12

Accordingly, the United States proposes that the United Nations look anew at the obstacles which have hitherto prevented agreement on the development of effective guidelines for peacekeeping operations. For our part, we are prepared to search for ways to strengthen the authority of the Security Council over such operating forces.

A peaceful world cannot be one in which there is a scarcity of food or poverty in the midst of plenty.

13

[N]

For the better part of a decade the United States and others have acted on the assumption that, in global terms, mankind had put food shortages behind.

But this year that assumption has been seriously challenged. We have a new awareness of the delicate balance between abundance and scarcity. Since 1969, world use of cereals has risen more rapidly than production. As a result of recent crop failures, stocks are at the lowest levels in years. We now face the prospect that--even with bumper crops--the world may not rebuild its seriously depleted reserves in this decade.

In such a situation changes in yield in major producing areas can have major effects in world markets. Because we in the United States have kept our markets open to foreign purchasers, we have seen food prices skyrocket. Normal patterns of trade and price relationship have been distorted. Nations have had to face the stark possibility that dependable food supplies might not be available within acceptable price ranges.

Clearly, no one country can by itself cope with this worldwide problem. Let us, therefore, turn to international cooperation. We propose:

- That a World Food Conference be organized under United Nations auspices to discuss ways to maintain adequate food supplies, and to harness the efforts of all nations to meet the hunger and malnutrition resulting from natural disasters.

[Y]

But this is only a beginning. It is time that we joined together, here in the United Nations, in a common search for new and imaginative approaches to the problems of economic development -- not on the basis of harsh demands, but in the spirit of cooperation. The United States is prepared to enter this effort with no conditions, and with an open mind. We ask only that others adopt the same attitude.

In this spirit, the United States is prepared to consider a Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States which would represent a fair balance between the needs and rightful expectations of both industrialized and less developed countries. Such a Charter would serve a meaningful purpose -- not as an indictment of one group of nations by another, but as an expression of common aspirations. Our objective must be a document free of slogans; a document universally acceptable and universally applicable.

Finally, we must recognize that no issue more deserves our immediate attention -- and our immediate action -- than that of harnessing man's science and technology to derive common gain and avoid common disaster.

Let us undertake a new and enlightened approach to the application of our scientific genius. This means ensuring a rapid, equitable diffusion of basic and applied knowledge, and formulating sensible criteria for adapting the high technology to the pressing needs of the

16

[N]

less developed states. The imposition of inappropriate advanced technology on underdeveloped economies is wasteful, and worse, often self-defeating. The answer lies in active cooperation and a process of mutual education.

The United Nations is the logical place to undertake the enormous tasks of concerting our efforts and wisely distributing the results of our technological advances.

In this Assembly in 1969, President Nixon spoke of the need to "internationalize man's epic venture into space." He specifically proposed a program for worldwide sharing of the benefits of earth resource survey satellites. The progress made in this field since 1969 has been truly astounding. But the progress made in providing for an open and coordinated exchange of the valuable results of these great achievements has not kept pace. The United Nations should look anew at how best to make available to all nations and to all peoples the benefits of this rapidly developing technology.

For example, in the area of medical science as well, the rapid progress of laboratories throughout the world is not being distributed with the promptness and thoroughness which all of our peoples deserve. Despite the effective efforts of the World Health Organization in eradicating malaria and smallpox, in many parts of the globe, recent outbreaks have demonstrated that much more remains to be done. The latest preventive medical techniques must be made available to all nations through the United Nations,

16

the World Health Organization and our other multinational institutions.

The United States pledges its full cooperation in a renewed assault on
disease.

Mexico and the United States recently concluded an agreement
which will result in the practical application of our latest technology, in-
the area of water desalination. Because of this agreement the benefits
of American technology will be felt by the millions in both countries who
depend on the waters of the Colorado River.

Other nations as well are making significant progress in the
development of desalination methods. The dissemination of this newly
acquired knowledge must be made available to all.

The United States is prepared to share its experience with others,
for the common good. We therefore propose that the United Nations establish
a liaison group to follow the progress of the Colorado River project and to
develop with us the means by which the benefits of this experience can be
shared with the world community.

In many other areas as well we must begin to match our remarkable
technological skills with our equally remarkable technological needs. We
must find the means for the cooperative and judicious development of our
material and energy resources. We must responsibly confront the problems
of population growth, which is fast pushing humanity towards the limits
of what our Earth can sustain. We must embark on a new revolution aimed
at increasing agricultural productivity in all lands.

18

The proper role of the United Nations must be that of generating concrete solutions to the problems created by our accelerating technological development -- problems that have no respect for national frontiers. But more, it must be that of finding and giving expression to the necessary collective will to reduce the political obstacles to genuine cooperation.

Mr. President, fellow delegates, just as frontiers can no longer contain our problems, so too must they not restrict our solutions.

The choice is ours -- a peaceful world that we shape creatively or a peaceful world that comes as the product of cataclysm. It is a choice we must make together; for together we will bear the burden of failure or the glory of success.

The task is ours -- it is, as it has always been, to build a better world. If the ideals of the United Nations now seem unrealistic, then it is reality we must change -- not our hopes. We must move from hesitant cooperation born of sheer necessity to genuine collective effort born of common vision.

The decision is ours. We can fill the record of our proceedings with acrimony and go home satisfied that we have had our say. Or we can dedicate ourselves to deal realistically with the pressing problems that afflict this planet Earth. If we take the latter course, we can one day realize what has so long escaped our grasp and truly bring "understanding and tolerance" to all mankind.

16

[4]

Mr. President, fellow delegates: just as frontiers can no longer contain our problems, so they must not restrict our solutions. I have listed some concrete issues that face this organization, and the agenda for this session is replete with many more. But I have purposefully dwelt on attitude and spirit. For our fundamental challenge is not the catalogue of specific tasks. It is to recognize the imperatives of a global society and to infuse our labors with this vision. This will determine our success with practical problems.

