Ninth Draft [Y]

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE
HENRY A. KISSINGER
INDIAN COUNCIL ON WORLD AFFAIRS

October 28, 1974

I am honored to be invited to address such a distinguished gathering. For the basic objective of this organization -- to comprehend, communicate, and help shape the state of world affairs -- has been the central purpose of my own life since long before I served in government. And I have since found that the statesman, too, has no more important task than to comprehend, to communicate and to help us shape our destiny.

Former President Radhakrishnan once said, "Life becomes meaningful only when we grasp the character of the age we live in, see its significance, understand the objectives it sets us and strive to realize them."

The fundamental reality of *our* age is that we live in a world inextricably linked by interdependent economies and universal aspirations, by the speed of communications and the specter of nuclear warfare. The political significance of our age is that the national interest can no longer be

powers has not made the world more complex; it merely
signifies that leaders have recognized its complexity. Those
who ought always to have known how serious is man's predicament
have learned how little benefit confrontation brings and how
absolutes great now is the need for cooperation.

This ~~has been, nor will be, an effortless transition~~
~~for the American people. Nor I imagine~~ is it without
~~difficulties in other nations of the world. For it requires~~
coming to terms with less simple views of right and wrong,
of ~~what~~ the possible and the ideal than ~~what has~~ permeated
~~our~~ political thinking for a generation.

This new American view, it is appropriate to acknowledge,
owes much to an old vision of India's national leaders.
Jawaharlal Nehru perceived the impermanence of the post-war
world -- into which India was born -- of frozen hostility
between the superpowers and their insistent efforts to enlist
other nations on one side or the other. Nehru maintained
under and since
that India's role would be to deflect and redirect those

This was the origin of forces. To this end, he evolved the concept of nonalignment.

It is not necessary to debate now whether the United States should have welcomed the concept at that time in order to agree that in the present world it is for nations such as India an altogether understandable and practical position. The United States accepts non-alignment. In fact, America sees a world of free, independent, sovereign states as being ~~ideally in her own national interest. The acceptance of diversity has become a central purpose of American foreign policy.~~

Nowhere is this clearer than with respect to South Asia, where a fifth of mankind lives. In testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee six weeks ago, I stated this principle of American foreign policy in explicit terms: "We do not look ~~at this~~ the subcontinent as being composed of some countries that are clients of China, others that are clients of the Soviet Union, others that should be clients of

the Soviet Union, others that should be clients of the
United States. We believe that we can have productive relation-
ships with all of them. And we believe also, especially with
respect to India, that our relations are in a stage of dramatic
improvement."

The recovery and warming of our bilateral relations
since the events of 1971 has been steady and ever more manifest
for some time. It began inevitably as the Simla process
began; and it has proceeded and strengthened as that process
has proceeded and strengthened. For it was conflict within
the subcontinent that brought the involvement of outsiders
in the first place. And correspondingly, the region's
political capacity to resolve regional conflict has, to a
considerable degree, diminished outside involvement. It is
not inevitable that this process will continue, and grow.

President Ford has asked me to affirm that the United States
strongly supports efforts of peaceful settlement on the
subcontinent free of imposition, or pressure or outside

interference. We want political stability and economic success for South Asia. That is what we believe South Asians hope for, and what the rest of the world should hope for as well. <u>There is no other American objective</u>

The statesmanship of all of South Asia's leaders has been at the heart of this process. It has taken great courage to persevere toward the goal agreed upon by Pakistan and India at the Simla Conference in 1972: "The promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of a durable peace in the subcontinent." The size and position of the <u>Republic of India</u> give it a special role of leadership in South Asian and world affairs. They give her at the same time the special responsibility for accommodation and restraint that strength entails. The United States recognizes these realities. They are wholly compatible with the close friendships and special bonds we have with all the various nations of the region. As we wish South Asia well, we wish India well.

Thus a more mature and durable relationship is emerging
between India and the United States -- one which leaves
behind the peaks and valleys of the past.

Both India and the United States still consider
themselves youthful nations. The restlessness, the striving
and the ideals of our people attest to the reality of that image.
But a basic quality of youth -- unlimited expectations un-
seasoned by experience -- often caused us to assume or expect
too much. We are two great nations of independent judgment and
strength and perspective; often our zeal and moral convictions
have led us into disagreements with a passion that might not
have been present had we not been <u>nations with similar ideals</u>,
and a common moral heritage.

