1

MR. BROKAW: Mr. Secretary, you worked out the details of a two-year transition to black majority rule in Rhodesia. Mr. Smith stated the conditions in a speech to Rhodesians last Friday. Now the black Presidents who have been participating in these negotiations are very critical of at least an element of those conditions. What has happened?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The basic proposals that were put forward were for majority rule in two years, a transitional government to be established immediately, a constitutional conference to work out the constitution at the end of the two years, and those points have been accepted.

Secondly, it isn't correct to say that Smith made these proposals. The proposals that Smith put forward were the result of discussions between the United States, Great Britain, and the African Presidents prior to my meeting with Smith.

I think one has to understand that each of these leaders has his own constituency. For African leaders to say they accept proposals of Smith is almost impossible.

They have indicated that there are certain things

2

they want to negotiate. They have indicated that they made
no preconditions. We have received messages today from
three of the leaders who attended the meeting, stressing
that they think matters are on track, and that they are
looking forward to early negotiations.

So, I think we should cut through the rhetoric
and look at the reality. And there is going to be a lot
of rhetoric in the next few weeks.

MR. BROKAW: But are you saying that these African
leaders have been critical for their own domestic political
purposes?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I am saying that obviously
there will have to be negotiations for the transition.

MR. BROKAW: How many of these conditions does
Mr. Smith think are negotiable?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The composition of the
government, the allocation of ministers, none of this has
been settled yet. This requires negotiation.

Prior to this, it is quite possible for both
sides to make public statements that may seem irreconcilable.
But we should always remember that the biggest steps
have been taken, and that the differences that remain are

3

relatively small compared to the steps that have
already been taken.

MR. VALERIANI: Mr. Secretary, have the African
Presidents rejected anything that they told you they would
approve, or are they upping the ante now?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The African Presidents have
not indicated a rejection of anything specific. The African
Presidents have made a general statement that they will
not accept the dictation of Smith with respect to all the
details of the transitional government.

On the other hand, what Smith has put forward was
not his idea, but in itself reflected a compromise between
many points of view. So, we will have to wait until a
conference meets to find out what the real differences are.

The British are sending a minister to Africa within
the next day, with the explicit purpose of getting the
conference which all sides have now asked for to meet to
work out the details.

MR. VALERIANI: There is no chance that you are
going to go back, is there?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: There is no chance that I
will go back.

4

MR. BROKAW: Will the conference have to take place in Rhodesia, as Mr. Smith seemed to indicate on Friday when he said it would be worked out in Rhodesia?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The locale of the conference in Rhodesia was not part of those five points. And I think that the basic point is that it should meet at a mutually agreeable place.

MR. VALERIANI: Mr. Secretary, if I can look back, it is very difficult to believe that this came about without your putting a great deal of pressure on Rhodesia or a great deal of pressure on South Africa to put pressure on Rhodesia in turn. How much pressure did you have to apply on South Africa? What did you have to promise South Africa?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We promised nothing to South Africa. Leaders make a decision on the basis of their assessment of what is likely to happen. South African leaders understood, as the Rhodesian leaders came to understand, that the alternative to a negotiation and to a peaceful settlement is an escalating war, whose outcome would be extremely problematical for them, and which has the great risk of expansion without changing the outcome.

5

Those were the basic facts that everybody faced. And when those facts became clear, certain conclusions followed. We did not have to bring any additional pressure other than an analysis of the facts.

MR. VALERIANI: What is to prevent the Russians from coming in now and backing a faction as they did in Angola, stirring up a civil war and having another Angola, which you are specifically trying to avoid?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: This has to be largely the responsibility of the African Presidents. It is up to the Africans to decide whether they want their continent to become the arena for great power rivalry. Because inevitably, outside intervention, as a regular pattern, cannot be ignored, or whether they want African solutions to African problems.

As far as the United States is concerned, we seek no sphere of influence in Africa. Up to now, the African Presidents have prevented any of the outside powers from backing any one of the factions. We support this, and if this continues, there can be a moderate, responsible, and peaceful outcome to Rhodesia.

MR. BROKAW: What do you see as the United States

6.

continuing role in Rhodesia during this interim period
over the two years, -- economically, in terms of assistance,
and so on?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The immediate problem is
to bring the various parties to the conference table within
the framework of the principles that have been laid out.

Britain has to take the lead in this, because
Britain has the constitutional and historical responsibility.

We will back it up diplomatically. We have been
in close contact with all of the African Presidents in re-
cent days, and nothing we have heard would indicate that
this conference will not take place.

After the conference has met, after the transitional
government is established, then it will be our policy to
encourage this transitional government, and we will be pre-
pared to talk with anyone about economic and other
relationships.

MR. BROKAW: But no commitments have now been
made prior to the establishment of that?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: There are no secret
commitments. There are plans for economic cooperation
which are in the process of being worked out, and which will

7

be submitted to the Congress before they are implemented.

MR. VALERIANI: You apparently have made a lot
of guarantees to Rhodesian whites, or provisions for
Rhodesian whites.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: That is not correct.

MR. VALERIANI: Well, there is an international fund
of some sort, isn't there?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: There is the idea of a fund
that can be used for investment as well as for guarantees.
The purpose is not to drive the whites out but to enable
the whites to stay there.

MR. VALERIANI: Why should the American taxpayer
provide that kind of guarantee for Rhodesian whites?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Because the consequences
of a race war in southern Africa, with foreign intervention,
and of the radicalization of all of Africa, which would
be the alternative, would cost the American taxpayer
infinitely more than what we are thinking about now might
cost.

MR. BROKAW: What is the next step in South Africa,
in that country? What kind of pressure does this put now
on Prime Minister Vorster?

8

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I think South Africa has to face the necessity of change, and the domestic pressures that its system has imposed, and Prime Minister Vorster will have to consider what the evolution of his own country should be.

MR. BROKAW: In the not too distant future?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: In the not too distant future.

MR. BROKAW: After Rhodesia has a change to majority rule?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I do not want to go into details of what the South African Government should do. But most thoughtful South Africans I met realize that some changes were necessary.

MR. BROKAW: Mr. Secretary, very briefly, is this the last of your major shuttle diplomacy efforts in far distant points? Can you foresee any other place you will have to go?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Not before the election.

MR. BROKAW: Thank you, very much, Mr. Secretary.

1

2

3

The British are sending a minister to Africa within
the next day, with the explicit purpose of getting the
conference which all sides have now asked for to meet to
work out the details:

4

5

6

Britian has to take the lead in this, because
Britain has the constitutional and historical responsibility.

