Ernane Galveas - Financial Director

Aracruz Celulose

Hélio Beltrão - President (Ex Planning Minister)

Grupo Ultra

Paulo D. Villares - President

Industrias Villares

Manoel do Valle e Silva - Responsible for Funding Abroad

Cia. Vale do Rio Doce

Augusto Trajano de Azevedo Antunes - President

ICOME- Ind. e Com. de Minério S.A.

Paulo Eduardo Tassano Sigaud - Financial Director

Telecomunicações Brasileiras S.A. - TELEBRAS

João Pedro Reinhard - Financial Director

Dow Química S.A.

Francisco Sanches - Director (Member of the Executive Board)

Banco Brasileiro de Descontos S.A. - BRADESCO

Floriano Peçanha dos Santos - President

Hipocampo Empreendimentos e Participações S.A.

Mario Campanella - President (Advisory Council of Garantia)

Comercio Importação e Exportação 3 Irmãos Ltda.

Hilton Van der Linden - Financial Director

Caixa de Previdencia dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil

Luiz Lemos Leite - Head of the Dept. within the Central Bank responsible for all financial institutions

Banco Central do Brasil

Mario Gustavo Basbaum - President

LOBRAS - Lojas Brasileiras

Sergio de Andrade Carvalho - President (Member of the Advisory Council of Garantia)

Ancar

Sergio Lins de Andrade - Director (Principal Shareholder)

Construtora Andrade Gutierrez

Antonio Galloti - President

Cia. Brascan Administração e Investimentos Ltda.

Pierre Pequer - President

Industrias Químicas Eletrocloro S.A.

124

BUSINESS: FINANCE

THE ECONOMIST JUNE 17, 1978

land Bank. When Midland raised £96m in January this year it sensibly chose the more conventional route of a rights issue.

Standard Chartered

## State of the Union

Standard Chartered's $372m agreed bid for California-based Union Bancorp is the biggest incursion yet by a foreign bank into America. It tops the recent $300m bid by National Westminster for 75% of the New York-based National Bank of North America and the $200m offered by Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation in April for 51% of Marine Midland of New York.

Standard Chartered, London-based and headed by the former British chancellor of the exchequer Lord Barber, already has a bank in California with $478m of assets, a branch in New York with a $350m portfolio and smaller branches in Chicago and Seattle. If the deal goes through, it will become the 30th largest bank in America and the largest foreign bank.

Approval is still needed from the American banking authorities, but Union Bancorp's shareholders will hardly turn down an offer of $33 a share in cash,

against net assets of around $17 and a pre-bid market price of under $15. Standard Chartered is paying a high price—20 times last year's earnings and including around $170m of goodwill. Union's profit record is patchy. It has lost heavily on construction and real estate lending over the past four years, and has had to make over $70m of bad debt provisions. The return on total assets was just 0.42% in 1977, somewhat lower than the average for other big Californian banks and poor by comparison with Standard Chartered's own return of 0.7% in California.

Standard Chartered is also putting a lot of eggs in its Californian basket. It is buying a bank roughly one-third its size for the equivalent of 60% of its own equity funds. In future, one quarter of group income will come from the United States, most of that from California.

It has two objectives: to reduce its dependence on vulnerable areas like South Africa and to establish a dollar base in order to fund its international business more cheaply and more securely. Standard Chartered was formed eight years ago by the merger of two old British colonial banks, Standard Bank, with its roots in Africa, and Chartered Bank, with its roots in Asia. Since then, it has been working hard to build up an international clientele. International, as opposed

to local currency business now accounts for around $5 billion or one-quarter of total business. But South Africa still represents about 23% of total profits and Standard Chartered does not like having to fund its international loans with relatively expensive, potentially volatile "offshore" dollars, raised in the Euro markets and other financial centres, like Singapore and Bahrain.

For two years Standard Chartered has been chasing investment opportunities in America. It has already made one abortive takeover bid, for BanCal Tri-State in California. Morgan Stanley is advising it on the Union Bancorp deal, too—"but don't hold that against them", says Standard Chartered.

Union is recovering from the worst of its bad debt problems, and its dependence on construction and property loans has been reduced to just over 25% of total lending. Earnings are already heading for the $25m mark this year and there is scope to boost them further by expanding the $2 billion loan book to make fuller use of the $3.9 billion of available deposits, instead of investing so heavily in relatively unprofitable government paper. A 70% lending ratio is regarded as conservative by most banks, so Union could easily lend out another $700m or $800m, especially as Standard Chartered

## What Henry's got that Wall Street wants

New York

The Dave and Henry show in Sweden

Old politicians never die, they just become merchant bankers. Where millionaire financiers used to cap a commercial career with service in the treasury, the commerce department or even the White House, the trade is now the other way. International monetary policy and politics are now so complex and interwined—and old politicians are so much younger—that Wall Street wants the best advice it can get.

It began with Mr Henry ("Joe") Fowler, who was the first treasury secretary to join a merchant bank. As chairman of Goldman Sachs International, his high-level contacts with the French government were invaluable in attracting the $1 billion commercial paper business of Electricité de France, the largest issuer in the world.

Mr William Simon, who went to the treasury from Salomon Brothers, has come full circle to Wall Street as consultant to Blyth Eastman Dillon. Mr Peter Peterson, the erstwhile commerce secretary, is now a partner in Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, as is Mr George Ball, formerly of the state department. Lazard Frères has Mr Frank Zarb, the former federal energy administrator, on the payroll, while Goldman Sachs be-

came the new home of Mr Andrew Brimmer when he left the Federal Reserve Board.

Goldman Sachs, indeed, makes a speciality of providing desks for ex-politicians. Its biggest coup was to engage Mr Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, for a highly classified salary after a year's negotiations. It is supposed to have his services for only about three days a month but keeps him as mobile as Mr Nixon did. He was the star attraction at a recent luncheon in London, where Goldman Sachs was wooing the heads of the largest British companies and the decision-makers in the nationalised industries, who are flirting with raising money in the American capital markets. He has also spoken in Paris and Houston and later this month may represent Goldman Sachs in Brazil.

Goldman Sachs would like his services full-time, but has to share them with NBC and his memoirs. Through his close friendship with Mr David Rockefeller, Chase Manhattan also has a claim on his time. Mr Kissinger is chairman of Chase's international advisory committee, which met recently in Sweden.

Some people are happy for him to carry on travelling. He is supposed to be

feeling his way in merchant banking, but he learns fast. On his second day of training at Goldman Sachs, managing partner Mr John Whitehead asked him how he was faring. "One more day", replied Mr Kissinger, "and then I'll be ready—for your job".

Your Excellency Prof. Henry Kissinger.

Welcome to the University of the State of Rio de
Janeiro which takes pleasure at the opportunity of awarding you
the Doctor Honoris Causa degree in the recognition — not the less
timely or worthy for being so widely acknowledged — of your
extraordinary contribution for the peaceful coexistence among
the people of the world.

Even though the theme of peace occupies the very
center of your intellectual concerns, ever since your 1957
monograph on Castlereagh and Metternich, it is nothewise true
that these concerns are not circumscribed to the academic milieu.

As a consultant to Government at a time you were
leaving your imprint as professor at Harvard you were later, as
Secretary of State during a critical period in international
politics, the main force behind the effort of bringing our two
worlds closer together. This was accomplished through the
unswerving, lucid and pragmatic action of diplomatic negotiations,
which effort was publicly recognized in the award of the 1973
Nobel Peace Prize.

Your relinquishing of government functions has not
signaled an end to your constant presence in the Councils to which
you belong, in the cultural and scientific activities which engage
your attention and, above all, as Citizen of the World, in the
informal marshalling of efforts for the high level understandings
which guide and accentuate tendencies in mankind.

As recipient of the highest order academic degree,
the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, through my office,
wishes to extend a welcome to the eminent professor, to the man
of thought and of action, to the exceptional public servant, to
the ever watchful champion for the construction of harmony and
peace among nations and people.

The University of the State of Rio de Janeiro has been very parsimonious in granting titles of *Doctor Honoris Causa*. Few have been awarded and they therefore merit much prestige. We now have the prospect of paying tribute to a great personality, an eminent university professor, one of the greatest statesmen of our times, a citizen of the world, who is Henry Kissinger.

It would be idle to lengthen this tribute with the overwhelming succession of his titles. Man of Peace (Nobel Prize, 1973), a supreme speaker, endowed with a privileged culture, to whom the world owes a series of lessons in patience and success in the game of international politics, calming ambitions and disagreements in favour of maintaining an atmosphere of harmony and understanding, in spite of inevitable ideological conflicts. Within this scope, the bringing together of the East and West was the highest point attained with all the repercussions known. His great effort should also be recalled towards diminishing the state of aggression in the Middle East, flying frequently to the capitals of the crisis area, in an incessant and almost victorious search for a fair and lasting peace between fraternal nations.

Also for Henry Kissinger, Advisor, Councillor and Secretary of State of the world's greatest power, the synonym of peace has always been development. If it is possible to achieve progress and, consequently happiness, why seek the solution for all problems in war?

For him, peace should be based always on a balance of forces and on mutual hopes.

However, the aspect which should be emphasized in Henry Kissinger's personality, is his confirmed vocation as a social scientist, as a university man. A Professor at Harvard since 1947, where he was sought to carry out his public activities brilliantly, Kissinger has trained disciples who afterwards became statesmen in their own countries, spreading knowledge and guidance in the chairs of *History*, *Government* and *International Politics*.

Kissinger founded and directed the Harvard International Seminar in 1951, when he was still engaged in post-graduate studies until 1969, when he left the University to serve the Nixon administration. It may be recalled that in 1950, when he graduated from Harvard, "suma cum laude", he became a consultant to the Operational Research Office. In 1952, he received his post-graduate degree, with a thesis on Hegel, Spengler and Toynbee.

2.

If today there is more harmony in the world and
if peace has ceased to be an unattainable aspiration, how much
should be credited to the immense work of this man of our times,
of this enlightened teacher, this inspired writer, this statesman
who is admired and respected by all the world's nations?

With the natural warmth of Brazilians and the
acknowledged spirit of justice which guides our choices, we can
understand as being fully justified the suggestion made by Rector
Caio Tacito of granting the title of *Doctor Honoris Causa* by the
University of the State of Rio de Janeiro to Professor and
Diplomat Henry Kissinger. We are sure that this is not his most
important distinction, but it is certainly the greatest we can
offer him with all the strength of our feelings of gratitude and
recognition.

University Council, June 23rd 1978

(s) Arnaldo Niskier
Reporteur

- 1 -

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my views on the proposed treaties with Panama which are before you. Over a period of years I participated in the negotiations and have given much thought to the question of how we can best assure in the decades ahead our interest in the free, neutral, and efficient operation of the Panama Canal.

You have already heard from the Secretaries of State and Defense from Ambassadors Bunker and Linowitz, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other officials of the Administration. You have had an opportunity to assess the detailed provisions and background of the two new treaties and the Administration's reasons for urging that the Senate advise and consent to ratification. In supporting ratification I want to address not the detailed clauses of the agreement but some fundamental issues raised by the treaties.

Our nation's foreign policy must be based on a conception of enduring national goals and permanent responsibilities, not on the accidents of personality or change for the sake of novelty with the advent of each new Presidential Administration. The future wellbeing and security of this country can never be a partisan issue. They affect every American, and, given our central role, every human being concerned with the preservation and strengthening of the cause of freedom.

Our substantial stake in the Panama Canal is a case in point. The United States has a vital interest in the free, neutral, and efficient operation of the Canal. This interest cannot be compromised; we cannot foresee the day when it will be inconsequential.

Up to now this interest has been identified with the precise treaty relationship we established in 1903 under vastly different circumstances. But four successive Presidents and their Secretaries of State, representing both political parties, have been persuaded over a period of thirteen years that a new treaty relationship with Panama is more likely to serve the long-term security and foreign policy of the United States; above all that it would best assure what is the essence of our interest: the efficiency, neutrality, accessibility, and security of the Canal. All four Presidents come to the view that the Treaty of 1903 no longer adequately assures that interest. The present arrangements include provisions which are no longer essential and which could over time actually make protection of our vital interests more difficult by forcing us into actions increasingly in conflict with our traditional allies in the Western Hemisphere.

- 2 -

It is my conviction that the two treaties recently negotiated with Panama do indeed protect our long-term interest in the Canal more effectively and under conditions more in keeping with present-day realities than is possible under the 1903 Treaty.

We must recognize that however we in the United States may view that Treaty, the rest of the world and especially the nations of the Western Hemisphere do not regard it as an equitable and freely negotiated agreement. It was reached in ambiguous circumstances and no Panamanian ever signed it. Some even question its legality. To insist on these arrangements would mean that over time we would be compelled to fall back on the use of force as the ultimate basis for our presence. This we should be prepared to do when our vital interests can be defended in no other way. But this is not the case here because the treaties give us a clear, and on balance a better, alternative.

Under the terms of the new Panama Canal Treaty, nothing of real significance to us in the existing arrangement for management and defense of the Canal will change during the remainder of this century. The United States will continue to control operation of the Canal; United States military forces will continue to provide for defense of the Canal from within Panamanian territory. At the same time, the new treaty arrangement establishes a cooperative working relationship with Panama which will enhance our ability to ensure the Canal's security and efficient operation, provide for an orderly transition, and increase Panama's stake in the long-term secure and neutral operation of the Canal.

After the year 2000, when management of the Canal passes to Panama, Article IV of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal will become controlling. The Neutrality Treaty not only establishes the legal obligation of both Panama and the United States to maintain a permanently neutral Canal, it also defines neutrality clearly in terms of concrete standards for the operation of the Canal which both parties are pledged to maintain. Article IV makes the United States a guarantor of that permanent neutrality. It thus gives the United States the continuing right, unilaterally if necessary, to defend the Canal and its operation against threats to the neutrality of the Canal -- and thus, the ability to defend the Canal for the indefinite future. And this same regime of neutrality, and our right and responsibility to underwrite it, will apply as well to any other international waterway that might be built in Panama in the future.

(lc)

- 3 -

Furthermore, under Article V of the Neutrality Treaty, Panama would relinquish the right to invite or accept foreign military forces or foreign military installations anywhere in the Republic. This would bar Panama from engaging in an alliance with any other power in a way which involved the presence of military personnel on its soil. By the same token, Panama's breach of that commitment would entitle and oblige the United States to take appropriate action to ensure the Canal's neutrality.

We would not, in short, have a general right of "inter-vention" in Panama's internal and domestic affairs. Nor would we want such a right. But we have under the new treaties the right and obligation to take such action as is required to ensure that the Canal remain permanently neutral -- free of the threat of foreign military presence and forever open to the ocean-borne commerce of the world on a non-discriminatory basis.

The new treaties will establish a far stronger legal underpinning and political environment for the protection of our interests in the Canal while retaining all the essentials of assuring the Canal's security. Their ratification is thus an opportunity to advance fundamental American foreign policy interests. Their rejection, on the other hand, would be read by the nations of the Hemisphere as a demonstration that this nation stands on force as the final arbiter even when a constructive alternative is available. Such a course would be unnecessarily costly to many other of our interests, particularly to the solidarity and alliance of the Western Hemisphere nations that has been central to our foreign policy for generations. And I am convinced that we shall not again be given the opportunity to safeguard and advance our interests on terms as favorable as those which have just been negotiated. The moment when we are clearly strong enough to defend our rights in the Canal and while the Canal is free of immediate threat and menace provides the best opportunity to preempt a potential crisis and to secure the future of the Canal on mutually beneficial terms.

Let me turn now to some of the concerns and questions that have been raised with respect to the new treaties.

First, some have asked what would happen if Panama were to abrogate the treaties. There is no question that this is a possibility. But it must be viewed against the near-certainty that the 1903 Treaty will not be accepted any longer either by Panama or by the other nations of the Hemisphere. The question therefore is which arrangement puts us in the best legal, political, and military position to protect our rights and interests if we are forced to do so by the unilateral action of Panama. I believe that the new treaties will significantly *reduce* the risks of abrogation, and will also create far better conditions in which we could defend our rights if abrogation should occur.

- 4 -

By establishing a relationship of shared responsibility and benefit, the new treaties make Panama a partner in a successful Canal enterprise. They increase Panama's stake in safeguarding the vital interests we wish to assure -- a free, open, safe, and well-run Canal. The new arrangement accords with the reality that consent and cooperative endeavor are the only bases for secure operation of a canal which is located within Panamanian territory and even now is run by a predominantly Panamanian labor force. But if, despite everything, we have to act to defend the Canal, we would be in a far stronger position to do so in the name of a 1977 treaty freely negotiated and signed in the presence of the heads of government of most of the Western Hemisphere nations than in the name of an agreement concluded seventy five years ago and which every Latin American nation in every recent meeting of the Organization of American States has repeatedly urged us to replace.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of ratification is in fact its impact on cooperative Western Hemisphere relationships. Our decisions on these treaties will testify to them whether or not we are willing to resolve disputes with them on the basis of negotiation. This does not mean that ratification of the treaties will resolve all differences between us and our neighbors to the south. Our capacity for cooperation, understanding, and imagination will be tested in this Hemisphere long after the Panama issue is resolved and for as far into the future as one can see. There will be many who do not wish us well in the area even if we ratify the treaties. But failure to ratify will provide hostile forces with a permanent issue of incalculable value around which to rally and encourage a vast new tide of anti-American sentiment and make it politically impossible for our friends to rally to our side.

I find it significant that no Hemisphere leader, regardless of what his private feelings on this issue might be, feels able publicly to take any position other than that of strongest support for the modernization of the 1903 Treaty. This reflects the depth of public sentiment on the issue. No government and no public opinion in any of the countries of this Hemisphere would be willing to support us if we now refuse to modernize the Canal relationship. We would witness a gradual deterioration of our relationships even when some leaders might prefer to retain constructive ties. If the treaties are accepted, on the other hand, our many friends in the Hemisphere will be enabled to cooperate in the development of a constructive Western Hemisphere policy.

- 5 -

Another question which has been raised is whether the
neutral status of the Canal would mean that hostile
warships could transit the Canal and, in effect, benefit
from US protection. I can only comment that the United
States has and must continue to have at its disposal other
means to defend its vital security interests in any such
situation. The United States must have the capacity to
control the sea lanes; hence we must be able to prevent
hostile ships from reaching the Canal. If we do not
maintain that capability, we are in a parlous condition
indeed and the provisions of a legal document will be
precious little help.

I recognize the deep feeling of many Americans who
wish, after the Vietnam tragedy, to see an end to yielding
and retreat by the United States. No one can appreciate
such concerns better than one who strove for an honorable
outcome during the Vietnam period. But the Canal is not
the issue to select to demonstrate that we remain strong
and resolute. Panama is the smallest and weakest of
nations. We are not "giving" the Canal to Panama;
we are, rather, ensuring our ability to protect it. By
taking constructive action now to revise our relationship
with Panama in an atmosphere free of physical pressure,
while we are still able objectively to assess the long-term
risks and benefits, we will be demonstrating fundamental
strength, not weakness. It is just this ability to distinguish
between symbol and reality, to plan for future needs and to
take timely action to advance our basic interests that
is the essence of a strong and effective world policy.

Firmness in the defense of essential national interests
is vital. But a nation assures its international position
by understanding and defining clearly what its interests
are and taking the precise appropriate and necessary action
to safeguard those interests. Unreasoning adherence to the
status quo has never been the mark of an effective and
vigorous foreign policy.

We have demonstrated ourselves capable of meeting the
challenge of the unprecedented on many occasions in the
past. At the end of World War II, we embarked on a number
of new initiatives -- the Marshall Plan, the North Atlantic
Treaty, Point Four, to cite a few -- that constituted a
dramatic change from the course we had followed in the past.
We did so because we realized that the new circumstances
of the post-war era required new responses -- that we could
not assure the security and prosperity of our nation by
adhering to the isolationist policies of the past. To cling
to outmoded approaches was to allow ourselves to be overwhelmed
by future events.

-6-

And there are many more recent examples of constructive response to changing world conditions. The efforts to control the arms race, the opening of relations with China, our efforts to modernize the institutions of international economic cooperation are cases in point. In each case, we did not hesitate to modify old policies and arrangements when we felt that our national interest would only be preserved by doing so.

The new Panama Canal treaties should be viewed in the same light. They mark a step forward, an improvement over the present situation. They present you and the people of this country with an opportunity to modernize an outdated arrangement that has itself come to threaten the very interests it was designed to protect.

Beyond the immediate issue with which they deal, these treaties represent the most important and serious international undertaking formally submitted to the Congress by the Administration of President Carter. Thus you have a doubly grave responsibility: a rejection of the treaties would not only cause a crisis in our relations with the nations of the Western Hemisphere; it would in addition weaken the President's national authority at the beginning of his term. It would thus be a demonstration of national weakness, which would be taken by friend and enemy alike as evidence that we are systemically incapable of recognizing and pursuing our international objectives because of domestic division, doubt and conflict. This would be all the more so because we have every reason to consider that the new treaties in fact advance our interests and are seen as such throughout the world.

In supporting both the concept of a new treaty arrangement and the essential structure of what has been negotiated I do not mean to imply that the Senate's role in the ratification process should be that of a mere rubber stamp. On the contrary I believe that the Senate can and should make a constructive contribution clearing up ambiguities in the current texts and assuring the American people that our vital interests are indeed being safeguarded.

My support of the treaties is based on my reading of two key provisions -- a reading which coincides with the Administrations's interpretation:

- First is our right to "maintain the regime of neutrality" under Article IV of the Neutrality Treaty, and

-7-

-- Second is the meaning of our right to "expeditious transit" under Article VI of the Neutrality Treaty.

With respect to our right to defend the Canal, I concur in the Administration's interpretation that we have the right and obligation to act, if necessary unilaterally, to defend the Canal's neutrality. It is unfortunate that the word "intervention" has been injected into the debate to characterize that right; this word conveys implications with respect to interference in the domestic affairs of Panama that we neither need nor claim, and which are provocative throughout Latin America. With respect to expeditious passage, I consider that it must mean "priority passage" in wartime and speediest possible passage at all times.

The fact remains that these interpretations have been drawn into question -- partly by ambiguous statements of Panamanian officials understandably concerned with their own ratification process and subject to attacks, which are the mirror image of the opposition in this country, that they have yielded too much to the US. Ambiguity is, of course, the essence of diplomacy; it often permits each side to maintain its domestic position while safeguarding essential international interests. I have resorted to it in negotiations on several occasions.

I have never considered ambiguity of language acceptable, however, if it masked a true difference of interpretation. Whatever the words of an international instrument may say, it is vital in my experience that both sides share the same understanding of the intent of that instrument. In this particular case, ambiguity or lack of public understanding could sow the seeds of future crisis if in fact the parties are not of a single view as to the central provisions of the treaties.

I believe, therefore, that the Senate can play its constructive role by explicitly and formally endorsing the interpretation of Article IV that has been put forward by the President and the Secretary of State: that the new treaty confers upon the United States the right and obligation unilaterally to defend neutrality of access to the Canal, and to defend the Canal itself should that ever become necessary. I see no need at this juncture to renegotiate the treaties. Nor do I favor a Senate reservation which implies a split between the Congress and the Executive on a matter which calls for national unity.

-8-

The Senate interpretation should be reduced to
formal and explicit language with the Senate's advice that
it be submitted by the Administration as an integral part
of the instrument of ratification either by protocol or
some other method which would ensure that it becomes the
authoritative and mutually acceptable explanation. Another
way of dealing with the interpretation would be an agreed
minute between Panama and the United States which would
then be endorsed by the Senate as part of the ratification
process. Either course would ensure that there could be no
question or ambiguity in the future.

