- 50 -

[LC]

Latin American groups, some perhaps involving more than single countries where national units are small, would be locally funded and would coordinate their own research and development priorities.

Initiative in such an arrangement would rest with the Latin Americans and be shaped by their priorities. Such a facility could usefully supplement existing international agencies and build upon the long and successful hemispheric intellectual interchange under private auspices.

## Recommendation:

31. The United States should assist the development of scientific and technological capabilities within the Latin American countries. To support this process, we recommend establishment of a publicly-funded foundation to cooperate with counterpart Latin American institutions.

The Commission would like to point to one specific area where expanded cooperative research programs are greatly needed. The recent Law of the Sea Conference has made very apparent mankind's insufficient knowledge about the location and magnitude of marine resources. More intensive programs of marine research are needed and would facilitate agreement on a new international code regulating exploitation of marine resources. In particular, the Latin American nations have much to gain. We therefore encourage mutual research with Latin America to improve and share our knowledge of the seas.

## Recommendation:

32. The Commission recommends that the United States undertake cooperative research in marine science. Consideration should be given to the establishment of international or regional Marine Research Centers in Latin America and the Caribbean in which scientists from member countries could jointly undertake marine research projects and studies, thereby strengthening local research and scientific capabilities.

- 51 -

[LC]

This assistance speaks primarily to the long run. For the present, capital is, and will remain for some time, relatively scarce in many Latin American countries. Basic research is extremely costly and produces tangible returns only after long periods of time. Resources invested in training high-level manpower subtract from those available for assuring mass literacy and educational access. What is of more immediate significance is freer availability of the technology of the more advanced nations that can be utilized without duplication of the steps involved in its initial development. The Japanese experience may serve as a useful model, with its simultaneous reliance upon foreign patents and licenses and emphasis upon adaptation to local conditions.

The Commission recognizes that most of the United States technology available for immediate application resides in private hands; most transfers correspondingly result from private decisions of corporations, typically in the form of equity investment. There is a legally recognized monopoly through the patent system that is bestowed upon possessors of technology; and firms legitimately seek to protect and defend against imitation and competition even in the absence of such formal authority.

In these circumstances the potential for governmental direction or regulation of the transfer process is circum-scribed. And the market place, because of the monopoly elements inevitably present, will not always yield equitable solutions. This is the crux of the matter: for Latin American countries often are persuaded that they are paying higher prices and receiving inferior quality. Such a sense of discrimination and abuse contradict the tenor of the United States approach to hemispheric relations we recommend.

Constructive measures can be undertaken. The market for technology might be improved if better information about terms and prices of technology were recorded and shared. The technical competence of Latin American countries in dealing with technology transfer is growing; most nations now routinely collect information on licensing agreements. The United States should cooperate to assure fuller dissemination of that information without violating the confidentiality of specific contracts. This information, collated from hemispheric countries and coordinated through some regional organization, could do much to eliminate foundless charges and identify true distortions. It also would foster competition among the developed countries themselves, and in that way permit the evolution of a more

- 52 -

[LC]

efficient market.

Internally within the United States, efforts can be made to encourage medium-sized and smaller firms to make their technology available for sale. They, too, lack information concerning the opportunities available to them in Latin America. By restructuring OPIC guarantees, as previously recommended, and including a clearing house function among the activities of the aforementioned public foundation, more diversified participation by American business may well be forthcoming.

Recommendation:

33. The U.S. government should cooperate with Latin American countries to collate and disseminate information relating to the terms of licensing agreements, royalty payments, etc. Similarly one function of the new public science foundation recommended previously should be to provide a clearing house of information on technological services potentially available from middle and small-sized firms in the United States.

These measures taken together will not make the issue disappear. The very nature of the transfer of technology precludes such optimistic identity of national interests. But these policies can help lead to elimination of the dangers of technological dependence. Expeditious implementation can make clear our appreciation of the Latin American position and our commitment to act within the realm of the possible to resolve the problems surrounding the transfer process.

- 53 -

[LC]

## VII. DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Our conclusion is clear: the time is ripe for a new U.S. approach to inter-American relations. Neither old rhetoric nor new slogans will suffice. A fundamental shift in the premises underlying U.S. policies is required.

We must base our actions in the future on the recognition that the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are not our "sphere of influence", to be insulated from extra-hemispheric relationships. Nor are they marginal to international politics. Rather, they are increasingly active participants on the world scene, nations whose friendship and cooperation are of growing value as we confront the realities of global interdependence.

We must also recognize that the nations of the region are not homogeneous. They are diverse, with varying goals and characteristics, at different levels of development. They are not, and need not be, replicas of our country, nor do they require our tutelage. They are sovereign nations, able and willing to act independently, but whose interests in forging constructive solutions to regional problems will often coincide with ours.

Our mutual concerns in the hemisphere center not on military security, but rather on the critical issues of economic and political security in an uncertain world. The growth of our economies, the well-being of our citizens, the coherence of our societies, and the protection of our individual liberties -- these are the goals we share, and which we now recognize cannot be attained in isolation from -- or at the expense of -- our neighbors.

By understanding today's Latin America as it is, and by making clear to Latin Americans how our conceptions have evolved, we in this country can lay the foundation for a new era in U.S. - Latin American relations.

The approach we suggest is based on the proposition that the United States cannot neglect, exploit or patronize its hemispheric neighbors. It is based, too, on the proposition that justice and decency, not disparities of power and wealth, should be the guiding forces in hemispheric relations. Both self-interest and our fundamental values require that we nurture our common interests and historic ties in the Americas, and that we cooperate in helping to build a more equitable and mutually beneficial structure of international relations.

The approach we advocate looks toward a future in which the peoples of the Americas will work together in confronting regional

- 54 -

and world problems, -- maintaining peace, relieving poverty, eliminating hunger, and respecting human rights. It looks toward a future in which we will join together to harness human and material energies, to develop and conserve human and natural resources, to share the richness of our diverse cultures. Only with such an effort can all Americans, from both North and South, look forward to decent and satisfying lives.

[LC]

# Analysis of a Tinderbox:

## The Legal Basis for the State of Israel

by Sol M. Linowitz • of the New York Bar (Rochester)

For almost a year now, the eyes of the world have been glued upon the Middle East. Hardly a week passes that there is not a new crisis in the long, bloody struggle between the Arabs and the Israeli, a struggle that Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal only complicated. At the same time, few Americans have any real understanding of the background of the situation. The intensely emotional statements emanating from Middle Eastern capitals often give much heat but very little light. Mr. Linowitz sketches the legal considerations in the Arab-Israeli rivalry, beginning with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and concluding with the establishment of the State of Israel by the United Nations in 1947.

