[ie]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

August 13, 1976

NO. 378

TOAST BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT A LUNCHEON IN HONOR OF
THE LAW OF THE SEA LEADERSHIP

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

AUGUST 13, 1976

I have learned a great deal in my brief visit here today. I have had a sense of the range of the issues that are before us and I appreciate the frankness with which the heads of the committees and Acting President have spoken to me, and also the members of the various delegations that I had an opportunity to consult this morning and shall consult with this afternoon. The United States believes that you are all engaged in one of the historic conferences of many decades. It is not often that diplomats can accept something which they know will last for an indefinite period. It is not often that man has an opportunity to establish a legal regime for vast areas of the world. It is not often that great riches have been apportioned on the basis of negotiations and at least an attempt of a just settlement rather than on the basis of power. From all of these points of view you are engaged in a historic enterprise and it proves that history can be made in an undramatic, complicated, serious way. There is often discussion in this country on why things are moving so relatively slowly. But if one looks at the vastness of the challenges of the time when territorial seas were three miles, when the concept of the economic zone was not even thought of, when the exploration of the deep sea beds was a dream for science fiction, when one considers all of these problems that had to be addressed, and had to be addressed by 150 nations, then one must congratulate you on the progress that has been made. In our discussions at lunch, the discussions this morning, it is clear that the issues that remain to be solved can probably be enumerated on the fingers of two hands, that vast areas of general agreement have already been reached. Disagreements that remain very often concern the implementation of principles that have already been established. The concept of a common heritage of mankind, the concept that humanity has a responsibility to the world community in the deep

For further information contact:

- 2 -

PR# 378

sea beds is, I think, a historic break-through of enormous proportion. Compared to this, how you finance the international portion of this exploration is a technically, enormously difficult problem, but I have no doubt that we will find a way of solving it. If we don't find it, the distinguished Chairman of the First Committee will write a document which he represents as the consensus of all of us, and which will no doubt eventually find the common assent. So I think, again, when we speak of the issues in Committee Two of what the characteristics are of the 200-mile economic zone, there are important technical problems that remain. But when we start discussing in concrete detail what essential interests of each country are and we get away from philosophical and confrontational skews, again, I am confident we will find a solution and the same is true in many things. We have not, in fact, had a great deal of discussion about the settlement of disputes, simply because, it seems to me, if we successfully complete the substantive part of it, none of us can afford to let this conference fail over how we are going to settle disputes on such a major achievement. I must therefore say I am basically optimistic. The United States will study the differences that remain with the attitude of where we can take into account concerns of the other nations. Obviously, we have concerns which we cannot give up and there are limits beyond which we cannot go. This is true of almost all of the other participants in the conference. Having come this far, however, it is my conviction that we can settle the differences. The United States will make a major effort to work closely with you. We hope the attitude will be one, not of confrontation but of a recognition of this great historic opportunity. If we succeed, as I am persuaded we will, then future generations can look back on this period and say that mankind put three quarters of the earth's surface under a regimen that reflected justice and equity and human concerns in a peaceful manner and has banished from that part of the world the contest for power and the rivalry that has been the bane of mankind on land, and there would not be the least irony of history in having sought to establish peace for so long on land that it should be a conference of the Law of the Sea which gives the impetus for universal peace.

So I would like to propose a toast to the success of the Conference and pay tribute to all of you who are working so closely together.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

August 13, 1976

NO. 377

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
TO THE US DELEGATION TO
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK

AUGUST 13, 1976

As you know, I regard this Conference as potentially one of the most significant diplomatic negotiations of our time. And at this session it has taken on an added aspect of urgency -- as we are called upon to help conclude a treaty before the pressure of events and contention places international consensus irretrievably beyond the grasp of the nations of the world.

I want to thank all the members of this delegation for your very hard work and your perseverance in dealing with a multitude of highly complex and momentous issues. I have followed the progress of your efforts daily. Thus I understand full well the many difficulties you are facing.

Owing to your efforts considerable progress has already been made in these negotiations. But we must acknowledge that forward movement has been accompanied by increasing tendencies in many nations towards unilateral actions that will make the task before us more and more difficult.

Despite, indeed because of these tendencies, it is imperative that this session make significant progress on all the remaining major issues still in contention. Our objective is to make possible a final session early next year to complete agreement on the text of the Law of the Sea Convention.

The United States has already made significant efforts in earlier sessions -- especially this spring -- to accommodate the interests of other states. This was made with the understanding that our interests also would be protected. There is a limit beyond which the United States cannot go in these negotiations. There are a number of proposals in the Conference which this Government could not accept and indeed our Congress would never ratify. These limits must be recognized if we are to obtain a widely acceptable treaty.

PR #377

- 2 -

Nonetheless, we are committed to continue to put forth every effort to cooperate with the other delegations to find reasonable and responsible ways to reconcile the many legitimate interests and concerns before us.

I have come to this session to underline the importance with which the United States regards this effort -- and to obtain a first-hand view of how we are progressing in these negotiations. We must determine how best we can use the remaining time available in this session to work towards a package agreement on all of the different main issues. I will be meeting with a number of the key Conference and delegation leaders from a number of countries representing various viewpoints, geographical as well as functional. I want to hear of their concerns directly, and to speak to them about our own.

Specifically, I will be meeting with the Conference leadership, including the Acting Conference President Minister Jans Evensen, to get their assessment of the present negotiating situation, how far we have to go, and how best to move forward. In my own discussions I will emphasize the need to move with as much speed as possible toward a final consensus acceptable to all major groups of states.

The problems we face must neither be magnified nor disregarded. These are difficult negotiations. But the problems we face must be measured against the costs of failure -- to all nations. If a mood of pessimism prevails we surely will not succeed. What is called for now is determination and a new creative effort.

In Committee I, we face these negotiation's most complex and contentious issues. Most important remains the question of deep seabed mining -- who shall do it, and under what conditions. The United States position is that an equitable solution should ensure that all states party to the Convention and their nationals have guaranteed access to seabed mining sites under fair conditions.

With that understanding, we could agree on the establishment of an "Enterprise" representing the Seabed Authority which would be able to, on its own, mine seabed minerals. Revenue sharing from all mining would go to the world community to be used primarily for economic development of the poorer countries. No other solution would be fair to the developing countries who desire to have an Enterprise which can exploit seabed resources and who want revenues from mining for needed economic growth.

In Committee II, the outstanding issue remains the high sea status of the economic zone. The solution to this difficult problem must

PR #377

- 3 -

ensure that the interests of the international community -- and those
high seas freedoms which are reserved to that community -- are pre-
served in the Law of the Sea Convention for the benefit of all mankind.
Only such a solution can balance the rights of coastal states over
the economic resources of the zone while, at the same time, pre-
serving the interests of the international community in crucial
matters such as navigation.

In Committee III, a main goal of the United States is to preserve
within the economic zone freedom for scientific research not directly
related to the exploitation and exploration of resources within the
zone. Only through open scientific research and the wide dissemination
of its results throughout the world can the global community con-
tinue to probe the mysteries of our planet to better the lives and
preserve the health of all. It would be most difficult for the
United States to accept a treaty that would restrict the existing
freedom of scientific research. The solution we seek would protect
all countries through a balance of obligations and responsibilities;
the freedom of scientific research in the economic zone would be
guaranteed; coastal states could participate in such research and
benefit from its results; and safeguards against marine pollution
would be established. It is very doubtful, in my view, that we would
be able to obtain the consent of Congress to this treaty unless it
incorporated such a balance of rights and responsibilities.

Finally, with respect to dispute settlement, I believe there is
a wide consensus that a binding and compulsory dispute settlement
mechanism is crucial -- for both the deep seabeds and the economic
zone. Only through such procedures can we prevent future conflict
arising over differing interpretations of the Convention text.

I want you to know that this visit today will not be my last. I
will return to this Conference later as we endeavor to achieve an
overall agreement on the major remaining issues. It is imperative
that all of us put forth our full effort to help bring about an
equitable and acceptable treaty in the weeks ahead. Our determination,
our skill, and our vision are vital if this great international
effort is to succeed. And succeed it must, for no current dip-
lomatic negotiation is more important for the long-term stability
and prosperity of our globe.

The United States is determined to do all it can to help this
Conference succeed. The problems are vast, but the possibility and
the promise have never been more clear. And through reason, through
responsibility, and by working together we shall succeed.

* * * * *

-REMARKS BY THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
TO THE U.S. DELEGATION TO THE LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, AUGUST 13, 1976

Owing to your efforts, considerable progress has already been made in these negotiations. But we must acknowledge that forward movement has been accompanied by increasing tendencies in many nations towards unilateral actions that will make the task before us more and more difficult.

-3-

There are a number of proposals in the Conference which this government could not accept and indeed our Congress would never ratify. These limits must be recognized if we are to obtain a widely acceptable treaty.

I have come to this session to underline the importance with which the United States regards this effort -- and to obtain a first hand view of how we are progressing in these negotiations. We must determine how best we can use the remaining time available in this session to work towards a package agreement on all of the

- 4 -

different main issues. I will be meeting with a number of the key
conference and delegation leaders from a number of countries
representing various viewpoints, geographical as well as functional.
I want to hear of their concerns directly, and to speak to them about
our own.