The same procedures could be followed with respect
to the meaning of "expeditious transit." Either the Senate
or an agreed minute with Panama should state that in time
of war United States naval ships and auxiliaries should be
given priority passage and at all times the speediest passage
possible. In either case the full Senate should approve the
interpretations by a two-thirds majority.

I wish to express my strong hope that these steps be
taken in harmony and cooperation with and not in repudiation
of the Administration. They are fully consistent with the
Administration's interpretation. They reflect our necessities;
they take nothing away from Panama's dignity. The ability
of the two branches of government to work out a constructive
solution to this problem is a great service they could render
to America's position of continued leadership in the world.
I can think of no event more reassuring to our friends and
allies around the world than the positive resolution of this
difficult debate in cooperation between the Congress and the
President after all the divisions of the last ten years.

This is now the real issue of the Panama Canal treaties
and their ultimate significance. I am confident that states-
manship on the part of all concerned will bring this debate
to its proper, positive conclusion. For thirty years this
country has borne a vital responsibility for international
security, for the health of the world economy, and for the
cause of human freedom. To fulfill this historic role we
must be a united people; Congress and the President, Republicans
and Democrats, must all have the sense that we are engaged in
a shared enterprise. It is in this spirit that the Panama
Canal treaties must be considered, and it is in this spirit
that I respectfully urge their ratification.

The Secretary
of State

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Statement

June 17, 1976

Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

LATIN AMERICA, EUROPE, AND AFRICA

Secretary Henry A. Kissinger before the House Int-
ternational Relations Committee.

I am happy to be able to report to this com-
mittee on our foreign policy with regard to three
important areas which I have recently visited—
in America, Western Europe, and Africa.

I believe that our relations with Latin Ameri-
ca and with Western Europe are stronger and more
promising than they have been in a decade. In
Africa we have responded to a dangerously dete-
riorating situation with a policy that offers hope
for southern Africa to undergo peaceful change
with justice without submitting to external in-
tervention, and opportunities for progress in the
rest of Africa without following radical doctrines.

Let me take up with you our policy toward
each of these areas.

Latin America

In March I reported to you on the vast
changes evident to me during my trip to Latin
America in February. These changes are opening
the way to a new constructive relationship between
the United States and Latin America. The quality
of that relationship was evident at the meeting of
the Organization of American States [OAS] Gen-
eral Assembly in Santiago, from which I have just
returned. The atmosphere—of mutual respect and
received common interest—was better at the 1976
S General Assembly than at any other inter-
American meeting I have ever attended.

Ours is a special relationship in this hemi-
sphere. The unique experience we share in the
Americas—the finding and opening of new conti-
nents, the forging of nations free from colonial
domination, the shared human and moral princi-
ples of the New World—creates special ties for the
United States and Latin America.

As in all families there are periods of creativi-
ty and times of stress. Ours is no exception. The
United States has passed through a variety of
phases in its relationship to Latin America. Not all
have been productive in recent years. Sometimes
when we were active, when we attempted to orga-
nize massive transfers of resources to meet Latin
American development needs directly, we were
seen as attempting to dominate the hemisphere.
When our policies were otherwise, when we were
less involved in Latin American problems and more
inclined to let Latin American nations work out
their own solutions alone, we were looked upon as
neglecting our obligations.

The 1930's, the 1940's, and even the 1950's
were decades in which this nation indulged in the
pretense of tutelage. In the 1960's the Alliance for
Progress rallied the energies and enthusiasms of
people throughout the Americas to the develop-
ment effort. But by 1969 its promises had begun
to fade. Thus even as Latin America began to
realize its own maturity and experience a period of
massive growth, and with it greater self-respect, the
United States moved into a period of lower profile,
which we maintained until the inauguration of the
new dialogue in 1974.

PR 306

2

That period drew to a close with the meeting at Tlatelolco, in Mexico, in which we began a process of dialogue with the hemisphere once again. At the outset, admittedly, the dialogue had a character of inquiring into what the United States could do for Latin America. But it became obvious that, as a result of the major changes and considerable progress in Latin America during the 1960's and early 1970's, we were now able to deal with the major nations of Latin America with a new mutuality of respect and equality of sovereignty quite impossible 20 years ago or even 10.

In the last two years we have built steadily on this new relationship. We have taken advantage of it to put forward new initiatives, in the political and the economic area, which we could not have considered a decade or more ago. The culmination of this new policy effort was the meeting at Santiago last week.

The constructive attitude in Santiago and the remarkably good tone to our relationships throughout the hemisphere are attributable in great part to three factors:

* The United States, since the inauguration of the new dialogue early in 1974, is again active as an equal partner in inter-American councils;

* We have a coherent policy that addresses the entire catalogue of hemispheric issues; and

* We have a vision of the future of our relationship.

It is that, I believe, which has reassured Latin America that the political relationship with the United States—the basic solidarity of the Western Hemisphere—is again increasingly vital.

With our political and moral relationship once again sound, we have a basis for cooperation with Latin America in the area of most pressing concern—that of economic development. The countries of Latin America are among the most developed of the developing nations, and have been growing rapidly. Latin America has quintupled its collective gross product since 1950. At this rate, in 10 years Latin America will have attained the economic strength which Europe had in 1960. Its economies, furthermore, are increasingly important in world commodity, mineral, and energy markets and in trade in manufactured goods. Success in the struggle for development of the poorer countries of

the world, when it comes, will come first in America. For this reason we must focus our attention and our energies there.

To address the changing nature of our relationship with Latin America and to deal with the expanding range of our common concerns, I set forth in Latin America last February six elements of our policy. I said the United States would:

* Take special cognizance of the distinctive requirements of the more industrialized economies of Latin America and of the region as a whole, in the context of our efforts to help shape a more equitable international order;

* Assist directly the neediest nations in the hemisphere afflicted by poverty and natural disaster;

* Support Latin American regional and subregional efforts to organize for cooperation and integration;

* Negotiate on the basis of parity and dignity our specific differences with each and every state, to solve problems before they become conflicts;

* Enforce our commitment to collective stability and to maintain regional integrity against attempts to undermine solidarity, threaten independence, or export violence; and

* Work to modernize the inter-American system to respond to the needs of our times and give direction to our common action.

Since February, in furtherance of these objectives, the United States has introduced trade, investment, and technology proposals of special relevance to this hemisphere at the Conference on International Economic Cooperation [CIEC] in Paris and at the fourth U.N. Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD IV] in Nairobi. We responded to the efforts of the Guatemalan people to recover from the earthquake that devastated their land. We have provided fresh support to subregional cooperation in Central America and are exploring ways of relating more effectively to the Andean Pact. And at last week's General Assembly of the Organization of American States at Santiago we advanced our common interests in three important areas: cooperation for development; reform of the inter-American system; and human rights.

To speed cooperation for development in America, we stressed three major topics for

(L)

3

on: commodities, trade, and technology.

The economic aspirations of most countries in Latin America depend upon stable conditions for the production and marketing of primary commodities. At Santiago we proposed a three-point program designed to: improve regional consultations on commodities markets; derive greater hemispheric benefits from global commodity arrangements; and improve resource financing, either on a global or regional basis.

To expand trade opportunities and capabilities we offered proposals to help developing nations expand and diversify exports of manufactured and semiprocessed goods; promote the hemisphere's trade position through the Geneva negotiations; and support needed regional and subregional economic integration.

And we proposed a number of new ideas to stimulate the development, acquisition, and utilization of technology in the modernization of the hemisphere.

To improve the inter-American system, we circulated proposals—the most far-reaching the United States has ever put forward—which would simplify the organization by strengthening the foreign ministers' meetings in the periodic General Assemblies; eliminate the standing councils; open the OAS to wider membership in the hemisphere, particularly the new states of the Caribbean; and increase the Latins' share of the budget. Such steps, we believe, could lead to a leaner, more flexible and responsive organization which could better promote the mutual security, economic progress, and human rights of the Americas.

And on the centrally important issue of human rights, I addressed the special responsibility of our nations to preserve, cherish, and defend fundamental human values—for if such values cannot be preserved, cherished, and defended in this hemisphere, where the rights and the promise of the individual have played such a historic role, then they are in jeopardy everywhere. At Santiago, the United States reaffirmed our unequivocal commitment to the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. We endorsed the reports presented there by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission: its annual report which cites the rise of violence and terror in many nations of Latin America; its report on Chile; and its report, submitted too late for official consideration by the

OAS Assembly, concerning the inhuman treatment of political prisoners in Cuba and the refusal of Cuba to cooperate with the Commission.

The United States emphasized our belief that the protection of human rights in the hemisphere is an obligation of every nation and not simply of particular nations whose practices have come to public attention or whose ideology, on whichever side of the political spectrum, is unpopular. The contrast between the respective treatment of the human rights commission's work by the Governments of Chile and Cuba demonstrates the importance of this principle. The Government of Chile cooperated with the Commission; the Government of Cuba did not. The Government of Chile did nothing to prevent widespread publication in that country of information about the Commission's report and about the OAS discussion of the issue. Needless to say, there has been nothing comparable in the government-controlled media in Cuba. Most important, the Commission noted a quantitative improvement in the situation in Chile since its last report.

For these reasons, I believe we can best enhance the prospects for further human rights progress in Chile by continuing a balanced policy by working in the area of human rights and by assisting that government to meet the economic problems before it. We have made it clear to the Government of Chile that the condition of human rights in that country impairs our relationship. Actions which would further undermine our relationship could eliminate the practical possibilities for betterment of economic conditions.

Mr. Chairman, our efforts in Latin America over the past several months have considerably advanced our practical progress and provided a firm foundation of policy for the years ahead. We have moved into a new phase of profound interest, active initiatives, and comprehensive proposals for altering the inter-American relationship, a phase which is more compatible with the new cooperative spirit in the hemisphere. We have come to the end of a critical era and are marking the beginning of a new one. The United States can now deal with Latin America in a new spirit. We need not hold back on major initiatives for fear of inspiring old notions of paternalism. With consultation and cooperation, our hopes of meeting the challenges of economic and social progress in an age of inter-

4

dependence, and of building a sound and beneficial relationship between developed and developing nations, are brightest and most promising here in this hemisphere.

Let me turn briefly now to Europe.

## Europe

In late May I attended the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] Ministers' meeting in Oslo and held a series of meetings with European leaders.

I do not need to rehearse at length to this committee why the countries of Western Europe are important to the United States and to all our international endeavors. Throughout the postwar period we have recognized that the security of Western Europe is inseparable from our own. Our economies are inextricably linked; we have had repeated demonstrations that economic performance on one side of the Atlantic will in time affect both. Most of all, these are the peoples who share our most fundamental cultural and political heritage and its values, and they share our vision of the kind of world we want to live in.

While cooperating in a defensive alliance which for durability and vitality is probably unique in the history of sovereign states, the Atlantic nations also have been coordinating efforts gradually to improve relations with regimes in Eastern Europe whose values and aims are very different from our own. We have recognized from the outset that this difficult undertaking could only proceed from a basis of Western strength and cohesion.

Now with the growth of Soviet military power; with a proliferation of potentially explosive regional tensions; with the emergence of new power centers based on control of vital economic resources; with growing demands for redistribution of the world's wealth; and with common economic and social problems ahead, it is more important than ever that our consultations with our closest allies be constant and our cooperation constant. This does not mean that the Atlantic states will see all problems in identical ways or always adopt identical policies. It does mean that only by understanding one another's interests and perspectives can we maintain that essential harmony in our policies which will enable us to deal constructively both with the Communist world and with the demands of the developing states.

Three years ago the United States called reaffirmation of European-American solidarity. We believed that it was imperative to reaffirm the central place of Western unity in all that we were about to do.

Over the course of these last few years I believe that the West has achieved an extraordinary cohesion and resolve. It is a sign of strength that doctrinal disputes over redefining our relationship or the modes of our consultation have given way to concerted attacks on the actual problems before us. Economic, security, and political issues have crowded upon us, and we have responded together in the solidarity displayed by the Western countries:

* In the declaration at the NATO summit in May 1975;

* In improving cooperation on defense issues;

* In unified positions before and during the Helsinki summit in July 1975;

* In the Vienna negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions;

* In continuing allied consultations on SA

* In intensified political consultations in fusing to bow to the temptation of protectionism in trade;

* In the network of common energy institutions created rapidly in response to the challenge of the oil cartel;

* In the Rambouillet economic summit of last November; and

* In the continuing series of multilateral negotiations with the developing countries in both new and old international forums.

At the NATO meeting last month there was firm agreement that our common security rests on the foundation of Western solidarity and strength, and that continuing defense efforts will be necessary to counter Soviet assertiveness and induce restraint in Soviet behavior. There was broad agreement that efforts to seek stability and improvements in East-West relations should continue, but that such efforts too must be based on a clear foundation of military strength and resolve. I was, in addition, struck by the growing appreciation among all NATO members that military, economic, and political developments around the globe can have the most direct impact on the security and

5

Closperity of the North Atlantic states.

At the May meeting we discussed and found
basic agreement on a wide range of issues: the im-
portance of peaceful evolution in Africa; the cen-
trality of our commitment to the security of
Europe; the importance we attach to implementa-
tion of the Helsinki final act; the need for close
consultations on Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
[SALT]; the necessity to continue efforts toward
mutual and balanced force reductions; the situa-
tion in the Mediterranean; the high-level attention
we should give to the question of military stand-
ardization; and most important, our continuing
commitment to shared values, the basic cement
that has held our alliance together for nearly 30
years.

My bilateral visits to Norway, the Federal Re-
public of Germany, Sweden, and Luxembourg, and
the London meeting of the Central Treaty Organi-
zation [CENTO] Foreign Ministers considerably
furthered, I believe, the process of strengthened
ties between America and Western Europe. In Nor-
way we discussed that country's growing role as a
major oil producer and the importance of close
consultations on the complicated question of inter-
national exploitation of the considerable resources
of the Svalbard, or Spitsbergen, Archipelago.

In Germany we reaffirmed our shared views
on East-West relations and the need to approach
this subject from a foundation of strength. I be-
lieve that U.S.-German relations have never been
better.

Swedish-American relations over the past
decade have not always been friendly. While we
cannot hope to wholly reconcile all our different
perspectives, I believe that our talks helped each
side better understand the conditions under which
the other must conduct its foreign policy. Our rela-
tions with Sweden have improved significantly over
the past year, and I expressed the hope in Stock-
holm that this process will continue.

The importance and prestige of Luxembourg
in Europe far exceed its size. My discussions with
Prime Minister Thorn dealt primarily with interna-
tional issues, on which I found it valuable to hear
the views of an ally that presents a European point
of view in an impartial, effective manner. And at
CENTO I conveyed our continued support for the
alliance and for peace and stability in the treaty
region.

Today Europe's role on global issues is strong and effective. Europe's interest in the Far East, in the Middle East, and in Africa is growing and welcome to us. Prime Minister Callaghan's initiatives for a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia based on majority rule, President Giscard's proposal for a Western fund for coordinated assistance to African economic development, and Chancellor Schmidt's initiatives in the economic field are examples of creative European statesmanship which the United States welcomes and respects. We gain, and the world gains, from Europe's counsel and long experience in a global framework.

At the NATO meeting in Oslo we took up
issues of security; next week I will return to
Europe to attend the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development [OECD] meeting
where we will work to strengthen cooperation
among the industrialized countries of the West and
on our approach to the developing nations.

In a few days' time, President Ford will meet
at Puerto Rico with his colleagues, the heads of
government of Britain, Canada, France, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Italy, and Japan, in what is
now becoming a regular process of economic dis-
cussions at the highest political level. These meet-
ings are symbolic of how far we have come in the
last few years in consolidating cooperation among
the industrial democracies and extending it into
new spheres of common endeavor. They also
demonstrate the understanding we share that the
complexities of modern global management require
above all a determined effort by our governments
to prove that we have the ability to meet new chal-
lenges.

This kind of cooperation is the cornerstone of
American foreign policy. It has been so for 30
years. It will continue to be so.

Africa

Finally, let me discuss briefly what we are
trying to do in our African policy.

Our aims are:

* To avoid a race war which would have inevitably tragic consequences for all concerned;

* To do all we can to prevent foreign intervention in what must remain an African problem;

* To promote peaceful cooperation among the communities in southern Africa; and

6

* To prevent the radicalization of Africa.

In 1974 President Ford ordered a review of our policy toward Africa. As part of this effort I announced one year ago that I would visit Africa in the spring of 1976. Last September I set forth the fundamental elements of our policy toward Africa to members of the Organization of African Unity assembled in New York for the United Nations.

I said then that America had three major concerns:

* That the African continent be free of great-power rivalry or conflict;

* That all of the continent should have the right of self-determination; and

* That Africa attain prosperity for its people and become a strong participant in the global economic order—an economic partner with a growing stake in the international system.

Late last year the situation in Africa took on a new and serious dimension. For the first time since the colonial era was largely brought to an end in the early 1960's, external interventions had begun to control and direct an essentially African problem.

In the hope of halting a dangerously escalating situation in Angola, we undertook—until halted by the impact of our domestic debate—a wide range of diplomatic and other activity pointing toward a cessation of foreign intervention and a negotiated African solution.

By the first months of this year Soviet-Cuban intervention had contributed to an increasingly dangerous situation turning the political evolution away from African aspirations and toward great-power confrontation.

* The Soviets and Cubans had imposed their solution on Angola. Their forces were entrenched there. The danger was real that African states seeing the Soviet and Cuban presence on the scene might be driven in a radical direction.

* With the end of the Portuguese era in Africa, pressure was building on Rhodesia, regarded by Africans as the last major vestige of colonialism. Events in Angola encouraged radicals to press for a military solution in Rhodesia.

* With radical influence on the rise, and with immense outside military strength apparently behind the radicals, even moderate and responsible African leaders—firm proponents of peaceful change—began to conclude there was no alternative but to embrace the cause of violence. By March of this year, guerrilla actions took on ever larger dimensions.

* We saw ahead the prospect of war, fed and perhaps conducted by outside forces; we were concerned about a continent politically embittered and economically estranged from the West; and we saw ahead a process of radicalization which would place severe strains on our allies in Europe and Japan.

* There was no prospect of successfully shaping events in the absence of positive programs of our own for Africa.

It was for these reasons that President Ford determined that an African trip which had long been planned as part of an unfolding process of policy development had a compelling focus and urgency. We had these aims:

* To provide moderate African leaders with an enlightened alternative to the grim prospects so rapidly taking shape before them—prospects which threatened African unity and independence, indicated growing violence, and widening economic distress;

* To work for a solution that would permit all of the communities in Africa, black or white, to coexist on the basis of justice and dignity;

* To give friendly and moderate African governments the perception that their aspirations could be achieved without resort to massive violence or bloodshed; and that their hopes for prosperity and opportunity can best be realized through association with the West; and

* To promote solutions based on majority rule and minority rights which would enable diverse communities to live side by side.

In short we sought to show that there was a moderate and peaceful road open to fulfill African aspirations and that America could be counted to cooperate constructively in the attainment of these objectives.

7

My trip addressed the three major issues facing Africa: Whether the urgent problems of southern Africa will be solved by negotiation or by war; whether Africa's economic development will take place on the basis of self-respect and open opportunity, or through perpetual relief or the radical regimentation of societies; and whether the course of African unity and self-determination will once again be distorted by massive extracontinental interference.

I believe that the 10-point policy we set forth in Lusaka, Zambia, in late April and the other proposals we made in Africa to enhance self-sustaining economic growth make up a platform which moderate Africans can support and which serves interests we share—for peace, justice, and progress and for an Africa free from outside interests:

* The possibility for a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia and Namibia has been enhanced. Time is running out and formidable barriers remain. But if continued responsible efforts are made by all parties, the burning questions of southern Africa still must be solved without immense loss of life, suffering, and bitterness and with giving each community an opportunity for a dignified life.

* African hopes for independence and the integrity of their continent have been raised. Big-power intervention can only undermine unity, set African against African and heighten the risk of conflict. Our policy on this clearly accords with African concerns as reflected in the suspicion and apprehension with which influential African leaders have regarded the large Cuban presence in Angola. We may now be seeing the results of that concern, and our clear position, as we receive an

increasing number of reports that Cuban troops may begin to leave. However, we do not yet have clear evidence that this process is underway in any meaningful fashion. We will be carefully watching the pace and extent of any Cuban withdrawals.

* Our African policy is thus an important element in our overall international effort to help build a structure of relations which fosters peace, widening prosperity, and fundamental human dignity.

Mr. Chairman, Africa is of immense size, strategically located, with governments of substantial significance in numbers and growing influence in the councils of the world. The interdependence of America and our allies with Africa is increasingly obvious. In the past months we have seen a major international crisis develop in this important area of the world and we have moved to deal with it. We have taken the initiative to offer a peaceful road to the future. We have told much of the world that America continues to have a positive vision and will play a crucial and responsible role in the world.

I believe that our policy initiatives were necessary; that they can be effective; that they are beneficial to the interests of the United States; and I believe that they are right.

But the new beginning in our African policy will require dedication and effort on our part if it is to come to a positive fruition. The Administration is determined to follow through on our initiatives and the promising beginnings that have been made. We look to the Congress for encouragement and for active support in this crucial enterprise.

The Secretary
of State

Speech

June 11, 1976

Mexico City

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO:
INDEPENDENCE AND INTERDEPENDENCE

Secretary Henry A. Kissinger at a dinner in honor of President Luis Echeverria.

I want to begin by saying that it gives me the latest satisfaction to be able tonight to reciprocate to my Mexican friends a small measure of the hospitality which this great and beautiful country has so warmly extended to me on so many occasions in the past. I spent my honeymoon here; I have deep professional and personal ties to Mexico.

I have never come to this land without sensing deeply both the glory of Mexico's ancient past and its dynamism today—the thousands of years of civilization that culminated in the panorama of splendor that so awed the first conquistadors and, now, the vibrant course of modern Mexico, whose struggle for political and economic independence, dignity, and social justice has won for it the admiration of the community of nations, as well as a growing role of leadership in international affairs.

The impact which Mexico is making on our interdependent world, as all of us here know, is attributable in large part to the boundless energy and broad vision of President Luis Echeverria. He is an inspirational leader. I have had the privilege of working with him for nearly six years. He will be remembered in history for his great contributions to peace, progress, and justice.

Tonight I want to discuss two great tasks which are deep and permanent concerns of our two

nations. Both bear the personal mark of President Echeverria:

* The global challenge of helping to construct a new and peaceful international order offering justice and prosperity to all peoples; and

* The state of the special, indeed unique, bond between the United States and Mexico.

The United States respects and values Mexico's role on the world scene. We also cherish our close historical, practical, and personal ties as neighbors. There is no conflict between these realities. Indeed they offer our two nations a precious advantage as we approach together the great issues of our time.

Mexico and the United States are independent and self-confident nations. We are mature enough to encounter the trials of our era without crises of identity and without allowing differences permanently to divide us. We are serious enough to disagree without rancor; creative enough to cooperate without threatening each other's independence. In this we are truly at the frontiers of Western civilization. As North American nations we are irrevocably linked by geography, history, interest, and principle. We need sign no documents to insure our kinship of thought and action as free and friendly peoples. We have a relationship all the more special for being unwritten.

