations that all this is some sort of gimmickry -- if you know the word gimmickry instead of some sort of real movement in an election year? Is Israel involved in gimmickry or is it a sincere effort?

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: Well, if this is a gimmick, it can be put to test around the conference table. And I wish the gimmick would be put to a test.

-2-

Then Israel's good intentions would have been revealed
to the rest of the world.

the question of

QUESTION: Did you go over/the sale of C-130s and other equipment to Egypt, as far as you're concerned?

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: Of course it was mentioned.
It is an American decision, not an Israeli one.

QUESTION: Any new developments with regard to how to deal with or approach the Palestinians?

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: Our position on the matter is
well-known. I don't think it needs repetition.

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: Mr. Allon, do you regard the current events in Lebanon as posing any threat to your country?

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: It depends to what it will lead.
We prefer a stable Lebanon. And it's hard to say today
how stable it will become. We are watching events. We
are not interfering in their domestic affairs, and we
shall see what will be the development during the next
time.

QUESTION: Mr. Minister, at State Department Spokesman
today warned against what he called a renewed threats
to Lebanon's stability. He wouldn't identify any country.
Is Israel threatening Lebanon's stability?

FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON: If Israel can be praised for
something, it is maybe for her contribution to the relative
stability of Lebanon. By our very existence there.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what do you foresee as the next phase of the peace process in the Middle East?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We have discussed with Israel some
of its ideas. We are now exploring them and the general
context with some Arab leaders, and when that exploration
is completed we can then decide on which avenue to proceed.
We are serious about proceeding towards peace. It is our
impression that Israel is serious in proceeding towards
peace. So we now have to see what the context will be
that will develop.

QUESTION: Are there in fact very many options?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We can only discuss one set of ideas
at a time and that is the one we are now exploring.

QUESTION: What is that?

-3-

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Since we're in the process of exploring it, I don't want to define it. But it's related to the general concept of the termination of the state of war.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, may I ask a question, regarding the President's remarks in Chicago following his address to the Chicago World Affairs Council? At that point he said, in reference to the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union. Now, he had assurances that had the Jackson-Vanik Amendment not been adopted there would have been an increased immigration above the 35,000 in 1973. That's A. Point B: the President said that he expected world pressure to continue the momentum for peace -- for negotiations of some kind in the Middle East. What is the world momentum and what are the assurances?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: You're ahead of me with respect to the President's remarks in Chicago which -- this must have been in answer to questions. It wasn't in his prepared remarks. It is clear that the level of emigration prior to the Jackson Amendment was 38,000 and we had every belief that it would-- every conviction and assurance that it would stay at least there. With respect to the second point, we have always believed that it is necessary that progress toward peace in the Middle East continue. We have never had any disagreement on that from the Government of Israel and therefore, with or without world pressure, this process will be continued and it will be done in cooperation between the United States and Israel.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, if I may follow up on the matter of assurances. Isn't it true that you told the Senate Finance Committee in November of 1974 that you agreed with the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and it was a good compromise and there was no mention of assurances of higher immigration?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Excuse me, I always made clear that we thought it was a dangerous course. There's no question about it -- I testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the compromise, the arrangement that had been worked out, if no claims were made, of substantial increases had a chance of working. And so we believe, and so we believed in good faith, but I had constantly warned for a period of over a year against the course that was being pursued. It was a second best choice that we accepted in order to salvage what could be salvaged.

-4-

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I wonder if I could ask you whether you care to reply to the remarks by Senator Jackson about you as Secretary of State taking the political stump and entering the arena in a partisan way?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I am not engaged in a political stump and I am not engaged in a partisan campaign. I explain the foreign policy of the United States. In when over a period of weeks a series of rather extreme charges are made, actually in both parties, then I feel I have an obligation to put before the public what the foreign policy of this country is and to explain its rationale. I will not enter the campaign; I will not support candidates; I will explain the foreign policy of the United States. And certainly non-partisanship cannot mean the freedom of attack without any reply about the substance of our foreign policy.

QUESTION: Is it your intention, sir, to continue what you call these explanations of American foreign policy?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: It is my intention, as I have been doing for the last 15 months, where I have been speaking in 17 American cities, to explain the content of American foreign policy as I did yesterday in Boston. It is up to the critics to decide whether they are affected by this. I will not engage in any political campaigning. I will continue to explain the substance of American foreign policy.

QUESTION: You use language that is clearly identifiable as being that of two of the candidates. Are you not then coming dangerously close to the edge of entering the political campaign?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: It is obvious that the candidates were attacking the substance of American foreign policy, and it is therefore inevitable that in explaining our foreign policy, if it is identifiable as contradicting the two candidates, that they may be affected. I'd like to call attention however that they were of both parties.

QUESTION: Would you consider yourself an element of the campaign at this point?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I do not consider myself an element in the campaign. The foreign policy of the United States reflects the permanent interests of the United States.

-5-

If these permanent interests go beyond the election year, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to reflect the permanent interests of the United States and that will be my desire and it is what I will do my utmost to carry out.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, how do you make the distinction between what would be regarded as partisan and non-partisan?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Of course, politicians who are contradicted have a tendency to consider themselves unfairly attacked. I do not consider non-partisanship to mean acquiescence in every argument that anybody may advance about the substance of American foreign policy. I am prepared to discuss the substance of American foreign policy. I will not engage in any discussions in this election year that do not go to the content of our foreign policy.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could I ask you for the first time today, whether the United States is considering selling Israel, selling Egypt, I beg your pardon, anything beyond C-130 transports.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We have no plans to sell anything beyond the C-130s. The only request that will be made to the Congress will concern the C-130s and the decision with respect to the C-130s will imply no precedent as far as the Congress is concerned for any other sales.

QUESTION: You mean you're planning the commercial route?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: No, but we will almost certainly continue to go the FMS route because it is the most feasible one but it does not imply a decision to vote for these six C-130s does not imply an obligation to vote for anything else nor does it reflect a plan by the Administration for anything specific.

QUESTION: The President in his speech seemed to be somewhat downbeat about the prospects of achieving a SALT agreement this year. I wonder if you could give us an assessment - -

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The President stated that it is at this moment not possible to tell what the prospects were for a SALT agreement because we do not yet have the Soviet reply. When we have the Soviet reply we can make a judgment as to what the possibilities are and at that moment we will make that decision.

QUESTION: Have you any idea when the Soviet ambassador will be returning to Washington, possibly with that reply?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Well, I assume that when the Soviet ambassador returns to Washington we will receive a reply.

-6-

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the President gave you a great vote of endorsement today. Do you think that's going to influence your vote. [Laughter]

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I frankly haven't seen the speech or the comment, but I'm going to weigh it carefully in my decision. [Laughter]

QUESTION: What would you do if Reagan ran against Jackson?

ALLON : Is this a press conference or what? [Laughter]

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I want you all to know that there's no constitutional bar to foreign born being Vice President - - -

THE PRESS: Thank you.

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

March 16, 1976

No. 127

STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
BICENTENNIAL HEARINGS

MARCH 16, 1976

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

There could be no better moment for the "dispassionate public discussion and national self-examination" in foreign policy for which you, Mr. Chairman, have called these hearings.

The moment is propitious not primarily because of the numerical happenstance of our 200th year, or of the political milestone of this Presidential election campaign, but because of the era we have entered in international affairs. It is a moment to take stock of our country's record and consider our future course to reflect about the transformations of the international order which we can perceive from this vantage point -- some already completed and some still in train -- that have altered many of the circumstances in which American foreign policy is conducted.

Today I want to focus on what lies ahead of us -- the international issues that will confront the American public, the President and the Congress, regardless of party, as we enter our third century. For we must remember, amid all our debates, that this nation has permanent interests and concerns in the world that must be preserved through and beyond this election year. This nation faces objective conditions in the world that are not the result of the machinations of personalities nor even, often, the product of our national decisions. They are realities brought by the ebb and flow of history. The issues they raise must be addressed with seriousness, understanding and objectivity if we as a people are to remain masters of events and of our own destiny.

As President Ford has said, "America has had a unique role in the world since the day of our independence 200 years ago. And ever since the end of World War II we have borne successfully a heavy responsibility for insuring a stable world order and hope for human progress." That responsibility continues -- not only as a task we shoulder for others or in fulfillment of our ideals, but as a responsibility to ourselves -- to create a world environment in which America and its values can thrive.

Mr. Chairman, in foreign policy we stand on the firm ground of America's strength and clear purpose. We face the future with confidence. We have made considerable progress in strengthening partnership with our allies, in managing the global issues of peace and security, and in beginning a new era of cooperation on the global problems of interdependence. The potential for further advance is great.

-2-

PR 127

But today the world looks anxiously to America to gauge whether we will choose to build upon this progress. They ask whether America will use its strength to respond to today's challenges. One of the greatest factors of uncertainty in the world today is concern about America's will and consistency. These doubts are not caused by statements made in the heat of a political campaign but rather by a decade of convulsions culminating in a serious question as to the basic direction of American foreign policy. These doubts must be dispelled. I am convinced that they will be dispelled -- not by public statements, but by demonstrations of the purposefulness of national policy, the vigor of the American economy, and the renewed unity of the American people on which all else depends. We are going through a period of adjustment and reappraisal. We must all work together, so that we are the stronger for it when it is completed.

The American people, and the Congress as their elected representatives, have a central part to play in the enterprise of national reaffirmation. Their contribution is essential as a matter of constitutional principle in the making of foreign policy, and as a matter of practical necessity in the implementation of any successful long-term course. As Senator Case has pointed out, "Congress has an important role in helping voters make known their concerns and to guide the Executive Branch in its conduct of foreign policy. A democracy such as ours cannot hope to successfully carry out for any length of time a foreign policy which does not have firm domestic roots."

These hearings have already provided much insight into the American public's perceptions of foreign policy, which we have found extremely useful.

## The International Environment

Through most of our history, Mr. Chairman, our peace and security were provided for us. The successful growth of our democratic society at home, and the absence of direct threat from abroad, nourished our sense of uniqueness and the belief that it was our own choice whether and when we would participate in the world. We entered wars only when overwhelming danger threatened. We identified exertion in foreign affairs as a temporary interruption of our domestic tranquility. Once aroused, we were implacable, fighting "the war to end all wars," or until "unconditional surrender."

We had margin for error. Our history, except for the Civil War was without tragedy, and our resources and good fortune left us without the sense of external limits that so colored the experience of almost every other nation. Our successes seemed to teach us that any problem could be solved -- once and for all -- by determined effort. The qualities on which all other nations in history depended to ensure their survival in a hostile or ambiguous environment -- subtlety, maneuver, imagination, consistency -- were disparaged in America as cynical or immoral. The equilibrium of power which kept the peace for long periods in the turbulent history of Europe was denounced in this country as a preoccupation with power at the expense of moral principle.