For a quarter of a century our relations tended to
<u>vacillate</u> between <u>excessive</u> expectation and deep suspicion.
The low point occurred in 1971 in a basic disagreement
<u>flowing</u> from different political judgments, which we faced

-10-

The old international order is changing, but the new and the old still coexist in uneasy equilibrium. The frozen international landscape of the past quarter century has begun to thaw but we have yet to put a durable structure of cooperation in its place. A new era of stability has begun in Europe and Asia, while chronic disputes in the Middle East and Indochina still endanger regional and global peace. The United States and the Soviet Union have perceived a common interest in avoiding nuclear holocaust, while some potential for conflict persists and the arsenals of the two sides continue to grow. The United States and the People's Republic of China have succeeded in overcoming two decades of estrangement, but deep differences in interests and philosophy remain. And as the old blocs among old powers decline, new blocs among new nations threaten to emerge.

Yet our goal is not yet achieved. Thus, as we move toward a world where power blocs and balances are not dominant; where justice not stability can

-13-

of the process of detente, and was assured by the Soviet leaders
that they shared this intention. The United States will
the
persevere to reduce military competition with Soviet

Union in all its aspects; to ensure that our political com-
petition is guided by principles of restraint especially
in moments of crisis; and to move beyond restraint to
cooperation in helping find lasting relations to chronic
conflicts.

America's relations with the People's Republic of
China are also of fundamental importance. There cannot be a
stable peace in Asia -- or in the world -- without a pattern
of peaceful international relationships that includes
this powerful and populous nation. It was essential for us
to end a generation of mutual isolation and hostility. Yet
there is a wider interest being served. The principles of
the Shanghai Communique commit our nations to respect the

-12-

concert their efforts in a time of global economic stress.

In the last five years the United States has sought
to put its relations with the Communists powers on a new and
steady basis.

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, man's fears of holocaust
and his hopes for peace have turned on the relationship
between the United States and the Soviet Union. Never
before have two nations had the capability/ to annihilate
civilization. Never before has it been so important to
the world that two nations maintain methodical contact with one
another, and avoid conflicts which would menace other nations
as much as themselves.

nuclear
physics

In the past few years, progress has been achieved in our
relationship with the Soviet Union which would have been
unthinkable a decade ago. We take the easing of tensions
for granted only at the risk of the return of confrontations.
In my discussions in Moscow I stated yet again the determination
of the American Government to maintain the momentum of the

15

for world peace -- rather than on some abstract notion of
ideological or bloc advantage. We must rise above the
outdated perceptions of a world divided between East

and West, North and South, developed and developing, consumers
and producers. Old blocks should not give way to new ones.
we will not solve them at all

Second, America seeks to limit and ultimately to
reduce nuclear weapons competition. The relaxation of
international tensions cannot survive an unrestrained and
continuous arms race by the two strongest nuclear powers.
And international stability will be seriously jeopardized
by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is why the
United States is making a major effort to bring about a more
stable nuclear environment.

The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks are among the
most crucial negotiations ever conducted between nations.
The agreements already signed by the United States and
the Soviet Union represent a major step toward strategic

16

stability. They placed a permanent limit on defensive weapons and an interim limit on offensive nuclear weapons.

Our task now is to control the qualitative as well as quantitative advance of weapons. We seek a ten-year agreement which would permit the negotiation of stable ceilings on which we could begin the long-sought process of arms reductions. Progress in this direction was made during my recent talks in Moscow.

At the same time, a world in which an ever-increasing number of nations possess nuclear weapons would greatly magnify the risks of both regional and global conflict. And proliferation complicates -- if it does not inhibit -- international cooperation in the peaceful uses of the atom.

As the United Nations last month I outlined a comprehensive global effort on this issue, specifically is of the view that the United States proposes that countries capable of exporting nuclear technology should agree to common restraints which would further the peaceful, but prevent inibit

17

the military uses of nuclear power. India of course has this
capacity; it therefore has an important role in this
collective endeavor. Needless to say, the United States
does not ask other countries for restraint on the export
of nuclear materials and technology which it is not prepared
to apply to itself. The United States will work vigorously
with others on the practical steps which should be taken
to limit the dangers of the atom while realizing its
potential for human good.

A third objective of American policy is to build
---
global cooperation to meet unprecedented global problems.

