-5-

With respect to the demonstrations, it is worthwhile to remember that a few years ago the demonstrations were complaining about excessive American involvement. Now the complaint seems to be the opposite.

Q Mr. Secretary, has the perception of the United States as "tilting towards Turkey" regardless of whether it's correct or incorrect in any way hampered your efforts to serve as an effective mediator between the two sides?

A I think that it is understandable that Greek emotions run very deep at this moment. I believe that, upon calmer reflection, the responsible Greek leaders will recognize that the United States has shown deep sympathy for the Greek Government -- that we welcome the present democratic Government in Greece, and that within the limits of what was possible, we have attempted to play a constructive role.

I think the Greek Government will also realize that the United States' roles can be very important in bringing about a result consistent with the dignity and honor of all of the parties -- and we hope it will realize that anti-American demonstrations and anti-American gestures do not contribute to our effectiveness.

Q Mr. Secretary, yesterday Secretary [of Defense James R.] Schlesinger talked about the arms embargo and the continued Turkish advances and it sounded like it was still an active possibility if the Turks continued their military operations on Cyprus. Is it? And at what point do we invoke some form of embargo?

A I do not wish to speak of circumstances that have not arisen. We have been given assurances by the Turkish Government that it would strictly abide by the cease-fire, and these assurances were reiterated in my conversations with Prime Minister Ecevit this morning. I do not want to consider what our point of view would be if it turned out that these assurances weren't correct.

Q Mr. Secretary, on the question about military assistance, please, the Foreign Assistance Act stated --

A Where is the question?

Q I am asking the question from back here. The Foreign Assistance Act states --

A I thought I was looking at Bernie Gwertzman.

Q -- that defense services to any country shall be furnished solely for internal security and for legitimate self-defense. It also states that any country which uses articles which we have given them in substantial violation of the Act shall be immediately ineligible for further assistance. The question that I am asking is whether or not--what your understanding of the legal terms of the Act are -- whether or not we are not required under the terms of the Act to cut military assistance to Turkey?

A Well, I will have to get a legal opinion on that subject, which I have not done. The considerations from a policy point of view that were at the mind of the President and myself have been stated here.

Q In your conversation with the Prime Minister of Turkey today, just to broaden one of your points, do you have the understanding that the one-third of Cyprus which is now under Turkish control can be significantly reduced in size?

A I have the understanding that it can be reduced in size.

Q But not significantly.

A I did not go into that much detail.

Q Mr. Secretary, in view of the crisis in Cyprus, can you assess, or could you reassess, the capability of the United States to stop or limit local wars between smaller states?

-6-

A Well, the United States has never claimed, and could not accept the proposition, that it must stop every local war between smaller states wherever they occur.

Secondly, it is also clear that the United States cannot be asked to redress any upset in any balance regardless of how it has occurred, and where it has occurred, by its own military forces.

We are disappointed by the outcome, by the actions of various of the parties at various times on Cyprus.

We chose -- in order not to internationalize the issues too much -- to support Britain, which had a legal position as a guaranteeing power in its mediating effort. We are prepared to continue to do this, and we are prepared also to make other efforts. I do not think it is fair to generalize from this one event, which had a long and complicated history, on a global basis.

Q Mr. Secretary, earlier you spoke about a new British initiative. Could you give us an idea as to what it would be, what would be the direction of it?

A I saw a ticker before I came here in which this had allegedly been announced by the British Foreign Office, and I do not want to go into the details of it because it has been the subject of confidential discussions over the weekend. I simply wanted to indicate the United States' support for it.

Q Mr. Secretary, on the one hand, just a couple of minutes ago, you did not rule out totally the cutting off, or the possible cutting off, of military aid. You merely said you didn't want to discuss circumstances which have not yet arisen. But, on the other hand, you gave us two very good reasons why the cut-off of military aid would not be effective anyway. Why can you not rule it out?

A The cut-off of military aid was judged not to be effective in the circumstances existing last week. It is a step we would take only in very extreme circumstances which, I repeat, have not arisen, and which I do not foresee. We cannot rule it out for all time, but we do not foresee it, and we are not threatening with it now.

Q Mr. Secretary, what is happening on the negotiations on the [Senator Henry M.] Jackson Amendment? Where does that stand? When do you expect that that will come to a fulfillment?

A As the three Senators said after the meeting with President Ford the other day, we made good progress in the negotiations. We hope that we can make further progress during this week.