Even in the first 25 years after World War II -- an era of great creativity and unprecedented American engagement in foreign affairs -- we acted as if the world's security and economic development could be conclusively ensured by the commitment of American resources, know-how and effort. We were encouraged -- even impelled -- to act as we did by our unprecedented predominance in a world shattered by war and the collapse of the great colonial empires.

At the same time, the central character of moral values in American life always made us acutely sensitive to the purity of means -- and when we

-3-

PR 127

disposed of overwhelming power we had a great luxury of choice. Our moral certainty made compromise difficult; our preponderance often made it seem unnecessary.

Today, power takes many forms and our circumstances are more complex. In military power, while we still have massive strength, we no longer enjoy meaningful nuclear supremacy. In economic terms we remain the world's most productive economy, but we must now share leadership with Western Europe, Canada, and Japan; we must deal with the newly wealthy and developing nations; and we must make new choices regarding our economic relations with the Communist countries. Our moral influence, our democratic principles, are still far more valued by the world's millions than we realize, but we must compete with ideologies which assert progressive goals but pursue them by oppressive methods.

All Americans have a right to be proud of what this nation accomplished in our past thirty years of world leadership. We assisted European and Japanese recovery; we built indispensable alliances; we established an international economic system -- and we sustained global peace and global progress for a generation.

We have great things yet to do, requiring our unity, our dedication and our strength. For we live, and our children will live, in a more complex time:

- First, we face the necessity of drawing on the new strength and vitality of our allies and friends to intensify our partnership with them. They have become, again, major centers of power and initiative. This is a lasting success of our foreign policy. And today, our unity with the great industrial democracies is fundamental to all we seek to accomplish in the world. It is we who maintain the global balance of power that keeps the peace. And it is our unmatched economic dynamism that is the best hope for a world of widening prosperity. Above all, our moral unity and commitment to the values of democracy are crucial to the fulfillment of our own dreams as well as to the creative use of man's energies in solving the problems of the future. In a complex world -- of equilibrium and coexistence, of competition and interdependence -- it is our ideals that give meaning and purpose to our endeavors.

- For we face, secondly, the age-old challenge of maintaining peace, but in the unprecedented dimension of an age of thermonuclear weapons. The Soviet Union, after sixty years of economic and industrial growth, has -- inevitably -- reached the status of a superpower. As a result, we must conduct a dual policy. We and our allies must restrain Soviet power and prevent its use to upset global stability. At the same time, our generation faces the long-term challenge of putting the US-Soviet relationship on a more secure, constructive, and durable basis.

- We must, as well, continue the progress we have made in fashioning a new relationship with the People's Republic of China. We consider the opening to the People's Republic of China one of the key elements of our foreign policy.

-4-

PR 127

-- Beyond this, global security presents other permanent necessities. There is the continuing need to moderate and resolve regional conflicts which threaten global economic or political stability. And there is the urgent and growing challenge of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which gravely increases the risks of nuclear holocaust.

-- The third central challenge is to build a wider world community out of the turbulent environment of today's nearly 150 independent nations. Two world wars in this century and the process of decolonization have broken down the international order of previous centuries. For the first time in history the international community has become truly global. The new nations make insistent demands on the global system, testing their new economic power and seeking a greater role and more equitable share in the world's prosperity. A new pattern of relationships must be fashioned out of cooperation for mutual benefit, impelled by the reality of our global interdependence.

-- Our friendships with nations in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, on the basis of mutual respect and practical cooperation, take on a new importance as the building blocks of world community. We must recognize that no world order will be stable over the last quarter of this century unless all its participants consider that they have a stake in it and that it is legitimate and just.

These are the basic challenges facing this nation as we enter our third century.

In such a world, Mr. Chairman, this country can no longer choose whether or not it is involved in international affairs. On a shrinking planet, there is no hiding place. There are no simple answers. This nation cannot afford to swing recklessly between abdiction and confrontation; we must pursue a long-term course. Although we are stronger than any other, we cannot operate primarily by throwing our weight around. Lasting peace is not achievable without an international consensus. We must learn to conduct foreign policy as other nations have had to conduct it for many centuries, without escape and without respite. We must learn patience, precision, perspective -- knowing that what is attainable falls short of the ideal, mindful of the necessities of self-preservation, deriving from our moral conviction the courage to persevere. For America finds itself, for the first time in its history, irrevocably and permanently involved in international affairs.

The world needs desperately our strength and our purpose. Without American strength there can be no security; without American convictions there can be no progress.

Americans have always regarded challenges as a test, not an obstacle. We have great opportunities for creative diplomacy, to shape from this turbulence and complexity a world community of greater stability and hope. We, more than any other country, are in a position to determine -- or have a decisive impact upon -- the evolution of the global order.

Forty years ago when the forces of democracy faced a great threat, the United States was waiting in the wings to come to Europe's rescue. Today there is no one waiting in the wings to come to *our* rescue.

Let me discuss at greater length some of the basic long-term challenges we face.

-5-

PR 127

The Unity of the Industrial Democracies

The cornerstone of our foreign policy is -- as it has been for a generation -- our partnership with our principal allies in the Atlantic Community and Japan. These partnerships began three decades ago as a means of collective security against aggression, and of cooperation for economic recovery from the devastation of World War II. In the succeeding period our alliances have been the bulwark of the global balance of power. Our cooperation with the great industrial democracies has been the underpinning of the world economic system which has sustained global prosperity and spread it to the far corners of the earth.

Rarely in history have alliances survived as ours have survived, and indeed flourished, through so many vast changes in the international environment. And in the last few years, we and our allies have not only continued to strengthen our common defenses; we have extended our collaboration successfully into new dimensions of common endeavor -- in improved political consultation, in coordinating our approaches to negotiations with the Communist countries, in developing a common energy policy and strategy, in reinforcing our respective economic policies for recovery from recession, in environmental cooperation, and in fashioning common approaches for the dialogue with the developing countries.

All these efforts to build peace and promote progress reflect our common belief in freedom and our common hope of a better future for all mankind. These are permanent values of this nation, and therefore our alliances and friendships that are based on them and designed to further them are permanent interests of the United States.

Our cohesion has a more than technical significance. While foreign policy is unthinkable without pragmatism, pragmatism without moral purpose is like a rudderless ship.

Our ties with the great democracies are thus not an alliance of convenience, but a union of principle, in defense of democratic values and our way of life. It is our ideals that inspire not only our self-defense, but all else that we do. And the resilience of our countries in responding to all our modern challenges is a testimony to the spirit and moral strength of our free peoples.

As we look to the future, there is no higher priority in our foreign policy than sustaining the vitality of democracy and the unity of democracies. The world will become more, not less, complex; our power will grow more, not less, interwoven with others; our values will be more, not less challenged. In such a world, the solidarity of our relations with those who share our heritage, our way of life, our ideals, takes on more, and not less, importance, for as far ahead as we can see.

Our responsibilities are, first, our common defense. The closeness of our collaboration on defense matters is greater today than anytime in the past decade. We must maintain it because it is the stability of the military balance that has brought about whatever hope there is of easing tensions in Europe and in Asia.

There is greater sharing of responsibility in North Atlantic defense today. The President has taken the initiative in promoting such improvements as improved standardization of equipment and more effective force structuring. But the United States must remain conscious of its own special responsibility in the Alliance -- to maintain the strategic balance, and to contribute its crucial share to maintaining the conventional balance in Europe and the Mediterranean, and more generally.

-6-

PR 127

Our security is a precondition of all else that we do. On this foundation, we will face over the coming period a broad range of tasks beyond the traditional enterprise of collective defense.

We will continue to seek to enhance our security and general peace through arms control and negotiation of political conflicts. We hope to see progress in the talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions in Europe. We expect that the 1971 Quadripartite Agreement in Berlin, which ended a chronic crisis of more than two decades, foreshadows an era of enhanced security in Central Europe.

In the coming decade, the collaboration of the industrial democracies can be the dynamic force in the building of a more secure and progressive international order. We have made a remarkable beginning. New steps have been taken in the last few years, and further will be taken, to strengthen European unity; this has the strong support of the United States. The new institutions and programs of our collective energy strategy are in place. We have discussed and developed common approaches to the new dialogue with the developing nations. The passage of the Trade Act of 1974 enabled this country to enter into a new round of trade negotiations with Europe and Japan to make basic improvements in the world trading system. In recent months, the Rambouillet Economic Summit and the Jamaica reform of the international monetary system demonstrate that the future of our cooperation among the industrial democracies will be as fruitful as the past.

In this regard, I want to mention an important item of business before this Committee -- approval of our participation in the OECD Financial Support Fund. This is the contingency mechanism, proposed by the United States, to ensure mutual support among the industrial nations in the face of financial disruptions or pressures by actions of the oil cartel. At little cost, this mechanism will provide a financial safety net, combat protectionism, and promote our cooperation on energy policy. It is vital for the industrial nations' independence. Seven other OECD members have ratified it and the rest are expected to do so by the middle of this year. I hope the Congress will move quickly to do the same, to reinforce the solidarity of the industrial democracies.

It is our belief that in an era when our democratic values are under challenge in the world and our societies have been buffeted by economic difficulties at home, the solidarity and cooperation of the great democracies are of crucial importance for giving impetus to all our efforts. We have proved what we can do -- and vindicated the faith of our people in the values and future of our societies. We have proved that our unity can be as dynamic a force for building a new international order today as it was thirty years ago.

The new solidarity we are building can draw its inspiration from our hopes and ideals, rather than merely our common dangers. A thriving Europe and Japan and North America will not only be secure and prosperous, but a magnet to the Communist countries and to the developing world. And so we can enter the last quarter of this century confident that we are masters of our own destiny -- and making a decisive contribution to the world's destiny.

## Peace and Equilibrium

Of the challenges that the democracies face, none are more fundamental than the issues of peace and war. These issues -- the traditional foreign policy agenda -- take on in this era an unprecedented dimension.

PR 127

- 7 -

There are three principal aspects to this problem of peace:

- relations with the major Communist powers;

- the effort to resolve regional conflicts and disputes peacefully;

- and the increasing danger of nuclear weapons proliferation.

We live in a world in which this country must now deal with a country of roughly equal power. This is not a familiar world for modern Americans. Yet it is the kind of world in which we will live for the rest of this century and beyond -- no matter what we do in the military field.