PR 301-A

2

## Global Challenge of Peace, Prosperity, Justice

History has presented this generation with two great and unique challenges: The imperative of peace in the nuclear age; and the need to give purpose to peace by helping to shape a new structure of international relations that speaks to the positive aspirations of all peoples. Every nation has a stake in, and a responsibility for, the problem of global peace. Each has its special circumstances and its special role.

The United States, uniquely among the free nations of the world, bears a heavy responsibility to maintain the balance of stability upon which world peace depends. This is why we are committed to oppose the forces of intimidation and oppression whenever they threaten the global equilibrium. But we know, as Mexico knows, that peace is tenuous and progress is fragile without a curb, and eventually an end, to the arms race. This is why we have embarked on the difficult and complex negotiations to limit strategic arms-to reduce these arms and to ease the economic burden of the arms race.

Mexico, whose voice is heard by all the major groupings of the world's nations, also bears a responsibility for peace. Mexico has been among the staunchest proponents of disarmament and the use of national resources for development rather than the accumulation of arms. Mexico was the leader in negotiating the Treaty of Tlatelolco establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in Latin America. And Mexico has raised its voice in support of the dignity, security, and self-determination of nations threatened by external intervention.

But the ultimate purpose of nations is to look beyond a peace that rests exclusively on a precarious balance of power to a new era of international economic cooperation. We must offer our children the hope of a better future by mastering the great economic and social challenge of building a new, equitable, and productive relationship among all nations, and particularly those of North and South.

The problem of economic development is not merely a technical, but a profoundly political and moral, issue. It is not possible to build a world community which is divided between the rich and the poor. If we are to live in a world of peace and justice, all nations must have the consciousness

that the world community listens to their concerns.

This is why we attach such importance to the dialogue now taking place between the developed and developing nations. For beyond the technical solutions we may reach, the spirit we help engender can contribute to a world of peace and to a sense of community. This is why we are disturbed by attitudes of confrontation and concerned by those who seek gains through technical majorities. It is the essence of an effective international structure today, in our interdependent world, that solutions cannot be imposed by one group on another, but that a consensus must be established in which all share. By continuing to grow in strength and international participation, Mexico, and indeed all the nations of Latin America, can in important respects act as a bridge between the different groups that exist in the world today.

The United States has accepted the challenge of an interdependent world. We are committed to the cause of cooperation on an equal basis between all nations, whatever their stage of development. We have pursued this course at the Seventh Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly; at the Conference on International Economic Cooperation; at Kingston, Jamaica, in January; at Nairobi, Kenya, last month. There have been setbacks of course, but we believe a new and positive atmosphere has been created, and we join with your President in the view that the serious and responsible nations of the world now have an unprecedented opportunity to advance mankind's age-old dreams of a better life.

The United States knows that while our specific approaches to these problems may differ, Mexico shares our aspirations for a better world of peace and prosperity. Mexico has used its growing international influence to focus on the great global efforts to secure peace and enhance the quality of human life. Mexico's example is proud and compelling, not only for the peoples of the Americas but for all who value peace, prosperity, and justice.

Mexico's economic growth and progress have made it a vital force in international affairs. Mexico had a major influence on the course of the Seventh U.N. Special Session and is an active participant in all international efforts to accelerate development through a fair and cooperative global economic

3

system. Mexico's energetic promotion of the Char-
ter of Economic Rights and Duties of
States-which you yourself inspired, Mr. Presi-
dent-itself symbolizes the need for a new aware-
ness that interdependence is not a slogan but a
reality. And since the Revolution of 1910, Mexico
has presented the international community with
the example of a proudly independent nation com-
mitted to progress and social justice. Today Mexi-
co's voice is heard and heeded in the leading coun-
cils of the world.

It is my profound conviction that Mexico and
the United States together have a priceless advan-
tage upon which to base common efforts in virtual-
ly every major area of human and international
concern. Mexico's history, economic growth, insti-
tutional stability, and political imagination enable
it to bring independent new dimensions to the
global cooperation so essential to our shared hopes
for a less divided and more prosperous world.

The United States believes that the universal
ch for an enduring structure of peace for all
peoples is possible only if it is based upon the free
commitment of strong, stable, and responsible na-
tions. Mexico's growing national strength and
development and deepening participation in global
councils strengthens the voice of this hemisphere
and has given a special projection to the nations of
North America in the vital debates of our time on
such matters as disarmament and global security.

* The higher stage of economic progress that Mexico has attained has brought it into the company of economies which are vulnerable to global inflation, to sudden fluctuations in world patterns of supply and demand, to important technological change, and to investment capital shortages. At the same time our economies are among the world's most open and flexible. We can respond to change quickly and effectively. We have the opportunity and the responsibility and the will to shape the course of economic events rather than to acquiesce in the stale determinism that paralyzes so many nations of the world. In the key areas of finance and technology, investment and trade, the United States and Mexico, and with us the other nations the hemisphere, have outstripped the world as a whole. Our habits of practical cooperation give us a head start. The efforts we take together can thus

make a special and positive contribution to the course of development around the world.

* Beyond peace and prosperity lies a deeper universal aspiration for dignity and justice. Our two countries are both committed to the rule of law and extending the reach of international law in world affairs. This is most urgently needed with regard to the last great frontiers of our planet—the oceans. They are the common heritage of mankind, but they can become arenas for conflict if not governed by law. The differences between us on the issues involved have led to tensions, but they are issues which nations everywhere will have to solve. Our two nations have a special advantage and thus a special responsibility to reach agreement on our differences in the context of a rapid and successful conclusion to the Law of the Sea Conference this year. We have agreed to urgent consultations on this important issue.

* We have as well an obligation to the deeper sources of our common humanity. No peoples have been more dedicated to the cause of human dignity and liberty than ours. The struggle to secure the peace or to widen prosperity ultimately will have no meaning unless the peoples of the world can pursue their aspirations without fear, in societies which foster the fundamental rights of mankind. At the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in Santiago earlier this week, I reaffirmed the unequivocal commitment of the United States to the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. The United States endorsed the reports presented there by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, whose powers we proposed be broadened. We did so in the recognition that the precious heritage of our Western Hemisphere is the conviction that human beings are the subjects, not the objects, of public policy; that citizens must not be the mere instruments of the state. The traditions of our two countries and our heritage as free American republics place upon us a special trust to defend and carry forward the principle that progress is sterile unless it enhances the areas of human freedom.

These are some of the great global challenges
we both face. Let me turn now to the bilateral
process through which we shape our progress as
friends and partners.

4

## Bilateral Bond

The imperatives of the relationship of Mexico and the United States are not to be found in words but in geography. Our shared destiny is literally written in stone. But the special relationship we have today represents, as well, an achievement of human will and responsibility.

The work we are doing together serves not only to strengthen our own ties; it is a demonstration to the world that two nations can resolve, in a reasoned and responsible manner, problems of acute sensitivity in areas touching upon national sovereignty, economic advantage, and human concern.

Let me briefly review the record of shared effort we have compiled and the work yet before us in each of these three areas.

First, how many nations of the world could accept as natural and comfortable an undefended boundary of nearly 2,000 miles? Our active daytime-to-day cooperation along our border is a rare phenomenon. Through the years, our joint International Boundary and Water Commission has solved major problems of shifting boundaries, flood control, and water distribution. The solution of the Chamizal and other territorial issues; the resolution of the problem of Colorado River salinity; and the coordination of air traffic control along our border have all been approached cordially, persistently, and constructively. This is a record of which we can be proud, and on which we can build as we take up further aspects of cooperation along the border, such as widened cooperation on search and rescue operations and problems affecting the environment.

Second, we have acted and are acting with mutual respect and great responsibility on issues of substantial economic interest, such as the desire of Mexican workers to seek employment in the United States and of Mexican exporters to sell in our country's markets. After decades of relatively satisfactory accommodation to the question of undocumented workers, we now face a number of new issues requiring mutual study and heightened cooperation—and that must take into account the legitimate concerns both of the people of the United States and the human rights of Mexican citizens.

We share Mexico's concern over your large

trade deficit in 1975. The economic recovery in the United States and the continuation of the forward-looking attitude which now informs U.S. trade policy will serve, I am confident, to bring our trade accounts closer into balance. Even more important, the U.S. Trade Act's generalized system of preferences will expand Mexico's access to our market. Indeed Mexico, with over a half-billion dollars worth of exports eligible for duty-free treatment, should be the primary beneficiary of our new tariff system which gives products of developing countries competitive advantage over products of developed nations.

Third, both our nations have acted with heart and with vision on matters of deep human concern. We have combined our efforts with increasing success against the international narcotics trade, which has victimized so many citizens of both our countries. The effort of the Mexican Government to stop the production and trafficking of dangerous drugs in Mexico can stand as a model for the world. We are proud to be able to support your increasingly effective program of narcotic control. A related issue now before us concerns the need to prosecute narcotics violators to the full extent of the law while at the same time insuring the observance of their legal and human rights. We have had useful talks about improving the situation of nationals of our two nations imprisoned in the other country.

And, more positively, we have strengthened the cultural relations between our two nations. We share deep ethnic, linguistic, intellectual, and historical ties. Mexico's early recognition of the importance of preserving a nation's cultural heritage has inspired similar efforts around the world and won the admiration of the millions who experience first hand, as I shall tomorrow, the glories of your Mayan past. The treaty on the protection of cultural property between the United States and Mexico has been in force since 1970 and has proven effective. We are proud to assist Mexico's efforts to defend its cultural patrimony as a sustaining value for future generations.

As we look to the future we are witnessing growth of balanced, two-way exchanges which range across the spectrum of intellectual and cultural life, from the arts to the humanities to technology. While increasing numbers of Mexicans

5

are studying in the United States, more U.S. students are studying at Mexican universities than in any other nation. Each of us is developing a greater appreciation of the creative experience and achievement of the other—in science, music, literature, and the visual arts. We are prepared to move ahead even more vigorously to promote cultural exchange and cultural understanding, recognizing that they are powerful forces affecting the quality and tone of the future course of our relationship.

All these are issues of immediate and direct concern to our two nations. But they are also variations on the large themes of sovereignty, economic interest, and human concern that affect nations everywhere. Our struggles and our successes in dealing effectively and creatively with our own interdependence is relevant to the rest of the increasingly interdependent world in which we live. In a period when mankind faces international problems which are not only complex but fraught with ultimate risks, it is unrealistic as well as unwise to expect easy solutions. What we can and must seek to bring about is an atmosphere in bilateral, regional, and global relations in which problems are addressed positively and constructively; in which divergent views are expressed openly and freely, without wounding and sterile rhetoric; and in which the objective is an effort to solve problems pragmatically, not aggravate them ideologically.

Our long record of experience together makes clear that cooperative effort serves us both much better than recrimination or unilateral action. Although our differences over the years of our respective independence as nations have at times been enormous, in this last half century we have done as much to achieve a positive atmosphere of cooperation as any two nations in the world. The United

States and Mexico are engaged today by preference as well as necessity.

In the future as in the past our success will be founded upon a fundamental continuity of purpose, of effort, of policy. That continuity is reflected today in your forward-looking "Plan Basico" and, in the United States, by the permanent interests of our foreign policy in maintaining global peace while building for a new era of economic cooperation and human justice. With this continuity and in this spirit we can continue to provide an example to the world of the way neighbors ought to conduct themselves; not only geographic neighbors such as we, but all nations—for on this shrinking planet all peoples are neighbors.

Mr. President, friends: A short distance from my office in the Department of State in Washington is a statue of Benito Juarez on which are engraved his words, "Peace is respect for the rights of others." But Benito Juarez also knew that the mere absence of war is not enough. The relations of states today must have an economic and a moral dimension as well. In the hearts of men and women, peace means an abiding sense of security and freedom from external intimidation; it also means the hope of widening economic opportunity; and it means conditions which foster the growth of social justice for all. These are values and causes which Mexicans and Americans hold in common and hold dear and which you, Mr. President, have done so much to promote.

I ask you to join me tonight in a toast to these values we share; to the distinguished President of Mexico, our good friend, Luis Echeverría; to the United Mexican States; and to the permanent and productive friendship of the people of Mexico and the United States. Viva Mexico.

As Prepared for Delivery

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER

WITH RESPECT TO THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

OF THE

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1977

10:00 A.M.

Embargoed until delivery, scheduled for 10:00 a.m. EDT
not to be previously published, quoted from, or used in any way.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to testify
on an issue about which I feel deeply.

I am here before you today to express my firm conviction that the new treaties with Panama regarding the Canal significantly advance the national interests of the United States. I have carefully reviewed the treaties and discussed them in detail with Ambassadors Bunker and Linowitz; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown; the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Jones; President Carter and former President Ford.

-- These treaties preserve for the remainder of this century the significant elements of the existing arrangements for management and defense of the Canal, while at the same time establishing a cooperative relationship with Panama which will actually enhance the Canal's security and efficient operation.

-- After the year 2000, when management of the Canal passes to Panama, the United States will continue to have the right to guarantee the Canal's neutrality and impartial access to it. The Neutrality Treaty defines neutrality in terms of specific standards for Canal operation. It establishes that the United States as well as Panama has the responsibility to maintain those standards. We have in the Treaty the foundation for acting, if need be, to keep the Canal neutral and open.

-2-

And these treaties will gain international support
for the continuing United States role and responsi-
bility during this century and beyond.

Since 1964 four successive Presidents representing both
political parties have concluded that the achievement of
a new treaty relationship with Panama was important for the
long-term security and foreign policy interests of the United
States. All four Presidents have engaged in negotiations
based on the conviction that a modernized relationship embod-
ying shared commitment and responsibility would best assure
our basic interest in continuing access to an efficiently
run, nondiscriminatory and secure Canal. All four Presidents
have felt strongly that the present 1903 treaty does not
adequately assure that interest. In February 1974 I signed
on behalf of the United States in the presence of a Congressional
delegation a Joint Statement of Principles that was an impor-
tant step in the negotiation of the new treaties.

The new treaties, freely negotiated and signed in 1977
with the support of the other nations of this Hemisphere,
will improve the political environment for the protection
of our interests. While the United States would, in any
event, continue to have the physical means to defend the
Canal unilaterally, we could exercise that ability under
the present 1903 treaty only at the risk of considerable
cost to our other Western Hemisphere interests. Were the
new treaties rejected, it would be impossible for even our

-3-

friends in the Hemisphere to support us. No leader and no public opinion anywhere in this Hemisphere would be willing to go along with the United States in defense of the consequences of a refusal to modernize the Canal relationship with Panama. Rejection of the treaties would poison our relationship with all the countries of Latin America on all other issues, and leave us, for the first time in our history, facing the unanimous hostility of all the nations to the south of us in our own Hemisphere.

Even on the extreme assumption that Panama might not live up to the terms of the treaties, a new agreement freely worked out and signed in 1977 in the presence of Western Hemisphere Heads of Government places the United States in a far stronger moral and juridical position to defend its interests in such a case than does a treaty concluded in 1903 which was not even signed by a Panamanian and which is universally regarded as inequitable. The new treaty arrangement will provide us with international conditions vastly more favorable than currently exist to defend both the agreement and the Canal itself should the need arise. The new arrangement, above all, accords with the current reality that cooperative endeavor is the only possible basis for the satisfactory operation by the United States of a canal located within Panamanian territory and even now run by a labor force which is predominantly Panamanian. We shall not again have the opportunity to safeguard our real interests in the Canal on terms as favorable as those that have been negotiated.

-4-

The new Panama Canal treaties present us with the opportu-
tunity both to advance our basic interests in the Canal and
to solidify our long-term friendship and cooperation with
the other nations of the Western Hemisphere. A creative
Western Hemisphere policy must have many components,

but the fate of these treaties will be its touchstone
for the countries of Latin America in this period. Of course,
even if the treaties are ratified there will be considerable
anti-United States agitation in the Western Hemisphere.
But it will not have the unifying focus of explosive oppo-
sition to what will be considered American power politics
throughout the Western Hemisphere. And if the treaties are
accepted, our friends -- the moderate nations that wish
to work closely with us on other issues -- will have the
possibility of elaborating their cooperation with us.

-5-

I understand the reluctance and concern of the opponents of the treaties. But there is no viable alternative. It is not a question of "giving" the Canal to Panama, it is a question of the United States' ability to distinguish between symbol and reality, to plan for our future needs and to preserve and in fact enhance our basic interest in the accessibility, neutrality, and security of the Canal.

Firmness in the defense of essential national interests is vital to any nation. But unreasoning adherence to the *status quo* has never been the test of an effective foreign policy. A nation assures its international position by understanding clearly what its interests are and by taking timely and effective action to safeguard those interests.

We have often acted on this principle. At the end of World War II, we embarked on a number of new initiatives -- the Marshall Plan, the North Atlantic Treaty, Point Four, to cite a few -- that constituted a dramatic change in course from those we had followed in the past. We do so because we realized that the new circumstances of the post-war era called for new responses -- that we could not assure the security and prosperity of our nation by adhering to the isolationist policies of the past. To cling to outmoded approaches was to allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by future events.

And there are many more recent examples of constructive response to changing world conditions. The SALT agreements, the opening of relations with China, our efforts to modernize

-6-

the institutions of international economic cooperation are
cases in point. In each case, we did not hesitate to
modify old policies and arrangements when we felt that our
national interests required change.

I firmly believe that the new Panama Canal Treaties should
be viewed in the same light. They are a step forward -- an
improvement -- over what has existed heretofore. They present
the Congress and the people of this country with an opportunity
to modernize an outdated arrangement that has itself become a
threat to the interests it was designed to protect.

I would like to stress a final point. These treaties
represent the most important and serious international under-
taking presented to the Congress by the Administration of
President Carter. A defeat of the Panama Canal Treaties would
weaken the President's international authority at the beginning
of his term. It would jeopardize our entire Western Hemisphere
relationships. The undermining of Presidential authority at
home would be demonstration of fundamental weakness and a grave
responsibility for the Congress to assume. I feel this all
the more strongly because in my opinion we have every reason
to consider that the new Treaties are to our advantage. They
make the efficient and neutral operation of the Panama Canal a
joint commitment with the broad support of the international
community. They are the essential foundation of a long-term
relationship of friendship and cooperation with the nations of

-7-

the Western Hemisphere. And they enhance our security and
raise new prospects for a peaceful and constructive inter-
national order.

These treaties, in conclusion, advance fundamental
national purposes. The consequences of failure would be serious.
Their passage undoubtedly would be an act of courage. But we
are all accountable to history for our action, and for the
consequences. I believe that passage of these treaties is
the only possible act of wisdom and the course of true
patriotism. It is the necessity of statesmanship. I therefore
urge your support.

Sixth General Assembly
of the
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

SECRETARY KISSINGER

Human Rights
Cooperation for Development
OAS Reform

JOINT REPORT: U.S. and Panama

and
Secretary Kissinger's Statement
at the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America

Santiago, Chile

June 1976

iii

## INTRODUCTION

As a result of vast change and considerable progress in Latin America in the 1960's and early seventies, the way was opened for an increasingly constructive relationship between the United States and Latin America—based on a new mutual-ity of respect and equality of sovereignty.

In the two years since the inauguration of the New Dialogue in 1974, the United States has sought to build steadily on this opportunity by advancing initiatives to address coherently the entire catalogue of hemispheric issues. An important step in this effort was the visit by Secretary of State Kissinger to Latin America in February of this year (Department of State Publication 8848).

A further milestone in this new policy effort came at the General Assembly of the Organization of American States held in Santiago, Chile from June 7 to 10, 1976. At that meeting, Secretary Kissinger presented proposals to advance common hemispheric interests in three key areas of concern: human rights, cooperation for development, and reform of the OAS system. Together, these proposals represent a new spirit in inter-American policy matters—one in which the United States no longer need refrain from offering major initiatives for fear of inspiring old notions of paternalism. It is a spirit which instead is marked by consultation, cooperation, and brighter prospects for building stronger and more mutually beneficial relations in the Western Hemisphere.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Secretary Kissinger on June 8, 1976.

One of the most compelling issues of our time, and one which calls for the concerted action of all responsible peoples and nations, is the necessity to protect and extend the fundamental rights of humanity.

The precious common heritage of our Western Hemisphere is the conviction that human beings are the subjects, not the objects, of public policy; that citizens must not become mere instruments of the state.

This is the conviction that brought millions to the Americas. It inspired our peoples to fight for their independence. It is the commitment that has made political freedom and individual dignity the constant and cherished ideal of the Americas and the envy of nations elsewhere. It is the ultimate proof that our countries are linked by more than geography and the impersonal forces of history.

Respect for the rights of man is written into the founding documents of every nation of our hemisphere. It has long been part of the common speech and daily lives of our citizens. And today, more than ever, the successful advance of our societies requires the full and free dedication of the talent, energy, and creative thought of men and women who are free from fear of repression.

The modern age has brought undreamed-of benefits to mankind—in medicine, in technological advance, and in human communication. But it has spawned plagues as well—in the form of new tools of oppression as well as of civil strife. In an era characterized by terrorism, by bitter ideological contention, by weakened bonds of social cohesion, and by the yearning for order even at the expense of liberty, the result all too often has been the violation of fundamental standards of humane conduct.

The obscene and atrocious acts systematically employed to devalue, debase, and destroy human life during World War II vividly and ineradicably impressed the responsible peoples of the world with the enormity of the challenge to human rights. It was precisely to end such abuses and to provide moral authority in international affairs that a new system was forged after that war—globally in the United Nations and regionally in a strengthened inter-American system.

The shortcomings of our efforts in an age which continues to be scarred by forces of intimi-

2

dation, terror, and brutality fostered sometimes from outside national territories and sometimes from inside have made it dramatically clear that basic human rights must be preserved, cherished, and defended if peace and prosperity are to be more than hollow technical achievements. For technological progress without social justice mocks humanity; national unity without freedom is sterile; nationalism without a consciousness of human community—which means a shared concern for human rights—refines instruments of oppression.

We in the Americas must increase our international support for the principles of justice, freedom, and human dignity—for the organized concern of the community of nations remains one of the most potent weapons in the struggle against the degradation of human values.

## Human Rights Challenge in the Americas

The ultimate vitality and virtue of our societies spring from the instinctive sense of human dignity and respect for the rights of others that have long distinguished the immensely varied peoples and lands of this hemisphere. The genius of our inter-American heritage is based on the fundamental democratic principles of human and national dignity, justice, popular participation, and free cooperation among different peoples and social systems.

The observance of these essential principles of civility cannot be taken for granted even in the most tranquil of times. In periods of stress and uncertainty, when pressures on established authority grow and nations feel their very existence is tenuous, the practice of human rights becomes far more difficult.

The central problem of government has always been to strike a just and effective balance between freedom and authority. When freedom degenerates into anarchy, the human personality becomes subject to arbitrary, brutal, and capricious forces. When the demand for order overrides all other considerations, man becomes a means and not an end, a tool of impersonal machinery. Clearly some forms of human suffering are intolerable no matter what pressures nations may face or feel. Beyond that all societies have an obligation to enable their people to fulfill their potentialities and live a life of dignity and self-respect.

As we address this challenge in practice, we must recognize that our efforts must engage the serious commitment of our societies. As a source of dynamism, strength, and inspiration, verbal posturings and self-righteous rhetoric are not enough. Human rights are the very essence of a meaningful life, and human dignity is the ultimate purpose of government. No government can ignore terrorism and survive, but it is equally true that a government that tramples on the rights of its citizens denies the purpose of its existence.