Q Mr. Secretary, in your conversations with parties involved in the Cyprus situation, would you be to characterize the situation now as a winding down, or do you expect it to go on indefinitely?

A No, my impression is that the military operations have substantially wound down. It is, of course, a serious problem for Greece whether and under what circumstances it will enter negotiations. We favor early negotiations because we do not believe that the situation will improve. Indeed, the status quo will tend to be confirmed the longer the negotiations are delayed.

I have stated the American position with respect to the negotiations and with respect to the role we would play in a negotiation, and we expect to have clearer responses about that in the next few days.

Q Mr. Secretary, could you explain the American position on the next step in the diplomatic dialogue in the Middle East? Yesterday's U.S.-Jordanian communique said that at an appropriately early date there should be a Jordanian-Israeli disengagement agreement. Does this now mean that the United States sees the next step being between Israel and Jordan?

A First of all, let me say that there are many versions of disengagement schemes between Jordan and Israel, and the United States did not imply by this statement that it backed any particular scheme between Jordan and Israel.

As to which negotiation should be next, I think we cannot decide until the round of discussions is completed, which involves the Foreign Minister of Syria, who is arriving this week; the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, who is arriving next week; and we have also invited the Prime Minister of Israel to come here in the first half of September for discussions with the President. It is only after all of these discussions are completed that we can make a judgment as to what the next move should be.

Q Following up on that, do you expect on your scheduled trip to India to stop off in the Middle East to possibly begin some shuttle diplomacy between Amman and Jerusalem?

A I think that as a general practice a foreign government must not expect that every time there is a crisis the Secretary of State will come rushing into the area and spend all of his time settling that particular crisis. On that basis we could never conduct a consistent American foreign policy. And it cannot become the rule that every issue is settled by the personal shuttle diplomacy of the Secretary of State.

I'm prepared to go to the Middle East for a specific trip. And I may, if there is an especially critical point, engage in a brief shuttle diplomacy. But I do not think it is in the U.S. interests nor in the interests of other countries to expect me personally to settle every issue no matter where it arises.

So we will support further diplomatic moves, but one must not expect the same degree of extended absences from Washington which characterized the last negotiations.

Q Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

PRESS

[LC]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

August 20, 1974

No. 335

As Prepared for Delivery

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL DELIVERY

SPEECH BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE
AMERICAN LEGION NATIONAL CONVENTION

MIAMI, FLORIDA

AUGUST 20, 1974

National Commander Eaton, Ladies and Gentlemen, My Fellow Veterans:

I bring you the greetings of President Ford, who has asked that I tell you that he looks forward to being with you at your national convention next year.

I am proud to accept the honor you do me this evening. The basic objective of this organization, the maintenance of our national security, has been the central concern of my life for over two decades as a teacher and writer as well as a public servant. Your unswerving dedication to that goal for half a century, through good times and bad, reflects not only the striving of a single organization but also the purposes of an entire nation.

The greatness of a nation is measured not only by its courage in an hour of crisis, but by its response to a prolonged ordeal. After a decade of national tragedy and travail, America and the American people have now emerged strong and united.

For two decades after the Second World War we believed that we could do everything; more recently some spoke of over-involvement and began to believe that we could do nothing. But as we approach our 200th anniversary our faith in ourselves has returned. We are the better for our experience. By learning our limits, we have learned our possibilities as well. We have rejected the extremes of world policeman and isolation which have too long dominated our debate. This has enabled us to move toward the definition of a foreign policy that the American people can support and sustain over the decades to come.

Our constancy is the hope of the world. As President Ford stated in his first address to the Congress last week: "So long as the peoples of the world have confidence in our purposes and faith in our word, the age-old vision of peace on earth will continue to grow brighter."

## America's Strength

There is no goal which occupies more of the time and thought and prayer of any President than to bring peace to America and peace to the world.

For further information contact:

PR #335

-2-

Each age has striven for peace; yet wars inevitably came either by decision or miscalculation. No generation in this century has avoided it. This age must be different. For the first time in history, man has the capacity quite literally to destroy mankind. In our era miscalculation could end life itself.

No group of men understands better the meaning of peace than those who have experienced personally the agonies of war.

The greatest of America's military leaders have always been in the forefront of those who have sought to turn man's eternal history of conflict into a new international order of justice and cooperation and peace.

Thus, George Marshall's contribution to mankind after the Second World War may have surpassed even his historic contribution during the war. He helped forge the national conviction that America's security is inseparable from the world's security, and that the great issues of national defense transcend party and partisan purpose. This tradition has served us well through five Administrations.