Countless barrels of blood and many buckets of ink have been poured over the Arab-Israel problems of the Middle East. The vital nature of the issues involved has increasingly led to mingling of political, sociological, moral and emotional considerations in apparently objective efforts to analyze the situation.

Today the State of Israel, born in conflict nine years ago, still lies in the midst of a powder keg. Her 1,700,000 inhabitants live in a country the size of New Jersey and face apparently implacable opposition from their Arab neighbors who continue to assert that the land of Israel is historically and legally theirs. Both in and out of the United Nations, there is again and again heard the argument that the State of Israel was a political creature foisted upon the Arab countries without legal or moral sanction; and that the effect of the new state was to deprive the Arabs of lands to which they were

rightfully entitled, ultimately driving into the desert hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees made homeless by an illegal expropriation.

Never was it more important than it is today to understand clearly the respective rights of Arab and Israeli in this matter. And never was there greater need to re-examine with objectivity the legal basis for the State of Israel and the validity of its birth certificate.

This is an effort to explore that question, and that question alone. Political aspects—which have loomed so large in the tragic Arab-Israel story—will be ignored. Sociological and economic considerations will be dealt with only to the extent necessary to permit an objective and informed decision with respect to legal rights involved in the creation of the State of Israel by the United Nations.

The point of departure for a legal analysis of the respective rights and obligations is the Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour on November 2, 1917. The entire text of the Balfour Declaration was as follows:

FOREIGN OFFICE

November 2, 1917

DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD: I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which have been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist federation.

Yours sincerely,

ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR

For over thirty-nine years, English, Arabs, and Jews alike have indulged in partisan research and interpretation of this document and its genesis. The most significant and incontrovertible fact is, however, that by itself the Declaration was legally impotent. For Great Britain had no sovereign rights over Palestine; it had no proprietary interest; it had no authority to dispose of the

522 American Bar Association Journal

land. The Declaration was merely a statement of British intentions and no more. It said that (1) England viewed with favor the establishment in Palestine of a home for the Jewish people; (2) Britain would use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object; and (3) nothing should be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries.

## The Palestine Mandate...
*A Jewish National Home*

The true importance of the Declaration lay in the fact that the Preamble to the Palestine mandate issued by the Allied Powers in 1922 specifically recited that Great Britain as mandatory was to be responsible for putting the Declaration into effect. Significantly, it stated that recognition had thereby been given to the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". The mandate was accordingly set up to effectuate these purposes, and Great Britain as mandatory assumed the obligation of exercising the mandate in accordance with the precise terms of the Balfour Declaration.

The mandate device used by the Allied Powers in the Covenant of the League of Nations was an innovation in international law. While President Wilson and General Smuts had conceived of the mandate as a trust arrangement, the other powers had accepted their mandatory roles as a convenient manner of obtaining desired territories.¹ It was, therefore, hardly surprising that the administration of the various mandates was inevitably molded to the political aims of the mandatories. The British action in assigning mandatory functions to the Colonial Office was as frank an indication of this attitude as was their use of the mandated territory of Haifa as a naval base. In short, the British conception and administration of the Palestine mandate must be recognized as part and parcel of a uniform policy.

Article 2 of the Palestine mandate obligated the mandatory to accomplish certain objectives: (1) To place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home as laid down in the Preamble; (2) to develop self-governing institutions; and (3) to safeguard civil and religious rights of all inhabitants of Palestine. Article 5 made the mandatory responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory was ceded or leased to, or placed under the control of the government of any foreign power. The administration of Palestine was charged by Article 6, with the obligation of facilitating Jewish immigration into Palestine under suitable conditions. Article 27 required the consent of the League of Nations to any modification of the terms of the mandate.

The touchstone for an analysis of what was sought to be achieved and the method for its attainment lay in the words "Jewish national home".² Borrowed from the original Zionist platform at Basel, the words "national home" were novel in the field of international law. The unfamiliarity of the term spawned variegated interpretations of its meaning. By the application of established principles of legal construction, however, its intended meaning could be readily ascertained: The establishment of Palestine as a place to which Jews could emigrate with the understanding that if such immigration should prove to be large enough, a predominantly Jewish state or commonwealth would come into existence. Lloyd George, President Wilson, and various others so understood the term, and their testimony offers an irrefutable "legislative history" of statutory meaning.

Thus, the Report of Palestine Royal Commission of 1937 stated (page 24): "It would depend mainly on the zeal and the enterprise of the Jews whether the home would grow big enough to become a state. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that if the Jews had mean-

while responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish commonwealth."³

Everything in the language of the mandate itself precisely conformed to this interpretation. The mandate was, for example, directed to take such steps as would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home (Article 2). The administration of Palestine was to facilitate Jewish immigration (Article 6). The administration was to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews (Article 7). The Jewish agency, which was to advise with the Palestine administration, could itself undertake construction or operation of public works, services and utilities subject to arrangement with the administration. (Article 11).

Of equal importance in this connection was the specific provision in the Declaration and mandate for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Read in the light of the contemporaneous preoccupation of the Allied Powers with the minorities in other lands, this provision signified the contemplated reduction of the non-Jewish communities to a minority in Palestine and the concern with the preservation of their rights as minority groups.

Over the years, however, both the British mandatory and the Arabs urged other interpretations designed to indicate a contrary policy. The British position was to a large extent based on an interpretation of the particle "in" contained in the term

1. See INTIMATE PAPERS OF COLONEL HOUSE, (1928) pages 293 et seq.; LANSING, THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS (1921) page 149 et seq.

2. In the REPORT OF PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION (1937) (at page 39) It was stated: "The primary purpose of the mandate as expressed in its articles is to promote the establishment of the Jewish national home."

3. See also BAKER, WOODBROW WILSON, and WORLD SETTLEMENT, volume 7, pages 256, 305. ALSO the LONDON TIMES of March 4, 1914, quoted President Wilson as follows: "The Allied Nations with the fullest concurrence of our Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish commonwealth." See also MILLER, MY DIARY AT THE CONFERENCE OF PARTS, volume 4, page 263.

Juno, 1957 • Vol. 43 523

Sol M. Linowitz practices in Rochester. He was a lieutenant in the Navy during World War II and also served as Assistant General Counsel in the OPA in Washington. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Rochester.

"establishment in Palestine of a national home". From the Churchill White Paper of 1922 until the Report of the Royal Commission in 1937, it was maintained that the use of the word "in" signified an intention to establish a national home in a part rather than the whole of Palestine. This argument was advanced again and again despite the fact that clothing a naked particle with such drastic significance seemed to run counter to the whole mandatory scheme. In Article 25 of the mandate, Great Britain was authorized, with the consent of the Council, to postpone or withhold application of the mandate provisions to Transjordan. By clear implication, therefore, the mandatory would not be in a position to withhold application of the mandate in the rest of Palestine or apply it only to a portion of western Palestine.