Specifically, I will be meeting with the conference leadership,
including the Acting Conference President Minister Jans Evensen,
to get their assessment of the present negotiating situation, how
far we have to go, and how best to move forward. In my own
discussions I will emphasize the need to move with as much speed
as possible toward a final consensus acceptable to all major groups
of states.

-5-

-6-

In Committee II, the outstanding issue remains the high sea
status of the economic zone. The solution to this difficult
problem must ensure that the interests of the international
community -- and those high seas freedoms which are reserved
to that community -- are preserved in the Law of the Sea
Convention for the benefit of all mankind. Only such a solution
can balance the rights of coastal states over the economic
resources of the zone while, at the same time, preserving the
interests of the international community in crucial matters such
as navigation.

-7-

In Committee III a main goal of the United States is to preserve
within the economic zone freedom for scientific research not
directly related to the exploitation and exploration of resources within
the zone. Only through open scientific research and the wide
dissemination of its results throughout the world can the global
community continue to probe the mysteries of our planet to better
the lives and preserve the health of all. It would be most difficult
for the United States to accept a treaty that would restrict the
existing freedom of scientific research. The solution we seek
would protect all countries through a balance of obligations and
responsibilities: the freedom of scientific research in the economic
zone would be guaranteed; coastal states could participate in such
research and benefit from its results; and safeguards against
marine pollution would be established. It is very doubtful,

-8-

-9-

Our determination, our skill, and our vision are vital if this great
international effort is to succeed. And succeed it must, for no
current diplomatic negotiation is more important for the long-term
stability and prosperity of our globe.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

This is a verbatim transcript of an interview
of The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State,
by Mr. Amos Ettinger of Israeli Television, held on
Tuesday, 17 August 1976, in the Department of State,
Washington, D.C.

1

MR. ETTINGER: Mr. Secretary, how would you describe Mrs. Meir amongst the different world leaders you have been in touch with?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I would say that Mrs. Meir is an original. She can't be compared to any other leader that I have dealt with. She is a woman of great conviction, great inward strength, great personality, and she is unique.

MR. ETTINGER: Did you sometimes have the feeling that you were dealing with a representative of a small and poor country?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I think one of the great strengths of Mrs. Meir was that that thought never crossed one's mind. She understood that Israel's real relationship with the United States depends on the moral quality of the ties that have been forged. And she took great pains in developing them. And therefore we always thought of her in terms of these moral and human ties, and never in terms of the traditional power relationships among sovereign states.

MR. ETTINGER: Golda Meir is known in Israel as being a tough negotiator. Did you have the same feeling?

2

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Golda Meir is an extremely tough negotiator. On the other hand, when Golda Meir gave her word, you could absolutely count on it. And once she had made up her mind to do something, even if it was difficult, she did it with great courage, and so it was always -- I can't say it was a pleasure to negotiate with her, but it was inspiring to negotiate with her.

MR. ETTINGER: Did it disturb you that you were conducting high level negotiations with a woman?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Not at all. Of course, I have never hidden my great personal affection for her, but I never thought of it in those terms. She is a unique and remarkable personality.

MR. ETTINGER: I am going to show this stuff to Mrs. Golda Meir before we are going to screen it on the TV, so I believe she will watch us before. What would you like to tell her, like she is watching us now?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I think that in one's public life, one has to do so many day-to-day things that are imposed on one. But there are a few events that one remembers that have human and moral stature.

3

And many of my memories of those occasions are tied to
Mrs. Meir, who never did a second-rate thing.

MR. ETTINGER: I believe that is all, thank
you, very much.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Mr. MacBachan, Ladies and

Gentlemen:

There has been a lot of speculation lately about
the state of Canadian-American relations, and whether the
Olympic Games or other events have had any impact on our
relationship.

Now I don't think there could be any better proof
of the depth of our relationship than the fact that I have
decided to stay away from Kansas City in order to welcome
the Canadian Foreign Minister to Washington. [Laughter.]

In fact, I have been on the telephone to Kansas
City all afternoon and the press stories about my absence
are really outrageously inaccurate.

The White House has said, of course I could come
and I could carry any placard I wanted. [Laughter.]
It is just my title about which there is a little question.
[Laughter.]

But Allan, I want you to know that you are here
among friends. I have read very learned articles in Canadian
journals that we should base our relationship on the
acceptance by the United States of the "foreign-nose of
Canada" and vice versa -- and I am sure that this is all

2

very true. But those of us who have enjoyed Canadian hospitality and who have visited Canada, cannot quite accept the reality of that proposition, except for the fact of the microphones that are occasionally left on tables. [Laughter.]

Now that the dinner is over, I can tell Allan that this yellow flower here that is turning with its head is directly connected with "The Washington Post." [Laughter.]

But Canada and the United States are doomed by geography and history to friendship, irritation, cooperation, disputes, and finally, a parallelism of outlook.

As our interdependence grows in the economic field, it is inevitable that attempts to maintain the separate identities (which is also becoming a problem for us, Allan, not only for you) will take occasionally more strict forms on both sides of the border. And we have to be mature enough to understand this.

We have a number of problems that we shall be discussing tomorrow and I suppose we can't afford to settle them all, because it would undermine both of our domestic positions if we made it look too easy. [Laughter.]

3

(And besides, I haven't read the book yet, and there is
one dispute about the Maritime Frontiers which passes my
comprehension, but I will make one other attempt at it
tonight, and if not, I will turn it over to our Legal
Counsel.) [Laughter.]

But when we go beyond these disputes which
form the headlines of today and which, however, always
get settled eventually in a mutually satisfactory manner
then we realize that there is a whole range of fundamental
issues on which our common approaches are of the greatest
consequence.

We have been partners in NATO, and in the
Air Defense of North America, for so long that it is taken
for granted.

We meet at so many international conferences.

We have lately, both of us, become increasingly
conscious of the North-South dialogue and I would like to
take this occasion to pay tribute to the distinguished Co-
Chairmanship of our guest in the Conference for International
Economic Cooperation that is taking place in Paris, and
threatens to break out into a brawl on almost any moment.
And if it hasn't -- and I see Fred Dent is smiling at me --

4

[y]

it is not due to the cooperation of our economic agencies
[Laughter] but to a large extent due to the Chairmanship
of our Guest.

North-South dialogue is essential if we are
going to build a world in which the majority of nations
have a sense of participation and it isn't a question of
who can prevail in any test of strength because of course
we can prevail -- for a time -- and maybe even for a long
time -- in any test of strength. But precisely because
military conflicts become more and more unthinkable. We
do not want to doom the globe to a world in which the
majority of nations feel they have no sense of participation.
It is a role in which Canada can be particularly effective
because, though an ally of the United States, its scale is
such that it does not threaten to overwhelm many of the
other participants in this conference.

And so there are many issues -- the Law of the
Seas -- Nonproliferation -- which will determine the shape
of the future, in which for the first time mankind can
establish an international regimen for three-quarters of
the Earth's surface in the case of the Law of the Seas --
and where perhaps for the last time mankind has an oppor-
tunity to prevent the spread of the weapons which could

5

destroy us all in the case of Nonproliferation.

On all of these issues we cooperate closely
and with great confidence, and this is what must always
be kept in mind when, as neighbors with a long common
frontier, with interdependent economies, we inevitably
grate on each other with this or that problem. Neither
of us can seek identity at the expense of the other, but
both of us are more effective if we do not try to submerge
the identity of the other.

When I was in Ottawa last year, I pointed out
that our relationship is now so normal that we no longer
have to refer to it as "special." And I discovered a
strange ambivalence in my Canadian hosts who, for a long
time had complained about the special relationship and
then were a little bit uneasy about having it announced as
ended.

But it is not my destiny, as I have abundantly
proved, to please everybody. [Laughter.]

In any event, there really isn't a good
adjective to describe the relationship of two countries
with so many interconnections, with such a basic
confidence, whose governments cooperate so closely that

6

it is a big headline if there is an occasional disagreement.

Allan, it is a pleasure to welcome you here.

I appreciate that you took time out from your vacation
to come here and I know that our talks will be fruitful
and cordial, as always.

I would like to ask you all to join me in a toast
to the lasting friendship of the United States and Canada
and to our Guest.

[FROM THE ASSEMBLY]: Hear hear.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Mr. Foreign Minister.

[Applause.]

[Continued on page 7.]

7

SECRETARY MacBACHEN: Mr. Secretary and
Distinguished Guests:

I know that it was a sacrifice for Henry to forego the proceedings in Kansas City, to remain in Washington to receive me (and I believe he has a good sense of perspective in making that decision.)

I want to tell him that it is a great sacrifice for me to be here, because I had to leave Cape Breton in order to have this further occasion to meet with you, Henry. And in fact, when you had first suggested that we have this meeting, the thought crossed my mind that it might be a good thing if we met in Cape Breton. And of course that idea, like so many other good ideas, didn't see a proper light because it got into the hands of my officials. [Laughter.]

In any event, one of my aides today suggested that I might refer to Cape Breton because he thought very few in the audience would know where Cape Breton was -- that I should go on to explain that Cape Breton was in that part of the Atlantic to which the rest of Canada was attached [Laughter] and he thought that was a joke. (Well, it shows the strange sense of humor that develops

8

within bureaucracies, because to me, it was a statement
of fact. [Laughter.]