The traditional agenda of international affairs -- the
balance among major powers, the security of nations -- no longer
defines our perils or our possibilities. We have mastered
~~To some extent~~ many of the familiar challenges of diplomacy.

Yet suddenly we are witnessing a new threat to the
governability of national societies and the structure of

18

international stability. The global crisis threatens the structure of the world's economic system. The industrialized nations see decades of prosperity in jeopardy. The developing countries which had every right to expect to share in a general advance are suffering most; they see hopes for development and progress shattered or postpone indefinitely. And even the newly wealthy oil producers are beginning to perceive that their recent gains will be swept away in a global general crisis.

The dangers are as self-evident for the United States as they are for India and other countries: rates of inflation unseen in the past quarter century; financial institutions staggering under the most massive and rapid movements of reserves in history; and profoundly disturbing questions about the ability to meet man's most fundamental needs for energy and food.

20

program as America's contribution to the effort to free
mankind from the eternal struggle for sustenance. We recognize
that America's agricultural productivity, advanced
technology, and tradition of assistance represent a
major obligation. We know that we cannot speak of the global
responsibility of others without practicing global
responsibility ourselves. America pioneered in develop-
ment assistance particularly with respect to food. But we are
determined to step up the momentum of our past contributions,
and to help launch the massive new effort required. We will
emphasize both increasing our production at home so there will
be more available for shipment abroad, and helping developing
nations increase their own production. This is the only long-
term solution to the problem needs

The magnitude of the world's food problem -- and the
redistribution of the world's wealth -- imply that others
must enlist in the fight against famine. The/States will work
with other countries to provide food and help develop a
cooperatively with food exporters, and with those with
the ability to help finance increased food production in the
developing countries.

21

But it is an objective fact that we cannot meet man's need for food, much less ensure economics and social advance, without coming to grips with the energy crisis. Higher oil prices directly affect food prices by increasing the costs of agricultural machinery, fertilizer and of transporting food to deficit areas. This in turn contributes to the more general economic crisis of inflation and stagnation which will surely doom the ability of the advanced countries to fulfill their obligations to the less well endowed. Both consumers and producers have a parallel stake in a global economy that is stable and growing, to meet their national aspirations for a just share. The growth of world

Tao's universal well-being

years have brought this goal closer; today's crisis puts it in jeopardy.

This is why the United States has emphasized global interdependence and seeks for global cooperative solutions, to a problem that concerns us all.

22

The United States and India

These American purposes are, we believe, entirely
consistent with India's purposes. We are nations whose
values, and aspirations are so similar that our
disputes are often in the nature of a family quarrel.

- We have no conflict of interest, no basic animosity or disagreement that keep us apart.

- We face a world in crisis and transition, that compels us to work together.

23

We are both democracies, with all that implies for the kinds of decisions we are able to make. The leaders of a democracy can only sustain policies which their electorate will support. If there are no general rules as to what such policies are likely to be, there are specific limitations as to what they cannot be. It is clear that our relationship cannot be based -- in either country -- on the dependence of one on the other. Nor can our relationship survive the constant criticism of one by the other in all international forums.

There must be a sense of common purpose in at least some endeavors. To Indian-American relations equality and mutual respect are more than doctrines of international law. They are political realities, the necessities.

In the past year or two we removed the two major obstacles an improved which have impeded our relationship. India is among the first and foremost of the new nations to proclaim the determination to free itself of dependency on artificial resource transfers. We believe that the United States has

25

26th largest trading partner of the United States reveals
what potential is yet untapped.

The Joint Commission we are establishing -- for
scientific, cultural, and economic cooperation -- provides
a new means to match our resources with our challenges. It
is a demonstration that we are moving from an era of
dependen~cy to an era of equality. And the United States
stands ready to expand the concept of the Joint Commissions
into other areas.

We share a concern for economic development. It is impossible
to visit South Asia at this time without being deeply
affected by the tragic plight of so many of the peoples of
this region. Individual hopes for survival and national
aspirations for developments have been dealt a cruel blow by
crises in energy, food and inflation.

The American people want to be helpful, while avoiding
the old dependency we both reject. I have already mentioned
the rescheduling of debts. This year the United States will
launch a modest bilateral aid program, with India. A

26

substantial part of our multilateral aid comes to India.

Our new food program which I will describe in detail at the World Food Conference next week will be of particular relevance to India, in this particularly difficult period.