The obvious fact is that a time arrived when political considerations became paramount in the English view. This was apparent from the Statement of the Shaw Commission in 1940 that in its opinion the primary duty which was laid upon the Palestine government was one of holding the balance between the two Allies of the validity of the Jewish

parties in that country. There was no clear direction, the Commission found, to assist either party in the fulfillment of its aspirations.

(This must be compared, of course, with the letter accompanying the Balfour Declaration by Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild as a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist aspirations.)

## Limited Immigration ...
*A Festering Problem*

Even more meaningful, in this regard, however, was the White Paper of 1939, which provided for total future Jewish immigration to Palestine of 75,000; rigorous restrictions on land purchase by Jews; and ultimate establishment of a Palestinian state with Jews as one-third minority. The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League unanimously held this White Paper to be inconsistent with the constant interpretation theretofore placed on the mandate; and a majority went so far as to hold that it was directly contrary to the mandate. Yet the limitation of immigration continued to be a festering problem.

The argument most extensively advanced by Great Britain to support these various curtailments of Jewish migration was based on a reading of Article 8 of the mandate. The administration of Palestine was directed by that article, while insuring that the rights and positions of other sections of the population were not prejudiced, to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions. This provision had been quite properly construed by the mandatory to authorize the limitation of immigration in accordance with the economic absorptive capacity of the country. The difficulty was, however, that questionable estimates of absorptive capacity were again and again relied upon to justify the restraints imposed.

Cultivable areas were, for example, estimated in the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission on the basis of work methods of the average Arab peasant, not the advanced methods being used by Jewish farm-

ers in Palestine. In taking this position, Great Britain also overlooked the fact that a significant number of objective studies clearly indicated that with proper development of the Transjordan Valley and other natural resources Palestine could settle several million additional persons.

For example, Dr. Walter C. Lowdermilk, Assistant Chief of United States Soil Conservation Service, had estimated that if there were full utilization of the Jordan Valley depression for reclamation and power, at least another 4,000,000 persons could be absorbed in addition to the 1,800,000 already in Palestine and Transjordan. (The fact that there are today 1,700,000 people in the portion of Palestine called Israel certainly tends to support the validity of Dr. Lowdermilk's estimates.) Yet Great Britain chose to reject or ignore such studies; and Jewish refugees from Europe, denied the right to enter legally, entered illegally and under the cover of darkness.

The Arab view of the Declaration and mandate was and is based largely on two contentions: (1) Palestine belongs to the Arabs and cannot therefore become either the Jewish national home or a Jewish state, and (2) the McMahon-Hussein correspondence of 1915 precluded the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Without detailed restatement of the arguments as to relative original sovereign rights of Jews and Arabs in Palestine, it is indisputable that the Jews were at one time sovereigns of the land, were deprived of it by force and never renounced their right. Of more importance, however, the Palestine mandate—issued after the Allies had conquered the Turks and Palestine, and after the Arabs had fought with the Turks—specifically recited in paragraph 3 that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". Implicit in this recognition was necessarily the acknowledgment by the Allies of the validity of the Jewish claim to sovereignty. The quarrel of

524 American Bar Association Journal

[L]

the Arabs on this score, therefore, has been with the victorious Allies who in solemn proclamation recognized the prior Jewish rights to Palestine.

The second facet of the Arab argument has been that England had, prior to the Balfour Declaration, already committed itself to the Arabs in the McMahon-Hussein letters in favor of the establishment of an independent Arab state in Palestine. The salient facts regarding this correspondence are these: On October 24, 1915, Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner for Egypt, seeking to secure Arab assistance against the Turks, wrote a letter to Sherif Hussein of Hedjaz. The letter stated that insofar as England was free to act, she was prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within certain areas proposed by the Sherif of Mecca. The districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Hama, Homes and Aleppo, were expressly excluded. The tortuous ambiguous language of the letter has been studied with painstaking care. It is sufficient to observe that Sir Henry McMahon himself, Winston Churchill, and two other Colonial secretaries, all agreed that the letter was not intended to refer to Palestine. Even King Hussein's son, Emir Feisal, accepted this view four years after the letter was written. On January 3, 1919, Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weitzman (later the first President of Israel but then representing the Zionist organization) signed a treaty which dealt with the establishment of an Arab state, exclusive of Palestine.

Generally overlooked in the re-

fined search for intentions, however, is the paramount and all-important fact that at the time in question England had absolutely no right of disposition and no legal or proprietary interest in Palestine, which was then a Turkish province. Regardless of what commitment England might have made, she was neither sovereign over Palestine herself nor was her action ratified either by Turkey (the then sovereign) or the League of Nations (the later sovereign). In the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, Turkey renounced her rights to Palestine in favor of the Allies. This Treaty did not become operative, however, and in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 (after the Palestine mandate) Turkey renounced all right and title to territories outside of the boundaries laid down in that Treaty, "the future of these territories ... being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned".

This alignment of the respective legal position of the parties to the Palestine dispute led the United Nations in 1947 to the following conclusions: (1) Jewish claims to Palestine were predicated on a formal international document of unquestionable legal validity and supported by the terms and legislative history of the mandate; and (2) the Arab position rested on a claim of prior sovereign rights rejected by the Allied Powers after World War I and on an interpretation of a legally ineffective letter from Sir Henry McMahon.

Accordingly, the United Nations by solemn resolution on November 29, 1947, divided the formal British mandate of Palestine into an Israeli State and an Arab State with Jerusalem as an international city under

United Nations supervision. Pursuant to the resolution, the British mandate of Palestine came to an end on May 14, 1948, and the State of Israel was born.

From that day to this there has been no peace in the Holy Land. Aroused and impassioned by fear and suspicion Israel and the Arab States alike have for eight years known only bloodshed and hostility. During that time, Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan have all engaged in attack, skirmish and counter-attack. Tonight, as for hundreds of nights before, Arab guards are poised in their watchtowers; armed Israeli men and women crouch over their machine guns; and on each side of the border soldiers wait tense and ready, challenging every sound and shadow.

It would, of course, be illusion to assume that peace in the Middle East can be achieved through legal analysis such as has been here attempted or by judicial dicta, regardless how persuasive. For peace between Arab and Israeli will come only when there is a real will for peace; it will come only when the United States, England and the other countries of the world recognize that what is at stake in the Middle East is crucial to the survival of peace everywhere; it will come only when humility and understanding replace passion and bloodshed on the part of Arab and Israeli alike; it will come only when all concerned truly understand that for world peace to have a firm and solid foundation in our time it must have strong and deep roots in that part of the world where civilization was first born and where the call for universal brotherhood was first heard loud and clear by mankind.

