8.

dignity, equality; and mutual respect.

The United States today approaches the world, and this Hemisphere, not with the impulse to overwhelm problems with resources or to disguise differences with assistance programs, but with patience, maturity, compassion and a willingness to identify genuine mutualities of interest. Diversity and disagreement are features of a world of independent nations. But the interdependence of our security and economic progress makes our working together also a practical necessity. We have never lost respect for each other, or a dedication to solve problems cooperatively, and we must never do so.

The people of the United States are profoundly convinced that the world's future is at stake. The talents and energy of our people have given us the means for material progress that can all but eradicate famine, poverty, disease and -- as we proved together in facing the 1970 earthquake -- to alleviate

9. (Y)

the dreadful consequences of natural disaster.

History will judge us cruelly if we fail to draw from
these blessings the greatest possible human benefit.

Paraphrasing an ancient Quechua (Keh-choo-ah) saying, "even the stones would cry." Not our power, but our wisdom, is challenged.

Peru, it is clear even on this brief visit, has committed itself with determination to build a better life for its own people. Its leadership within the Third World demonstrates concern that transcends its own borders. At times the fervor of those convictions has conflicted with some of ours, even when our fundamental interests have not.

Despite the unique role that each of us plays, my visit convinces me more than ever that our shared goals can dominate our differences. It is up to us to translate our people's ideals into concrete achievements: through negotiation, not confrontation; through common effort, not discord.

10. (D)

Ladies and gentlemen, I propose a toast to the greatness of Peru, to our respect and understanding for each other, and to the greatness of what we can achieve together.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

Date: February 19, 1976

No. 80

#89

PRESS CONFERENCE OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
LIMA, PERU
FEBRUARY 10, 1976

8

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** May I make the following suggestions. Could we have the first group of questions from the Peruvian journalists, and then we will take some from the American journalists.

Before we take any questions, I would like to repeat what I have already said earlier and what I am going to say again tonight. I would like to express my appreciation to the President and the Government of Peru for the very warm and cordial reception that I have received and for the very constructive and useful talks we have had.

**QUESTION:** Dr. Kissinger, recent news items from Washington, DC, report that President Ford has instructed the reorganization of the CIA. Does this mean a restructuring of U.S. security policies and also a commitment of no further interference in other countries' affairs?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The reorganization that was ordered by the President indicates that the President wants to deal with two problems: how to make sure that there is even greater Executive control over intelligence operations, and also how to regulate the relationships between the intelligence organizations and the Congress with respect to the activities of the CIA. The charges that have been made have been sensationalized, and in many parts are inaccurate.

**QUESTION:** The United States has adopted measures against the Government of Peru, among them the refusal to sell arms, weapons; restrictions on trade; economic boycotts in international credit organizations and others. With respect to each and every one of these points, I would like to know whether Secretary Kissinger has during the course of the day brought up any solutions as an expression of US goodwill in terms of our bilateral relations.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I believe that the question is based on a misapprehension. The United States has not engaged in a policy of pressure against the Government in Peru. As I stated at the airport, as I will have occasion to repeat again, the United States supports the objectives of the Peruvian revolution and is willing to cooperate with any country that pursues an authentic national path towards development. We think that in a world that requires peace and progress, the ability of countries that may have different views about their internal organizations, to cooperate on the basis of equality is essential. With respect to specifics, the United States in fact sold, I believe, close to $70 million worth of military equipment to Peru in the last year and a half. There are no

For further information contact:

(LC)

PR #80

-2-

bans at this moment on any of our facilities. The difficulty is that there are certain legislative requirements, some of which the Administration has not favored, which go into effect if certain measures are taken in other countries. We are making very great efforts to avoid having to resort to these legislative mandates and they are at this moment not in effect. The policy of the Administration towards Peru is to seek a mode of cooperation and to work together in the Western Hemisphere and bilaterally on constructive programs.

**QUESTION:** Dr. Kissinger, your visit has created great expectation and interest, especially regarding the motivational reason for it. Can it be considered a preamble for better relations between the United States and Latin America?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** My motivations are generally not as complicated as the subtlety of the Latin mind seems to believe, but basically my visit here is to underline the importance the United States attaches to the relationships within the Western Hemisphere as well as to relations with Peru. We are prepared to work together with the countries of the Hemisphere either bilaterally or in existing forums on common solutions to common problems. What we should avoid is to make too many rhetorical declarations and to work out some concrete programs which can engage the day-te-day activity of our governments so that we do not exhaust ourselves in formal declarations and begin to get to work on our common problems.

**QUESTION:** Dr. Kissinger, several countries have reported in Latin America and also some charges have originated in the Congress of the United States which accuse the Government of the United States of overthrowing the Allende Government. What is your response to this question, Dr. Kissinger?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** My recollection is that the committee of Congress that was looking into this question specifically stated that the United States Government did not overthrow the Allende Government and that corresponds to the fact the United States has an interest in maintaining the democratic institutions in Chile but it did not feed or encourage the coup that overthrew Allende.

**QUESTION:** The fact, Mr. Secretary, that the intelligence services of the United States have supported the FNLA and the Holden Roberto movement and the activities in Angola have produced, we would like to know whether the United States Government feels that the cooperation or presence of the racist government of Pretoria is one that has produced reactions amongst the United States black community and other progressive groups in the United States?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** First of all, there are a number of totally wrong assumptions in that question. The United States was in favor of an African solution to the problem of Angola. The United States did not support any military action in Angola until a massive Soviet and Cuban intervention had already taken place, in which case we responded to requests of several African governments for their support. The United States has formally proposed on a number of occasions that all foreign intervention in South Africa should immediately cease, that all foreign governments should stop supplying arms in Angola, and that the various groups in Angola should negotiate among each other their own solution to this problem. The United States had no interest in Angola except to keep it free of great-power competition. And it was the massive intervention of the Soviet Union which sent in more arms into Angola than

PR #30

-3-

all other foreign governments have sent into all of the rest of Africa
during the course of the year and a large expeditionary force from this
Hemisphere. The United States opposed South African intervention as
well as all other foreign intervention. And the United States' interest
was to keep Africa free of great power rivalry. As far as the black
population in the United States is concerned, we are certain that it
looks at our foreign policy from a national point of view and that there
will be different points of view within the black population as there
are in the rest of the population, but that there is not a unified position.

**QUESTION:** Secretary Kissinger, you have said that you have not decided whether to attend the OAS conference in Chile in June. Could you tell us please on what basis you will make your decision and whether that has anything to do with the situation regarding human rights in Chile?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** My basic plan is to join my colleagues of the Western Hemisphere at the annual meeting of the Ministerial Council of the OAS as has been traditional. I have not yet made my final schedule for June because it is a month of many conflicting international meetings, but I am in the process of attempting to work it out. With respect to the human rights question in Chile and elsewhere, the United States has consistently supported a greater degree of human rights and we have made our views known.

**QUESTION:** My question has reference to what you said in BUSINESS WEEK in December, that the aid of the United States in food has importance for moral and humanitarian reasons. I understand that in 1973 the National Security Council, which you head, ordered a comprehensive study of the food policy of the United States and the political implications of the dependence of third-world countries on the United States as a supplier of food. The WASHINGTON POST last year said that the food aid program exists as an arm of Kissinger's foreign policy. Whether that is true or not I don't know — that is Mr. Dan Morgan's statement. My question is, can the food aid program of the United States be an arm of foreign policy and at the same time a humanitarian and a moral policy?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** First of all, the President heads the National Security Council and not his Assistant for National Security. The role of the Assistant for National Security is to make sure that all the choices are presented to the President and all the agencies always present at the meetings of the National Security Council so that they can see very easily whether all the choices are properly presented. But this is a technical bureaucratic point.

In terms of substance, in my first speech after I became Secretary of State, I proposed a World Food Conference which then took place the following year. I am convinced that the United States, as the greatest exporter of food in the world, has a special responsibility to use its surpluses to demonstrate the importance of interdependence and to use them in a way that is constructive and that helps bring about a better and more progressive world. Secondly, the surpluses of the United States, great as they are, can make only a relatively small difference to the world food problem and, therefore, I have consistently supported an increase in the food aid of the United States of which over 70 percent is not given on the basis of any administrative discretion.

But we have strongly supported programs to build up world food reserves in order to cushion the effects of emergencies. Cooperative programs to increase world food production, because as I said the total gap between

PR #80

-4-

consumption and production is about 25 million tons; the United States
can contribute at most six to seven million tons to meet this shortfall.
We have supported within the Western Hemisphere the creation of a special
agricultural group. All of these efforts are an attempt to deal with one
of the profound human and social problems of our time and are not related
to any short-term political goals. Indeed, they cannot be related to any
short-term political goals because they will take many years to take
effect. But we do have the overwhelming problem of interdependence and
the use of scarce resources for the benefit of mankind, and we hope that
the United States will discharge its obligations in a responsible and
above all a humane manner.

* * * * * *

TELEGRAM
INCOMING

Foreign Service of the
United States of America

AMEMBASSY BRASILIA

O 190800Z FEB 76
FM AMEMBASSY LIMA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC NIACT IMMEDIATE 8896
RUEHIA/USIA WASHDC NIACT IMMEDIATE 4475
INFO RUEHLA/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA NIACT IMMEDIATE 725
RUEHLD/AMCNSUL RIO NIACT IMMEDIATE 1050
RUESBG/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA NIACT IMMEDIATE 2420
RUESRS/AMEMBASSY CARACAS NIACT IMMEDIATE 2398
RUESJO/AMEMBASSY SAN JOSE NIACT IMMEDIATE 313
RUESGT/AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA NIACT IMMEDIATE 363
BT
UNCLAS SECTION 1 OF 2 LIMA 1573

2671

FEB 19 1976

USIAC

UNCLASSIFIED

STATE FOR: ARA/LA/EP, NSC FOR MR. SCOWCROFT AND
WHITE HOUSE FOR MR. NESSEN

USIA FOR: IPS/PL, IBS&SPL, IOP/M

EO 11652: N/A
TAGS: OVIP (KISSINGER, HENRY A) EP
SUBJ: PRESS CONFERENCE OF SECRETARY KISSINGER

1. MR. KISSINGER: MAY I MAKE THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS. COULD WE HAVE THE FIRST GROUP OF QUESTIONS FROM THE PERUVIAN JOURNALISTS AND THEN WE WILL TAKE SOME FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNALISTS. BEFORE WE TAKE ANY QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT WHAT I HAVE ALREADY SAID EARLIER AND WHAT I AM GP

NC

O AS

AGAIN TONIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF PERU FOR THE VERY WARM AND CORDIAL RECEPTION THAT I HAVE RECEIVED AND FOR THE VERY CONSTRUCTIVE AND USEFUL TALKS WE HAVE HAD. (A LONG PAUSE AWAITING QUESTIONS.) IN WASHINGTON THE LYNCHING WOULD BE IN PROGRESS BY NOW.

Q. (ANIBAL ALVARADO, COMERCIO); DR. KISSINGER, RECENT NEWS ITEMS FROM WASHINTON, D.C. REPORT THAT PRESIDENT FORD HAS INSTRUCTED THE REORGANIZATION OF THE CIA. DOES THIS MEAN A RESTRUCTURING OF U.S. SECURITY POLICIES AND ALSO A COMMITMENT OF NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS?

A. THE REORGANIZATION THAT WAS ORDERED BY THE PRESIDENT INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO DEAL WITH TWO PROBLEMS: HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS EVEN GREATER EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS, AND ALSO HOW TO REGULATE THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CIA. THE CHARGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HAVE BEEN SENSATIONALIZED, AND IN MANY PARTS ARE INACCURATE.

Q. (JOREGE CANEDO REYES, LA PRENSA); THE UNITED STATES HAS ADOPTED MEASURES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF PERU, AMONG THEM THE REFUSAL TO SELL ARMS, WEAPONS; RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE, ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS IN INTERNATIONAL CREDIT ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS. WITH RESPECT TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE POINTS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER SECRETARY KISSINGER HAS DURING THE COURSE OF THE DAY BROUGHT UP ANY SOLUTIONS AS AN EXPRESSION OF U.S. GOOD WILL IN TERMS OF OUR BILATERAL RELATIONS.

ACTION

INFO

AMB

POL-3

ECON-2

ADMIN-2

POL-R

LAO

CONS

JBUSMC

RSO

CRO-3

CHRON

SS-15

A. I BELIEVE THAT THE QUESTION IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION. THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT ENGAGED IN A POLICY OF PRESSURE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN PERU. AS I STATED AT THE AIRPORT, AS I WILL HAVE OCCASION TO REPEAT AGAIN, THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTS THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PERUVIAN REVOLUTION AND IS WILLING TO COOPERATE WITH ANY COUNTRY THAT PURSUES AN AUTHENTIC NATIONAL PATH TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT. WE THINK THAT IN A WORLD THAT REQUIRES PEACE AND PROGRESS, THE ABILITY OF COUNTRIES THAT MAY HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT THEIR INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS, TO COOPERATE ON THE BASIS OF EQUITY IS ESSENTIAL. WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFICS, THE UNITED STATES IN FACT SOLD, I BELIEVE, CLOSE TO 70 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO PERU IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. THERE ARE NO BANS AT THIS MOMENT ON ANY OF OUR FACILITIES. THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS, SOME OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT FAVORED, WHICH GO INTO EFFECT IF CERTAIN MEASURES ARE TAKEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES. WE ARE MAKING VERY GREAT EFFORTS TO AVOID HAVING TO RESORT TO THES LEGISLATIVE MANDATES AND THEY ARE AT THIS MOMENT NOT IN EFFECT. THE POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION TOWARDS PERU IS TO SEEK A MODE OF COOPERATION AND TO WORK TOGETHER IN THE EWESTERN HEMISPHERE AND BILATERALLY ON CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAMS.

Q. (BERT SALDANA TEJADA, NOTICIERIO); DR. KISSINGER, YOUR VISIT HAS CREATED GREAT EXPECTATION AND INTEREST, ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE MOTIVATIONAL REASON FOR IT. CAN IT BE CONSIDERED A PREAMBLE FOR BETTER RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA?

A. MY MOTIVATIONS ARE GENERALLY NOT AS COMPLICATED AS THE SUBIETY OF THE LATIN MIND SEEMS TO BELIEVE, BUT BASICALLY MY VISIT HERE IS TO UNDERLINE THE IMPORTANCE THE UNITED STATES ATTACHES TO THE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE AS WELL AS TO RELATIONS WITH PERU. WE ARE PREPARED TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE COUNTRIES OF THE HEMISPHERE EITHER BILATERALLY OR IN EXISTING FORUMS ON COMMON SOLUTIONS TO COMMON PROBLEMS. WHAT WE SHOULD AVOID IS TO MAKE TOO MANY RHETORICAL DECLARATIONS AND TO WORK OUT SOME CONCRETE PROGRAMS WHICH CAN ENGAGE THE DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITY OF OUR GOVERNMENTS SO THAT WE DO NOT EXHAUST OURSELVES IN FORMAL DECLARATIONS AND BEGIN TO GET TO WORK ON OUT COMMON PROBLEMS.

Q. (RODOLFO OROZCO, CORREO); DR. KISSINGER, SEVERAL COUNTRIES HAVE REPORTED IN LATIN AMERICA AND ALSO SOME CHARGES HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH ACCUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF OVERTHROWING THE ALLENDE GOVERNMENT. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION, DR. KISSINGER?

A. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS THAT WAS LOOKING INTO THIS QUESTION SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DID NOT OVERTHROW THE ALLENDE GOVERNMENT AND THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE FACT THE UNITED STATES HAS AN INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN CHILE BUT IT DID NOT FEEL OR ENCOURAGE THE COUP THAT OVERTHREW ALLENDE.

(01)

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

February 19, 1976

No. 84

STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
UPON ARRIVAL AT
BRASILIA, BRAZIL
FEBRUARY 19, 1976

Mister Foreign Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I would like to say how very happy I am to be back in Brazil after too long an absence. I was here fourteen years ago and I was moved and impressed by the people and this country. And I am very happy to have this opportunity to return, and especially as the guest of my very good friend Antonio Silveira. I read many speculations about the relationship of Brazil and the United States, questions as to whether Brazil belongs to the Third World or to the First World or some other grouping. But I don't look at it this way. Brazil is an important country that is emerging as a world power. Brazil will make its own decision as to where it belongs, but I know that Brazil is a friend. And all of our relationships with Brazil have been on the basis of friendship and understanding. And my many meetings with your Foreign Minister have been conducted with cordiality, frankness, and the subtlety which is characteristic of Brazilian diplomacy. I am here to reinforce a personal frienship and to strengthen the friendly ties between Brazil and the United States; ties which as Brazil becomes a world power will be even more significant for the peace and progress of the world than they have been in the past. And I hope that my visit can mark the beginning of an even closer relationship and indeed a new era in the relations between Brazil and the United States.

Now if my friend Antonio permits me to make a personal remark not connected with diplomacy -- last year during the World Cup Football Championship there were some newspaper stories that I had expressed some doubt about Brazilian football. Now it is conceivable that I expressed some opinions now and then about Brazilian diplomacy, but never about Brazilian football. I have only a personal request that Brazil return to the offensive style which is so characteristic of its natural character. I'm grateful that your President has invited me to accompany him on Saturday to see one of the games. So I look forward very much to my visit and to my talks here and I am delighted to see again my friend Antonio.

Thank you.

* * * * *

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 19, 1976

No. 82

As Prepared for Delivery

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AT 8:30 P.M. EST THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1976. NOT TO BE PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED, QUOTED FROM OR USED IN ANY WAY

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT A DINNER HOSTED BY
FOREIGN MINISTER SILVEIRA
BRASILIA, BRAZIL
FEBRUARY 19, 1976

Mr. Minister, Ambassadors, Ministers, Friends:

At such a moment, I must begin by expressing how much I regret that my
dear friend, Ambassador Araujo Castro, is not with us here tonight. He
contributed so much to the friendship between Brazil and the United States
that has brought us to this occasion. He was a diplomat of insight and
a man of humanity. He served his country well. I shall miss his counsel.

Some of you may have wondered, as my staff certainly did, whether I would
ever get here. But I never doubted for a minute that I would one day be
sitting at this table with my good friend, Foreign Minister Silveira. I
was much too afraid of his sardonic comments to let him down again.

Antonio, our conversations and exchanges have demonstrated to me why the
skill of Brazilian diplomacy commands such extraordinary respect in inter-
national affairs. My only criticism is that applying their own high standards
and the superior subtlety of the Latin mind they sometimes give us too much
credit for complexity.

There has never been any doubt in my mind that Brazil's diplomats speak
for a nation of greatness -- a people taking their place in the front rank
of nations, a country of continental proportions with a heart as massive
as its geography, a nation now playing a role in the world commensurate
with its great history and its even greater promise. My country welcomes
Brazil's new role in world affairs.

It is for this reason, Mr. Minister, that I am so pleased to have the
opportunity to say something about how our two nations may face together
in the years to come the issues of our complex modern world, and how the
institution of consultation which we shall establish here during my visit
will, I am confident, give meaning and strength and permanence to our
cooperation.

Mr. Minister, our two nations have much to accomplish together. We both
are vitally concerned and involved in the world's response to the funda-
mental challenges with which history has confronted this generation -- the
responsibility of building a new and peaceful international order and
ensuring justice and prosperity for all peoples.

Today the United States and Brazil together face a complex and changing
world. The international order of previous centuries has broken down under
the pressures of two world wars and the inexorable process of decolonization.
The bi-polar order of the last generation has eroded. The industrial nations
of the West now deal with each other on a new and more equal basis of coopera-
tion and shared initiative; the Communist world has fragmented and is beset

No. 82

-2-

with economic difficulties even as the Soviet Union emerges as a military
superpower. And around the globe new voices awaken our humane concern for
the fate of our fellowmen throughout our shrinking planet.