We share a concern for peace. Neither India nor the United States will ever be satisfied with a world of chronic conflicts, or uneasy truces and offsetting blocs. We have a joint interest in a comprehensive, institutionalized peace, based not merely on a balance of forces but on a sense of justice.

In recent months the dialogue between India and the United States on the entire range of global concerns has assumed a new frequency and depth. Our consultation has defined areas where we agree and narrowed those where we do not. We have found anew the basis for collaboration in many areas in a new era.

Half a century ago, Tagore wrote with foresight: "During the evolution of the nation the moral culture of brotherhood was limited by geographic boundaries, because at that time

27

those boundaries were true. Now they have become imaginary
lines of tradition divested of the qualities of real obstacles.
So the time has come when man's moral nature must deal with
this great fact with all seriousness or perish."

The time has come for nations to act on this vision.
Let there be hope rather than despair, creativity rather than
disarray. The recognition and understanding of our problems
are clearly emerging. We have the technical means to solve
them. And the urgency of our tasks impels us.

Mahatma Ghandi wrote half a century ago, we must launch
"experiments with truth." In this spirit, let us resolve to
strengthen the new beginnings between India and America.

Let us build a relationship that can endure over the long
term, as our contribution to matching man's vision to his
callenges for the benefit of our two peoples and of all of
mankind.

-2-

develop and realize a conception of global community.

## A New World

It is more than three years since I was last in New Delhi. This has been a period of profound change in the relationship between India and the United States, in the whole region and in the world.

On my last trip to New Delhi I paid my first visit to Peking. On this trip I have visited Moscow. The new pattern of moving about among capitals only recently is somewhat new for the United States. It is something of a polarized world locked in confrontation and seemingly destined for some final, awful encounter to the new world of dispersed power and reduced hostility. This changed environment is ostensibly more complex and, for some, less assuring. Yet therein lies its essential hope. For the process of detente among major powers has not made the world more complex; it merely signifies that world leaders

have recognized its complexity. Those who ought always
to have known how serious is man's predicament have learned
to have learned how great new how little benefit confrontation brings, how total is the
need for cooperation.

This has not been, nor will be, an effortless transition for the American people. Nor can I imagine that it will be without difficulties in other nations of the world.

For it requires coming to terms with less simple views
of right and wrong, of what is possible and not possible
than what has been current in our political thinking for
a generation.

It is appropriate to acknowledge, here in New Delhi,
that this new American view owes much to an old vision
of India's national leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru perceived
the impermanence of the post-war world into which India
was born of frozen and implacable hostility between
the superpowers and their insistent efforts to enlist

other nations on one side or the other. Nehru maintained
that India's role would be to deflect and redirect those
forces. To this end, he evolved the concept of nonalignment.

position. The United States accepts non-alignment. ~~America sees a world of free, independent, sovereign states as its~~
~~decidedly in its own~~ *the own and principal national interest. This acceptance*

of diversity has become a central purpose of American
policy, ~~the world over.~~

Nowhere is this clearer than with respect to the
~~nations of South Asia, where a fifth of mankind lives.~~

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee six weeks ago, I stated this principle of American
~~foreign policy in terms, that were surely explicit~~

enough: "We do not look", I said, "at this subcontinent
as being composed of some countries that are clients of
China, others that are clients of the Soviet Union,
others that should be clients of the United States.
We believe that we can have productive relationships with
all of them. And we believe also, especially with respect
to India, that our relations are in a stage of dramatic
improvement."

The recovery and warming of our bilateral relations since
March 1971 has been steady and ever more manifest for some time.

If asked for how long and in what context, an American
statesman would have no difficulty of reply: It began inevitably
as the Simla process began; and it has proceeded and
strengthened as that process has proceeded and strengthened.
For it was conflict within the subcontinent that brought
the involvement of outsiders in the first place. And
Correspondingly, the emergence of the region's political

-6-

It is not inevitable that this process will continue
~~President Ford has asked me to affrm~~
and grow. ~~But the United States strongly supports the~~
~~process of peaceful settlement on the subcontinent free~~
of imposition, or pressure or outside interference.