Dwight Eisenhower added another dimension. He called attention to the necessity of a strong, standing defense. In his words "the weak have no assurance of peace. They can only accept the future without influence upon it." But he also understood that in the nuclear age strength cannot be an end in itself. He proclaimed what no President since has ever forgotten: "There is no longer any alternative to peace."

So our search for peace begins with America's strength. For other nations to have confidence in our purposes and faith in our word, America must remain a military power second to none. As I can attest from experience, in time of crisis and at the conference table, America's military might is the foundation of our diplomatic strength. We have made progress towards peace in recent years because we have been flexible; but also because we have been resolute. Let us never forget that conciliation is a virtue only in those who are thought to have a choice.

- A strong defense is the essential deterrent to aggression. By demonstrating that there is no alternative to negotiation, it is the precondition of our policy of relaxing tensions with our adversaries.

- A strong defense is the cement of our alliances, reinforcing our partners' will to join in the common defense. It is the basis of mutual confidence and thus of our co-operation across the whole spectrum of our common interests.

Since the Second World War, each Administration regardless of party has supported the maintenance of our military strength. And on every major question of national defense for the past quarter century Congress has supported the President. This is a proud record which we must and will sustain.

But we are living in an age when the issues of defense are of unprecedented complexity. In the nuclear age we must:

- allocate resources between strategic and tactical forces;

- relate military strength to foreign policy goals;

- maintain our security while ending and ultimately reversing the arms race.

PR #335

-3-

In an era of rough strategic balance, the threat to launch an all-out nuclear war grows less and less credible; hence it is less and less likely to deter the full range of potential conflicts. Military challenges at the conventional level may become more difficult to prevent. Thus, the political and military importance of tactical forces grows correspondingly.

Our conventional forces must therefore be strong. They keep the nuclear threshold high by helping to contain, discourage or altogether prevent hostilities. They are the essential tool of our diplomacy in times of crisis. In no recent crisis did we come close to using our strategic forces; but on many occasions our tactical forces were alerted or deployed to deter aggressive actions or to defend the interests of America and its allies. About one-third of our conventional forces are deployed abroad. They are there to serve these purposes. They are not overseas as a favor to foreigners; they are abroad as part of our defense.

American forces in Europe are a vivid illustration of these principles. Reducing our forces there unilaterally would risk serious military and political instability in the center of Europe, enhance Soviet political influence by default, and, ironically, make reliance on nuclear weapons more necessary. It would undercut promising negotiations for the mutual reduction of forces. The defense of Western Europe remains — as it has been throughout the postwar period — the cornerstone of our own security.

Just as we must assure a balance of conventional forces, so we must also assure a nuclear balance. We are determined never to fall behind in nuclear arms. We will never accept the strategic preponderance of another power. We will maintain our strategic weapons program at whatever level is required to achieve this end.

The definition of adequacy, or sufficiency or equivalence is not simple, however. Throughout history the essential task of national security was to accumulate military power. It would have seemed inconceivable even a generation ago that such power once gained could not be translated directly into foreign policy advantage.

Today we as well as the Soviet Union must start from the premise that in the nuclear era an increase in certain categories of military power does not necessarily represent an increase of usable political strength. When two nations are already capable of destroying each other, an upper limit exists beyond which additional weapons lose their political significance. The overwhelming restrictiveness of nuclear weapons makes it difficult to relate their use to specific political objectives and may indeed generate new political problems.

A continual expansion of strategic forces by both sides will not result in greater security. It will only lead to new balance at higher levels of complexity and risk, and at exorbitant cost. It will generate an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion that makes political conflict more likely and that will over time thwart aspirations for a more tranquil and secure world.

This is why President Ford, an ardent advocate of national defense, as one of his first acts as President has invited the Soviet leaders to join with us in an intensified effort to negotiate an effective and equitable limitation of strategic arms.

PR #335

-4-

We will be guided by two basic principles:

- First, until further arms limits are negotiated, we will maintain American strategic strength whatever the cost. Our power will not falter through lack of resolve or sacrifice.

- Second, we will pursue the strategic arms limitation talks with an energy and conviction equal to the challenge before us. We are determined to become the masters of our own technology, not its slave.

The President has asked me to emphasize that in his view the choice is clear. We will maintain the nuclear balance by unilateral actions if we must and by negotiations if at all possible. I can assure you that these negotiations will not fail for lack of good will and readiness to explore new solutions on our part.