The traditional association of our two nations, and the warm friendship that continually has inspired it, are among our most precious resources. At the same time, our bilateral relations must now be infused with a global vision and planned to encompass a worldwide sweep. We have only begun to realize the potential of vigorous collaboration between the major nations of the West in shaping international order in the era before us.

At the core of my country's concern is the imperative of world peace.

At the core of Brazil's concerns are the new issues of global interdependence.

These two central tasks of our time provide Brazil and the United States each with a special role and responsibility and new possibilities of cooperation.

## The Challenge of Peace and Prosperity

The United States today is confronted by one challenge unprecedented in its own history, and another challenge unprecedented in the history of the world. The United States has finally come to recognize that it is permanently and irrevocably involved in world affairs outside the Western Hemisphere. At the same time, the catastrophic nature of nuclear war imposes upon us a necessity that transcends traditional concepts of diplomacy and balance of power -- to shape a world order that finds a stability in self-restraint, peace in justice, and progress in global cooperation.

Not all nations may choose a global responsibility, but every nation has a
vital stake in its success.

The United States, uniquely among the nations of the free world, bears a
heavy responsibility to maintain the global balance of power and to resist
expansionism.

All nations which value independence must recognize and oppose attempts to upset the global equilibrium on which the dignity and security of nations depends. Peace cannot survive attempts to exploit turbulent local situations for unilateral political or military advantage. We cannot accept the dispatch of large expeditionary forces and vast amounts of war materiel to impose solutions in local conflicts on far-away continents. Nor can we be indifferent if a nation of this hemisphere makes it a systematic practice to intervene to exacerbate such conflicts around the globe. The United States is determined, as a matter of principle, to resist such dangerous and irresponsible actions.

At the same time, we shall never forget that the world cannot rely indefinitely on a peace that rests exclusively on the precarious balance of power, on a stability based on pressure or threats of mutual extermination. Our people and the people of the world demand something better. Overcoming the problem of nuclear war is the moral imperative of our age. Our ultimate purpose is to look beyond the crises of the moment to shape a structure of international relations that offers our children the hope of a better and less cataclysmic future. We will never settle for the uneasy equilibrium of an armed truce. We shall never cease striving for a peace in which future generations will know that theirs is an era of true reconciliation.

No. 82

-3-

There will be and can be no condominium with the other nuclear superpower. On the contrary, the people of my country will never forget that our ties with our friends and allies are the foundation of the edifice we seek to build. As we meet the responsibilities of security, the energies of all nations are freed for the positive endeavors of human betterment. All nations therefore have a stake in peace. For in today's world, peace is global; the breakdown of order on this shrinking planet ultimately affects the hopes and dreams and well-being of us all.

With solidarity in their commitment to peace, all countries are summoned to make their unique and necessary contribution to the realization of the positive aspirations of all mankind.

## The Challenge of Interdependence

For these are the new goals toward which the nations of the world are turning -- and among the most impressive, this great country. Brazil, emerging on the world scene, stands astride the great international challenge of our time: the gap between the developed and developing worlds. Brazil, which is itself both industrial and developing, mirrors the world in its vastness, diversity, and potential. Brazil has brought to the great task of economic and social advance, to the uplifting of its people, not only its staggering resources but a boundless energy.

And Brazil also begins with strong ties of friendship with the nations of Latin America, with the great industrial powers, and with the aspiring nations of the Third World. In Latin America, Brazil's significant political and economic role has long been recognized. With the industrial nations, Brazil has been an advocate of needed change in the institutions and practices of the global economic system. With the developing countries, Brazil has worked for a greater voice and participation for all in the open economic system that has fostered progress for a generation and spread it to the far corners of the world.

Thus, in today's interdependent world, the traditional motto of Brazil's flag -- "Order and Progress" -- takes on new meaning.

The United States, for its part, also has accepted the challenge of cooperation on an equal basis between all nations -- industrial and developing, North and South, rich and poor alike.

At the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on development, my Government set forth a comprehensive program of measures to improve security against economic cycles and natural disasters; to stimulate growth; to improve the conditions of trade, particularly in key commodities which are central to developing economies; and to address urgently the special needs of the poorest nations. We are convinced that in the last analysis it is justice that ensures tranquility; it is hope that inspires men to the fulfillment of their age-old dreams.

We were encouraged to see at that Special Session that the shrill idiom of the North-South debate has begun to give way to more rational discourse and an enduring sense that we are in fact a world community. Appeals to outmoded ideologies are giving way to the study of practical proposals. Your Foreign Minister has always advocated this. Brazil, he has said, is not beguiled by the "illusion of formal and rhetorical victories in international forums," but is interested in practical progress.

My country shares that commitment.

No. 82

-4-

The United States and Brazil in an Interdependent World

Mr. Minister:

My country shares with yours the conviction that our efforts together can now make a decisive contribution to a new era of progress for the world. It is a prospect worthy of our peoples. Therefore, we shall nurture our ties with you -- in this hemisphere and in the world. Ours will not be a relationship of automatic unanimity but of equality, mutual respect, and common endeavor in a host of areas.

We are already playing important roles together in a variety of international forums -- in the Conference on International Economic Cooperation, in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations in Geneva, in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Our recent past demonstrates that we, and the world, have much to gain by our working together in this way.

-- At Kingston in January, Brazil and the United States were prominent in achieving the far-reaching reform of the International Monetary Fund that was adopted by broad consensus. By these new measures, the monetary reserves of the developing world will increase appreciably, and the prospects for world economic growth enhanced.

-- The United States and Brazil each have a vital stake in the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference. I am hopeful that we will see a successful conclusion of this historic global negotiation this year. Brazil's voice is vital in those deliberations and we are in close touch.

-- Finally and most recently, in London, Brazil and the United States successfully composed our differences and helped to negotiate a commodity agreement -- on coffee -- that serves the interests of consumers and producers alike. President Ford has decided that the United States will sign the International Coffee Agreement. My Government supports it, and I am confident that our Congress will endorse it.

But, whatever the successes of the immediate past, the need for us to find common ground is more urgent than ever. No country -- not even countries as vast as the United States and Brazil -- can hope to impose unilateral solutions on the problems now on the world's agenda.

National trade policies, in particular, have created recurring difficulties. To some extent these problems are cyclical -- reflecting the temporary global economic downturns, as well as a growing awareness in the United States of the long-term possibilities of Brazilian growth and competitive capacity.

The United States is determined to overcome these difficulties; we are prepared to make every effort to do so through multilateral arrangements and commitments. We believe that both our countries must achieve mutual solutions to these trade issues and build upon them toward a new period of international economic cooperation.

Trade is only one of the many issues which summon our two nations to a higher level of collaboration and cooperation. This is the reason, Mr. Minister, why I am honored to have the opportunity shortly to execute with you our new formal agreement establishing a mechanism of regular consultations between our two countries at the ministerial level. The mechanism that we establish will engage us in the kind of intimate and intensive deliberations on major world and bilateral issues which the scope of our respective international interests and responsibilities requires.

No. 82

-5-

We have long been improving our consultations in keeping with the growing significance of our relationship. Fifteen months ago, we instituted consultations on the planning staff level. Last July, we established an Economic Consultative Group, with a special sub-group on trade. We now cap these efforts with a demonstration and institutionalization of political will.

Our new procedure of consultation will not guarantee automatic solutions. But as we address the bilateral issues between us, and the issues in major international negotiations in which our nations are called upon to participate, our exchange of views takes on new and serious importance. Our consultation will strengthen the efficacy of our cooperation toward common objectives. Our joint efforts could well mean the difference that ensures success in world councils of the future.

-- This mechanism will serve us well in the search for solutions to the trade problems which have emerged between us. One of the fundamental principles of United States foreign policy has been support for the drive of the more industrialized countries of Latin America -- foremost among them Brazil -- to compete on a more equal footing in the global arena. The contradictions generated by export subsidies in Brazil and countervailing duties in the United States must not be allowed to become serious divisive issues. They must be addressed by both sides in the light of the fundamental political requirements of our total relationship and of the cooperative international order that we both seek to build. To this end, we will discuss a binding international commitment on the issues of subsidies and countervailing duties to be ultimately negotiated at Geneva under the authority of the Trade Act of 1974.

-- In addition, our consultation can be employed to explore ways of coordinating the policies of our governments to promote the fullest dedication of private and public resources to the transfer of scientific and technological advances in the interests of Brazil's long-term development.

-- We also foresee that our consultations might reach as well into the areas of energy, space and ocean resources development -- all of which hold out immense promise of benefits for all mankind.

We shall bring to the table in these consultations the full range of political considerations -- the basic character of our bilateral relations with Brazil, and our links with the hemisphere and the world. We shall be prepared to consult on all major events of international significance. For it is, in the end, the deeper spirit of our political understanding which gives ultimate purpose and value to all we may undertake on these technical issues.

We conceive of this consultation not as a process in which one side states claims and the other side defends an established position, but rather as a true exchange, reflecting our equality, our world perspectives, and the benefits that both sides will surely gain from common endeavor. Neither side can or should prescribe to the other what its basic stance towards the rest of the world should be. But each side will surely benefit from knowing fully the wishes of the other and is likely to give it weight.

History suggests that the relations of the United States with Latin America are often characterized more by high sounding principles than by practical concrete action. Let us insure in this instance that the consultative machinery which we are establishing between our nations becomes, in reality, a continuing basis for cooperative efforts of real meaning to our peoples. For, even with the best intentions, principles are not translated into

No. 82

-6-

reality unless governments on a regular basis assign themselves concrete
and specific tasks which engage the interests and will of their citizens.
In this manner we shall discover the form and the promise of our future
relationship.

Mr. Foreign Minister, I first visited Brazil over a decade ago. I was
struck by the unbounded confidence and breadth of vision of the people I
met. These reminded me of the moral strengths that marked the earlier gene-
rations that built the United States. And I could only conclude that your
nation, like mine, was destined for greatness.

Nowhere can one sense more deeply the creative spirit of the Americas than
in Brasilia. Here, "where once there was only solitude, and a jaguar scream-
ing in the night," now stands this exciting cosmopolitan world capital.

In the Old World a frontier was a boundary; in the New World it was and
always will be an opportunity. This is a hemisphere of promise and dis-
covery, summoning forth the true spirit and courage of a people.

Our hope and dynamism, the vibrancy and industry of the diverse peoples
that make up our nations, our common struggle against nature, want and
oppression -- all these are the elements of a matchless epic of world
history. They are the guarantee that our endeavor, which has achieved so
much in the past, can be even more fruitful as we work together on the
frontiers of the future. What we elect to do together can have vast mean-
ing to a world that yearns for a fresh demonstration of what strong and free
nations working together with a vision of global responsibility can accomplish.

We welcome Brazil to her rightful shared role of international leadership.
May we strengthen our collaboration in the pursuit of a more secure, pros-
perous and just world.

Gentlemen, I ask you to rise and join me in a toast to the President of
Brazil, General Ernesto Geisel, to my colleague and friend Foreign Minister
Silveira, and to the permanent friendship of the peoples of Brazil and
the United States.

* * * * * * *

The Secretary
of State

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Speech

February 19, 1976

Brasilia, Brazil

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

BRAZIL AND THE UNITED STATES:
THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE

Secretary Henry A. Kissinger at a dinner hosted by Foreign Minister Antonio Francisco Azeredo da Silveira.

At such a moment I must begin by expressing how much I regret that my dear friend, Ambassador Araujo Castro,* is not with us here tonight. He contributed so much to the friendship between Brazil and the United States that has brought us to this occasion. He was a diplomat of insight and a man of humanity. He served his country well. I shall miss his counsel.

Our conversations and exchanges have demonstrated to me why the skill of Brazilian diplomacy commands such extraordinary respect in international affairs. My only criticism is that applying their own high standards and the superior subtlety of the Latin mind they sometimes give us too much credit for complexity.

There has never been any doubt in my mind that Brazil's diplomats speak for a nation of greatness—a people taking their place in the front rank of nations, a country of continental proportions with a heart as massive as its geography, a nation now playing a role in the world commensurate with its great history and its even greater promise. My country welcomes Brazil's new role in world affairs.

It is for this reason that I am so pleased to have the opportunity to say something about how our two nations may face together in the years to come the issues of our complex modern world, and how the institution of consultation which we shall

Our two nations have much to accomplish together. We both are vitally concerned and involved in the world's response to the fundamental challenges with which history has confronted this generation—the responsibility of building a new and peaceful international order and insuring justice and prosperity for all peoples.

Today the United States and Brazil together face a complex and changing world. The international order of previous centuries has broken down under the pressures of two World Wars and the inexorable process of decolonization. The bipolar order of the last generation has eroded. The industrial nations of the West now deal with each other on a new and more equal basis of cooperation and shared initiative; the Communist world has fragmented and is beset with economic difficulties even as the Soviet Union emerges as a military superpower. And around the globe new voices awaken our humane concern for the fate of our fellow men throughout our shrinking planet.

The traditional association of our two nations, and the warm friendship that continually has inspired it, are among our most precious resources. At the same time our bilateral relations must now be infused with a global vision and planned to encompass a worldwide sweep. We have only begun to realize the potential of vigorous collaboration between the major nations of the West in shaping international order in the era before us.

*Brazilian Ambassador to the U.S. Joao Augusto de Araujo Castro died in Washington on December 9, 1975.

PR 82

2

(LC)

## Challenge of Peace and Prosperity

The United States today is confronted by one challenge unprecedented in its own history and another challenge unprecedented in the history of the world. The United States has finally come to recognize that it is permanently and irrevocably involved in world affairs outside the Western Hemisphere. At the same time the catastrophic nature of nuclear war imposes upon us a necessity that transcends traditional concepts of diplomacy and balance of power—to shape a world order that finds a stability in self-restraint, peace in justice, and progress in global cooperation.

All nations which value independence must recognize and oppose attempts to upset the global equilibrium on which the dignity and security of nations depends. Peace cannot survive attempts to exploit turbulent local situations for unilateral political or military advantage. We cannot accept the dispatch of large expeditionary forces and vast amounts of war materiel to impose solutions in local conflicts on faraway continents. Nor can we be indifferent if a nation of this hemisphere makes it a systematic practice to intervene to exacerbate such conflicts around the globe. The United States is determined, as a matter of principle, to resist such dangerous and irresponsible actions.

At the same time we shall never forget that the world cannot rely indefinitely on a peace that rests exclusively on the precarious balance of power, on a stability based on pressure or threats of mutual extermination. Our people and the people of the world demand something better. Overcoming the problem of nuclear war is the moral imperative of our age. Our ultimate purpose is to look beyond the crises of the moment to shape a structure of international relations that offers our children the hope of a better and less cataclysmic future. We will never settle for the uneasy equilibrium of an armed truce. We shall never cease striving for a peace in which future generations will know that theirs is an era of true reconciliation.

There will be and can be no condominium with the other nuclear superpower. On the contrary the people of my country will never forget that our ties with our friends and allies are the foundation of the edifice we seek to build. As we meet the responsibilities of security, the energies of all nations are freed for the positive endeavors of

human betterment. All nations, therefore, have a stake in peace. For in today's world peace is global; the breakdown of order on this shrinking planet ultimately affects the hopes and dreams and well-being of us all.

## Challenge of Interdependence

For these are the new goals toward which the nations of the world are turning—and among the most impressive, this great country. Brazil, emerging on the world scene, stands astride the great international challenge of our time—the gap between the developed and developing worlds. Brazil, which is itself both industrial and developing, mirrors the world in its vastness, diversity, and potential. Brazil has brought to the great task of economic and social advance, to the uplifting of its people, not only its staggering resources but a boundless energy.

And Brazil also begins with strong ties of friendship with the nations of Latin America, with the great industrial powers, and with the aspiring nations of the Third World. In Latin America Brazil's significant political and economic role has long been recognized. With the industrial nations Brazil has been an advocate of needed change in the institutions and practices of the global economic system. With the developing countries Brazil has worked for a greater voice and participation for all in the open economic system that has fostered progress for a generation and spread it to the far corners of the world.

Thus in today's interdependent world, the traditional motto of Brazil's flag—"Order and Progress"—takes on new meaning.

The United States, for its part, also has accepted the challenge of cooperation on an equal basis between all nations—industrial and developing, North and South, rich and poor alike.

At the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on development, my Government set forth a comprehensive program of measures to improve security against economic cycles and natural disasters; to stimulate growth; to improve the conditions of trade, particularly in key commodities which are central to developing economies; and to address urgently the special needs of the poorest nations. We are convinced that in the last analysis it is justice that insures tranquility; it is hope that inspires men to the fulfillment of their age-old dreams.

We were encouraged to see at that special session that the shrill idiom of the North-South

3

debate has begun to give way to more rational dis-
course and an enduring sense that we are in fact a
world community. Appeals to outmoded ideologies
are giving way to the study of practical proposals.
Your Foreign Minister has always advocated this.
Brazil, he has said, is not beguiled by the "illusion
of formal and rhetorical victories in international
forums" but is interested in practical progress.

U.S. and Brazil in an Interdependent World

My country shares with yours the conviction
that our efforts together can now make a decisive
contribution to a new era of progress for the
world. It is a prospect worthy of our peoples.
Therefore we shall nurture our ties with you—in
this hemisphere and in the world. Ours will not be
a relationship of automatic unanimity but of equal-
ity, mutual respect, and common endeavor in a
host of areas.

We are already playing important roles to-
gether in a variety of international forums—in the
Conference on International Economic Coopera-
tion, in the multilateral trade negotiations in
Geneva, in the World Bank [International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development], and the Inter-
national Monetary Fund. Our recent past demon-
strates that we, and the world, have much to gain
by our working together in this way.

* At Kingston in January Brazil and the United States were prominent in achieving the far-reaching reform of the International Monetary Fund that was adopted by broad consensus. By these new measures, the monetary reserves of the developing world will increase appreciably, and the prospects for world economic growth enhanced.

* The United States and Brazil each have a vital stake in the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference. I am hopeful that we will see a successful conclusion of this historic global negotiation this year. Brazil's voice is vital in those deliberations and we are in close touch.

* Finally and most recently in London, Brazil and the United States successfully composed our differences and helped to negotiate a commodity agreement—on coffee—that serves the interests of consumers and producers alike. President Ford has decided that the United States will sign the International Coffee Agreement. My Government supports it, and I am confident that our Congress will endorse it.

But whatever the successes of the immediate
past, the need for us to find common ground is
more urgent than ever. No country—not even coun-
tries as vast as the United States and Brazil—can

hope to impose unilateral solutions on the prob-
lems now on the world's agenda.

National trade policies, in particular, have
created recurring difficulties. To some extent these
problems are cyclical—reflecting the temporary
global economic downturns, as well as a growing
awareness in the United States of the long-term
possibilities of Brazilian growth and competitive
capacity.

The United States is determined to overcome
these difficulties; we are prepared to make every
effort to do so through multilateral arrangements
and commitments. We believe that both our coun-
tries must achieve mutual solutions to these trade
issues and build upon them toward a new period of
international economic cooperation.

Trade is only one of the many issues which
summon our two nations to a higher level of col-
laboration and cooperation. This is the reason why
I am honored to have the opportunity shortly to
execute with you our new formal agreement estab-
lishing a mechanism of regular consultations
between our two countries at the ministerial level.
The mechanism that we establish will engage us in
the kind of intimate and intensive deliberations on
major world and bilateral issues which the scope of
our respective international interests and responsi-
bilities requires.

We have long been improving our consulta-
tions in keeping with the growing significance of
our relationship. Fifteen months ago we instituted
consultations on the planning staff level. Last July
we established an Economic Consultative Group,
with a special subgroup on trade. We now cap these
efforts with a demonstration and institutionaliza-
tion of political will.