SOL M. LINOWITZ

ONE FARRAGUT SQUARE SOUTH
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

October 9, 1975

Dear Henry:

I thought you might be interested in this
note to Bill Rogers about a recent meeting with
a couple of Cuban officials.

Enclosure

The Honorable
Dr. Henry Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, D.C.

COUDERT BROTHERS

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE FARRAGUT SQUARE SOUTH
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

TELEPHONE
202 783-3010

CABLE
"TREDUOC" WASHINGTON

TELEX
INTL: RCA 248594
DOMESTIC: 89432

October 9, 1975

The Honorable
William D. Rogers
Assistant Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear Bill:

This is to report on a very interesting conversation which Arnold Nachmanoff and I had on Monday afternoon with Mr. Carlos Ciano, representing the Cuban Foreign Ministry, and Mr. Julio Cubria of the Cuban Mission to the United Nations.

Messrs. Ciano and Cubria were in Washington to attend the assembly of the Pan American Health Organization. Last week they met and had a chance to talk briefly with Arnie Nachmanoff and they indicated that they would like to have a chance to talk with me. Accordingly, the meeting was set up for Monday in my office.

I found the Cuban representatives both personable and friendly. They had, of course, read our Report and commented about it briefly. They then opened up quite directly the question as to what the possibilities were for lifting the blockade. I gave them my own view that it would be extremely difficult to move quickly to lift the total blockade, but that perhaps there might be a partial lifting if it were clear that a significant quid pro quo would be forthcoming. Specifically, I referred to a lifting of the blockade on food and medicine as a "partial" lifting which might perhaps be feasible under the right circumstances.

The response was immediate and surprisingly receptive. Ciano and Cubria made quite clear to us that if such a partial lifting could occur they felt that the Cuban Government would be ready to open up for discussion a whole range of

NEW YORK
200 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

PARIS
52, AVENUE DES CHAMPS-ÉLYSÉES
75008 PARIS

LONDON
31-35 FENCHURCH STREET
LONDON EC3M 3DX

BRUSSELS
RUE BELLIARD, 20
B-1040 BRUSSELS

HONG KONG
6 DES VOEUX RD., CENTRAL
HONG KONG

SINGAPORE
5 SHENTON WAY
SINGAPORE

TOKYO
TANAKA TAKAHASHI
SHUWA DAINI TORANOMON BLDG.
20, SHIBA NISHIKUBO SAKURAGAWA-CHO
MINATO-KU, TOKYO 105

COUDERT BROTHERS

issues - including the nationalization of the American prop-
erties. They emphasized that they would like to see steps
taken toward developing a closer relationship between Cuba
and the United States and thought that this kind of a move
might be right for beginning to stimulate broader discussions
and negotiations.

Before they left they again extended an invitation to
me to visit Cuba and I said I would try to do it sometime
after the first of the year.

For whatever it is worth, both Arnie and I feel that we
were rather clearly told that if the blockade on food and
medicine could be lifted, the Cubans would be ready to open
up for discussion a number of issues. They also understand
fully that such an action on our part would have to be met by
a significant response from them - including a change in tone
in their speeches and pronouncements. It seems to me that this
is an opening worth following up in the knowledge that it
would be welcomed by the Cubans.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Sol M. Linowitz

cc: Dr. Henry Kissinger

THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE BUSINESS LEADER

by Sol M. Linowitz

Partner, Coudert Brothers; Former Chairman of the Board,
Xerox Corporation

*"BUSINESS IS FOR THE BIRDS"*

TODAY, THERE IS great disenchantment with business and widespread antagonism and suspicion directed toward business leaders in this country. This is particularly true among young people who have, in increasing numbers, turned away from possible business careers because they do not believe they can find such a life satisfying and fulfilling. The epitome of the young people's view of business today was captured in that scene in *The Graduate* when Ben, the anti-hero, is told by a friend of his parents to remember just one word, "plastics." For young people, that word "plastics" has come to be the universal symbol for all things synthetic, vulgar, superficial, and insincere—especially the business world, its products, personnel, and organization. The corporate world has come to represent for much of our youth an unreal "plastic" world insulated and protected from the real world of poverty, disease, hunger, and deprivation. It has come to represent apathy as against empathy; insulation as opposed to involvement; competition as opposed to cooperation. In short, for them, business stands for making money as opposed to creating a better way of life.

All of this came through loud and clear during the White House Conference for Youth in 1971, when hundreds of young people between the ages of 14 and 24 came together and set forth their views of our society and its institutions. An analysis of their conclusions and recommendations is especially relevant. For what they focused on perhaps more than anything else was "humanization." They indicated that they saw the business community as a direct

979

[L]

980 Chief Executive's Handbook

threat to their lives as "total persons" because it tended to develop a superspecialist; to compartmentalize individuals into slots; to dictate their style of dress; to discourage free human interaction; to render work "meaningless"; to segregate employer from employee. They also said that they viewed the efforts of business as a threat to their whole way of life through unbridled proliferation of technology without concern for social or environmental implications. What it all boiled down to was a queasy feeling among a large percentage of our youth that business leaders in particular have failed to evolve concepts of social and moral responsibility in the midst of all of our opulence and technological advancement.

These are the same views I heard expressed again and again on our college and university campuses when I served in 1971 as Chairman of the American Council on Education's Special Committee on Campus Tensions. Our goal was to try to find out what had caused the outbreaks on the college campuses and our committee consisted of educators, university presidents, students, faculty people, and public members. Although there were obviously a number of factors involved, certainly one of the most prominent—repeated again and again—was the disillusionment with our society and its leadership—particularly business leadership. A number of students said quite clearly that, in striking out against their college or university, they were rebelling against our institutions, especially our corporate leaders who, in their judgment, ran our colleges and institutions.

All of this explains why the *Wall Street Journal* started off a piece on business and youth by saying that the word around campuses is that "business is for the birds."

Not only is this a view held by young people, but it is far more widely shared in this country. The impression is that business has not been doing its fair share to help deal with our social problems, that it has been involved in all kinds of hanky-panky with the government, that the allegations surrounding ITT are typical, etc. And this view of the American businessman is, of course, prevalent in other parts of the world. I remember an occasion when as Ambassador to the Organization of American States I talked to a large group of students in Colombia, and we had a rather extensive and probing exchange of opinions. When I got through, I asked them to guess what my occupation had been before I became an ambassador. There were guesses all over the place, but when I told them that I had been in business, there was utter incredulity. One student

The Social Responsibility of the Business Leader 981

put it succinctly: "We are smarter than you think. We know that you cannot be a businessman, because American businessmen are concerned only for themselves and never for others."