In recent years and even days, our newspapers have carried stories of kidnappings, ambushes, bombings, and assassinations. Terrorism and the denial of civility have become so widespread, political subversions so intertwined with official and unofficial abuse, and so confused with oppression and base criminality, that the protection of individual rights and the preservation of human dignity have become sources of deep concern—and worse—sometimes of demoralization and indifference.

No country, no people—for that matter no political system—can claim a perfect record in the field of human rights. But precisely because our societies in the Americas have been dedicated to freedom since they emerged from the colonial era, our shortcomings are more apparent and more significant. And let us face facts: Respect for the dignity of man is declining in too many countries of the hemisphere. There are several states where fundamental standards of humane behavior are not observed. All of us have a responsibility in this regard, for the Americas cannot be true to themselves unless they rededicate themselves to belief in the worth of the individual and to the defense of those individual rights which that concept entails. Our nations must sustain both a common commitment to the human rights of individuals and practical support for the institutions and procedures necessary to insure those rights.

The rights of man have been authoritatively identified both in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the OAS's American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. There will, of course, always be differences of view as to the precise extent of the obligations of government. But there are standards below which no government can fall without offending fundamental values—such as genocide, officially toler-

3

ated torture, mass imprisonment or murder, or
comprehensive denials of basic rights to racial,
religious, political, or ethnic groups. Any govern-
ment engaging in such practices must face adverse
international judgment.

The international community has created
important institutions to deal with the challenge of
human rights. We here are all participants in some
of them—the United Nations, the International
Court of Justice, the OAS, and the two Human
Rights Commissions of the United Nations and the
OAS. In Europe an even more developed interna-
tional institutional structure provides other useful
precedents for our effort.

Procedures alone cannot solve the problem,
but they can keep it at the forefront of our con-
sciousness and they can provide certain minimum
protection for the human personality. Interna-
tional law and experience have enabled the devel-
opment of specific procedures to distinguish
reasonable from arbitrary government action on,
for example, the question of detention. These
involve access to courts, counsel, and families;
prompt release or charge; and, if the latter, fair and
public trial. Where such procedures are followed,
the risk and incidence of unintentional government
error, of officially sanctioned torture, of prolonged
arbitrary deprivation of liberty, are drastically
reduced. Other important procedures are habeas
corpus or amparo, judicial appeal, and impartial
review of administrative actions. And then there are
the procedures available at the international level—
appeal to, and investigations and recommendations
by, established independent bodies such as the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an
integral part of the OAS and a symbol of our dedi-
cation to the dignity of man.

The Inter-American Commission has built an
impressive record of sustained, independent, and
highly professional work since its establishment in
1960. Its importance as a primary procedural alter-
native in dealing with the recurrent human rights
problems of this hemisphere is considerable.

The United States believes this Commission is
one of the most important bodies of the Organiza-
tion of American States. At the same time it has a
role which touches upon the most sensitive aspects
of the national policies of each of the member
governments. We must insure that the Commission
functions so that it cannot be manipulated for in-

ternational politics in the name of human rights.
We must also see to it that the Commission be-
comes an increasingly vital instrument of hemi-
spheric cooperation in defense of human rights.
The Commission deserves the support of the
Assembly in strengthening further its independ-
ence, even-handedness, and constructive potential.

Reports of the OAS Human Rights Commission

We have all read the two reports submitted to
this General Assembly by the Commission. They
are sobering documents for they provide serious
evidence of violations of elemental international
standards of human rights.

In its annual report on human rights in the
hemisphere, the Commission cites the rise of vio-
lence and speaks of the need to maintain order and
protect citizens against armed attack. But it also
upholds the defense of individual rights as a
primordial function of the law and describes case
after case of serious governmental actions in de-
rogation of such rights.

A second report is devoted exclusively to the
situation in Chile. We note the Commission's state-
ment that the Government of Chile has cooperated
with the Commission, and the Commission's con-
clusion that the infringement of certain funda-
mental rights in Chile has undergone a quantitative
reduction since the last report. We must also point
out that Chile has filed a comprehensive and
responsive answer that sets forth a number of
hopeful prospects which we hope will soon be fully
implemented.

Nevertheless the Commission has asserted that
violations continue to occur, and this is a matter of
bilateral as well as international attention. In the
United States concern is widespread in the execu-
tive branch, in the press, and in the Congress,
which has taken the extraordinary step of enacting
specific statutory limits on U.S. military and
economic aid to Chile.

The condition of human rights as assessed by
the OAS Human Rights Commission has impaired
our relationship with Chile and will continue to do
so. We wish this relationship to be close, and all
friends of Chile hope that obstacles raised by con-
ditions alleged in the report will soon be removed.

At the same time the Commission should not
focus on some problem areas to the neglect of
others. The cause of human dignity is not served

4

by those who hypocritically manipulate concerns with human rights to further their political preferences, nor by those who single out for human rights condemnation only those countries with whose political views they disagree.

We are persuaded that the OAS Commission, however, has avoided such temptations.

The Commission has worked and reported widely. Its survey of human rights in Cuba is ample evidence of that. Though the report was completed too late for formal consideration at this General Assembly, an initial review confirms our worst fears of Cuban behavior. We should commend the Commission for its efforts—in spite of the total lack of cooperation of the Cuban authorities—to unearth the truth that many Cuban political prisoners have been victims of inhuman treatment. We urge the Commission to continue its efforts to determine the truth about the state of human rights in Cuba.

In our view the record of the Commission this year in all these respects demonstrates that it deserves the support of the Assembly in strengthening further its independence, evenhandedness, and constructive potential.

We can use the occasion of this General Assembly to emphasize that the protection of human rights is an obligation not simply of particular countries whose practices have come to public attention. Rather, it is an obligation assumed by all the nations of the Americas as part of their participation in the hemispheric system.

To this end the United States proposes that the Assembly broaden the Commission's mandate so that instead of waiting for complaints, it can report regularly on the status of human rights throughout the hemisphere.

Through adopting this proposal the nations of the Americas would make plain our common commitment to human rights, increase the reliable information available to us, and offer more effec-

tive recommendations to governments about how best to improve human rights. In support of such a broadened effort, we propose that the budget and staff of the Commission be enlarged. By strengthening the contribution of this body, we can deepen our dedication to the special qualities of rich promise that make our hemisphere a standard-bearer for freedom-loving people in every quarter of the globe.

At the same time we should also consider ways to strengthen the inter-American system in terms of protection against terrorism, kidnapping, and other forms of violent threats to the human personality, especially those inspired from the outside.

## Necessity for Concern and Concrete Action

It is a tragedy that the forces of change in our century—a time of unparalleled human achievement—have also visited upon many individuals around the world a new dimension of intimidation and suffering.

The standard of individual liberty of science and expression is the proudest heritage of our civilization. It summons all nations. But this hemisphere, which for centuries has been the hope of all mankind, has a special requirement for dedicated commitment.

Let us then turn to the great task before us. All we do in the world—in our search for peace, for greater political cooperation, for a fair and flourishing economic system—is meaningful only if linked to the defense of the fundamental freedoms which permit the fullest expression of mankind's creativity. No nations of the globe have a greater responsibility. No nations can make a greater contribution to the future. Let us look deeply within ourselves to find the essence of our human condition. And let us carry forward the great enterprise of liberty for which this hemisphere has been—and will again be—the honored symbol everywhere.

5

COOPERATION
FOR DEVELOPMENT

Secretary Kissinger on June 9, 1976.

For two centuries the peoples of this hemi-
sphere have been forging a record of cooperation
and accomplishment of which we can be proud. It
is a record which gives good cause for the confi-
dence we bring to the tasks we face today. But of
greater importance is the truly special relationship
we have achieved. The ties of friendship, mutual
regard, and high respect that we have forged here
set this hemisphere apart. The bond between the
American republics is unmatched in the world to-
day in both depth and potential.

First, we have maintained the awareness that
our destinies are linked—a recognition of the real-
ity that we are bound by more than geography and
common historical experience. We are as diverse as
any association of nations, yet this special relation-
ship is known to us all, almost instinctively.

Second, ours is a hemisphere of peace. In no
other region of the world has international conflict
been so rare, or peaceful and effective coopera-
tion so natural to the fabric of our relationships.

Third, we work together with a unique spirit
of mutual respect. I personally am immensely
grateful for the warm and serious relationships I
have enjoyed with my colleagues and other West-
ern Hemisphere leaders. I am convinced that this
sense of personal *amistad* can play a decisive role in
the affairs of mankind, and nowhere more so than
in our hemisphere.

Fourth, we share the conviction that there is
much to do and that working together for concrete
progress is the surest way to get it done. Even our
criticism presumes the feasibility of cooperation.

Fifth, we respect each other's independence.
We accept the principle that each nation is—and
must be—in charge of its own future. Each chooses
its mode of development; each determines its own
policies. But we know that our capacity to achieve
our national goals increases as we work together.

Sixth, despite the differences among our
political systems, our peoples share a common
aspiration for the fulfillment of individual human
dignity. This is the heritage of our hemisphere and
the ideal toward which all our governments have an
obligation to strive.

Finally, and of immediate importance, we are
achieving a new and productive balance-based on
real interests—in our relations within the Americas,

6

within other groupings, and with the rest of the
world. All of us have ties outside the hemisphere.
But our interests elsewhere do not impede our
hemispheric efforts. Our traditions of independence
and diversity have served us well.

This is both a strength and a challenge to us
now as this Assembly takes up the issue of develop-
ment.

The United States is dedicated to cooperate in
development throughout the world. But as we seek
to make progress in all our global development
efforts, we recognize close and special ties to the
nations of the Americas. We regard the concerns of
this hemisphere as our first priority.

It is for this reason that we support the sug-
gestions which have been made for a special as-
sembly of the OAS to be devoted to hemispheric
cooperation for development. Such an assembly
should deal with concrete problems capable of
practical solutions. To this end the United States
proposes that a preparatory meeting of experts be
held in advance of the special assembly.

But we do not intend to delay our efforts
while we await the processes of international insti-
tutions and conferences. The U.S. Administration
will begin now:

* First, to give special attention to the econom-
ic concerns of Latin America in every area in which
our executive branch possesses the power of discre-
tionary decision;

* Second, to undertake detailed consultations with Latin American nations to coordinate our positions on all economic issues of concern to the hemisphere prior to the consideration of those issues in major international forums;

* Third, to consider special arrangements in the
hemisphere in economic areas of particular concern
to Latin America, such as the transfer and develop-
ment of technology;

* In addition, we will put forth every effort to
bring about the amendment of the U.S. Trade Act
to eliminate the automatic exclusion of Ecuador
and Venezuela from the generalized system of pref-
erences.

The United States is prepared to proceed in
these four areas whatever may occur in other de-
velopment forums. But this Assembly offers an ex-
cellent opportunity to advance our joint progress.

The United States believes that there are three
major issues that this Assembly should address—
commodities, trade, and technology. These in-
volve:

* More stable and beneficial conditions for the
production and marketing of primary commodities
upon which the economic aspirations of so many
countries in Latin America rely;

* Expansion of the trade opportunities and capabilities that are an essential part of the development strategies of all countries in the hemisphere; and

* Improved arrangements for the development,
acquisition, and utilization of higher technology to
speed the modernization of the hemisphere.

Let me address each of these issues in turn.

Commodities

Most of our members depend heavily on the
production and export of primary commodities for
essential earnings. Yet production and export of
these resources are vulnerable to the cycles of
scarcity and glut, underinvestment and over-
capacity that disrupt economic conditions in both
the developing and the industrial world.

At the U.N. Conference on Trade and
Development [UNCTAD] last month, we joined in
the common commitment to search for concrete,
practical solutions in the interests of both pro-
ducers and consumers.

Despite reservations about some aspects of
the final resolution at Nairobi, the United States
believes that the final commodities resolution of
the Conference represented a major advance in the
dialogue between North and South; we will partici-
pate in the major preparatory conferences on in-
dividual commodities and in the preparatory con-
ference on financing.

One key element, however, is missing from
the final catalogue of Nairobi's proposals—
machinery to spur the flow of new investment for
resource production in the developing countries.
The United States made a proposal aimed at that
problem—an International Resources Bank [IRB].
A resolution to study the IRB was rejected by a
vote that can best be described as accidental. Nine-
ty nations abstained or were absent. Those nations
of Latin America that reject such self-defeating

7

tactics can make a special contribution to insure that the progress of all is not defeated by the sterile and outmoded confrontational tactics of a few.

As a contribution to the commitment we undertook at Nairobi to deal comprehensively with commodities problems, the United States proposes that the nations of the hemisphere undertake a three-part program to secure the contribution of commodities to development in this hemisphere.

First, I propose that we establish a regional consultative mechanism on commodities. This mechanism could well be under the aegis of the OAS. It should bring together experts with operational responsibilities and experience. The inter-American commodities mechanism could precede—or at least supplement—those established with a global mandate, where we are prepared to exchange views regularly and in depth on the state of commodities markets of most interest to us—including coffee, grains, meat, and the minerals produced in this hemisphere. Our objective will be to concert our information on production and demand in order to make the best possible use of our investment resources. These consultations will provide us with an early-warning system to identify problems in advance and enable us to take appropriate corrective action nationally, regionally, or through worldwide organizations.

Second, I propose we give particular attention to global solutions for commodities important to one or more countries of the hemisphere. The United States has signed the Coffee and Tin Agreements; it is crucial to the coffee- and tin-producing countries of this hemisphere that those agreements be implemented in a fashion that will most appropriately contribute to their development.

In Nairobi, and at other forums, the United States proposed that we examine on a global basis other commodities of particular importance to Latin America—bauxite, iron ore, and copper. I suggest that we in the hemisphere have a special role to play in considering how these steps might be taken and in identifying other high priority subjects for global commodity discussions.

Third, I propose that the consultative group take a new look at the problem of insuring adequate investment in commodities in this hemisphere under circumstances that respect the

sovereignty of producers and provide incentive for investment. We should examine all reasonable proposals, especially those which would help to assure effective resource development financing. If global solutions are not possible, we are willing to consider regional mechanisms.

## Trade

Trade has been an engine of growth for all countries; and for many developing countries—above all those in Latin America—it is an essential vehicle of development. Recognizing the importance of trade to sustained growth, the United States has taken, within our global trade policy, a number of initiatives of particular significance to Latin America. We have reduced trade barriers, especially those affecting processed goods; provided preferential access to our market for many exports of developing countries; worked in the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva for reduction of barriers, giving priority to tropical products; and recognized in our general trade policy the special needs of developing countries.

Today, at this Assembly, we can begin to consider ways in which our commitment to trade cooperation can contribute to economic progress in our hemisphere. The United States sees three key areas which this Organization could usefully address:

* The need to provide opportunities for developing countries to expand and diversify exports of manufactured and semiprocessed goods;

* The need to promote the hemisphere's trade position through the multilateral trade negotiations at Geneva; and

* The need for effective regional and subregional economic integration.

Let me turn to each of these three points.

No single element is more important to Latin America's trade opportunities than the health of the U.S. economy. I can confirm to you today that our economy is in full recovery, with prospects brighter than they have been for years.

The preferences system contained in the U.S. Trade Act has been in effect since January. It gives Latin American countries duty-free entry on more than $1 billion worth of their exports to the United States. Even more important, it provides vast op-

8

portunities for Latin America to diversify into new product areas in its exports to the United States.

In addition to the effort we will undertake to end the exclusion of Ecuador and Venezuela from the benefits of the U.S. Trade Act, President Ford has asked me to state today that:

* He will make every effort to add to the preferences system products that are of direct interest to Latin America;

* The executive branch will bend every effort to accommodate the export interests of Latin America in all matters in which we have statutory discretion. President Ford's recent choice of adjustment assistance rather than import restrictions in response to the petition of the U.S. footwear industry clearly demonstrates the commitment of the U.S. Government to a liberal trade policy and the use of the Trade Act to expand trade in the hemisphere;

* The President will direct the U.S. Department of Commerce to respond positively to requests from your governments for assistance in the development of export promotion programs. The Department of Commerce will make available technical advice on promotion techniques and personnel training to help develop new markets for Latin American exports worldwide.

The United States believes that the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva warrant the special attention of Latin America. Our view is that the international codes on subsidies and countervailing duties and on safeguard actions now being negotiated should recognize the special conditions facing developing countries. To this end:

* The United States will seek agreement at Geneva that the code on countervailing duties and subsidies now being negotiated should contain special rules to permit developing countries to assist their exports under agreed criteria for an appropriate time linked to specific development objectives.

* The United States next month will propose that the safeguards code under negotiation in Geneva grant special treatment to developing countries that are minor suppliers or new entrants in a developed-country market during the period that safeguards are in effect.

* The United States will send a trade policy team to Latin America shortly to identify ways to promote increased hemisphere trade through the Geneva negotiations; we are prepared to intensify consultations in Geneva and Washington with Latin American delegations to explore both general issues and positions for specific meetings.

Finally, the United States supports the concept and practice of regional and subregional economic integration as a means of magnifying the positive impact of trade on development. Expanded trade, based on the development of industries that will be able to compete successfully within and outside the integration area, will strengthen the growth process of participating countries. We seek means to support the far-reaching integration plans that have been drawn up in the hemisphere—for the Andean group, the Caribbean community, the Central American Common Market, and the Latin American Free Trade Area.

We are ready to support responsible efforts to further integration. The administration of U.S. trade laws and the improvement of our preferences system on matters such as rules of origin are two possible incentives to greater Latin American integration. We welcome your views as to a further U.S. role toward enhancing the momentum of economic integration in Latin America.

We are not persuaded, however, that we have fully exploited all the possibilities of how best to provide expanded trade opportunities to Latin America. We know that the issue is complex and that it involves not only expanded access to the markets of the United States but also measures to enhance opportunities for Latin American products in Europe and Japan—and throughout Latin America itself.

Some permanent, expert forum is necessary. We, therefore, propose that within the OAS there be established a special inter-American commission for trade cooperation. If the suggestion for a special assembly on cooperation for development prospers, we think that assembly should set guidelines for the functioning of the commission. We see the commission as an opportunity, in major part through the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva, to bring together those policy-level officials most familiar with the actual trade problems and opportunities for trade creation under a firm

9

mandate to seek innovative means of cooperating to expand exports—expanding, in short, on a regular and long-term basis the catalogue of trade expansion proposals I have elaborated above.

## Technology

Technology is basic to economic development. It is technology that enables us to master the raw gifts of nature and transform them into the products needed for the well-being of our peoples.

But technology is not evenly distributed. There are impediments to its development, to its transfer, and, most importantly, to its effective utilization. The United States believes that technology should become a prime subject of hemispheric cooperation. The countries in this region have reached stages of development that enable them to adapt and create modern technologies. Our potential thus matches the urgency of practical needs.

At this point, what are the new directions we should take together? We have three proposals. The United States believes we in the hemisphere should:

**First,** take immediate advantage of promising global initiatives. To seek maximum benefit from the U.N. Conference on Science and Development set for 1979, we propose that the nations here today undertake preparatory consultations on that subject in the Economic Commission for Latin America, whose meeting has been prescribed as a regional forum within the Conference program. We will enlist the experience and resources of leading U.S. technology institutions in this hemispheric preparatory effort.

**Second,** increase public and private contacts on research, development, and the application of technology. To this end the United States will:

* Open a technology exchange service for Latin America to provide information on U.S. laws and regulations relating to technology flows and to sources of public and private technology;

* Explore cooperative ventures in which small and medium-sized U.S. firms would provide practical technologies to individual Latin American firms, along with the management expertise needed to select, adapt, and exploit those technologies; and

* Expand and strengthen Latin America's access to the National Technical Information Service and other facilities of the technology information network of the U.S. Government, which covers 90 percent of the technical information that flows from the $20 billion worth of research that the U.S. Government sponsors annually.

**Third,** develop new regional and subregional structures of consultation and cooperation on problems of technology. To this end, the United States proposes:

* That we establish a consultative group under the OAS to address and provide recommendations on information problems that Latin America faces in acquiring technology;

* That the OAS, in line with the UNCTAD IV consensus, establish a regional center on technology. The center would facilitate cooperative research and development activities, drawing on both public and private sources. It could stimulate exchanges of qualified technical personnel. And it could begin to attack the problem of incentives to the thousands of technologically trained Latin Americans now living abroad to return to and serve with their own countries. In the view of the United States, such a center should be a cooperative enterprise requiring commitment and contributions in funds, technological resources, and personnel from all of the countries that take part. To get us underway I propose that we convene a group of experts to examine the need, feasibility, characteristics, and role of an inter-American technology center and report to us before the next OAS General Assembly.

## Importance of Cooperative Development

Economic development is a central concern of all nations today. The community of nations has become, irrevocably, a single global economy. We know that peace and progress will rest fundamentally on our ability to forge patterns of economic cooperation that are fair, productive, and open to all.

We in this hemisphere have a special opportunity and responsibility to advance the recent favorable mood, and the practical achievements, in cooperation between the developed and developing

11

Secretary Kissinger's statement distributed by the U.S. Delegation June 11, 1976.

The Organization of American States is the cornerstone of the inter-American system, the oldest institution of regional cooperation in the world. Its member states have exceptional ties of respect and a common heritage, and a considerable stake in maintaining those ties for the future.

The inter-American system pioneered the principles of nonintervention and collective security among cooperating sovereign states. Because the Americas also have enormous vitality and achievement, we have a major opportunity and obligation to continue to provide an example and impetus to the global search for better ways to mediate the common destiny of mankind.

Many ask, why think of OAS reform? Why, some wonder, does our Secretary General [Alejandro Orfila] refer to an "identity crisis" in his latest annual report?

The answer lies in the fact that the pace and complexity of the international and domestic changes of the recent past have made the organization as it is presently constituted less effective as an instrument of our respective foreign policies, and less significant to the real issues on the new inter-American agenda than our minimum efforts deserve.

This Hemisphere is unique; there is no other grouping like it in the world. We have indeed a special relationship. The fundamental purpose of the OAS must be to continue to nurture and strengthen our fundamental, shared values. We must have an organization that reflects our permanent and irrevocable engagement to work together and maintain our continent as a Hemisphere of peace, cooperation, and development.

The United States is committed to the OAS. We have pledged to make it a continually more effective instrument for action in pursuit of the common goals of prosperity and human dignity.

It was to that end that the member states agreed three years ago to an effort to reform, restructure, and modernize the OAS. The results of that effort are disappointing. A proposed new draft of the charter of the OAS has emerged from the permanent council. I regret to say that it is one

OAS REFORM

12

that our Government could neither sign nor recommend that our Senate ratify. It includes prescriptive and hortatory statements of general principle which are as poorly defined as they are ominous. No effort is made in the new charter draft to come to grips with the need to modernize or improve the structure of the organization. We believe the real shortcomings of the OAS have yet to be adequately addressed.

We propose a new effort to reform, modernize, and restructure the organization. We think that effort should concentrate, not on words, but on three major substantive issues: structure, membership, and finance.

## Structure

The United States would like to advance four points as possible guidelines for the future effort, in the interest of modernization of the organization. The purposes of the organization should be stated simply and clearly in the new charter. Those purposes should be:

* The promotion of cooperation for development;

* The maintenance of the peace and security of our region; and

* The preservation of our common tradition of respect for human dignity and the rights of the individual.