I must say that, having listened to your
analysis of the relationships between Canada and the
United States, as they exist at the present time, I am
almost tempted to cease making any further comments because
my thoughts are quite along the same lines as yours
and they will be really in the way of seconding the
sentiments that you have put forward, and in underlining
in a sense what I perceive to be our common understanding
as to the nature of that relationship.

As you mentioned, we have met very, very frequently
-- not only within the boundaries of our own countries but
at international conferences that we have attended.
In each of these meetings we have had very constructive
discussions.

Because of the nature of the relationship that
exists between our two countries and because of the
atmosphere that always surround these particular discussions
undoubtedly the atmosphere is always cordial, always frank,
and always in the way of expressing opinions freely and
candidly.

9

And I think that there is a tendency at times to attach a certain amount of sentimentality to that kind of statement but, nevertheless, it is a worthy fact to mention, and quite relevant to the continued conduct of our relations.

At the present time in a world still struggling to rise above the confines, the imperatives and sometimes the abuses of national sovereignty, we remain two nation states of unequal power -- each with its own defined interests and objectives -- most of which you have mentioned correspond but which at times are in conflict.

It is also true that as a nation trying firmly yet responsibly, to chart the direction of our own national development, Canada has taken and probably will take in the future, a number of initiatives which are not directed against but which affect most our closest friends in the United States.

There is a balance to be struck here between cooperation in mutual endeavor and the building of one's own national strength from within. A new balance is not always easy to achieve, but responsible Canadians agree that its achievement is a realistic and worthy goal.

10

Of course, depending on one's perspective of change, I suspect that Canada's efforts to seek a new balance can be misconstrued. Perhaps this accounts for the conclusion of some observers that Canada - U.S. relations are somehow moving out of phase in certain areas, or that Canadian actions are chipping away at the traditional harmony between the two countries.

I don't think, from what you have said, Henry, I don't think you believe these assessments objectively describe Canada - U.S.A. relations. Rather, it seems to me they reflect different perceptions of how Canadian - United States relations should evolve. As a result of these differences in perceptions, Americans and Canadians are holding up our respective actions to a different light.

However, as a people who this year are celebrating the bicentennial of your revolutionary experience, and who are reaffirming the ideals with which you have shaped your own nation, I am confident that Americans, above all our friends, can respect and appreciate why Canadians are concerned to give due attention to our own evolving national priorities.

It does not seem warranted to take the position

11

that our bilateral relations are somehow less successful
because of Canada's efforts to achieve national goals which
you as Americans take for granted. Moreover (and this really
goes without saying) it is unrealistic to conclude that
Canada would acquiesce in what it regarded as a decline in
its relations with the United States.

The active assertion of national will in both
nations requires that we acknowledge the legitimate aspir-
ations and interests of the other, that we recognize the
changes that are taking place in Canada and the United States,
and that we take into account the fundamental desire of
Canadians and Americans that our relationship, at bedrock,
be mutually beneficial.

Against this background, I think that we are just
beginning a long but orderly process which will involve a
reasonable and constructive readjustment in our relations,
in which each of us grows more aware of the other's proper
concerns.

As you have mentioned, Mr. Secretary, we begin
with the advantages of a longstanding friendship and a
substantial degree of common interest. Canadians are
the first to recognize the contribution to peace and world

[y]

12

betterment which United States' international leadership
represents, and you know as well as I do that the
Canadian Government, through the Prime Minister, has
expressed to the President from time to time our desire
that the United States fulfill the role of leadership in
the world that no other country, in our mind, can take up
in the same way as the United States.

And I think that as you shoulder your burdens
of world leadership, you will agree that there are many
ways in which Canada does assist and can assist, in
shouldering that burden.

You have underlined the many areas in which we
cooperate internationally.

We do have bilateral problems and that will be
the nature of our relationship in the future because of
the dynamic interaction that will continue to be in play
between our two countries; and for us, and for you I believe,
there is an advantage in having as a partner and a neighbor
a country like Canada that is capable of asserting its own
identity and its own destiny -- that is more valuable to
you in your role than any other possible attitude that
Canada could adopt, or any other role it could see for itself.

[y]

13

So I, when I come to Washington, or when I visit with you, I always take an extremely positive attitude about the relationship, about the opportunities that it represents for resolving problems bilaterally -- but also the opportunities it represents for cooperation in the world as a whole.

And you have mentioned a number of these:

The Law of the Sea Conference is a splendid example where in so many areas the Canadian and American Delegations are working very constructively -- where we consult on a frequent basis and where we attempt, together, to work out problems not only that will affect us, but will affect the world at large. That is but one.

Another one you mentioned was the Conference on International Economic Cooperation. That is but the second. There are many others.

So that I support that particular analysis that you have given us and I look forward to the discussions we will have tomorrow as a further opportunity to achieve these goals we have in common on a global basis, in which you take, obviously, a leading role --

J. J.

And also in attempting to establish the continuity
of our dialogue and the continuity of our ability to resolve
our bilateral problems.

Well that speech, Henry, was a bit longer than
I had planned for but I thought because of the comments you
made, that I ought to take advantage of the opportunity to
speak along the lines I did.

May I thank you, once again, for your hospitality
and thank you for sending your wife, Nancy, to the Olympics.
[Laughter.]

I was sorry that Henry didn't make it, but I
could hardly feel aggrieved when Nancy came as a replacement.
[Laughter.]

To the friendship between us, to you, Henry,
and to Nancy.

[Applause.]

[The assembly withdrew from the dining room.]

INTERVIEW OF EDWIN NEWMAN OF NBC
AND THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER

SECRETARY OF STATE

AUGUST 19, 1976

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Secretary, before the Helms nomination, we got this far and I asked you about the 'morality in foreign policy' plank which was incorporated in the platform at the urging of the Reagan forces. You said you would not interpret it as an attack on you.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: That's correct.

MR. NEWMAN: Or an attack on your policy. But the plank said that the Republican goal of foreign policy, or one of the goals, would be to merit the restored confidence of the American people. Now, to restore confidence suggests that the confidence is not there, or otherwise it would not have to be restored. How can that not be criticism of you and the policy you espouse?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The first thing to keep in mind is that the foreign policy is a foreign policy of the President. The Secretary of State serves the President.

MR. NEWMAN: I'll modify the question. Is it an attack on the foreign policy, a criticism of the foreign policy of the Ford Administration?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I read this part of the plank to mean that there is concern as a result of events of the last four years -- about the general relationship of the public to the government. And in that sense, this is the way I interpret this. In any event, I didn't draft that part of the platform. So I'm not the expert on what every word in it means.

MR. NEWMAN: Well, the Reagan people didn't leave much doubt about what they meant. "We are firmly committed to a foreign policy in which secret agreements hidden from our people will have no part," will have no part. Objections to the Helsinki Agreement. Those agreements are --

SECRETARY KISSINGER: But you see, there are a number of misconceptions here. If the nature of negotiations -- throughout history the negotiations themselves very often have to be conducted in secrecy because if you let the process of negotiations become public, then the positions of the parties harden. On the other hand, the agreements themselves invariably are made public and are submitted to the Senate in one form or another. So I cannot find that this applies to any particular actions that have been taken.

-2-

MR. NEWMAN: Do you find that this flies, then, Mr. Secretary?
"Ours will be a foreign policy which recognizes that in
international negotiations, we must make no undue concessions;
that in pursuing detente, we must not grant unilateral favors
with only the hope of getting future favors in return."

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I hate to say -- I have to say that we have not made unilateral concessions. We have given no undue favors. And the whole essence of foreign policy is that you base your actions on reciprocity.

MR. NEWMAN: Well is it the case, then, Mr. Secretary, that this
entire convention, having accepted this plank, this amendment,
is laboring under a misconception?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: They're not laboring under a misconception.
Obviously the platform describes what will happen in the future
and therefore it has to be expressed in a future sense. It
doesn't mean that it has not also happened in the past.

MR. NEWMAN: This is a matter of how you read it.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: But, you see, I did not participate in the
platform drafting -- deliberately, because I thought that the
Secretary of State conducts a foreign policy of the American
people, not of a particular party as such. The tactical
questions of how to phrase it -- I answered substantive questions
as they arose, but I did not go into the details of the drafting.
And this is something that has to unite various elements of the
party and has to express a consensus. Feelings ran deeply
between the Reagan and Ford people, but they came together.
And the question now is how they will conduct themselves in
the future.

MR. NEWMAN: Looking ahead, then, Mr. Secretary, do you expect to
be an issue in the election campaign?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Well, I would think that I personally
become an issue -- I would doubt. It's inevitable that in
foreign policy there be different points of view, but we
have to recognize that the foreign policy of the United States
represents permanent interests, permanent values, and there
really isn't all that much margin for change between the parties
and between four-year periods.

MR. NEWMAN: I think John Chancellor has something he would like
to ask you, Mr. Secretary.

MR. CHANCELLOR: I'm sorry to intrude, Ed. How are you,
Mr. Secretary?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Fine. How are you?

-3-

**MR. CHANCELLOR:** I'd like to ask you about your own personal future. The BOSTON GLOBE says -- I'm sure you are aware of this story -- that you are negotiating for an advance on a book about you career. Is that true?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It is absolutely untrue. It is totally inappropriate for a Secretary of State to engage in any negotiations. The position that I have taken is that I will not discuss any such approaches until after I have resigned from office. I am not negotiating an advance on my book, on a book or on anything else. I am not discussing any future plans.