How do we change this image? What does the businessman have to do to establish the fact that he is in fact concerned about the problems of his society and his world and is ready to pitch in and do his fair share in dealing with these problems?

## FIRST, LET'S CUT OUT THE DOUBLE-TALK

For a long time, business leaders have been mouthing pious preachments about their "commitments" which are simply not observed in practice. For too many years now, chairmen of boards and presidents have been making eloquent speeches about the responsibilities of business, yet these are often ignored within the very companies they head. This covers the whole range of activities. For example, some business leaders speak with conviction about the need for honesty and integrity, yet their own advertising agencies and departments resort to misrepresentations, exaggerations, and misstatements. Many business leaders speak about the importance of preserving the "quality of life" in this country, and yet their own companies may be peddling products inimical to that goal. A number of businessmen understandably complain that there is a failure to accord business the credit and respect to which it is entitled for its leadership and contributions. Yet when there are allegations as in the ITT case, that corporate executives may have misused their power or abused their trust, these same business leaders remain silent, unwilling to raise their voices to condemn such behavior.

All this has led to the broad feeling that business engages in double-talk and hypocrisy.

Professor Milton Friedman of Chicago leads a school of thought—supposedly pro business—which claims essentially that the only obligation of a business is to make money. This approach may be medi eval, but it has the virtue of putting on the line precisely what it believes business is all about. It minces no words in saying that business ought to be concerned only with what it can get and gives short shrift to the notion that management ought to pay any at tention to its social contribution other than what comes out of run ning its business. I believe very few business leaders today go along with this view.

982 Chief Executive's Handbook

But the fact is that the more business leaders talk about social responsibility, but ignore it in practice, the more will people believe that—despite all the fine speeches—business is really out to get all it can from society without any real concern as to what it can contribute.

## LET'S FACE IT: THE BUSINESS OF BUSINESS—
IS AMERICA

The simple fact is that we have come a long long way from 1925 when Calvin Coolidge said that "The business of Business is business." For in its own self-interest, business is today deeply and inextricably involved in our social problems in this country, and no intelligent business leader—and no intelligent employee or shareholder—really believes that a business can be successful which ignores the problems of our society. The simple fact is that society is the life support system for business. All the problems which plague and agonize our society—poverty—inadequate health care—lack of education—polarization—racial struggle—the abandonment of cities—all have a direct effect on the future of business in this country, and most business leaders today recognize it.

After the urban riots in 1967, even the most reluctant business leaders had to come down from their executive towers in the sky and recognize that they had to become involved. This led to the formation of the National Urban Coalition and other organizations such as the National Alliance of Businessmen, all trying to play a part in dealing with the problems of our cities and our broader society. I first became involved in these problems in Rochester in 1965, when the first city riot occurred and when we worked to establish a citywide unit to deal with the problems and try to find answers.

Today, it is simply good business to become involved in the needs of our society. And any businessman who fails to understand it is not only begging for trouble, but risking the future of his own enterprise.

I think that this involvement by business must go beyond urban problems and extend into virtually every area of society. For example, I think that business has a real responsibility to make sure that our educational institutions, our art galleries, our symphony orchestras are properly supported. At Xerox, we tried to do these things with great generosity—not out of any misguided sense of do-goodism,

[LC]

The Social Responsibility of the Business Leader 983

but because we recognized that to attract the kind of employees we wanted, and to keep them happy in Rochester, they ought to have the kind of intellectual and social climate which a university, an art gallery, a symphony orchestra could provide. This had much to do in bringing us the kind of people we needed in Rochester.

Obviously, corporate enterprises as such cannot, and should not, become involved in politics. There is, on the other hand, every reason why business leaders should be willing forthrightly to take political positions and to identify themselves on behalf of political candidates. Moreover, companies should encourage this kind of political participation—and, especially, activity on the part of employees in both parties. A personal experience in 1956 indicated how much can be done to stimulate activity and participation from the top down. In that year General Eisenhower was running against Adlai Stevenson for the presidency. Joseph C. Wilson, president of Xerox and my closest friend and associate, was a strong Eisenhower supporter and became chairman of the Monroe County Committee for Eisenhower. I had long been a friend and admirer of Adlai Stevenson, and I became vice chairman of the New York State Committee for Stevenson. Joe Wilson and I then undertook debates on television, on radio, and in the newspapers on the merits of our respective candidates. This, predictably, led to a great deal of interest and evoked significant attention—some of it even nationally—but most importantly, it led others in the company (and indeed in other companies of the Rochester area) to announce their own affiliation and to go to work actively for candidates whom they were willing to support. The point that was clearly made, of course, was that it is possible to disagree about politics, and yet work together in friendship and mutual respect, even in the corporate community. I think business leaders have come to recognize increasingly that they have the same responsibility as other citizens to participate, to make their views known, to stand up and be counted.

Recently I had an experience which suggests how far we have yet to go. When President Nixon announced his proposed budget for 1973, I wrote to 12 American business leaders asking them to join me in a statement along these lines: That we recognized the importance of having an overall spending ceiling as recommended by the President; that we believed it would be presently neither feasible nor desirable to attempt to institute a tax increase; but that we felt it was of the greatest importance that the President and Congress together

[L]

984 Chief Executive's Handbook

carefully reexamine the allocations of resources as proposed, in order
to assure that the great human needs of the nation—in housing, edu-
cation, welfare, health care, etc.—were given proper prior attention
and concern.

Of the 12 business leaders who responded, only one was willing
to sign such a statement. Virtually every one of the others agreed
with the position set forth, but felt it would be "inappropriate" for
him to say so publicly.

THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA IS ALSO THE
BUSINESS OF AMERICAN BUSINESS

What is of concern to us as a nation in world affairs is also
significant to the future of the American business community.

In the international area—to a gratifying extent—business seems
to have recognized this. For example, today when strong isolationist
waves are washing over the nation, the American business com-
munity is at the forefront of those stressing the importance of in-
ternationalism, and emphasizing the fact that good international
relations must be a two-way street. Admittedly, part of this arises
from the fact that so many multinational corporations are American,
and they have a stake in the preservation of peace and the establish-
ment of sound trade relations. But this in itself underscores the
point that what is in the nation's best interest in the world today,
will also tend to benefit American business. Thus, most of the pres-
sure for quotas and tariffs is coming not from the soundly established,
well operated companies, but from those who are by and large hang-
ing on or surviving in the midst of real economic uncertainty.