Thirty years ago, the United States, alone among the major nations of the world, emerged from the Second World War with its economy and society undamaged by war. We enjoyed a tremendous preponderance in economic power, and a monopoly on nuclear weapons. This great physical strength gave impetus to the willingness of the American people to take responsibility for helping to shape a better postwar international order. The creativity and generosity that this nation displayed in that period are a lasting tribute to the American spirit.

Today, because of the inevitable recovery and growth of our allies -- and our adversaries -- the United States now finds itself in a world of relative kinds of equilibrium. In strategic military power, the world is still bipolar. Economic power is more widely dispersed among many major nations, including the wealthier of the developing nations. In moral and ideological influence, many nations and philosophies contend. The task of consolidating peace thus presents itself in this era as a far more complex problem than ever before, both practically and morally.

With our allies, we have learned to share responsibility and leadership, and this has enhanced our collaboration in every dimension of common endeavor. But with our adversaries, we face the imperative of coexistence in an age of thermonuclear weapons and strategic parity. We must defend our interests, our principles and our allies, while ensuring at all times that international conflict does not degenerate into cataclysm. We must resist expansionism and pressures, but we must on this foundation seek to build habits of restraint that will over the long term lead to a realiable reduction of tensions.

This Government has therefore moved with energy and purpose over the last several years, and in concert with our allies, to consolidate and transform our relationships with the major Communist powers, for a new era and for our long-term future.

We have established a new and durable and hopeful relationship with the People's Republic of China, a nation comprising nearly one-quarter of mankind. This new relationship has made an important contribution to peace in Asia and in the world. President Ford is committed to continue the process of normalization of our relations in accordance with the principles of the Shanghai Communique.

And this country in the last several years has opened up positive relations with countries in Eastern Europe. Two American Presidents have visited Poland, Yugoslavia, and Romania, to demonstrate that in our view, European

PR 127

- 8 -

security and relaxation of tensions apply to Eastern as well as Western Europe. This remains, and must remain, a basic principle of American policy.

In an age when two nations have the power to visit utter destruction on the whole planet in hours, there can be no greater imperative than assuring a rational and secure relationship between the nuclear super-powers. This is a challenge without precedent. Historically a conflict of ideology and geopolitical interest such as now characterizes the international scene has amost invariably led to war. But in the age of strategic equality, humanity could not survive such a repetition of history. War would mean mutual suicide.

Therefore, with respect to the Soviet Union, the United States faces the necessity of a dual policy. We must preserve stability, but not rest upon it. We must firmly resist and deter adventurism. But at the same time, we must keep open the possibility of more constructive relations between the United States and the Soviet Union -- resolving political disputes by negotiation, such as Berlin: working out stable agreements to limit strategic arms on both sides, as in the SALT I agreements and the accord at Vladivostok; and -- when political conditions permit it -- developing our bilateral cooperation in economic and other fields to give both sides a vested interest in continuing and improving political relations.

We have an obligation to mankind to work for a more secure world. We have an obligation to the American people to ensure that a crisis, if it is imposed upon us does not result from any lack of vision of the United States.

We face a long-term problem, and we must fashion and maintain a long-term policy. An equilibrium of power is indispensable to any hope of peace. But a balance of power constantly contested is too precarious a foundation for our long-term future. So this country, in its third centry, must avoid the twin temptations of provocation and escapism. We must maintain a steady and confident course; it must be a policy that our adversaries respect, our allies support, and our people believe in and sustain.

PR #127

-9-

By whatever name we call it, the US-Soviet relationship must be founded on certain fundamental principles, which this country has affirmed consistently for the last seven years:

- First, we will maintain our military strength. The United States must maintain an equilibrium of power through a strong national and allied defense. The United States will do what is necessary to maintain the balance in all significant categories of military strength -- including conventional as well as strategic forces.

- Secondly, this country is prepared to negotiate solutions to political problems. The 1971 agreement on Berlin is an example. And both superpowers share a basic responsibility to ensure that the world is spared the holocaust of a nuclear war. Strategic arms limitation is therefore a permanent, mutual, and fundamental interest. At Vladivostok in 1974, President Ford reached agreement on the outline of a comprehensive agreement putting an equal ceiling on strategic forces on both sides for a ten-year period. The issues that remain in completing that agreement are soluble. An agreement on the basis of strict reciprocity is attainable.

- Both sides have vital interests, but have an overriding interest in avoidance of major conflict. Therefore long-term peace can only be founded on the practice and habit of restraint. Exploiting local crises for unilateral gain is not acceptable. This nation will not seek confrontations lightly, but we are determined to defend peace by systematic resistance to pressures and irresponsible actions. The growth of Soviet economic and military power could not have been prevented; what can be prevented is the use of that power to upset the global balance. Without restraint there is no possibility of a meaningful relaxation of tensions.

- If we preserve security on this basis, opportunities exist for creative diplomacy to engage the Soviet Union more firmly in constructive participation to the international system. We are prepared to hold out the prospect of increasing bilateral cooperation in the economic, technical, and other fields, to give both sides an increasing stake in positive political relations. Over the long-term we have it within our capacity to make our coexistence durable and secure, and to turn it into cooperation.

This is the broad agenda for the future of the US-Soviet relationship. More specifically:

- We cannot prevent the growth of Soviet power, but we can prevent its use for unilateral advantage and political expansion.

- We must accept the reality that sovereign states, especially ones of roughly equal power, cannot impose unacceptable conditions on each other, and ultimately and inevitably must proceed by compromise.

- The United States will never stand for violation of a solemn treaty or agreement.

- We can never tolerate a shift in the strategic balance against us, either in unsatisfactory agreements, violations of agreements, or by neglect of our own defense requirements.

PR #127

-10-

-- We are determined to pursue the effort to negotiate a saner and more
secure strategic balance on equitable terms, because it is in our
interest and in the interest of world peace.

Any Administration conscious of the long-term requirements of peace will
find itself implementing the same dual approach of firmness in the face
of pressure, and readiness to work for a more cooperative world. Of
course, differences are inevitable as to the practical application of these
principles. But, as President Kennedy said, "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 mortal."

As the United States and Soviet Union have taken important steps toward
regulating their own competition, the problem of local conflicts persists
and indeed to some extent increases. The world begins to take for granted
the invulnerability of global stability to local disturbances. The world
has permitted too many of the underlying causes of regional conflicts to
continue unattended, until the parties came to believe their only recourse
was to war. And because each crisis ultimately has been contained, the
world has remained complacent. We cannot forget the ominous lesson of
1914. Tolerance of local conflict tempts world holocaust. We have no
guarantee that some local crisis will not explode beyond control. We have
a responsibility to prevent such crises.

This must be a permanent preoccupation of statesmen who are concerned
for the preservation of peace over the next decades. In the modern era,
global communications have shrunk our planet and created a global con-
sciousness. Nations and peoples are increasingly sensitive to events
and issues in other parts of the globe. Our moral principle extends our
concern for the fate of our fellowmen. Ideological conflict respects no
boundaries and calls into question even the legitimacy of domestic structures.

We cannot expect stability to continue indefinitely unless determined
efforts are made to moderate and resolve local political conflicts peacefully.

The United States is not the world's policeman. But we have learned from
bitter experience -- as recently as 1973 -- that conflicts can erupt and
spread and directly touch the interests and wellbeing of this country.
Helping to settle disputes is a long-standing American tradition, in our
interest and the world interest.

Nowhere is there greater urgency than in the Middle East. The agreements
negotiated between the parties over the past few years, in accordance
with Resolutions 242 and 338, are unprecedented steps toward an ultimate
peace. These efforts must and will continue. Both sides must contribute
to the process; the United States remains committed to assist. The elements
for further progress toward peace exist. Stagnation runs a grave risk of
further upheaval, of benefit to neither side, and of grave implications
for the peace and economic wellbeing of the world.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons technology could add a more ominous dimension to a world in which regional political conflicts persist. The dangers so long predicted may be coming closer at hand. As I said to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1974: "The world has grown so accustomed to the existence of nuclear weapons that it assumes they will never be used . . . In a world where many nations possess nuclear weapons, dangers would be vastly compounded. It would be infinitely more difficult, if not impossible, to maintain stability among a large number of nuclear powers. Local wars would take on a new dimension. Nuclear weapons would

PR #127

-11-

be introduced into regions 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 involvement
of the major nuclear powers."

Therefore, halting proliferation is a major foreign policy objective of
this Administration as it has been for all previous Administrations since
the dawn of the nuclear age. As I explained to your colleagues on the
Senate Government Operations Committee just a week ago, we have intensified
our efforts -- in international bodies, with other nations who are principle
exporters of nuclear materials, with potential nuclear powers -- and with
the Congress -- to ensure that the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy can
be spread widely without at the same time spreading the perils of holocaust.
It is a challenge to statesmanship to see beyond the immediate economic
gains from unrestrained competition in nuclear exports and to act to halt
a mushrooming danger.

## Shaping a World Community

The upheavals of the Twentieth Century have bequeathed to us another fundamental task -- to adapt the international structure to the new realities of our time. We must fashion constructive long-term relationships between the industrial and developing nations, rich and poor, North and South; we must adapt and reinvigorate our friendships in Latin America, Asia and Africa, taking into account their new role and importance on the world scene; and together with all nations we must address the new problems of an interdependent world which can only be solved through multilateral cooperation.

A central issue of foreign policy over the next generation will be the
relationship between the industrial and developing nations. Decolonization
and the expansion of the world economy have given birth to new countries and
new centers of power and initiative. The world environment of the next
decades can be the seedbed of political instability, ideological confrontation and economic warfare -- or it can become a community marked by international collaboration on an unprecedented scale. The interdependence of nations -- the indivisibility of our security and our prosperity -- can accelerate our common progress or our common decline.

Therefore, just as we must go beyond maintaining equilibrium if we are to
ensure peace, so must we transcend tests of strength in North-South relations and seek to build a true world community. In international forums, the United States will resist pressure tactics, one-way morality, and propagandistic assaults on our dignity and on common sense. We will defend our interests and beliefs without apology. We will resist attempts at blackmail or extortion.

We know that world order depends ultimately on cooperative efforts and
concrete solutions to the problems in our relations. The price and supply
of energy, the conditions of trade, the expansion of world food production,
the technological bases for economic development, the protection of the
world environment, the rules of law that govern the world's oceans and
outer space -- these are concerns that affect all nations and that can be
satisfactorily addressed only on the basis of mutual respect and in a
framework of international collaboration. This is the agenda of an interdependent world.

PR #127

-12-

We have much reason for confidence. It is the West -- and overwhelmingly this country -- that has the resources, the technology, the skills, the organizational ability and the goodwill that are the key to the success of these international efforts. In the global dialogue among the industrial and developing worlds, the Communist nations are conspicuous by their absence, and indeed, by their irrelevance.