## America's Agenda for the Future

Winston Churchill once said to the American people "The destiny of mankind is not decided by material computation. When great causes are on the move . . . we learn that something is going on in space and time, which whether we like it or not, spells duty."

America now has an opportunity — and hence a duty — which comes rarely to a nation to help shape a new peaceful international order. This challenge exists for us as a people, not as partisans of any cause. This is why this effort — even in periods of great domestic strain — has had bipartisan support. The leaders of both parties in Congress deserve the nation's gratitude for having insulated our foreign and security policies from our recent domestic travails.

President Nixon's legacy to President Ford is a world safer than the one he found. President Ford has dedicated himself to leaving to his successor a world at peace and living with a consciousness of peace.

Many of the conflicts that have haunted the past three decades have been overcome. We have muted the constant crises over Berlin; for the first time it is possible to conceive of a lasting settlement in the Middle East; our combat involvement in the Viet-Nam war has been ended honorably and the level of fighting reduced. The United States and the Soviet Union after decades of profound suspicion have perceived a common interest in avoiding nuclear holocaust and in establishing a broad web of constructive relationships. And two decades of estrangement between the United States and the People's Republic of China have given way to constructive dialogue and productive exchanges.

But if this world is better than our fears, it is still far short of our hopes. We have eased many crises; we have not yet eliminated their roots. Our achievements, solid as they are, have not yet resolved the dangers and divisions of the postwar era. We have begun but not completed the journey from confrontation to cooperation, from coexistence to community. We are determined to complete that journey.

In pursuing our course we shall encounter many obstacles. There will be turmoil in many parts of the world such as the current situation in Cyprus. Our attitude will be that we cannot be the world's policeman but that we will always use our influence for peace and conciliation. We will not yield to pressure groups but we will always listen to reason.

PR #335

-5-

We will act in foreign policy as trustee of the future, conscious that we will be judged on how well we built an enduring peace and not how often we bowed to the emotional demands of the moment.

America is still the hope of the world, not only because of our physical resources and military might but because of the creativity of our people, the vitality of our institutions and the ideals of our nation.

At a time when some in this country doubted our ability to cope with the challenges of our future, most of the world perceived that America was emerging stronger than at any period in the past decade. Our alliances are strong. A nation once preoccupied with Viet-Nam is now addressing its broader purposes. A nation once isolated from one major communist power and in a posture of confrontation with the other has opened a constructive dialogue with both. And a nation facing the crises of a world grown economically interdependent has, unsatisfactory as it is, one of the lowest rates of inflation in the world and is less dependent on foreign sources of energy than any other industrialized nation.

Thus we have a firm base on which to build.

- We must ensure that the heart of American foreign policy, our alliances with the Atlantic Community and Japan, can meet the challenges of the next generation. America's principal alliances have overcome a period of strain brought about by the inevitable adjustment to new conditions. We now have an opportunity for a new period of creativity in join efforts to deal with the problems and opportunities of an increasingly interdependent world. Maintaining the vitality of our alliances and giving even greater impetus to their joing efforts will be one of the principal goals of President Ford's foreign policy.

- We must ensure that a history in which brief moments of improved Soviet-American relations gave way to prolonged periods of confrontation is replaced by an irreversible commitment to the maintenance of peace. We will spare no effort to reconcile the reality of competition with the imperative of cooperation. In the nuclear era there is no rational alternative.

- We must sustain the process of growing understanding and respect which we have launched with the People's Republic of China. Deep differences in ideology and policy remain. But we believe the new relationship serves fundamental national purposes of both countries; it can be strengthened with dedication and care and it will endure.

- We must create in the Middle East a lasting peace, not just another cease-fire. My trips throughout that tragically torn area have convinced me of one essential fact above all others: the peoples of the Middle East, be they Arab or Jew, have had enough of bloodshed; they cry out for peace. And peace can be theirs if they and we have the will and patience to achieve it. For the Arabs there can be no peace without a recovery of territory and the redress of grievances of a displaced people. For Israel, peace requires both

PR #335

-6-

security and recognition by its neighbors of its legitimacy
as a nation. Our Arab and Israeli friends have, with our
help over the past six months, taken the first difficult
steps down the road toward fulfillment of these aspirations.
We have a long distance yet to travel, but with patience and
hard work we will complete the journey. The people of the
Middle East deserve it; the peace of the world demands it.

- We must work with our friends in Africa and the nonaligned world in support of their national independence, economic growth and social progress.