**MR. CHANCELLOR:** How do you feel about your future, sir, after many years of service as the President's Special Assistant and Secretary of State? Is it coming to an end now? How do you feel about it?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, I have stated repeatedly that one serves in order to serve one's nation. After the President is re-elected, then that will be the appropriate time to discuss it. I think during an election campaign, I don't think my own future should be an issue.

**MR. CHANCELLOR:** But you have said you told the President that if you become a political issue --if you, yourself, become a political issue -- that you would tender your resignation. Isn't that true?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The President knows very well that first of all I serve at his pleasure, and secondly, that I will attempt to unite as many elements of the country as is possible. I don't believe, however, that the time to make that decision is in the middle of an election campaign, when many foreign countries are already concerned about what the meaning of it is, to put into it another element of uncertainty about what we will do. It does not seem to me appropriate at this time.

**MR. CHANCELLOR:** From your travels recently, Mr. Secretary, what is it that foreign countries are worried about? What is it that they see happening?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Inevitably foreign countries know the people with whom they have been dealing, and when there is an election campaign they wonder whether it foreshadows a drastic change in American policy -- either by the party in office or by the opposition party. And that is a concern abroad. I tell every foreign leader that the United States must pursue its own interests and its own values and that reasonable people are going to see it substantially the same way.

**MR. NEWMAN:** Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

********

REMARKS WITH THE PRESS BY THE REVEREND JESSE JACKSON
FOLLOWING HIS MEETING WITH SECRETARY KISSINGER
WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 23, 1976

REV. JACKSON: We met slightly over an hour with the Secretary of State on several critical concerns. One was that we want him to take a high profile, moral position against the massacres in South Africa, and to bring to bear moral pressure against that regime. When we were being shot down in the South, there was a federal government to intervene. At this point there is no expression or willingness of this country to intervene on behalf of those who are being massacred. Mr. Kissinger said that within the next few days he would take a very public position in a major speech speaking against the massacre in South Africa. The second one had to do with our appeal to him to seek parole status, refugee status, for those South African opponents of apartheid who request asylum in this country. He indicated that there are certain legal ramifications, but it is being done in Chile and other countries, that he would pursue that immediately. He asked us to submit to him specific names of persons that we knew who were jailed and who sought refugee status, and he would begin to set in motion to make that adjustment.

Thirdly, he said that his prime focus had been on Rhodesia and Namibia, and that there was some evidence that, in concert as it were with the Government of South Africa, that majority rule would emerge in Rhodesia and Namibia. Obviously, if majority rule came in Rhodesia and Namibia, that South Africa would be next. Our indication was that we could appreciate the projection for Rhodesia and Namibia and then South Africa. There is a right now situation in South Africa--that is the horrible massacres -- and that this country with its tremendous economic investment there, more than 350 corporations reaping more than 18% profit, that some other pressures would have to be brought to bear. He said presently they are attempting to negotiate the matter and if those matters fail they would pursue the route of economic sanctions.

A last concern was that we want a delegation of African-Americans to be able to go to South Africa on the private auspices of US Government protection in order to be able to communicate with the black people of South Africa -- those who are imprisoned and those who do not have government status -- just as delegations of Americans were able to go to Vietnam, to South and North Vietnam, so as to bring back an independent point of view. We want to be able to do it in South Africa. We do not believe the news accounts of what is happening in South Africa. They say that thirty were killed, we believe it was perhaps 300. Unless we have some direct access to South Africa, then it makes most of what we hear from there not believable. We requested that the Secretary would reduce the level of official presence in

- 2 -

[L0]

South Africa from an Embassy to a Consulate with a Consul General. It was his feeling that the present level of negotiations would prohibit that particular request. But the notion of seating -- the right of African-Americans to visit Africa to get independent reports, that would be pursued immediately.

Q: In the event that Mr. Kissinger does not follow through, let's say, with the economic sanctions, what then goes next?

REV. JACKSON: First of all, I have to give a background statement. Mr. Kissinger has taken a policy position toward Africa, and now more particularly towards South Africa is the first Secretary of State to have done so. Secondly, by meeting with a delegation of a cross-section of African-American leaders, it is also the first time that this State Department has recognized black Americans as first-class citizens. His meeting with the Urban League, now his major address at the OIC Convention in Philadelphia next week, his meeting with us, and follow-up meetings to this meeting have already been planned. So, secondly, we have reason to believe that he will do that which he will say he will do, and that is he will use negotiations as the first option, and that in fact there are officials from America on route to Africa pursuing the negotiations now. But beyond that, if those negotiations fail, that the economic route will be chosen next. Now, from our point of view, it does not appear -- given the reaction of the Republicans or Democrats -- to be the most political thing to do. It appears that he has chosen the "moral high road" by being willing to confront us in dialogue. We intend to continue to apply pressure until Namibia and Rhodesia and black South Africa is free.

Q: Now, did you give him any timetable as to when he is to stop using the diplomatic route and move to the economic route?

REV. JACKSON: Well, it was very difficult. He used words like "in the very near future", and I think the reason why he did not want to deal with a specific date, for example, that would almost be like a declaration of war which would create a certain kind of pressure factor -- could create a reaction factor.

Second, if you begin to deal with specific timetables with the election coming up November the 2nd, any move made could be construed as purely political, and therefore, that would not be properly in order. We can only say that speeches that he has made shows evidence that he is moving on a "right-now" timetable. Our obligation is to pressure the State Department and to politicize the issue so as to make it even harder, for example, on this matter of Africa -- we expect a Mr. Jimmy Carter and a President Gerald Ford to speak out on this matter. In exchange

- 3 -

for the high visible support that the Jewish people have given
Mr. Carter, he has put on his yarmulka and said he would support
the State of Israel, which is logical and proper. But black
Americans have given him even more support quantitatively and
qualitatively, and we expect for him to put on his robe of respect
for Africa based on our dire concern about the liberties of the
people of South Africa. And the same would apply, of course,
for Mr. Ford of the present regime.

Q: Why was it necessary to meet with the Secretary so soon?
You met with him August third. What was discussed (inaudible)?

REV. JACKSON: Well, since our meeting in August third, two things have occurred: one, we have broadened the base of representatives and persons contacted -- some who could not even make it today. We have begun to mobilize around this nation for a major African, African-American Congress in this country. And certainly the persons who were here today represented a credible basis. So, since that meeting we have broadened the base.

Second is the massacres in South Africa have escalated since we
last met. That is why we are urging him to take a position right
now against the massacres in South Africa. And upon sensitizing
him to it somewhat, he indicated that between now and August the
31st at which time he will speak in Philadelphia at the OIC
Convention, he will take a major position decrying the massacres
in South Africa.

Q: Also, when you spoke to him, did you convey the sense that the people in South Africa are struggling for complete control of the government, not just for equal opportunity and equal rights matters?

REV. JACKSON: Absolutely. I think that the basic position of OAU, the basic position of the persons here, is that we will not support putting black South Africans on reservations in South Africa and then calling that "independence." That would be another form of colonialism, a kind of exile within one's own country -- that black South Africans have a right to all of South Africa. Certainly, that is our position; that was conveyed to him.

Q: Is there any more talk about (inaudible) United Nations
as something outside of Mr. Kissinger --

REV. JACKSON: Well, I do not know specifically of that. But I
do expect that the external political pressures in this country,
both in terms of negotiation and demonstrations and the politicizing
of the African question, will take place within the next month.
We are going exact from public officials who expect our votes some
high profile positions against what is happening in South Africa.

- 4 -

South Africa must finally be brought to the point where it costs too much to engage in apartheid.

Q: Did he say anything about another meeting with Prime Minister Vorster of South Africa?

REV. JACKSON: It is our understanding that such a meeting is in the works; just when, we do not know. And we could not make you privilege to the details of that particular part of the conversation, but we did raise it. There is evidence that such a meeting is immenient.

Q: One last question. Are you willing to involve yourself in helping to develop a lobby -- an active lobby -- of African-Americans to make Africa a political issue and to make it incumbent upon Congressmen and Presidential representatives to make Africa a priority in their voting in Congress?

REV. JACKSON: That is precisely what is happening right now. What you see right now is the formulation of a group that in fact will begun to lobby and broaden the base among African-Americans across this continent at the political level, at the church level, at the business level -- we intend to bring to bear maximum pressure.

Q: Would you head up this group that is going to South Africa should that be negotiated?

REV. JACKSON: I certainly would want to participate in such a group -- or groups, there's no reason why it should be limited to one group -- more than one group was able to go to Viet-Nam. I think that really more than one group should be able to go to South Africa. But we do know now that on the basis of allowing an African-American to go to South Africa is that they have to assume honorary white citizenship. And that would be an insult to us to have to assume in a depravation of our basic principles and our basic persons in order to go to South Africa. That the price that South Africa must pay for relating to America is respect all Americans.

Q: In your one question about what he said the last time to Vorster -- did he say that he was going to make all that public?

REV. JACKSON: I have reason to believe that he will.

Q: Did he say (inaudible)

REV. JACKSON: That's a sensitive area, because we agreed not to get into that in so much detail. And we went into quite a bit of detail about that in the meeting.