If we fail to do this, if we bind ourselves to established patterns, the progress of recent years could prove fragile, and the future will overwhelm us.

If we transcend the familiar and consult a more sublime guide, we will expand what has been achieved, and we will shape our fate.

The choice is ours -- a peaceful world that we build creatively or a peaceful world bequeathed by cataclysm. It is a choice we must make together, for together we will bear the burden of failure or share the glory of success. If the ideals of the United Nations now seem unrealistic, then it is reality we must change -- not our hopes.

We must move from hesitant accommodation born of sheer necessity to genuine cooperation born of common vision. In this way, we can one day realize what has so long escaped our grasp and truly bring "understanding and tolerance" to all mankind.

[LC]

INDEX

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Pages</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I. Introduction</td><td>1 - 2</td></tr><tr><td>II. Progress Toward True Partnership</td><td>3 - 4</td></tr><tr><td>III. Secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs</td><td>4 - 6</td></tr><tr><td>IV. Recognition of Other Hemisphere Governments</td><td>6 - 7</td></tr><tr><td>V. Strengthening Internal Security</td><td>8 - 10</td></tr><tr><td>VI. Trade Policies</td><td>11-16</td></tr><tr><td>VII. Hemispheric Energy Policy</td><td>17-18</td></tr><tr><td>VIII. The Division of Labor</td><td>19-20</td></tr></tbody></table>

# I. INTRODUCTION

The United States has allowed the special relationship it has historically maintained with the other nations of the Western Hemisphere to deteriorate badly. It has talked about partnership, but has not truly practiced it.

The national interest requires the United States to revive its special relationship with the nations of the hemisphere, reinvigorated with a new commitment, new forms and new style.

Everywhere in the Western Hemisphere today, men and women are enjoying a fuller life, but still for many the realities of life are in sharp contrast with the deepest felt human needs and goals of the people.

Although each of the twenty-six countries in the hemisphere is different, with widely varying stages of development, aspirations are outrunning resources and accomplishments everywhere.

We know from our experience in the United States that those who live in deprived circumstances no longer live out of sight and out of mind. Neither are they resigned - nor should they be resigned - to the fact that their lives are less than they could be. They have looked at the relative quality of their lives and found it wanting.

[w]

2.

As a result, in the United States and throughout
the Western Hemisphere, the legitimacy of the democratic
political system and the individual enterprise economic
system is under challenge. The seeds of nihilism and
anarchy have spread throughout the hemisphere.

For the United States, the challenge is a double
one: first, to demonstrate by its example that a free
society can resolve its own internal problems and provide
a more rewarding life for all its people; and, second, to
find ways in which its tremendous human and material resources
can effectively supplement the efforts of the other American
nations themselves in a climate of growing instability,
extremism, and anti-U.S. nationalism.

A new relationship between the United States
and the other American republics must be shaped with a
recognition that devotion to our long-term community of
interests will often require sensitive handling of our
short-term differences.

[Lc]

3.

## II. PROGRESS TOWARD TRUE PARTNERSHIP

Rising frustrations throughout the Western Hemisphere over poverty and political instability have led increasing numbers of people to pick the United States as a scapegoat and to seek out Marxist solutions to their socio-economic problems.

Today's 297 million people in South and Central America will become 643 million in just thirty years. If the current anti-U.S. trend continues, one can foresee a time when the United States would be politically and morally isolated from part or much of the Western Hemisphere. If this should happen, the barriers to our collective growth would become formidable indeed.

It is plainly evident that the countries of the Western Hemisphere, including the United States, have become increasingly dependent on each other.

It is clear that our national interest requires the maintenance of our special relationship, which should have as its goal the creation of a community of self-reliant, independent nations linked in a mutually beneficial regional system, and seeking to improve the efficiency of their societies and the quality of life of their peoples.

[lc]

4.

However, we must recognize that the specific forms
or processes by which each nation moves toward a pluralistic
system will vary with its own traditions and situation. We
know that we, in the United States, cannot determine the internal
political structure of any other nation, except by example.

The United States must move increasingly toward a
relationship of true partnership, in which it will cooperate
with other nations of the hemisphere in those areas where its
cooperation can be helpful and is wanted.

### III. SECRETARY OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS

If we are to have a true sense of community within
the Western Hemisphere, it must be possible to establish and
maintain high-level contacts with each country on a basis of
frankness and openness that will minimize the danger of mis-
understanding and maximize effective cooperation. Such
cooperation depends on the ability of the United States to
respond promptly and decisively. For the United States to
organize itself to make this possible:

1. There must be clearly defined national objectives
consistent with the goals of the Western Hemisphere community;

[wc]

5.

2. These objectives must be translated into clear policy positions relating to both governmental and private activities;

3. To implement these national goals and policies effectively, there must be a structure with clear lines of responsibility and authority flowing directly from the President;

4. There must be efficiently run organizations that can carry out supporting programs free from political and diplomatic encumbrances which reduce the effectiveness of technical and professional operations; and,

5. There must be a close working relationship with the members of Congress as an indispensable and integral part of the policy-making process.

Finally, and of overriding importance in our special Western Hemisphere relationships, is the psychological factor of personal relationships, so important to the Latins.

A characteristic of the Latin temperament is to put more faith in people than in institutions. It therefore is important to give stature and dignity to the key position of leadership in the structure of the United States government

[lc]

6.

that deals with the Western Hemisphere. Therefore, a Secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs should be created to give day-to-day leadership and guidance on behalf of the Secretary of State and the President. He would also coordinate on their behalf all United States government activities in the Western Hemisphere.