We want political stability and economic success in South
Asia, ~~Frost~~ is what we believe South Asians hope for, and what
the rest of the world should hope for as well, ~~There is no other~~
~~American agnostic~~

The statesmanship of all of South Asia's leaders
has been at the heart of this process. It has taken
great courage to persevere toward the goal agreed upon by
Pakistan and India at the Simla Conference in 1972: "The
promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the
establishment of a durable peace in the subcontinent,"

The size and position of the Republic of India give it
~~a special role in~~ leadership in South Asian affairs.
They give her at the same time a special responsibility

The United States recognizes these realities, ~~and seeks~~
~~to foster them as wholly compatible~~ with the close
friendships and special bonds we have with all the various
nations of the region. As we wish South Asia well, we
wish India well.

A New Indo-American Relationship

Thus a more mature and durable relationship is
emerging between India and the United States -- one which
offers us hope of leaving behind the peaks and valleys of
the past. Both India and the United States still consider
themselves youthful nations. The restlessness, the striving,
and the ideals of our people attest to the reality of that
image. But a basic quality of youth -- unlimited expecta-
tions unseasoned by experience -- has caused us to place
expectations on each other, and to judgment and strength and
unreasonable demands on ourselves and upon one another.
 moral convictions have led us into disagreement with
passion and into doubt. But we have learned present and
There has been a lack of compassionate understanding, at
not been, and will continue to have, similar ideals and a common
times an excess of zeal, which have often led us into
moral heritage.

-8-

A

unintended, if in circumstances unavoidable, disagree-
ments.

from
p10

The past few years have been a sobering period
From the events of the past -- from our experience with
tremendous as well as small as yours --
for both countries. We have both developed a more mature
perception. Both sides have limited their crusading
and
our zeal. Both have had to understand limitations on their
ability to bend the world to their expectations. And
our relations with each other, both are learning our
basic compatibility of interests and the means to
cooperate.

to page
14

below is para from page 10

For a quarter of a century our relations tended to vacillate
between excessive expectation and deep suspicion. The low
point occurred in 1971 in a basic disagreement fxxkxx
flowing from different political judgments which we faced
candidly. We But that crisis is now behind us. I believe
that we have surmounted those xxxxx strains and moved quickly
ahead. In the present and the future our objectives are
clearly congruent and parallel. We can now address
our relationship free of past distortions and conscious of
what we share.

America's Purposes

For our new relationship to endure and strengthen, we must understand each other's perspectives. Nations face different problems and different opportunities -- their positions and power inevitably vary. Let me therefore say a few words about America's perspective and purposes as they have clanged in recent years from a broader, especially, view.

The central purpose of American foreign policy today is to help shape a more just, peaceful and cooperative world.

We have rejected the extremes of world policeman and the conception of a world power into two: a more complex andopefully understanding perception of a multipolar world.

15

isolation. But we recognize that America's history, our strength and our principles impose a special responsibility in a world in rapid flux. Upon us.

old
The/international order is changing but the new and the old still coexist in uneasy equilibrium. The frozen international landscape of the past quarter century has begun to thaw, but we have yet to put a durable structure of cooperation in its place. A new era of peace and stability has begun in Europe and Asia, while chronic disputes in the Middle East and Indochina still endanger the world's peace. The United States and the Soviet Union have perceived a commonality of interest in avoiding nuclear holocaust, while some potential for conflict persists and the arms race of the two sides continues to grow. The consequences of conflict have assumed new and devastating dimensions. The United States and the People's Republic of China have overcome two decades of estrangement, but deep differences in interests and philosophy remain. And as the

18

yet again the determination of the American Government
to maintain the forward movement of what has been called
detente, and was assured by the Soviet leaders that they shared
this intention.

We intend to persevere to restrain military competition
in all its aspects; to ensure that our political competition
is guided by principles of restraint especially in moments
of crisis; and to move beyond restraint to cooperation in
finding lasting solutions to removing the causes of chronic conflicts.

America's relations with the People's Republic of China
are also of fundamental importance. There cannot be a stable
peace in Asia -- or in the world -- without a pattern of
international relationships that includes this powerful and
populous nation. It was essential to end a generation of
mutual isolation and hostility. Yet there is a wider
interest being served. The principles of the Shanghai
Communique commit our nations to respect the independence

-21-

Second, America seeks to limit and ultimately to reduce nuclear weapons competition. With respect to the control of nuclear weapons the United States has a special responsibility. The relaxation of international tensions is incompatible with an unrestrained arms race by the two strongest nuclear powers. And international stability will be further jeopardized by the unrestrained proliferation of nuclear weapons. Thus in the months ahead the United States will make a major effort to bring about a more stable nuclear environment.