Our new procedure of consultation will not
guarantee automatic solutions. But as we address
the bilateral issues between us, and the issues in
major international negotiations in which our
nations are called upon to participate, our ex-
change of views takes on new and serious impor-
tance. Our consultation will strengthen the efficacy
of our cooperation toward common objectives.
Our joint efforts could well mean the difference
that insures success in world councils of the future.

* This mechanism will serve us well in the search for solutions to the trade problems which have emerged between us. One of the fundamental principles of United States foreign policy has been support for the drive of the more industrialized countries of Latin America—foremost among them Brazil—to compete on a more equal footing in the global arena. The contradictions generated by export subsidies in Brazil and countervailing duties in the United States must not be allowed to

4

become serious divisive issues. They must be addressed by both sides in the light of the fundamental political requirements of our total relationship and of the cooperative international order that we both seek to build. To this end we will discuss a binding international commitment on the issues of subsidies and countervailing duties to be ultimately negotiated at Geneva under the authority of the Trade Act of 1974.

* In addition our consultation can be employed to explore ways of coordinating the policies of our Governments to promote the fullest dedication of private and public resources to the transfer of scientific and technological advances in the interests of Brazil's long-term development.

* We also foresee that our consultations might reach as well into the areas of energy, space, and ocean resources development—all of which hold out immense promise of benefits for all mankind.

We shall bring to the table in these consultations the full range of political considerations—the basic character of our bilateral relations with Brazil and our links with the hemisphere and the world. We shall be prepared to consult on all major events of international significance. For it is, in the end, the deeper spirit of our political understanding which gives ultimate purpose and value to all we may undertake on these technical issues.

We conceive of this consultation not as a process in which one side states claims and the other side defends an established position but rather as a true exchange, reflecting our equality, our world perspectives, and the benefits that both sides will surely gain from common endeavor. Neither side can nor should prescribe to the other what its basic stance toward the rest of the world should be. But each side will surely benefit from knowing fully the wishes of the other and is likely to give it weight.

practical concrete action. Let us insure in this instance that the consultative machinery which we are establishing between our nations becomes, in reality, a continuing basis for cooperative efforts of real meaning to our peoples. For, even with the best intentions, principles are not translated into reality unless governments on a regular basis assign themselves concrete and specific tasks which engage the interests and will of their citizens. In this manner we shall discover the form and the promise of our future relationship.

I first visited Brazil over a decade ago. I was struck by the unbounded confidence and breadth of vision of the people I met. These reminded me of the moral strengths that marked the earlier generations that built the United States. And I could only conclude that your nation, like mine, was destined for greatness.

Nowhere can one sense more deeply the creative spirit of the Americas than in Brasilia. Here, "where once there was only solitude" now stands this cosmopolitan world capital.

In the Old World a frontier was a boundary; in the New World it was and always will be an opportunity. This is a hemisphere of promise and discovery, summoning forth the true spirit and courage of a people.

Our hope and dynamism, the vibrancy and industry of the diverse peoples that make up our nations, our common struggle against nature, want, and oppression—all these are the elements of a matchless epic of world history. They are the guarantee that our endeavor, which has achieved so much in the past, can be even more fruitful as we work together on the frontiers of the future. What we elect to do together can have vast meaning to a world that yearns for a fresh demonstration of what strong and free nations working together with a vision of global responsibility can accomplish.

We welcome Brazil to her rightful shared role of international leadership. May we strengthen our collaboration in the pursuit of a more secure, prosperous, and just world.

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

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
STA-501

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 21, 1976

NO. 87

TEXT OF
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
SIGNED BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND
BRAZILIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AZEREDO DA SILVEIRA
AT THE FOREIGN MINISTRY
BRASILIA, BRAZIL

February 21, 1976

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING CONSULTATIONS
ON MATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST

The Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Government of the United States of America:

Inspired by the long tradition of friendship and cooperation between their
two peoples;

Reaffirming the need to give wider expression to the solidarity of the
western world and the benefits to be derived from a constructive inter-
pretation of the concept of interdependence among all nations;

Recognizing the responsibility of their two countries to pursue their shared
goal of a just and enduring solution to international problems;

Convinced of the importance to the sound development of their respective
policies of close and frequent consultations on matters of common interest;

And believing that these considerations call for the establishment of a
flexible mechanism permitting open and active communication at the Cabinet
level, have arrived at the following understanding:

1. The two governments will normally hold consultations semi-annually: on the full range of foreign policy matters including any specific issue that may be raised by either side. Economic, political, security, cultural, legal, educational and technological subjects, whether bilateral or multi-lateral, may be discussed within the political framework afforded by the consultations.

2. These consultations will normally be held alternately in Brazil and the United States on dates to be mutually determined. Special meetings may be called by mutual agreement.

3. The consultations will be conducted by the Minister of Foreign Relations on the part of the Federative Republic of Brazil and by the Secretary of State on the part of the United States of America. The chairman of the

PR 87

- 2 -

meeting will be the Chief of the delegation of the host country.

Date:

4. Each delegation will be composed of such other high-ranking officials, including Cabinet members, as may be appropriate to the agenda to be discussed.

5. After review of matters of common interest by the delegations, the Chiefs of the delegations may propose to their respective governments measures deemed pertinent and appropriate.

6. By joint decision, study group or working groups may be established to examine particular questions of current interest or to help carry forward special projects.

7. Each party will establish such internal arrangements as it deems appropriate to follow through on the agreed conclusions and recommendations that may arise from the consultations.

8. In addition to these consultations at the Cabinet level, consultations will be carried forward on an on-going basis through normal diplomatic channels. These channels will be used for the preparation of a mutually acceptable agenda for the consultations.

9. The foregoing arrangements will complement and in no way replace or detract from the existing channels for transacting business.

10. This Memorandum will come into operation upon signature by the Foreign Minister of the Federative Republic of Brazil and of the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Signed in duplicate at Brasilia this twenty-first day of February, 1976, in the Portuguese and English languages.

For the Government of the Federative
Republic of Brazil:

For the Government of the United
States of America:

[Antonio F. Azeredo da Silva]

[Henry A. Kissinger]

* * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

February 21, 1976

NO. 88

REMARKS OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOLLOWING
THE SIGNING OF THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BRASILIA, BRAZIL
February 21, 1976

Secretary Kissinger:

Mr. Foreign Minister, the Minister of Mines and Energy, Ambassador, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Of the many international undertakings that I have signed as Secretary of State, none has given me greater pleasure that this Agreement today which my very good friend Antonio and I have been discussing for two years. In the charmingly persistent and conciliatorily clear manner of Brazilian diplomacy, Antonio has insisted to me in the two years that I have known him that the United States must pay greater attention to Latin America and also that the relations between Brazil and the United States can be of very great significance to the peace and progress of the entire world.

We share the sentiment because in the world today we have the problem of how to prevent conflict and we have the problem of how to bring about progress. And it is important whether they will be solved by those who respect the individual and who base their policies on concerns for the human personality or whether they will be solved by those who believe in impersonal forces and who carry out their programs without love and without hatred -- simply in pursuance of an abstract bureaucratic conception.

There is no country in which human qualities are more pronounced, in which the human personality is more expressive than this great country that I have had the honor to visit for the last few days. And there are no two peoples whose concern for human dignity and for the basic values of man is more profound in the day-to-day lives of their people than Brazil and the United States. So what we are committing ourselves to is not just to a series of technical understandings but to an expression of confidence in the individual human spirit.

In relations between the United States and Brazil and in the relations between the United States and Latin America, there have often been high-sounding declarations. We are determined that this document which we have signed today shall be put into immediate practice. Its test will be whether in the months ahead we can make concrete progress on the specific issues that concern our people, the Hemisphere and the world.

The Foreign Minister has already referred to some of the groups that are already in existence. We have decided yesterday to form immediately

PR 88

- 2 -

another group dealing with energy and a second one dealing with scientific and technical cooperation. Minister Ueki and some experts have kindly accepted our invitation to visit Washington in the very near future to discuss a very broad agenda. Secretary Simon is coming here this spring and we are planning a meeting of the overall commission before too many months have passed.

I am extremely satisfied with the talks we have had here which cover the entire range of our relationships, with special emphasis to the problems of development and economic growth for our countries, for the Hemisphere and in a local framework. What we are doing here is not an exclusive arrangement, but something that we are prepared to do, each of us with other nations of similar objectives as well.

I have been deeply moved, Mr. Foreign Minister, not only by the extraordinarily technical competence of my counterparts ... here because I have become used to that, but by the friendship, matter-of-factness, absence of complexities and extraordinary human bonds with which all conversations from a President on have discussed and conducted. So we leave here not simply with a political determination that this relationship shall be deepened, but with a human necessity that these contacts will grow more and more profound. A great deal of the credit for this belongs to the persistence, subtlety and charm of my friend and colleague, the Brazilian Foreign Minister, who makes his approaches to us seem so painless that I told him yesterday our discussions tend to reduce themselves to the rate at which we yield to his proposals. But I want to emphasize that I leave Brasilia with the warmest of feelings, that I look forward to frequent and regular contacts with the Foreign Minister and with his colleagues.

Between two countries of this size, one of which is growing with enormous rapidity, differences are from time to time absolutely inevitable. This document will not remove the differences, but it will strengthen our determination that they will be overcome with the attitude that our friendship and shared objectives must always guide our decisions in specific cases. This is the determination with which I return to Washington and we have reaffirmed it to ourselves on several occasions since my arrival here. It remains for me only to thank the Government of Brazil, my friends in the Government of Brazil, for the manner in which the talks have been prepared, for the extraordinary kindnesses that have been shown to us and for the great human warmth so characteristic of Brazil but also so particular to our friendship.

* * * * *

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 21, 1976

NO. 89

PRESS CONFERENCE BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE

PC 90

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, in some of your recent speeches, mainly the one in California and the speech you made here yesterday at the Foreign Office, you said that actions along the lines of the Cuban action in Angola would no longer be tolerated. At the same time there seems to be no indication on Capitol Hill as to any change regarding a more active participation of the United States. How do you explain that?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** First of all, I want to emphasize what I have said at various other stops. My trip to Latin America was planned long before the Angolan adventure by Cuba. I am not here to line up support for the American position with respect to Cuba. I am here to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Latin America, and between the United States and Brazil. And the other issue is incidental to it.

Secondly, when the issue of Angola was discussed in the U.S. Congress, it was discussed within the context of the local situation in an African country, within the context of the debate going on in America about how the United States should act in situations, whether by covert or by overt means. One reason for the repeated statements by the President and myself is to explain to the American people what is involved and to bring about a clearer understanding of the potential global implications of what we are discussing, and we believe that this understanding is growing. And we believe that in a democracy as national leaders we have no choice except to bring home our convictions to the American people. And as I said in my San Francisco speech, I am confident that once the American people understand what is at issue, they will act, as they have always acted, with the determination that is necessary.

**QUESTION:** Now that the situation in Angola already is defined, what would be lacking for the USG to recognize the MPLA as the government of all Angola?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The United States has repeatedly stated that its objections to events in Angola were not related to the MPLA as an African organization, but to the massive introduction of outside forces seeking to impose one group over the other. The U.S. remains concerned about the presence of massive numbers of Cuban forces and Soviet technicians, in much smaller numbers, in Angola. We will watch events including the actions of other African countries that are most immediately concerned, and we will take our decisions in the light of the actions of the authorities in Angola and of the views of other countries with which we have been closely associated.

PR 89

- 2 -

**QUESTION:** In Europe they call you a new Foster Dulles. They also say that you are trying to revive in the world the policy of the "big stick". I would like to know whether you agree or not with this and whether you give me the reasons for your answer.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I am being variously criticized for being too hard on the Communist countries and being too soft on the Communist countries. There are those in America who claim that we are being too conciliatory to the Soviet Union and there are those in America and in Europe who say we are not conciliatory enough. Our problem is we are living in a world which is quite novel for many Americans, in that we now have to have a permanent engagement in international affairs. And that also, for the first time in our history, we have to deal with a country of roughly equal strength in the Soviet Union, so that for the first time in American history, we have to conduct diplomacy of a permanent balancing, continuous character. This creates certain psychological resentments against the world so different from our historical experience.

And it is, therefore, no surprise that those who were very comfortable with the Cold War, and who had become very familiar with rigid divisions and rhetorical declarations, that they should be uncomfortable. And it is also not surprising that those who believe that, simply, declarations for peace, unrelated to any concept of equilibrium, can advance matters, too should be uncomfortable. Those critics in Europe to whom you refer are generally those who want us to support the entry into the governments of their countries, of the Communist party. Now I think that the United States has never volunteered an opinion on that subject, but when we are asked our opinion on whether we believe that the participation of Communist parties in certain governments in Europe will not have considerable effect, we are bound to state the truth. And the truth is that the participation of Communist parties in European governments will bring about a new situation, whether or not these Communist parties claim to be, or are in fact, somewhat independent of Moscow; because I can think of many governments that are indifferent of Moscow, that nevertheless, pursue policies quite different from those of the moral and political community that now, to a considerable extent, exists in the North Atlantic. Up to now it has never been an initiative by the U.S. We state that such an event will change the character of the relationship not because we wish it, but because this is a fact. But beond this particular question which you raise, it is a fundamental question of how we can bring about a new approach to international relations in the face of the traditional polarization between two groups: one that believes that all you need to end the problem of communism is to strike a rhetorical, billicose stand; another group who believes that all you need to bring about peace is to strike a rhetorical pacific stance. And this is the nature of our debate.

**QUESTION:** My question, to some extent, repeats that of my colleague, but I will ask anyway, because I would like to obtain a more explicit answer if possible. You stated Thursday, on the question of the Soviet-Cuban intervention in Angola, that the United States had decided, as a question of principle, to resist such dangerous and irresponsible actions. Should it be understood that the United States will resist the next Soviet-Cuban intervention in Africa militarily, or that the U.S. will vehemently protest with words only, and will call a new Helsinki conference aiming in sanctifying the inviolability of the borders established by the Soviet Union and Cuba in Africa?

PR 89

- 3 -

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course, I just want the questioner to know that I understood the sarcasm of the question. But, first of all, I would like to make clear that the Helsinki declaration dealt exclusively with Europe. Secondly, and before I get to the specific question, the United States has pursued a two-pronged policy. It has attempted to moderate potentially aggressive conduct, by establishing certain international codes or principles to which nations should adhere. But we have never had any illusions that simple declarations of objectives can be a substitute for geopolitical inequalities. And therefore, side by side with attempting to bring about a more conciliatory world, we have done our utmost to make sure that the world in which we live, which is not fully conciliatory, does not provide temptations for aggression. And again I would like to call your attention to the fact that if you look at the nature of our debate in America you will find that the concerns are expressed on both of these points, on both the point of attempting to resist, and on the point of trying to create a new environment. We do believe that we cannot stand for expansionism. But we also believe that a constant attempt to balance forces will sooner or later lead to a confrontation and, therefore, we want to move to a new set of arrangements.

And Helsinki should be seen in that context, without illusion. Now, with respect to your specific question. I think you will understand that it would not be appropriate for a Secretary of State to describe exactly what we would do in circumstances that have not yet arisen, that cannot be foretold. But it would be our determination to do what is effective, and not to have a post-mortem on a failure, but to do what is necessary to prevent the success of another similar effort.

**QUESTION:** In the text of your speech which the American Embassy has distributed, it was said that the United States would sign the International Coffee Agreement. In your speech at the dinner at Itamaraty you omitted this point. Why?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The American press that is travelling with me will tell you that in almost every speech I sometimes omit a paragraph or two in order to shorten the delivery. In this particular case, in order to be perfectly frank, while I wanted to convey to the Brazilian Government that we will sign this Agreement, I thought perhaps it was not specifically delicate at such a meeting to give the impression that our relationship depended on coffee, and as if the policy of this country exhausted itself in the sale of one agricultural commodity. And, therefore, while we will sign the Agreement, while the President has made this decision, and while the printed text of my speech is the official expression of American policy and will be carried out, I thought it was perhaps somewhat more politic not to read that paragraph as if something which we consider of wider importance could be summed up in a traditional export of Brazil. But in any case, what we have -- what is in the text of our policy, and the President has already, I believe, transmitted his intentions of signing this Agreement -- or will very soon -- to the Congress.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, could you explain why you did not inform your good friend Minister Azeredo da Silveira before November 10 about the presence of Cuban soldiers in Angola? Isn't this exchange of information a usual practice in the relations among friends?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Foreign Minister Silveira and I are engaging in a very active correspondence, and we make an effort, I think, on the whole

PR 89

- 4 -

successful, of informing each other of major events. We do not necessarily ask for Brazilian support on everything that we do. With respect to the Cuban intervention in Angola, the full extent of it did not become apparent to us until the second half of October. We were aware of some hundreds of Cubans -- Cuban advisors -- earlier, but at that time we thought it was still within the context of an essentially African struggle. That is to say, where various African factions might ask for outside support that might be significant, but not so important as to dilute the essentially African nature of the conflict. It was only towards the end of October that, putting together various pieces of intelligence, it became clear to us that we were not dealing with advisors, but with an expeditionary force. And we then, given the fact that bureaucracies do not move with enormous rapidity, we then informed some of our closer friends of that fact. It is also important to remember that the Cuban intervention accelerated very rapidly. As late as the middle of December there were only about four to five thousand Cubans. I am talking about December now, the middle of December. There were only about four to five thousand Cubans in Angola. Today there are eleven to twelve thousand, so that a more than doubling of the Cuban force took place after the middle of December in Angola. So that the full character of the struggle, that is to say the fact that we were no longer dealing with foreign countries helping their friends, but with foreign countries imposing their friends on the rest of the country, was not really fully clear to us until just before we informed the Brazilian Foreign Minister.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary: you have singled out Brazil as the most important country in Latin America and on the verge of becoming a world power. How about human rights? Aren't you concerned with the matter?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It is not my obligation here publicly to discuss Brazilian domestic developments, but I had an opportunity yesterday in my conversations to learn from various Brazilian officials their ideas about the evolution of this country in the political field and their perception of the role of human rights in this respect.

**QUESTION:** There is evidence that Brazil's trade balance cannot stand, without great trauma for the country, a general trade deficit -- particularly with the U.S. -- similar to that of last year. In view of this, and of the multiplicity of forces which decide whether U.S. trade policy should be more or less protectionist, more or less liberal, we ask: when can we expect that the cooperation between Brazil and U.S., which was restated today will become more operative in terms of commercial efforts? Is there money involved in it? During this weekend the U.S. has adopted the policy of balancing its trade relations with Brazil, which have been extremely negative for our country. The U.S. invites Brazil to join slowly the club of the powerful. The invitation is also good for the club of the rich?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** There is no question that when the economy of a country develops at the rate and at the scale of the Brazilian economy, that there will be occasional unevenness. There is also no question that from time to time this will conflict with established patterns in the United States. It would be insulting to you to pretend otherwise. The problem is not that there will not be misunderstandings, disagreements, and occasionally even conflicts. The question is whether there exists the political will to remove those. With respect to the very last part of your question, I believe that it is Brazil's destiny, quite frankly no

For further information

PR 89

- 5 -

matter what the United States does, to join the club of the rich. This
may be painful to some theoreticians, but it is in my personal judgment,
unavoidable, and to be desired. But in the interval, until this occurs,
a great deal depends on the wisdom of the policy of the United States.
Now, as you know, we have certain legislative requirements that are more
or less automatically triggered in the case of particular events in other
countries. We had extensive talks about the issue that you raised -- the
the issue of the trade balance -- which in part is also a temporary
phenomenon until adjustments can be made in the Brazilian supplies of raw
materials. But nevertheless, it is real enough. We had extensive talks;
the Brazilian side, if I may say so, was extraordinarily well prepared,
and we approached it from the point of view, not of being able to eliminate
that imbalance immediately, but of reducing it, and of preventing some
American actions that have been sometimes harmful, but even more frequently
more irritating than they were harmful. The Brazilian side came up with a
number of general ideas that we think are extremely helpful and that we
want to study in the United States. And that, if not those ideas, then
some other ideas that will in my judgment lead to a solution -- hopefully
lead to a solution -- of some of the most irritating problems that have
existed. We are determined in any event to have our decisions in those
matters guided by the overall principles that we have enunciated here, and
we will begin immediately an examination in the United States of these
particular issues. When your Ministers come to Washington, and when our
Secretary of the Treasury comes here, we hope that significant progress
can be made. From my point of view I think we had very useful talks with
your Economic Ministers yesterday afternoon that were conducted in a
really constructive atmosphere on both sides.