One man should symbolize, by the importance of his position, the President's special interest in and concern for our Western Hemisphere relations. Creation of such a post must therefore outweigh any traditional objections to a change of government organization.

#### IV. RECOGNITION OF OTHER HEMISPHERE GOVERNMENTS

The United States cannot allow disagreements with the form or the domestic policies of other American governments to jeopardize its basic objective of working with and for their people to our mutual benefit.

Our national commitment must be:

a. To work with and for the people of this hemisphere.

b. To recognize hemisphere governments in accordance

with Article XXXV of the Act of the Ninth International Conference of American States in 1948 -- where it was stated: "The establishment or maintenance of diplomatic relations with a government does not imply any judgment upon the domestic policy of that government."

[c]

7.

c. To the covenants* which bind together the nations of the Western Hemisphere in respect for the sovereignty of nations and opposition to foreign intervention.

While the United States has not formally adopted this position, the President has altered America's recognition policy since the Rockefeller report of 1969.

At present, the United States policy in the Western Hemisphere, as stated in the President's report to Congress of February 9, 1972, is:

"We shape our relations with governments according to their policies and actions as they affect our interests and the interests of the inter-American system, not according to their domestic structures."

This policy permitted the maintenance of diplomatic relations with Allende's Chile at the same time that it allowed the U. S. to avoid recognition of Cuba -- which is a sensitive inter-American issue.

*Fourth Conference of Buenos Aires (1910), establishing Pan American Union; Inter-American Treaty (1947); Charter of Organization of American States and conventions concluded at Bogota Conference (1948), and current amendments to the charter; Charter for the Alliance for Progress (1961) and Declaration of the Presidents (1967).

[L]

8.

V. <u>STRENGTHENING INTERNAL SECURITY</u>

The United States should cooperate with other nations
of the Western Hemisphere in measures to strengthen internal
security, reversing the recent downward trend in grants for
assisting the training of security forces for the other
hemisphere countries*

<table>
   <thead>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Fiscal Year
     </td>
     <td>
      Amount (Actual or Proposed)
     </td>
    </tr>
   </thead>
   <tbody>
    <tr>
     <td>
      1966
     </td>
     <td>
      $80.7 million
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      1970
     </td>
     <td>
      21.4
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      1971
     </td>
     <td>
      15.7
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      1972
     </td>
     <td>
      15.0
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      1973
     </td>
     <td>
      13.8
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      1974
     </td>
     <td>
      10.0
     </td>
    </tr>
   </tbody>
  </table>

In view of the growing subversion against hemisphere
government, the mounting terrorism and violence against citizens,
and the rapidly expanding population, it is essential that the
training program which brings military and police personnel
from the other hemisphere nations to the United States and
to training centers in Panama be continued and strengthened.

[10]

9.

(The trend in Congress has been opposite to this recommendation. For example, the present Senate Bill (S2335) contains a ban on the use of its funds or those other laws for police training or related programs for a foreign country.)

The Executive Branch has sought modification of the Conte and Symington amendments to permit the United States to sell aircraft, ships, and other major military equipment without aid-cut penalties to the more developed nations of the hemisphere when these nations believe this equipment is necessary to protect their land, patrol their seacoasts and airspace, and otherwise maintain the morale of their forces and protect their sovereignty.

We have altered our policy in this area through interpretation of "sophisticated" weapons. America now sells jet aircraft to Latin America -- although it does not sell any weapon as sophisticated as the Phantom jet. Realistically, if the United States doesn't sell such equipment, it will be purchased from other sources, east or west, and this is not compatible with the United States' best interests.

[lc]

10.

In the past four years, Latin American governments
have ordered $1.2 billion of military equipment from third
(non-U.S.) nations. This is approximately six times that
purchased from the U.S.

The costs have been:

1. Friction and a decline of U.S. influence
   with Latin governments.

2. Loss of employment to U.S. labor.

3. Loss of profits to U.S. business.

4. Loss of balance of payments advantages for the U.S.

(Source: President's Report to Congress, May 3, 1973)

Congressional ceilings on credit sales have been:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Budgetary Requests</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Fiscal 1971</td><td>$50.8 millions</td><td>109.5</td></tr><tr><td>1972</td><td>61.7 millions</td><td>70.0</td></tr><tr><td>1973</td><td>59.0 millions</td><td>156.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

The Administration has requested $150 million in
Fiscal 1974.

[1c]

11.

VI. **TRADE POLICIES**

Trade policy is the central economic issue facing all Western Hemisphere nations. Freer access to markets in the United States and other industrial countries is essential to support accelerated economic progress.

Provision of such opportunities poses problems of adjustment for the industrial nations in terms of jobs and investment. The challenge is to work together to develop a practical approach which will be in the best interests of all hemisphere nations.

Expanding export trade is the soundest and most important way the other American republics can finance the imports needed for broad development. In 1967 their export earnings were six times the net inflow of private and public capital from abroad. The great bulk of the area's $10.3 billion of imports consisted of the machinery and equipment needed to support industrialization and to expand governmental services, i.e., power, highways, and communications.

[LC]

13.

The Administration has introduced legislation to
provide preferential access to the U.S. markets for developing
countries.

But the Senate Finance Committee has deleted the
proposed U.S. Export Development Credit Fund from the proposed
Foreign Assistance Act. The Committee _has_ agreed to reconsider
creation of this credit fund in the context of trade legislation.

The Development Credit Fund would assist developing
countries in purchasing U.S. goods. Repayments from outstanding
development loans were to have been used to subsidize the
interest rates on export credits to developing countries. The
fund was to have been authorized to operate at about $1.0 billion
annually for five years. U. S. development or program loans
should be made on a three-to-five year commitment basis.

The United States should make a renewed policy commitment
to support development in the Western Hemisphere as a means of
improving the quality of life for individuals. Assistance
should be provided without special-interest considerations and
with due attention to self-help and country performance.