- We must build in the Western Hemisphere a new relationship of equality and partnership. We shall be guided by the conviction that a shared history creates an opportunity and common aspirations provide the basis for fresh approaches. The relationship between industrialized and developing nations cannot be solved creatively anywhere if not in this Hemisphere.

- We must strengthen the ability of the peoples of Indochina to determine their own destiny. After the Second World War we spent hundreds of billions to help former ally and enemy alike to recover from the devastation of six years of war. After the Korean War we spent billions to assist in the rebuilding of South Korea. Yet today, after a decade of war and the loss of 50,000 American lives, some hesitate to give South Viet-Nam — for whom the war has not yet ended — the help it so desperately needs to maintain itself as an independent nation. It would be tragic; it would break faith with all those Americans who have fought and died there if we now fail to make the relatively modest effort that the Administration has proposed to the Congress to enable South Viet-Nam to survive.

There is an item of unfinished business in Indochina that I know is of special concern to this audience — the accounting for our men who are missing in action, including the dead whose bodies were never recovered. I have met periodically with the families of our missing men continually over the past five years; I know how difficult it is for them to live without knowing the fate of their loved ones. More than 18 months have passed since the signing of the Paris Agreement, which specified that there should be cooperation on this humanitarian problem. Surely there should be no political or military advantage in a proper accounting for the missing and the return of the remains of the dead. Our efforts will continue until we have obtained the fullest possible accounting as required by solemn agreements.

Peace however is something more than the absence of armed conflict. It is something deeper than the establishment of stability. To enlist the support of humanity it must reflect man's eternal hopes for a humane and prosperous world.

The excitement of creation, of crossing new frontiers, has characterized every major period of American history. Now we face an unprecedented new challenge.

The products of man's technical genius — weapons of incalculable power, a global economic system, a technology that consumes finite resources at an ever-expanding rate — have compressed this planet and

PR #335

-7-

multiplied our mutual dependence. In an age of instantaneous communication the quest for justice and dignity has become universal. The national interest can no longer be pursued in isolation from the global interest — as the problems of energy, food and inflation have recently made clear.

Man has made his world interdependent. Now the challenge is to make it whole.

An enlightened national self-interest requires major American initiatives for an open and cooperative world. Without global solutions our own economy will stagnate. Without an American contribution there can be no global solution. Industrially we are the most advanced nation in the world. We are still a pioneering nation, on the frontiers of the most important revolutions of the last third of the 20th century in technology, communications, agriculture and health.

With your support and the support of the American people we will contribute to:

- cooperative efforts to ensure an expanding supply of energy and other essential materials at an equitable price;

- overcoming rampant global inflation by cooperating in building a trade, monetary and investment system that stimulates global economic growth;

- fashioning a long-term policy for dealing with chronic global food shortages and striking a balance between food production and population growth;

- helping the third of mankind threatened with starvation and permanent underdevelopment create a better future.

We in the United States cannot alone assure that the overriding need of cooperation will overcome the historic selfishness of the nation state. But it is equally clear that mankind cannot fulfill its needs without the faith, the dynamism and the creativity of our country.

## Conclusion

We have a long tradition in this country of arming with great haste when war comes upon us, and disarming with even greater haste when the war is over; we have tended to view our relations with nations in terms of absolutes — friend or foe, ally or adversary, unlimited war or permanent peace. We have acted in cycles of overcommitment and withdrawal, enthusiasm and cynicism.

This we can no longer afford. We must commit ourselves for the long haul. The search for peace is not a part-time job.

We must learn to deal with nuance, to strive for what is good while never forgetting what is best. Fate has offered us an unprecedented opportunity for creativity in the search for peace.

Let us not rest on the achievements of recent years, but let us summon new hope and new faith in ourselves to go beyond.

If we are true to ourselves, America can be both strong and purposeful, principled and realistic, equally devoted to deterring war and to achieving man's greatest hopes. Over three decades ago President Roosevelt said of his generation that it had a rendezvous with destiny. Let us be said of our generation that it had — and met — a rendezvous with peace.

* * * * * * * * *

NEWS
RELEASE

BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Department of State
Office of Media Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 20, 1974

Speech Text:

CONSTANCY AND STRENGTH
IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Address by Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger
before the American Legion National Convention,
Miami, Florida August 20, 1974.

National Commander Eaton, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow veterans: I bring the greetings of President Ford, who has asked that I tell you that he looks forward to being with you at your national convention next year.