7

8

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

September 29, 1976

No. 482

EXCHANGE OF TOASTS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND THE HONORABLE HABIB CHATTI
FOREIGN MINISTER OF TUNISIA
AT A LUNCHEON HOSTED BY THE SECRETARY
IN HONOR OF HEADS OF DELEGATIONS
AND PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVES OF ARAB STATES
UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS
NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 29, 1976

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen:

Despite this imposing podium, I am going to speak to you informally, preemptively, because I know that my distinguished friend the Foreign Minister of Tunisia is preparing an all-out assault on me. [Laughter]

This is the fourth time I have met with you since I've become Secretary of State. I have just returned from Africa, and I don't want to say anything insulting to my Arab friends; but I must tell you that compared to the passions that exist in Africa the Middle East has almost Anglo-Saxon restraint. [Laughter]

I have visited many of your countries, and I know we cannot compete in hospitality. With respect to hospitality, we are the underdeveloped region compared to our experiences in the Middle East. But as I look back over the four meetings we have had, the first time we assembled here everyone wanted to know with great suspicion what we were going to do. And I said all the conventional things about Security Council Resolution 242.

You saw to it that soon after, another Security Council Resolution became necessary. But as I look back, I feel that despite all the ups and downs very great progress has been made toward peace in the Middle East. First of all, the traditional friendship between the United States and the countries of the Arab world has been restored with respect to at least very many of them. And we have had an opportunity to make a contribution to three agreements that have begun the difficult and complicated process toward peace.

When I met with you last year, I pointed out four principles which I would like to repeat today.

For further information contact:

PR #482

-2-

The first was that the only durable solution is a just and comprehensive peace and that the United States remains committed to that objective.

Second, we recognize that peace in the Middle East is not divisible. Each nation and people which is party to the Arab-Israeli problem must find a fair satisfaction of its legitimate interests.

Third, it is in the nature of movement toward peace that all the key problems must be dealt with in a balanced way. The questions of territory, borders, military deployments, cannot be dealt with unless at the same time political and economic settlement are given equal attention.

And fourth, any step taken must be judged in the light of the alternatives that are available.

Now, we had proceeded on a step-by-step basis, but we believe that now conditions exist that make comprehensive solutions the most useful approach. And we believe also that conditions are coming about in which the search for peace can be resumed with energy and with conviction. And I want to assure you that the United States remains committed to this objective and that we hope that significant progress can be made in the months ahead.

Since we last met also, there has been the tragedy of the civil war in Lebanon. As we stated on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Lebanese President, the United States is committed to an independent, sovereign and united Lebanon. We do not favor partition. We favor an opportunity for the people of Lebanon to live their own lives and to determine their own destinies. And we will be available to give any advice and assistance that the parties may request of us.

We can only express the hope now that this tragic conflict will soon come to an end because it is the unity of the Arab nations that is an essential precondition to an effective policy of peace in the Middle East. And if we are to achieve the objectives of a just and lasting peace about which we have spoken so long, which we must strive to implement, then unity among the Arab nations is of the greatest importance.

Our countries are also concerned with many economic problems and the relations between the developed and developing nations. The countries of the Middle East are playing an increasingly important role. The oil-producing countries, because of their wealth and because of their influence on the global economy, have an unparalleled responsibility which must be exercised for the benefit of all. We are discussing it with them and other countries of the Middle East in the United Nations, in the Conference for International Economic Cooperation; and we are doing so with the attitude that the dialogue between the industrial and the developing world is perhaps the deepest challenge of our time.

PR #482

-3-

We must solve it cooperatively. We cannot create a world community in which one party is condemned to permanent poverty. We cannot create a world community either through tactics of confrontation. So the United States is prepared to work cooperatively and constructively with the nations assembled in this room for the common benefit of all mankind.

Now, distinguished friends, let me conclude by saying that I know that we have not yet travelled except the beginning of the road toward peace. But I also believe that we have created conditions from which the rest of the distance can be travelled if we work on it with conviction and with confidence in each other.

I have personally valued the associations that we been formed with so many of you over the years. And I am grateful that you have done me the honor of joining me again for this meeting. So I would like to propose a toast to peace in the Middle East and to the lasting friendship between the peoples of the Middle East and the American people.

FOREIGN MINISTER CHATTI: Mr. Secretary, I would like to thank you profusely in my name on behalf of my colleagues assembled here for the opportunity you have been affording us every year to meet with you and to discuss things of primary interest to the Arab world and also to our countries things of mutual interest between your country and the rest of the world.

You have mentioned, Mr. Secretary, that this is the fourth time that we meet here. We have the pleasure of meeting with you. And you also added that since that first meeting with you we have covered quite an appreciable distance on the way toward the common goal.

I would like to assure you that we agree completely with this viewpoint that you have expressed because we also believe that the Middle East problem — the Middle East cause — and the Palestinian cause have moved forward during these last two years.

It has become, as they say in French, *Cq va, sans dire* — that is, not open to any questioning — that the rights of the Palestinian people are no longer a subject for debate or questioning. And it goes without saying that it is not possible for peace to return to the Middle East without the solving of the Palestine question.

And it has become equally axiomatic that we cannot solve the problem of the Middle East. Peace would not go back to the Middle East unless we solve the Palestine question.

That is why we think that circumstances are still opportune for us to try to restore peace to the Middle East by following the path of the solution of the Palestine question.

At about this time last year, we had great hopes that we would be well on the way to peace — going back to the Middle East — as a result of what developments that obtained then were obtained with the agreement in the Sinai.

PR #482

-4-

We believed that after the Sinai Agreement steps would be taken immediate-
ly moving into the area of the Golan Heights and also the Western Bank.

We had also hoped that with those things in mind — the Sinai Agreement
and what we thought would take place — we would be travelling a long
way toward the ultimate goal of the Middle East — a comprehensible
solution. But, unfortunately, came 1976, when nothing happened, to
our knowledge; and we seem to have bogged down.

We, therefore, are witnessing something rather strange and contradictory.
On the one hand, we find that circumstances are opportune — are avail-
able, are conducive to movement — and on the other hand, we see that
we are not moving.

In actual fact, there has never come a time in the past which was better,
more opportune — more conducive to actions and solutions — than what
we are witnessing now. But I have to add that, unfortunately, we are
not seeing any progress.