By the same token, business has a strong stake in assuring the
survival of the United Nations. For, clearly, the United Nations is
devoted to the goal of helping to bring about a world at peace in
which American business can prosper. It was this conviction which
led Xerox, in 1962, to sponsor four television films in prime time
telling the story of the United Nations in dramatic form. We put
$2 million into the project, and presented the hour-long films with-
out any commercials. Involved were the best actors, producers, screen
writers, and directors of Hollywood, working in conjunction with
Adlai Stevenson, Paul Hoffman, and other United Nations personnel.
When we announced the establishment of the television series, we
were immediately deluged with attacks from the John Birch Society.

[L]

The Social Responsibility of the Business Leader 985

Joe Wilson and I each received almost 30,000 letters, and other members of the Xerox board were also castigated for undertaking to present United Nations programs. But the counterreaction was also strong and, in due course, we came to believe that this had been the best business investment Xerox could have made in the whole field of advertising and public relations. For people from all over the world applied to the company for positions, and we acquired a reputation which paid off in countless ways.

There are many ways business can play an appropriate role in its own best interest in the international area. Thus, in 1964 business leaders founded the International Executive Service Corps. Working in conjunction with the government, there was set up a private organization of American business leaders who would undertake to arrange for American executives, scientists, and technicians to go to enterprises in developing countries for a period of from six months to two years in order to help these ventures as a kind of executive peace corps. Virtually every important American corporation joined in the venture, and today the corps is a flourishing enterprise which has sent almost 5,000 representatives to various countries of the world and has presented the picture of American business as interested in helping make available its managerial techniques, its technology, and its executive and expert competence.

Notwithstanding the fact that business leaders clearly shared the grave concern of most Americans over the Vietnam War, few business voices were raised about it. An exception was Mr. Louis Lundborg, then president of the Bank of America, who testified before a congressional committee that he felt the war was a mistake and had done much to erode the national spirit.* A group of liberal businessmen did undertake to organize in order to express opposition to the war, but none of the members was connected with any of America's important corporations or institutions, and their views were regarded as those of a fringe business group. Quite clearly, when confronted with one of the gravest international adventures in which this country had ever engaged, the nation's business leaders regarded it as unwise and impolitic to express their concern. Interestingly enough, this fact loomed large and strong in the minds of young people who were so deeply disturbed about the war, and

* [Ed. Note: See the chapter by Louis B. Lundborg, "Dealing with Local Action Groups."]

986 Chief Executive's Handbook

who felt that the whole powerful business community of the nation
was lined up on the other side.

WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS LEADERS DO WE NEED?

The clear fact is that, as never before in our history, we will need
business leaders in the future of breadth and vision, with a worldview
far more expansive than has been required in the past. Especially
at this time of increasing sophisticated technology and exploding
knowledge, we have to recognize that "splinter specialists" will no
longer be able to cope with the great challenges. This means, I
think, that American business is going to have to give new em-
phasis to the importance of a liberal education in the preparation of
its business and industrial leaders. We are going to have to look for
business leaders who will be able to communicate with one another
and with other people in other places, who will know how to transmit
and stimulate ideas, who will recognize that things human and
humane are even more important than the computer or the Xerox
machine, who understand that "know-why" is even more important
than "know-how."

This means that the business leaders will have to instruct their
personnel departments to look for such broad-gauged people in their
recruiting.

Within the corporation, much more has to be done to assure the
development process of the individual. In too many companies, the
executives rise in responsibility in a directly vertical line—spending
years in one function or related functions, such as sales and market-
ing or finance and control. To get the young people we need as
business leaders, there should be progression within the corporation
which would be neither lateral nor vertical, but diagonal. People
should be given jobs of increasing responsibility and function—
enough to sustain interest and curiosity, to challenge ability, and
to equip them with the kind of diversified knowledge necessary for
executive leadership in the company of tomorrow.

Part of this must involve development in the area of public af-
fairs. No longer can the public policy of the corporation be the sole
prerogative of top management, or that of the staff of a specialized
department. Increasingly, corporations will have to consider assign-
ing public problems to management at all levels so that those who
are charged with responsibility in the future will have some under-

987

standing of the complexity of the problems of our time. Incidentally, it is this kind of a program of development for the individual within the corporation that the White House Conference of Youth in 1971 stressed as so important to young people in their consideration as to whether or not to embark upon a business career.

### IF IT ASSUMES LEADERSHIP, AS IT CAN AND SHOULD, BUSINESS CAN DO MUCH TO MAKE US THE KIND OF SOCIETY WE CAN AND SHOULD BE

If the business community approaches the future with the vision and thought required, and develops the kind of men who are able to understand the changing and developing human condition, it can help bring into being the kind of free society we have always talked about in this country.

This will mean a willingness on the part of business and industry to recognize that science and technology are tools which can be used effectively to advance the human condition, and that improvements and scientific developments must therefore be evaluated in terms of their social impact. I am not suggesting that American industry take on itself a solitary crusade for the conquest of our problems. What I am suggesting is that a systematic and intimate understanding of the dominant social problems of our day, combined with the firm dedication to public service, will lead to the discovery by businessmen of innovations that will satisfy their direct corporate goals and simultaneously make a contribution to the solution of our pressing human needs.

SOL M. LINOWITZ

March 22, 1976

Dear Henry:

I dug out this short piece I did for the
American Bar Association *Journal* some years ago.

Perhaps David might want to take a look at
it.

With best regards,

Enclosure

The Honorable
Henry Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

Reflections on
the American Promise

Our future is even dicier and more dangerous
than the present, but it holds the promise
of unparalleled peace and plenty

by Sol M. Linowitz

DURING this Bicentennial year many people in many places are peering into clouded crystal balls trying to extrapolate the future. Personally, I take a dim view of this kind of exercise. My own feeling was best summed up by Dr. Henry Wriston, former president of Brown University, who once observed: "Never extrapolate a curve—even on a woman."

Despite this sound advice, the undeniable fact is that curves are being extrapolated all around us. At various distinguished and not-so-distinguished institutions, extrapolators are boggling the mind with their assertions that we are all hellbent for disaster unless we can find ways to limit our growth, to cut back in our objectives, to restrict our vision in various areas. Looking back nostalgically, they point out the dangers of the future, forgetting the words of Professor Alfred North Whitehead that it is "the business of the future to be dangerous."

Obviously, we are living in times that are themselves dangerous and that portend an even more dangerous future. We are at a time that has been called both the Age of Anxiety and the Age of Science and Technology. Both are accurate, for, indeed, one feeds on the other. As our scientific and technological competence has increased, so have our fear and anxiety. In a real sense, we are at a time of paradox—a time when we have learned to achieve most and fear most. It is a time when we seem to know much more about how to make war than how to make peace, more about killing than about living. It is a time of unprecedented need and unparalleled plenty, a time when great advances in medicine and science and

technology are overshadowed by incredible achievements in instruments of destruction. It is a time when the world fears not the primitive or the ignorant man but the educated, the technically competent one, who has it in his power to destroy civilization. It is a time when malaise hangs heavy, when we can send men up to walk on the moon, yet we hauntingly recall Santayana's words that men have come to power who, "having no stomach for the ultimate, burrow themselves downward toward the primitive."