For two decades after the Second World War we believed that we could do everything; more recently some spoke of overinvolvement and began to believe that we could do nothing. But as we approach our 200th anniversary our faith in ourselves has returned. We are the better for our experience. By learning our limits, we have learned our possibilities as well. We have rejected the extremes of world policeman and isolation which have too long dominated our debate. This has enabled us to move toward the definition of a foreign policy that the American people can support and sustain over the decades to come.

America's Strength

-2-

Dwight Eisenhower added another dimension. He called attention to the necessity of a strong, standing defense. In his words, "the weak have no assurance of peace. They can only accept the future without influence upon it." But he also understood that in the nuclear age strength cannot be an end in itself. He proclaimed what no President since has ever forgotten: "There is no longer any alternative to peace."

-- A strong defense is the essential deterrent to aggression. By demonstrating that there is no alternative to negotiation, it is the precondition of our policy of relaxing tensions with our adversaries.

-- A strong defense is the cement of our alliances, reinforcing our partner's will to join in the common defense. It is the basis of mutual confidence and thus of our cooperation across the whole spectrum of our common interests.

-- allocate resources between strategic and tactical forces;

-- relate military strength to foreign policy goals;

-- maintain our security while ending and ultimately reversing the arms race.

Our conventional forces must therefore be strong. They keep the nuclear threshold high by helping to contain, discourage, or altogether prevent hostilities. They are the essential tool of our diplomacy in times of crisis. In no recent crisis did we come close to using our strategic forces; but on many occasions our tactical forces were alerted or deployed to deter aggressive actions or to defend the interests of America and its allies. About one-third of our conventional forces are deployed abroad. They are there to serve these purposes. They are not overseas as a favor to foreigners; they are abroad as part of our defense.

-3-

American forces in Europe are a vivid illustration of these principles. Reducing our forces there unilaterally would risk serious military and political instability in the center of Europe, enhance Soviet political influence by default, and, ironically, make reliance on nuclear weapons more necessary. It would undercut promising negotiations for the mutual reduction of forces. The defense of Western Europe remains -- as it has been throughout the postwar period -- the cornerstone of our own security.

The definition of adequacy, or sufficiency, or equivalence is not simple, however. Throughout history the essential task of national security was to accumulate military power. It would have seemed inconceivable even a generation ago that such power once gained could not be translated directly into foreign policy advantage.

Today we as well as the Soviet Union must start from the premise that in the nuclear era an increase in certain categories of military power does not necessarily represent an increase of usable political strength. When two nations are already capable of destroying each other, an upper limit exists beyond which additional weapons lose their political significance. The overwhelming destructiveness of nuclear weapons makes it difficult to relate their use to specific political objectives and may indeed generate new political problems.

A continual expansion of strategic forces by both sides will not result in greater security. It will only lead to new balances at higher levels of complexity and risk, and at exorbitant cost. It will generate an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion that makes political conflict more likely and that will, over time, thwart aspirations for a more tranquil and secure world.

## America's Agenda For the Future

Winston Churchill once said to the American people, "The destiny of mankind is not decided by material computation. When great causes are on the move . . . we learn that something is going on in space and time, and beyond space and time, which whether we like it or not, spells duty."

America now has an opportunity, and hence a duty, which comes rarely to a nation to help shape a new peaceful international order. This challenge exists for us as a people, not as partisans of any cause. This is why this effort -- even in periods of great domestic strain -- has had bipartisan support. The leaders of both parties in Congress deserve the nation's gratitude for having insulated our foreign and security policies from our recent domestic travails.

-4-

Many of the conflicts that have haunted the past three decades have been overcome. We have muted the constant crises over Berlin; for the first time it is possible to conceive of a lasting settlement in the Middle East; our combat involvement in the Viet-Nam war has been ended honorably and the level of fighting reduced. The United States and the Soviet Union, after decades of profound suspicion, have perceived a common interest in avoiding nuclear holocaust and in establishing a broad web of constructive relationships. And two decades of estrangement between the United States and the People's Republic of China have given way to constructive dialogue and productive exchanges.

In pursuing our course we shall encounter many obstacles. There will be turmoil in many parts of the world such as the current situation in Cyprus. Our attitude will be that we cannot be the world's policeman but that we will always use our influence for peace and conciliation. We will not yield to pressure groups but we will always listen to reason. We will act in foreign policy as trustee of the future, conscious that we will be judged on how well we built an enduring peace and not how often we bowed to the emotional demands of the moment.