14.

[c]

Multi-national and regional lending institutions should finance the bulk of public works projects and project loans should be restricted to agriculture, education, public health, and urban development projects which involve pioneering and testing new approaches.

In the mid-1960s, roughly two-thirds of U.S. aid to Latin America was bilateral. By 1973, however, two-thirds of U.S. economic assistance was flowing through multi-lateral institutions.

[In providing both program and project assistance, the United States should take full cognizance of the recommendations of the proposed Western Hemisphere Development Committee of the Organization of American States, giving full weight to Title 6, Section 251 H of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966.]

Development assistance loans should carry low interest rates and lenient repayment terms in order to be effective.

The encumbrances on United States assistance programs should be removed in all cases where they interfere with the process of development or impugn the sovereignty of other countries.

Loan restrictions should be eased so borrowers can spend the funds anywhere in the Western Hemisphere with due consideration to questions of quality, price, and delivery dates.

15.

[ec]

The Administration asked for and received a relaxation of restrictions which tied U.S. loans to Latin America to the purchase of U.S. exports.

The Executive Branch should seek the suspension or modification of the Pelley, Conte, Hickenlooper, Symington, and Roess amendments which affect the extension of assistance including cutoffs where countries purchase sophisticated weapons, or seize United States fishing boats operating without a license, or expropriate without due compensation.

The provision that half of the goods financed by the United States must go in United States freighters should be repealed.

The United States policy for the Western Hemisphere should recognize the multiple advantages of a generous rescheduling of debt service requirements for countries facing balance of payments problems.

## Recommendations for Action

1. Studies of the debt service problem on a country-by-country basis should be initiated by the Western Hemisphere Development Committee (the present CIAP)

16.

[lc]

a. In this way, problems can be anticipated and dealt with in advance through an appropriate rescheduling by the United States Government of the dollar payments of interest and amortization.

b. In addition, CIAP should be encouraged to discuss with the Inter-American Development Bank and other international lending institutions the possibility of stretching out loan payments for countries that have debt problems.

2. Where dollar payments are suspended or stretched out, the equivalent amounts in local currencies should be paid into a special fund to be used -- in consultation with the United States -- to meet the general development objectives of the other Western Hemisphere nations. These would include:

a. Financing exports of capital goods within the region;

b. Financing expanded economic development through national and regional development banks; and

c. Financing local private participation in local joint ventures with foreign capital.

17.

[lc]

## VII. HEMISPHERIC ENERGY POLICY

For many years, there has been a feeling on the part of our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere that the government of the United States has assigned them a low priority. This is politically, culturally and economically unacceptable to them.

At the same time, the United States is facing an increasingly difficult energy situation in the immediate years ahead. This may provide an opportunity for a new policy which is beneficial to all concerned, and which could help create a new "continental consciousness."

Within the hemisphere, the United States, Brazil and others are oil-importing countries. Venezuela is a major exporter, and a number of other nations have recently made discoveries that many consider will reach major production proportions.

Therefore, it is suggested that a task force be set up to recommend a hemispheric energy policy which would be fair and equitable to the users and to the suppliers of energy, (not just oil), within the hemisphere.

18.

[wc]

This would give the United States an outstanding opportunity to demonstrate a particular concern about and interest in the hemisphere.

It would clearly establish a mutuality of interest, provide a certain "togetherness," and therefore be politically attractive. It would further hemispheric interdependence, and it could serve as one answer to an important North American need.

The creation of such a group and policy in no way implies a political attack on and/or threat to other oil-supplying regions. This obviously could be politically sensitive, but would have to be handled as part of the program.

The attempt is not to cut off the Western Hemisphere as a self-sufficient user-supplier of energy -- but simply to have a cohesive and sensible regional policy within a context of world-wide reality.

19.

VIII. THE DIVISION OF LABOR

The President should request the Organization of American States to convene a major hemisphere conference to establish a more rational approach to hemisphere trade and the division of labor in the hemisphere.

The division of labor is one of the tried and true economic principles that will be as valid in 1976 as it was in 1776 when it was first spelled out by Adam Smith. His example involved the manufacture of dress pins in which some eighteen distinct operations were required. When one man had to perform all eighteen operations, he "could certainly not make twenty pins a day," said Adam Smith. But if the process could be divided up so that eighteen people specialized, with each one performing one particular function of the process, the total output per person could be raised to as much as 4,800 pins per day, according to Adam Smith.

This principle of the division of labor underlies the progress of modern nations. Within national boundaries, the forces of competition in the market lead to specialization -- a division of labor. Individuals and companies turn to what

[Lc]

20.

they can produce most effectively because that yields the greatest returns. Thus one company will concentrate on the production of ax handles while another will specialize in producing ax heads. The result will be better axes, lower prices to consumers, and higher returns to workers and employers.

The same principles apply internationally. All participants gain from the freest possible exchange of exports and imports, since that promotes an international division of labor. Each nation concentrates on items it can produce with selectively greater efficiency. Everyone gains in the process, just as they do in the division of labor within national boundaries.

What is needed now is a broadening division of labor among the nations of the Western Hemisphere.

The United States should encourage maximum expansion of private investment and strong, effective, free trade-union movements throughout the Western Hemisphere, and steps leading to a more realistic division of labor in the hemisphere.

# # #

UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

799 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

PRESS RELEASE

FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY

Press Release USUN-104(72)

September 25, 1972.

Address by the Honorable William P. Rogers, Secretary of State of
the United States of America before the 27th United Nations
Assembly, Monday, September 25, 1972.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General:

During the past few years the world has made remarkable advances toward the Charter goal of "practising tolerance and living together in peace with one another as good neighbors."