The structure of the organization serving these goals should be flexible. We should write a constitutive document for the organization which will serve us well into the future. That an organization finds it necessary to rewrite its charter every 5 to 10 years does not speak well for that organization's sense of its role or function. We are now in an age of great change. Our efforts in the coming years to achieve the three basic goals of the organization will take place under rapidly changing circumstances. Thus, flexibility and adaptability must be the key considerations guiding the reform effort. We should not hamstring ourselves with a charter brimfull of the details of the day, with procedural minutiae, or with regulatory prescriptions hindering our ability to meet contingencies.

The governance of the organization should be in the hands of the Ministers. Over the years, the

proliferation of functions assigned haphazardly to the OAS has produced an overelaborated organization that is ponderous and unresponsive. Instead of closer and more frequent contact between Foreign Ministers in ways that truly reflect our foreign policies as we are attempting to manage them from our respective capitals, we find ourselves insulated from each other by a plethora of councils and committees with conflicting mandates and a cumbersome permanent bureaucracy.

To strengthen communication, we must cut through the existing organizational underbrush and replace it with a structure capable of responding to the authentic foreign policies of our governments, as expressed directly by Foreign Ministers, and of relating concretely to our institutions and the needs of our peoples. Particularly, the three council system has not fulfilled the hopes which led to its adoption in 1967.

The General Assembly, as the central pillar of the inter-American system, might well be convened more frequently, perhaps twice a year, with special additional sessions to consider our common concerns, particularly the great challenges of cooperation for development. As contacts at the Ministerial level intensify, the need for an elaborate structure of councils will disappear. Our encounters at the General Assembly will offer sufficient opportunities to set organizational policy.

This is all the organizational superstructure we really need. A leaner, more responsive organization would be serviced by a smaller expert Secretariat responsive to the guidelines established by the General Assembly and the functional committees the General Assembly may create.

We should improve the OAS mechanisms for promoting respect for human rights in the Americas.

## Membership

To insure that the OAS represents all of the peoples of our region, we should open up the organization to the newly independent states and those which may become independent, both on the continent and in the Caribbean. Although these questions of membership require further study, we believe Article 8 of the present charter, which automatically excludes certain states, is an anachronism and should be removed.

13

Financing

A serious effort to reform the Organization of American States should include a review of present provisions for its financing.

You are all aware of the critical attention the Congress of the United States has focused on the proportion of the organization's cost the United States is now bearing. Obviously, this has been a factor in recent U.S. budget cuts affecting the OAS. We do not claim that the United States is paying too much, or more than its fair share of the cost in terms of our relative ability to pay. It is only that it is wrong and damaging for an organization of two dozen-soon to be 25-sovereign states, whose purpose is to advance the interests of each, to be so heavily dependent on the contributions of a single member. It places the organization in a vulnerable position, and projects a false image of the OAS.

It is important to find some basis for OAS financing that will, over time, reduce the U.S. share

of the assessed costs while insuring that the activities of the OAS in the vital development assistance field are not weakened.

The United States is committed to the Organization of American States. We know that it provides an institutional base which will continue to be vital to our common progress. In these years of great change, the nations of the world have seen fresh proof of an old truth—that the most durable and responsive institutions are those which bear a lighter burden of bureaucratic machinery and whose procedures permit the flexibility required for swift and imaginative action.

We believe our proposals can help bring the drawn-out reform debate to a successful conclusion over the course of the next year. And we believe this is the kind of organization we can and must have if we in the Americas are to fulfill our promise and our responsibility to advance international cooperation in an era of interdependence.

15

*Joint Report of the Republic of Panama and the United States June 9, 1976.*

For the past 12 years, with the support of the OAS, Panama and the United States have maintained an active negotiating process with respect to the new regime for the Panama Canal. By virtue of the Joint Declaration of April 3, 1964, both countries pledged their word to work out a new treaty—a treaty new not only in its date of entry into force, but also in the mentality which it will reflect; that is, it will be in accord with the evolution experienced by the international community.

We are negotiating because both countries feel the need to build a new relationship which gives full regard to the aspirations of the Panamanian people, the interests of both nations, and the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations. And we are negotiating in deference to the unanimous views of our sister republics in the Western Hemisphere.

We are working on the basis that every negotiation concerning an old problem is a transaction toward new formulas of justice, and that progress can only be achieved when a spirit of compromise between the parties exists as a result of their understanding of new realities—above all, when they seek a balancing of interests within a reasonable period of time.

The negotiating process has confirmed the dedication of both parties to the eight principles agreed on by their authorized representatives on February 7, 1974 [Secretary Kissinger and Foreign Minister Tack of Panama]. The two countries reported to this Assembly last year that significant progress had been made in this process of balancing the interests of both parties in accordance with the eight principles. We are pleased to report that during the past year the parties have made further significant progress on the highly complex issues before them.

Differences remain between the two parties on important issues—the period of duration of the new treaty, and arrangements in the land and water areas comprising the Panama Canal Zone.

The Republic of Panama and the United States are anxious to complete these negotiations as soon as possible and recognize that the other nations represented in this Assembly share that desire. But we have recognized that the complexity of the issues remaining before us requires the most

PANAMA CANAL

16

careful and painstaking negotiating efforts if we are
to achieve a treaty which is truly just and equita-
ble—a treaty which will balance the respective
interests of both countries and those of the other
nations of the Hemisphere and the world in such a
way as to definitely eliminate the potential for
causes of conflict in the future. It is in this sense
that both Governments are in agreement with the
concept expressed by General Torrijos that we are
not simply seeking any new treaty—we are seeking
a treaty that will fully meet our common goals in
the future and be seen by our sister republics as
reflecting a new era of cooperation in the Ameri-
cas. The United States and the Republic of Panama
reiterate their commitment to continue their most
serious efforts to achieve such a treaty as promptly
as possible.

The negotiation offers both peoples a peace-
ful alternative for the solution of a prolonged dis-
agreement between them, and both Governments
are convinced that it is their responsibility to
explore to the utmost this path which offers such
real possibilities for a satisfactory agreement which
will cement on solid foundations the friendship
and cooperation between our two countries.

If we continue the serious work presently
being carried out and if we maintain the reciprocal
good will of both missions toward reaching a solu-
tion to the pending problems, we cherish the hope
that soon we will be able to advise you that a
treaty has been agreed upon—a treaty which not
only all America, but the entire world, awaits as an
effective contribution to consolidate peace and
friendship among all peoples.

U.N. ECONOMIC
COMMISSION FOR
LATIN AMERICA

*Statement by Henry A. Kissinger at the Headquarters of the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America [ECLA], June 9, 1976.*

Mr. Secretary [Executive Secretary Enrique Iglesias], I appreciate very much the complimentary remarks that you have made and I would like you and your distinguished staff to know that while it is a meeting of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States that brings me to Santiago at this time, I value this opportunity to meet with you and to visit this renowned fountain-head of ideas.

You have much of which to be proud. You, Mr. Secretary, with all your well-known energy and wisdom have followed and successfully built upon the work of your very capable predecessors, Prebisch, Mayobre, and Quintana. These men, like you, were well known within and beyond our Hemisphere as statesmen. My colleagues and I have great respect for the work you have done and for the tremendous accomplishments of the Economic Commission for Latin America. This center of study and action has done much to ignite the con-sciences of men everywhere to take on the challenges of economic development. Your approach is progressive and, especially because it is non-political, it is effective.

As is only to be expected, we have at times not seen eye-to-eye with regard to certain problems or the prescriptions for dealing with them. But we have avoided ideological postures: our thinking, and I believe yours, have evolved. In the process we have moved closer together with respect to many, if not most, essentials. We have listened and learned as this institution has led the movement for economic integration among the developing coun-tries of this Hemisphere. We have worked together on trade and development, and we have agreed with your shift in emphasis from import-substitution to export-oriented strategies.

The problem of economic development is not primarily a technical issue. It is profoundly a political and moral issue. It is not possible to build a world community which is divided between the rich and the poor. If we are to live in a world of peace and justice, all nations must have a sense of participation, and all nations must have the con-

18

sciousness that the world community either takes
into account their concerns—or at least listens to
their concerns.

This is why we attach such extreme import-
ance to the dialogue that is now taking place
between the developed and developing nations, for
regardless of the technical solutions we find, the
spirit we can help engender can contribute to a
world of peace and to a sense of community. And
this is why we are concerned when there are
attitudes of confrontation or technical majorities,
because it is the essence of an international
structure that solutions cannot be imposed by one
group on another, but that a consensus must be
established in which all share. The nations of Latin
America have a very special role to play in this
process. They are among the most developed
of the developing nations, or among the least de-
veloped of the developed nations. They belong to
the Organization of American States and they are
tied to us, a country which has a great concern
with security and global equilibrium. But they are
also a part of other groupings of the so-called Third
World, and they can, therefore, in important re-
spects act as a bridge between the views of the
different groups that exist in the world today.

In the field of development, the United States
has offered important proposals for dealing with
current international economic difficulties. At the
Seventh Special Session of the U.N. General
Assembly we put forth suggestions and agreement
was reached on a number of measures designed to
enhance economic security and to cope with the
cycles that in the past have devastated export
earnings and undermined development, and we
dealt with other issues relating to trade, technolo-
gy, and capital flows.

In Nairobi, we advocated a comprehensive
plan for addressing major commodity issues and set
forth additional proposals for dealing with tech-
nology and other requirements for development.

Our proposal for the establishment of an
International Resources Bank failed for reasons of
an accidental majority. But I cannot scold every
forum that I meet on this topic. I think we have
made our point. The more fundamental problem I
would like to put to this distinguished group is
how to relate these general proposals for global

development which are important to the special
requirements of the Western Hemisphere. My
colleagues and I are doing a great deal of thinking
on how, in a global context of development, we
can at the same time reflect the special ties and the
special values, and the particular institutions that
have grown up in this Hemisphere—how we can
avoid being caught between the extremes of
dogmatic globalism and dogmatic regionalism. We
favor regional integration of the Western
Hemisphere or of the nations of Latin America
either in sub-regional groupings or in regional
groupings, and we are going to give very serious
study to how, within a global framework, we can
spur the very special concerns for development of
our old friends and associates in the Hemisphere.

Today, at the meeting of the OAS General
Assembly, I made some specific proposals of what
can be done within the framework of existing
legislation and within the discretion that our
Executive has, but I also pointed out that at the
Special Session on Development that has been
proposed by several members at the General
Assembly and that we assume will take place next
spring, the United States will be prepared to
address the more fundamental questions that I'm
putting to my friends here: how to relate the
global concerns for development with the regional
concerns of the Western Hemisphere, because it
would be wrong to waste the traditions of coopera-
tion and the special relationships that have grown
up in this Hemisphere. I am providing your Execu-
tive Secretary with a copy of the paper in which
we made a series of comments and recommenda-
tions regarding cooperation for development, and I
hope that ECLA will find that it can play a role
with regard to some of the arrangements we sugges-
ted on vital issues; for example, on technology for
development. We hope also that you will not feel
yourself confined to the proposals that we have
made, and will feel free to offer your own sugges-
tions. In looking at the record, the danger that you
will feel yourself confined by our proposals is
minimal.

The nations of this Hemisphere are bound by
historical and other special ties and interests. The
United States consequently supported and has
been interested in the work of ECLA since its

19

founding in 1948. I would also like to reciprocate
the very warm words of the Secretary General
[U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim]* whose

dedication to the cause of peace we admire and
whose indefatigable efforts in all areas of world
problems we support. I wish you and the Executive
Secretary the very best as you carry on your
important work, and I would like to thank you for
this very warm reception I have had here.

*As conveyed by Roberto Guyer, personal representative of the Secretary General.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

J. W. FULBRIGHT, Arkansas, Chairman

JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama

MIKE MANSFIELD, Montana

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

GALE W. MCGEE, Wyoming

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota

GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont

CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey

JACOB K. JAVITS, New York

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

PAT M. HOLT, Chief of Staff

ARTHUR M. KUHL, Chief Clerk

(II)

CONTENTS

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Page</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Letter of transmittal</td><td>v</td></tr><tr><td>I. Introduction</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>II. Procedure</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>III. The Conference of Tlatelolco</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>IV. Concluding comments</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>V. A note on United States-Mexico parliamentary relations</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table>

APPENDIX

<table><tbody><tr><td>1. The initial proposal</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2. Bases for a new dialogue between Latin America and the United States adopted at the Conference of Chancellors of Latin America for Continental Cooperation held in Bogota, in November of 1973</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>3. Document of Bogota adopted by the Conference of Chancellors of Latin America for Continental Cooperation held in Bogota, Colombia, in November of 1973</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>4. Speech delivered by Mr. Luis Echeverria Alvarez, President of Mexico, during the inaugural ceremony of the Conference of Tlatelolco</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>5. Speech by the Minister of Foreign Relations of Colombia, Dr. Alfredo Vazquez Carrizosa, during the opening meeting of the Conference of Tlatelolco</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>6. Address of Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to the Conference of Tlatelolco, Mexico City</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>7. Address by Dr. Aristides Calvani, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, at the closing session of the Conference of Tlatelolco</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>8. Speech made by the Secretary of Foreign Relations, Emilio O. Rabasa, at the Conference of Tlatelolco</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>9. Declaration of Tlatelolco</td><td>29</td></tr></tbody></table>

(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

MARCH 11, 1974.

Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHIT,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the request of the Secretary of State, Senator Scott, Senator McGee and I attended the Inter-American Conference of Tlatelolco in Mexico City, February 21-23, 1974. While in Mexico City we also met with President Echeverría and a number of our colleagues of the Mexican Congress. In discussions with the latter with the assistance of the Chief of Staff of the Committee, Mr. Pat M. Holt, we were able to clarify a number of questions involving arrangements for the impending 14th United States-Mexico Parliamentary Meeting.

The attached report covers my observations and reactions in regard to the Conference of Tlatelolco. In addition, a note on the Parliamentary meetings is also included at the end of the regular report.

Sincerely,

MIKE MANSFIELD.

(v)

[10]

# A REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE OF TLATELOLCO

## I. Introduction

At the request of the Secretary of State, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, several Members of the Congress served with the United States delegation at the Inter-American Conference of Tlatelolco which was held in Mexico City, February 21-23, 1974. For the first time in memory the Leadership of both Houses of the Congress joined with the Secretary of State in a meeting of this kind with regard to Latin-American and Caribbean policy.

The House group was led by Speaker Albert and included Representatives Dante Fascell and William Mailliard. In attendance from the Senate were the Republican Leader (Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs (Senator Gale McGee of Wyoming) and myself. The Secretary of the Senate (Mr. Frank Valeo) accompanied the group. All Members of the Congressional delegation had had substantial prior experience in inter-American affairs.

## II. Procedure

Legislative-Executive communication during the course of this Conference was frank and friendly and, in accord with separate Constitutional responsibilities in foreign relations. The Congressional Members met with the Secretary of State en route and at frequent intervals in Mexico City for discussions of issues and U.S. policy. We were kept fully informed of developments as they were unfolding and we were able to make advisory contributions with regard thereto. In turn, the Secretary of State derived from us an estimate of Congressional attitudes on positions which were assumed by this government at the Conference, some of which could be sustained only with some assurance of subsequent legislative concurrence.

Together, then, the Secretary of State and the Congressional group presented to the other participating countries a valid impression of U.S. unity on inter-American policy. Frequent joint appearances at formal meetings, before the press and at public gatherings, symbolized a shared viewpoint. On an individual basis, moreover, the Members sustained the formal positions taken by the Secretary of State on behalf of the United States government. We were able to do so freely and in good conscience on the basis of common understanding and mutual accommodation.

## III. The Conference of Tlatelolco

At the very outset of the Conference, Secretary Kissinger made clear to his colleagues from Latin America and the Caribbean that he was not interested in a war of words or in a grandiloquent cover-up of

(1)

2

difficulties in the relations of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. He sought, rather, to give a new tone to these relations. In taking this approach the Secretary was on sound grounds.

Too often, in recent years, rhetoric has substituted for reality in our dealings with the other American States. Too often, too, there has been surface cooperation but sub-surface confrontation between the United States and the nations to the South. Periodic bursts of U.S. interest in Latin America and the Caribbean have alternated with prolonged periods of disinterest. The words of equality, friendship and mutuality have blurred a certain persisting anxiety among the American States to the South. It is an anxiety which oscillates between fear of the enormous power of this nation on the one hand and a concern lest the needs of the Hemisphere be ignored in a U.S. preoccupation with Europe and Asia on the other. There has also been, in all frankness, an ambivalence in our attitude towards the Latin American States. A readiness to move in genuine concert with them has alternated, historically, with unilateral and precipitous assertions of our power.

For a decade, the Alliance for Progress served to conceal difficulties of this kind. So, too, did the Good Neighbor Policy before it, as did other dictums at still earlier times, going back to the Monroe Doctrine. Notwithstanding the constructive aspects of our various Latin American policies, divisive tendencies have been a persistent undercurrent of Hemispheric relations. In recent years, the cement of the most recent U.S. policy, the Alliance for Progress, has worn thin and these tendencies have been coming closer and closer to the surface.

The fact is that the circumstances of Latin America and the Caribbean and, indeed, of our own country have changed since the Alliance was undertaken in the Kennedy Administration. When we deal with Brazil, for example, we now confront a nation which in area and in population is larger than any in Western Europe. It is a nation, moreover, which shows in its major cities and elsewhere a dynamic modernization. The same may be said for Mexico and other of the Latin American countries. Elsewhere the pace of change is slower or scarcely perceptible. In some basic materials, we are becoming more a "have not" nation whereas many of our neighbors are in the category of "have." In short, we should bear in mind in our approach to the other American Republics that there are many graduations of "developed and undeveloped," of "have and have not." The terms are relative. There are pockets of underdevelopment and wealth in every country, and of development and poverty, side by side, in every country including the United States. In this situation, it is clear that the Alliance for Progress, whatever its original thrust has been overweighted on the side of dependency on U.S. aid activities and insufficiently concerned with other needs and aspirations of the Americas. Our policies, nevertheless, have tended to cling to its patterns. So, too, have our attitudes. As such, both have lost much of their relevance to current realities in this Hemisphere.

It was in an effort to deal with this time-lag that, last October, the President and the Secretary of State called for a new approach to the common affairs of the Western Hemisphere. The other American Republics responded at a meeting which was held in Bogota the following month. At that time, a united Latin American Caribbean agenda was drawn up for a "dialogue" with the United States. It

3

represented, in considerable part, a scarcely concealed catalogue of dissatisfactions in regard to the existing state of inter-American affairs.

It was on this note, then, that the delegates to the Conference of Tlatelolco assembled in Mexico City on February 21. Rather than evade the issues posed by the Bogota agenda, the United States concurred, at the outset, in the need for change. The position of the other American States was treated not as a compliant to be answered but as an invitation to face up, together, to a new situation. The Secretary of State called for an era of concrete cooperation in the Americas and, to that end, set forth specific U.S. proposals on a range of specific questions. Some of these were responses to certain of the Bogota proposals. Others were added as U.S. initiatives.

One such initiative, for example, was for a cooperative American effort to relieve situations of disaster and emergency in the Hemisphere. This proposal was of particular interest to me since thirteen years ago, on returning from an extended visit in Latin America, I had suggested that:

* "An opportunity may exist for a major advance in Hemispheric cooperation in connection with a most important humanitarian endeavor. For some time now, the Defense Department has been developing and expanding techniques for air and sea rescue work throughout the Americas. On a less organized basis, this nation has participated in ** relief work in connection with disasters.

* "It would be desirable to explore the possibilities of consolidating these and related functions in a permanent hemispheric rescue and relief unit under the Organization of the American States. Such an organization could stockpile food and other emergency supplies at strategic points and otherwise plan and prepare in advance for cooperative and immediate action whenever and wherever disaster strikes in the Western Hemisphere. An organization of this kind would not only have the highest practical utility but would be a symbol of the humanistic potential of hemispheric cooperation."

As the statements of the Secretary of State which are appended make clear, this nation is on record as being ready to act on a cooperative basis, not merely in humanistic undertakings but on questions of trade, science and technology, reform of the Organization of the American States, energy and resources, the problem of seized assets, mutual aid and many other subjects. These proposals follow on the progress in negotiations regarding the status of the Panama Canal and on the issue of compensation for nationalized U.S. firms in Peru, both of which were precursors of the stress which the Secretary of State placed, at the Conference, on the need for "community" in the Western Hemisphere. At the outset, the pledge was made by the Secretary of State that—

* * * We will not impose our political preferences;

* * * We will not intervene in the domestic affairs of others;

* * * We will seek a free association of proud people.

Together, these initiatives reflected the kind of national restraint which this country is prepared to exercise in dealing with the American

*U.S. Committee on Foreign Relations. Latin American and United States Policies. Report of Senator Mike Mansfield, Jan. 13, 1962, p. 15.

4

States. It is a restraint which is sought by them but is also in our
national interests because it is an essential ingredient in a satisfactory
transition of inter-American relations into a new era of close hemi-
spheric cooperation.

Ancient anxieties do not disappear overnight, of course, but the
initial response of the Latin American and Caribbean nations was
generally favorable to the new approach offered by the United States.
As the Conference progressed, moreover, the opening position of the
United States was elaborated with candor and erudition by the Secre-
tary of State. There was a perceptible growth in acceptance of the
fact that the United States did intend to move into a new era of active
cooperation on the basis of equality and mutuality. Expressions of
concurrence with Secretary Kissinger's analyses and proposals began
to be heard with increasing frequency. In the end, the Conference
subscribed, unanimously, to a pledge, to work in cooperation rather
than confrontation to try to develop a new sense of inter-American
community. This, in essence, was the "Spirit of Tlatelolco" the final
note of the Conference of Tlatelolco.

IV. Concluding Comments

The spirit of community engendered at the Conference in my judg-
ment, was genuine and substantial, if not necessarily universal. From
the point of view of the United States, the Conference served the
highly useful purpose of checking what had been a growing aversion
to aspects of this nation's policies and practices. The durability of the
new spirit, of course, is another matter. Foreign Ministers meeting
face-to-face, can agree on grand designs. It remains for foreign mini-
stries, however, to spell out the details of their agreement. How effec-
tively the conversion is made depends on many functionaries in twenty-
four of the capitals of the Western Hemisphere.

The test of the new spirit may come as soon as the next meeting of
O.A.S. Foreign Ministers which is scheduled to take place next month
in Atlanta, Georgia. In the interim, it is anticipated that substantial
progress will have been made by the foreign ministries on questions
involving aid, trade, the rights and responsibilities of foreign corpora-
tions, and other specific issues. Also to be faced sooner or later are the
questions of Cuban ostracism and the still unresolved status of the
Panama Canal.

On the initiative of this nation, Cuba was excluded from O.A.S.
affairs in 1962. Other American States followed our example of break-
ing diplomatic relations with Cuba until at one time only Mexico con-
tinued to retain contact. Now, however, seven American States have
established diplomatic ties with Havana and it would appear to be only
a matter of time until others follow suit. Through the intercession of
Switzerland, moreover, this nation has reached a satisfactory under-
standing with the Cuban government on what had been a major source
of friction, the handling of hi-jacked airliners. Furthermore, resettle-
ment and attrition have eased the refugee problem and the more bloody
and ruthless aspects of revolution have shifted elsewhere in the
Hemisphere.

There is the likelihood of increasing support in the Hemisphere
for re-inclusion of Cuba in the over-all affairs of the Americas and

5

the Caribbean. In anticipation of that time, this nation would be well advised to consider its present non-policies on Cuba as they relate to over-all Hemispheric needs.