At a time when some in this country doubted our ability to cope with the challenges of our future, most of the world perceived that America was emerging stronger than at any period in the past decade. Our alliances are strong. A nation once preoccupied with Viet-Nam is now addressing its broader purposes. A nation once isolated from one major Communist power and in a posture of confrontation with the other has opened a constructive dialogue with both. And a nation facing the crises of a world grown economically interdependent has, unsatisfactory as it is, one of the lowest rates of inflation in the world and is less dependent on foreign sources of energy than any other industrialized nation.

-- We must ensure that the heart of American foreign policy, our alliances with the Atlantic Community and Japan, can meet the challenges of the next generation. America's principal alliances have overcome a period of strain brought about by the inevitable adjustment to new conditions. We now have an opportunity for a new period of creativity in joint efforts to deal with the problems and opportunities of an increasingly interdependent world. Maintaining the vitality of our alliances and giving even greater impetus to their joint efforts will be one of the principal goals of President Ford's foreign policy.

-- We must ensure that a history in which brief moments of improved Soviet-American relations gave way to prolonged periods of confrontation is replaced by an irreversible commitment to the maintenance of peace. We will spare no effort to reconcile the reality of competition with the imperative of cooperation. In the nuclear era there is no rational alternative.

-- We must sustain the process of growing understanding and respect which we have launched with the People's Republic of China. Deep differences in ideology and policy remain. But we believe the new relationship serves fundamental national purposes of both countries; it can be strengthened with dedication and care and it will endure.

-5-

-- We must create in the Middle East a lasting peace, not just another ceasefire. My trips throughout that tragically torn area have convinced me of one essential fact about all others: the peoples of the Middle East, be they Arab or Jew, have had enough of bloodshed; they cry out for peace. And peace can be theirs if they and we have the will and patience to achieve it. For the Arabs there can be no peace without a recovery of territory and the redress of grievances of a displaced people. For Israel, peace requires both security and recognition by its neighbors of its legitimacy as a nation. Our Arab and Israeli friends have, with our help over the past six months, taken the first difficult steps down the road toward fulfillment of these aspirations. We have a long distance yet to travel, but with patience and hard work we will complete the journey. The people of the Middle East deserve it; the peace of the world demands it.

-- We must work with our friends in Africa and the nonaligned world in support of their national independence, economic growth and social progress.

-- We must build in the Western Hemisphere a new relationship of equality and partnership. We shall be guided by the conviction that a shared history creates an opportunity and common aspirations provide the basis for fresh approaches. The relationship between industrialized and developing nations cannot be solved creatively anywhere if not in this Hemisphere.

-- We must strengthen the ability of the peoples of Indochina to determine their own destiny. After the Second World War we spent hundreds of billions to help former ally and enemy alike to recover from the devastation of six years of war. After the Korean War we spent billions to assist in the rebuilding of South Korea. Yet today, after a decade of war and the loss of 50,000 American lives, some hesitate to give South Vietnam -- for whom the war has not yet ended -- the help it so desperately needs to maintain itself as an independent nation. It would be tragic; it would break faith with all those Americans who have fought and died there if we now fail to make the relatively modest effort that the Administration has proposed to the Congress to enable South Vietnam to survive.

There is an item of unfinished business in Indochina that I know is of special concern to this audience -- the accounting for our men who are missing in action, including the dead whose bodies were never recovered. I have met periodically with the families of our missing men continually over the past five years; I know how difficult it is for them to live without knowing the fate of their loved ones. More than 18 months have passed since the signing of the Paris Agreement, which specified that there should be cooperation on this humanitarian problem. Surely there should be no political or military advantage in a proper accounting for the missing and the return of the remains of the dead. Our efforts will continue until we have obtained the fullest possible accounting as required by solemn agreements.

The products of man's technical genius -- weapons of incalculable power, a global economic system, a technology that consumes finite resources at an ever-expanding rate -- have compressed this planet and multiplied our mutual dependence. In an age of instantaneous communication the quest for justice and dignity has become universal. The national interest can no longer be pursued in isolation from the global interest -- as the problems of energy, food and inflation have recently made clear.

-6-

An enlightened national self-interest requires major American initiatives for an open and cooperative world. Without global solutions, our own economy will stagnate. Without an American contribution there can be no global solution. Industrially we are the most advanced nation in the world. We are still a pioneering nation, on the frontiers of the most important revolutions of the last third of the 20th century in technology, communications, agriculture and health.