In 1972 alone:

- The United States and the Soviet Union have undertaken with each other to do "their utmost" to avoid military confrontations, to respect the sovereign equality of all countries, and to promote conditions in which no country would be subject to "outside interference in its internal affairs."

- The Soviet Union and the United States have also placed precise limitations on our defensive and at least for the next five years on our offensive strategic missile systems.

- The United States and the People's Republic of China have undertaken to broaden understanding between our peoples, to improve relations between us in the conviction that this would be "in the interests of all states," and to oppose any efforts toward hegemony in Asia or toward division of the world "into spheres of interest."

- The United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union and the United States have agreed on specific provisions to ensure unimpeded movement to and from Berlin by road, rail and waterways.

- The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic have opened negotiations on a treaty to normalize their relations.

-more-

ROGERS

-2-

-- And North and South Korea have intensified their talks on the plight of divided families and have agreed to establish a joint committee to examine problems of unification.

There were many other accomplishments toward the Charter's objectives in 1972. I mention these merely to illustrate how old patterns of hostility are being eroded. If continued this process in time will find positive reflection within the United Nations itself.

We are encouraged too by calls in both eastern and western capitals for a more secure and more open Europe.

A step toward realizing this goal would be creation of a more stable military balance in central Europe through negotiation of mutual and balanced force reductions. We are currently in consultation with our allies, and we believe exploratory talks on this subject could begin within several months. We trust they will be productive.

It is equally important to move toward more normal relationships in Europe -- relationships which have not existed since the end of the Second World War.

Toward this objective a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, if it is carefully and constructively prepared, could play a crucial role.

A conference whose overall effect was to put a stamp of approval upon the rigid divisions of Europe would only prolong the problems of today into yet another generation. A conference which promoted a more normal relationship among all of Europe's states and peoples would reinforce the trend toward better relations on other levels.

That is why we believe that the conference must take practical steps to promote the freer movement of people, ideas, and goods across the breadth of the continent.

We are also now studying alternative approaches for the forthcoming SALT talks. The United States will pursue these general aims:

First, our endeavor will be to negotiate on offensive weapons. In so doing we shall seek to expand the scope of strategic offensive weapons included in the limitations and to establish an equitable balance in the major delivery systems.

Second, we will wish to examine carefully qualitative limitations which could enhance stability.

-more-

[L]

ROGERS

-3-

Third, we will aim to reduce levels of strategic arms. As President Nixon said to this General Assembly in 1969, our objective is "not only to limit the buildup of strategic arms, but to reverse it."

Of course we also attach importance to the work of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, which has now turned its attention to preventing the accumulation of chemical weapons for use in warfare. Work in the committee has come a long way toward resolving some of the important and complex issues related to possible significant restraints in this area. The United States is intensifying its study of all proposals and we look forward to responding to them at an early date.

It is clear from what I have said that the United States believes that a practical step-by-step approach is the best way to achieve genuine progress in disarmament.

Let me take note of other areas in the world in which progress needs to be accelerated:

In Africa, this Assembly must continue to champion the efforts of all people of all races for human dignity, self-determination and social justice. The United States will continue to lend its full support to all practical efforts to these ends.

-- In Latin America, while growth rates in recent years have far exceeded Alliance for Progress targets, economic development is still a primary concern and a primary need. The United States Government remains committed to a substantial program of economic assistance, particularly through regional organizations. And, in recognition of the importance of trade to development, we are actively supporting the participation of Latin American and other developing countries in the coming negotiations on a new international trading system.

In Viet-Nam the United States has reduced its armed forces from about 550,000 to 35,000. President Nixon has proposed a ceasefire in all of Indochina under international supervision, an exchange of prisoners of war, and a total withdrawal of all American forces. Under this proposal the political future of Viet-Nam could be negotiated by the Vietnamese themselves. President Nixon has also pledged a major effort to assist both Vietnamese states in post-war reconstruction. In such circumstances it is hard to understand why the other side persists in believing the war should be continued.

-more-

[10]

ROGERS

-4-

And in the Middle East, the momentum toward a peace settlement must be regained.

We should take note of two positive elements. The ceasefire is now in its 26th month. The climate for a settlement seemed to improve as 1972 progressed.

We must, however, recognize that the Munich killings have set off deplorable patterns of action and counteraction and have seriously clouded prospects of early progress. Nevertheless, neither side has permanently closed the door to future diplomatic efforts. We believe that forces favoring a peaceful settlement still have the upper hand. Our task is to do everything possible to see that they are supported.

The no-peace/no-war situation which prevails now in the Middle East does not and will not serve the interest of anyone in the area. Certainly a stable, just, and durable peace agreement based on Security Council Resolution 242 continues to be the objective of the United States.

But this cannot be achieved without the beginning of a genuine negotiating process between the parties concerned. No settlement imposed from the outside could long endure. Negotiation is not capitulation. Negotiating activity among long-standing antagonists across the world is presently occurring. Why should the Middle East be an exception? When North Korea can talk with South Korea, when East Germans can talk with West Germans, when Indians and Pakistanis can meet in the immediate aftermath of war and prior to the withdrawal of troops - then surely the Middle East should be no exception to the general rule that differences should be reconciled through an active dialogue between the parties concerned.

We do not hold that the process need necessarily begin with direct negotiations. Other diplomatic avenues exist. Ambassador Jarring remains available to help the parties negotiate the terms of a peace settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242.

Another - in our view the most promising first step - would be proximity talks leading to an interim Suez Canal agreement. This would separate the combatants, restore to Egypt operation of and authority over, the Suez Canal, involve some Israeli withdrawal, preserve the ceasefire, and provide momentum for further efforts towards an overall settlement.