Therefore, we have begun the dialogue with the developing nations. At the World Food Conference in 1974, which was called at our initiative, and at the Seventh Special Session of the UN General Assembly last September, and in the Conference on Economic Cooperation now underway in Paris, the United States has taken the role of leadership. We have undertaken it with a strong contribution from the Congress, and in the spirit of the highest ideals of the American people. This must continue.

The United States has presented a wide range of proposals for practical cooperation that could shape a constructive long-term economic relationship between the developed and developing countries -- to safeguard export earnings against economic cycles and natural disasters, to accelerate growth and agricultural production, to improve conditions of trade and investment in key commodities, and to address the urgent needs of the poorest countries. In every area of concern we have proposed methods of cooperation among all countries, including the other industrial countries, the newly wealthy oil producers, and the developing countries. Many of our proposals of last September have already been implemented. More can be done. If we are met in a constructive spirit, we will respond. There is a full agenda before us, implementing proposals that have already been made, and going beyond.

The United States has long-standing friendships on a bilateral basis with the nations of Latin America, Asia and Africa which we seek to adapt, improve, and build upon.

Latin America, which I have recently visited, is for the United States a region of special ties and special interest. It is as well a continent in a process of transition. Hemispheric relationships -- bilateral, regional, multilateral and global -- are in flux. An earlier community of the Americas bounded by exclusivity has given way to a more open relationship which turns not on convention, but on mutual respect, common interests, and cooperative problem-solving, and a more active role in the events outside the region. At the same time, the importance of Latin America to the United States is steadily increasing -- as elements of the global economy, as participants in the world's political forums, and in their new role as the most developed of the developing nations. The United States must adapt to these changing realities, and it has begun to do so. Equally, we maintain our conviction that the Americas must not reject, but build upon, the precious heritage of our tradition of cooperation. This is the formula for our future progress. The great issues of global interdependence are before us; with this special advantage, and on the basis of respect and sovereign equality, we here in this Hemisphere can cooperate to find mutually beneficial solutions. If we succeed, our collaboration can be a model for the wider world community that we seek.

Our relations with Asia are crucial as well, for in Asia the interests of all the major powers in the world intersect. The stability of the region will be central to world peace over the coming decades as it has been in past decades. President Ford's trip to Asia in December both reaffirmed America's fundamental stake in Asia and opened a fresh chapter in our

PR #127

-13-

relations with the nations of the region. He set forth the premises of
our country's future approach to Asia:

-- that American strength is basic to any stable balance of power in the Pacific and, therefore, to global stability;

-- that partnership with Japan is a pillar of our Asian policy;

-- that the process of normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China is indispensable. America's ties with one-quarter of mankind are inevitably of crucial importance to the world of the future;

-- that we have a continuing stake in stability and security in Southeast Asia, an area of great dynamism and promise;

-- that peace in Asia depends upon the resolution of outstanding political conflicts, most prominently that of the Korean peninsula;

-- and that economic cooperation among the peoples of the Pacific basin is essential to fulfilling the aspirations of the peoples of the region for a better future.

And very soon I will visit another area of great change and importance -- Africa. The dramatic spread of national independence in Africa has had a major impact on world institutions and on the scope of international affairs. Africa's economic importance, and its economic relations with other continents, are growing. And America's traditional concern for the cause of independence and self-determination and racial justice, and the identification of many Americans with their African heritage, have given a more profound dimension to our interest in the continent's future.

Our African policy over the coming decade will be guided by these principles and concerns:

-- We want to see Africa attain prosperity for its people and become a major participant in the international economic system.

-- We support the desire of African nations to chart their own course in domestic, regional, and international affairs -- to choose their own social system and a nonaligned foreign policy.

-- We want to see self-determination, racial justice, and human rights spread throughout Africa. As President Ford has recently made clear again, majority rule in Rhodesia and Namibia is the unequivocal commitment of the United States.

-- We want to see the African continent be free of great power rivalry or conflict. We have our own interest in seeing that local conflicts there not be exploited and exacerbated by outside forces intervening for unilateral advantage.

A broader range of issues facing this country in the coming years has to do with the multilateral challenges of an era of increasing <u>global inter-dependence</u>.

There are many urgent and unprecedented issues that can be addressed only on a global basis and whose resolution will fundamentally shape the future of this planet. A central example is the Conference on the Law of the Sea, which resumes its work this week in New York. In this unprecedented

PR #127

-14-

negotiation, over 100 nations are seeking to write new rules of law govern-
ing the use of the world's oceans. The implications for international
security, for the use of vast resources, for scientific research, and for
the protection of the environment are vast. The United States will con-
tinue its work with others to assure that the oceans become an arena of
global cooperation and enrichment, rather than global conflict.

Also of great importance is the use of outer space, which presents us as
well with the potential for conflict or the possibility of collaboration.
We have the opportunity to substitute international law for power compe-
tition in the formative stage of an important international activity.

The modern age has not only given us the benefits of technology; it has
also spawned the plagues of aircraft hijacking, international terrorism,
and new techniques of warfare. The international community must stand
together against these affronts to mankind. The United States has and
must continue to promote the strengthening of international organizations
and international law to deal with these issues.

Compassion for our fellowman requires that we mobilize international re-
sources to combat the age-old scourges of disease, famine and natural
disaster. And concern for basic human rights calls upon the international
community to oppose violations to individual dignity wherever and by
whomever they are practiced. The practice of torture must be discredited
and banished. Human rights must be cherished and promoted regardless of
race, sex, religion or political belief.

We must extend the scope and reach of international institutions for co-
operation. The United Nations, an organization in which the American
people have invested great hopes, must be a mechanism of practical colla-
boration instead of an arena of rhetorical confrontation, if it is to
fulfill the mission of its Charter and its responsibilities for peacd in
the modern era. Procedural abuses and one-sided resolutions cannot be
accepted. The value of this Organization, if properly used, remains con-
siderable -- in peacekeeping, dispute settlement, and promoting cooperation
for economic development and health and scores of other endeavors.

Only through a pattern of international cooperation can all these problems
be successfully addressed. And only in a structure of global peace can
the insecurity of nations, out of which so much conflict arises, be eased,
and habits of compromise and accommodation be nurtured. Social progress,
justice, and human rights can thrive only in an atmosphere of stability
and reduced international tension.

Our Debate at Home

This, then, is the design of our foreign policy:

-- to promote, together with our allies, the strength and ideals of freedom and democracy in a turbulent world;

-- to master the traditional challenges of peace and war, to main-
tain an equilibrium of strength, but to go beyond balance to a
more positive future;

-- to shape a long-term relationship of mutual benefit with the
developing countries, and to turn all the issues of interdependence
into the cement of a new global community.

PR #127

- 15 -

These are the challenges of our third century.

Since this nation was born in struggle 200 years ago, Americans have never shrunk from challenge. We have never regarded the problems we face as cause for pessimism or despair. On the contrary, America's traditional spirit and optimism have always given millions around the world the hope that the complex issues of today can and will be solved. The world knows full well that no solutions are possible without the active participation and commitment of a united American people. To describe the complex and long-term tasks we face is therefore the greatest expression of confidence in America.

We remain the world's greatest democracy; we are the engine of the global economy; we have been for thirty years the bulwark of the balance of power, and the beacon of freedom. The physical strength, the organizational skill, the creative genius of this country makes us -- as we have always been since our Revolution -- the hope of mankind.

What we face today is not a test of our physical strength, which is unparalleled, but a qualitative challenge, unlike anything we have ever faced before. It is a challenge to our will and courage and sense of responsibility. We are tested to show whether we understand what a world of complexity and ambiguity requires of us. It is not every generation that is given the opportunity to shape a new international order. If the opportunity is missed, we shall live in a world of increasing chaos and danger. If it is realized, we shall have begun an era of greater peace and progress and justice.

A heavy responsibility lies with us here in Washington. The Congress and the Executive owe the American people an end to the divisions of the past decade. The divisive issues are no longer with us. The tasks ahead of us are not partisan or ideological issues; they are great tasks for America in a new century, in a new world that, more than ever, impinges upon our lives and cries out for our leadership. Even more than our resources, the creative vitality of this nation has been a tremendous force for good, and continues to be so.

We can accomplish great things -- but we can do so only as a united people. Beyond all the special concerns and special interests lies the national interest. Congress and the Executive, Republicans and Democrats, have a common stake in the effectiveness and success of American foreign policy. Most of the major initiatives this Government has taken on fundamental issues -- with our allies, with the People's Republic of China, with the Soviet Union, with the developing nations, in the Middle East -- have had broad and deep support in the Congress and in the country.

Therefore, just as we have the capacity to build a more durable international structure, so we have the capacity and opportunity to rebuild the consensus among the Executive and Legislative branches and among our people that will give new impetus to our responsible leadership in the world in our third century. This is the deepest desire of the President and the strongest commitment of all his Administration.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I hope that this discussion of what we see as the issues of the future will be helpful in the building of such a consensus. The issues are complex; the degree of public understanding required to deal with them is higher than any time in our historical experience. And even if we can reach a consensus on objectives and priorities, our resources and options are limited and we cannot hope always to prevail, or to be right.

PR #127

-16-

These hearings are a wise and welcome step in promoting the understanding and consensus that are required. Our gift as a people is problem-solving and harnessing the capacities of widely diverse groups of people in large-scale common endeavor. This is exactly what is required of us, both in building a new international structure and in developing the public support needed to sustain our participation in it over the long term.

In the last analysis, we must come together because the world needs us, because the horizons that beckon us in the decades to come are as near, or as far, as we have the courage to seek them.

* * * * *

The Secretary
of State

Statement

March 16, 1976

Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

THE FUTURE AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Secretary Henry A. Kissinger before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Bicentennial hearings on Foreign Policy Choices for the '70's and '80's.

There could be no better moment for the "dispassionate public discussion and national self-examination" in foreign policy for which you have called these hearings.

The moment is propitious, not primarily because of the numerical happenstance of our 200th year or of the political milestone of this Presidential election campaign, but because of the era we have entered in international affairs. It is a moment to take stock of our country's record and consider our future course to reflect about the transformations of the international order which we can perceive from this vantage point—some already completed and some still in train—that have altered many of the circumstances in which American foreign policy is conducted.

Today I want to focus on what lies ahead of us—the international issues that will confront the American public, the President, and the Congress—regardless of party—as we enter our third century. For we must remember, amid all our debates, that this Nation has permanent interests and concerns in the world that must be preserved through and beyond this election year. This Nation faces objective conditions in the world that are not the result of the machinations of personalities nor even, often, the product of our national decisions. They are realities brought by the ebb and flow of his-

tory. The issues they raise must be addressed with seriousness, understanding, and objectivity if we as a people are to remain masters of events and of our own destiny.