**QUESTION:** One of the most irritating points in economic relations between Brazil and the United States recently has been the United States surcharge on imports of shoes. And one of the options available to you to get rid of this and to circumvent the Trade Act legislation is to go to Geneva and to negotiate, although this wouldn't have great economic impact, it would have considerable symbolic impact in improving U.S. - Brazilian relations. Do you intend to do that?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** You know the problem of countervailing duties is triggered according to our law by the complaints of the private sector, and is not an action that is usually originated, in fact it is never originated by the government. We are concerned here with a specific provision of the American law. But we are prepared to discuss with Brazil the general question of the nature of subsidies and their relationship to countervailing duties. We are at the very beginning of this process of discussion and our economic agencies in Washington must obviously have an opportunity to study it and to participate in those discussions. So all I will say is that we discuss various approaches to this issue that may offer some hope that this particular irritation can be eased if not eliminated.

**QUESTION:** What do you think are the implications and what do you think will be the repercussions of the Congress' decision to cut off military aid to Chile?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I think you can appreciate that I am conducting extensive enough public discussions with the Congress in the United States not to feel the absolute necessity to conduct them also in Brasilia. My understanding is that, so far this has been only a vote of the Senate, and

PR 89

- 6 -

has not been a Congressional action. I will have the opportunity when I return to have further discussions with Congressional leaders, so I will reserve judgment until I have an opportunity to explore it.

**QUESTION:** In your dealings with the governments of Latin America, and your attempts to establish a new relationship with them, you will inevitably be-dealing with a number of governments that are subject to accusations that they do violate human rights. Without regard to the specifics of the host country, do you plan any initiative to demonstrate to the peoples of these countries that have such grievances that their rights are being violated, that the United States sympathizes with their aspirations?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** We have stated our views on the human rights issue repeatedly and I have answered a question on that before. The United States supports the dignity and respect of the individual and democratic processes, and all governments understand our views in this.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, if you'll take a non-Latin American question. Former President Nixon has just flown to China. Could you give us your appraisal of what his trip may mean for U.S.-China relations? Specifically, is there any possibility that if President Nixon sees the new Prime Minister of China he will discuss with him his impressions of his visit?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I have been asked this question repeatedly in the United States. We were not consulted about the trip ahead of time, and we did not know about the trip until it was announced, so it did not represent an action by the United States. If the Government of the People's Republic of China has invited former President Nixon, who has the historic merit of initiating that relationship, if the Government of the People's Republic of China invited him in order to underline the importance that they attach to the relationship, we are in favor of any act that stresses the significance either sides attaches to the relationship, even if we did not know about the particular method that was chosen. As far as talking to President Nixon after he returns, we will of course wish to learn about the nature of his discussions and about his impressions. The particular method that will be used to learn of these views we will decide after the former President has returned to the United States.

**QUESTION:** (inaudible) have now all agreed to consult in advance on all matters of global political significance in the spirit of cooperation. One of the highest preoccupations of the United States is Cuban military adventures overseas. Is it logical to assume therefore that when these discussions or consultations occur, you will seek Brazil's support for your position about Cuba?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I want to stress, in the strongest possible terms, that my visit to this Hemisphere is not to enlist support against Cuba. The visit to this Hemisphere has been planned for a long time. The discussions about this consultative arrangement goes back two years. They were started during a period when the United States was moving toward normalization of relations with Cuba and had repeatedly indicated its willingness to normalize relations with Cuba. And I do not want to turn our Western Hemisphere policy or our Brazilian policy into an obsession with a small Caribbean country. If there are specific causes for concern about Cuba and if the United States feels that action is called for, we will undoubtedly discuss this matter with other interested Latin American states. And, of course, we will discuss such a matter with an old friend

Public statements [LC]

PRESS QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO MR. KISSINGER AT
PRESIDENTIAL RETREAT HATO GRANDE UPON HIS
ARRIVAL IN COLOMBIA.

(February 22, 1976)

KISSINGER:

Mr. President, Mr. Foreign Minister:

We greatly value the role that Colombia is playing
in the Western Hemisphere and in the world and I am here to
do what I can to strengthen the friendship between our two
countries and between the countries of the Western Hemisphere.
I will be delighted to answer a few questions. I understand
I will see you again tomorrow.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, would you like to amplify the concept that you pointed out to the effect that you consider Brazil as a new power and what will this mean for Latin America?

ANSWER: When I described Brazil as a world power, I
said this is not something that the United States grants Brazil
but it is something that is coming about as a result of reality,
and therefore the United States has indicated its willingness
to have consultative arrangements with Brazil which reflect the
range of our relations. But I also want to make clear that the
United States is prepared to have consulting arrangements of a
comparable kind with any other nation of Latin America depending
on the state of relations and the extent of our ties. And final-
ly, we will continue to strengthen the hemispheric relationships.
So we are not talking of an exclusive relationship here, we are
talking of something that reflects certain realities.

2.

Q.: Mr. Secretary: How long do you think you will be staying on as Secretary of State when your critics in Washington and the United States say that you have lost prestige?

A.: This is an election year in the United States and therefore you will hear a lot of comment, but I actually believe that the main lines of our foreign policy are supported by both political parties. The main lines of our foreign policy do not depend on any individual Secretary of State. Nevertheless, I plan to stay as long as the President has confidence in me and I don't think there is any problem, and I would urge everybody not to take the noise that is coming out of Washington this political year too tragically in terms of personalities, -- my father disagrees with the critics completely.

Q.: Mr. Secretary: In Latin America there is a prevailing impression that the United States does not like the idea of Latin American economic integration and the United States is trying to set up values against these efforts. Would you care to clarify and give us comments on this question?

A.: That impression is in fact incorrect. We have supported the Andean groups. In Venezuela last week I made a strong statement supporting the efforts of SELA to achieve greater integration and indicated the willingness of the United States to work with SELA or similar groupings for cooperative efforts in the transfer of technology and perhaps with respect to multinational corporations. In fact, the United States will cooperate with Latin American regional groups, but it is up to Latin America to form these groupings; they cannot be formed by us, but when they come into being not only will we not put obstacles in their way, we will actively cooperate with them.

Q.: Mr. Secretary: Would you like to explain to us when the two terms in intervention and cooperation apply. If and when the United States intervenes in Vietnam or Guatemala, is it cooperation. It appears that when Cuba cooperates in Angola, this is intervention. Would you care to clarify the application of these two terms?

Over...

3.

A.: This is the last time I'll recognize a woman.
My basic view is that countries should be permitted to settle
their domestic affairs without having a government imposed on
them by foreign troops. I don't want to go into all of the
debates of Vietnam, but whatever happened in Vietnam could not
command enough support among American public opinion to enable
the American Government that had started it, which was in the
60's, to continue along the course they had planned.

Our view with respect to Angola will be our basic
view with respect to other countries as well: that those
countries should be permitted to settle their domestic affairs
without having a government imposed on them by foreign troops
and that this is a position which we will apply to ourselves
as well as to other parts of the world.

Q.: Mr. Secretary: Would you care to tell us how the United
States Government is going to cooperate to bring to an end the era
of bribes that multinational corporations have instituted or carried
out throughout the world?

A.: The United States Government has strongly con-
demned the use of bribes. Secondly, we are starting now with
legal steps we can take within the United States to prevent
it. Thirdly, it requires close cooperation with other govern-
ments because the American legal process cannot easily reach
into other countries. Fourth, we have offered, and I repeated
that offer in Caracas last week, to work out a code of conduct
for multinational corporations to apply to the problem of
bribery, to the problem of political intervention, and to the
problem of security of their investment, either within the
Western Hemisphere or on a global basis, either in the Western
Hemisphere with an organization like SELA or with individual
countries. We are prepared to work out a code of conduct for
multinational corporations which then would become automatically
the law of the land in the United States.

It's the first press conference I've held in a chapel
and this puts it in a special situation.

Opening Paragraph for Bogota Toast (from Rogers)

Mr. Minister,

From the first time we met last April in
Washington, I have entertained a special admiration
for you. In some respects, we came to our present
responsibilities by similar paths -- as authors,
teachers and historians. But when I saw how you
presided over the rhetorical extravagances of the
OAS General Assembly last May, and thought about
my own experience the year before in Atlanta, I
knew you had qualities of patience and forbearance
which I could never hope to emulate. My staff,
incidentally, agrees completely with this judgment.

You are, Mr. Minister, by common consent,
one of the foreign relations leaders of the Americas.
I am honored to be here by your side.

BOGOTA TOAST

I want to tell you, Mr. Foreign Minister, how delighted I am to be here. The visit of your President to the United States a few brief months ago was far more productive even than we had hoped it would be. The talks were expanded beyond what we had originally planned. And we decided then that we should renew our conversations at the earliest opportunity.

My visit here, Mr. Minister, is an effort built on the very considerable contribution which your President made by his earlier trip to the United States to the improvement in understanding between the

- 2 -

United States and Latin America. In his statement to President Ford, with considerable perception and warmth, he talked about three themes: the significance of responsibility, of order, and of diversity in the affairs of nations.

I have given considerable thought to your President's statement since his trip to our country.

He was right when he said that we share a commitment to these three principles. He was also right, in stressing their importance to world peace, and to the new, more just and more humane, world order to which both Colombia and the United States

- 3 -

are committed.

Permit me to add a few comments of my own
about your President's important statement.

RESPONSIBILITY

First, as to responsibility. Both our nations
are conscious of our broad responsibilities beyond
our own Hemisphere.

In another century, de Tocqueville remarked,
of my country, and perhaps of the new world in
general, that:

"Expectancy is the keynote of
American foreign policy; it
consists much more in abstaining
than in doing."

- 4 -

But we can no longer abstain. The United
States is permanently and irrevocably engaged in
the world.

Our power confers upon us a dual responsibility:

- to maintain international security in an age
when nuclear war could destroy civilization;

- and to grasp the opportunity, which
peace offers us all, to work together
in a spirit of cooperation to build a
world order which is more humane, and
just, one which takes full account of the
dignity of each nation, and the inalienable

- 5 -

rights of each of our citizens.

The task we face today -- indeed, the purpose of my trip -- is to search out the leadership and the initiatives which will forge a common pact for bettering the condition of man. It is with this in mind that I have come to your country.

We, together with you and your neighbors in this Hemisphere, begin the quest with a great advantage. This continent is a continent of peace. The nations of South America do not threaten each other. When states start down the road of pressure and threat -- as some others have

- 6 -

recently -- it is a notable event in the history of
the Hemisphere, raising concern and the need for
attention. This continent, unlike almost all the
others, has not been historically preoccupied with
international tensions and conflicts. It has been
able to focus its energies on our positive
responsibility of building a system of international
cooperation.

That sense of international responsibility is one
of the treasures of our Hemispheric tradition.

## ORDER

Order, as your President wisely said, is our

second common commitment.

A peaceful and progressive world system depends, in the first instance, on law and on the settled practice of nations. For it is only under law that nations can pursue policies of restraint and conciliation and expect that others will do likewise, and so reconcile their political and economic interests for the common progress of mankind.

Colombia is the nation of Santander, who said "if arms have given us our independence, laws will give us our liberty." It was Santander who renounced his soldierly honors to build schools, libraries and

- 8 -

museums -- the foundations of Colombia's
distinctive modern culture.

When President Lopez visited Washington he
expressed the hope that our two countries "will
find a sense of partnership within a legal system
based on impersonal and abstract rules within
which there will always be the right to dissent."

There is no better formula to guide our efforts
in revitalizing the inter-American system. True
to its own traditions of respect for international law
and orderly process among nations, Colombia has
been in the forefront of efforts first to create, and

- 9 -

now to revitalize, the Organization of American
States. The United States will strongly support
Colombia's efforts to make the OAS a more effective
instrument of our common will.

There are other areas where we can
collaborate as well:

- On commodities. Neither Colombia nor the United States felt an immediate need for a coffee agreement. Yet both of us shared a long-range interest in working out an agreement that would provide equity to producers and consumers alike. We have succeeded.

-10-

-- In the Law of the Sea negotiations. No nation in the Hemisphere has played a more active and constructive role than Colombia. We will work closely with you over the next few months for an historic multi-lateral agreement to establish a progressive regime of law for the world's oceans, seas, and deep seabeds. No issue is more important for the long-term stability and cooperative progress of nations.

-- On narcotics. Our nations have a common interest in the control of illegal trafficking in drugs. Your country's cooperation in this critical area has been central to the international effort to curb the flow of dangerous drugs across international

-11-

boundaries. For this, you have the gratitude
of the people of my country.

-- Finally on human rights. We are both
democracies. We share the common
conviction that the instruments, and ends,
of all our policies are the human beings
who are our citizens, and not some blind
force of history. And, we therefore know
that the ultimate vitality and virtue of our
civilization is the extent to which its
governments are responsive to the sense of
human dignity and respect. Under the

- 12 -

American Declaration on the Rights and
Duties of Man, the United States and
Colombia are committed to nurture political
and human rights everywhere. We will
continue to work with you, in the common
effort to expand the writ of justice and
human decency, not only in this Hemisphere
but throughout the world.

## DIVERSITY

The last of the themes your President struck in
Washington was that of diversity.

There is no simple formula for a Hemispheric

- 13 -

policy, no single solution to the problems of the
Americas, no one slogan to encompass all the
variety of our relationships and goals.

The rich variety of this Hemisphere is always
a striking experience for any visitor from the
United States. I have seen it this week. It is
palpable. My country understands it, accepts it,
and welcomes it. Indeed, the United States knows
as well as any nation that from diversity in this
Hemisphere can come both creativity and strength,
if we will bend our common will to the task which is
ahead.

- 14 -

For our part, we shall move to vitalize our
policy throughout the Americas and foster our
Hemispheric ties. We will also continue to make a
special effort to strengthen our bilateral ties with
each American State. We are prepared, to this end,
to develop special consultative procedures with each
nation of the Americas, if it is desired, adapted to
the character and intensity of our differing
relationships.

We count Colombia as a nation to which we have
very special links -- our common dedication to
democracy, our commitment to the cause of human

- 15 -

rights, the civility of our mutual discourse and our
firm dedication to a new and more just international
order.

Mr. Minister:

There is much work to be done, to construct the
kind of peaceful and cooperative world for which we
all yearn. You and we have a great part to play.
Colombia has undertaken, and you, Mr. Minister,
are carrying out responsibilities of statesmanship
and leadership in this Hemisphere. You are in the
forefront of the effort to construct a new order.
And Colombia's unique spirit and voice exemplify the

- 16 -

richness of this Hemisphere and of the creative
possibilities of a world of diversity.

Mr. Minister, in proposing a toast to your
health and success, I offer a toast to Colombia, its
people and to our joint efforts to work together on
all the issues challenging our modern world.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

February 24, 1976

No. 94

TOAST PRESENTED BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT
AMBASSADOR'S RESIDENCE
BOGOTA, COLOMBIA
FEBRUARY 23, 1976

Mr. Foreign Minister and Distinguished Guests:

As I am coming to the end of my trip through South America, I would like to say how very moved I have been by the very warm and human reception that I have received everywhere; a reception which goes beyond what may be published in communes or in press and formal statements but that represents the true relationship between Latin America and the United States. And in no country has the reception been more personal and warm than here in Colombia.

I had the privilege of staying in the home of your President and to have discussions which were philosophical, relaxed, and went to the heart of each problem in an atmosphere of substantial agreement and total cordiality. As for your Foreign Minister, from the first time we met last year in the United States, I have entertained a very special admiration for him. In some respects we came to our present responsibilities by similar paths as authors, teachers and historians. But when I saw how your Minister presided over the rhetorical extravaganza of the OAS General Assembly last May and thought about my own experience the year before in Atlanta, I knew he had qualities of patience and forebearance which I could never hope to emulate.

With respect to the qualities of forebearance and patience, and I'm sure many others, my staff completely agrees with his judgment.

You are, Mr. Minister, by common consent one of the leaders in foreign relations in the Americas and I am honored to be here by your side.

I want to tell you, Mr. Foreign Minister, how delighted I am to be here. The visit of your President to the United States a few brief months ago was more productive even than we had hoped it would be. The talks were expanded beyond what we had originally planned, and we decided then that we should renew our conversations at the earliest opportunity.

My visit here, Mr. Minister, is an effort built on the very considerable contribution which your President made by his earlier trip to the United States to the improvement in understanding between the United States and Latin America. In his statement to President Ford, with considerable perception and warmth, he talked about three themes: the significance of responsibility, of order, and of diversity in relations between nations. I have given considerable thought to your President's state-

PR #94

-2-

He was right when he said that he shared a commitment to these three principles. He was also right, in stressing their importance to world peace, and to the new, more just and more humane world order to which both Colombia and the United States are committed.

Permit me to add a few comments of my own about your President's important statement. First as to responsibility, both our nations are conscious of our broad responsibilities beyond our own hemisphere. In another century, de Tocoquevelle remarked, of my country, and perhaps of the new world in general, that: "Expectancy is the keynote of American foreign policy; it consists much more in abstaining than in doing."

- and to grasp the opportunity, which peace offers us all, to work together in a spirit of cooperation to build a world order which is more humane and just, one which takes full account of the dignity of each nation, and the inalienable rights of each of our citizens.

We together with you and your neighbors in this hemisphere begin the quest with a great advantage. This continent is a continent of peace. The nations of South America do not threaten each other. When states start down the road of pressure and threat -- as some others have recently -- it is a notable event in the history of the hemisphere, raising concern and the need for attention. This continent, unlike almost all the others, has not been historically preoccupied with international tensions and conflicts. It has been able to focus its energies on our positive responsibility of building a system of international cooperation. That sense of international responsibility is one of the treasures of our hemisphere tradition.

Order, as your President wisely said, is our second common commitment. A peaceful and progressive world system depends, in the first instance, on law and on the settled practice of nations. For it is only under law that nations can pursue policies of restraint and conciliation and expect that others will do likewise, and so reconcile their political and economic interest for the common progress of mankind.

PR #94

-3-

Colombia is the nation of Santander, who said "if arms have given us our independence, laws will give us our liberty". It was Santander who renounced his soldierly honors to build schools, libraries and museums -- the foundations of Colombia's distinctive modern culture.

When President Lopez visited Washington, he expressed the hope that our two countries "will find a sense of partnership within a legal system based on impersonal and abstract rules within which there will always be the right to dissent". There is no better formula to guide our efforts in revitalizing the inter-American system. True to its own tradition of respect for international law and orderly process among nations, Colombia has been in the forefront of efforts first to create, and now to revitalize, the Organization of American States. The United States will strongly support Colombia's efforts to make the OAS a more effective instrument of our common will.

- In the Law of the Sea negotiations. No nation in the hemisphere has played a more active and constructive role than Colombia. We will work closely with you over the next few months for an historic multilateral agreement to establish a progressive regime of law for the world's oceans, seas, and deep seabeds. No issue is more important for the long-term stability and cooperative progress of nations.