If there is one thing we must clearly recognize, it is that it is more important than ever before to find a way to unite the world for the betterment of the human condition, to try to make the world safe for people. The real challenge we face is how we can move humankind toward a full realization of peace and plenty, how we can both attain and share in the great social opportunities of our lifetimes.

Cer-
tainly today there is no longer any escape
from facing front and asking the real and
hard questions—because in this nuclear
age we cannot hide and we cannot drop
out. We can only choose where to take our
stand. And in doing so, we have to remem-
ber who we are and what we are.

It is easy to forget what a young nation
we are. Until a relatively short time ago,
we were a frontier nation. Even as steel
mills were smoking in the East, battles
with Indians were being fought in the
West. Putting it in more current terms,
when Charles de Gaulle was born, Amer-
ica had not yet admitted to the Union the
states of New Mexico, Arizona, Okla-
homa, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, not to
mention Alaska and Hawaii.

For a century and a half our challenge
was simply to master the geography of a
continent, and we succeeded. So today our
frontiers are no longer limited by unscal-
able mountains and wild rivers. We have
learned to conquer the elemental forces of
the continent; and in doing so, we not
only have established a nation of un-
paralleled strength but have discovered
within ourselves a vision of human poten-
tial. The fundamental question we must
ask ourselves is how we can realize that
vision.

Robert Frost once concluded a poem
with these words:

They cannot scare me with their empty
spaces

Between stars—on stars where no
human race is.

I have it in me so much nearer home

To scare myself with my own desert
places.*

*Continued on page 1*

Sol M. Linowitz, former U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States, is a senior partner in the law firm of Coudert Brothers.

*From "Desert Places," from The Poetry of Robert Frost, edited by Edward Connery Latham. Copyright 1936 by Robert Frost. Copyright © 1964 by Lesley Frost Ballantine. Copyright © 1969 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reprinted by permission of Holt Rinehart and Winston, Publishers.

14

SR 9 18 76

Reflections from page 14

I believe that it is within these—our own desert places—that our real test as a nation is now going to be met. Yet in these days of national anxiety and peril there is reason for grave concern that we have become badly confused as to the place where the truly crucial battle of our time is being fought. For it is not in Africa, in the Middle East, in China, or even in Russia that we are today facing our greatest challenge. The real, the vital, the decisive battle is being fought where the deepest battles are always fought—in the minds of men.

Today a nation's power can no longer be measured in terms of Francis Bacon's catalog of “walled towns, stored arsenals and armories, goodly race of horses, chariots of war, elephants, ordnance and artillery.” National power—real national power—depends as much on ideas and traditions and those things that are basic to a people's beliefs. What a country believes and why it believes it, the things for which it stands and why—these are vital considerations in evaluating the strength of the bond that holds a nation together. In this respect we who share the democratic idea have on our side the touch of centuries, the heritage of the West's steady search for light and truth. Out of the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the constant groping for ways to make men's rights and freedoms secure we have evolved for ourselves a pattern of inching forward toward a more ethical and therefore a stronger society. Measured beside our own past, the Soviet Union stands coarse and naked and empty, for Russia has never experienced the enrichment that comes from history's mellowing, has never attained the binding power that comes only from the free thought and deep conviction of free people. In the test of strengths, our commitment to freedom and justice has been our immensely rich and powerful resource.

WE MUST never forget that we are a nation with some deep roots that go far back to some simple words in the Magna Carta: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice." When those who fought our revolution had finished binding up their wounds, they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, knowing that the price they had paid was high, but not too high.

And they put into the Bill of Rights a series of magnificent restraints enshrining for the first time the individual's right to say "no" to government—and get away with it. They fashioned these "thou shall

nots" out of abuses they had known and seen and never wished to know or see again. These were safeguards put together for a great and solemn purpose—their object to assure that we would above all else be a society of free men and women.

In these times and in this kind of world, we need more zealous vigilance than ever before to assure that we remain that kind of society. What is desperately required is that our society be one in which free men and women will be free to think and act with independence, wisdom, and courage. If we are to remain a land that is both free and brave, we will need more great people

> "What we need today is not a reformulation of national purpose but a recollection of national purpose."

to accomplish more great things, and this greatness must be of the mind and spirit and not merely of the voice or of the arm.

We will not achieve that greatness unless in this Bicentennial year we recommit ourselves to those things that are the very basis of our strength. What we need today is not a reformulation of national purpose but a recollection of national purpose. What is called for is not a further articulation of the things for which we should stand but a real effort to begin to stand for the things for which we always said we do stand.

How do we begin to do this? Let me suggest several obvious ways.

First, as never before, we must determine to stand constant and vigilant guard over our own freedoms. In recent years we have watched men of great power demean their high offices and betray their trust, pleading as justification that a noble end can justify ignoble means. If there is any lesson Watergate should have retaught us, it is that the way we do things in this country is fundamental to the kind of nation we are; that the way we proceed to reach an objective by weighing and measuring with fairness and objectivity and with basic presumption of innocence and integrity is fundamental to our heritage; that here we stand not only for a right to freedom and justice but for a way to freedom and justice; and that bad things cannot be justified in the name of a high

purpose without damaging and ultimately destroying that purpose.

It was William James who described our civic genius as a people as "the trainee and disciplined good temper toward the other side when it fairly wins its innin'. And the key words are "when it fairly wins its innin." For in these days of bribery of payoffs, of deceitful claims, of shameful compromises, what we desperately need to remember is that our whole system is based on our belief in fair play and that tinkering with the rules—resorting to hanky-panky, tampering with our legal procedures—betrays our heritage.

Seen in that light, Watergate can be regarded as a Bicentennial birthday present to us—reminding us in a way we cannot but never forget that freedom cannot be preserved like a wine in darkness; that it needs light and use to remain strong and vital. And that is a responsibility we all share together—We the People.

Second, it is important to understand that the depth and validity of our commitment to the principles we espouse will be judged by our actions and not simply by our words. Archibald MacLeish once wrote, "America is promises." America is indeed promises; and for generation after generation it has been a land of fulfilled promises. But the bitter fact is that for blacks and other dispossessed people America has become a land of broken promises, and our history has been for them a history of broken promises.