As President Ford has said, "America has had a unique role in the world since the day of our independence 200 years ago. And ever since the end of World War II we have borne successfully a heavy responsibility for insuring a stable world order and hope for human progress." [State of the Union address, January 19, 1976.] That responsibility continues—not only as a task we shoulder for others or in fulfillment of our ideals but as a responsibility to ourselves—to create a world environment in which America and its values can thrive.

In foreign policy we stand on the firm ground of America's strength and clear purpose. We face the future with confidence. We have made considerable progress in strengthening partnership with our allies, in managing the global issues of peace and security, and in beginning a new era of cooperation on the global problems of interdependence. The potential for further advance is great.

But today the nations of the world look anxiously to America to gauge whether we will choose to build upon this progress. They ask whether America will use its strength to respond to today's challenges. One of the greatest factors of uncertainty in the world today is concern about America's will and constancy. These doubts are not caused by statements made in the heat of a political campaign but rather by a decade of convulsions culminating in a serious question as to the basic

PR 127

(LC)

2

direction of American foreign policy. These doubts must be dispelled. I am convinced that they will be dispelled—not by public statements but by demonstrations of the purposefulness of national policy, the vigor of the American economy, and the renewed unity of the American people on which all else depends. We are going through a period of adjustment and reappraisal. We must all work together, so that we are the stronger for it when it is completed.

The American people, and the Congress as their elected representatives, have a central part to play in the enterprise of national reaffirmation. Their contribution is essential as a matter of constitutional principle in the making of foreign policy and as a matter of practical necessity in the implementation of any successful long-term course. As Senator [Clifford P.] Case has pointed out, "Congress has an important role in helping voters make known their concerns and to guide the executive branch in its conduct of foreign policy. A democracy such as ours cannot hope to successfully carry out for any length of time a foreign policy which does not have firm domestic roots."

## International Environment

Through most of our history our peace and security were provided for us. The successful growth of our democratic society at home and the absence of direct threat from abroad nourished our sense of uniqueness and the belief that it was our own choice whether and when we would participate in the world. We entered wars only when overwhelming danger threatened. We identified exer- tion in foreign affairs as a temporary interruption of our domestic tranquillity. Once aroused we were implacable, fighting "the war to end all wars," or until "unconditional surrender."

We had margin for error. Our history, except for the Civil War, was without tragedy, and our resources and good fortunes left us without the sense of external limits that so colored the experience of almost every other nation. Our successes seemed to teach us that any problem could be solved—once and for all—by determined effort. The

qualities on which all other nations in history depended to insure their survival in a hostile or ambiguous environment—subtlety, maneuver, imagination, consistency—were disparaged in America as cynical or immoral. The equilibrium of power which kept the peace for long periods in the turbulent history of Europe was denounced in this country as a preoccupation with power at the expense of moral principle.

Even in the first 25 years after World War II—an era of great creativity and unprecedented American engagement in foreign affairs—we acted as if the world's security and economic development could be conclusively insured by the commitment of American resources, know-how, and effort. We were encouraged—even impelled—to act as we did by our unprecedented predominance in a world shattered by war and the collapse of the great colonial empires.

At the same time the central character of moral values in American life always made us acutely sensitive to the purity of means—and when we disposed of overwhelming power we had a great luxury of choice. Our moral certainty made compromise difficult; our preponderance often made it seem unnecessary.

Today power takes many forms and our circumstances are more complex. In military power, while we still have massive strength, we no longer enjoy meaningful nuclear supremacy. In economic terms we remain the world's most productive economy, but we must now share leadership with Western Europe, Canada, and Japan; we must deal with the newly wealthy and developing nations; and we must make new choices regarding our economic relations with the Communist countries. Our moral influence, our democratic principles are still far more valued by the world's millions than we realize, but we must compete with ideologies which assert progressive goals but pursue them by oppressive methods.

All Americans have a right to be proud of what this Nation accomplished in our past 30 years of world leadership. We assisted European and Japanese recovery; we built indispensable alliances; we established an international economic system; and we sustained global peace and global progress for a generation.

We have great things yet to do requiring our unity, our dedication, and our strength. For we

3

live, and our children will live, in a more complex
time.

* First, we face the necessity of drawing on the new strength and vitality of our allies and friends to intensify our partnership with them. They have become, again, major centers of power and initiative. This is a lasting success of our foreign policy. And today our unity with the great industrial democracies is fundamental to all we seek to accomplish in the world. It is we who maintain the global balance of power that keeps the peace. And it is our unmatched economic dynamism that is the best hope for a world of widening prosperity. Above all our moral unity and commitment to the values of democracy are crucial to the fulfillment of our own dreams as well as to the creative use of man's energies in solving the problems of the future. In a complex world-of equilibrium and coexistence, of competition and interdependence-it is our ideals that give meaning and purpose to our endeavors.

* For we face, secondly, the age-old challenge of maintaining peace but in the unprecedented dimension of an age of thermonuclear weapons. The Soviet Union, after 60 years of economic and industrial growth, has-inevitably-reached the status of a superpower. As a result we must conduct a dual policy. We and our allies must restrain Soviet power and prevent its use to upset global stability. At the same time our generation faces the long-term challenge of putting the U.S.-Soviet relationship on a more secure, constructive, and durable basis.

* We must, as well, continue the progress we have made in fashioning a new relationship with the People's Republic of China. We consider the opening to the People's Republic of China one of the key elements of our foreign policy.

* Beyond this global security presents other permanent necessities. There is the continuing need to moderate and resolve regional conflicts which threaten global economic or political stability. And there is the urgent and growing challenge of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which gravely increases the risks of nuclear holocaust.

* The third central challenge is to build a wider world community out of the turbulent environment of today's nearly 150 independent nations.

Two World Wars in this century and the process of decolonization have broken down the international order of previous centuries. For the first time in history the international community has become truly global. The new nations make insistent demands on the global system, testing their new economic power and seeking a greater role and more equitable share in the world's prosperity. A new pattern of relationships must be fashioned out of cooperation for mutual benefit, impelled by the reality of our global interdependence.

* Our friendships with nations in Latin America, Asia, and Africa-on the basis of mutual respect and practical cooperation-take on a new importance as the building blocks of world community. We must recognize that no world order will be stable over the last quarter of this century unless all its participants consider that they have a stake in it and that it is legitimate and just.

These are the basic challenges facing this Nation as we enter our third century.

In such a world this country can no longer choose whether or not it is involved in international affairs. On a shrinking planet there is no hiding place; there are no simple answers. This Nation cannot afford to swing recklessly between abdication and confrontation; we must pursue a long-term course. Although we are stronger than any other, we cannot operate primarily by throwing our weight around. Lasting peace is not achievable without an international consensus. We must learn to conduct foreign policy as other nations have had to conduct it for many centuries-without escape and without respite. We must learn patience, precision, perspective-knowing that what is attainable falls short of the ideal, mindful of the necessities of self-preservation, deriving from our moral conviction the courage to persevere. For America finds itself, for the first time in its history, irrevocably and permanently involved in international affairs.

Americans have always regarded challenges as a test, not an obstacle. We have great opportunities for creative diplomacy to shape from this turbulence and complexity a world community of great-

4

er stability and hope. We, more than any other country, are in a position to determine—or have a decisive impact upon—the evolution of the global order.

Forty years ago, when the forces of democracy faced a great threat, the United States was waiting in the wings to come to Europe's rescue. Today there is no one waiting in the wings to come to our rescue.

## Unity of the Industrial Democracies

The cornerstone of our foreign policy is—as it has been for a generation—our partnership with our principal allies in the Atlantic community and Japan. These partnerships began three decades ago as a means of collective security against aggression and of cooperation for economic recovery from the devastation of World War II. In the succeeding period our alliances have been the bulwark of the global balance of power. Our cooperation with the great industrial democracies has been the underpinning of the world economic system, which has sustained global prosperity and spread it to the far corners of the Earth.

Rarely in history have alliances survived as ours have survived—and indeed flourished—through so many vast changes in the international environment. And in the last few years we and our allies have not only continued to strengthen our common defenses, we have extended our collaboration successfully into new dimensions of common endeavor—in improved political consultation, in coordinating our approaches to negotiations with the Communist countries, in developing a common energy policy and strategy, in reinforcing our respective economic policies for recovery from recession, in environmental cooperation, and in fashioning common approaches for the dialogue with the developing countries.

All these efforts to build peace and promote progress reflect our common belief in freedom and our common hope of a better future for all mankind. These are permanent values of this Nation, and, therefore, our alliances and friendships that are based on them and designed to further them are permanent interests of the United States.

Our ties with the great democracies are thus not an alliance of convenience but a union of principle in defense of democratic values and our way of life. It is our ideals that inspire not only our self-defense but all else that we do. And the resilience of our countries in responding to all our modern challenges is a testimony to the spirit and moral strength of our free peoples.

As we look to the future there is no higher priority in our foreign policy than sustaining the vitality of democracy and the unity of democracies. The world will become more, not less, complex; our power will grow more, not less, interwoven with others; our values will be more, not less, challenged. In such a world the solidarity of our relations with those who share our heritage, our way of life, our ideals, takes on more, and not less, importance for as far ahead as we can see.

There is greater sharing of responsibility in North Atlantic defense today. The President has taken the initiative in promoting such improvements as improved standardization of equipment and more effective force structuring. But the United States must remain conscious of its own special responsibility in the alliance—to maintain the strategic balance and to contribute its crucial share to maintaining the conventional balance in Europe and the Mediterranean, and more generally.

Our security is a precondition of all else that we do. On this foundation we will face, over the coming period, a broad range of tasks beyond the traditional enterprise of collective defense.

We will continue to seek to enhance our security and general peace through arms control and negotiation of political conflicts. We hope to see progress in the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe. We expect that the 1971 Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, which ended a chronic crisis of more than two decades, foreshadows an era of enhanced security in central Europe.

(a)

5

In the coming decade the collaboration of the industrial democracies can be the dynamic force in the building of a more secure and progressive international order. We have made a remarkable beginning. New steps have been taken in the last few years, and further ones will be taken, to strengthen European unity; this has the strong support of the United States. The new institutions and programs of our collective energy strategy are in place. We have discussed and developed common approaches to the new dialogue with the developing nations. The passage of the Trade Act of 1974 enabled this country to enter into a new round of trade negotiations with Europe and Japan to make basic improvements in the world trading system. In recent months the Rambouillet economic summit and the Jamaica reform of the international monetary system demonstrate that the future of our cooperation among the industrial democracies will be as fruitful as the past.