Insofar as the Panama Canal is concerned, special Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, did find common grounds with the Panamanian government for considering a new status for the Zone. However, there is still a great deal to be negotiated before that status, in fact, can be redefined. In the best of circumstances, these negotiations would be difficult because the problem is highly complex in a technical and judicial sense. But there are also historic emotions enmeshed in the situation and vested political and other interests, not only in Panama and the United States but elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean. If there is restraint on all sides, it may be that an acceptable solution can be devised in due course. Certainly, it would be most undesirable from the point of view of Hemispheric unity, if the avenue for the consideration of this issue were to be shifted to the United Nations or some other international setting.

These, then, are some of the lesser and greater shoals on which the newly-emerging sense of inter-American community could come to grief. If they are to be avoided, a great deal of restraint will have to be shown on all sides. It would be well to remember that this is not the first attempt to breathe new life into the Organization of the American States. For a long time to come, it may be the last, if the momentum which was generated at the Conference of Tlatelolco is not maintained in the months ahead.

It cannot be emphasized too much that our interests in regard to Latin America and the Caribbean are much wider than a Cuban problem or the status of the Canal Zone or any other particular aspect of our present policies. The sum is far greater than any of the parts. Before all else, it should be noted that the existence of generally non-hostile neighbors to the South is of incalculable value to a nation which must also look both East and West at a vast complex of unknowns in its international relations. Friendly Southern borders, to say the least, mean greatly reduced costs in maintaining the nation's military security. The several thousand military forces assigned for defense purposes in the Southern regions are negligible. In contrast a garrison of over 300,000 is maintained in Western Europe and some 200,000 in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Complimentary economies with the other Americas yield a total U.S.-Latin American trade of over $12 billion annually, the third largest regional component in our overseas commerce. U.S. investments in Latin America are estimated to be $13.5 billion. There are recreational, educational, social and other ties between this nation and the diverse cultures to the South which enrich the lives of our people and which can yield increasing satisfactions to all of the peoples of the Western Hemisphere in a world of growing interdependency.

This vast sweep of interests is the appropriate background against which to consider specific points of friction, whether the Canal Zone or some other. It would be well in the Congress, therefore, to keep an open mind on the efforts of the President and the Secretary of State to negotiate a path through the many pit-falls of inter-American relations and to give them such support and cooperation as can be given in

6

the light of the separate constitutional responsibilities of the two
Branches. It is essential for this nation's present well-being and for its
future that the common bonds of the Hemisphere are maintained in
satisfactory condition. Not only the Executive Branch but Members
of Congress and of the Senate, in particular, have responsibilities in
this connection.

V. A Note on United States-Mexico Parliamentary Relations

The Congressional Members of the United States delegation to the
Conference of Tlatelolco took the occasion of their presence in Mexico
City to meet with colleagues of the Mexican Congress (including the
Chairman of the Mexican delegation, Senator Olivares Santana) to
the coming 14th U.S.-Mexico Parliamentary Meeting. We discussed
arrangements for the meeting which will take place in this country in
the spring in a spirit of cordiality and accommodation. Indeed, that
is the attitude which has characterized all of the previous thirteen
meetings of this bi-national Parliamentary institution and it has con-
tributed greatly to the maintenance of beneficial relations between the
two nations. These meetings have led not only to greater understand-
ing and tolerance between legislators of the two countries, they have
also been a principal instrument in resolving such complex issues, for
example, as the Chamizal question and the salinization of the Colorado
River waters.

In a meeting with the President of Mexico, Luis Echeverría Al-
varez, we discussed the future of these Parliamentary meetings.
Among the suggestions which emerged were the desirability of joint
parliamentary consideration of issues which are presently before the
Foreign Ministers of the O.A.S. This proposal seems particularly ap-
propriate since the resolution of some of these issues will require leg-
islative concurrence. Viewpoints which emerge at the next Parlia-
mentary meeting may also have relevance to the work of the Foreign
Ministers of the two countries. Reference was also made to the desir-
ability of considering the question of promoting greater exchanges of
students, teachers and others on a mutual basis between Mexico and
the United States. It would seem to me that the Parliamentary meet-
ings should be prepared to explore any issue or proposal which relates
to the possibility of developing greater harmony in Mexico-United
States relations to the end that each nation may contribute to the
other's well-being and both, more fully, to the progress of the Hemi-
sphere and the stability of international peace.

# APPENDIX

## 1. THE INITIAL PROPOSAL

(Toast by Secretary Kissinger at a luncheon honoring Western Hemisphere delegations to the United Nations General Assembly, October 5, 1973)

President Benites [Leopoldo Benites, of Ecuador, President of the 28th U.N. General Assembly], Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: There is a story of an Englishman who visited Sweden, and when he was going through passport control, he was confronted with two lines. One was marked for Swedes; the other one was marked for foreigners. After a while an official came by and found him sitting between these two lines. And the official said, "Sir, will you please go into one line or the other?" And he said, "That's just my problem. I am not a Swede, and I am obviously not a foreigner." [Laughter.]

I think that story is symbolic of our meeting today. We obviously do not belong all to one country, but we obviously are also not foreigners in this room.

I am grateful that you came and for this opportunity to tell you that we are serious about starting a new dialogue with our friends in the Americas.

As we look back at the history of the relationships of the United States to its neighbors to the south, it has been characterized by alternating periods of what some of you have considered intervention with periods of neglect.

We are proposing to you a friendship based on equality and on respect for mutual dignity.

And such a relationship is needed for all of us, and I believe it is needed also for the rest of the world.

In the United States in the last decade, we have experienced many dramatic changes. Throughout most of our history we could overpower most of our foreign policy problems, and we could also substitute resources for thought. Today, without understanding, we can do very little.

Throughout much of our history, indeed throughout much of this administration, we used to believe with respect to agriculture, for example, that our primary problem was how to get rid of seemingly inexhaustible surpluses. We have now learned that we share the world's problem: how to allocate scarce food resources in relation to world needs.

When I came to Washington, the discussions with respect to energy concerned means of restricting production and allocating it among various allies. Today the problem is to find energy sources around the world that can meet world needs.

So we in this country are going through a revolution of sorts, and the whole world is undergoing a revolution in its patterns. And the basic problem we face is whether we will choose the road of nationalism or the road of cooperation, whether we will approach it from the perspective of each party trying to get the maximum benefit for itself, or whether we can take a common view based on our common needs. And this is why our relations in this hemisphere are so crucial for all of us in this room and for all the rest of the world as well. We in this room, with all the ups and downs in our relationships, share a common history and similar values and many similar experiences. The value of human dignity is nowhere better understood than in the countries of our friends to the south of us.

So if the technically advanced nations can ever cooperate with the developing nations, if people with similar aspirations can ever achieve common goals, then it must start here in the Western Hemisphere.

We in the United States will approach this dialogue with an open mind. We do not believe that any institution or any treaty arrangements is beyond ex-amination. We want to see whether free peoples, emphasizing and respecting their diversity but united by similar aspirations and values, can achieve great goals on the basis of equality.

(7)

8

So we are starting an urgent examination of our Western Hemisphere policy within our government. But such a policy makes no sense if it is a U.S. prescription handed over to Latin Americans for your acceptance or rejection. It shouldn't be a policy designed in Washington for Latin America. It should be a policy designed by all of Latin America for the Americas.

And so as we examine our own policy, we must also ask for your help. We know that there isn't one Latin America, but many different countries. We know also that there are certain subregional groupings. But it isn't for us to say with whom to conduct the dialogue. That has to come from our guests here in this room.

And so as we form our policy, I would like to invite your suggestions, whatever form you think appropriate, as groups or subgroups or individual nations.

And when our final policy emerges, we will all have a sense that we all had a share in its making, and we will all have a stake in maintaining it.

So, President Benites and Excellencies, I would like to propose a toast to what can be an adventure of free peoples working together to establish a new relationship that can be an example to many other nations. I would like to propose a toast to Western Hemisphere relationships, to our distinguished guest of honor, President Benites.

## 2. BASES FOR A NEW DIALOGUE BETWEEN LATIN AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES ADOPTED AT THE CONFERENCE OF CHANCELLORS OF LATIN AMERICA FOR CONTINENTAL COOPERATION HELD IN BOGOTA, COLOMBIA, IN NOVEMBER OF 1973

During the Conference, the validity of the principles and concepts—which the Latin American countries have consecrated in different well-known documents such as the Consensus of Viña del Mar of 1969 and others which have consequently been approved—were reiterated as was the need to take essential measures to effectively enforce them.

Bearing in mind that during the “new dialogue” to be held soon with the Secretary of State it will not be possible to extensively examine all and each of the present problems which interest Latin America, the Conference reached the conclusion that it would be profitable to begin an exchange.

### COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT

Inter-American cooperation for development should effectively contribute to integral development; therefore, it should be applied to all fields—economic, commercial, financial, social, technological, scientific, educational and cultural. Cooperation through the multilateral mechanism of the inter-American system should be integral and not be made conditional unilaterally by the assisting country, nor should it be discriminatory.

It is necessary to establish a system of collective economic security to protect the conditions inherent in the integral development of the countries.

There is a pressing need to take measures for the free access of Latin American products to the United States market where they are subject to various kinds of unjustified restrictions such as tariff, non-tariff, health, quota and other similar restrictions.

### BASES FOR A NEW DIALOGUE BETWEEN LATIN AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES

On October 5, 1973, by invitation of the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Henry A. Kissinger, a meeting was held of the representatives of the Latin American countries attending the Twenty-Eighth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

On that occasion, the Secretary of State on proposing to Latin America a “friendship based on equality and respect for individual dignity”, offered to initiate a “new dialogue” with the Latin American countries to deal with matters which interest the hemisphere.

In view of this initiative, the Government of Colombia issued an invitation to the Secretary of State, Mr. Henry A. Kissinger who stated that “he hopes to be able to participate actively and in person in such a dialogue at an opportune moment”. The Government of Colombia then convened a conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs to exchange opinions on the best way to set the bases for a new dialogue.

9

The conference was held in Bogota from November 14th through 16th, 1973, with the attendance of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Barbados, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Colombia and the Special Representatives appointed for that purpose by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Jamaica, Bolivia, Haiti, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina.¹

## COERCIVE ECONOMIC MEASURES

It is necessary to establish an effective mechanism of protection against the proposal, adoption or implementation of this type of measures.

## RESTRUCTURING THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM

It is necessary to intensify the work of restructuring the inter-American system so as to adapt it to new political, economic, technological, social and cultural conditions of the American States and to hemispheric and world circumstances. Likewise, it is necessary for the United States to share the aspirations and join the Latin American efforts to achieve the deep changes which the system requires.

## SOLUTION TO THE QUESTION OF THE PANAMA CANAL

In view of the information that the bilateral negotiations which began in 1964 between the Republic of Panama and the United States of America on the question of the Panama Canal shall soon be resumed, all the other countries of Latin America, reaffirming their solidarity with the Republic of Panama, manifest that the resolution of that matter is of common and urgent interest for Latin America and they hope that the already extensive negotiations shall culminate in a solution which satisfies the just aspiration of the Republic of Panama.

## INTERNATIONAL TRADE STRUCTURE AND MONETARY SYSTEM

The Latin American countries are determined to contribute to the correction of the existing economic distortions and to ensure their right to prosperity and peace. Therefore, their total and effective participation in the multilateral trade negotiations and in the reform of the international monetary system is essential so that their efforts for development may not be injured by decisions in which they do not participate. Likewise, particularly in trade negotiations, it is necessary to abide by the principle that each country's obligations should be in accordance with its economic capacity; and therefore, the developing countries should receive differential treatment.

The United States should urgently put in force its general preference system and apply it without reciprocity and discrimination of any type. Standing preference should not be impaired during multilateral trade negotiations; they should be expanded. The preferences given within the general system should have the character of an international legal obligation.

During multilateral trade negotiations or independent of them, agreements and mechanisms relating to basic commodities of regional interest must be reestablished or created to contribute to the attainment of just and remuneration prices and their long-term stability.

## TRANSNATIONAL ENTERPRISES

There is a deep concern in the Latin American sphere due to the attitude of transnational enterprises which interfere in domestic questions of countries where they carry out their activities and try to elude the legislation and jurisdiction of competent national tribunals.

Transitional enterprises constitute an adequate factor of Latin American development, as long as they respect the sovereignty of the countries in which they operate and adjust to their development programs.

Latin America considers that the United States' cooperation is necessary to overcome the resulting difficulties or frictions and avoid those that could originate

¹ Order of precedence established by lot.

10

from the conduct of transnational enterprises which violate the principles men-
tioned herein.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Integral development of the Latin American countries requires an adequate
technology. To comply with that objective and as a supplement to national ef-
forts, technology transfer should be obtained from the different world sources
among which the United States plays an important role. In this matter, Latin
America hopes to obtain maximum cooperation from the United States
government.

government.
Technology transfer should contribute to improve the economic, social and cul-
tural levels in fields such as those of education, health, housing, nutrition, agri-
culture and industry. This transfer should be adapted to the needs, possibilities
and characteristics of the Latin American countries, bearing in mind their de-
velopment projects and programs.

GENERAL PANORAMA OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LATIN AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Consideration of the political problems of hemispheric interest in the light of
the present world and regional situation.

The selection of the above subjects obeys a criterion of priority, and conse-
quently, does not mean that other problems cannot be discussed on another
occasion.

The Conference likewise expresses the willingness of the participating coun-
tries to discuss any other matters which the United States of America may wish
to propose.

Finally, it is considered advisable to jointly agree, as soon as possible, on the
date for the proposed meeting that is to be held in Mexico.

3. DOCUMENT OF BOGOTÁ ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF CHAN-
CELLORS OF LATIN AMERICA FOR CONTINENTAL COOPERATION
HELD IN BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA, IN NOVEMBER OF 1973

DOCUMENT OF BOGOTÁ

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Special Representatives of the Latin American States, meeting in Bogotá from November 14th through 16th, 1973.

After having analyzed the circumstances under which a new dialogue could
be held between Latin America and the United States in response to the invita-
tion of the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Henry A. Kissinger.

Aware that deep changes have occurred in the international situation and that
it is necessary to establish a new direction for Continental Cooperation,

Desiring to promote this new Cooperation based, among others, on the prin-
ciples of solidarity, non-intervention, respect for national sovereignties as well
as the self-determination of peoples and the legal equality among states,

Have decided on the bases for the "new dialogue" between Latin America and
the United States to be presented to the Secretary of State by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Dr. Alfredo Vásquez Carrizosa, and, likewise,

Have agreed on the following:

1. Latin America is aware of its new situation which allows it to use and encourage the elements of international cooperation as a support to the necessary national efforts to accelerate its own development, improve the economic, social and cultural levels of its peoples and contribute to universal peace and coexistence, pursuant to the lofty objectives corresponding to a continent of considerable economy potential, vast natural resources and high human values.

2. The increasing and positive Latin American nationalism constitutes a substantial element in Latin American unity and implies the common will of strengthening its personality and of jointly developing its historical des-tiny, since it is a community of free and sovereign states, with its own values derived from historic, cultural and social evolution.

3. The economic and social development is mainly the responsibility of each of the Latin American peoples and imposes upon the states integral, shared and solidary cooperation as a necessary condition for their effective progress.

11

4. On this occasion, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs want to reaffirm their governments' desire to reach the objectives of integration and of an integral, harmonic and self-supporting development, aiming at the realization of the individual and of international social justice.

5. On this occasion we should reiterate the will of the States for CECLA to continue its positive work as an agency of coordination and joint Latin American action, both on a continental and world scale; and the decision that all should contribute to its strengthening in order to make it more effective.

6. Likewise, it is necessary to promote, together with the other developing countries, the establishment of different Latin American coordination mechanisms in order to efficiently utilize their basic commodities and natural resources, in accordance with their sovereign rights. In that sense, the adoption of the Agreement Establishing the Latin American Power Organization (OLADE) is a cause for deep satisfaction.

7. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs reaffirm the need to intensify the work of restructuring the Inter-American system in order to adapt it to the new political, economic, social and cultural conditions of the American States and hemispheric and world circumstances. They express their confidence in the success of the Special Committee established by Resolution 127 of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

8. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs reiterate the urgent need to draw up a draft of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States to be analyzed and approved by the Twenty-Ninth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

9. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs, on expressing their pleasure with the effort made by the Latin American representatives in the specialized subregional, regional and international agencies, exhort them to intensify the work tending to encourage adequate Latin American and world corporation.

10. The ministers of Foreign Affairs reiterate the need to intensify common action in continental and world spheres so as to obtain the establishment of just and equitable conditions in the international economic structure. They stress the urgency of attaining an increase in their participation in world trade; just and remunerative prices for their basic commodities and favorable terms of trade; adequate financial support for their exports; elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers; the exercise and perfecting of a General Preference System, legally guaranteed; access to adequate technology and the creation of favorable conditions in international loans.

11. Likewise, with a view to achieving some of the common Latin American objectives, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs recommend:

(a) That the representatives of the member countries of LAFTA, Cartagena Agreement, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Central American States (ODECA), study the means of perfecting their mechanisms so as to speed up these processes; the possibility that those countries which still do not belong to any of these groups may participate; the way to establish permanent contacts among those entities to exchange information and cooperate with each other in order to facilitate progress in the integration processes which are so important in the Latin American countries' development.

(b) That the possibility of harmonizing the methods and procedures to increase trade among the Latin American countries be studied.

(c) That the system of conventions drawn up among the Central Banks of Latin America be completed to improve the system of payments and reciprocal credits.

(d) That the studies being made as regards air, maritime and land transportation be accelerated.

12. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs ratify the basic principles and concepts of the declarations and other instruments adopted by Latin America in different forums where the common political will of their countries is expressed.

13. In conclusion, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs declare that Latin America's constant purpose is to intensify its action within the context of the developing world so as to struggle against the dependence which, in several ways, opposes the just aspirations of its peoples intended to eradicate once and for all the obstacles restricting and conditioning the progress of their respective nations.

29-614-74-3

12

4. SPEECH DELIVERED BY MR. LUIS ECHEVERRIA ALVAREZ, PRESIDENT OF MEXICO, DURING THE INAUGURAL CEREMONY OF THE CONFERENCE OF TLATELOLCO

Your Excellencies, Ministers of Foreign Relations, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen: I extend to you a most cordial welcome on behalf of the people and the government of Mexico. It is a source of particular pleasure to me to be able to offer you our hospitality and it is a great honor that this Conference, which is significant for so many reasons, is being held in our capital city.

The meeting which today brings you together is evidence of a common desire to begin a different stage of coexistence in our hemisphere. However, neither the objectives of this gathering nor the problems which will be presented are new. Some appeared at the very moment in which our countries became independent. Most of them have been the subject of countless studies, discussions, and agreements during the decades of existence of our regional organization.

The troubled history of hemispheric relations records many attempts at renewed understanding and announcements of promising eras which never materialized. In fact, the channels of communication between our countries have almost never been closed. What has happened is that they have been inoperative and that events have too often belied our purposes and commitments.

The nature of this Conference and the unanimous interest it has aroused reveal, however, the urgency of restating the assumptions and methods of the inter-American system. For this reason, executives of the nations here represented gave their consent for our Ministers of Foreign Affairs to participate in this unusual procedure for consultation.

We believe, despite everything, in the efficacy of dialogue, but we also know that true solutions require persevering action. Diplomatic styles are transitory and the only thing that endures are the efforts which, followed by concerted decisions, succeed in modifying reality. Let us not confuse history with anecdotes or good intentions. The problems which hemispheric relations pose are structural ones and we must confront them as such.

Even the best doctrines and programs of Pan Americanism, those which were inspired by the ideal of Bolivar, were frustrated by the effect of the correlation of real forces in the hemisphere. Territorial plundering; armed aggressions; intervention in the political affairs of our peoples and in their processes for democratic liberation; restrictions to the exercise of sovereignty over our natural resources; as well as the barriers raised against our active participation in world affairs were features, which in different forms, were part of an economic and geopolitical design for hemispheric domination.

Today effective possibilities for change in hemispheric relations exist, on the one hand, because the widespread economic crisis makes a more equitable interdependence necessary and implies a revision both of prevailing economic patterns and of the political strategies on which they are based, and on the other hand, because of the explosive nature of problems that have accumulated throughout vast areas of Latin America which demands an acceleration of internal changes and solidary action to reorganize our exchanges with industrialized countries.

The terms for coexistence in this hemisphere can only be reformulated within the broader framework of world politics. The problems we are facing are not exclusive to our region. They have their own characteristics but to restrict our vision to them alone would be to fall into a narrow view which would conceal true solutions from us. We need to apply to our case an analysis of the real causes and the true alternatives to the world problem of underdevelopment.

Latin America forms part of the Third World. Its struggles are coincident with and parallel to those being made by other nations against colonialism, modern attempts at subjugation, injustice in international transactions, and the concentration of political power, of wealth and of their means of multiplication.

The historical cycle which began at the end of World War II is coming to an end and we must forever eradicate its ideological, political, and economic sequels. The schemes for hegemony which led to a provincial division of the world, closed spheres of influence, intolerance and neo-colonial wars, traditional systems of exploitation, and an economy at the service of excessive waste are being transcended by a series of problems which herald the advent of the twenty-first century.

13

The current energy crisis, together with other equally acute phenomena, is but a symptom of profound imbalances in the international economy. The scarcity of food, the dramatic prospects of unemployment, monetary disorders, overpopulation, pollution, and the relative exhaustion of natural resources all constitute reasons for serious concern by all thinking persons of our time.

Taken separately, none of these phenomena can be controlled. They only acquire meaning within a global perspective which in turn includes and conditions them. It is the system of international coexistence itself and not the special contradictions it generates which we must change. A centuries-old stratification of relationships based on domination is what sustains the world of affluence and expands the boundaries of the underprivileged in a marginal position.

What is needed, consequently, is to find replies in depth, capable of subjecting the irrational forces of history to the demands for the security, well-being and survival of mankind.

Theses which until only recently were used to support vanguard attitudes are today recognised as proven scientific evidence. In the light of the magnitude of the problems of our era, failure to act, skepticism or routine acceptance would be unpardonable. On the other hand, times of crisis often provide fertile soil for negotiations and long-term reforms.

In these days, many different sectors have been insisting, with a revealing emphasis, on the need to restate the objectives and methods of world economy. A group of representatives of forty countries is at present studying, in accordance with the mandate of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the creation of an instrument which, through compulsory norms for economic behavior, will provide a framework of cooperation for equitable development.

The project currently being drafted is a serious effort to define, through the consensus of sovereign states, the real possibilities for transforming international life. It raises to the status of rights demands for justice which have been denied many times. It indicates ways to complement interests and so establishes the indispensable general framework for dealing with each problem through specific rules and mechanisms of operation which are both practical and just.

The Charter will contain the essence of the historical aspirations of Latin America. It will redefine the attributes of sovereignty in the contemporary world and will determine, in the economic sphere, the principles of self-determination and nonintervention. It will consecrate the right of every state to choose the social and economic system in accordance with its desires and peculiarities, free from any kind of external coercion.

It will recognize that a State's jurisdiction includes the free right to dispose of its natural resources and that since expropriations and nationalizations are expressions of this jurisdiction, all controversies arising therefrom are to be considered as exclusively within the competence of the courts of the State in question.

All nations will acknowledge the rights of all other nations to regulate foreign investment, in order to adjust it to the needs of their own development; to participate fairly in international trade; to receive a fair price for their products, to enjoy nonreciprocal preferences according to their individual degree of development; and to receive the benefits of a broad and adequate transfer of financial, scientific and technological resources.