Mr. Secretary of State, we are very pleased to hear you express, per-
sonally, the fact that the United States is willing — determined to
pursue its efforts to reach a comprehensive solution to the problem in
the Middle East.

We hope that your preoccupation with Africa will not sway you away com-
pletely from the area of the Middle East [laughter] — that you would
still at the same time perhaps find time to concentrate on this thorny
problem and do something about it.

It is true, as you said, that the situation in Africa is serious. But
might we add that the situation in the Middle East is, if anything,
even more serious.

I would like to be very frank with you, Mr. Secretary, and say — or
express my own conviction — that it is within the capabilities of the
United States of America to bring about more pressure to contribute
even more to the possible solution of the Middle East by bringing about
more pressure on Israel.

As you know, Mr. Secretary, the Arabs have shown their willingness, their
desire, for a peaceful solution — have given the reasonable guarantees
that would make that solution possible. But, as you also know, the
Israeli side has yet to come up with something comparable.

When it comes to the economic field and given the economic situations
that the Arab countries find themselves in, it is also a fact that the
Arab countries with the means and capabilities — the economic and
financial — have shown that they also have the interests of the develop-
ing nations at heart and have done a lot towards that goal.

PR #482

-5-

And I am sure I am expressing the opinion of all representatives here — my colleagues representing the various countries — when I say that their countries are all ready to pursue their efforts towards the industrial nations in this regard.

As to the Lebanese tragedy to which you referred, we share with you the hope, the desire, the prayer, that things would be solved quickly. And also I would like to add that the Arab League has also striven very hard — has done its best toward that solution. But, unfortunately, so far we don't see it.

The Lebanese problem, in our opinion, is, so to speak, the result of the Palestinian question — the Palestinian problem — which seems to be the one factor dividing the ranks of the Arabs.

We would like, here and now, to record our appreciation for your expression of the fact that the unity of Lebanon, the integrity of Lebanon, should not be divided. It so happens that the Arab countries, the community of Arab nations, have for some time come to this conclusion also.

Mr. Secretary of State, let us put it this way: The horizons for Arab-American friendship are completely wide open. These vast horizons are based almost solely — but certainly in the greatest measure — on the cooperation between the United States of America and the Arab countries working toward that eventual goal, the pressing goal of peace in the Middle East.

So, if we work together and cooperate seriously, earnestly, toward attaining that goal and fast — namely, the goal of bringing peace to the Middle East — then the avenues for American-Lebanese friendship would be ever so much greater.

Permit me to propose a toast for the Arab-American friendship.

* * * * *

-1-

#485

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, Foreign Ministers, distinguished delegates:

Let me first congratulate this body for electing Ambassador Amerasinghe of Sri Lanka to preside over this Thirty-first session of the General Assembly. He is a diplomat of great international stature, who among his many distinctions, has provided indispensable leadership to the crucial negotiations on the Law of the Sea.

I would also like to pay tribute to the Secretary-General for his tireless efforts on behalf of the world community. He successfully embodies the charter's principles of fairness, impartiality and dedication to the causes of global peace and human dignity.

The United Nations was born of the conviction that peace is both indivisible and more than mere stability, that for peace to be lasting it must fulfill mankind's aspirations for justice, freedom, economic well-being, the rule of law and the promotion of human rights. But the history of this organization has been in considerable measure the gradual awareness that humanity would not inevitably share a single approach to these goals.

The United Nations has survived -- and helped to manage -- thirty years of vast change in the international system. It has come through the bitterness of the Cold War. It has played a vital role in the dismantling of the colonial empires. It has helped moderate conflicts, and is manning truce lines in critical parts of the world. It has carried our unprecedented efforts in such areas as public health, development assistance and technical cooperation.

But the most important challenge of this organization lies still ahead: to vindicate mankind's positive and nobler goals and help nations achieve a new understanding of community.

With modern communications, human endeavor has become a single experience for peoples in every part of the planet. We share the wonders of science and technology, the trials of industrialization and social change, and a constant awareness of the fate and dreams of our fellow men.

The world has shrunk, but the nations of the world have not come closer together. Paradoxically, nationalism has been on the rise at the precise time when the most serious issues we all face can only be resolved through a recognition of our interdependence. The moral and political cohesion of our world may be eroding just when a sense of community has become indispensable.

Fragmentation has affected even this body. Nations have taken decisions on a bloc or regional basis by rigid ideologies, before even listening to the debate in these halls; on many issues positions have been predetermined by prior conferences containing more than half the membership of the United Nations. The tendency is widespread to come here for battle rather than negotiation. If these trends continue, the hope for world community will dissipate and the moral influence of this organization will progressively diminish.

-2-

#485

This would be a tragedy. Members of this organization are today engaged
in a multiplicity of endeavors to find just solutions for complex and
explosive problems. There is a fragile tranquility but beneath the
surface it is challenged by fundamental forces of change -- technological,
economic, social. More than ever this is a time for statecraft and
restraint, for persistence but also daring in the pursuit of peace and
justice. The dogmas of perpetual strife produce only bloodshed and
bitterness: they unleash the forces of destruction and repression and
plant the seeds of future conflict. Appeals to hatred -- whether
on the basis of race or class or color or nationality or ideology --
will in the end rebound against those who launch them and will not
advance the cause of freedom and justice in the world.

Let us never forget that the United Nations benefits the smaller and
weaker nations most of all. It is they that would suffer most from its
failure. For without the rule of law, disputes will be settled as
they have been all too frequently and painfully in history -- by test
of strength it is not the weak that will prevail in the world of chaos.

The United States believes that this Thirty-first General Assembly
must free itself of the ideological and confrontational tactics that
marked some of its predecessors and dedicate itself to a program of
common action.

The United States comes to the General Assembly prepared to work on
programs of common action. We will offer concrete proposals. We will
listen to the ideas of others. We will resist pressure and seek
cooperation.

Let me now discuss the three principal challenges we face -- the problem
of peace, the challenge of economic well-being, and the agenda of
global interdependence.

## The Problem of Peace

The age of the United Nations has also been an age of frequent conflict.
We have been spared a third world war, but cannot assume that this
condition will prevail forever, or without exertion. An era of
thermonuclear weapons and persistent national rivalries requires our
utmost effort to keep at bay the scourge of war. Our generation must
build out of the multitude of nations a structure of relations that frees
the energies of nations and peoples for the positive endeavors of
mankind, without the fear or threat of war.