In this regard I want to mention an important item of business before this committee—approval of our participation in the OECD [Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development] Financial Support Fund. This is the contingency mechanism, proposed by the United States, to insure mutual support among the industrial nations in the face of financial disruptions or pressures by actions of the oil cartel. At little cost this mechanism will provide a financial safety net, combat protectionism, and promote our cooperation on energy policy. It is vital for the industrial nations' independence. Seven other OECD members have ratified it and the rest are expected to do so by the middle of this year. I hope the Congress will move quickly to do the same—to reinforce the solidarity of the industrial democracies.

It is our belief that in an era when our democratic values are under challenge in the world and our societies have been buffeted by economic difficulties at home, the solidarity and cooperation of the great democracies are of crucial importance for giving impetus to all our efforts. We have proved what we can do—and vindicated the faith of our people in the values and future of our societies. We have proved that our unity can be as dynamic a force for building a new international order today as it was 30 years ago.

The new solidarity we are building can draw its inspiration from our hopes and ideals rather

than merely our common dangers. A thriving Europe and Japan and North America will not only be secure and prosperous but a magnet to the Communist countries and to the developing world. And so we can enter the last quarter of this century confident that we are masters of our own destiny—and making a decisive contribution to the world's destiny.

## Peace and Equilibrium

Of the challenges that the democracies face, none are more fundamental than the issues of peace and war. These issues—the traditional foreign policy agenda—take on in this era an unprecedented dimension.

* Relations with the major Communist powers;

* The effort to resolve regional conflicts and disputes peacefully; and

* The increasing danger of nuclear weapons proliferation.

We live in a world in which this country must now deal with a country of roughly equal power. This is not a familiar world for modern Americans. Yet it is the kind of world in which we will live for the rest of this century and beyond—no matter what we do in the military field.

Thirty years ago the United States, alone among the major nations of the world, emerged from the Second World War with its economy and society undamaged by war. We enjoyed a tremendous preponderance in economic power and a monopoly on nuclear weapons. This great physical strength gave impetus to the willingness of the American people to take responsibility for helping to shape a better postwar international order. The creativity and generosity that this Nation displayed in that period are a lasting tribute to the American spirit.

Today, because of the inevitable recovery and growth of our allies—and our adversaries—the United States now finds itself in a world of relative kinds of equilibrium. In strategic military power the world is still bipolar. Economic power is more widely dispersed among many major nations, including the wealthier of the developing nations. In moral and ideological influence many nations and

6

philosophies contend. The task of consolidating
peace thus presents itself in this era as a far more
complex problem than ever before, both practical-
ly and morally.

With our allies we have learned to share re-
sponsibility and leadership, and this has enhanced
our collaboration in every dimension of common
endeavor. But with our adversaries we face the
imperative of coexistence in an age of thermonu-
clear weapons and strategic parity. We must defend
our interests, our principles, and our allies while
insuring at all times that international conflict does
not degenerate into cataclysm. We must resist
expansionism and pressures, but we must on this
foundation seek to build habits of restraint that
will over the long term lead to a reliable reduction
of tensions.

This Government has, therefore, moved with
energy and purpose over the last several years—and
in concert with our allies—to consolidate and trans-
form our *relationships with the major Communist
powers* for a new era and for our long-term future.

And this country in the last several years has
opened up positive relations with countries in East-
ern Europe. Two American Presidents have visited
Poland, Yugoslavia, and Romania to demonstrate
that in our view European security and relaxation
of tensions apply to Eastern as well as Western
Europe. This remains, and must remain, a basic
principle of American policy.

In an age when two nations have the power to
visit utter destruction on the whole planet in
hours, there can be no greater imperative than
assuring a rational and secure relationship between
the nuclear superpowers. This is a challenge with-
out precedent. Historically a conflict of ideology
and geopolitical interest such as now characterizes
the international scene has almost invariably led to
war. But in the age of strategic equality, humanity
could not survive such a repetition of history. War
would mean mutual suicide.

Therefore, with respect to the Soviet Union,
the United States faces the necessity of a dual
policy: We must preserve stability but not rest
upon it; we must firmly resist and deter adven-
turism. But at the same time we must keep open
the possibility of more constructive relations be-
tween the United States and the Soviet Union—
resolving political disputes by negotiation, such as
Berlin; working out stable agreements to limit stra-
tegic arms on both sides, as in the SALT I agree-
ments and the accord at Vladivostok; and—when
political conditions permit it—developing our
bilateral cooperation in economic and other fields
to give both sides a vested interest in continuing
and improving political relations.

We have an obligation to mankind to work for
a more secure world. We have an obligation to the
American people to insure that a crisis, if it is im-
posed upon us, does not result from any lack of
vision of the United States.

We face a long-term problem, and we must
fashion and maintain a long-term policy. An equi-
librium of power is indispensable to any hope of
peace. But a balance of power constantly contested
is too precarious a foundation for our long-term
future. So this country, in its third century, must
avoid the twin temptations of provocation and
escapism. We must maintain a steady and confident
course; it must be a policy that our adversaries
respect, our allies support, and our people believe
in and sustain.

By whatever name we call it the U.S.-Soviet
relationship must be founded on certain funda-
mental principles, which this country has affirmed
consistently for the last seven years.

* First we will maintain our military strength. The United States must maintain an equilibrium of power through a strong national and allied defense. The United States will do what is necessary to maintain the balance in all significant categories of military strength—including conventional as well as strategic forces.

* Secondly this country is prepared to negotiate solutions to political problems. The 1971 agreement on Berlin is an example. And both superpowers share a basic responsibility to insure that the world is spared the holocaust of a nuclear war. Strategic arms limitation is, therefore, a permanent, mutual, and fundamental interest. At

7

Vladivostok in 1974 President Ford reached agreement on the outline of a comprehensive agreement putting an equal ceiling on strategic forces on both sides for a 10-year period. The issues that remain in completing that agreement are soluble. An agreement on the basis of strict reciprocity is attainable.

* Both sides have vital interests but have an overriding interest in avoidance of major conflict. Therefore long-term peace can only be founded on the practice and habit of restraint. Exploiting local crises for unilateral gain is not acceptable. This Nation will not seek confrontations lightly, but we are determined to defend peace by systematic resistance to pressures and irresponsible actions. The growth of Soviet economic and military power could not have been prevented; what can be prevented is the use of that power to upset the global balance. Without restraint there is no possibility of a meaningful relaxation of tensions.

* If we preserve security on this basis, opportunities exist for creative diplomacy to engage the Soviet Union more firmly in constructive participation to the international system. We are prepared to hold out the prospect of increasing bilateral cooperation in the economic, technical, and other fields to give both sides an increasing stake in positive political relations. Over the long term we have it without our capacity to make our coexistence durable and secure and to turn it into cooperation.

This is the broad agenda for the future of the U.S.-Soviet relationship. More specifically:

* We cannot prevent the growth of Soviet power, but we can prevent its use for unilateral advantage and political expansion.

* We must accept the reality that sovereign states, especially ones of roughly equal power, cannot impose unacceptable conditions on each other and ultimately and inevitably must proceed by compromise.

* The United States will never stand for violation of a solemn treaty or agreement.

* We can never tolerate a shift in the strategic balance against us either in unsatisfactory agreements, violations of agreements, or by neglect of our own defense requirements.

* We are determined to pursue the effort to negotiate a saner and more secure strategic balance

Any Administration conscious of the long-term requirements of peace will find itself implementing the same dual approach of firmness in the face of pressure and readiness to work for a more cooperative world. Of course differences are inevitable as to the practical application of these principles. But, as President Kennedy said, "... 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 mortal."

As the United States and Soviet Union have taken important steps toward regulating their own competition, the problem of local conflicts persists and, indeed, to some extent increases. The world begins to take for granted the invulnerability of global stability to local disturbances. The world has permitted too many of the underlying causes of regional conflicts to continue unattended until the parties came to believe their only recourse was to war. And because each crisis ultimately has been contained, the world has remained complacent. We cannot forget the ominous lesson of 1914. Tolerance of local conflict tempts world holocaust. We have no guarantee that some local crisis will not explode beyond control. We have a responsibility to prevent such crises.

This must be a permanent preoccupation of statesmen who are concerned for the preservation of peace over the next decades. In the modern era global communications have shrunk our planet and created a global consciousness. Nations and peoples are increasingly sensitive to events and issues in other parts of the globe. Our moral principle extends our concern for the fate of our fellowmen. Ideological conflict respects no boundaries and calls into question even the legitimacy of domestic structures.

The United States is not the world's police-man. But we have learned from bitter experience- as recently as 1973-that conflicts can erupt and spread and directly touch the interests and well-being of this country. Helping to settle dis-

8

putes is a longstanding American tradition—in our interest and the world interest.

Nowhere is there greater urgency than in the Middle East. The agreements negotiated between the parties over the past few years, in accordance with [U.N.] Resolutions 242 and 338 are unprecedented steps toward an ultimate peace. These efforts must and will continue. Both sides must contribute to the process; the United States remains committed to assist. The elements for further progress toward peace exist. Stagnation runs a grave risk of further upheaval, of benefit to neither side, and of grave implications for the peace and economic well-being of the world.

*Proliferation of nuclear weapons technology* could add a more ominous dimension to a world in which regional political conflicts persist. The dangers so long predicted may be coming closer at hand. As I said to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1974: "The world has grown so accustomed to the existence of nuclear weapons that it assumes they will never be used. . . . In a world where many nations possess nuclear weapons, dangers would be vastly compounded. It would be infinitely more difficult, if not impossible, to maintain stability among a large number of nuclear powers. Local wars would take on a new dimension. Nuclear weapons would be introduced into regions 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 involvement of the major nuclear powers."

Therefore, halting proliferation is a major foreign policy objective of this Administration as it has been for all previous Administrations since the dawn of the nuclear age. As I explained to your collegues on the Senate Committee on Government Operations just a week ago, we have intensified our efforts—in international bodies, with other nations who are principal exporters of nuclear materials, with potential nuclear powers—and with the Congress—to insure that the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy can be spread widely without at the same time spreading the perils of holocaust. It is a challenge to statesmanship to see beyond the immediate economic gains from unrestrained competition in nuclear exports and to act to halt a mushrooming danger.

## Shaping a World Community

The upheavals of the 20th century have bequeathed to us another fundamental task—to adapt the international structure to the new realities of our time. We must fashion constructive long-term relationships between the industrial and developing nations, rich and poor, North and South; we must adapt and reinvigorate our friendships in Latin America, Asia, and Africa taking into account their new role and importance on the world scene; and together with all nations we must address the new problems of an interdependent world which can only be solved through multilateral cooperation.