- On narcotics. Our nations have a common interest in the control of illegal trafficking in drugs. Your country's cooperation in this critical area has been central to the international effort to curb the flow of dangerous drugs across international boundaries. For this, you have the gratitude of the people of my country.

- Finally of human rights. We are both democracies. We share the common conviction that the instruments, and ends, of all our policies are the human beings who are our citizens, and not some blind force of history. And, we therefore know that the ultimate vitality and virtue of our civilization is the extent to which its governments are responsive to the sense of human dignity and respect. Under the American declaration on the rights and duties of man, the United States and Colombia are committed to nurture political and human rights everywhere. We will continue to work with you, in the common effort to expand the writ of justice and human decency, not only in this hemisphere but throughout the world. The last of the themes your President struck in Washington was that of diversity.

PR #94

-4-

There is no simple formula for a hemispheric policy, no single solution to the problems of the Americas, no one slogan to encompass all the variety of our relationships and goals. The rich variety of this hemisphere is always a striking experience for any visitor from the United States. I have seen it this week. It is palpable. My country understands it, accepts it, and welcomes it. Indeed, the United States knows as well as any nation that from diversity in this hemisphere can come both creativity and strength, if we will bend our common will to the task which is ahead.

For our part, as we move to vitalize our policy throughout the Americas and foster our hemispheric ties, we will also continue to make a special effort to strengthen our bilateral ties with each American state. We are prepared to this end to develop special consultative procedures with each nation of the Americas, if it is desired, adapted to the character and intensity of our differing relationships. We count Colombia as a nation to which we have very special links: our common dedication to democracy, our commitment to the cause of human rights, the civility of our mutual discourse and our firm dedication to a new and more just international order.

Mr. Minister: There is much work to be done to construct the kind of peaceful and cooperative world for which we all yearn. You and we have a great part to play. Colombia has undertaken, and you, Mr. Minister, are carrying out, responsibilities of statesmanship and leadership in this hemisphere. You are in the forefront of the effort to construct a new order. And Colombia's unique spirit and voice exemplify the richness of this hemisphere and of the creative possibilities of a world of diversity. Mr. Minister, in proposing a toast to your health and success, I offer a toast to Colombia, its people and to our joint efforts to work together on all the issues challenging our modern world.

* * * * * * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

February 24, 1976

No. 95

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
UPON DEPARTURE FROM
EL DORADOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
BOGOTA, COLOMBIA
FEBRUARY 23, 1976

Mr. Foreign Minister:

On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to thank you for the extraordinarily warm and friendly reception we had had here.

The talks with the President and yourself have been far-ranging, extremely cordial, philosophical, and very constructive. They touched not only our bilateral relations but how to improve the ties within the Americas, and how to make these ties useful for the rest of the world.

I would like to take this opportunity to call special attention to the remarks made by the Foreign Minister at lunch. In those remarks, he considered the dialgoue between North and South, the crucial problem of the next 25 years. With this conception we agree.

He also called for a special dialogue within this general dialogue between the nations of North America and Latin America and the establishment of a special relationship in which the technology of one and the special products of the other could form a common basis to enhance the well-being of all of the people in the hemisphere and in which that North-South dialogue could perhaps exemplify and be part of a larger dialogue. That proposition of a special study within the Western Hemisphere being new to me will require some study, but I can say now that it conforms to the spirit with which I undertook this trip and that it is our intention and it is my belief that we will respond positively to this proposal and that out of this trip can grow precisely the kind of dialogue that my good friend the Foreign Minister of Colombia, who is not only one of the leading statesmen, but also one of the leading orators of the hemisphere, put forth.

So let me conclude by expressing my very profound gratitude to the President and my good friend the Foreign Minister and to repeat what I have said in other stops; what we have discussed on this trip in the various capitals, and especially the idea we have just put forward will be the subject of urgent consideration, and it will be the concrete agenda for our considerations in the months to come. And all of us will be meeting soon again in various forums in which we will then, we hope, be able to record the progress which grew out of these very friendly and very useful and very human conversations.

* * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

February 24, 1976

No. 96

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
UPON ARRIVAL IN
SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA

FEBRUARY 23, 1976

Mr. Foreign Minister:

As you know Mr. Foreign Minister, tomorrow we start our electoral
campaign in the United States and it is a lucky thing for our candi-
dates that you are not eligible.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will have seen what your Foreign Minister
has put me through at our repeated meetings. It has been my experience
at meetings of Foreign Ministers of the Western Hemisphere to deliver
a speech to which the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica replied and no
matter what I try to do his eloquence far out shown mine. This time
he has put me into a more difficult position. He has spoken first.

Mr. Foreign Minister, I feel indeed, as you stated in your conclusion, that I am visiting a friend, visiting a personal friend, and I am visiting a fellow democracy, which, whatever the difference is in scale, shares our values, supports common purposes and has the courage to stand for its convictions in bilateral relations, in hemispheric forums and in international organizations. Not last, it as a member of the Security Council, Costa Rica has proved that a nation of strong convictions and fundamental human principles can play an important role in the world regardless of what those might say who calculate only by technical and impersonal factors.

In your eloquent remarks you called attention to the principal problems
of the contemporary world, which are to prevent aggression, to build
the peace, and to create a more progressive relationship among states.
Democracies do not have to be afraid, nor do they have to apologize
for searching every avenue towards peace, but neither should they
delude themselves and close their eyes in the face of aggression.
And also, the free countries have to work together to build a better
world. In the nations of the Western Hemisphere, sharing a similar
history, united by common ideals, and inspired by those of them that
have led the way towards respect for human dignity, have a special
opportunity to achieve this.

Mr. Foreign Minister, you and I discussed this meeting here in Costa
Rica nearly a year ago and you suggested that we invite representatives
from the other Central American Republics to join us. It was a for-
tunate idea and a happy end to my visit to Latin America. I want you
to know what a great personal joy it is for me to see you, how moved
I was by your eloquent remarks, and how much I look forward to spending
time with you and to get to know your President and your country.

Thank you.

* * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

February 24, 1976

No. 100

As Prepared for Delivery

TOAST BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT A LUNCHEON GIVEN BY
HIS EXCELLENCY DANIEL ODUBER QUIROS
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA
SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA
FEBRUARY 24, 1976

The opportunity I have had for discussions with President Ouber and Foreign Minister Facio, and my bilateral meetings today with my colleagues from the Central American nations and Panama, are a fitting culmination of my Latin American trip.

Here in Central America, I know I am on my way home. For the history and dreams of this region have long been interwoven with those of my country. Our past provides us a heritage of considerable achievement, and a precious advantage to us as we engage the future. We have the responsibility to build upon the positive record of our cooperation for the benefit of each of our peoples and for the advancement of mankind.

Central American Progress

For a decade, Central America has been a region of progress. Industrialization, agricultural diversification, new institutions and, above all, a growing confidence of purpose have brought your countries to a new threshold of development.

You are proving yourselves pioneers in the processes of international cooperation. In the Central American Common Market you have shown the world how nations can combine their efforts to promote more rapid economic development, and international peace. You have begun to construct durable Central American institutions — technological, educational, legal and cultural — all of which lower the barriers between nations. Your commitment to a new treaty will provide fresh impulse to your integration, and can be a model for others around the world.

Yet your nations — as well as any on earth — know that success is fragile in the modern world. You know that national independence requires constant vigilance and solidarity with others who share your commitment to self-determination. Your economies know the impact of external circumstances over which you have little influence; your societies feel the pressures of population growth and of rapid urbanization. One of your nations has sent its soldiers to help keep the peace in a regional conflict halfway around the world which threatens international stability. Two of your countries know the anguish here in the isthmus of a still-unresolved war. Such conflict arouse the concern of others — as is always the case wherever peace breaks down. The role of the OAS in encouraging a solution has been an impressive example of the value of our inter-American system.

PR #100

-2-

Most tragically, three times in the past three years Central America has been struck by natural disaster. Hurricanes have brought suffering in Honduras; earthquakes have ravaged Nicaragua; and today our hearts are pained by the terrible calamity which has struck our friends in Guatemala.

## The Commitment of the United States

The United States knows the obstacles you face. We welcome, and we pledge our support for, your continued progress and integration. My country respects what you have achieved and the uniqueness and sovereignty of each of your countries.

We are all serious people. We have differences of perspective and interest and we will continue to have them, for differences are inevitable when responsible and sovereign nations committed to the well-being of their citizens confront the difficulties of an interdependent world. But we also know that the time has come to resolve, in a fair and mature way, the problems of the past — and put them behind us as we look to our common future. The negotiations now underway to modernize the relationship between my country and Panama are just such an effort. My country is determined to continue those negotiations in good faith to our ultimate objective of a new relationship which respects the national interests of both the United States and Panama.

The United States will also continue to cooperate in the development efforts in Central America. Our bilateral assistance programs here are among the largest in the Hemisphere. As you seek to fulfill the aspirations of your people for a better life, you may depend upon the friendship and support of my country. The United States will be a steady friend — not only in moments of catastrophe, but over the long-term in your struggle for development. Responding to the tragedy in Guatemala, President Ford has asked Congress to authorize a new grant of $25 million, so that we can move beyond relief of the immediate emergency to the difficult process of rebuilding. And our established development aid programs will continue as well — in Guatemala and throughout the region, particularly to assist your efforts to help the rural poor.

As we increasingly dedicate ourselves to human betterment, we cannot neglect the reality that no nation can hope to advance if it is not secure. Our collective security is the bedrock of our relations. Last July, here in San Jose, the countries of this Hemisphere successfully completed the modernization of the Rio Treaty — a visible symbol of our determination to maintain and strengthen this relationship.

I assure you that the United States remains dedicated to the principle of collective security. Recent events have shown that foreign adventurism is not dead; expeditionary forces may still be sent across the oceans to intervene in, and impose their will upon, the domestic affairs of other countries. The United States will not tolerate a challenge to the solemn treaty principle of non-intervention in this Hemisphere.

I prepare now to go to Guatemala where I shall extend the sympathy and the admiration of the United States for the Guatemalan people at this time of great suffering. I then shall return to my own country.

This will be the last prepared statement I will make during my trip. This visit has been enormously valuable to me. I have learned much, and I return to my country with a deeper understanding of the strengths and difficulties, aspirations and conflicts, glories and anguish of the Hemisphere.

PR #100

-3-

— In Venezuela, I saw and heard of the growing sense of common
destiny and solidarity within Latin America. I made clear that we
welcomed this, and that we were prepared to work with new Latin
American institutions of cooperation.

— In Peru, I learned something of the creative diversity of the
Hemisphere. Our policy, I said, is to respect the sovereignty of
each Latin American state, to conciliate differences before they
become conflicts and to support the authentic development efforts
of the nations of the Hemisphere.

— In Brazil, I came face to face with the reality that a number
of nations of the Americas are emerging on to the world scene,
with broadened international interests and international respon-
sibilities. As a demonstration that we are prepared to develop
new machinery of consultation with these nations, adapted to the
special circumstances of our relations with each, I signed a new
and formal Memorandum of Agreement on consultation with Brazil. I
pointed out that we are prepared to enter into similar arrangements
with other states, if they so desire. And I stress that, in enhanc-
ing our bilateral relationships with the nations of the Americas,
we would not diminish the momentum toward integration and solidarity
within Latin America, or our willingness to work with Latin American
institutions and organizations.

— In Colombia yesterday, the Foreign Minister put forward a
suggestion for what could become a new element in our inter-American
relationship. He proposed that we explore the possibility of arrange-
ments between the United States and the nations of Latin America to
expand trade within the Hemisphere, as a central mission and pur-
pose of the inter-American system. The United States is prepared
to look carefully at this imaginative suggestion. We shall set up a
task force immediately to study its ramifications. For his part,
the Colombian Foreign Minister will begin consultation with other
Latin American countries. At the same time, the United States will
be discussing this proposal with him, and with you and other Latin
American nations. All of us will then be able to advance concrete
and practical ideas for discussion at the General Assembly meeting
of the Organization of American States.

— Finally, in Costa Rica, I have seen another example of democracy
at work, and reaffirmed, once again, as I have elsewhere, the impor-
tance of our inter-American commitment to human rights and the dignity
of man.

My trip has strengthened my deep conviction that our common reality is our
creative diversity; that our task is to forge our geographical and historical
bonds into shared purpose and endeavor; and that our common responsibility
is to build upon this special bond to make cooperation and progress in this
Hemisphere a model and a contribution to a new era of international
achievement.

The United States regards its Hemispheric ties and responsibilities with a
special seriousness. In a spirit of solidarity, we have pledged ourselves:

— to respond to the special economic needs of the more industrialized
nations of the Hemisphere;

PR #100

-4-

- to assist the efforts of the neediest nations to advance themselves;

- to negotiate our differences with any nation or nations, on the basis of mutual respect and sovereign equality, either bilaterally or multilaterally;

- to maintain our firm commitment to mutual security against any who would undermine our common effort, threaten independence or export violence; and

- to modernize and strengthen our inter-American system.

These are the pledges we make. We shall spare no effort to turn them into concrete programs in the months ahead. We should — together — set ourselves an agenda for action. I firmly believe that if all nations of the Americas can commit themselves anew to responsible cooperation in these areas, we shall together be responsive to the deepest needs as well as to the highest aspirations of all mankind:

- that peace is both possible and the indispensable precondition of all our hopes for the future;

- that the global economy must both grow and be fair, bringing benefit and opportunity to all peoples;

- that basic human rights must be preserved, cherished and defended if peace and prosperity are to be more than hollow achievements. The responsibilities of men and nations in this era require, more than ever, the full and free dedication of the talent, energy, creative thought and action of men and women, free from fear, and repression, to the tasks of our time;

- and that the essential political requirement for progress in all these areas of common concern is the readiness of nations to consult and cooperate with each other on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect, and the commitment to our common success.

These then are the tasks before us and the principles by which we are guided. It is up to us, as individuals and as nations, whether we shall build upon the progress we have made and turn the decade ahead into one of mankind's great eras of achievement.

On my trip, I have seen much of the promise, the emergent power, and the moral force of this Hemisphere. I have learned from it. I have explained some of the goals and concerns of my country. And I have confirmed my own long-standing conviction that the modern challenges of economic and social progress and relations between developed and developing countries have more possibility of being met successfully in this Hemisphere than in any other part of the world.

Therefore, I propose a toast

- to the distinguished Foreign Ministers of the Central American Republics;

- to the progress of your nations; and

- to the cooperative effort to achieve peace and well-being for the peoples of this Hemisphere, and for all mankind.

* * * * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 24, 1976

No. 101

STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
UPON ARRIVAL IN GUATEMALA

FEBRUARY 24, 1976

Mr. President, I regret the circumstances that have brought me to Guatemala. It is disaster which brings out the human qualities and the real fortitude of the people. I have heard about your tragedy from the newspapers and from our diplomatic reports, and I know the enormous suffering that has befallen your country. But I also know the people of Guatemala have withstood this tragedy with fortitude, with dedication and that they are beginning to rebuild with faith in the future.

I am here on behalf of President Ford to tell you that the heart of the American people goes out to the suffering in this country. The United States will do what it can, not only in the immediate crisis but in the task of rebuilding that is ahead of you.

Let me conclude by saying that it is a privilege to be among this great people and that we of the United States are thinking of you and will discuss with your leaders what can be done to ease the immediate condition and to turn towards the future with the courage that is so characteristic of your country.

Thank you.

* * * * * *

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 24, 1976

NO. 102

UPON DEPARTURE
GUATEMALA

February 24, 1976

Secretary Kissinger:

When one sees a catastrophe of the scale that has affected Guatemala one does not deal with a political problem but with a human problem, and what concerns us now is how we can give expression to our concern, to our sympathy and to the tremendous needs that have suddenly arisen in this country. What we have seen in this country has been very moving, but the President showed me pictures of a catastrophe far transcending what is possible to observe in the city, and he has also described to me the efforts that are being made by the Government of Guatemala and by the people of Guatemala to build a better future. As far as the U.S. is concerned, we will do our utmost to respond to the courage of the people of Guatemala. I have been very impressed by the insistence of the President in his private talks as well as in the remarks he made here, that this problem will be solved primarily by the people and the Government of Guatemala and that it is not in the first instance for outsiders. I am happy that starting tomorrow an American engineer battalion will arrive here to work on the road between Guatemala City and El Rancho. We have agreed that we would study your immediate needs prior to the rainy season and then longer term needs during the course of this year. I will be discussing this with President Ford when I see him tomorrow, but the major message that I would like to bring to you is not one of material assistance, but of the dedication of the Americans that I have been privileged to meet here who have reached out to be of assistance and to have been privileged to assist Guatemala in its hour of need. And this reflects the spirit of friendship and human sympathy between our two peoples. And I will bring back to the United States the steadfastness and dedication of your leaders and of the people that I have had an opportunity to observe here.

Thank you very much.

I will be pleased to take two or three questions but we must be brief because we must get back to the United States at a reasonable hour and we'll take them only from the Guatemalan press.

**QUESTION:** What is the estimate of the sum the United States will give?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** As you know, the President has just requested 25 million in emergency aid, and our regular aid is of course continuing, and several projects will be going forward within the next few days. But what we will do is our Ambassador, working with your planning group, will

- 2 - PR 102

develop within the next two weeks a proposal to send to Washington. In
the meantime, I will be taking up the problem with President Ford and
our officials, and we will have a better estimate of the amount that can
be discussed after these studies are completed.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. position on Belize?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Your President and I had an opportunity to discuss this, and I had previously in the day discussed it with your Foreign Minister. The United States is a good friend of Guatemala and is also a good friend of Great Britain. We will do our best to bring about an amicable solution since we would hope very much that two close friends of the United States not drive matters to a point of confrontation. But it is in this spirit that we will keep in touch with both sides during their negotiations and do what both sides agree might be helpful.

QUESTION: Are there any conditions to assure the help you promise is channeled properly?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: There are no political conditions of any kind attached to whatever assistance has been given or will be given. There will be technical discussions between our Embassy and Guatemalan officials in order to determine where the U.S. aid could be most useful in the program of self-help that your President has described. But the U.S. is assisting in a spirit of friendship and cooperation and will attach no conditions of any kind.

* * * * * * *

For further information, contact me.

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 25, 1976

No. 99

PC #91

PRESS CONFERENCE OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA
FEBRUARY 24, 1976

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Ladies and Gentlemen, I simply would like to express my very deep appreciation to the President and Foreign Minister of Costa Rica for the very warm reception we have had here, and for arranging the meeting with my colleagues from the Central American republics, who also have had the courtesy of coming to the airport to see me off. I am extremely pleased with the meetings that we have had and I think it was a very fitting end to my trip through Latin America which I am confident will lead to the strengthening of ties in the Western Hemisphere. Now I would like to take some questions, but I would like first to take some questions from the Costa Rican press or other Central American journalists present, and then after we have taken some of those, I will recognize one or two of the North American contingent who are here to prove, to demonstrate, the intensity with which we conduct our internal debates.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, the committee investigating the overthrow of the Allende regime in Chile has indicated that you were instrumental in this process during the Nixon Administration. Given the results of some of the findings of this committee, we would like to ask what is your opinion with regard to the concept of self-determination of peoples?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** As I have had occasion to point out repeatedly in the United States, several of the Congressional committees get carried away in their findings when they deal with personalities. In any event, the Senate committee specifically found that the United States did not generate the overthrow of the Allende government. My own view is that countries should determine their own future free of foreign military intervention.