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks are among the most crucial negotiations ever conducted between nations. The agreements already signed by the United States and the Soviet Union represent a major step toward strategic stability. They placed a permanent limit on defensive weapons and an interim limit on offensive nuclear weapons. Our task now is to control the qualitative as well as

-22-

advance quantitative growth of weapons. We seek a ten-year agreement which would permit the negotiation of stable ceilings, from which we could begin a process of arms reductions.

The world faces as well the problem of nuclear proliferation. A world in which an ever-increasing number of nations possess nuclear weapons (vastly compounds the risks of both regional and global conflict. And proliferation complicates -- if it does not inhibit -- international cooperation in the peaceful uses of the atom.

At the United Nations last month I proposed a comprehensive global effort to realize the peaceful benefits of atomic energy without contributing to proliferation.

Specifically the United States proposes that these countries capable of exporting nuclear technology agree to common restraints which would further the peaceful, but prevent the military uses of nuclear power. India of course has this

-23-

capacity; it therefore has an important role in this
collective endeavor. Needless to say, the United States
does not ask other countries for restraint on the export
of nuclear materials and technology which it is not prepared
to apply to itself. Let all nuclear countries agree on the
practical steps which should be taken to limit the dangers
while still other potential risks for human good of the atom.

The fourth objective of American policy is to build
a framework for unprecedented global cooperation to meet
unprecedented global problems. The traditional agenda of
international affairs -- the balance among major powers,
the security of nations -- no longer defines our perils or
our challenges. We have mastered to some extent many of
the traditional challenges of diplomacy. Yet suddenly we
are witnessing a new threat to the structure of international
stability, -- to the governability of national societies and
the patterns of international relations. The global economic
crisis threatens social strains and political instabilities.

of unity not division. These specific tasks reflect one
over-riding goal -- to create a new era in the relationship
between nations, to make cooperation the central theme of
the future.

These are America's purposes. We believe they are
entirely consistent with India's purposes. We are nations
whose values, and aspirations are so similar that our
disputes are often in the nature of a family quarrel.

-- We have no conflict of interest, no basic animosity or disagreement that keeps us apart.

-- We face a world in crisis and transition, a world suspended between great creativity and great disarray, that compels us to come together.

India and America share an obligation to our peoples
and to the world to build a truly cooperative relationship.

We are both of us democracies, with all that implies
for the kinds of decisions we are able to make. The
leaders of a democracy can only sustain, over time,
policies with respect to other nations which their
electorate can and will support. If there are no general
rules as to what such policies are likely to be, there
are specific limitations as to what they cannot be.

These policies cannot be based -- in either country -- on the dependence of one country or another. Nor can our relationships survive the constant criticism of one by the other

in all international forums. They require a sense of common purpose in at least some endeavors. To Indian-American relations equality and mutual respect are more than doctrines of international law. They are political realities, which are at the very heart of our relationship.

In the past year or two we removed the two major obstacles which have impeded a relationship of equality and respect, which doomed us for a quarter century to perpetual oscillation between excessive expectations and deep hostility.

On the one hand, India is among the first and foremost of the new nations to proclaim the determination to free itself of dependency on artificial resource transfers. We believe that the United States has responded to this resolve in a responsible and forth-

12

Our economies are complimentary, ~~the magnitude of untapped potential is measured by the fact that India is only the 26th largest trading partner of the United~~ States reveals what potential is yet untapped. (p113

~~We share a deep concern for development.~~ It is impossible to visit South Asia at this time without being deeply affected by the tragic plight of so many of the people of this region. Individual hopes for survival and national aspirations for dreams of developments have been dealt a cruel blow by international crises in energy, food and inflation.

The American people ~~profoundly respect and support the striving of South Asia's people for a life free from fear and despair.~~ We want to find new ways to be helpful, while avoiding the old dependency we both reject. I have already mentioned the rescheduling of debts. (The United States will launch a modest bilateral aid program with India this year.) A substantial part of our multilateral aid comes

13

to India. Our new food program which I will describe in
detail at the World Food Conference next week will be of
particular relevance to India in this particularly difficult
period. And the United States stands ready to expand the
concept of the Joint Scientific Commissions into other
areas.

The Joint Commission we are establishing -- for
scientific, cultural, and economic cooperation -- provides
a new means to match our resources with our challenges.
It is a demonstration that we are moving from an era of
dependency to an era of equality.