A central issue of foreign policy over the next generation will be the relationship between the industrial and developing nations. Decolonization and the expansion of the world economy have given birth to new countries and new centers of power and initiative. The world environment of the next decades can be the seedbed of political instability, ideological confrontation, and economic warfare—or it can become a community marked by international collaboration on an unprecedented scale. The interdependence of nations—the indivisibility of our security and our prosperity—can accelerate our common progress or our common decline.

Therefore, just as we must go beyond maintaining equilibrium if we are to insure peace, so must we transcend tests of strength in North-South relations and seek to build a true world community. In international forums the United States will resist pressure tactics, one-way morality, and propagandistic assaults on our dignity and on common sense. We will defend our interests and beliefs without apology. We will resist attempts at blackmail or extortion.

We know that world order depends ultimately on cooperative efforts and concrete solutions to the problems in our relations. The price and supply of energy, the conditions of trade, the expansion of world food production, the technological bases for economic development, the protection of the world environment, the rules of law that govern the world's oceans and outer space—these are concerns that affect all nations and that can be satisfactorily addressed only on the basis of mutual respect and in a framework of international collaboration. This is the agenda of an interdependent world.

9

We have much reason for confidence. It is the West—and overwhelmingly this country—that has the resources, the technology, the skills, the organizational ability, and the goodwill that are the key to the success of these international efforts. In the global dialogue among the industrial and developing worlds, the Communist nations are conspicuous by their absence and, indeed, by their irrelevance.

Therefore we have begun the dialogue with the developing nations. At the World Food Conference in 1974—which was called at our initiative—and at the Seventh Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly last September and in the Conference on International Economic Cooperation now underway in Paris, the United States has taken the role of leadership. We have undertaken it with a strong contribution from the Congress and in the spirit of the highest ideals of the American people. This must continue.

The United States has presented a wide range of proposals for practical cooperation that could shape a constructive long-term economic relationship between the developed and developing countries—to safeguard export earnings against economic cycles and natural disasters, to accelerate growth and agricultural production, to improve conditions of trade and investment in key commodities, and to address the urgent needs of the poorest countries. In every area of concern we have proposed methods of cooperation among all countries—including the other industrial countries, the newly wealthy oil producers, and the developing countries. Many of our proposals of last September have already been implemented. More can be done. If we are met in a constructive spirit, we will respond. There is a full agenda before us—implementing proposals that have already been made and going beyond.

The United States has longstanding friendships on a bilateral basis with the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa which we seek to adapt, improve, and build upon.

Latin America, which I have recently visited, is for the United States a region of special ties and special interest. It is as well a continent in a process of transition. Hemispheric relationships—bilateral, regional, multilateral, and global—are in flux. An earlier community of the Americas bounded by exclusivity has given way to a more open relationship

which turns not on convention but on mutual respect, common interests, and cooperative problem-solving, and a more active role in the events outside the region. At the same time the importance of Latin America to the United States is steadily increasing—as elements of the global economy, as participants in the world's political forums, and in their new role as the most developed of the developing nations. The United States must adapt to these changing realities, and it has begun to do so. Equally we maintain our conviction that the Americas must not reject, but build upon, the precious heritage of our tradition of cooperation. This is the formula for our future progress. The great issues of global interdependence are before us; with this special advantage, and on the basis of respect and sovereign equality, we here in this hemisphere can cooperate to find mutually beneficial solutions. If we succeed our collaboration can be a model for the wider world community that we seek.

Our relations with Asia are crucial as well, for in Asia the interests of all the major powers in the world intersect. The stability of the region will be central to world peace over the coming decades as it has been in past decades. President Ford's trip to Asia in December both reaffirmed America's fundamental stake in Asia and opened a fresh chapter in our relations with the nations of the region. He set forth the premises of our country's future approach to Asia:

* American strength is basic to any stable balance of power in the Pacific and, therefore, to global stability.

* Partnership with Japan is a pillar of our Asia policy.

* The process of normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China is indispensable—America's ties with one-quarter of mankind are inevitably of crucial importance to the world of the future.

* We have a continuing stake in stability and security in Southeast Asia, an area of great dynamism and promise.

* Peace in Asia depends upon the resolution of outstanding political conflicts, most prominently that of the Korean peninsula.

* Economic cooperation among the peoples of the Pacific basin is essential to fulfilling the aspira-

10

And very soon I will visit another area of
great change and importance—Africa. The dramatic
spread of national independence in Africa has had
a major impact on world institutions and on the
scope of international affairs. Africa's economic
importance and its economic relations with other
continents are growing. And America's traditional
concern for the cause of independence and self-
determination and racial justice and the identifica-
tion of many Americans with their African heritage
have given a more profound dimension to our
interest in the continent's future.

* We want to see Africa attain prosperity for its people and become a major participant in the international economic system.

* We support the desire of African nations to chart their own course in domestic, regional, and international affairs—to choose their own social system and a nonaligned foreign policy.

* We want to see self-determination, racial justice, and human rights spread throughout Africa. As President Ford has recently made clear again, majority rule in Rhodesia and Namibia is the unequivocal commitment of the United States.

* We want to see the African Continent be free of great power rivalry or conflict. We have our own interest in seeing that local conflicts there not be exploited and exacerbated by outside forces intervening for unilateral advantage.

A broader range of issues facing this country
in the coming years has to do with the multilateral
challenges of an era of increasing global interde-
pendence.

There are many urgent and unprecedented
issues that can be addressed only on a global basis
and whose resolution will fundamentally shape the
future of this planet. A central example is the Con-erence on the Law of the Sea, which resumes its
work this week in New York. In this unprece-
dented negotiation over 100 nations are seeking to
write new rules of law governing the use of the
world's oceans. The implications for international

security, for the use of vast resources, for scientific
research, and for the protection of the environ-
ment are vast. The United States will continue its
work with others to assure that the oceans become
an arena of global cooperation and enrichment
rather than global conflict.

Also of great importance is the use of outer
space, which presents us as well with the potential
for conflict or the possibility of collaboration. We
have the opportunity to substitute international
law for power competition in the formative stage
of an important international activity.

The modern age has not only given us the
benefits of technology, it has also spawned the
plagues of aircraft hijacking, international terror-
ism, and new techniques of warfare. The interna-
tional community must stand together against
these affronts to mankind. The United States has,
and must continue, to promote the strengthening
of international organizations and international law
to deal with these issues.

Compassion for our fellow man requires that
we mobilize international resources to combat the
age-old scourges of disease, famine, and natural dis-
aster. And concern for basic human rights calls
upon the international community to oppose viola-
tions to individual dignity wherever and by whom-
ever they are practiced. The practice of torture
must be discredited and banished. Human rights
must be cherished and promoted regardless of race,
sex, religion, or political belief.

We must extend the scope and reach of inter-
national institutions for cooperation. The United
Nations—an organization in which the American
people have invested great hopes—must be a
mechanism of practical collaboration instead of an
arena of rhetorical confrontation if it is to fulfill
the mission of its charter and its responsibilities for
peace in the modern era. Procedural abuses and
one-sided resolutions cannot be accepted. The
value of this organization, if properly used, remains
considerable—in peacekeeping, dispute settlement,
and promoting cooperation for economic develop-
ment and health and scores of other endeavors.

Only through a pattern of international
cooperation can all these problems be successfully
addressed. And only in a structure of global peace
can the insecurity of nations, out of which so
much conflict arises, be eased and habits of com-

11

## Our Debate at Home

* To promote, together with our allies, the strength and ideals of freedom and democracy in a turbulent world;

* To master the traditional challenges of peace and war, to maintain an equilibrium of strength, but to go beyond balance to a more positive future;

* To shape a long-term relationship of mutual benefit with the developing countries and to turn all the issues of interdependence into the cement of a new global community.

Since this Nation was born in struggle 200 years ago, Americans have never shrunk from challenge. We have never regarded the problems we face as cause for pessimism or despair. On the contrary America's traditional spirit and optimism have always given millions around the world the hope that the complex issues of today can and will be solved. The world knows full well that no solutions are possible without the active participation and commitment of a united American people. To describe the complex and long-term tasks we face is, therefore, the greatest expression of confidence in America.

We remain the world's greatest democracy; we are the engine of the global economy; we have been for 30 years the bulwark of the balance of power and the beacon of freedom. The physical strength, the organizational skill, the creative genius of this country makes us—as we have always been since our Revolution—the hope of mankind.

What we face today is not a test of our physical strength—which is unparalleled—but a qualitative challenge unlike anything we have ever faced before. It is a challenge to our will and courage and sense of responsibility. We are tested to show whether we understand what a world of complexity and ambiguity requires of us. It is not every

generation that is given the opportunity to shape a new international order. If the opportunity is missed we shall live in a world of increasing chaos and danger. If it is realized we shall have begun an era of greater peace and progress and justice.

A heavy responsibility lies with us here in Washington. The Congress and the Executive owe the American people an end to the divisions of the past decade. The divisive issues are no longer with us. The tasks ahead of us are not partisan or ideological issues; they are great tasks for America in a new century, in a new world that, more than ever, impinges upon our lives and cries out for our leadership. Even more than our resources, the creative vitality of this Nation has been a tremendous force for good and continues to be so.

We can accomplish great things—but we can do so only as a united people. Beyond all the special concerns and special interests lies the national interest. Congress and the Executive, Republicans and Democrats, have a common stake in the effectiveness and success of American foreign policy. Most of the major initiatives this Government has taken on fundamental issues—with our allies, with the People's Republic of China, with the Soviet Union, with the developing nations, in the Middle East—have had broad and deep support in the Congress and in the country.

Therefore just as we have the capacity to build a more durable international structure, so we have the capacity and opportunity to rebuild the consensus among the executive and legislative branches and our people that will give new impetus to our responsible leadership in the world in our third century. This is the deepest desire of the President and the strongest commitment of all his Administration.

I hope that this discussion of what we see as the issues of the future will be helpful in the building of such a consensus. The issues are complex; the degree of public understanding required to deal with them is higher than at any time in our historical experience. And even if we can reach a consensus on objectives and priorities, our resources and options are limited and we cannot hope always to prevail, or to be right.

Judge Wm Mulligan's
Speech
(Secretary extracted from
for PM Cosgrave's toast
3/18/76)

CHRISTOPHER O'COLUMBUS
AND OTHER FAMOUS IRISHMEN

Once when I was in Ireland I was told that Christopher Columbus has stopped in Galway to take on board an Irish navigator who actually guided him to the new world.

It was hard to believe but later I met a distinguished Irish-American judge and asked him about it. He said that I had got it all wrong. Actually, it was Columbus who was Irish. And indeed, his name wasn't Columbus at all -- it was Dooley.