This is a time to look back and remember: Thomas Jefferson wanted to write into the Constitution a provision that the slaves would be set free. But his colleague in Philadelphia did not agree. At that time there were only 4 million people in the country, and one in four was a slave. A history moved on, slavery remained an inorganic element in the American dream. From 1790 through 1850 no President even mentioned the word "slavery" in his State of the Union Message. But as President Lincoln said in the midst of the Civil War, "We cannot escape history." Either the institution of slavery or our democracy had to go. All informed men saw the conflict coming when John Brown appeared. Harpers Ferry. Six months after his raile we had the siege of Fort Sumter and we were started on the irreversible road to a dark and bloody battlefield of a truly bloody war—Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, Antietam, Gettysburg. History can move quickly.

And history can move slowly.

More than a century ago, in 1864 Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation

16

SR 9 18 76

mation and freed about 2 million slaves. Sixty years later, we dedicated the Lincoln Memorial. The year was 1922, and a small section of seats was provided for the segregated blacks so they could attend the celebration of freedom. Twoscore years later, Martin Luther King, Jr., stood on the steps of the memorial and told us, "I have a dream." Two hundred thousand were there to hear him, but all of us understood in our hearts—all 200 million of us—that he was dreaming the same American dream as Jefferson had 200 years before.

And that is perhaps the greatest challenge we face as we take stock this Bicentennial year: whether we will at long last be able to find ways to fulfill that dream, recognizing that millions cannot be expected to sit in their separate sections and live on a promise forever. To fulfill that promise will require nothing less than the dedicated, committed effort of all of us to do what we can, each in his own way, to remove the blight of discrimination and squalor that still haunts this nation. Until we do, we will have many reasons to remember the truth of Emerson's words: "What you are . . . thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary."

The third major challenge that confronts us, I believe, is that of clarifying for ourselves the nature of our responsibility to the other people of this changed and changing world—a world that has now become truly interdependent.

When our forefathers issued the Declaration of Independence, they said they were doing so "out of a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." We have always been concerned about that "decent respect" because we have always regarded our mission as one that had meaning far beyond our shores. In his Inaugural Address of 1801, Thomas Jefferson described the United States as "the world's best hope." Lincoln spoke of our government as "the last, best hope of earth."

From the beginning there has been an expectation that we would set an example for the world, that we would undertake to perform an experiment in human possibility. From the very beginning the world has looked to us to live up to certain standards of integrity, decency, and dignity and to involve ourselves deeply in moving humankind toward a world of freedom and justice. Obviously, it would be neither right nor fitting for us to undertake to prescribe for the rest of the world. Obviously, it would be neither appropriate nor feasible for us to try to become the world's policeman or tutor. If nothing else, our own experience should give us an awareness of our own limitations. For if with all of our skills and resources we are still unable to overcome our own urban blight; if with all of our technological and scientific knowledge people in this country still go to bed hungry; if with all of our commitments to democracy we still

find those in high places who betray our democratic institutions, then clearly there is good reason for modesty and humility on our part before we undertake to lecture others on how they should deal with their own problems.

*(LC)*

But there are certain things for which we have always said we stand and to which we have made a commitment. We have always proclaimed our belief in human rights. We have always talked of our respect for every man's right to stand erect and with dignity as a child of God. We have always held ourselves out as a place of refuge for those seeking freedom. We have always treasured the human and the humane because we have cared about what happened to other human beings. And all of this has made us, and continues to make us, a different kind of society, one that cannot afford to be reticent about its commitment to fundamental human values—anywhere in the world. When human rights are trampled on, when man's inhumanity is unleashed on man, we—all nations—cannot remain silent or unaffected. To settle for anything less would be to betray our tradition and to weaken a vital source of our country's strength in the world.

What others perceive, perhaps more clearly than we do ourselves, is that with all of our troubles and perplexities, we may well be on the verge of creating in this country the first free society in the history of the world. By "free society" mean far more than eliminating the slave base on which Athenian culture rested and more than overcoming the downward status of the people of the Renaisance. I mean a society in which man capable of basing all of his choices and actions on understandings that he has himself achieved and on values that he enshrines for himself. The free man in a free society is aware of the basis on which he accepts propositions as true. He understands the values by which he lives, the assumptions on which they rest, and the consequences to which they lead. The free man is the rational man, and the degree his freedom is the degree of his grasp himself, of his environment, and of his relationship with his surroundings.

We hear far too much today about development of man's means to destroy himself. We hear far too little about opportunities he has to create. For if no one has found the terrible means to enslave himself, he has also found the means to liberate

The only boundaries we still have in country today are the boundaries of people and ignorance. I believe we are

"May I have a straw, please?"

SP 0.18.76

come to be a great society and a free society because at long last we have the opportunity to eliminate those boundaries.

President John F. Kennedy once said: "We have the power to make this the best generation in the history of mankind, or to make it the last." As a people, we have, I believe, made our decision that we want this to be the best generation. For the first time in human history we have the science and the technology, the skills and the resources, to make it happen, to put an end to the hunger and disease and privation that have for so long been the scourge of mankind. The question we have to ponder on the 200th birthday of this nation is whether we are ready to do what we can with our great strengths and our great gifts to make this the kind of country and the kind of world it can be.

More than 100 years ago, Thomas Huxley visited the United States and afterward wrote this about what he had seen: "I cannot say that I am in the slightest degree impressed by your bigness and your material resources as such.

"Size is not grandeur and territory does not make a nation.

"The great issue about which hangs the terror of overhanging fate is: What are you doing with all those things?"

That is still the great overhanging question that confronts us—not how we are going to be able to achieve all the things we can but what are we going to do with all these things?

And our answer on this Bicentennial must be worthy of the best within us. It must be a renewed commitment to our own basic principles, an affirmation that we recognize our kinship with the other people on this earth, and a determination to do what we can to assure that mankind will yet know the kind of world that has always been part of the American dream —a world free from war and free from want. ©

Answer to Middleton
Double-Crostic No. 106

Howard Teichmann:
Smart Aleck

Woollcott... never became a really great reporter. That was because of a slight failing in his nature. It can be summed up in a single word that his successor as the *Times* drama critic Brooks Atkinson kept pasted on the wall over his typewriter. The word was "Accurasy."

Advertisement

"What'll it be?"

FOR
PEOPLE
WHO
LOVE
TO READ!

DUAL-LIGHT
HIGH INTENSITY
READING LAMP
WITH DIMMER

Makes reading an enjoyable and eye-saving experience. Has two horizontally mounted high intensity light bulbs. Easily clamps on to any 1 to 2 inch surface (ideal for bed headboards). Adjustable dimmer switch lets you set the light level to any brightness you want. Comes in handsome black/bras finish with 8-foot cord. A most appreciated gift for any person who enjoys reading. Only $27.50 ppd. Save Money: Order 2 Lamps for $53.00 ppd (N.J. residents add sales tax).

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

Send check or money order to: CHERRY LANE SALES, 45 Partridge Hill, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458

Money Back Guarantee