Q: What kind of answer did he give you?

REMARKS TO THE PRESS BY SECRETARY KISSINGER
FOLLOWING HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE
THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION

AUGUST 26, 1976

Q: What was the proposal on Sidewinders?

A: Let me make clear first of all that the purpose of this meeting was to brief the committee on my recent trip and where we stand on our African policies. We also discussed some arms sales that will be submitted to Congress probably next week as well as the nuclear export bill which is now before the Congress. We had, I would say, a very constructive and positive spirit. All of this was discussed in that atmosphere. The Sidewinder formula is the issue.

Q: Was there any discussion of Korea, and do you have any explanation of the new apparently moderate attitude of North Korea?

A: I briefed the committee on where we stand in our negotiations with Korea. I think the North Koreans understand that the murder of two Americans cannot be accepted by the United States and that, therefore, we should be certain to develop procedures that give us assurances to prevent this.

Q: What sort of assurances?

A: This is the subject of negotiations.

Q: Is the crisis over in Korea?

A: No, not until the issues have been finally resolved.

Q: How do you account for their new attitude, aside from this realization? Was there any help given us by the Chinese or the Soviet Union?

A: Not that we are aware of. I think they are aware of our determination.

Q: Mr. Secretary, given the role you played in Vietnam, would you have any observation on Jimmy Carter's proposal on a blanket pardon on Vietnam draft evaders?

A: This is a domestic matter and I confine myself to foreign policy.

Q: Could you be more specific on the Sidewinder question? Have you told the committee how many you propose (inaudible)?

-2-

A: I have given the committee the background of the number that we have in mind in the exchange of September. We are going to meet tomorrow, probably tomorrow, with a number of the Senators most concerned to see if we can work out a solution that meets the concerns of both the Executive and the Legislative branch.

Q: Mr. Secretary, we are approaching the anniversary of the Sinai Agreement. Are you satisfied with the way everything has gone, and what steps do you see for the future?

A: No agreement of such complexity is going to have every last provision work to the full satisfaction of everybody. But the agreement has, on the whole, been well observed. I think it has led to a considerable easing of tensions and it has set in motion a process which, if finished, would lead to further significant progress towards peace in the Middle East. It would seem --

Q: Mr. Secretary, when you said before the Korean crisis was not (inaudible) --

A: We can't predict this. There is another negotiating session. There's another session of the Armistice Commission tomorrow and we will there explore, one, the nature of assurances and, secondly, the precise significance of the Korean proposal which was placed on Wednesday.

Q: Will you have by tomorrow (inaudible) --

A: Yes. We will give a specific reaction tomorrow.

Q: (Inaudible)

A: We will continue to insist on assurances for the safety of our personnel and we will indicate means by which that proposal could be implemented, which we believe could be.

Q: In other words, these are our assurances (inaudible) --

A: There are some other aspects which we will take up tomorrow.

Q: Where will the meeting with the Senators be about the Sidewinders?

A: It hasn't been settled yet. It will take place tomorrow afternoon.

-3-

Q: Is it far apart from the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch?

A: We have avoided, in this meeting, getting into haggling about numbers. I explained the background of our position and one or two of the Senators indicated the reasoning that leads them to their views, and we'll all think about each other's statements overnight. I think there's a determination on both sides to settle this in a manner that meets everybody's concerns.

Q: Between 500 and 1000?

A: I don't want to go into it.

Q: Mr. Secretary, what was discussed in regards to southern Africa? You said you briefed the committee on Africa?

A: I briefed the committee on the negotiations going on with respect to southern Africa and what I foresaw might happen in the next few weeks.

Q: What do you foresee happening in the next few weeks over there?

A: It depends on the reports we get from Assistant Secretary Schaufele and Under Secretary Rogers in the next few days. But I've always said that if there is sufficient basis for hope, I would be prepared to meet with Prime Minister Vorster again to continue the process of negotiation.

Q: In Africa, in South Africa?

A: Probably not in South Africa.

Q: Did you discuss any arms sales to Iran and to any other country in the Middle East?

A: We have an understanding with the Congress that there will be no arms sales with respect to Egypt. I put before the committee those items that we will have to submit next week because of the Congressional calendar-- those we consider most likely to be controversial-and explained our reasoning behind them.

Q: Can you tell us now?

A: We will make this clear next week at the conclusion (inaudible) --

-4-

Q: Do you expect any other Middle East peace initiatives
before the elections?

A: That depends on circumstances. I couldn't really comment
at this moment. I think you want to turn this into a
press conference. Mr. Chairman, would you like to say something?

SEN. SPARKMAN: I want to say that we really worked in the
committee today. This morning we had a briefing on the
Aegean situation. We kept Secretary Kissinger here all
afternoon. He's been most helpful in giving us a view of
what the situation is in different parts of the world.
We're very grateful to him for this.

SEN. CASE: I second what the chairman said. The Secretary has
given a very complete (inaudible) --

Q: Thank you.

August 30, 1976

I am particularly grateful to Secretary Coleman for
coming here to introduce me today.

After my experience with the Urban League in Boston
a few weeks ago, it takes real courage to stand beside
me on this platform.

At least it shows that Secretary Coleman feels that
I am "qualified" to speak to this audience.

The Cabinet has functioned with greater harmony -- you
might even say with greater concord -- since Secretary
Coleman joined us, which just goes to show that what we
need are more professors in Government.

I want particularly to express my appreciation to
Rev. Sullivan for asking me to come here today. His
accomplishments at the OIC, both in the United States
and overseas, are nothing short of tremendous. His
pragmatic, get-the-job done determination has increased

- 2 -

the practical opportunities for betterment and
advancement for many, many poor and disadvantaged
individuals here and overseas. His accomplishments
and his leadership have been in the best traditions
of America, and my presence here today is a token of
the great respect and admiration which I personally
have for him.

The Secretary
of State

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[LC]

Speech

August 31, 1976

Philadelphia, Pa.

Office of Media Services

Bureau of Public Affairs

## THE CHALLENGES OF AFRICA

*Secretary Henry A. Kissinger before the Opportunities Industrialization Centers.*

I am proud to speak before this remarkable group that so well embodies the American tradition of humane concern combined with practical action. And I want to add my voice to the tribute you have paid two great Americans in presenting the A. Philip Randolph award to Roy Wilkins. These men have demonstrated vividly the qualities of courage and vision which have built this country and made it a champion of democratic and compassionate principles around the world.

I have come here today to talk about Africa—one of the compelling concerns of our time.

When we read of young African students killed in riots, of guerrilla raids, or refugee camps attacked in reprisal, the reality lies not in the cold statistics that the media report. In Africa it is the death of men, women, and children; it means hopes extinguished and dreams shattered. The grand issues of strategy or the complexity of negotiations are no consolation to innocent, brutalized victims. As long as these conflicts fester, Africans of all races will be caught up in a widening and escalating cycle of violence. Until these wars are ended, Africa faces a future of danger, anguish, and growing risks of foreign intervention.

This is why I will leave on Friday [September 3] to continue discussions on the President's behalf with the Prime Minister of South Africa [Balthazar Vorster]. This trip will be the next step in an intensive diplomatic effort ushered in by my

visit to Africa in April. Under Secretary of State [for Economic Affairs William D.] Rogers and Assistant Secretary [of State for African Affairs William E.] Schaufele have just returned from a mission to Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique, and Zaire where they met with the Presidents of those African nations most affected by events in southern Africa—the third such mission in three months. In close collaboration with Great Britain, a serious effort by this country is now underway. We shall use our power and influence to help resolve the burning conflicts of southern Africa which now sunder Africa's peace, unity, and hopes for progress.

Nearly a third of the world's some 150 sovereign nations are on the continent of Africa. Africa's independence—now barely 20 years old—has transformed the character and scope of international affairs. African nations play a major role in international institutions; their importance to the world economy is growing; the interdependence of Africa and the industrialized world is obvious. Thus conflict in Africa has political, security, and economic implications that reach far beyond the continent itself.

The relationship between the United States and Africa is unique. We were never a colonial power, but America's character and destiny have been permanently shaped by our involvement in a tragic aspect of Africa's past. Twenty-three million black citizens testify to this heritage and all the American people have been profoundly affected by it. In this generation the affirmation of equality

PR 403

2

and black dignity in America has coincided with the assertions of black nationhood in Africa. Both represent a great human struggle for freedom; both compel our support if America's principles are to have meaning.

The United States is the only country which can speak to all sides in southern Africa's current conflicts. We seek no special place for ourselves and thus have an influence that can be important for a peaceful outcome. That position carries with it a great responsibility to promote fair and lasting solutions. Our values, our own self-interest in an Africa that lives in peace and racial harmony, and our abiding commitment to peace and world order permit us no other course.

America's contributions to peace and progress in Africa cannot depend on good will and good intentions alone. Nor can our policy be confined to one continent. Our ability to act effectively in Africa reflects in large measure our standing in the world—our strength, our vision, and our reputation for reliability and steadfastness.

It is with great satisfaction, therefore, that I can tell you that America's foreign relations are prospering and dynamic; that the American people are clearly prepared to do their part in helping shape a better and freer world.

* Today we are at peace for the first time in over a decade. No American is in combat anywhere in the world.