We share a deep concern for peace. Neither India
nor the United States will ever be satisfied with a world
of chronic conflicts, of uneasy truces and offsetting
blocs. We must build together a comprehensive, institutionalized
peace, one based not merely on a balance of forces but on a
sense of justice. In recent months the dialogue on the

-29-

We both want a world of justice, prosperity and
peace. We can work with each other to achieve it.

Tagore wrote with foresight a half century ago,
"During the evolution of the nation the moral culture of
brotherhood was limited by geographic boundaries, because
at that time those boundaries were true. Now they have
become imaginary lines of tradition divested of the
qualities of real obstacles. So the time has come when
man's moral nature must deal with this great fact with
all seriousness or perish."

The time has come for nations to act on this decision,
recognition that old slogans and traditional rivalries
will lead us towards

-- A world ever torn between rich and poor, East
and West, producer and consumer;

-30-

-- A world of rising costs and dwindling supplies, of growing populations and declining production;

-- A world where local crises threaten global confrontation and where the spreading atom threatens global peril.

This need not be our fate. Let there be hope rather than despair, creativity rather than disarray. The recognition and understanding of our problems are clearly emerging. We have the technical means to solve them. And the urgency of our tasks compels us.

The only element in question is our political will, the courage to reflect reality in our actions. As Mahatma Ghandi wrote half a century ago, we must "experiment with truth." In this spirit, let us resolve to strengthen the new beginnings between India and America. Let us build a relationship that can endure over the longer-term as

October 28, 1974

Dr. Bharat Ram, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am honored to be invited to address such a distinguished gathering, for the second time in just over a decade. For the basic objective of this organization -- to comprehend, communicate, and help shape the state of world affairs -- has been the central purpose of my own life since long before I served in government. And I have since found that the statesman, too, has no more important task.

The fundamental reality of *our* age is that we live in a world inextricably linked by interdependent economies and universal aspirations, by the speed of communications and the specter of nuclear war. The political lesson of our

2

age is that the national interest can no longer be
defined or attained in isolation from the global interest.
And the moral challenge of our age is to free ourselves from
the narrow perceptions of the nation state and to shape a
conception of global community.

## A New World

The three years since I was last in New Delhi have
seen profound changes in the relationship between India
and the United States, in the whole region and in the world.

On my last trip to South Asia I paid my first visit to
Peking. On this trip I have visited Moscow. Moving about
among capitals only recently considered hostile is a new
pattern for the United States. It signifies the transition
from a bipolar world locked in confrontation and seemingly
destined for some final encounter to the new world of
dispersed power and reduced tension.

3

This changed environment is more complex and therefore,
for some, less assuring. Yet we see it as/a world of hope.
For the process of detente among major powers has not made
the world more complex; it merely signifies that leaders
have recognized its complexity. Those who ought always to
have known how serious is man's predicament have learned how
little benefit confrontation brings and how absolute is the
need for cooperation.

This has not been an effortless transition for the
American people. Nor is it without difficulties in other
nations of the world. For it requires coming to terms with
less simple views of right and wrong, of the possible and
the ideal than have permeated political thinking for a
generation.

- 5 -

> "We do not look at the subcontinent as being composed of
> of some countries that are clients of China, others that are
> clients of the Soviet Union, others that should be clients
> of the United States. We believe that we can have productive
> relationships with all of them. And we believe also,
> especially with respect to India, that our relations are in
> a stage of dramatic improvement."

The warming of our bilateral relations has been increasingly manifest for some time. It began inevitably as the Simla process began; and it has proceeded and strengthened as that process has proceeded and strengthened. For it was conflict within the subcontinent that brought the involvement of outsiders in the first place. And correspondingly, the region's political capacity to resolve regional conflict has, to a considerable degree, diminished outside involvement.

- 6 -

strongly supports efforts of peaceful settlement on the
subcontinent, free of imposition, or pressure or outside
interference. We want political stability and economic
success for South Asia. That is what we believe South Asians
hope for, and what the rest of the world should hope for as
well.

The size and position of India give it a special role
of leadership in South Asian and world affairs. They confer
on it at the same time the special responsibility for
accommodation and restraint that strength entails. The United
States recognizes both these realities. They are wholly

- 8 -

The low point occurred in 1971 when a basic disagreement flowed from different political judgments. We faced these differences candidly, and that crisis is now behind us. We have surmounted past strains and moved ahead with promise. We can now build our relationship free of past distortions and conscious of the interests and values we share.