Central to American foreign policy are our sister democracies -- the
industrial nations of North America, Western Europe, the Southern
Pacific and Japan, and our traditional friends in the Western Hemisphere.
We are bound to these nations by the ties of history, civilization,
culture, shared principles and a generation of common endeavors.

Our alliances, founded on the bedrock of mutual security, now reach
beyond the common defense to a range of new issues: the social
challenges shared by advanced technological societies; common approaches
to easing tensions with our adversaries; and shaping positive relations
with the developing world. The common efforts of the industrial
democracies are not directed at exclusive ends but as a bridge to a

-3-

#485

broader, more secure and cooperative international system and to
increasing freedom and prosperity for all nations.

The United States is proud of its historical friendships in the Western
Hemisphere. In the modern era they must be -- and are -- based on
equality and mutual benefit. We have a unique advantage: the great
dialogue between the developed and the developing nations can find its
most creative solution in the hemisphere where modern democracy was
born, and where cooperation between developed and developing, large
and small, is a long-standing tradition.

Throughout history, ideology and power have tempted nations to seek
unilateral advantage. But the inescapable lesson of the nuclear age
is that the politics of tests of strength has become incompatible
with the survival of humanity. Traditional power politics becomes
irrational when war can destroy civilized life and neither side can
gain a decisive strategic advantage.

Accordingly, the great nuclear powers have particular responsibilities
for restraint and vision. They are in a position to know the full
extent of the catastrophe which could overwhelm mankind. They must
take care not to fuel disputes if they conduct their rivalries by
traditional methods. If they turn local conflicts into aspects of a
global competition, sooner or later their competition will get out of
control.

The United States believes that the future of mankind requires
coexistence with the Soviet Union. Tired slogans cannot obscure the
necessity for a more constructive relationship. We will insist that
restraint be reciprocal not just in bilateral relations but around the
globe. There can be no selective detente. We will maintain our
defenses and our vigilance. But we know that tough rhetoric is not
strength; that we owe future generations more hopeful prospects than a
delicate equilibrium of awesome forces.

Peace requires a balance of strategic power. This the United States
will maintain. But the United States is convinced that the goal of
strategic balance is achievable more safely by agreement than through
an arms race. The negotiations on the limitation of armaments are
therefore at the heart of US/Soviet relations.

Unprecedented agreements limiting and controlling nuclear weapons
have been reached. An historic effort is being made to place a ceiling
on the strategic arsenals of both sides in accordance with the
Vladivostok accord. And once this is achieved we are ready to seek
immediately to lower the levels of strategic arms.

The United States welcomes the recent progress that has been made in
further curtailing nuclear weapons testing and in establishing a regime
for peaceful nuclear explosions for the first time. The two treaties
now signed and awaiting ratification should be the basis for further
progress in this field.

Together with several of our European allies, we are continuing efforts
to achieve a balanced reduction in the military forces facing each
other in Central Europe. In some respects this is the most complex

-4-

#485

negotiation on arms limitation yet undertaken. It is our hope that through patient effort reciprocal reductions will soon be achieved that enhance the security of all countries involved.

The United States remains committed to the work of the Geneva Disarmament Committee. We welcome the progress there on banning environmental modification for destructive purposes. We will seriously examine all ideas, of whatever origin, to reduce the burdens of armaments. We will advance our own initiatives not for purposes of propaganda or unilateral advantage but to promote peace and security for all.

But coexistence and negotiations on the control of arms do not take place in a vacuum. We have been disturbed by the continuing accumulation of armaments and by recent instances of military intervention to tip the scales in local conflicts on distant continents. We have noted crude attempts to distort the purposes of diplomacy and to impede hopeful progress toward peaceful solutions to complex issues. These efforts only foster tensions; they cannot be reconciled with the policy of improving relations.

And they will inevitably be resisted. For coexistence to be something better than an uneasy armistice, both sides must recognize that ideology and power politics today confront the realities of the nuclear age and that a striving for unilateral advantages will not be accepted.

In recent years, the new relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China has held great significance for global security.

We came together out of necessity and a mutual belief that the world should remain free of military blackmail and the will to hegemony. We have set out a new path -- in wide-ranging consultations, bilateral exchanges, the opening of offices in our respective capitals and an accelerating movement toward normalization. And we have derived reciprocal benefits -- a clear understanding of the aspirations of our peoples, better prospects for international equilibrium, reduced tensions in Asia and increased opportunities for parallel actions on global issues.

These elements form the basis for a growing and lasting relationship founded on objective common interests. The United States is committed to strengthen the bonds between us and to proceed toward the normalization of our relations in strict conformity with the principles of the Shanghai Communique. As this process moves forward each side must display restraint and respect for the interests and convictions of the other. We will keep Chinese interests in mind on all international issues and will do our utmost to take account of them. But if the relationship is to prosper, there must be similar sensitivity to our views and concerns.

On this basis, the progressive development of our relations with the world's most populous nation will be a key element of the foreign policy of the United States.

-5-

#485

The world today is witness to continuing regional crises. Any one of them could blossom into larger conflict. Each one commands our most diligent efforts of conciliation and cooperation. The United States has played, and is prepared to continue to play, an active role in the search for peace in many areas: southern Africa, the Middle East, Korea and Cyprus.

Racial injustice and the grudging retreat of colonial power have conspired to make southern Africa an acid test of the world's hope for peace and justice under the charter. A host of voices have been heard in this chamber warning that if we failed quickly to find solutions to the crises of Namibia and Rhodesia, that part of the globe could become a viscous battleground with consequences for every part of the world.

I have just been to Africa at President Ford's request, to see what we could do to help the peoples of that continent achieve their aspirations to freedom and justice.

An opportunity to pull back from the brink now exists. I believe that Africa has before it the prize for which it has struggled for so long -- the opportunity for Africans to shape a future of peace, justice, racial harmony and progress.

The United Nations since its inception has been concerned with the issue of Namibia. For thirty years, that territory has been a test of this institution's ability to make its decisions effective.

In recent months, the United States has vigorously sought to help the parties concerned speed up the process toward Namibian independence. The United States favors the following elements: the independence of Namibia with a fixed, short, time limit; the calling of a constitutional conference at a neutral location under United Nations aegis; and the participation in that conference of all authentic national forces including specifically SWAPO. Progress has been made in achieving all of these goals. We will exert our efforts to remove the remaining obstacles and bring into being a conference which can then fashion, with good will and wisdom, a design for the new state of Namibia and its relationship with its neighbors. We pledge our continued solicitude for the independence of Namibia so that it may, in the end, be a proud achievement of this organization and a symbol of international cooperation.