It is encouraging that both sides agree that such an interim agreement would not be an end in itself but rather the first step towards an overall peace settlement. Such a practical test of peace on the ground would be in the interests of both sides, and the United States remains prepared to assist in achieving it. Moreover an overall settlement in accordance with Resolution 242 must meet the legitimate aspirations and concerns of governments on both sides as well as of the Palestinian people.

-more-

[LC]

ROGERS

-5-

In considering some of the great political developments of the past few years, one cannot help but observe that the United Nations has not been directly involved. This fact has often been cited in attacks against it.

We are all aware, of course, that the Charter does not intend the United Nations to be the center of all diplomacy. Still, as the Secretary General puts it temperately in his annual report, "in the political sphere the Organization's place is . . . uncertain." With this thought most of us would agree.

Looking to the future, it is well to keep in mind that it is not so much in institutional reforms as in national wills that the solutions to the problem must be sought. Yet to the extent that better work methods and more realistic institutional arrangements will help, we also must bring them about. For example:

-- We believe that for the Security Council to maintain its influence and authority, ways must be found to assure representation for states, other than the present Permanent Members, whose resources and influence are of major importance in world affairs. The absence of Japan, for example, is notable in a body designed to engage the responsibilities of the world's principal powers.

-- We believe that greater recourse to fact-finding commissions, to good offices, and to quiet preventive diplomacy should be employed.

-- We believe that the increase in bloc voting, often without independent regard for the merits of the issue, is leading increasingly to unrealistic results.

The discussion of United Nations' weaknesses in dealing with political problems has reached its peak just at a time when its contribution to economic development and scientific and technological cooperation is making great strides.

Long before economic development became a major matter of international concern, the United Nations initiated efforts to reduce the economic gap between developed and developing countries. From the start the United States has supported that effort. It is an encouraging fact that during each of the last three years the per capita growth in production has finally achieved a higher rate in the less developed than in the developed world. Still, as the recent World Bank study showed, there are serious problems of income distribution, high rates of infant mortality, low rates of literacy, serious malnutrition and widespread ill health. The United States intends to continue to devote serious efforts to solving such problems -- through the improved United Nations Development Program, and through other channels of economic assistance.

-more-

[1C]

ROGERS

-6-

United Nations activities related to science and technology are also having an impact.

-- The landmark United Nations Conference on the Human Environment has proposed a world monitoring of levels of pollution in "water, air, earth and living beings," measuring levels of specific chemicals, such as hydrocarbons which poison the air of the world's cities. To launch this and other important programs without delay, we urge this Assembly to establish the secretariat and the proposed $100 million fund for the environment.

-- The United Nations can also make a substantial contribution in the fight against drug traffic, particularly heroin traffic. A revised Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs will give the Narcotics Board authority to reduce poppy cultivation and opium production in countries shown to be sources of that traffic. The UN Drug Abuse Fund is helping states to improve their drug administrations, to train police and customs officials, to develop other means of livelihood for opium farmers, and to prevent and treat drug addiction. As President Nixon said last week, "Every government which wants to move against narcotics should know that it can count on (the United States) for our whole-hearted support and assistance in doing so."

-- Just last week the Secretary General announced that 1974 will be the World Population Year and the time of a major U.N. population conference. It is our hope that the conference will lead to the setting of concrete goals of reduced population growth.

-- This General Assembly will review the progress of its Seabed Committee in preparing for a conference on the Law of the Sea. It is important for us to use this opportunity to help make the oceans an example of international cooperation, rather than an area of future conflict.

Such activities as pollution, narcotics, the seabeds, and population control -- most of them connected with new applications of science and technology -- will increase in importance in the future. We believe they must acquire a greater focus and priority in the United Nations.

I have spoken today about some of the United Nations' weaknesses as well as some of its strengths, because I believe we must look at this organization realistically so that we may contribute to its future prospects. In that spirit, the United States will continue to support the United Nations. We remain committed to making it stronger and more effective.

-more-

[L]

ROGERS

-7-

During this session the United Nations will have an opportunity and an obligation to take action of vital importance to the international community. The United Nations must deal effectively with criminal acts of international terrorism which are so tragically touching the lives of people everywhere -- without warning, without discrimination, without regard for the sanctity of human life.

Twenty-four years ago the United Nations, in its Declaration of Human Rights, affirmed that every human being has a right to life, liberty, and "security of person." Yet what is happening in the world today to that security?

-- In Sweden, 90 people boarding an international flight are made hostage and held for ransom by Croatian terrorists.

-- In London, an Israeli diplomat is killed by a bomb sent through the mail. In New York colleagues in the United Nations narrowly avert a similar fate.

-- In Cyprus, 95 persons of many nationalities narrowly escape death on a Venezuelan plane when a bomb is discovered just in time.

-- In New York, shots are fired into the apartment of a member of the Soviet Mission where children are playing.

-- In Munich, eleven Olympic athletes are kidnaped and murdered in a day of horror witnessed throughout the world.

-- In Czechoslovakia, a Czechoslovak pilot is killed and his plane hijacked and diverted to West Germany.

In Israel, 26 tourists -- 16 of them American citizens -- are slaughtered in an insane attack at an international airport.

In this year alone 25 airliners from 13 countries have been successfully hijacked, and 26 other attempts have been frustrated. In this year alone 140 airplane passengers and crew have been killed, and 97 wounded, in acts of terrorism. In five years 27 diplomats from 11 countries have been kidnapped and three assassinated. In New York Arab and other missions have been threatened.

Is there any one of you here who has not had occasion -- as you have journeyed by plane from around the globe -- to be concerned about your own personal safety? Is there any one of you here who has not wondered what terrorist might strike next -- or where?

The issue is not war -- war between . states, civil war, or revolutionary war, The issue is not the strivings of people to achieve self-determination and independence.