* We have the world's strongest and technologically most advanced military establishment.

* Our relations with our allies in North America, Western Europe, and Japan have never been better. Our close cooperation on a wide range of political and economic issues now reinforces our traditional concern with collective security.

* We have established durable new relations with China, the world's most populous nation. This relationship will hold great significance for global stability and progress as we continue to broaden it in the years to come.

* We are on the road to bringing peace to the Middle East after unprecedented progress in recent years.

* We have reduced the levels of tension with the Soviet Union, resolved some conflicts, and begun to push back the spectre of nuclear war. We have slowed the strategic arms race, and there is

hope that we may soon, for the first time in history, set a firm ceiling on the total number of strategic nuclear weapons of the two major nuclear powers.

* And we have begun a comprehensive and promising dialogue with the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa on fundamental questions of economic equity and progress.

In short, America has come through a decade and more of travail with unmatched strength and resiliency and with a reinforced dedication to the cause of freedom. America with its vast strength remains the hope of the world; America with its optimism and energy remains the tide of the future.

And we ourselves have much at stake. Never before has the well-being of Americans been so affected by events abroad. Our own peace and safety depend on global security; our prosperity at home depends on a flourishing global economy.

Nowhere are contemporary events moving more rapidly than in Africa. Within recent months southern Africa has faced an imminent, seemingly inescapable prospect of widening violence, economic disarray, and a virulent new form of colonialism. The Soviet Union and its Cuban surrogate took upon themselves the right of massive military intervention. Time has been running out fast for negotiated solutions—the only alternative to mounting warfare which could embitter and burden the region for generations to come.

Change has come to Africa with astonishing swiftness. Thirty years ago much of Africa was the dominion of European powers; today we see a continent of 49 independent new nations struggling against time, against the elements, and against the forces of instability to consolidate their nationhood.

Africa seeks to achieve three fundamental goals: self-determination and racial justice in southern Africa; economic development and progress for all of Africa; and the preservation of the continent's unity and integrity against outside interference and great power rivalry.

The pace of change has accelerated in the last two years in every dimension.

* The sudden collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire wrought fundamental changes in

3

southern Africa. The remaining outposts of colonialism were now in an untenable position. But civil war within the liberation movement in Angola, Soviet-Cuban intervention, and the continuing massive Cuban military presence in Angola raised the danger that foreign powers, acting for their own ends, would seek to impose solutions to all the problems of southern Africa.

* New efforts to find negotiated solutions for the racial conflicts in Rhodesia and Namibia failed. The forces for moderation in black Africa risked irrelevance. The peoples of southern Africa were menaced by a mounting spiral of action and reprisal. A course of violence from which no nation was safe had been set in motion.

* Worldwide recession and the sharp rise in oil prices had a drastic impact on the poorest nations, many of them African. Development plans were crippled by the fall of export earnings and by the surge of prices for fuel, fertilizer, and other key imports. New cycles of drought and famine halted economic progress and intensified the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people.

Against this ominous backdrop, President Ford, last April, decided on a new American initiative in support of peace, racial justice, prosperity, and independence for Africa. Our offer of help and constructive influence was strongly encouraged by the leaders of Africa.

With wisdom and flexibility by the parties involved, and with the support of the American people, we have a chance to contribute to a turning point in the history of Africa. We can, if we will, participate in a new birth of independence and racial peace; we can, if we will, help shape a new international dedication to Africa's economic development; and we can, if we will, contribute to an Africa strong and free of the threat of outside intervention.

There is no guarantee that our current diplomatic effort will succeed. It would be naive to suggest that a peaceful solution to issues so surrounded by passions is inevitable. But whatever the immediate outcome, let it never be said that the United States did not exert itself with energy and determination in the cause of peace, freedom, and human dignity at a moment of need and opportunity.

Let me discuss with you what has been achieved and what yet remains to be done.

## Southern Africa

Most urgent has been the mounting racial conflict of southern Africa—in Rhodesia, in Namibia, and in the Republic of South Africa itself.

The white minority regime in Rhodesia, representing only some four percent of the population, is not recognized by a single Government—not even by neighboring South Africa. Its unilateral declaration of independence from Britain in November 1965 is regarded as illegal by every member of the world community. Three U.S. Administrations have supported Britain throughout its long effort to restore its constitutional authority; Britain has been—and remains—committed to grant independence only under conditions of majority rule.

Early this year negotiations between the illegal white minority regime and moderate black nationalist leaders broke down. Guerrilla action intensified; rapidly escalating violence threatened to engulf the region.

While Rhodesia is the most immediately dangerous problem, Namibia is also of urgent concern.

From 1920 South Africa administered the former German colony of South West Africa under a League of Nations mandate. In 1966 the U.N. General Assembly concluded that South Africa was violating important obligations. As a result, the United Nations—with U.S. support—terminated South Africa's mandate. The United Nations assumed direct responsibility for the territory. South Africa, however, stayed on. In 1971 the International Court of Justice concluded that South Africa's occupation was illegal, that it must immediately withdraw, and that no country should recognize, support, or assist South Africa in Namibia. The United States has consistently supported the conclusions of the Court and the resolutions of the Security Council. The latest resolution, unanimously passed last January, calls on South Africa to comply with the Court's conclusions; to declare its acceptance of free elections under U.N. supervision and control; and to respect the rights of Namibians and the responsibility of the United Nations. The Security Council decided to review South Africa's compliance on or before today, August 31, 1976.

4

(c)

Namibia, like Rhodesia, contains the seeds of greater conflict. There, too, time is running out. With thousands of foreign troops north of the Namibian border and with intensifying warfare in Rhodesia, a volatile situation is emerging.

And in South Africa itself, the recent outbreaks of racial violence have underscored the inevitable instability of a system that institutionalizes human inequality in a way repugnant to the world's conscience.

Therefore, in Lusaka, Zambia, in April, on behalf of President Ford I put forward an American initiative which addressed the full sweep of the crisis in southern Africa.

* We promised that we would actively support [British Prime Minister James] Callaghan's proposal for majority rule in Rhodesia in two years or less. We urged the African parties involved to pursue a negotiated settlement in which black and white could coexist and cooperate. We stated our readiness to assist a new Rhodesia-Zimbabwe-to overcome economic dislocations, so that it could effectively take its place in the community of nations.

* We urged South Africa to set a date for Namibian independence and to broaden the political process. In our view all the political groups of Namibia should be permitted to express themselves freely, under U.N. supervision, and to participate in shaping the constitutional and political future of their country.

* And I restated on African soil America's rejection of the principle and practice of apartheid. I called on South Africa to demonstrate its commitment to peace and harmony on the continent by facilitating early solutions in Rhodesia and Namibia.

Unmistakable progress has been made since this American initiative.

* The character of our relationship with black Africa has been transformed. Our dialogue with the nations of black Africa has become close and intensive. Mutual confidence and respect between America and black Africa have grown substantially. We are now seen as active agents in the process toward independence, self-determination, justice, and human dignity in Africa, not as passive observers.

* Since my talks with Prime Minister Vorster in June, South Africa has publicly proclaimed its support for majority rule in Rhodesia—an important step forward.

* In Namibia the Constitutional Conference, organized by South Africa, has recently proposed a date of December 31, 1978, for Namibia's independence, conceding the vital principles of independence and majority rule. The means and processes by which the country moves to independence must still be worked out between the interested parties, but the fact that Namibia will shortly be independent is in itself a major breakthrough.

These significant developments show that progress is possible. But the obstacles to a negotiated settlement remain formidable.

In Rhodesia it is now vital to bring together the leaders of black Africa, the various liberation movements, South Africa, and the Rhodesian regime on a common program. Namibia will not be removed from the world's agenda of crises until a means and a forum are found for working out Namibia's political future on the basis of participation by all authentic groups.

The situation in South Africa continues to be highly volatile; it poses a threat not only of intensified suffering within that country but also to South Africa's ability to assist constructively in solutions for Rhodesia and Namibia.

The task of diplomacy is to find the common ground among the differing objectives of the multitude of nations and groups involved. Our consultations have convinced us that there is common ground. But all parties must overcome the legacy of generations of mistrust; all must keep in mind that the desire to achieve everything at once may frustrate the significant progress which may now be attainable.

We shall be carrying this message:

* The white populations of Rhodesia and Namibia must recognize that majority rule is inevitable. The only issue is what form it will take and how it will come about. Will it be through projected and bloody conflict that will leave a heritage of bitterness and destruction for generations? Or will it come rapidly through the peaceful means which offer hope for a just and cooperative future

5

in which majority rule is coupled with a guarantee of minority rights?

* South Africa has taken positive steps with respect to Rhodesia and Namibia. We hope that it will continue to recognize that now is the time to make a constructive contribution to Africa by committing itself to rapid progress toward independence in Rhodesia and Namibia.

* Black African leaders in the states neighbor-ing Rhodesia and Namibia have perhaps the most difficult challenge. They feel in their hearts the suffering of their brothers; they have themselves experienced the oppression of colonial rule; and they have seen past efforts of settlements fade away. All their instincts are for rapid solutions without the tedious give-and-take of negotiations. And yet violence will only escalate bloodshed and lengthen, rather than shorten, the road to their goal. The wisdom and moderating influence of black African leaders are essential if progress is to be achieved. Their own suffering must have taught that new injustice does not right old injustice. They now have the opportunity to break the vicious cycle of centuries of suffering by seizing this opportunity not for conflict but for reconcilia-tion of the races.