Less than a week ago the Rhodesian authorities announced that they are prepared to meet with the nationalist leaders of Zimbabwe to form an interim government to bring about majority rule within two years. This is in itself an historical break from the past. The African Presidents, in calling for immediate negotiations, have shown that they are prepared to seize this opportunity for a settlement. And the Government of the United Kingdom, in expressing its willingness to assemble a conference, has shown its high sense of responsibility and concern for the rapid and just independence of Rhodesia.

-6-

#485

Inevitably after a decade of strife, suspicions run deep. Many obstacles remain. Magnanimity is never easy, and less so after a generation of bitterness and racial conflict. But let us not lose sight of what has been achieved: a commitment to majority rule within two years; a commitment to form immediately a transitional government with an African majority in the cabinet and an African prime minister; a readiness to follow this with a constitutional conference to define the legal framework of an independent Zimbabwe.

The United State, together with other countries, has made major efforts; and we will continue to do what we can to support the hopeful process that is now possible. But it is those in Africa who must shape the future. The people of Rhodesia, and the neighboring states, now face a supreme challenge. Their ability to work together, their capacity to unify will be tested in the months ahead as never before.

There may be some countries who see a chance for advantage in fueling the flames of war and racial hatred. But they are not motivated by concern for the peoples of Africa, or for peace. And if they succeed they could doom opportunities that might never return.

In South Africa itself, the pace of change accelerates. The system of apartheid, by whatever name, is a denial of our common humanity and a challenge to the conscience of mankind. Change is inevitable. The leaders of South Africa have shown wisdom in facilitating a peaceful solution in Rhodesia. The world community takes note of it, and urges the same wisdom -- while there is still time -- to bring racial justice to South Africa.

PR #485

-7-

As for the United States, we have become convinced that our values and our interests are best served by an Africa seeking its own destiny free of outside intervention. Therefore, we will back no faction whether in Rhodesia or elsewhere. We will not seek to impose solutions anywhere. The leadership and the future of an independent Zimbabwe, as for the rest of Africa, are for Africans to decide. The United States will abide by their decision. We call on all other non-African states to do likewise.

The United States wants no special position or sphere of influence. We respect African unity. The rivalry and interference of non-African powers would make a mockery of Africa's hard-won struggle for independence from foreign domination. It will inevitably be resisted. And it is a direct challenge to the most fundamental principles upon which the United Nations is founded.

Every nation that has signed the Charter is pledged to allow the nations of Africa, whose peoples have suffered so much, to fulfill at long last their dreams of independence, peace, unity and human dignity in their own way and by their own decisions.

The United Nations, since its birth, has been involved in the chronic conflict in the Middle East. Each successive war has brought greater perils, an increased danger of great power confrontation and more severe global economic dislocations.

At the request of the parties, the United States has been actively engaged in the search for peace in the Middle East. Since the 1973 war, statesmanship on all sides has produced unprecedented steps toward a resolution of this bitter conflict. There have been three agreements that lessen the danger of war; and mutual commitments have been made to pursue the negotiating process with urgency until a final peace is achieved. As a result, we are closer to the goal of peace than any time in a generation.

The role of the United Nations has been crucial. The Geneva Conference met in 1973 under its aegis, and the implementation of subsequent agreements has been negotiated in its working groups. Security Council resolutions form the only agreed framework for negotiations. The UN Emergency Force, Disengagement Observer Force, and Truce Supervision Organization are even now helping maintain peace on the truce lines. I want to complement the Secretary General and his colleagues in New York, Geneva, and on the ground in the Middle East, for their vigorous support of the peace process at critical moments.

The United States remains committed to help the parties reach a settlement. The step-by-step negotiations of the past three years have now brought us to a point where comprehensive solutions seem possible. The decision before us now is how the next phase of negotiations should be launched.

The United States is prepared to participate in an early resumption of the work of the Geneva Conference. We think a preparatory conference might be useful for a discussion of the structure of future negotiations,

PR #485

-8-

but we are open to other suggestions. Whatever steps are taken must be carefully prepared so that once the process begins the nations concerned will advance steadily toward agreement.

The groundwork that has been laid represents an historic opportunity. The United States will do all it can to assure that by the time this Assembly meets next year it will be possible to report significant further progress toward a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Since the General Assembly last met, overwhelming tragedy has befallen the people of Lebanon. The United States strongly supports the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of that troubled country. We oppose partition. We hope that Lebanese affairs will soon be returned to the hands of the people of Lebanon. All members of the United Nations, and all the conflicting parties in Lebanon, have an obligation to support the efforts of the new President of Lebanon to restore peace and to turn energies to rebuilding the nation. And the agencies of the United Nations system can play an important role in the reconstruction effort.

The confrontation between North and South Korea remains a threat to international peace and stability. The vital interests of world powers intersect in Korea; conflict there inevitably threatens wider war.

We and many other UN members welcome the fact that a contentious and sterile debate on Korea will be avoided this fall. Let this opportunity be used, then, to address the central problem of how the Korean people can determine their future and achieve their ultimate goal of peaceful reunification without a renewal of armed conflict.

Our own views on the problem of Korea are well known. We have called for a resumption of a serious dialogue between North and South Korea. We have urged wider negotiations to promote security and reduce tensions. We are prepared to have the United Nations Command dissolved so long as the Armistice Agreement -- which is the only existing legal arrangement committing the parties to keep the peace -- is either preserved or replaced by more durable arrangements. We are willing to improve relations with North Korea, provided that its allies are ready to take similar steps toward the Republic of Korea. We are ready to talk with North Korea about the Peninsula's future, but we will not do so without the participation of the Republic of Korea.

Last fall the United States proposed a conference including all the parties most directly concerned -- North and South Korea, the United States, and the People's Republic of China -- to discuss ways of adapting the Armistice Agreement to new conditions and replacing it with more permanent arrangements. On July 22, I stated our readiness to meet immediately with these parties to consider the appropriate venue for such a conference. I reaffirm that readiness here today.

If such a conference proves impracticable right now, the United States would support a phased approach. Preliminary talks between North and South Korea, including discussions on the venue and scope of the con-

PR #485

-9-

ference could start immediately. In this phase the United States and the People's Republic of China could participate as observers or in an advisory role. If such discussions yielded concrete results, the United States and China could join the talks formally. This, in turn, could set the stage for a wider conference in which other countries could associate themselves with arrangements that guarantee a durable peace on the Peninsula.