**QUESTION:** The Senate has vetoed any participation or intervention on the part of the United States in the military area in the events in Angola. I would like to ask you, sir, what is your opinion with regard to the role of the Senate in the conduct of international policy and how does this affect the Ford Administration in this area?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I do not think it is appropriate for me in a foreign country to engage in a debate over the Senate. I will say, however, that what the U. S. was concerned about in Angola was the massive intervention of a Cuban expeditionary force and the dispatch of large quantities of Soviet equipment which have transformed what was a minority faction in Angola into the dominant faction. So that what we are seeing here is the imposition by foreign force of a minority group as the Government of Angola. We did not oppose any of the groups in Angola as long as they reached their objectives by African methods, or within an African context.

-2-

PR 99

Secondly, we did not ask for American military intervention, but rather for money to support Black African countries that were concerned about the Cuban adventure. We believe that a mistake was made and we are now calling the attention of the American people and of other countries to the global consequences of these developments.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, in the efforts to reform the OAS Charter the U. S. has taken a position contrary to the concept of introducing into a reformed charter, the matter of economic security of the Latin American countries. In your speech in Caracas announcing a new path in relations with Latin America, can we take this to mean that there has been a change of heart on the part of the U. S. and that the U. S. now would approve of incorporating the concept in a new treaty of the economic security of these nations?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Our objection has been that the phrase "collective economic security" is a very vague and loaded phrase which can be used for different purposes by different countries. Our general approach to all these issues, as was expressed at the Seventh Special Session of the General Assembly, is to deal with concrete problems in a constructive and cooperative manner. With respect to the relationship with Latin America I offered in Caracas, and I reiterated it again here today, cooperation on transfer of technology, cooperation on a code of multinational cooperation, assistance to the hemisphere; I call again attention today to my colleagues from the Central American republics, to the important proposal made by the Colombian Foreign Minister yesterday for a special study of trade relations within the Western Hemisphere. All these concrete measures we are prepared to take, but we are not prepared to accept general slogans that can be used in unpredictable manners.

Last questions from the Latin side and then I will take two questions from the North American side.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, it was once said during the Nixon Administration that where Brazil goes, so goes the rest of Latin America. Do you think that Brazil as a country is the best example, as a nation, for Latin America? And the second question, by what means do you think that the American government could bring about arrangements whereby the Latin American governments could receive more revenues or more equitable prices for the commodity exports upon which they depend particularly in the case of the more needy nations?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** With respect to Brazil or any other country, the U. S. will not or cannot appoint any one country as the leader of Latin America. The U. S. is prepared to have special consultative arrangements with any nation of the Western Hemisphere where our relationships have reached a level of complexity or intensity where such relationships are necessary. But even when we have these special consultative arrangements, they are not meant to the exclusion of hemispheric ties, and they are not intended to confer a special position of leadership on any one country. Secondly, I have spoken at every stop about the basic principles which govern the U. S. conduct in the Western Hemisphere, and the basic values for which the U. S. stands, which include respect for human rights and for the dignity of the individual. With respect to commodities, the U. S. has declared its willingness to have case-by-case commodity studies, and has already agreed to sign the Coffee Agreement and signed the Tin Agreement and we are prepared to have discussions on other commodities.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, Rabbi Baruch who is well known in the U. S. as a friend of President Nixon said today concerning Mr. Nixon's visit to China: "I don't think he really wanted to go now, but the Chinese wanted the trip to coincide with the fourth anniversary of his visit, and the

-3-

PR 99

(L)

State Department viewed this as a unique opportunity to learn about the political ferment in China". Did you or any official of the State Department in any way give Mr. Nixon this impression, or in any way urge him to go to China?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I will say three things. One, it is not a particularly elevating experience to be forced to exhibit our domestic torments before foreign audiences, at every stop. Two, I did not know, nor did anyone else in the Department of State until an hour before the announcement was made, of President Nixon's planned trip to the People's Republic of China. Three, we welcomed the statement by the Acting Premier of the People's Republic of China reaffirming their continued interest in the principles of the Shanghai Communique and in the process of normalization of relations with the United States.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I wonder if I might just follow that up by this point. It has been suggested that you did see Mr. Nixon just before he announced that the trip would take place. Is it possible that anything you might have said would give him the impression that it would be useful for the United States for him to go?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** No, it is not possible, and I have discussed this at a press conference in Washington. We will take one more question on the American Civil War.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you said that your Latin American tour is not an anti-Cuba campaign and you have also said that Cuba has behaved responsibly in the hemisphere in recent years. Yet today you seemed to bring the specter of Cuban intervention in Latin America. Do you have any indication that the Castro Government is going to renew its activities in this area, or was it just rhetoric?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I called attention to the principle of collective security in which no group of nations is more interested than the republics of Central America, each of whom is individually weak with respect to outside intervention, and each of whom is dependent on the principle of any specific indication, of any specific action that is being planned, but it is to make clear what the U. S. attitude is for contingencies that might arise, but have not yet occurred.

I am afraid I am already late for my plane and I want to thank you all very much for the reception I have had here.

* * * * *

Major Statements On
Latin America

by

Secretary of State
Henry A. Kissinger

Made During His Visits To
Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, and Costa Rica

February 1976

iii

## INTRODUCTION

The Western Hemisphere is, for the United States, a region of special ties and special interests.

It is, as well, now in a process of transition. Hemispheric relationships—bilateral, regional, multilateral, and global—are in flux. An earlier community of the Americas bounded by exclusivity has given way to a more open relationship with the United States which turns not on convention but on mutual respect, common interests, and cooperative problem-solving, and a broader role in events outside the region.

At the same time the importance of Latin American nations to the United States is steadily increasing—as elements of the global economy, as participants in the world's political forums, and in their new role as the most developed of the developing nations.

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger visited Latin America in February 1976. The major statements made by Secretary Kissinger during his trip take account of these changing realities, while calling upon the nations of the Americas to strengthen the precious advantage of our tradition of cooperative progress. Taken together they form a new and coherent chapter in United States policy toward Latin America.

1

VENEZUELA

*Address at the U.S.-Venezuelan Symposium II at Macuto, February 17.*

I am most pleased to be here today, at the invitation of President [Carlos Andres] Perez. This symposium is symbolic of the effort of our two nations to strengthen our ties and to consult on issues of deep concern to our two peoples. I come here not merely to demonstrate my country's interest in its relationships with you but to address with you the global challenges to our common future.

The Western Hemisphere has for centuries symbolized man's readiness to grasp his own destiny. When I placed a wreath at the tomb of Simon Bolivar yesterday, I recalled the depth of his faith and wonder at the future of the Americas. Today, more than a century later, the promise of our hemisphere is more alive than ever—and more important to each of our countries and to the world.

Today I want to discuss with you the challenges that history has posed to our hemispheric friendship, the efforts we have made in the recent period to address these challenges, and the compelling responsibility we face today and tomorrow.

Our Special Relationship

I have come to this continent because the United States believes that Latin America has a special place in our foreign policy.

This belief is the product of history. We won our national independence together in the same era. We confronted the similar challenges of pioneer peoples developing the resources of bountiful unexplored continents. We shaped democratic institutions and spurred economic growth, conscious that we benefitted greatly from our relationship with each other. We have long shared a common interest in shielding our hemisphere from the intrusion of others. We led the world in building international organizations to serve our cooperative endeavors for both collective security and economic progress.

The United States has always felt with Latin America a special intimacy, a special bond of collaboration, even in the periods of our isolation from world affairs. Even now, when our countries are major participants in world affairs, when our perceptions of contemporary issues are not always identical, there remains a particular warmth in the personal relationships among our leaders and a

2

special readiness to consider the views of our neighbors. On many issues of United States policy—economic, political, or security—the American people and Congress give special consideration to our hemispheric ties.

The problem we face today is that history—and indeed the very growth and success we have all achieved—have complicated our relationship. What used to be a simple perception of hemispheric uniqueness, and a self-contained exclusive relationship, has become enmeshed in the wider concerns we all now have in the rest of the world.

* The United States is conscious of a global responsibility to maintain the world balance of power, to help resolve the age-old political conflicts that undermine peace, and to help shape a new international order encompassing the interests and aspirations of the 150 nations that now comprise our planet. And so our vision now reaches beyond the Western Hemisphere. We have major alliances with the Atlantic community and Japan, as well as this hemisphere; we have growing ties of friendship with many nations. In a nuclear age we have an inescapable responsibility to manage and stabilize our relations with the major Communist powers and to try to build a safe and more constructive future. The problem of peace in this generation means for us, the United States, a permanent involvement in world affairs in all their dimensions—maintaining security, promoting a healthy trade and monetary system and economic development, and creating a stable and just and universal system of political relations.

* At the same time Latin American nations have grown in power and influence and become major forces in their own right on the world scene. This is one of the most striking events of this era. Your economies are among the most advanced of the developing world. But your role is not a product of economic strength alone; its roots are deeper—your traditions of personal and national dignity, concern for legal principle, and your history of peace. Your sense of regional identity has become more important—to you and to the world. We accept and respect these developments and the new organizations—like SELA [Latin American Economic System]—which now speak to your own collective interests. We trust that they will not be used for confrontation, for that could complicate our relations and hinder solutions to problems. We

are confident that the increased sense of Latin American identity, and the institutions which serve it, can be a constructive and vital force for cooperation on a wider basis. This will be our attitude toward these institutions.

* The countries of Latin America have done more than grow internally and strengthen their regional associations. They have established new ties outside the hemisphere—trade relations with the European Community, and Japan, and a growing sense of solidarity with developing nations in Africa and Asia. Such global involvement is inevitable; inevitably also, it creates new and conflicting pressures on more traditional friendships.

* The challenge of economic development has become a worldwide concern and is being addressed on a global, and not simply hemispheric, basis. Venezuela is now cochairman of the Conference on International Economic Cooperation and has discharged this responsibility with great wisdom. Similarly the energies of the United States are increasingly focused on international organizations and issues of global scope. We have made major and comprehensive proposals to the U.N. General Assembly Special Session, the World Food Conference, and the Conference on International Economic Cooperation.

Recent events have taught us all that global prosperity is indivisible; no nation can prosper alone.

* Finally the United States continues in this era to feel a special concern for its hemispheric relations. Our profound conviction is that if we cannot help to solve the burning issues of peace and progress with those with whom we have such longstanding ties of sentiment and experience of collaboration, we have little hope of helping to solve them elsewhere. To put it positively we feel strongly that our cooperation as equals in this hemisphere can be a model for cooperation in the world arena.

The challenge we face is that we must reconcile these distinct but intersecting dimensions of concern. We must define anew the nature and purposes of our hemispheric condition. We must understand its meaning and its promise. We must adapt it to our new global condition. We must summon it, develop it, and use it for our common objectives.

3

The United States values its bilateral ties with your countries, without any intention of pursuing them in order to break up your regional solidarity. We want to preserve our hemispheric ties and adapt them to the moral imperatives of this era, without hegemony, free of complexes, aimed at a better future.

All the nations of the hemisphere are mature countries. The variety of intersecting relationships and concerns reflects the vitality of our nations and the increasingly important roles we play in the world. We in the Americas are granted by history a unique opportunity to help fashion what your Foreign Minister has called a "new equilibrium" among all nations.

## Dialogue and Progress

The experience of our recent past has much to teach us.

During the early 1960's the Alliance for Progress stimulated great expectations of rapid development. The enthusiasm with which our countries embraced the Alliance Charter clearly exceeded our collective perseverance and understated the magnitude of the challenge. But great human and financial resources were mobilized; new institutions were created that remain basic instruments for cooperation. And ultimately the Alliance left an even greater moral imprint. By the end of the 1960's internal development and social change had become an imperative for all governments in Latin America, regardless of political coloration. The United States is proud of its contribution.

In this decade this hemisphere has been swept up in the tides of the global economy that now have an increasing significance to our national plans and expectations.

At Vina del Mar [Chile] in 1969 the nations of Latin America staked out a new agenda of issues reflecting what we have since come to call interdependence—the conditions of world trade, multinational corporations, and technology transfer—as well as more traditional issues such as economic assistance. In the spirit of inter-American cooperation, the United States attempted to respond. My Government endorsed, and worked for, measures to improve Latin America's access to our markets and those of other industrial countries, to improve the flow of private capital, to reform the inter-American system, and to insure consideration for Latin American concerns in international forums.

Less than a month after becoming Secretary of State in 1973 [October 5], I called for a new dialogue between Latin America and the United States to reinvigorate our relations by addressing together the new challenges of an interdependent world. I believed that in the past the United States had too often sought to decide unilaterally what should be done about inter-American relations. I felt that Latin America must have a stake in our policies if those policies were to be successful. I said that we were ready to listen to all Latin American concerns in any forum.

Latin America chose to conduct the dialogue on a strictly multilateral basis, presenting common positions to the United States. First in Bogota, then in Mexico City, the agenda of issues that had been set out in Vina del Mar was updated to account for changed circumstances and new concerns. At Tlatelolco [Mexico], and again in Washington, I joined my fellow Foreign Ministers in informal meetings, supplementing our regular encounters in the OAS [Organization of American States] and United Nations. A thorough and heartening dialogue took place. For the next 12 months United States and Latin American representatives met in a continuous series of political and technical discussions. These meetings were interrupted almost precisely a year ago, in reaction to certain provisions of the United States Trade Act of 1974—the very act that implemented the system of generalized preferences first proposed in Vina del Mar.

All of us have something to learn from this experience. First, we can now see that the new dialogue, as it was conducted, only partially met the psychological requirements of our modern relationship.

The United States was prepared to work with the other nations of the hemisphere to improve and perfect the undeniable community that has existed under the name of the inter-American system for almost a century. Yet the explicitness of our approach to the concept of community led many in Latin America to think that the United States wanted to maintain or create a relationship of hegemony. This misunderstanding obscured the reality that the hemisphere was in transition, between dependence and interdependence, between consolidation and political growth, and that the old community based on exclusivity was being transformed into a more open community

4

based on mutual interests and problem solving.

The Latin American nations still seemed to think that the United States, with its great strengths and responsibilities, could act unilaterally to resolve all issues, that any compromise was surrender, that Latin America should propose and the United States should respond. The United States, on the other hand, looked upon dialogue as a prolonged process of give-and-take, in which progress would come incrementally, as our representatives analyzed the problems and negotiated solutions.

Latin America demanded quick results—each meeting became a deadline by which time the United States had to show “results” or be judged lacking. But as economic difficulties beset us all in a period of world recession, it became obvious that if Latin American aspirations were expressed to the people of the United States in terms of categorical and propagandistic demands, they could not elicit a sufficiently positive response.

Both sides oversimplified the nature of the problem: The Latin American nations did not always perceive that the issues were among the most difficult that the international community has faced, because they go to the heart of the structure and interaction of entire societies. The United States did not sufficiently take into account that Latin America had experienced years of frustration in which lofty promises by the United States had been undone by the gradualism of the American political system, which responds less to abstract commitments than to concrete problems. Hence the charge of neglect on one side and the occasional feeling on the other side of being besieged with demands.

But if the new dialogue has not yet yielded results, it nevertheless expresses a constructive mode of dealing with our problems and realizing the aspirations of the hemisphere. The United States is prepared to make a major effort to invigorate our hemispheric ties. My trip here underlines that purpose.

We have learned something basic about the hemisphere itself. In the past both the United States and Latin America have acted as if the problems of the hemisphere could be solved exclusively within the hemisphere. Today the Americas-North and South-recognize that they require a global as well as a regional vision if they are to resolve their problems. For the United States a homogeneous

policy toward an entity called “Latin America” presents new problems, in terms both of global concerns and of the real diversity of Latin America. Nor can the burden of adjustment to a new hemispheric equilibrium be borne wholly by the United States. We are prepared to make a major contribution, and we are willing to cooperate fully with Latin American regional institutions that come into being to this end.

Both sides need a new approach. The United States is prepared to give more systematic consideration to Latin America's quest for regional identity. On the other hand Latin America must overcome its own apprehensions about our policies. In the past, whenever we emphasized the regional aspects of our relationships, we have been accused of forcing problems into an inter-American system which we dominated; when we emphasized the bilateral mode, we were accused of a policy of divide and rule. Each side must understand the problems and purposes of the other.

We thus all know our challenge. We must now turn it into our opportunity. As far as the United States is concerned, we are prepared to make a major effort to build upon our historic ties a cooperative effort to construct a better future.

## Interdependence and Our Common Future

Where do we go from here? What is the answer? Wherein lies the purpose of our relationship in the modern era?

Our starting point must be to recognize that an era of interdependence makes collaborative endeavor more, not less, important to any country that wishes to preserve control over its own national destiny.

We in this hemisphere won our glory in fighting for national independence and defending it in the face of foreign threats; we have built societies embodying the tradition of democracy; we have dedicated our human energies to the development of our natural resources, with impressive results.

Yet even as we celebrate our birth as nations and our centuries of achievement, we encounter a new challenge to our independence. It comes not from foreign armies but from gaps and strains revealed within the very international economic system that each of our nations, in its own way, has done much to create.

Since the Enlightenment, which produced the faith in reason and progress that inspired our revo-

5

lutions, we have all believed that the growth of a global economy would nurture a world community bringing universal advancement. Yet now we find that the international system of production—which still has the potential to provide material progress for all—has become subject to uncertainties and inefficiencies and international conflicts.

Nowhere is this challenge more vivid than in Latin America. With the higher stage of development that your economies have reached has come the awareness of greater vulnerability to fluctuations in export earnings, to increases in the costs of imports, and to the ebb and flow of private capital. Yet your more complex and more open economies can also respond more vigorously to, and profit more readily from, positive trends in the world economic system.

Interdependence for the Americas is, therefore, a positive force and an opportunity. We must manage it, harness it, and develop it for our common benefit.

Our economic dilemmas give rise, in our times, to political imperatives. Rapidly changing external events affect all our peoples profoundly—their livelihoods, their material standards, their hopes for the future, and—most fundamentally—their confidence that our systems of government can successfully encounter the challenges before us. And the requirement for action is political will.

Our societies derive their strength from the consent and dedication of our peoples. Can our democratic system cope with the strains of social change and the frustrations of what is inevitably a long historical process? Can nations find the wisest path in an era when our problems are too vast to be solved by any nation acting alone? Will we succumb to the temptation of unilateral actions, advantageous in their appearance but not their reality? Can we reconcile our diversity and the imperative of our collaboration?

I believe we have every cause for optimism. The requirements of interdependence make patent the genius of our special hemispheric traditions, our values, and our institutions. Pluralism and respect for the rights of others are indispensable to the harmony of the international order. For to seek to impose radical changes without the consent of all those who would be affected is to ignore political reality. Equally to deny a voice to any who are members of the international community

is to insure that even positive achievement will ultimately be rejected.

Therefore the traditions of this hemisphere—democracy, justice, human and national dignity, and free cooperation—are precisely the qualities needed in the era of global interdependence. National unity without freedom is sterile; technological progress without social justice is corrupt; nationalism without a consciousness of the human community is a negative force.

Therefore our permanent quest for progress in this hemisphere must take into account global as well as regional realities. It must reflect the differing interests of each country. And our global efforts respectively must draw on the vitality of our own relationships as a source of dynamism, strength, and inspiration.

The United States has attempted to make a constructive contribution in this context.

Last September in New York, addressing the Latin American Foreign Ministers attending the U.N. General Assembly, I pointed out that several of our initiatives before the Seventh Special Session has been designed to be particularly relevant to Latin American concerns. And I pledged that in the necessary negotiations in other forums, and in all aspects of our relations, we would remember that each Latin American country was different, and we would be responsive to the distinctive national interests of our friends in the hemisphere.

My New York comments raised contradictory speculations. The explicit introduction of global considerations into our Latin American policy was variously interpreted as implying either that the United States denied the existence of a special relationship with Latin America or that it sought to build on that relationship to constitute a new bloc in world affairs. The recognition of the uniqueness of each country—and particularly my statement that no "single formula" could encompass our desire for warm and productive relations with each nation in the hemisphere—were interpreted by some to imply that the United States was about to embark on a new crusade to maintain its power through a policy of special bilateral deals designed to divide the countries of Latin America against one another preclude their ties with countries outside the hemisphere.