The activities of transnational corporations will also be the object of specific regulations which proscribe at the same time the exercise of economic pressures and interference in the political affairs of our countries.

The channeling of resources used at present for the stockpiling of arms toward tasks for economic progress; the preservation of the environment through an effort to be made primarily by those countries mainly responsible for its deterioration; the exploitation of marine and ocean beds for the benefit of all mankind and the recognition of sovereignty over the patrimonial sea, all problems which vitally affect the future of Latin America, will also be subject to legal provisions.

The adequate application of these principles will favor internal and external conditions so that our countries may satisfy their own needs and assure, on equitable bases, the supply of products which are indispensable to maintain the economic growth of the industrialized societies themselves. It will lead, finally, to a modification of the structure of the international division of labor and take advances made in economic life to areas which possess greater natural resources and manpower.

14

It is irrational to continue to restrict our peoples to a role as punctual producers of raw materials. Neither would this make real development possible because it would favor an internal concentration of wealth and would distort the economic apparatus converting our peoples into passive receptors of models of production and consumption foreign to their needs and interests.

Latin America finds itself in the antechamber of an imminent process of internal mutations: either its ruling classes take the initiative to accelerate and lead this process of demands for justice or they will be inevitably overwhelmed by the direct action of their growing marginal social groups.

Attitudes responsible for change in the area of underdevelopment, therefore, deserve the determined support of the community of nations. In a period ruled by the imagination, all internal efforts designed to safeguard the essential dignity of man and incorporate it as a feature of social and economic life demand the greatest understanding and should never be obstructed from abroad. They presuppose a tight and progressive equilibrium between the forces of stability and those of renewal. They nearly always imply the strengthening of civic spirit capable of overcoming regressive tendencies and the effective participation of the people as a creative force in history.

These same efforts require the coordinated action, within a constitutional framework, of all individual and collective energies; of laborers and modern entrepreneurs; of farm workers and the middle class; of the intelligentsia and of the younger generation. They definitely signify transcending that recurrent cycle between dictatorship and anarchy which during more than a century obstructed the viability of the national State in Latin America.

In the search for elements to promote its modernization, Latin America should not confine itself to the inertia of its hemispheric relations which often prolong ancient servitudes and decrease the multiple choices offered by open exchanges with the whole world.

Let us strike out assumed geopolitical determinism which is anachronic in the complexity of contemporary economics. Let us consolidate, in this hemisphere, bonds based on autonomy, equality and justice. Let us establish the bases for sincere cooperation and let us exercise the militant solidarity of the peoples of the Third World in our own hemispheric home.

At the beginning of the last third of the past century we Mexicans learned from Benito Juárez that the guarantee of peace resides in the respect for the rights of others. Now, together with all the developing countries, we demand that same respect as a basic formula for coexistence.

## 5. SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF COLUMBIA, DR. ALFREDO VAZQUEZ CARRIZOSA, DURING THE OPENING MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF TLATELOLCO

The Americans are truly represented in this hall where the Foreign Ministers of twenty-five countries of this hemisphere have come together. We are a group of persons with long and ancient political experience. We have proposed to create in this part of the world a rule of law based on a series of values that are our very own; outstanding among which are the integrity of sovereignty and the equality of rank of all States. But we find ourselves on the threshold of a new era in which the economic uncertainties of countries are predominant issues. The subject of poverty occupies a principal place in international meetings and we cannot hope to escape this sign of the new era.

The deliberations which are now beginning, and the dialogue which is about to commence between Latin America and the United States, may well signify a fundamental turning point in hemispheric politics, as a start for a new orientation in the relations between the United States and the other countries of this hemisphere. It is a task, we realize, of historic proportions to which we promise to dedicate the best efforts of our respective countries. Latin America and the United States cannot elude the need to review the whole context of their relations in order to place them on a clearer multilateral plan of equality based on economic justice and the elimination of every vestige of colonialism.

In the beginning of this new chapter of our history, the Latin American Foreign Ministers have entrusted me, in the first place, with the high and honorable mission of thanking His Excellency the President of Mexico, Mr. Luis Echeverría, for his eloquent words and attendance at this opening ceremony. It is fortunate for all that this hemispheric Conference is being held in Mexico, a country which

15

symbolizes today, as it has throughout its great past, the greatest human striving of any people and race for their liberty and a perennial sacrifice to maintain the Mexican national spirit.

The cry of "Viva Mexico!" has sounded in many different corners of America as a permanent evocation of Hidalgo and Morelos, the true heroes of the dawn of liberty in the Americas; of Juárez, Madero and Zapata, those immortal leaders of a country whose people in bitter days learned to shoulder a rifle along with farm tools and carry in their knapsacks the bill of rights with which to challenge the dangers which threatened their historic destiny. This great tradition of Mexico is built of legend, music and heroism and Your Excellency has worthily represented it when as Chief of State of Mexico you made pilgrimages of friendship to other countries to defend the urgent needs of developing countries and when you carried out your policy of direct dealing in your contacts with other nations and stated high principles at international conferences.

This is the objective pursued by the Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States which is destined to be the code of moral conduct in the contemporary economy of an international community consisting of countries with different levels of development and organized according to different ideologies and political, economic and social systems. "The sign of our times", Your Excellency has said, "is that of a world battle for development", and this phrase sums up the expectations which are harbored at this Conference.

The problems which bring us together here are derived from a fundamental imbalance between the more powerful nations and those which have suffered centuries-old poverty. Since the close of World War II in 1945 an unstable and fragile peace has been constantly threatened by the ravages of poverty which lies latent in three-fourths of mankind without our having yet glimpsed that so-often proclaimed and promised new international economic order. To power rivalries and shifting borders, which are the consequences of every war, have been added—and certainly to a great extent—the yearnings of the inhabitants of the underdeveloped world.

There is no region of the earth where there is not an awareness of the so-called development gap which separates the wealthy, rapidly-industrialized societies from those where the average per capita income is still insufficient. The emancipation of the colonial peoples of Africa and Asia has only confirmed the existence of mass societies which demand the enforcement of economic and social justice within their countries and on the international scene; which is one of the most outstanding historical and political phenomena of our time. This is a situation which recalls the old struggles of labor to change an unjust distribution of income, put an end to inequality and fight monopolies.

The coexistence of these two areas of wealth and poverty definitely threaten world peace. The new incentive for proletarian solidarity among nations is called underdevelopment and it is important to modify the trade structure that has given rise to this situation which has come down from ancient and well-intrenched privileges in the international community. It is a chronic economic and social inequality which has not been corrected by the procedures followed until now through a deficient system of international collaboration and selfish attitudes on the part of the nations with the most power, technological capacity and wealth.

A few statements of this theory have not been enough to remedy the situation. The First United Nations Development Decade, for example, only established a modest growth rate of 5 per cent for the income of the poor countries.

That experience became the First United Nations Disappointment Decade for the poor countries. The greatly negative results of that period demonstrated that it was essential to convince the big countries to open their markets and in such event the 5 per cent growth rate of the poor countries should be accompanied by corresponding measures by the rich countries to admit a proportional increase of the exports of the former and to accept a new international division of labor in which an economic system inherited from the previous centuries—in which the rich countries grew richer and the poor ones poorer—would not be continued.

Latin American has agreed with these demands of the Third World countries and our problems, in addition to their political aspects, can also be examined in their economic and social context. Several periods of confrontation have occurred until Latin America finally obtained from the United States its acceptance of

16

the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of every independent state. It was a long and hard struggle, because the countries south of the Rio Grande never accepted that models of governments acceptable to other countries could be imposed on them from the capital of another country nor would they accept patterns for economic and social development imposed from abroad. Such intervention has always signified for us the exercise of a foreign tutelage over the destiny of free countries. Non-intervention and free determination are truly the cornerstones in the structure of our hemispheric relations.

In the field of hemispheric politics we have accepted general principles common to other areas. It is no longer novel to speak of the rights of states and of the obligation to refrain from threats and the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country. Now we must look to see if in the economical and social fields conditions of justice and cooperation exist which will satisfy our peoples and it is in this aspect that we have to confess to the lack of a policy of inter-American social and economic cooperation.

The principal problem of Latin American economic policy is that none exists. We say this without passion but with friendly frankness toward the United States. The regional system is equally in crisis and only a theoretical level have we studied formulas for reciprocal acceleration of trade only slightly based on reality. We have had programs for cooperation which were not intended at the time to meet the development requirements of Latin America or programs for cooperation surrounded by solemn declarations which evaded, in their concrete applications, the appropriate solutions to problems originating in the inequalities of trade conditions.

The self-evident and abysmal result of that situation in our hemisphere is that in the early seventies Latin America still has no continental policy of a broad, progressive, and generous economic and social nature. It must be admitted once and for all that we have avoided finding solutions to the basic problems. This occurred in 1934 with the Good Neighbor policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which marked the beginning of a new age of political collaboration in the Americas but lacked an economic concept. It was only when deep rifts had appeared in the regional system that, twelve years later, we were to hear of cooperation for progress; but the Alliance proclaimed in 1961 by another President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, began to pale and decline following the immense tragedy that forever ended the promise to mankind of a youthful spirit so imbued with intelligence.

The Alliance for Progress signified an unquestionable step forward, but it soon lost its original meaning and was not employed to implement fully the fourth point of the Charter of Punta del Este, which deals with the position of basic products. For ten years, the war in Viet Nam held the attention of the United States to such an extent that it was impossible to carry out any far-reaching examination of the measures intended to facilitate the expansion of Latin American trade or to demand that the industrialized countries, particularly the United States, fulfill the obligations assumed in the United Nations Conferences on Trade and Development.

Latin America has had occasion in recent years to ask itself just what is its so-called "special relationship" with the United States, although we do understand that a world power has obligations to all continents, and not just to one of them. But what is wrong in the Americas is not simply one aspect or another nor even the end of the Alliance for Progress, which is a well-known factor, nor the decline of the assistance policy, whose crisis was noted in the 1967 Pearson Report to the World Bank. What is wrong is the whole of hemispheric economic relations, which must undergo a fundamental and positive change if we are to prevent frustration and discontent from growing even more acute.

Latin America could take no satisfaction from mere repetition of well-known principles. In coming years, relations with the United States should be based on a policy of participation by all the countries of this hemisphere in every decision that affects their vital interests or their political or economic situation in the world. The developing countries of this hemisphere cannot continue to be mere distant spectators of discussions concerning the balance of peace and security in its many political and economic aspects. We are living in an era of such close interdependence that any abnormal situation in the areas of peace or economics affects all countries.

These new relations between Latin America and the United States also call for a concept of regional security that is not simply based on or limited to the

17

bare facts that we have included in existing treaties but rather takes into ac-
count the factor of the economic insecurity that results when the acts of one
nation vitally affect the economies of other developing countries. Similarly, these
relations imply the detachment of the interests of private foreign capital from a
multilateral inter-American policy whose dimensions surpass those of the great
transnational enterprises and whose direction corresponds in purity to the gov-
ernments of the sovereign States that compose our hemisphere.

The clear and undeniable fact recorded by the United Nations Economic Com-
mission for Latin America in its last yearly report is the enormous trade deficit—
more than 1.2 billion dollars—of the poor countries of this hemisphere, which
results from the fact that United States exports to Latin America are far greater
than its imports from those same countries. The industrial progress of Latin
America has been almost miraculous. It has meant overcoming the difficulties
implicit in the limited domestic markets and the tariff barriers encountered in
foreign markets. All of this has occurred within an accelerated process of ur-
banization that restricts the amount of domestic funds available for attending to
the needs of depressed areas, hunger zones, and poverty belts.

What will be the policy of the United States of America toward Latin America
in the coming years of this decade? In recent years we have attended innumer-
able regional and world conferences. We have attended all the United Nations
Conferences on Trade and Development and have come away as disappointed as
other Third World countries. What can be done to lighten the burden of Latin
American farmers and workers? How can we achieve true transfer of technol-
ogy to Latin America and offset growing urbanization with greater production?
We have forgotten the goals set by the Presidents of the American States at the
Punta del Este Conference in 1967 regarding Latin America's economic integra-
tion and industrial development and consequently the agreements reached on
multinational integration to improve Latin America's international trade condi-
tions have remained as mere words on paper.

In 1967, the President of the United States declared his firm support of the
promises made. But the focus of international problems has most certainly
changed since then. Negotiating mechanisms of a global type have been created
that include more than one hundred and thirty nations; regionalism in the eco-
nomic and political fields has lost much of its reason for being because of the
inclination shown by Latin American countries to be heard at world forums in
order to solve their most urgent problems, closely related to those occurring in
other hemispheres. We are still convinced that it is necessary to preserve our
regional organizations while basically reforming their structures and procedures.
Nevertheless, we live in a world of close global relationships.

Because of this, we have searched for a new form of dialogue that will set
aside artificial forms of diplomatic protocol, the prefabricated phrases contained
in declarations and repeated with different city names, in short, the repetition of
useless things. Together with His Excellency, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of
State of the United States, of whose capacity, universal vision of international
problems, knowledge and tact we are convinced, we wish to attempt a diplomacy
of reality and truth, of an acknowledgement of facts, because we are certain that
it will be less detrimental for our countries to be aware of the true state of
hemispheric relationships, than to deceive each other by manifestations of arti-
ficial solidarity. [Applause.]

The era of conference rhetoric is over for Latin America, and more particu-
larly the period of general statements on economic and social development which
so interested the economists in the 1960's. From the time of the Act of Bogotá of
1960 to the Viña del Mar Declaration in 1969 an enormous amount of basic texts
was accumulated, each representing a step forward in the crystallization of col-
lective thought realized on the occasion of the 1969 Declaration. The decade came
to a close in Viña del Mar with a substantial text defining all aspects of inter-
American and international cooperation.

All these declarations reflect the firm and unequivocal affirmation of the Latin
American personality, a personality with its own criteria and values which, as
was defined at Viña del Mar, has contributed to growing and justified continental
nationalism. This is supported by Latin America's unfailing rejection of all kinds
of intervention and pressure both in the political and economic fields. Latin
America accepts no form of colonialism nor even attenuated paternalism inas-
much as one of the fundamental rights of a nation is that of choosing its political
and social system. [Light applause.]

18

The policy of plurality of ideologies is one of the bases for hemispheric cooperation. The framework for the principles of inter-American cooperation has been delineated many times.

What has been lacking are the necessary mechanisms for incorporating such principles into the everyday life of countries of the hemisphere, and to ensure that these principles do not remain static, alien to the anxieties of development. The Declaration of Viña del Mar, as previous ones, did not further them with a subsequent dialogue as is now envisioned. The result was that shortly thereafter, the noble principles found their way back into the file of good intentions which, according to popular saying, pave the way to Hell.

On the other hand, we now find ourselves in a time of dialogue and negotiations between great powers, between continents and even between economic groups. Confrontation was the strategy of the Cold War, in the same manner in which dialogue is an institution characteristic of the "Detente", an institution which has found in His Excellency Dr. Henry Kissinger, a statesman imbued with faith and an unfaltering determination to obtain results based on reality. Dialogue is, furthermore, very much in keeping with this time of change and uncertainty in the international economic scene. We do not know what position will be reserved for poor countries and what to the rich.

A deeply-rooted monetary disturbance has been affecting highly industrialized nations to the point where the precepts established in the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 have been found to be inadequate. At that time, the possibility of establishing fixed parities was considered. And what we have been asking for insistently is that at least the effects of the devaluations in rich countries not rebound on the weak economies of poor countries. That is why we believe that the monetary problem is closely linked to other aspects of international economy, such as commerce and the transfer of real resources.

Without considering the energy crisis, which erupted unexpectedly as one more issue in a field already eroded by the crisis suffered by strong currencies, we now face the most uncertain moment in the field of international economy since the beginning of the postwar period. We, then, cannot resort to rigid and intransigent texts for any of the two parties to the dialogue—the United States and Latin America—nor can we be carried away by the juridical habit of our culture which seeks in solemn, multilateral treaties of an almost evangelical nature, the solutions for myriad problems which require the constant and patient effort of our countries, Latin America and the United States, together with other countries of the world.

No region can resolve all of its problems by itself. But we have wanted to be precise and this dialogue, which began in the fall of 1973 with the improvisation of easy and spontaneous things but with pressing matters in mind, was formalized during the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Latin America convened by my country, the Republic of Colombia. This step was taken by Colombia with the best wish to serve as the instrument for united and free action of Latin America. We felt we should think as a continent and act with the assurance and self-possession of mature societies, without useless discord or rhetorical verbosity, with new formulas to further progress and economic justice.

The eight points of the Bogota Document are a general framework, almost an index, of the issues of greatest concern to us which we submitted to His Excellency Dr. Henry Kissinger. What we had in mind for this conference was a new style in which we would use the simple forms of political dialogue, eliminating the antiquated procedures of an international bureaucratic system. The Secretary of State of the United States has, in turn, suggested other issues. In every instance, we are determined to bring to the conference table the central theme of Latin America, redemption of its poverty and the application of economic justice for this part of the world.

Colombia is proud of the fact that it promoted this dialogue, together with other nations of the hemisphere. It was our wish that there be no exceptions to Latin American unity, that in the future it should include all sovereign nations of this continent, each with its own way of life and its own economic or political system, but all united by that great goal of redeeming Latin American man from poverty, sickness and ignorance. The final objective of this policy which Latin America supports with fervor, enthusiasm and great expectations, is man, in an America where economic disparities still prevail.

Our thesis—the greatest among all—is that of the human being who suffers the rigors of cold in the mountains and the intensity of heat in the plains and which, day by day, creates the future of his country, with his hands, sinking tools

19

in the soil or striking metals on the forge, as did the men of ancient Hellas when service to their city was a constant task. Man has suffered the stigma of later forms of slavery and submission. His spirit is nurtured by the sun, air, rain and murmuring streams. He is the living image of the countries towards which this dialogue must be directed.

It could well be that Latin America and the United States are not fully identified in all of their international political and economic concepts. Each has a special situation; we are part of the underdeveloped world and the United States is the most prosperous nation in the world. We do not hold to a candid vision of international order which would lead us to confuse juridical equality with economic equality. But, we do feel that we can coexist within a mutual respect for our sovereignies and the free self-determination of our peoples. Not even the wealthiest nations can overlook the obligation of solidarity with the poor countries.

We aspire to an era of full economic and social justice for the nations of this hemisphere, for our peoples and for Latin American man. But behind simple words, we perceive reality. The challenge to poverty has become a solidarity of poverty. And there will be no peace without a new economic and social order in the world which implies a better distribution of wealth among nations.

Our thesis is peace through justice for the hungry peoples of all continents.

## 6. ADDRESS OF SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY A. KISSINGER TO THE CONFERENCE OF TLATELOLCO, MEXICO CITY

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues and friends. When I listened to the previous speakers, I was seized by an uncharacterized feeling of humility. It became clear to me that in the art of epic oratory, the United States is an underdeveloped country.

We owe our host country and its leaders a profound debt of gratitude for sponsoring this meeting and for the excellence of the arrangements which they have made. Personally, I have spent many happy days in this great country. And I have had the privilege of the advice, wisdom and on occasion the tenacious opposition of the President of Mexico and his Foreign Minister who defend their concept of justice and their national interest with passion. I look forward to an equally frank, friendly, intense and constructive dialogue with all my colleagues at this conference.

On a plaque in Mexico's imposing Museum of Anthropology are etched phrases which carry a special meaning for this occasion:

> "Nations find courage and confidence to face the future by looking to the greatness of their past. Mexican, seek yourself in the mirror of this greatness. Stranger, confirm here the unity of human destiny. Civilizations pass; but men will always reflect the glory of the struggle to build them."

We assemble in the splendid shadow of history's monuments. They remind us of what can be achieved by inspiration and of what can be lost when peoples miss their opportunity. We in the Americas now have a great opportunity to vindicate our old dream of building a new world of justice and peace, to assure the well-being of our peoples—and to leave what we achieve as a monument to our striving.

Our common impulse in meeting here is to fulfill the promise of America as the continent which beckoned men to fulfill what was best in them. Our common reality is the recognition of our diversity. Our common determination is to derive strength from that diversity, and forge our historical and geographical links into shared purpose and endeavor.

In this spirit the United States offered a new dialogue last October.

In this spirit the countries of the Americas responded in Bogota last November.

We meet here as equals—representatives of our individual modes of life, but united by one aspiration—to build a new community.

We have an historic foundation on which to build; we live in a world that gives our enterprise a special meaning and urgency.

On behalf of President Nixon, I commit the United States to undertake this venture with dedication and energy.

### THE U.S. COMMITMENT

One concern has dominated all others as I have met privately with some of my colleagues in this room. Does the United States really care? Is this another exercise of high-sounding declarations followed by long periods of neglect?

20

These questions—not unrelated to historical experience—define our task. On behalf of my colleagues of the American delegation and myself let me stress that we are here to give effect to a new attitude and to help shape a new policy. The presence of so many distinguished leaders from the United States Congress underlines the depth of the United States concern for its neighbors and the determination of our government to implement our agreements through a partnership between the Executive and Legislative branches.

The time has come to infuse the Western Hemisphere relationships with a new spirit. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States declared what those outside this hemisphere should not do within it. In the 1930's we stipulated what the United States would not do.

Today we meet on the basis of our agenda and our common needs. I agree with one of my distinguished colleagues who said on arrival that the time had come to meet as brothers, not as sons. Today—together—we can begin giving expression to our common aspirations and start shaping our common future.

In my view, our fundamental task at this meeting—more important even than the specifics of our agenda—is to set a common direction and infuse our efforts with new purpose. Let us therefore avoid both condescension and confrontation. If the United States is not to presume to supply all the answers, neither should it be asked to bear all the responsibilities. Let us together bring about a new commitment to the inter-American community.

Let us not be satisfied with proclamations but chart a program of work worthy of the challenge before us.

Let us create a new spirit in our relations—the spirit of Tlatelolco.

## AN INTERDEPENDENT WORLD

A century ago a U.S. President described to the Congress of his time the difficulties facing the country: "It is a condition which confronts us—not a theory."

The condition we confront today is a world where interdependence is a fact, not a choice.

The products of man's technical genius—weapons of incalculable power, a global economic system, instantaneous communications, a technology that consumes finite resources at an ever expanding rate—have compressed this planet and multiplied our mutual dependence. The problems of peace, of justice, of human dignity, of hunger and inflation and pollution, of the scarcity of physical materials and the surplus of spiritual despair, cannot be resolved on a national basis. All are now caught up in the tides of world events—consumers and producers, the affluent and the poor, the free and the oppressed, the mighty and the weak.

The world and this Hemisphere can respond in one of two ways.

There is the path of autarchy. Each nation can try to exploit its particular advantages and skills, and bargain bilaterally for what it needs. Each nation can try to look after itself and shrug its shoulders at the plight of those less well endowed.

But history tells us that this leads to ever more vicious competition, the waste of resources, the stunting of technological advance, and—most fundamentally—growing political tensions which unravel the fabric of global stability. If we take this route, we and our children will pay a terrible price.

Or we can take the path of collaboration. Nations can recognize that only in working with others can they most effectively work for themselves. A cooperative world reflects the imperatives of technical and economic necessity, but above all the sweep of human aspirations.