We hope that North Korea and other concerned parties will respond affirmatively to this proposed procedure or offer a constructive alternative suggestion.

The world community is deeply concerned over the continuing stalemate on the Cyprus problem.

Domestic pressures, nationalistic objectives, and international rivalries have combined to block the parties from taking even the most elementary steps toward a solution. On those few occasions when representatives of the two Cypriot communities have come together, they have fallen into in-conclusive procedural disputes. The passage of time has served only to complicate domestic difficulties and to diminish the possibilities for constructive conciliation. The danger of conflict between Greece and Turkey has spread to other issues, as we have recently seen in the Aegean.

All concerned need to focus on committing themselves to achieve the overriding objectives -- assuring the well-being of the suffering Cypriot people, and peace in the eastern Mediterranean.

A settlement must come from the Cypriot communities themselves. It is they who must decide how their island's economy, society, and government shall be reconstructed. It is they who must decide the ultimate relationship of the two communities and the territorial extent of each area.

The United States is ready to assist in restoring momentum to the negotiating process. We believe that agreeing to a set of principles might help the parties to resume negotiations. We would suggest some concepts along the following lines:

- a settlement should preserve the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus;

- the present dividing lines on Cyprus must be adjusted to reduce the area currently controlled by the Turkish side;

- the territorial arrangement should take into account the economic requirements and humanitarian concerns of the two Cypriot communities, including the plight of those who remain refugees;

- a constitutional arrangement should provide conditions under which the two Cypriot communities can live in freedom and have a large voice in their own affairs; and

PR #485

-10-

-- security arrangements should be agreed that permit the withdrawal of foreign military forces other than those present under international agreement.

I have discussed this approach with the Secretary-General and with several Western European leaders. In the days ahead, the United States will consult along these lines with all interested parties. In the meantime, we urge the Secretary-General to continue his dedicated efforts.

## Economic Development and Progress

The economic division of our planet between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, between the industrial and developing nations, is a dominant issue of our time. Our mutual dependence for our prosperity is a reality, not a slogan. It should summon our best efforts to make common progress. We must commit ourselves to bring mankind's dreams of a better life to closer reality in our lifetime.

There are many reasons why cooperation has not made greater strides:

-- The industrial democracies have sometimes been more willing to pay lip service to the challenge of development than to match rhetoric with real resources.

-- The oil-producing nations command great wealth, and some have been generous in their contribution to international development. But the overall performance in putting that wealth to positive uses has been inadequate to the challenge.

-- The countries with non-market economies are quite prepared to undertake verbal assaults, but their performance is in inverse ratio to their rhetoric. Their real contribution to development assistance has been minimal. Last year, for example, the non-market economies provided only about four percent of the public aid flowing to the developing nations.

-- The developing nations are understandably frustrated and impatient with poverty, illiteracy and disease. But too often they have made demands for change that are as confrontational as they are unrealistic. They sometimes speak of new economic orders as if growth were a quick fix requiring only that the world's wealth be properly redistributed through tests of strength instead of a process of self-help over generations. Ultimately, such tactics lose more than they gain, for they undermine the popular support in the industrial democracies which is imperative to provide the resources and market access -- available nowhere else -- to sustain development.

The objectives of the developing nations are clear; a rapid rise in the incomes of their people; a greater role in the international decisions which affect them; and fair access to the world's economic opportunities.

PR #485

-11-

The objectives of the industrial nations are equally plain: an efficient and open system of world trade and investment; expanding opportunities and production for both North and South; the reliable and equitable development of the world's resources of food, energy, and raw materials; a world economy in which prosperity is as close to universal as our imagination and our energies allow.

These goals are complementary; indeed they must be, for neither side can achieve its aims at the expense of the other. They can be realized only through cooperation.

We took a major step forward together a year ago, at the Seventh Special Session of this Assembly. And we have since followed through on many fronts.

-- We have taken steps to protect the economic security of developing nations against cyclical financial disaster. The newly expanded compensatory finance facility of the International Monetary Fund has disbursed over $2 billion to developing nations this year along.

-- An IMF Trust Fund financed by gold sales has been established for the benefit of the low-income countries.

-- Replenishments for the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank will provide additional resources for development.

-- Wordwide food aid has expanded. We have committed ourselves to expand the world supply of food. With a United States contribution of $200 million, we have brought the International Fund for Agriculture Development close to operation.

-- The major industrial nations have moved to expand trade opportunities for the developing world. We have joined in a solemn pledge to complete by next year the liberalization of world trade through the Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations. For its part, the United States has established a system of generalized preferences which has stimulated billions in exports from developing nations to the United States in 1975.

The United States continued this process by putting forward a number of new proposals at the Fourth Ministeral United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in May 1976. We proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the capacity of the developing countries to select, adapt, improve and manage technology for development. We committed ourselves to improvements in the quality of aid, proposing that a greater proportion of aid to poor countries be on a grant basis and united to purchases from donor nations. We agreed to a serious effort to improve markets of eighteen basic commodities.

These measures undertaken since we met here just a year ago assist -- not with rhetoric and promises, but in practical and concrete ways -- the peoples of the world who are struggling to throw off the chains of poverty.

PR #485

-12-

Much remains to be done:

First, the application of science and technology is at the very heart of the development process. The United States, conscious of its pioneering role in technology, has put forward three basic principles, which we will support with funds and talent:

- to train individuals who can identify, select and manage the future technology of the developing world;

- to build both national and international institutions to create indigenous technology, as well as adapt foreign designs and inventions; and

- to spur the private sector to make its maximum contribution to the development and transfer of technological progress.

To achieve these goals, we are today extending an invitation to the World Conference on Science and Technology for Development now scheduled for 1979 to meet in this country. In preparation for that meeting, we have asked members of the industrial, academic and professional scientific communities throughout the United States to meet in Washington in November. They will review the important initiatives this country can take to expand the technological base for development, and they will strive to develop new approaches.

Second, the Ministerial Meeting of the Conference on International Economic Cooperation in Paris should be given new impetus. We are making several new proposals:

- We will seek to help nations facing severe debt burdens. For acute cases we will propose guidelines for debt renegotiation. For countries facing longer-term problems, we will propose systematic examination of remedial measures, including increased aid.

- We will advance new ideas for expanded cooperation in energy including a regular process of information exchange among energy producers and users, and an expanded transfer of energy-related technology to energy-poor developing nations.