-more-

ROGERS

-8-

[LC]

Rather, it is whether millions of air travellers can continue to fly in safety each year. It is whether a person who receives a letter can open it without the fear of being blown up. It is whether diplomats can safely carry out their duties. It is whether international meetings -- like the Olympic Games, like this Assembly -- can proceed without the ever-present threat of violence.

In short, the issue is whether the vulnerable lines of international communication -- the airways and the mails, diplomatic discourse and international meetings -- can continue, without disruption, to bring nations and peoples together. All who have a stake in this have a stake in decisive action to suppress these demented acts of terrorism.

We are all aware that, aside from the psychotic and the purely felonious, many criminal acts of terrorism derive from political origins. We all recognize that issues such as self-determination must continue to be addressed seriously by the international community. But political passion, however deeply held, cannot be a justification for criminal violence against innocent persons.

Certainly the terrorist acts I have cited are totally unacceptable attacks against the very fabric of international order. They must be universally condemned, whether we consider the cause the terrorists invoke noble or ignoble, legitimate or illegitimate.

We must take effective steps to prevent the hijacking of international civil aircraft.

We must take effective steps to prevent murderous attacks and kidnapping of diplomats.

We must take effective steps to prevent terrorists from sending bombs through the mails or murdering innocent civilians.

The United States welcomes the initiative the Secretary General has taken to place this matter on the agenda.

Two years ago, before the problem had reached its present dimensions, the General Assembly took the first step -- the step that must guide us now. In the Declaration on Friendly Relations Among States, which so strongly reaffirmed the right of self-determination, the General Assembly also unanimously declared that each nation has a duty to refrain from assisting or in any way participating in "terrorist acts in another state or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts."

The time has come to make that obligation, which this General Assembly solemnly undertook, more specific and meaningful.

In the past two years, the international community has taken certain steps in the field of hijacking. Conventions have been concluded prescribing severe penalties for the hijacking and sabotage of aircraft and requiring states to extradite or prosecute hijackers and saboteurs. We urge all states which have not ratified these conventions to do so.

-more-

[L]

ROGERS

-9-

We are now faced with an urgent need to deter and punish international crimes of violence not only in the air but throughout our societies. The United States urges that this Assembly act -- and act at once -- to meet this challenge.

First, the draft treaty to prosecute or extradite those who attack or kidnap diplomats or officials of foreign governments or international organizations should be completed and opened for signature at this session of the Assembly. The draft articles are already before this Assembly in Document A/8710.

Second, a treaty providing for suspension of all air service to countries which fail to punish or extradite hijackers or saboteurs of civil aircraft should be promptly completed and opened for signature. A nation which is a haven for hijackers should be outlawed by the international community. A draft of a treaty to do this has already been considered by a subcommittee of the Civil Aviation Organization. To achieve early action the process of deliberation should be accelerated and a diplomatic conference to complete the treaty should be called without delay.

Third, a new treaty on the export of international terrorism should be concluded and opened for signature as soon as possible. It should include universal condemnation of and require the prosecution or extradition of persons who kill, seriously injure, or kidnap innocent civilians in a foreign state for the purpose of harming or forcing concessions from a state or from an international organization. To complete such a treaty a diplomatic conference should be convened as soon as possible. The United States government is today circulating a first draft of a treaty. We urge all governments to give it their earnest attention.

We have also embodied these various proposals in a draft resolution, which we submitted to the Secretariat for distribution this morning.

These actions would mark a major advance in the struggle against international terrorism. Surely it is in the collective interest of every nation represented in this hall to arrest the growing assault on international order with which we are all faced.

Let this General Assembly be the driving force for the specific and vigorous steps that are required. Let it prove that the United Nations can meet this test. Let it show people everywhere that this organization -- here -- now -- is capable of the concrete action necessary to bring us closer to a world free of violence -- the kind of a world which is the great goal of the U.N. Charter.

**********

[L]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DRAFT CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT
OF CERTAIN ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

PREAMBLE

THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION --

RECALLING United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) proclaiming principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

CONSIDERING that this Resolution provides that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts;

CONSIDERING the common danger posed by the spread of terrorist acts across national boundaries;

CONSIDERING that civilians must be protected from terrorist acts;

AFFIRMING that effective measures to control international terrorism are urgently needed and require international as well as national action;

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE 1

1. Any person who unlawfully kills, causes serious bodily harm or kidnaps another person, attempts to commit any such act, or participates as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit any such act, commits an offense of international significance if the act:

(a) is committed or takes effect outside the territory of a State of which the alleged offender is a national; and

(b) is committed or takes effect:

(1) outside the territory of the State against which the act is directed, or

(ii) within the territory of the State against which the act is directed and the alleged offender knows or has reason to know that a person against whom the act is directed is not a national of that State; and

more

[LC]

-2-

(c) is committed neither by nor against a member of the Armed Forces of a State in the course of military hostilities: and

(d) is intended to damage the interests of or obtain concessions from a State or an international organization.

2. For the purposes of this Convention:

(a) An "international organization" means an international intergovernmental organization.

(b) An "alleged offender" means a person as to whom there are grounds to believe that he has committed one or more of the offenses of international significance set forth in this Article.

(c) The "territory" of a State includes all territory under the jurisdiction or administration of the State.

## ARTICLE 2

Each State Party undertakes to make the offenses set forth in Article 1 punishable by severe penalties.

## ARTICLE 3

A State Party in whose territory an alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, submit, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State.

## ARTICLE 4

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses set forth in Article 1:

(a) when the offense is committed in its territory; or

(b) when the offense is committed by its national.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses set forth in Article 1 in the case where an alleged offender is present in its territory and the State does not extradite him to any of the States mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law.

more

[lc]

-3-

## ARTICLE 5

A State Party in which one or more of the offenses set forth in Article 1 have been committed shall, if it has reason to believe an alleged offender has fled from its territory, communicate to all other States Parties all the pertinent facts regarding the offense committed and all available information regarding the identity of the alleged offender.