The United States is pledged to this second course. We believe that we of the Americas should undertake it together. This Hemisphere is a reflection of mankind. Its diversity reflects the diversity of the globe. It knows the afflictions and frustrations of the impoverished. At the same time, many of its members are leaders among modernizing societies. Much has been done to overcome high mortality rates, widespread illiteracy, and grinding poverty. This Hemisphere uniquely includes the perceptions of the post-industrial societies, of those who are only beginning to sample the benefits of modernization and of those who are in mid-passage.

The Americas reach out to other constellations as well. The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean share much of the stirrings of the Third World. The United States is engaged in the maintenance of peace on a global basis. Pursuing our separate ways narrowly, we could drift apart toward different poles. Working together, we can reinforce our well-being and strengthen the prospects for global cooperation.

21

So let us begin in this Hemisphere. If we, here in this room, fail to grasp the consequences of interdependence, if we cannot make the multiplicity of our ties a source of unity and strength, then the prospects for success elsewhere are dim indeed. The world community which we seek to build should have a Western Hemisphere community as one of its central pillars.

President Echeverria foresaw the gathering force of interdependence in 1972 when he set forth his Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States as a guide for the conduct of relations among countries at different levels of economic development. Last September before the United Nations General Assembly I endorsed that concept. At first, some were concerned because they saw the Charter as a set of unilateral demands; it has since become clear that it is a farsighted concept of mutual obligations. In the emerging world of interdependence, the weak as well as the strong have responsibilities, and the world's interest is each nation's interest.

We can start by making the concept of the Charter a reality in the Western Hemisphere.

## THE U.S. VIEW OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY

The United States will do its full part to see that our enterprise succeeds. We can make a major contribution, but it would be in nobody's interest if we raised impossible expectations, leaving our peoples frustrated and our community empty.

We will promise only what we can deliver. We will make what we can deliver count.

I have carefully studied the agenda for this meeting you prepared in Bogota. I will respond in detail to its specifics in our private sessions. But I will say here that I have come to a greater understanding of the deeply felt motivations behind the phrases of this agenda.

You are concerned—

- that the United States has put aside its special commitment to the Hemisphere;

- that we will allow old issues to go unresolved while new ones are created;

- that we seek not community but dominance;

- that our relationship does not adequately contribute to human welfare in the hemisphere, that it is often irrelevant to your needs and an obstacle to their fulfillment.

In response let me outline the direction the United States proposes to its friends in rededicating itself to a new era of Western Hemisphere relationships. I look forward to hearing your own views so that together we can make the Western Hemisphere Community a reality.

*The United States will do its utmost to settle outstanding differences.* During the past year, the United States and Mexico solved the long-standing Colorado River salinity dispute. Two weeks ago Panama and the United States—taking account of the advice of their partners at Bogota—signed a document that fore-shadows a new relationship. And just 48 hours ago, Peru and the United States settled a dispute over compensation for the exercise of Peru's sovereign right to nationalize property for public purposes.

*The United States is prepared to work with the other nations of this hemisphere on methods to eliminate new disputes or to mitigate their effect.*

Some of our most troublesome problems have arisen over differences concerning the respective rights and obligations of private United States firms operating in foreign countries, and the countries which host them.

On the one hand, in keeping with the Calvo Doctrine, most nations of this hemisphere affirm that a foreign investor has no right to invoke the protection of his home government. On the other hand, the United States has held that nations have the right to espouse the cause of their investors. This conviction is reflected in the legislative provisions of the Gonzales and Hickenlooper Amendments.

Realistically, we must admit that these two conceptions cannot be quickly reconciled. But the United States is prepared to begin a process to this end immediately and to mitigate their effects. Even before a final resolution of the philosophical and legal issues, we are ready to explore means by which disputes can be removed from the forefront of our inter-governmental relations.

In our private meetings I shall make specific proposals to establish agreed machinery which might narrow the scope of disputes. We might consider the establishment of a working group to examine various procedures for fact finding, conciliation, or the settlement of disputes. Other approaches are possible, and I shall welcome the views of my colleagues. Let me affirm here that a procedure

22

[c]

acceptable to all the parties would remove these disputes as factors in United
States decisions respecting assistance relationships with host countries. We
would be prepared to discuss with our Congress appropriate modification of our
legislation.

But we cannot achieve our goals simply by remedying specific grievances. A
special community can only emerge if we infuse it with life and substance.

We must renew our political commitment to a Western Hemisphere system.
Thomas Macaulay once observed, "It is not the machinery we employ, but the
spirit we are of that binds men together." We are here because we recognize
the need for cooperation. Yet we can only cooperate if our people truly believe
that we are united by common purposes and a sense of common destiny.

The United States will be guided by these principles:

- we will not impose our political preferences;

- we will not intervene in the domestic affairs of others;

- we will seek a free association of proud peoples.

In this way, the Western Hemisphere community can make its voice and
interests felt in the world.

We realize that United States global interests sometimes lead to actions that
have a major effect on our sister republics. We understand, too, that there is
no wholly satisfactory solution to this problem.

However, to contribute to the sense of community we all seek, the United
States here commits itself to close and constant consultation with its hemispheric
associates on political and economic issues of common interest—particularly
when these issues vitally affect the interests of our partners in the Western
Hemisphere.

In my view, the best way to coordinate policies is to make a systematic attempt
to shape the future. I therefore recommend that today's meeting be considered
the first of a series. The foreign ministers assembled here should meet periodically
for an informal review of the international situation and of common Hemispheric
problems. In the interval between our meetings, the heads of our planning staffs
or senior officials with similar responsibilities should meet on a regular basis to
assess progress on a common agenda. The principle of consultation on matters
affecting each other's interests should be applied to the fullest extent possible.

Specifically:

- The United States is prepared to consult and adjust its positions on the basis of reciprocity, in the multilateral trade negotiations.

- the United States also recognizes a fundamental congruity of interests among
the countries of the Hemisphere in global monetary matters. We favor a
strong voice for Latin America in the management of a new monetary
system—just as we favor its effective participation in the reform of this
system.

- the United States is ready to undertake prior consultation in other inter-
national negotiations such as the Law of the Sea Conference, the World
Food Conference and the World Population Conference.

The Western Hemisphere should promote a decent life for all its citizens.

No community is worthy of its name that does not actively foster the dignity
and prosperity of its peoples. The United States as the richest and most powerful
country in the Hemisphere recognizes a special obligation in this regard.

Let me sketch here the program which President Nixon has authorized and
which I shall discuss in greater detail with my colleague this afternoon.

First, in trade. During the period of great economic uncertainty arising from
the energy situation, it is essential that nations behave cooperatively and
not take protective or restrictive action. I pledge to you today that the United
States will do its utmost to avoid placing any new limitations on access by
Latin America to its domestic market.

In the same spirit we renew our commitment to the system of Generalized
Tariff Preferences. We shall strongly support this legislation. Once it is enacted,
we will consult closely with you on how it can be most beneficial to your needs.

Second, in science and technology. We want to improve our private and gov-
ernmental efforts to make available needed technology, suited to varying stages
of development in such vital areas as eduaction, housing and agriculture. Private
enterprise is the most effective carrier of technology across national borders,
but government can usefully appraise the overall needs and spur progress. The
United States therefore recommends that we establish an Inter-American Com-

23

mission on Science and Technology. It should be composed of leading scientists and experts from all the Americas and report to governments on the basis of regular meetings.

*Third, in energy.* This Hemisphere, linking oil-producing and oil-consuming countries, is uniquely situated for cooperative solutions of this problem. The United States is prepared to share research for the development of energy sources. We will encourage the Inter-American Development Bank to adapt its lending and fund-raising activities to cushion the current strains. We are also prepared to explore ways of financing oil deficits, including the removal of remaining institutional impediments to your access to United States capital markets.

*Fourth, in development assistance.* The United States government in its Executive Branch is committed to maintain our aid levels, despite rising energy costs. On the other hand, the development problem can no longer be resolved simply by accelerating official assistance. We need a comprehensive review and recommendations on how all flows of capital and technology—whether from commercial assistance, world capital markets or export credits—can contribute most effectively to hemispheric needs. I recommend charging an inter-American body with these tasks.

*Fifth, in reshaping the inter-American system.* We must identify and preserve those aspects of the Rio Treaty and the Organization of American States which have shielded the Hemisphere from outside conflict and helped preserve regional peace.

Some form of institutional structure for peace and cooperation is clearly necessary. However, we must reinforce the formal structure of the OAS by modernizing its institutions and agreeing on the principles of inter-American relations. The United States is prepared to cooperate in creative adjustments to meet new conditions.

## NEXT STEPS

A Spanish poet once wrote: "Traveler, there is no path; paths are made by walking."

This is our most immediate need. We are not here to write a communique but to chart a course. Our success will be measured by whether we in fact start a journey. I suggest we move ahead in three ways:

- First, let us make clear to our peoples that we do have a common destiny and a modern framework for effective cooperation.

- Second, let us agree on an agenda for the Americas, a course of actions that will give substance to our consensus and inspiration to our peoples.

- Third, let us define a program that brings that agenda to life.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleagues, four centuries ago totally alien cultures met for the first time near here. We are moving toward a world whose demands upon us are nearly as alien to our experience as were the Spaniards and the Aztecs to each other.

Today, if we are to meet the unprecedented challenge of an interdependent world, we will also have to summon courage, faith, and dedication. The United States believes we can build a world worthy of the best in us in concert with our friends and neighbors. We want future generations to say that in 1974, in Mexico, the Nations of the Western Hemisphere took a new road and proclaimed a common destiny.

I am reminded of the closing words of the remarkable book by an author whose human insight we recognize in spite of very real and very deep political differences: People condemned to a hundred years of solitude do not have a second opportunity on earth. We are meeting in a moment of opportunity for the Americas. We can choose community or solitude, fulfillment or frustration. One hundered years hence, let men say we chose community.

## 7. ADDRESS BY DR. ARISTIDES CALVANI, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF VENEZUELA, AT THE CLOSING SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF TLATELOLCO

Mr. Chairman of the Conference, and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico; my colleagues, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs; Distinguished Ambassadors; Delegates; Ladies and Gentlemen: Through the kindness and affection of my colleagues, the Foreign Ministers, I have been selected to act as their spokesman and express their sentiments at this closing session. I firmly desire to act as the

24

faithful interpreter of all that each one of them would undoubtedly like to say, which I must reduce to a bare synthesis in these remarks.

Something has occurred in recent years: To use the terminology of today, in the last two decades our Hemisphere has become clearly aware of the progressive emergence of a Latin American consciousness. The countries of Latin America are going through a long process that is leading them, first, to the realization that they possess a personality of their own, and second, to the affirmation of that personality, the personality of the Latin American community. Something else has taken place in our Hemisphere during the last twenty years: The independence of the British territories of the Caribbean and their integration into the Latin American community.

And when we try to express the significance that this new apportation has for this community, words fail us, because, on the one hand they constitute—as they themselves have said—the Caribbean Community; but on the other, there are other territories in the Caribbean area that were already independent when these new nations were born.

This event is already showing us how those who make up this community are enriched by the very fact of their membership in it; but, by having been so enriched, they complicate the very composition of the community.

Latin America aspires to dialogue, as Latin America; another—the third—decisive and fundamental fact.

Latin America as a whole—they tell us—cannot be considered a valid participant in such a dialogue, and books have even been written about "The 21 Latin Americas". In reality, there have been effective attempts at dialogue, attempts that, like all attempts, are at first wavering and unsteady, but which are progressively affirming the Latin American personality and its aspiration to the role of valid participant. Attempts at Santiago: We met at Santiago, Chile in 1969; we had been asked to express our will and aspirations to the United States. From this meeting came the consensus of Viña del Mar. Through CECLA, we presented the consensus: Silence.

The following year, in Buenos Aires, we tried again to establish a dialogue—on this occasion, with Europe; once again, CECLA served as our forum for the coordination of our opinions. We were speaking to Europe, but Europe was not listening. And it was only after a number of such efforts that the first working commissions appeared.

The attempt was also made with other areas, but in such cases it was more as the traditional Latin American group than as an actual Latin American personality that we carried on our conversations.

At the end of that decade—that is, at the beginning of the seventies, there was one criticism that was constantly directed at the United States.—"They have no Latin American policy", it was said at various meetings and on many occasions. "Rather", others said, "it is not that they have no Latin American policy, but that their policy is not to have one".

It was under these conditions that President Nixon, through his Secretary of State, issued an invitation to us on the occasion of the October session of the United Nations General Assembly. The United States invited Latin America to determine the procedure for establishing a dialogue between the North and the South.

This invitation resulted in another, this time a Latin American one. Colombia's Foreign Minister, Doctor Alfredo Vázquez Carrizosa, took up the idea and invited us to hold the first stage of the dialogue in Bogotá. In this meeting, we Latin American Foreign Ministers were to draw up the bases for establishing a dialogue with the United States.

The Conference was held in the month of November and during its course we Latin American Foreign Ministers did, indeed, draw up the bases for a dialogue, setting them forth in an Agenda which we presented to the Secretary of State of the United States.

The Secretary of State agreed to the Agenda, and added two more points.

And so was born the Conference of Mexico—the Conference of Tlatelolco.

The Conference of Tlatelolco marks the final step in the preparations. Through it the dialogue will become reality; the word will become flesh.

For the first time the United States and Latin America, Latin America and the United States, are sitting down together at a table, but this time in a different manner. We are faced with a new type of dialogue, which we are bound to analyze and study because the nature of this dialogue will determine the special

25

10

historical importance of this Conference. A dialogue implies two participants, but in this case the two participants are not analogous: One of them, the United States, is individual in nature; the other, plural as it is constituted by a group of countries.

Therefore, a new type of diplomacy is actually being formed. The traditional diplomacy with which we are familiar is of two types: bilateral diplomacy, that is, country to country; and multilateral diplomacy, as practiced in conferences.

To use the same language of frankness and loyalty which has prevailed in our talks these past few days, I would say that in the dialogue of bilateral diplomacy the relationship of the stronger to the weaker is much more apparent. And in multilateral diplomacy the strength of the strong makes the strong even stronger, while the division of the weak makes the weak even weaker.

But this diplomacy is different. Latin America speaks with a single personality: it is attempting to unify its points of view. For this reason at no time have I dared to call this new diplomacy the diplomacy of inter-correlation, because it is taking place in two different dialectical times. In the first stage the Latin American countries coordinated their points of view—the first correlation of opinions and viewpoints; and in the second stage, the participants from the United States and their Latin American counterparts began their dialogue. What were the characteristics of this dialogue?: Directness, frankness, cordiality, respect. What was the content of this dialogue?: limited by the agenda we have drawn up because we wanted the dialogue to be realistic, and to be realistic both participants understood that it was not possible to encompass all subjects, but rather a few subjects in order to be able to analyze them in fitting, frank, cordial and respectful dialogue. It dealt with political and economic aspects in ordinary language, but in reality all the subjects were political, inasmuch as international relations are always political even through the emphasis may vary according to the nature of the relation and the subject matter of the relations.

Cooperation for Development, International Trade, Transnational Enterprises, Foreign Investment, Transfer of Technology, the Panama Canal, Reform of the Inter-American System, etc.—all these topics were approached in the form of dialogue. New procedures had to be created because we were dealing with a new matter and in private meetings had to agree on the means of framing it. Secretary of State Kissinger was amenable to the general agenda and the dialogue was subsequently initiated on the different topics. However, I would like to emphasize a point: Latin America spoke with a single voice; the dialogue took place as a perfect dialogue with two participants. In other words, we achieved in Latin America an expression of collective will and in this manner were able to coordinate our point of view in order to constitute a Latin American personality. The dialogue was profoundly realistic. We were aware that we had to create the conditions for a new economic order as the best means of arriving at a new political order. At the same time we understood that it was necessary to create conditions for a new type of political relations as the best means of achieving a new economic order.

Structures and spirit. A new spirit prevailed a new dialogue: a spirit, the spirit of Tlatelolco. Why? Because in this new spirit both participants wish to affirm the mutual respect and autonomy of each, and at the same time their firm desire to cooperate in common goals: Mutual respect, confidence fortified by the facts of history, equality, a vision of the future. Some, perhaps dazzled by the glitter usually characteristic of these conferences, thought this was just an ordinary conference and that specific conclusions would emerge from it. The question was repeatedly asked: What are the concrete points you seek agreement on? They were forgetting that this was a dialogue and that dialogue does not necessarily result in precise and concrete conclusions. Dialogue is of value in itself, because dialogue allows us to speak the same language, and this is fundamental to clear communication in political relations.

With regard to impressions of the Conference, I am reminded of the optimists who see the glass as half full and the pessimists who see it as half empty. I would say that it is neither half full nor half empty; rather, it is exactly as it should be at this point in history: the beginning of a new dialogue.

What, then are the prospects? Hopes. Hopes, you say. Yes, true and well-founded hopes. There is already a perceptible change in the dynamics of the world. Just as the poor workers of times past became aware of their misery and united, today the developing countries have become aware of their situation and have joined hands to achieve more equitable international order in which the

26

new awareness of great socioeconomic, sociopolitical and sociocultural gaps will lead the world to narrow them.

This Latin American personality, this emergence, is not a thing of chance but the result of profound changes in the international situation. The inversion of balances and the very power of modern weapons have transformed the world; and prudence and equilibrium to redress the imbalance, coupled with dissuasion from the use of such weapons have become an absolute necessity.

However, spirit is not enough. The President of Mexico told us so in the inaugural speech in phrases which I take the liberty of quoting because they are admirably well turned, as was all the poetic oratory which he delivered at the opening session of this Conference. President Echeverría said: "We believe, despite everything, in the efficacy of dialogue, but we also know that true solutions require persevering action. Diplomatic styles are transitory, leaving in their wake only impulses which followed by well-funded decisions, actually modify reality. Let us not confuse history with anecdotes nor with good wishes. The problems which arise from hemispheric relations are structural and must be confronted as such".

For this reason we must continue the dialogue institutionalizing it and implementing its results. That is, to the extent that dialogue by its own dialectics produces and engenders conclusions which are worth following up, such conclusions must be implemented in the political field to be duly acted upon. It is necessary to continue with our dialogue. It is up to us, the United States and Latin America; Latin America and the United States.

And apropos of this, ladies and gentlemen, let us see at this moment how these relationships present themselves and what is our analysis of the two participants.

The United States is part of the Western Hemisphere and as such is a member of its regional organization. But at the same time it is the greatest world power and as such exerts not only regional but worldwide influence.

Although sharing a common base, Latin America, with its diversity of countries and individual conditions, has internal conflicts. Why deny them? Within this diversity, however, a unity and a personality which is affirmed in a clear and evident manner.

At the same time, to the extent that it asserts its personality, it understands that its destiny is not just an American affair but is linked to that of other developing countries. This is to say that Latin American relations have a worldwide aspect which includes all developing countries, even as these relations have a universal and international aspect with regard to the United States as a world power.

Obviously, this shows us that in our dialogue dialectically difficult and complex situations will arise because of dissimilar interests. But this is the great challenge, we face in the dialogue we have commenced; it is the great challenge of the decade in which we live. We must strengthen everything we have in common, and on the basis of this dialogue we must create the machinery to overcome our differences.

In effect, today we speak of the interdependence of all countries on earth, which is true, but we have also been interdependent in the past as well as in the present. We were interdependent because the developed countries received raw materials from developing countries, but now a series of events has occurred to make the developed countries realize that their own growth may be threatened if there is no coordination on a worldwide and international level.

This already existing interdependence which is now perceived by the great powers, also gives added dimension to this challenge, because our great political objective is not to conceal an old situation under a new name. Our high political objective must be, for both great and small countries, to break down the barriers of domination in order to create the new world of tomorrow, to create a new dimension of history which must not be based on relationships of strength but rather on justice, a new kind of a relationship developed, in the words of Secretary of State Kissinger, "through a new, direct, and frank dialogue."

Today's world shows that we are all part of one humanity, and that problems are worldwide and require solutions on a worldwide scale, as President Echeverría has so correctly pointed out. The injustice lies in the system, and therefore it is the system itself which we must reorganize and reorient.

We find ourselves in the hour of great decisions. Latin America has received a challenge: to overcome past differences; to progress from national to interna-

27

tional concerns, which is to say to pass from individual affairs to matters involving the Latin American personality in order for Latin America to occupy the place it deserves in the vanguard of developing countries. It is for the United States, like the great nation it is when it wants to be, to accept this reality of the new world, the Latin American dimension; to take up the new diplomacy, and, through a new dialogue, build the new dimension of history which is required.

And now, gentlemen, let us speak from the heart. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to express our deep-felt, sincere and profound appreciation to the President and to the Government of Mexico and to the Mexican people who have welcomed us with unrivaled hospitality, for as the popular song has it, "There is no other land like Mexico"; to Minister of Foreign Affairs Rabasa, who has taken such pains during all these and preceding days to organize this complex conference; to Minister of Foreign Affairs Váquez Carrizosa, who laid the groundwork in the Conference of Bogotá (I have coupled their names in this public testimonial because it is due to their efforts and long hours of work that this conference has become a positive reality in the history of this hemisphere); to the General Secretariat under the able direction of Ambassador Manuel Tello which has had to suffer and endure all the papers we have requested, the translations we have asked for, and the urgency with which we have demanded them; the staff of the Foreign Ministry and, most especially, the Protocol Section which is always held responsible when things go wrong but never appreciated when they go well, as they have on this occasion; the secretaries and all secretarial personnel, the receptionists and the doormen; to all who have contributed to the development of this Conference and to the extraordinary manner in which it has been carried out; to our experts and Ambassadors for the aid they have rendered; to the Secretary of State of the United States who has broken down old barriers between the North and the South and invited us to a new dialogue where together with him we have asserted the personality of Latin America in our relationship with the United States.

I also thank my colleagues, the Foreign Ministers, who have accompanied us and have permitted us to enjoy the essence of this Latin American personality which, though born in pain like any child is a constant source of pleasure to the mother which has borne it.

Finally, there can be no changes without changed names nor new policies without true renewal. We must create a new kind of man and renew our very selves in a soul-rending probe of our failings.

We must report to our peoples; we cannot accentuate what is negative; rather, we must accentuate what is positive. This Conference is definitely positive and we must maintain our faith in our hemisphere.

We must also have hope, because man also lives by hope. Nor must we mock it, but rather say, as the French say of illusion, that there is no falser illusion than to believe that one has none. In reality, hope moves men and moves our hearts, and the days we have spent here and the new situation created by the spirit of Tlatelolco have shown us that there is hope in every heart that beats and that we too, can continue to hope. Because in the final instance hope is based on the solidarity of mankind, on understanding among men, and up to now we have found no better instrument, for if it is utopian to speak of hope it would be more utopian still to believe that the way marked by lack of faith, negative criticism, despair, selfish national pride, and the reign of force and violence will lead us to more promising results.

I would like to close my remarks with a children's tale. I believe these tales can always take us back to our true childish innocence. The story is a Bavarian folk tale by father Coloma. It tells of a little girl living in the high mountains of Bavaria. Christmas was near and her father, a woodcutter, went to the woods to cut a Christmas tree and was swept away by an avalanche. Soon the family was reduced to abject poverty.

The following Christmas came, and the ragged little girl had only a necklace made of string with three simple glass beads.

On Christmas Eve her mother was too weak to go to church with her and the little girl trudged through the snow until she met a boy who said: "Tread in my footsteps, and you will feel new warmth and life will stir again in your heart." She did so, and followed him as the boy began to climb the mountain. And presently they came to a place where there was an old man who was saying: "I have lost faith; I have lost everything; I do not believe in men;"