* Black nationalist groups competing for power must bridge their differences if there is to be early progress to majority rule. We will urge them not to jeopardize everything by personal competition for power. Those rivalries are certain to delay—and may even defeat—the realization of what they have fought so long to attain.

A complex process of negotiation is underway on the urgent issues of Rhodesia and Namibia. These issues are related but we recognize that the requirements for solutions in each case are sub-stantially different. If circumstances so indicate, each issue can be dealt with at the pace appropriate to it. Depending on the desires of the many interes-ted parties, we are prepared to deal with each issue on its individual merits.

Most importantly all parties must keep in mind that lost opportunities can be irretrievable; there are now conditions for settling both issues that did not exist previously and may never do so again. It would be ironic, to say the least, after years of struggle, hope, and disappointment if those who have the most to gain should let the

opportunity slip away because of internal disagree-ments.

Public support for this effort will be a major factor in the success and durability of any settle-ment that may eventually emerge. Our goals—to end the suffering and violence of southern Africa, to bring about majority rule and minority rights—reflect what is best in American values. They are a firm foundation for our common commitment; they are not confined to one party or one branch of the Government. They represent an American effort.

South Africa's racial problems are more com-plex. In Lusaka in April I pointed out that South African assistance in bringing about rapid negotia-ted solutions in Rhodesia and Namibia would be viewed positively by the community of nations as well as by the rest of Africa. And I must point out here that since then South Africa's role—with respect to these two problems—has been con-structive.

As for conditions within South Africa itself, the world and most black African leaders recognize South Africa as an African country. Its white settlers have lived on African soil for centuries. No one, including the responsible leaders of black Afri-ca, challenges their right to remain there. Unlike Rhodesia and Namibia, South Africa cannot be regarded as an illegitimate government, as an out-side colonial intrusion.

But South Africa's internal structure is incom-patible with any concept of human dignity. We are deeply saddened by the recent and continuing clashes in black urban townships, universities, and schools throughout South Africa. They are dra-matic evidence of the frustration of black South Africans toward a system which denies them status, equality, and political rights. No system that leads to periodic upheavals and violence can possibly be just or acceptable—nor can it last.

The United States must be true to its own beliefs. We urge South Africa to take account of the conscience of humanity. We will continue to use all our influence to bring about peaceful change, equality of opportunity, and basic human rights in South Africa. Our policy is based upon the premise that within a reasonable period of time we will see a clear evolution toward just internal arrangements. In our talks with the South African Prime Minister, and in our diplomatic efforts, we

6

will impress upon South Africa the need to make
this premise a reality.

Economic Progress

It is economic progress which ultimately will
determine whether Africa can fulfill the aspirations
of its peoples.

You here at this convention know that the
economic dimension is fundamental. You know
full well, as a black Mississippi politician said re-
cently, that "it's no good being able to join the
country club if you haven't got the money to buy
a drink."

And you are taking action.

Africa's development needs are massive, and
your OIC programs strike at their heart: vocational
training to teach the skills that Africa needs to
realize its potential regardless of changing political
circumstances. A mechanic's training or a carpen-
ter's trade can be practiced in the most turbulent
times; political upheavals cannot diminish the
individual's sense of worth which your training
instills. We give you concrete support through the
Agency for International Development and will
continue to do so. But it is your initiative and
energy which has turned that support into some-
thing vital and alive.

Beyond its need for skilled manpower, Afri-
ca's economic aspirations confront a wide range of
other challenges.

Africa is blessed with immense natural wealth.
The ratio of population to resources is as favorable
as that of any region of the developing world.
Agricultural productivity can be vastly improved.

But no continent suffers so cruelly when
crops fail for lack of rain. No continent's natural
economic regions are so fragmented by borders
drawn up—often arbitrarily—in the colonial era.
And no continent bears such a crushing burden of
poverty and illiteracy.

Africa is doubly challenged—by recurrent
economic catastrophes and by the need for long-
term growth. The United States is dealing with the
various dimensions of the task.

* To provide relief from natural disasters, drought, and famine we have, in the past five years, more than quadrupled emergency aid to African nations.

* American trade and investment are crucial for Africa's development. While they are rapidly expanding, they are not enough—especially for the poorest countries. Therefore, we plan to increase development assistance for Africa substantially over the coming years—especially for the least developed countries.

* Because Africa's needs frequently transcend the limits of national boundaries, we are now directing much of our assistance to support regional cooperation—in transportation, agricultural development, health programs, and in collecting information by satellite on crops, weather, water resources, land use, and mineral extraction.

What Africa requires above all else is a strategy for development. For example, the Sahel—the chronically drought-ridden region of the southern edge of the Sahara Desert—has been a major recipient of international relief assistance. The monumental suffering in that area has prompted the generous contributions of many individual Americans, as well as large-scale government relief efforts.

But the disasters which afflict the Sahel come
in recurrent cycles. They are altering the ecology
across central and western Africa; the desert is
steadily encroaching upon once-fertile lands.

The time has come to go beyond periodic
measures of relief and to take comprehensive steps.
To this end the United States, together with an
international group of donor countries, is seeking
to reverse the economic and ecological decline of
the Sahel and lay the foundations for future
growth. We have proposed developing major river
basins to improve water supply; increasing crop
acreage by modern agricultural methods; improving
food storage facilities; and enhancing the transpor-
tation network of the area.

The long-term effort in the Sahel, and others
needed elsewhere in Africa, will require intensified
cooperation among the industrial democracies of
North America, Western Europe, and Japan. This is
why the United States has endorsed the
imaginative proposal of President Giscard of
France for a fund to organize and coordinate
Western assistance efforts for Africa. And we are
seeking within the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development a more general

(c)

7

coordination of development efforts among the
industrial democracies.

Africa is heavily dependent upon the world
economy. No African nation can plan its future
effectively if its income is buffeted by external
economic forces over which it has little or no in-
fluence. The export earnings of many African
economies rely upon global market conditions for
a single commodity. And higher energy prices or
inflation abroad can—as they have—raise to
prohibitive levels the price of imports that Africa
desperately needs.

One year ago [September 1, 1975] at the
Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly, the
United States presented a comprehensive series of
proposals aimed at responding, in a cooperative
spirit, to the needs of the developing countries. We
have followed up these initiatives with major ef-
forts at the Paris Conference on International
Economic Cooperation, at the U.N. Conference on
Trade and Development in Nairobi, and in many
other international institutions. Many of our pro-
posals have been implemented and have had a
direct impact on Africa.

Substantial progress has been made in the past
year in shaping the long-term economic relation-
ship between the nations of the Northern and
Southern Hemispheres. The initiatives which now
form the agenda for discussion are, by and large,
proposals made by the United States. But much
work remains to be done. The United States is
prepared to move forward in areas of great
importance to the nations of Africa.

* We are prepared to address the crushing
balance-of-payments problems and debt burdens
which many poor African nations suffer as a result
of high oil prices, global inflation, and the
recession-related downturn in export earnings.

* We are prepared to join with producers and consumers of key commodities to explore measures to improve and stabilize markets. We are ready to participate in producer-consumer forums in ways that will benefit Africa.

* We will seek satisfactory international arrangements to foster the investment necessary for Africa's growth—arrangements which both respect national sovereignty and assure predictability and fair treatment for foreign investors.

* We have proposed in the multilateral trade negotiations to reduce tariffs for tropical products which are of special interest to Africa.

* We are seeking authorization from Congress to make an initial contribution of $15 million to the African Development Bank's Development Fund in order to foster industrialization.

* And we will make major efforts to stimulate the flow of modern technology to Africa so as to promote growth and diversify economies now excessively dependent on a single commodity.

The United States is committed to work con-
structively with the nations of Africa and with
other developing countries to promote economic
progress and fuller participation in the global eco-
nomic system. But we must be frank to say that
rhetorical assaults and one-sided declarations
undermine the conditions for such cooperation.
They weaken public support for development in
the industrial democracies whose effective and
sustained role is crucial. No other group of coun-
tries—least of all the Socialist countries—is able to
provide the technology, the managerial expertise,
or the resources.

Many of the resolutions of the just concluded
nonaligned conference in Colombo were clearly
anything but nonaligned in content or phraseology.
We reject such one-sided proclamations and warn
that to be effective nonalignment must be true to
its name. It cannot—indeed it will not—be taken
seriously if it becomes nothing more than a rigid
grouping aimed at producing automatic majorities
and rhetorical attacks against the industrial
democracies.

The choice that all nations face is between
cooperation and chaos. America has made its deci-
sion for cooperation. We invite others to join us in
the same spirit.

**African Independence: Precondition for Progress**

Africa's development will be impossible if the
independence and integrity of the continent are
not maintained. Africa must not again become an
arena in which outside powers contest for spheres
of influence.

This is why the United States agreed with the
Presidents of Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania,
and Zambia that non-African nations should not

8

deal directly with the liberation movements of southern Africa—to avoid the divisions and the competition which led to the tragedies of the Angolan civil war. We oppose those who would subject the African people to outside domination. Western colonialism in Africa is dying; it must not now be replaced by a new form of external intervention more insidious because less familiar, which in the end may take generations to root out.