## ARTICLE 6

1. The State Party in whose territory an alleged offender is found shall take appropriate measures under its internal law so as to ensure his presence for prosecution or extradition. Such measures shall be immediately notified to the States mentioned in Article 4, paragraph 1 and all other interested States.

2. Any person regarding whom the measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are being taken shall be entitled to communicate immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national and to be visited by a representative of that State.

## ARTICLE 7

1. To the extent that the offenses set forth in Article 1 are not listed as extraditable offenses in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties they shall be deemed to have been included as such therein. States Parties undertake to include those offenses as extraditable offenses in every future extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may, if it decides to extradite, consider the present articles as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the provisions of the law of the requested State.

3. States Party which do not make extradition conditional upon the existence of a treaty shall recognize the offenses as extraditable offenses between themselves subject to the provisions of the law of the requested State.

4. Each of the offenses shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties as if it has been committed not only in the place in which it occured but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 1 (b).

more

-4-

5. An extradition request from the State in which the offenses were committed shall have priority over other such requests if received by the State Party in whose territory the alleged offender has been found within thirty days after the communication required under paragraph 1 of Article 6 has been made.

ARTICLE 8

Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connection with any of the offenses set forth in Article 1 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

ARTICLE 9

The statutory limitation as to the time within which prosecution may be instituted for the offenses set forth in Article 1 shall be, in each State Party, that fixed for the most serious crimes under its internal law.

ARTICLE 10

1. States Parties shall, in accordance with international and national law, endeavor to take all practicable measures for the purpose of preventing the offenses set forth in Article 1.

2. Any State Party having reason to believe that one of the offenses set forth in Article 1 may be committed shall, in accordance with its national law, furnish any relevant information in its possession to those States which it believes would be the States mentioned in Article 4, paragraph 1 if any such offense were committed.

ARTICLE 11

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offenses set forth in Article 1, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not affect obligations concerning mutual assistance embodied in any other treaty.

more

-6-

[L.C.]

## ARTICLE 16

1. Any dispute between the Parties arising out of the application or interpretation of the present articles that is not settled through negotiation may be brought by any State party to the dispute before a Conciliation Commission to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Article by the giving of written notice to the other State or States party to the dispute and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. A Conciliation Commission will be composed of three members. One member shall be appointed by each Party to the dispute. If there is more than one party on either side of the dispute they shall jointly appoint a member of the Conciliation Commission. These two appointments shall be made within two months of the written notice referred to in paragraph 1. The third member, the Chairman, shall be chosen by the other two members.

3. If either side has failed to appoint its members within the time-limit referred to in paragraph 2, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall appoint such member within a further period of two months. If no agreement is reached on the choice of the Chairman within five months of the written notice referred to in paragraph 1, the Secretary-General shall within the further period of one month appoint as the Chairman a qualified jurist who is not a national of any State party to the dispute.

4. Any vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made.

5. The Commission shall establish its own rules of procedure and shall reach its decisions and recommendations by a majority vote. It shall be competent to ask any organ that is authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to make such a request regarding the interpretation or application of the present articles.

6. If the Commission is unable to obtain an agreement among the parties on a settlement of the dispute within six months of its initial meeting, it shall prepare as soon as possible a report of its proceedings and transmit it to the parties and to the depositary. The report shall include the Commission's conclusions upon the facts and questions of law and the recommendations it has submitted to the parties in order to facilitate a settlement of the dispute. The six months time-limit may be extended by decision of the Commission.

7. This Article is without prejudice to provisions concerning the settlement of disputes contained in international agreements in force between States.

END

UNITED NATIONS

GENERAL
ASSEMBLY

PROVISIONAL

A/PV.2051

3 October 1972

ENGLISH

Twenty-seventh Session

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTY-FIRST MEETING

Held at Headquarters, New York,
on Tuesday, 3 October 1972, at 3 p.m.

President:

later:

Mr. TREPCZYNSKI
Mr. Raymond (Vice-President)

(Poland)

(Haiti)

- General debate [9] (continued)

Statements were made by:

Mr. Mudenda (Zambia)

Mr. Singh (India)

Mr. Weeks (Liberia)

✓ Mr. Chiao (China)

Mr. Potolot (Central African Republic)

This record contains the original text of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches in the other languages. The final text will be distributed as soon as possible.

Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be sent in quadruplicate within three working days, to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, Office of Conference Services, Room LX-2332, and incorporated in a copy of the record.

AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 4 OCTOBER 1972, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS WILL BE 9 OCTOBER 1972.

The co-operation of delegations in strictly observing this time-limit would be greatly appreciated.

72-70096/A

RH/2

A/PV.2051

2-5

AGENDA ITEM 9

GENERAL DEBATE (continued)

Mr. MUDENDA (Zambia): Mr. President, my delegation warmly congratulates you upon your election to the high office of President of the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly. Not only are you eminently qualified for the task, but also you are a representative of a great country which has made valuable contributions towards international peace and security, particularly in the field of human freedom and justice. I wish to assure you of my delegation's full co-operation in the discharge of your heavy responsibility.

Permit me also to pay a tribute to your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Adam Malik, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, who presided over the proceedings of the twenty-sixth session with distinction.

Although I had occasion elsewhere to extend our sincere congratulations and best wishes to our new Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, I should like to renew those sentiments. In this connexion, I wish to reassure him of the support and co-operation of the Government of Zambia in the performance of his very important and difficult duties.

Significant developments have taken place since the twenty-sixth session. Recently, Foreign Ministers of non-aligned countries met in Georgetown, Guyana, and it was clear from the number and level of participants that the non-aligned movement has not only grown through new membership but has also increased its commitment.