-- cooperative efforts to ensure an expanding supply of energy and other
essential materials at an equitable price;

-- overcoming rampant global inflation by cooperating in building a trade,
monetary and investment system that stimulates global economic growth;

-- fashioning a long-term policy for dealing with chronic global food shortages
and striking a balance between food production and population growth;

-- helping the third of mankind threatened with starvation and permanent underdevelopment create a better future.

Conclusion

We have a long tradition in this country of arming with great haste when war comes upon us, and disarming with even greater haste when the war is over; we have tended to view our relations with nations in terms of absolutes -- friend or foe, ally or adversary, unlimited war or permanent peace. We have acted in cycles of overcommitment and withdrawal, enthusiasm and cynicism.

If we are true to ourselves, America can be both strong and purposeful,
principled and realistic, equally devoted to deterring war and to achieving man's
greatest hopes. Over three decades ago President Roosevelt said of his generation
that it had a rendezvous with destiny. Let it be said of this generation that it
had -- and met -- a rendezvous with peace.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

August 21, 1974

No. 336

REMARKS OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
INTRODUCING PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD
AT CEREMONIES HONORING
AMBASSADOR RODGER P. DAVIES
ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE

AUGUST 21, 1974

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

A professional Foreign Service Officer has come home. He returns, not to joy, but to sadness; not to parades, but to solemn ceremony.

Rodger Davies embodied the qualities and spirit which marked an American. He chose an unusual profession — a profession which required that to serve his country, he leave his home, but never forget it. Wherever he went, the heritage of America was in his heart. He remembered the dignity of the individual where individuals had lost their dignity. He remembered the rights to liberty and justice where these rights were under attack. He remembered peace where there was war. In that sense, Rodger Davies never left home.

In the Diplomatic Entrance at the Department of State, the American Foreign Service Association maintains plaques which list the names of those members of the Foreign Service who gave their lives under heroic or tragic circumstances in the service of their country. It is not a short list.

And now, tragically, another name will be added.

I am today awarding to Ambassador Davies the highest award of the Department of State — the Secretary's Award. The citation reads as follows:

"For inspiring leadership, outstanding courage, and dedication to duty for which he gave his life, Nicosia, August 19, 1974."

Awards and names on plaques are little comfort to those who loved and admired Rodger Davies. To his children, Dana and John, I would only repeat my remarks of Monday — that Ambassador Davies was beloved, admired and respected by his colleagues. He was a professional in the fullest and best sense of the word.

Dana, John, your father leaves behind a legacy of which any man should be proud; even more important, he leaves a multitude of friends whose lives were enriched by knowing him.

MORE

REMARKS IN HONOR

OF

CHAIRMAN J. W. FULBRIGHT

August 22, 1974

-- We honor tonight the elder statesman of American foreign policy. For three decades Bill Fulbright has helped American Presidents and the American people shape their vision of the world. He is a national asset we cannot and will not set aside. For a man who has consistently seen further than his contemporaries will be even more important to our future than to our past.

-- The Greeks had men of Bill Fulbright's stature in mind when they defined happiness as "The exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence, in a life affording them scope." The Senator from Arkansas has come to be recognized not only in this country but throughout the world for the quality of his perceptions and the strength of his purposes.

-- One of the most thoughtful men of the modern era, Bill Fulbright was among the first to perceive that America could no longer overwhelm every problem with her strength, that we faced the problem of applying more limited resources to more precisely defined objectives.

-2-

-- At the same time he understood that America's interests could not be defined in isolation from the world's interests. Thus he has argued that America could no longer act in cycles of overcommitment and withdrawal, no longer indulge in the luxury of undue pessimism or premature optimism. He has counseled the necessity for a long-term view of our interests and our role in the world.

-- For all of these reasons Bill Fulbright has been and will remain one of my closest friends, colleagues and confidants. Over the past two decades our relationship has steadily grown and assumed new dimensions. He helped educate a professor about the ways of Washington and a Secretary of State about the ways of the world. But his significance to me, and more importantly to the nation, will be even greater in the years ahead.

-- As our elder statesman, free of constraints I sometimes found difficult to detect, he can help Americans develop their appreciation of the aspirations and concerns of other peoples, and strengthen the effectiveness of the Congress and the Executive in the pursuit of America's purposes in the world.

-3-

-- Most important of all, Bill Fulbright can make an essential
contribution to the central challenge of our age -- the
creation of a common vision of a world at peace: a world in
which all accept the necessity for restraint and the
imperative of cooperation.

-- Please join me in honoring Bill Fulbright for his courage
as a Senator, his vision as a statesman, his warmth as a
human being.

Drafted:S/P:RPALMER:ws