The United States seeks no African bloc of its own, no paramount influence in Africa. We will oppose all those who do. The United States calls on all nations to affirm the principle that Africa's destiny is for Africa to determine. The United States will not import great power conflict into Africa. We will expect others to do the same.

There is no better guarantee against foreign intervention than the determination of African nations to defend their own independence and unity. Let us, therefore, not minimize the importance of the security problems that some African nations face. Economic development is certainly a crucial priority; but by itself it cannot prevent outside pressure or threats to African sovereignty. So let us not accept the facile proposition that black African nations do not have the same need as other nations to defend themselves against recognized dangers—especially when they perceive serious and imminent threats from nearby nations which have been heavily armed by the Soviet Union. We are determined to avoid unnecessary arms races. But when friendly and moderate nations like Kenya or Zaire make modest and responsible requests for assistance to protect themselves against belligerent neighbors possessing substantial quantities of

modern Soviet weapons, we owe them our serious considerations.

## Africa and the World

One fact is clear: A time of change has come again to Africa. Let us all take the opportunity before us to avoid a future of bitterness, escalating war, and foreign intervention. Let us all help a peaceful and prospering and just Africa take its rightful place in the world.

What Africa needs now is not a return to the exploitive or interventionist practices of decades past. Nor does it need exuberant promises and vapid expressions of good will. It requires concrete commitments to progress—political and economic. It requires our readiness to cooperate as sovereign equals on the basis of mutual responsibility and mutual benefit.

In this spirit the United States will do its part. Let there be no mistake: Africa will take its destiny firmly into its own hands, whether we like it or not. It will make its contribution to the world community in its own way, whether we cooperate or not. But the cause of freedom—not only for ourselves but for all mankind—will be vitally affected by the part America plays. We can turn our backs on one of the most massive awakenings of a people in history and in the process desert our principles and help doom a continent to a future of despair.

Or we can, as every generation of Americans before us, make history ours.

I believe Americans will choose the course of hope and heart. And by so doing we will once again have demonstrated the vitality of our values and given the world a "new birth of freedom."

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

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
STA-501

Reverend Sullivan, distinguished guests, friends:

I have come here today to talk about Africa --
one of the compelling concerns of our time.

- 2 -

When we read of young African students killed in
riots, of guerrilla raids, or refugee camps attacked in
reprisal, the reality lies not in the cold statistics that
the media report. In Africa, it is the death of men, women
and children; it means hopes extinguished and dreams
shattered. The grand issues of strategy or the complexity of
negotiations are no consolation to innocent, brutalized
victims. As long as these conflicts fester, Africans of
all races will be caught up in a widening and escalating
cycle of violence. Until these wars are ended, Africa
faces a future of danger, anguish and growing risks of foreign
intervention.

This is why I will leave on Friday to continue dis-
cussions on the President's behalf with the Prime Minister

- 3 -

of South Africa. This trip will be the next step in an
intensive diplomatic effort ushered in by my visit to Africa
in April. Undersecretary of State Rogers and Assistant
Secretary Schaufele have just returned from a mission to
Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique and Zaire where they met with
the Presidents of those African nations most affected by
events in southern Africa -- the third such mission in
three months. In close collaboration with Great Britain,
a serious effort by this country is now underway. We shall use
our power and influence to help resolve the burning conflicts
of southern Africa which now sunder Africa's peace, unity,
and hopes for progress.

Nearly a third of the world's some 150 sovereign nations
are on the continent of Africa. Africa's independence --

- 4 -

now barely twenty years old -- has transformed the character
and scope of international affairs. African nations play a major
role in international institutions; their importance to the
world economy is growing; the interdependence of Africa
and the industrialized world is obvious. Thus conflict
in Africa has political, security and economic implications
that reach far beyond the continent itself.

- 5 -

American people have been profoundly affected by it. In this
generation, the affirmation of equality and black dignity in
America has coincided with the assertions of black nationhood
in Africa. Both represent a great human struggle for freedom;
both compel our support if America's principles are to
have meaning.

The United States is the only country which can
speak to all sides in southern Africa's current conflicts. We
seek no special place for ourselves, and thus have an influence
that can be important for a peaceful outcome. That position carries
with it a great responsibility to promote fair and lasting solutions.

Our values, our own self-interest in an Africa that lives
in peace and racial harmony and our abiding commitment

- 6 -

America's contribution to peace and progress in Africa
cannot depend on goodwill and good intentions alone. Nor
can our policy be confined to one continent. Our ability
to act effectively in Africa reflects in large measure our
standing in the world -- our strength, our vision, and our
reputation for reliability and steadfastness.

-- Today we are at peace for the first time in over

[Lc]

- 7 -

-- We have the world's strongest and technologically
most advanced military establishment.

-- Our relations with our allies in North America,
Western Europe and Japan have never been better.
Our close cooperation on a wide range of political
and economic issues now reinforces our traditional
concern with collective security.

-- We have established durable new relations with
China, the world's most populous nation. This
relationship will hold great significance for global
stability and progress as we continue to broaden it
in the years to come.

- 8 -

-- We are on the road to bringing peace to the Middle
East after unprecedented progress in recent years.

-- We have reduced the levels of tension with the
Soviet Union, resolved some conflicts, and
begun to push back the spectre of nuclear war.
We have slowed the strategic arms race, and
there is hope that we may soon, for the first
time in history, set a firm ceiling on the total
number of strategic nuclear weapons of the two major
nuclear powers.

-- And we have begun a comprehensive and promising
dialogue with the nations of Latin America, Asia,
and Africa on fundamental questions of economic
equity and progress.

- 9 -

In short, America has come through a decade and more of travail with unmatched strength and resiliency, and with a reinforced dedication to the cause of freedom. America with its vast strength remains the hope of the world; America with its optimism and energy remains the tide of the future.

-10-

economic disarray and a virulent new form of colonialism.

The Soviet Union and its Cuban surrogate took upon themselves
the right of massive military intervention. Time has been
running out fast for negotiated solutions -- the only alternative
to mounting warfare which could embitter and burden the
region for generations to come.

Thirty years ago, much of Africa was the dominion of
European powers; today we see a continent of forty-nine
independent new nations struggling against time, against the
elements, and against the forces of instability, to
consolidate their nationhood.

- 11 -

Africa seeks to achieve three fundamental goals;
self-determination and racial justice in southern Africa;
economic development and progress for all of Africa; and the
preservation of the continent's unity and integrity against
outside interference and great-power rivalry.

- 12 -

-- The sudden collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire wrought fundamental changes in southern Africa. The remaining outposts of colonialism were now in an untenable position. But civil war within the liberation movement in Angola, Soviet-Cuban intervention, and the continuing massive Cuban military presence in Angola, raised the danger that foreign powers acting for their own ends would seek to impose solutions to all the problems of southern Africa.

-- New efforts to find negotiated solutions for the racial conflicts in Rhodesia and Namibia failed. The forces for moderation in black Africa risked

- 13 -

-- Worldwide recession and the sharp rise in oil prices had a drastic impact on the poorest nations, many of them African. Development plans were crippled by the fall of export earnings and by the surge of prices for fuel, fertilizer, and other key imports. New cycles of drought and famine halted economic progress and intensified the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people.

- 14 -

peace, racial justice, prosperity and independence for Africa. Our offer of help and constructive influence was strongly encouraged by the leaders of Africa.

With wisdom and flexibility by the parties involved, and with the support of the American people we have a chance to contribute to a turning point in the history of Africa. We can, if we will, participate in a new birth of independence and racial peace; we can, if we will, help shape a new international dedication to Africa's economic development; and we can, if we will, contribute to an Africa strong and free of the threat of outside intervention.

- 15 -

But whatever the immediate outcome, let it never be said that
the United States did not exert itself with energy and determination
in the cause of peace, freedom and human dignity at a moment of
need and opportunity.

Let me discuss with you what has been achieved, and
what yet remains to be done.

## Southern Africa

Most urgent has been the mounting racial conflict of
southern Africa -- in Rhodesia, in Namibia, and in the
Republic of South Africa itself.

The white minority regime in Rhodesia, representing
only some four percent of the population, is not recognized
by a single government -- not even by neighboring South Africa.

- 16 -

Its unilateral declaration of independence from Britain in
November 1965 is regarded as illegal by every member of
the world community. Three United States Administrations have
supported Britain throughout its long effort to restore its
constitutional authority; Britain has been -- and remains --
committed to grant independence only under conditions of
majority rule.

Early this year, negotiations between the illegal
white minority regime and moderate black nationalist leaders
broke down. Guerrilla action intensified; rapidly escalating
violence threatened to engulf the region.

-17-

From 1920, South Africa administered the former
German colony of South West Africa under a League of
Nations mandate. In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly
concluded that South Africa was violating important
obligations. As a result, the United Nations, with United
States support, terminated South Africa's mandate. The
United Nations assumed direct responsibility for the territory.
South Africa, however, stayed on. In 1971 the International Court
of Justice concluded that South Africa's occupation was
illegal, that it must immediately withdraw, and that no country
should recognize, support or assist South Africa in Namibia. The
United States has consistently supported the conclusions of
the Court and the resolutions of the Security Council. The