Well, being an historian I went immediately to Samuel Eliot Morison's book on Columbus entitled "Admiral of the Ocean Sea" and found that the name Dooley does not appear on the crew list of any of the three vessels. But I did, to my surprise, learn from Morison's book that Columbus, as described by his contemporaries, had "blue eyes, a light complexion and bright red hair." More than this, Morison notes that Columbus could neither read nor write Italian.

-2-

Somewhat abashed I reported this back to my Irish-American friend who said: "Of course, it was Irish he spoke and isn't it a mark of Dooley's great leadership and seamanship that he could make that Italian crew understand his orders even though they were given in Gaelic." That is why, my Irish-American friend said, that every October 12 he attended the annual Dooley Day Parade at Dooley Circle in New York City and watched with pride as the Knights of Dooley passed by.

He went on to say that it is only logical and reasonable for us to assume that the great Irish seamen of the past visited Italy, and for all he knew may have discovered it. And they undoubtedly went on to the Greek Islands where it was their custom to adopt the names of the natives. He said he was working on a book which would establish the true

-3-

identity of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, and noted that Socrates
died after drinking too much hemlock. Which affords us some
small indication that his origins were in some colder climate.

In this regard, he noted that an ancestor of his bore the
name Hercules Mulligan, an unsung American hero and George
Washington's personal spy. Mulligan had a tailoring establishment
on the lower east side in New York catering to British officers
during the Revolution. He not only measured the British but
extracted secret information from them. When this got out
later, it of course ruined the tailoring business for the Irish here,
and to this very day you won't find an Irish tailor in New York.
Two or three nights a week Hercules would row across the
Hudson and give a personal report to George Washington.

-4-

Despite all of his travel back and forth across the Hudson, when they finally built a bridge across the river, ironically it was named after George Washington instead of Mulligan who had really earned it.

My friend concluded by saying that his interest in bridges and their names were leading him to undertake to establish the true identity of one Giovanni Verrazano and that here in Washington the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge and the Rochambeau Bridge would soon come under his scrutiny. He was gratified however that the canal which runs along the Potomac had been properly named after the Irishman who dug it, Sean O'Canal (C & O Canal).

Preliminary to luncheon toast 3/18/7
for Irish PM Cosgrave

Judge Mulligan told the following story at the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick's Dinner in 1972.

A few years ago when I was in Ireland, I visited the ancient port city of Galway where I was assured by a local that Christopher Columbus had stopped there to bring on board an Irish navigator who actually guided him to the New World. A few months ago I was in the company of the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland, a typically urbane, scholarly and intellectual Irishman not given to the easy acceptance of Leprechauns of unfounded legends. I asked him about the story of the

-2-

Irish navigator and I was frankly surprised
when instead of debunking it, he responded
"Oh yes, the story is well authenticated.
The man's name was Dooley." With
all due respect, I could not accept the
story; there was no record that Columbus
ever made any such diversion to Galway,
pleasant though it might be. It seemed
more logical to me that Dooley, great sailor
that he must have been, had sailed from
Ireland to Portugal and was the navigator
from the start. Becoming more interested,
I studied the celebrated work on the subject,
Samuel Elliott Morrison's "Admiral of the
Ocean Sea" and I discovered to my dismay

-3-

that Dooley's name does not appear on the
list of the crew of any of the three vessels.
This in turn led me to a somewhat spectacular
discovery which I must share with you
today in the privacy of this room. Morrison's
book gives a physical description of
Columbus which was provided by his own
contemporaries -- I quote -- "He was more
than middling tall, aquiline nose, blue eyes,
complexion light and tending to bright red,
beard and hair red. When he was angry he
would exclaim 'May God take you.' In
matter of religion he was so strict that for
fasting and saying all the canonical offices
he might have been taken for a member of a
religious order." Gentlemen, in all honesty

-4-

and frankness, how many religious, blue
eyed, red faced, red-haired Italians
have you met in your life. I am not only
suggesting but I think the facts clearly
establish that in reality Columbus was
Dooley -- or Dooley was Columbus
whichever way you want it.

TOAST FOR THE SECRETARY
AT HIS LUNCHEON
FOR IRISH PRIME MINISTER COSGRAVE

Thursday, March 18, 1976

Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Cosgrave, ladies and gentlemen:

Mrs. Kissinger and I are honored and pleased to welcome you today. When preparing for your visit I had originally decided to propose this toast in Gaelic, the official language of your country. But unfortunately, all of the State Department's interpreters are out of action with hangovers from celebrating St. Patrick's Day. Fortunately, I have already learned through our conversations that your English is nearly as good as mine so I trust you will permit me to continue my remarks in that language.

-2-

Prime Minister and Mrs. Cosgrave, your first visit to the United States as Prime Minister, in connection with our Bicentennial celebrations, could not have come at a more suitable moment. Understandably, at such a time, we think of the history of the United States and the enormous contribution which Irish men and women have made to our country -- at all times and in all walks of life. As we reflect with pride upon the ties of kinship binding our two peoples, we also note with gratification the excellent relations which have so long existed between Ireland and the United States.

We are not here, however, merely to remember the past. Time has wrought great and increasingly rapid changes in our nations and in the world around us. As good friends, Ireland

-3-

and the United States must respond to those changes by ensuring
that our relations take account not only of bilateral matters
but of the new problems created by the growing interdependence
of nations and issues.

Our efforts are made easier by our common dedication to
the principles of democracy, individual freedom and human
dignity, and to the goals of peace, security, economic and
social progress throughout the world.

Ireland is playing an active role in world affairs, by its
contributions to the United Nations as well as through its
membership in the European Community. That role has been
both effective and constructive. We remember that the late
President DeValera was President of the League of Nations
Assembly; that a distinguished Irish diplomat, Frederick Boland,

-4-

was President of the UN General Assembly; and that the Irish
have had an important part in UN peacekeeping operations.

Ireland's participation in the UN is a model of the enlightened
and responsible contribution a small country can make to the
international community, while remaining alert to its own
national interests.

I want also to pay tribute to the invaluable role Ireland has
played in the consultations between the U. S. and the European
Community while President of the Community and afterward.

The United States has consistently supported the process of
European unification, as it has developed within the Community.

We remain a strong supporter of the process, while recognizing
that it is for Europe to decide its character and pace.

-5-

Proceeding from the conviction that a European identity and
a close transatlantic partnership are not incompatible, we will
be a sympathetic and interested friend.

We applaud Ireland's achievements in international
relations, and pledge our closest cooperation with you in
considering the courses of action to be taken in meeting the
world's problems.

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to join me in a toast
to the Prime Minister of Ireland, to the enduring friendship
between our countries, and to our mutual commitment to
cooperation in the search for peace and progress for all
mankind.

Slan-chuh Aw-gus - Ail (phonetic for "Cheers and
Good Health.")

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
PRESENTATION OF THE NATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD CITATION
TO SOL M. LINOWITZ

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CHRISTIANS
AND JEWS

March 18, 1976

Shoreham Hotel

Mr. Riley, Ambassador Sevilla Sacasa,
Secretary Coleman, Mayor Washington, Chairman
Tucker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the National
Conference of Christians and Jews:

It is a mark of the thoughtfulness of the
Christian members of this Conference to have
acquiesced in the proposal not to schedule this dinner
on St. Patrick's Day.

And I want to express my appreciation to the
Jewish membership for permitting me to sit through an
entire meal without mentioning the sale of C-130s to
Egypt.

- 2 -

Winston Churchill was fond of the saying that wherever there are 3 Jews you get two Prime Ministers and one leader of the opposition. With Sol Linowitz alone you not only get 30 interlocking directorships, but assorted lawyers, university trustees, ambassadors, and bar mitzvah musicians as well. He is the only man I know who could conduct a meeting of the American establishment simply by sitting down in a room by himself with his head in his hands.

We meet here tonight to honor a man whose compassion is so all-encompassing that it even includes me.

I have known Sol Linowitz for many years, and at the risk of damaging his reputation, I call him my friend.

He is a man whose courage is so great that, as a Democrat, he has been willing to advise this Administration on foreign policy.

- 3 -

I should hasten to add, however, that there
are some who argue that Sol's dedication to
strengthening American foreign policy is a personal
penance he has imposed upon himself for the role he
played in promoting that uncontrollable force that
has done so much to enliven the front pages of
America's newspapers -- the Xerox machine.

In truth, I can think of no American who
more perfectly embodies the qualities of a large-
minded leadership so necessary today if America
is to fulfill the tasks history has set before us.

As an attorney, Sol Linowitz is a distinguished
figure in the world of international law.

As a businessman, he has presided over
some of the most creative developments of our free
enterprise system.

As a diplomat, he has served our country
brilliantly in the cause of better relations between
the nations of this hemisphere.

- 4 -

I personally am particularly grateful for his thoughtful contributions to the shaping of a foreign policy for the future which can help make cooperation among the nations of the Americas a model for, and a contribution to, the justice, harmony and prosperity to which all peoples of the world aspire in this age of interdependence. Sol Linowitz knows that our country has permanent interests and enduring principles that transcend partisan concerns. He knows how important it is for a united America to dedicate itself to the defense of those interests and the furtherance of those principles.

It is this larger vision which we speak of tonight as we honor Sol. For we must never forget that all our efforts -- economic, political, social -- will ultimately be judged by one standard: the brotherhood of man and the well-being

- 5 -

of the world community.

Sol Linowitz exemplifies the strength and
wisdom of our land. His is a nation that will never
be satisfied with a world in which the fears and
hatreds of humanity overshadow its hopes. His is
an example of how Americans can translate their
actions into human concerns, and their concerns
into practical progress toward a better world.

We honor Sol Linowitz for his humanity,
his compassion, and the inspired contribution he
has made to the major economic and social issues
of our time. And, above all, we honor him for
what he has done for that cause which must be the
ultimate purpose of all we do -- the brotherhood of
all mankind.

I am proud to present to Ambassador Sol
Linowitz the National Conference of Christians and
Jews' Brotherhood Citation, which reads:

- 6 -

"For his great and dedicated service to the improvement of relations among the people of the Americas, and throughout the world, as United States Ambassador to the Organization of American States;

"For his past and continuing vital role in the National Urban Coalition, which has confronted the persistent problems of racial discrimination and prejudice;

"For his contributions, as President of the Federal City Council, to the forces of leadership seeking to solve the major social and economic problems of the Metropolitan Washington area;

"For a lifetime of active service in the cause of brotherhood and improvement in human relations, The National Conference of Christians and Jews presents the National Brotherhood Citation to Sol M. Linowitz."