From the events of the past -- from our experience with the world as well as yours -- we have both developed a more balanced view. Both of us independently have come to temper our zeal and to understand limitations on our ability to bend the world to our expectations. In parallel with this in our relations with each other, we both stress the basic compatibility of our interests. This promises to provide a durable basis for cooperation and friendship.

## America's Purposes

A great deal depends on our mutual understanding.

For our new relationship to endure and thrive, we must see

- 10 -

era of stability has begun in Europe and Asia, while chronic
disputes in the Middle East and Indochina still endanger
regional and global peace. The United States and the Soviet
Union have perceived a common interest in avoiding nuclear
holocaust, while some potential for conflict persists and
the arsenals of the two sides continue to grow. The United
States and the People's Republic of China have succeeded
in overcoming two decades of estrangement, but important
differences in philosophy remain. And as the old blocs
among old powers decline, new blocs among new nations threaten
to emerge.

Yet our goal is to move toward a world where power
blocs and balances are not dominant; where justice not
stability can be our overriding preoccupation, where
countries consider cooperation in the global interest to be in
their national interest. For all that has been achieved,
we must realize that we have taken only the first hesitant
steps on a long and arduous road.

- 12 -

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, man's fears of holocaust and his hopes for peace have turned on the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. Never before have two nations had the physical ability to annihilate civilization. Never before has it been so important that the two nuclear giants maintain close contact with one another to avoid conflicts which would menace other nations as much as themselves.

Progress has been achieved in our relationship with the Soviet Union which would have been unthinkable a decade ago. We take the easing of tensions for granted only at the risk of the return of confrontation. In my discussions in Moscow I stated yet again the determination of the American Government to maintain the momentum of the process of detente, and was assured by the Soviet leaders that they shared this intention. The United States will persevere to reduce military competition with the Soviet Union in all its aspects; to

- 14 -

the heads of others or if an attempt is made to impose
it on others. Our attitude toward the non-aligned will be
based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and
shared endeavors and on the premise that all countries have
a stake in a peaceful world. Condominium, hegemony, spheres
of influence are historically obsolete and morally and politically
untenable.

It is a corollary of this, however, that bloc diplomacy
of any kind is anachronistic and self-defeating. We see a
danger of new patterns of alignment that are as artificial,
rigid and ritualistic as the old ones. The issues the world
faces are so urgent, that they must be considered on their
merits, on the basis of their implications for humanity,
and for world peace -- rather than on some abstract notion
of ideological or bloc advantage. In a real sense the
world is no longer divided between East and West, North
and South, developed and developing, consumer and producer.

- 17 -

course has this capability; it therefore has an important
role in this collective endeavor. Needless to say, the
United States does not ask other countries for restraint
on the export of nuclear materials and technology which
it is not prepared to apply to itself. We will work
vigorously with others on the practical steps which should
be taken to limit the dangers of the atom while <u>realizing</u>
its potential for human good.

19

ED

This is not a conventional political problem, which
can be dealt with by conventional diplomacy or on the basis
of conventional premises of social and economic theory.
It affects all countries and groups. There is no gain for
one at the expense of another. Piecemeal solutions offer no
hope; a global enterprise is imperative. No nation or bloc
of nations can impose its narrow interests without tearing
the fabric of international cooperation. Whatever our ideo-
logical belief or social structure, we are part of a single
international system on which our national objectives depend.

Our common destiny is now not a slogan, an unmistakable reality.

The United States is prepared to dedicate itself in
practical ways to this global effort. At the World Food
Conference next week ~~it~~ will offer a comprehensive program

values, and aspirations are so similar that our disputes are
often in the nature of a family quarrel. We have not conflict
of interest, no basic animosity or disagreement that keep us
apart. We face a world in crisis and transition, that compels
us to work together.

We are both democracies, with all that implies for the
kinds of decisions we are able to make. The leaders of a
democracy can only sustain policies which their electorate
will support. If there are no general rules as to what such
policies are likely to be, there are specific limitations as
to what they cannot be. It is clear that our relationship
cannot be based -- in either country -- on the dependence of
one on the other. Nor can our relationship survive constant
criticism of one by the other in all international forums.
There must be a sense of common purpose in at least some
endeavors. To Indian-American relations equality and mutual
respect are more than doctrines of international law. They
are political necessities.