Third, the industrial democracies have been far too willing to wait for the demands of the developing countries rather than to advance their own proposals. Now, however, the OECD countries, at the suggestion of the United States, have agreed to examine long-range development planning and to develop a more coherent and comprehensive approach to global growth and economic justice.

Fourth, natural disaster each year takes thousands of lives and costs billions of dollars. It strikes most those who can afford it the least - the poorest peoples of the world. Its toll is magnified by a large array of global issues - overpopulation, food scarcity, damage to the ecology, and economic underdevelopment. The United Nations has a unique

PR #485

-13-

capacity to address these global concerns and thus improve man's odds
against nature. We urge this body to take the lead in strengthening
international cooperation to prevent and alleviate natural calamity.

Our dream is that all the children of the world can live with hope and
widening opportunity. No nation can accomplish this alone; no group of
nations can achieve it through confrontation. But together there is a
chance for major progress -- and in our generation.

Interdependence and Community

It is an irony of our time that an age of ideological and nationalistic
rivalry has spawned as well a host of challenges that no nation can
possibly solve by itself:

-- The proliferation of nuclear weapons capacilities adds a new
dimension of danger to political conflicts, regionally and globally.

-- As technology opens up the oceans, conflicting national claims
and interests threaten chaos.

-- Man's inventiveness has developed the horrible new tool of terror
that claims innocent victims on every continent.

-- Human and civil rights are widely abused and have now become an
accepted concern of the world community.

Let me set forth the United States' position on these topics.

The growing danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons raises stark
questions about man's ability to ensure his very existence.

We have lived through three perilous decades in which the catastrophe
of nuclear war has been avoided despite a strategic rivalry between a
relatively few nations.

But now, a wholly new situation impends. Many nations have the potential
to build nuclear weapons. If this potential were to materialize, threats
to use nuclear weapons, fed by mutually reinforcing misconceptions, could
become a recurrent feature of local conflicts in every quarter of the
globe. And there will be growing dangers of accidents, blackmail, theft
and nuclear terrorism.

Unless current trends are altered rapidly, the likelihood of nuclear
devastation could grow steadily in the years to come.

We must look first to the roots of the problem:

-- Since the 1973 energy crisis and drastic rise in oil prices,
both developed and developing nations have seen in nuclear energy a
means both of lowering the cost of electricity and of reducing
reliance upon imported petroleum.

PR #485

-14-

— In an age of growing nationalism some see the acquisition and expansion of nuclear power as symbols of enhanced national prestige. And it is also clear that some nations, in attaining this peaceful technology, may wish to provide for themselves a future option to acquire nuclear weapons.

A nation that acquires the potential for a nuclear weapons capability must accept the consequences of its action. It is bound to trigger offsetting actions by its neighbors and stimulate broader proliferation, thereby accelerating a process that ultimately will undermine its own security. And it is disingenuous to label as "peaceful" nuclear devices which palpably are capable of massive military destruction. The spread of nuclear reactor and fuel cycle capabilities, especially in the absence of evident economic need and combined with ambiguous political and military motives, threatens to proliferate nuclear weapons with all their dangers.

Time is of the essence. In no area of international concern does the future of this planet depend more directly upon what this generation elects to do -- or fails to do. We must move on three broad fronts:

First, international safeguards must be strengthened and strictly enforced. The supply and use of nuclear materials associated with civilian nuclear energy programs must be carefully safeguarded so that they will not be diverted. Nuclear suppliers must impose the utmost restraint upon themselves and not permit the temptations of commercial advantage to override the risks of proliferation. The physical security of nuclear materials -- whether in use, storage or transfer -- must be increased. The International Atomic Energy Agency must receive the full support of all nations in making its safeguards effective, reliable and universally applicable. Any violator of the IAEA safeguards must face immediate and drastic penalties.

Second, adherence to safeguards, while of prime importance, is no guarantee against future proliferation. We must continue our efforts to forge international restraints against the acquisition or transfer of reprocessing facilities which produce separated plutonium and of enrichment facilities which produce highly enriched uranium -- both of which are useable for the construction of nuclear weapons.

Third, we must recognize that one of the principal incentives for seeking sensitive reprocessing and enrichment technology is the fear that essential non-sensitive materials, notably reactor-grade uranium fuel, will not be made available on a reliable basis. Nations that show their sense of international responsibility by accepting effective restraints have a right to expect reliable and economical supply of peaceful nuclear reactors and associated non-sensitive fuel. The United States, as a principal supplier of these items, is prepared to be responsible in this regard.

In the near future, President Ford will announce a comprehensive American program for international action on non-proliferation that reconciles global aspirations for assured nuclear supply with global requirements for nuclear control.

PR #485

-15-

We continue to approach the proliferation problem in full recognition of the responsibility that we and other nuclear powers have -- both in limiting our weapons arsenals and in ensuring that the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy can be made available to all states within a shared framework of effective international safeguards. In this way, the atom can be seen once again as a boon and not a menace to mankind.

Another issue of vast global consequence is the Law of the Sea. The negotiations which have just recessed in New York represent one of the most important, complex and ambitious diplomatic undertakings in history. Consider what is at stake:

- Mankind is attempting to devise an international regime for nearly three quarters of the earth's surface.

- Some 150 nations are participating, reflecting all the globe's diverse national perspective, ideologies, and practical concerns.

- A broad sweep of vital issues is involved: economic development, military security, freedom of navigation, crucial and dwindling living resources, the ocean's fragile ecology, marine scientific research, and vast potential mineral wealth.

- The world community is aspiring to shape major new international legal principles: the extension of the long-established territorial sea; the creation of a completely new concept of an economic zone extending two hundred miles; and the designation of the deep seabed as the "common heritage of mankind."

We have travelled an extraordinary distance in these negotiations in recent years -- thanks in no small part to the skill and dedication of the distinguished President of this Assembly. Agreement exists on key concepts: a twelve-mile territorial sea; free passage over and through straits; a two-hundred mile economic zone; and important pollution controls. In many fields, we have replaced ideological debates with serious efforts to find concrete solutions. And there is growing consensus that the outstanding problems must be solved at the next session.

But there is hardly room for complacency. Important issues remain which, if not settled, could cause us to forfeit all our hard-won progress. The Conference has yet to agree on the balance between coastal state and international rights in the economic zone; on the freedom of marine scientific research; on arrangements for dispute settlement; and, most crucially, on the regime for exploitation of the deep seabeds.