These speculations reflect the suspicions and uncertainties of a fluid global environment. They reflect problems we must jointly overcome. They

6

do not reflect United States policy.

The fundamental interests of the United
States require an active and constructive role of
leadership in the task of building peace and pro-
moting economic advance. In this hemisphere the
legacy of our history is a tradition of civilized
cooperation, a habit of interdependence, that is a
sturdy foundation on which to seek to build a
more just international order. And it is absurd to
attempt to create a broader world community by
tearing down close cooperative relations that have
already existed in our part of the globe.

Therefore the United States remains committed to our *common* pledge at Tlatelolco [February 1974] to seek "a new, vigorous spirit of inter-American solidarity." This must mean today not an artificial unanimity or unrealistic pleas for unilateral action. As we agreed at Tlatelolco interdependence has become a physical and moral imperative: It is a reality of mutual dependence and a necessity of cooperation on common problems. To face real problems we must now deal effectively among ourselves, we must identify our real needs and priorities; given the hemisphere's diversity, that can often be achieved bilaterally and subregionally better than regionally.

In this spirit of working solidarity, the United
States pledges itself:

* To take special cognizance of the distinctive requirements of the more industrialized economies of Latin America—and of the region as a whole—in our efforts to build a more equitable international order. We believe the major Latin American countries need concessional foreign assistance less than they need support for their drive to participate in the international economy on a more equal footing with the industrialized nations. To help overcome fluctuations in export earnings and continued import and debt-servicing needs, we have secured a development security facility in the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and a substantial increase in access to IMF resources. To facilitate access to long-term development capital on commercial terms, we have proposed a new international investment trust and have begun a program of technical assistance to countries entering established capital markets.

In a similar vein we support expanded capital-
ization of international financial institutions such
as the International Finance Corporation and the

Inter-American Development Bank. A U.S. contri-
bution of $2.25 billion to a new multiyear replen-
ishment of the Inter-American Development Bank
is now before the U.S. Congress. President Ford
has given his full support.

To promote the growth and market stability
of commodities of importance to Latin America,
we favor producer-consumer cooperation in speci-
fic commodities and a reduction in the barriers to
increased processing of raw materials in exporting
countries.

We are prepared to undertake other practical
steps.

The nations of Latin America have shown
considerable interest in the transfer of modern
technology. We support this, in principle and in
practice. The challenge here, as elsewhere, is to
develop mechanisms to achieve practical results. It
may be that SELA can turn to this question and
suggest the means by which we could cooperate.
We are prepared to respond positively.

In addition we must recognize that the private
sector, private initiative, and private capital can
play important roles in the development and appli-
cation of new scientific and technological advances
to local needs and conditions. The degree to which
private capital is prepared to devote its consider-
able resources of talent and knowledge to this task
will depend on the climate for its participation. It
is for this reason that we state again our willingness
to discuss codes of conduct, which can provide
guidelines for the behavior of transnational enter-
prises. No subject is more sensitive—or more vital—
for the private sector has played the critical role in
bringing about growth; its resources exceed by far
those now available for governmental aid. Yet for
it to be effective the proper environment must be
created. This is a major test for our cooperative
efforts.

To increase trading opportunities we now per-
mit many industrial products of developing coun-
tries to enter the United States without duty. And
we favor special and differentiated treatment in the
multilateral trade negotiations through concentra-
tion on products of interest to Latin America. This
is already apparent in the talks we have had on
tropical products. On all such multilateral issues we
are prepared to have prior consultation with the
nations of Latin America.

* To maintain direct assistance to the neediest

7

nations in this hemisphere still oppressed by poverty and natural disaster. The great bulk of our bilateral concessional assistance to Latin America—nearly $300 million annually—is now allocated to the region's poorest nations to meet basic needs in health, education, and agriculture. At this moment the United States has joined other countries in a massive response to the devastating earthquake in Guatemala. In addition we continue to support expansion of multilateral concessional assistance through the Fund for Special Operations of the Inter-American Development Bank and the soft-loan windows of other international financial institutions active in Latin America. These activities, supplemented by new programs in agricultural development and to assist balance-of-payments shortfalls, make an important contribution to our common responsibility toward the neediest.

In this regard let me mention the critical problem of food, which is especially important to Latin America where food production over recent years has barely kept pace with production.

Following my proposal of a year ago [March 1, 1975], the Inter-American Development Bank established the International Group for Agricultural Development in Latin America. This hemispheric agricultural consultative group will consist of major donors and all Latin American nations and focus on overcoming constraints to agricultural growth and rural development in the hemisphere. The first meeting is scheduled for May in Mexico, and preparatory work will begin next week.

The United States attaches great importance to this effort. It is crucial if Latin America is to fulfill its potential as a food surplus region. It can be another powerful example of how inter-American cooperation can show the way toward solving mankind's most urgent problems.

* To support Latin American regional and subregional efforts to organize for cooperation and integration. The United States has provided technical and financial assistance to the movement of regional and subregional integration, including the development banks of the Andean Pact, the Central American Common Market, and the Caribbean Common Market. We are eager to assist these integration movements and others that may arise in the future. In addition we see in SELA a new possibility for cooperation among the nations of Latin America on common regional problems and projects. We welcome SELA and will support its

efforts at mutual cooperation as its members may deem appropriate.

* To negotiate on the basis of parity and dignity our specific differences with each and every state—both bilaterally and, where appropriate, multilaterally. We intend to solve problems before they become conflicts. We stand ready to consult with other Governments over investment disputes when those disputes threaten relations between our Governments. As you all know the United States and Panama are continuing to move forward in their historic negotiations on a Panama Canal treaty to establish a reliable long-term relationship between our two nations. In the interim between now and the final Law of the Sea Conference, we will continue to attempt to find solutions to issues relating to fisheries and the seas which have complicated our relations in the past. It is the earnest hope of my country that within a year a treaty of Caracas will be signed on the law of the sea.

* To enforce our commitment to mutual security and the Bolivarian ideal of regional integrity against those who would seek to undermine solidarity, threaten independence, or export violence. Last July at San Jose, the nations of the Americas agreed upon revisions to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance—the Rio Treaty. In so doing they reaffirmed their commitment to take collective action against aggression—whether it comes from without or within the hemisphere. The United States regards this treaty as a solemn international obligation. We are resolved to carry out the commitment it places upon us.

* To work to modernize the inter-American system to respond to the needs of our times, to give direction to our common actions. The member states have already taken a major step forward in revising and reaffirming the Rio Treaty. In the months ahead the OAS will be considering the report of its special committee on reform. More is at stake than the text of the charter; the member states are also beginning to focus on the structure and processes of the organization itself. The United States believes that the OAS has an important future of service to the hemisphere. We stand ready to work with others to modernize and strengthen it, to make it a more effective instrument for regional cooperation.

The application of these principles is a mat-

8

ter of common concern. We have had a special rela-
tionship for 150 years and more; the very intimacy
of our ties imposes upon us the duty of rigorous
and responsible self-assessment. We should set our-
selves concrete deadlines—to complete the process
before the end of this year.

We should use the months ahead constructively and productively. It is time that all of us in the hemisphere put aside slogans and turn from rhetoric to resolve. Let us go beyond the debate whether the United States is patronizing or neglecting or seeking to dominate its neighbors. Let us not dispute whether the Latin American nations are being unreasonable or peremptory or seeking to line up against their northern partner.

Instead let us focus on our goals and the need
for common effort and get down to serious
business. Many forums and forms are available. I
propose that we identify the most fruitful areas for
our common effort and set ourselves the goal of
major accomplishment this year. At the OAS
meeting in June we can review where we stand and
discuss what further needs to be done. At the last
General Assembly we adopted the informal style of
the new dialogue, successfully, to facilitate open
and frank discussions of major issues. I propose
that we do so again and that we concentrate, at
this next ministerial meeting, on the nature of our
fundamental relationship.

Our common problems are real enough; a
common response will give living reality to the
heritage and promise of the hemisphere and the
enduring truth that the nations of this hemisphere
do indeed have—and will continue to have—a
special relationship.

The United States and Venezuela

The ties between the United States and Venezuela illustrate the sound foundation upon which we can build. Our democracies, our economic strength, our tradition of trust and working together give us hope; it is our duty to go forward together. This is the strong desire of my country.

We have set an example together. Our collaboration is traditional, extensive, intensive, and—patently—mutually beneficial.

Venezuela is a country at peace in a continent
at peace. Its considerable energies can happily be
directed toward the highest aspirations of human
well-being, in the spirit of its democratic ideals.

Now those ideals have been given new strength by
the acquisition of new prosperity and power.

Last December in Paris 27 nations gathered in
the Conference on International Economic Coop-
eration [CIEC] – a milestone in the world’s struggle
to manage the challenges of interdependence.

Decisions in CIEC are to be taken by consensus rather than by majority vote. The structure of the conference reflects the diversity of nations. It is not a club of the powerful—the developing countries as well as the industrialized participate on a fully equal basis. It is representative but not so unwieldy as to frustrate all practical action. It is a tribute to common sense and to the strength of our collective commitment to achieve real solutions and real progress for our peoples and for the world.

Appropriately Venezuela—whose leaders have
long projected a vision of greater democracy
among nations as well as within their own
country—is now cochairman of CIEC.

Since the early days of our Nation when Francisco de Miranda befriended George Washington, Venezuela's and the United States struggle for liberty, national dignity, and progress have been intertwined. Only a few miles up this coast at Puerto Cabello there is a monument to 10 North Americans who lost their lives in the first attempt by Miranda to win Venezuelan independence. And Henry Clay, whose statue stands in Caracas, expressed the enduring wish to my Nation when he wrote to Simon Bolivar in 1828: "... the interest which was inspired in this country by the arduous struggles of South America, arose principally from the hope, that, along with its independence, would be established free institutions, insuring all the blessings of civil liberty."

We have a right to be proud for these hopes
are a living reality. Few societies have transformed
themselves so profoundly and so rapidly as our two
countries. And those transformations have been
neither aimless nor ideological but the dynamic
product of institutions created by free peoples.

The challenge for both our nations now is to
draw new inspiration from the long tradition that
unites us, to bring into harmony the diverse roles
we are destined to play in world affairs. There is
little we can accomplish apart; there are tremendous
things we can achieve together.

Venezuela and the United States have built an

9

economic relationship that is sturdy and valuable to both sides—and is increasingly so. Venezuela has for decades been an important and reliable supplier of energy to the United States—through World War II and the recent oil embargo. The United States private sector has participated actively in the dynamic growth of the Venezuelan economy.

We recognize that we often have differing perspectives and differing interests. At times the fervor of our respective convictions has led us to disagree even when our interests basically coincided. Venezuela and the United States can debate without confrontation. We can discuss without rancor, as friends. And most importantly we can pursue our respective goals with a dignity born of mutual respect.

Like a masterpiece by Soto or Otero our relationship is, therefore, a shimmering and changing pattern of reality. My discussions with your distinguished President Carlos Andres Perez and Foreign Minister Escovar [Ramon Escovar Salom] have convinced me that the farsighted prophecy of the Liberator speaks for both our countries. Bolivar envisioned a world "imbibing the American principles and seeing the effects of liberty on the prosperity of the American peoples. . . ."

We have it in our power to transform such a world from a dream into a practical reality. All great achievements began as dreams. With realism, reason, and the will to work together, we can insure that the dreams of Bolivar and Jefferson, of Miranda and Washington, will endure—for our two countries, for the hemisphere, and for all mankind.

11

Toast at a dinner hosted by Foreign Minister Gen. Miguel Angel de la Flor Valle at Lima, February 18.

Although this is my first visit to Peru, I feel I am among old friends. In September 1973 Miguel Angel de la Flor was the first Foreign Minister I met after becoming Secretary of State. Since then Miguel Angel and I have seen each other regularly at the United Nations, at the OAS [Organization of American States], in Mexico, and most recently in Paris, where Peru was elected cochairman of the Raw Materials Commission of the Conference on International Economic Cooperation.

Once I admired his uniform, suspecting that he wore it to intimidate me. Miguel replied he would make a special exception for me, as a civilian, to join his legion—to join him at the head of the greater battle facing mankind: the struggle against poverty and underdevelopment.

The United States this year celebrates its bicentennial; Peru is the cradle of civilization in South America.

Yet it is only relatively recently that both our countries have found themselves deeply engaged in world affairs. And it is still more recently that we have begun to understand that the conduct of foreign policy in the world is a challenge as multifaceted and unending as it is inescapable.

The United States fully accepts the awesome responsibilities that inevitably befall it as the strongest free nation of the world. We see ourselves as the defender of democracy and the independence of smaller nations against aggression. We see ourselves, together with the other nuclear superpower, as obligated to maintain global stability and to seek realistic ways to reduce international tensions.

But our responsibilities do not end with the control of nuclear weapons or the containment of East-West conflicts. Our vital interests and security—and our highest moral convictions—are directly affected by the evolving relationship between North and South, rich and poor, industrialized and developing. We are, therefore, committed, in our own enlightened self-interest, to foster a new and more progressive international system—based on coexistence and cooperation—to replace the colonial and bipolar orders that successively have been eroded by history.

## PERU

12

I have come to Peru convinced that the na-
tions of Latin America and the United States are
essential participants in the task that history has
assigned to this generation. Unlike most other na-
tions in the world, we of the Americas share a
common experience. This palace was built when
our countries were both colonies. We both won our
independence in revolutions which took place in
the early part of the modern era. Unlike most
other nations, we shared a civility of peace and of
mutual respect long before the present evolution
of the world's division into industrialized and
developing nations. Therefore, we start as friends.

Since Peru's revolutionary process began, and
continuing now under the leadership of President
Morales Bermudez [Francisco Morales Bermudez
Cerrutti], Peru has brought fresh vision to many
contemporary international issues. That projection,
like our own, derives from the recognition that
international realities are no less essential to the
formulation of national policy and to the attain-
ment of national well-being than domestic realities.

Peru has chosen a nonaligned path. The United States accepts nonalignment as a legitimate national course. Indeed our global interest is well served by a world of thriving independent states, secure in their national destinies against the hegemonial designs of any nation.

Yet too often nations which chose nonalignment to shield themselves from the pressures of powerful global blocs have tended to form a rigid, ideological, confrontationist bloc of their own. The variety of the world's nations is too great, and our common problems too urgent, for such outmoded practices; they only deepen our divisions and impair our mutual progress.

I am confident that our common dedication
to cooperation—already implicit in our respective
efforts to reform the inter-American system and to
bring the Law of the Sea Conference to a useful
conclusion this year—will intensify in the future.

My discussions here today enable me to better
appreciate Peru's drive to shape an interdependent
world that gives full scope to independence. This
afternoon I saw many signs of the greatness of the
rich civilization that flourished in this land before
the European conquest. And through my friend-
ship with your Foreign Minister, I have come to
appreciate the aspirations and the new dynamism
of revolutionary Peru.

I can, therefore, understand why Peru has elected not to model itself on other nations but to draw on its own strengths in seeking fulfillment of its national destiny. Inspired by its unique past and the genius of its people, Peru has chosen its own path that is neither capitalist nor Communist. Rather, recalling Tupac Amaru, Peru is struggling to fulfill what Basadre has called the "promise of Peruvian history."

The United States, itself committed to the ideal of equality of opportunity, is fully sympathetic with Peru's struggle to create a social democracy attuned to the needs of all its people. Though we differ—in ideology, in culture, in income and wealth, in governmental structure—our two nations can nonetheless cooperate to achieve goals they hold in common.

Indeed the partnership of two strong countries is the most fruitful partnership of all.

For such cooperation to be meaningful, there must first be understanding. We must respect each other's perspectives, each other's necessities, each other's seriousness. This is not a theoretical consideration. Our legal and political requirements have come into conflict a number of times since your revolutionary process began. Not without effort—on both sides—we have managed to surmount most of these conflicts.

If we do not continue to seek to compose
difficulties between us honorably and to mutual
advantage, if our realism gives way to passion, we
run the risk of deceiving ourselves and losing what
we seek to achieve for our peoples. There is com-
mon ground on the basis of equality. There can be
shared success on the basis of solutions to common
problems. The United States, for its part, will spare
no effort to resolve any differences that arise on
the basis of dignity, equality, and mutual respect.

The United States today approaches the
world—and this hemisphere—not with the impulse
to overwhelm problems with resources or to dis-
guise differences with assistance programs but with
patience, maturity, compassion, and a willingness
to identify genuine mutualities of interest. Diversi-
ty and disagreement are features of a world of
independent nations. But the interdependence of
our security and economic progress makes our
working together also a practical necessity. We
have never lost respect for each other, or a dedica-
tion to solve problems cooperatively, and we must
never do so.

13

The people of the United States are profoundly convinced that the world's future is at stake. The talents and energy of our people have given us the means for material progress that can all but eradicate famine, poverty, disease and—as we proved together in facing the 1970 earthquake—alleviate the dreadful consequences of natural disaster. History will judge us cruelly if we fail to draw from these blessings the greatest possible human benefit. To paraphrase an ancient Quechua saying, “even the stones would cry.” Not our power, but our wisdom, is challenged.

Despite the unique role that each of us plays, my visit convinces me more than ever that our shared goals can dominate our differences. It is up to us to translate our people's ideals into concrete achievements—through negotiation, not confrontation; through common effort, not discord.

15

BRAZIL

Remarks at a dinner hosted by Foreign Minister Antonio Francisco Azeredo da Silveira at Brasilia, February 19.

It is for this reason that I am so pleased to have the opportunity to say something about how our two nations may face together in the years to come the issues of our complex modern world, and how the institution of consultation which we shall establish here during my visit will, I am confident, give meaning and strength and permanence to our cooperation.

Our two nations have much to accomplish together. We both are vitally concerned and involved in the world's response to the fundamental challenges with which history has confronted this generation-building a new and peaceful international order and insuring justice and prosperity for all peoples.

*Brazilian Ambassador to the U.S. João Augusto de Araujo Castro died in Washington on December 9, 1975.

16

The traditional association of our two nations, and the warm friendship that continually has inspired it, are among our most precious resources. At the same time our bilateral relations must now be infused with a global vision and planned to encompass a worldwide sweep. We have only begun to realize the potential of vigorous collaboration with the major nations of the West in shaping international order in the era before us.

to resist expansionism.

There will be and can be no condominium with the other nuclear superpower. On the contrary, the people of my country will never forget that our ties with our friends and allies are the foundation of the edifice we seek to build. As we meet the responsibilities of security, the energies of all nations are freed for the positive endeavors of human betterment. All nations, therefore, have a stake in peace. For in today's world peace is global; the breakdown of order on this shrinking planet ultimately affects the hopes and dreams and well-being of us all.

For these are the new goals toward which the nations of the world are turning—and among the

17

We were encouraged to see at that special session that the shrill idiom of the North-South debate has begun to give way to more rational discourse and an enduring sense that we are in fact a world community. Appeals to outmoded ideologies are giving way to the study of practical proposals. Your Foreign Minister has always advocated this. Brazil, he has said, is not beguiled by the "illusion

## U.S. and Brazil in an Interdependent World

My country shares with yours the conviction that our efforts together can now make a decisive contribution to a new era of progress for the world. It is a prospect worthy of our peoples. Therefore we shall nurture our ties with you—in this hemisphere and in the world. Ours will not be a relationship of automatic unanimity but of equality, mutual respect, and common endeavor in a host of areas.

We are already playing important roles together in a variety of international forums—in the Conference on International Economic Cooperation, in the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva, in the World Bank [International Bank for Reconstruction and Development], and the International Monetary Fund. Our recent past demonstrates that we, and the world, have much to gain by our working together in this way.

* At Kingston in January Brazil and the United States were prominent in achieving the far-reaching reform of the International Monetary Fund that was adopted by broad consensus. By these new measures, the monetary reserves of the developing world will increase appreciably, and the prospects for world economic growth be enhanced.

But whatever the successes of the immediate past, the need for us to find common ground is more urgent than ever. No country—not even countries as vast as the United States and Brazil—can

18

Trade is only one of the many issues which summon our two nations to a higher level of collaboration and cooperation. This is the reason why I am honored to have the opportunity shortly to execute with you our new formal agreement establishing a mechanism of regular consultations between our two countries at the ministerial level. The mechanism that we establish will engage us in the kind of intimate and intensive deliberations on major world and bilateral issues which the scope of our respective international interests and responsibilities requires.

We have long been improving our consultations in keeping with the growing significance of our relationship. Fifteen months ago we instituted consultations on the planning staff level. Last July we established an Economic Consultative Group, with a special subgroup on trade. We now cap these efforts with a demonstration and institutionalization of political will.

Our new procedure of consultation will not guarantee automatic solutions. But as we address the bilateral issues between us, and the issues in major international negotiations in which our nations are called upon to participate, our exchange of views takes on new and serious importance. Our consultation will strengthen the efficacy of our cooperation toward common objectives. Our joint efforts could well mean the difference that insures success in world councils of the future.

principles of United States foreign policy has been support for the drive of the more industrialized countries of Latin America—foremost among them Brazil—to compete on a more equal footing in the global arena. The contradictions generated by export subsidies in Brazil and countervailing duties in the United States must not be allowed to become serious divisive issues. They must be addressed by both sides in the light of the fundamental political requirements of our total relationship and of the cooperative international order that we both seek to build. To this end we will discuss a binding international commitment on the issues of subsidies and countervailing duties to be ultimately negotiated at Geneva under the authority of the Trade Act of 1974.

We conceive of this consultation not as a process in which one side states claims and the other side defends an established position but rather as a true exchange, reflecting our equality, our world perspectives, and the benefits that both sides will surely gain from common endeavor. Neither side can nor should prescribe to the other what its basic stance toward the rest of the world should be. But each side will surely benefit from knowing fully the views of the other and is likely to give them weight.

19

Nowhere can one sense more deeply the creative spirit of the Americas than in Brasilia. Here, where once there was only solitude now stands this exciting cosmopolitan world capital.

opportunity. This is a hemisphere of promise and discovery, summoning forth the true spirit and courage of a people.

21

Toast at a luncheon hosted by the Secretary for Foreign Minister Indalecio Lievano Aguirre at Bogota, February 23.

As I am coming to the end of my trip through South America, I would like to say how very moved I have been by the very warm and human reception that I have received everywhere, a reception which goes beyond what may be published in communiques or in press and formal statements but which represents the true relationship between Latin America and the United States. And in no country has the reception been more personal and warm than here in Colombia.

I had the privilege of staying in the home of your President [Alfonso Lopez Michelsen] and having discussions which were philosophical, relaxed, and which went to the heart of each problem in an atmosphere of substantial agreement and total cordiality.

As for your Foreign Minister, from the first time we met last year in the United States, I have entertained a very special admiration for him. In some respects we came to our present responsibilities by similar paths as authors, teachers, and historians. But when I saw how your Minister presided over the rhetorical extravaganza of the OAS General Assembly last May and thought about my own experience the year before in Atlanta, I knew he had qualities of patience and forbearance which I could never hope to emulate. With respect to the qualities of forbearance and patience, and I'm sure many others, my staff completely agrees with his judgment.

You are, Mr. Minister, by common consent one of the leaders in foreign relations in the Americas, and I am honored to be here by your side.

I want to tell you how delighted I am to be here. The visit of your President to the United States a few brief months ago was far more productive even than we had hoped it would be. The talks were expanded beyond what we had originally planned. And we decided then that we should renew our conversations at the earliest opportunity.

My visit here is an effort built on the very considerable contribution which your President made by his earlier trip to the United States to the improvement in understanding between the United States and Latin America. In his statement to President Ford, with considerable perception and

COLOMBIA

22

warmth, he talked about three themes—the significance of responsibility, of order, and of diversity in the affairs of nations.

He was right when he said that we share a commitment to these three principles. He was also right in stressing their importance to world peace and to the new, more just and more humane world order to which both Colombia and the United States are committed.

## Responsibility

First as to responsibility, both our nations are conscious of our broad responsibilities beyond our own hemisphere. In another century De Tocqueville remarked of my country, and perhaps of the New World in general, that: "Expectancy is the keynote of American foreign policy; it consists much more in abstaining than in doing."

* To maintain international security in an age when nuclear war could destroy civilization and

* To grasp the opportunity, which peace offers us all, to work together in a spirit of cooperation to build a world order which is more humane and just, one which takes full account of the dignity of each nation and the inalienable rights of each of our citizens.

The task we face today—indeed, the purpose of my trip—is to search out the leadership and the initiatives which will forge a common pact for bettering the condition of man. It is with this in mind that I have come to your country.

We, together with you and your neighbors in this hemisphere, begin the quest with a great advantage. This continent is a continent of peace. The nations of South America do not threaten each other. When states start down the road of pressure and threat—as some others have recently—it is a notable event in the history of the hemisphere, raising concern and the need for attention. This continent, unlike almost all the others, has not

## Order

A peaceful and progressive world system depends, in the first instance, on law and on the settled practice of nations. For it is only under law that nations can pursue policies of restraint and conciliation and expect that others will do likewise and so reconcile their political and economic interests for the common progress of mankind.

Colombia is the nation of Santander, who said "if arms have given us our independence, laws will give us our liberty." It was Santander who announced his soldierly honors to build schools, libraries, and museums—the foundations of Colombia's distinctive modern culture.

When President Lopez visited Washington, he expressed the hope that our two countries "will find a sense of partnership within a legal system based on impersonal and abstract rules within which there will always be the right to dissent." There is no better formula to guide our efforts in revitalizing the inter-American system. True to its own tradition of respect for international law and orderly process among nations, Colombia has been in the forefront of efforts first to create, and now to revitalize, the Organization of American States. The United States will strongly support Colombia's efforts to make the OAS a more effective instrument of our common will.

* **Commodities.** Neither Colombia nor the United States felt an immediate need for a coffee agreement. Yet both of us shared a long-range interest in working out an agreement that would provide equity to producers and consumers alike. We have succeeded.

* **Law of the Sea Negotiations.** No nation in the hemisphere has played a more active and constructive role than Colombia. We will work closely with you over the next few months for a historic multilateral agreement to establish a progressive

23

*   **Narcotics.** Our nations have a common interest in the control of illegal trafficking in drugs. Your country's cooperation in this critical area has been central to the international effort to curb the flow of dangerous drugs across international boundaries. For this you have the gratitude of the people of my country.

*   **Human Rights.** We are both democracies. We share the common conviction that the instruments, and ends, of all our policies are the human beings who are our citizens and not some blind force of history. And we, therefore, know that the ultimate vitality and virtue of our civilization is the extent to which its Governments are responsive to the sense of human dignity and respect. Under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the United States and Colombia are committed to nurture political and human rights everywhere. We will continue to work with you in the common effort to expand the writ of justice and human decency, not only in this hemisphere but throughout the world.

## Diversity

it this week. It is palpable. My country understands it, accepts it, and welcomes it. Indeed the United States knows as well as any nation that from diversity in this hemisphere can come both creativity and strength, if we will bend our common will to the task which is ahead.

For our part we shall move to vitalize our policy throughout the Americas and foster our hemispheric ties. We will also continue to make a special effort to strengthen our bilateral ties with each American state. We are prepared to this end to develop special consultative procedures with each nation of the Americas, if it is desired, adapted to the character and intensity of our differing relationships.

We count Colombia as a nation to which we have very special links—our common dedication to democracy, our commitment to the cause of human rights, the civility of our mutual discourse, and our firm dedication to a new and more just international order.

There is much work to be done to construct the kind of peaceful and cooperative world for which we all yearn. You and we have a great part to play. Colombia has undertaken, and you, Mr. Minister, are carrying out, *responsibilities of statesmanship and leadership in this hemisphere. You are in the forefront of the effort to construct a new order*. And Colombia's unique spirit and voice exemplify the richness of this hemisphere and of the creative possibilities of a world of *diversity*.

25

Toast at a luncheon hosted by President Daniel Oduber Quiros at San Jose, February 24.

The opportunity I have had for discussions with President Oduber and Foreign Minister Facio [Gonzalo Facio Segreda], and my bilateral meetings today with my colleagues from the Central American nations and Panama are a fitting culmination of my Latin American trip.

Here in Central America I know I am on my way home. For the history and dreams of this region have long been interwoven with those of my country. Our past provides us a heritage of considerable achievement and a precious advantage to us as we engage the future. We have the responsibility to build upon the positive record of our cooperation for the benefit of each of our peoples and for the advancement of mankind.

## Central American Progress

For a decade Central America has been a region of progress. Industrialization, agricultural diversification, new institutions, and, above all, a growing confidence of purpose have brought your countries to a new threshold of development.

You are proving yourselves pioneers in the processes of international cooperation. In the Central American Common Market you have shown the world how nations can combine their efforts to promote more rapid economic development and international peace. You have begun to construct durable Central American institutions—technological, educational, legal, and cultural—all of which help to lower the barriers between nations. Your commitment to a new treaty will provide fresh impulse to your integration and can be a model for others around the world.

Yet your nations—as well as any on Earth—know that success is fragile in the modern world. You know that national independence requires constant vigilance and solidarity with others who share your commitment to self-determination. Your economies know the impact of external circumstances over which you have little influence; your societies feel the pressures of population growth and of rapid urbanization. One of your nations has sent its soldiers to help keep the peace in a regional conflict halfway around the world which threatens international stability. Two of your countries know the anguish here in the isthmus of a still-unresolved war. Such conflicts

## COSTA RICA

26

arouse the concern of others—as is always the case wherever peace breaks down. The role of the OAS in encouraging a solution has been an impressive example of the value of our inter-American system.

Most tragically three times in the past three years Central America has been struck by natural disaster. Hurricanes have brought suffering in Honduras; earthquakes have ravaged Nicaragua; and today our hearts are pained by the terrible calamity which has struck our friends in Guatemala.

We are all serious people. We have differences of perspective and interest, and we will continue to have them, for differences are inevitable when responsible and sovereign nations committed to the well-being of their citizens confront the difficulties of an interdependent world. But we also know that the time has come to resolve—in a fair and mature way—the problems of the past and put them behind us as we look to our common future. The negotiations now underway to modernize the relationship between my country and Panama are just such an effort. My country is determined to continue those negotiations in good faith to our ultimate objective of a new relationship which respects the national interests of both the United States and Panama.

The United States will also continue to cooperate in the development efforts in Central America. Our bilateral assistance programs here are among the largest in the hemisphere. As you seek to fulfill the aspirations of your people for a better life, you may depend upon the friendship and support of my country. The United States will be a steady friend—not only in moments of catastrophe but over the long term in your struggle for development. Responding to the tragedy in Guatemala, President Ford has asked Congress to authorize a new grant of $25 million so that we can move beyond relief of the immediate emergency to the difficult process of rebuilding. And our established development aid programs will continue as well—in Guatemala and throughout the region—particularly to assist your efforts to help the rural poor.

As we increasingly dedicate ourselves to human betterment, we cannot neglect the reality that no nation can hope to advance if it is not secure. Our collective security is the bedrock of our relations. Last July, here in San Jose, the countries of this hemisphere successfully completed the modernization of the Rio Treaty—a visible symbol of our determination to maintain and strengthen this relationship.

I assure you that the United States remains dedicated to the principle of collective security. Recent events have shown that foreign adventurism is not dead; expeditionary forces may still be sent across the oceans to intervene in, and impose their will upon, the domestic affairs of other countries. The United States will not tolerate a challenge to the solemn treaty principle of nonintervention in this hemisphere.

This will be the last prepared statement I will make during my trip. This visit has been enormously valuable to me. I have learned much, and I return to my country with a deeper understanding of the strengths and difficulties, aspirations and conflicts, glories and anguish of the hemisphere.

* In Venezuela I saw and heard of the growing sense of common destiny and solidarity within Latin America. I made clear that we welcomed this and that we were prepared to work with new Latin American institutions of cooperation.

* In Peru I learned something of the creative diversity of the hemisphere. Our policy, I said, is to respect the sovereignty of each Latin American state, to conciliate differences before they become conflicts, and to support the authentic development efforts of the nations of the hemisphere.

* In Brazil I came face-to-face with the reality that a number of nations of the Americas are emerging on to the world scene with broadened international interests and international responsibilities. As a demonstration that we are prepared to develop new machinery of consultation with these nations, adapted to the special circumstances of our relations with each, I signed a new and formal Memorandum of Agreement on consultation with

27

Brazil. I pointed out that we are prepared to enter
into similar arrangements with other states if they
so desire. And I stressed that, in enhancing our
bilateral relationships with the nations of the
Americas, we would not diminish the momentum
toward integration and solidarity within Latin
America or our willingness to work with Latin
American institutions and organizations.

* In Colombia yesterday the Foreign Minister put forward a suggestion for what could become a new element in our inter-American relationship. He proposed that we explore the possibility of arrangements between the United States and the nations of Latin America to expand trade within the hemisphere as a central mission and purpose of the inter-American system. The United States is prepared to look carefully at this imaginative suggestion. We shall set up a task force immediately to study its ramifications. For his part the Colombian Foreign Minister will begin consultation with other Latin American countries. At the same time the United States will be discussing this proposal with him and with you and other Latin American nations. All of us will then be able to advance concrete and practical ideas for discussion at the General Assembly meeting of the Organization of American States.

* Finally in Costa Rica I have seen another example of democracy at work and reaffirmed, once again as I have elsewhere, the importance of our inter-American commitment to human rights and the dignity of man.

My trip has strengthened my deep conviction that our common reality is our creative diversity; that our task is to forge our geographical and historical bonds into shared purpose and endeavor; and that our common responsibility is to build upon this special bond to make cooperation and progress in this hemisphere a model and a contribution to a new era of international achievement.

The United States regards its hemispheric ties and responsibilities with a special seriousness. In a spirit of solidarity, we have pledged ourselves to:

* Respond to the special economic needs of the more industrialized nations of the hemisphere;

* Assist the efforts of the neediest nations to advance themselves;

* Support Latin American regional and subre-

gional efforts to organize for cooperation and integration;

* Negotiate our differences with any nation or nations on the basis of mutual respect and sovereign equality, either bilaterally or multilaterally;

* Maintain our firm commitment to mutual security against any who would undermine our common effort, threaten independence, or export violence; and

* Modernize and strengthen our inter-American system.

These are the pledges we make. We shall spare no effort to turn them into concrete programs in the months ahead. We should—together—set ourselves an agenda for action. I firmly believe that if all nations of the Americas can commit themselves anew to responsible cooperation in these areas, we shall together be responsive to the deepest needs as well as to the highest aspirations of all mankind.

* Peace is both possible and the indispensable precondition of all our hopes for the future.

* The global economy must both grow and be fair, bringing benefit and opportunity to all peoples.

* Basic human rights must be preserved, cherished, and defended if peace and prosperity are to be more than hollow achievements. The responsibilities of men and nations in this era require, more than ever, the full and free dedication of the talent, energy, creative thought, and action of men and women—free from fear and repression—to the tasks of our time.

* The essential political requirement for progress in all these areas of common concern is the readiness of nations to consult and cooperate with each other on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect, and the commitment to our common success.

These then are the tasks before us and the principles by which we are guided. It is up to us—as individuals and as nations—whether we shall build upon the progress we have made and turn the decade ahead into one of mankind's great eras of achievement.

On my trip I have seen much of the promise, the emergent power, and the moral force of this hemisphere. I have learned from it. I have explained some of the goals and concerns of my

TALKING POINTS

February 25, 1976

Introduction

It is a pleasure for me to appear before this committee
as you consider the State Department's budget request. With
your agreement, I would value the opportunity to spend this
time discussing with you the overall design and some of the major
issues in American foreign policy. After brief opening remarks
I would be glad to take your questions.

As we enter our third century we face a world where
foreign policy increasingly is of concern to every American.
I have just returned from Latin America. My trip revealed

-2-

more clearly the shape of the task which confronts the
international community: an age of interdependence presents
serious problems but there are vast and hopeful opportunities
as well.

We are in a new world, unlike the one in which our lives
were formed:

-- America's nuclear preponderance has ended: both
superpowers have the capacity to devastate our planet in a
matter of hours.

-- The industrial democracies have regained their
strength and confidence: our alliances now call for
cooperative endeavors on the basis of shared burdens and
shared initiative.

-3-

-- New forms of economic power have spread in every
quarter of the globe. The emerging nations seek a greater
role in international affairs and an equitable share in the
world's product.

-- A new range of issues -- food, population, the
environment, the uses of the oceans -- call for urgent
international action.

Many of these challenges grew out of our past successes
in reshaping the postwar world.

Our task is to help build the international structure of
the future. What we do in the next several years will
determine the kind of world our nation will live in through
much of its third century.

-4-

America has a unique role to play:

-- We can no longer overwhelm problems with our strength, resources, or influence. But, equally, it is now clear that no solutions are possible without us. Stability, progress, freedom all still require America's responsible and steady efforts in the world.

-- We must maintain security and the balance of power and resolve political conflicts by traditional means. But we must also strive to fashion out of a world of 150 nations a new and more positive international environment.

Let me explore with you how we view the major areas of our foreign relations.

-5-

Major Issues

A. Industrial Democracies

Our bonds with the industrial democracies are the bedrock
of our international relations.

-- Together with them we comprise the military strength
that ensures global security and the economic strength
that is the engine of global well-being.

-- Their capabilities have grown greatly; it is up to us
however to play a role of leadership and catalyst.

We need to coordinate our assets and policies; this
involves a vast amount of work on many levels that is
absolutely vital even though it may not always catch the
headlines.

-6-

Our recent progress has been striking; our consultation
and cooperation with the industrial democracies are at the
highest levels in many years:

-- We are all well along the path to indispensable
economic recovery;

-- We have rediscovered a much stronger common
political will; the improvement in US-French relations
is symptomatic.

-- Some of the important benchmarks are: Rambouillet
Summit, IEA cooperation, Jamaica monetary agreement,
and progress on military cooperation and standardization.

-7-

Inevitably there are problems:

- European southern flank is in disarray despite
improved situation in Portugal, hope in Spain
and lifting of Turkish arms embargo.

- Problem of Communist strength in Italy, France
and Spain.

- Fall-out from our domestic problems such as
Lockheed bribery issue in US-Japanese relations.

- Real concern among our allies as to our reliability.

If we are able to play our international role, however,
this network of relationships should be the foundation of
successful policy for many years to come.

-8-

## B. Adversaries

Our relations with adversaries are key elements in protecting our security and that of the whole world. They require particularly careful handling and sophisticated understanding.

With the USSR we pursue a policy designed to manage the emergence of this new superpower, but in the nuclear age this must be done short of war:

- We seek to contain Soviet expansion, and

- to encourage positive developments in Soviet behavior and responsible participation in the international system through both penalties and incentives.

(c)

-9-

In short, we are attempting simultaneously to maintain our equilibrium as in traditional diplomacy and shape a new international structure of restraint and cooperation.

We have no illusions as to the basic issues or ideology that divide us and the Soviets. Nor can we let down our guard. A strong defense, strong economy, and strong alliances are the prerequisites for all else we do.

SALT is the centerpiece of East-West relations. 1972 agreement followed by a SALT II agreement will put a cap on the arms race and permit movement towards reductions. We hope to conclude SALT II. [Review present state of negotiations.]