The United States has made major proposals to resolve the deep seabed issue. We have agreed that the seabeds are the common heritage of all mankind. We have proposed a dual system for the exploitation of seabed minerals by which half of the mining sites would be reserved for the international authority and half could be developed by individual nations and their nationals on the basis of their technical capacity. We have offered to find financing and to transfer the technology needed to make international mining a practical reality. And in light of the many un-

PR #485

-16-

certainties that lie ahead, we have proposed that there be a review --
for example, in 25 years -- to determine whether the provisions on seabed
mining are working equitably.

In response some nations have escalated both their demands and the
stridency with which they advocate them.

I must say candidly that there are limits beyond which no American
Administration can, or will, go. If attempts are made to compel
concessions which exceed those limits, unilateralism will become inevitable.
Countries which have no technological capacity for mining the seabeds in
the foreseeable future should not seek to impose a doctrine of total
internationalization on nations which alone have this capacity and which
have voluntarily offered to share it. The United States has an interest
in the progressive development of international law, stable order and
global cooperation. We are prepared to make sacrifices for this, -- but
they cannot go beyond equitable bounds.

Let us therefore put aside delaying tactics and pressures and take the
path of cooperation. If we have the vision to conclude a treaty con-
sidered fair and just by mankind, our labors will have profound meaning
not only for the regimen of the oceans but for all efforts to build a
peaceful, cooperative and prosperous international community. The
United States will spend the interval between sessions of the Conference
reviewing its positions and will approach other nations well in advance
of the next session at the political level to establish the best possible
conditions for its success.

A generation that dreams of world peace and economic progress is plagued
by a new, brutal, cowardly and indiscriminate form of violence -- inter-
national terrorism. Small groups have rejected the norms of civilized
behavior and wantonly taken the lives of defenseless men, women, and
children -- innocent victims with no power to affect the course of
events. In the year since I last addressed this body, there have been
11 hijackings, 19 kidnappings, 42 armed attacks and 112 bombings per-
petrated by international terrorists. Over 70 people have lost their
lives and over 200 have been injured.

It is time this Organization said to the world that the vicious murder
and abuse of innocents cannot be absolved or excused by the invocation
of lofty motives. Criminal acts against humanity, whatever the pro-
fessed objective, cannot be excused by any civilized nation.

The threat of terrorism should be dealt with through the cooperative
efforts of all countries. More stringent steps must be taken now to
deny skyjackers and terrorists a safe haven.

Additonal measures are required to protect passengers in both transit
and terminal areas, as well as in flight.

# 485

-17-

The United States will work within the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) to expand its present technical assistance to
include the security of air carriers and terminal facilities. We urge
the universal implementation of aviation security standards adopted
by ICAO. We are prepared to assist the efforts of other governments to
implement those standards.

The United States will support new initiatives which will ensure the
safety of the innocent. The proposal of the distinguished Foreign
Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, against the taking of
hostages, deserves the most serious and sympathetic consideration of
this Assembly.

The United States will do everything within its power to work cooperatively in the United Nations and in other international bodies to put an end to the scourge of terrorism. But we have an obligation to protect the lives of our citizens as they travel at home or abroad, and we intend to meet that obligation. Therefore, if multilateral efforts are blocked by those determined to pursue their ends without regard for suffering or death, then the United States will act through its own legislative processes and in conjunction with others willing to join us.

Terrorism is an international problem. It is inconceivable that an
organization of the world's nations would fail to take effective action
against it.

The final measure of all we do together, of course, is man himself.
Our common efforts to define, preserve and enhance respect for the rights
of man thus represent an ultimate test of international cooperation.

We Americans, in the year of our Bicentennial, are conscious -- and
proud -- of our own traditions. Our founders wrote 200 years ago of
the equality and inalienable rights of all men. Since then the ideals
of liberty and democracy have become the universal and indestructible
goals of mankind.

But the plain truth -- of tragic proportions -- is that human rights
are in jeopardy over most of the globe. Arbitrary arrest, denial of
fundamental procedural rights, slave labor, stifling of freedom of
religion, racial injustice, political repression, the use of torture,
and restraints on communications and expression -- these abuses are too
prevalent.

The performance of the United Nations system in protecting human rights
has fallen far short of what was envisaged when this organization was
founded. The principles of the Universal Declaration are clear enough.
But their invocation and application, in general debates of this body
and in the forums of the Human Rights Commission, have been marred by
hypocracy, double standards, and discrimination. Flagrant and consistent
deprivation of human rights is no less heinous in one country or one
social system than in another. Nor is it more acceptable when practiced

-18-

# 485.

upon members of the same race than when inflicted by one race upon another.

The international community has a unique role to play. The application of the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be entrusted to fair and capable international bodies. But at the same time let us ensure that these bodies do not become platforms from which nations which are the worst transgressors pass hypocritical judgment on the alleged shortcomings.

Let us together pursue practical approaches:

- to build on the foundations already laid at previous assemblies and at the Human Rights Commission to lessen the abominable practice of officially sanctioned torture.

- to promote acceptance of procedures for protecting the rights of people subject to detention, such as access to courts, counsel, and families; prompt release or fair and public trial.

- to improve the working procedures of international bodies concerned with human rights so that they may function fairly and effectively.

- to strengthen the capability of the United Nations to meet the tragic problems of the ever growing number of refugees whose human rights have been stripped away by conflict in almost every continent.

The United States pledges its firm support to these efforts.

## Conclusion

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished delegates:

The challenge to statesmanship in this generation is to advance from the management of crises to the building of a more stable and just international order -- an order resting not on power but on restraint of power, not on the strength of arms but on the strength of the human spirit.

Global forces of change now shape our future. Order will come in one of two ways: through its imposition by the strong and the ruthless or by the wise and farsighted use of international institutions through which we enlarge the sphere of common interests and enhance the sense of community.

It is easy and tempting to press relentlessly for national advantage. It is infinitely more difficult to act in recognition of the rights of others. Throughout history, the greatness of men and nations has been measured by their actions in times of acute peril. Today there is no single crisis to conquer. There is instead a persisting challenge of staggering complexity -- the need to create a universal community

#485

-19-

based on cooperation, peace and justice.

If we falter, future generations will pay for our failure. If we succeed, it will have been worth of the hopes of mankind. I am confident that we can succeed.

And it is here, in the assembly of nations, that we should begin.

* * * * * *