PR 291

- 2 -

to see whether it is possible to reconcile the American interests of free and uninterrupted passage through the Canal with Panamanian aspirations. We do this not only because of the concerns of the country of Panama but because of our convictions that all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere are watching these negotiations at this time for the new and equal relationship that we are attempting to establish with the countries of the Western Hemisphere. We are negotiating seriously. So far no conclusions have been reached but we are proceeding on a serious exploration to see whether the interests of both the United States and Panama and the concerns of all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere can find an expression that strengthens the ties of the Western Hemisphere and assures free access and passage through the Canal. As you know, this has been the subject of considerable debate in the United States, but we believe that we are acting in the national interests and in the Western Hemisphere's interests, and we are proceeding with these negotiations.

As for the Bolivian access to the sea, you know better than I that this is a complicated problem involving Chile, Bolivia and Peru that all three countries have to agree. It is our understanding that some preliminary understandings have been reached between Chile and Bolivia and now being discussed with Peru. The United States watches these negotiations with sympathy and it hopes that a successful conclusion can be achieved in the belief that this will help the tranquility and cooperation in the southern cone. We will certainly express these views to all interested parties and to all other colleagues in Santiago.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, of all of your diplomatic undertakings, which one would you consider the most positive in your pursuit of world peace, and could you tell us what are the most recent steps and most recent efforts undertaken by you in order to seek peace in the world?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I would not want to make a judgment between the various activities with respect to peace, because if the world is to become more peaceful several things have to be done simultaneously. The relationship between the industrial democracies has to be strengthened. The relationship between the industrialized countries and the developing countries has to grow into one of cooperation so that the world is not forever divided between those who are advanced and those who are struggling for progress. And finally, relations between ideological adversaries--between East and West--have to follow some rules of restraint. We do not make progress in all of these areas simultaneously. Then we have great difficulty speaking of an improvement of world peace. In addition to the structural problems, there are specific areas such as the Middle East and now Africa, and I believe that it is -- that America has an obligation to use its influence and its power to attempt to ease conflicts, to mediate rivalries and to move these specific issues closer to a peaceful resolution.

PR 291

- 3 -

**QUESTION:** In Bolivia, Mr. Secretary, tin is a most important basic product and the high cost of production of this mineral makes it of great significance to our country. Tin therefore and the world tin situation is of great significance. The Fifth International Tin Agreement established a voting system that provides a virtual veto right to the United States. Bolivia has announced its intention not to ratify such an agreement because of the manner in which it would affect its interests. This implies the right of the United States to veto the positions of some minor nations. Wouldn't this be, Mr. Secretary, in contradiction to some of the principles that you stated during the course of the Nairobi Conference?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The issue of commodities is one of the principal problems in the relations between the developed and the developing nations. The United States understands the concern of the producers of primary products and especially of countries that are dependent on -- to a large extent -- on the single commodities, commodity, to avoid excessive fluctuations in the price, and therefore, frankly, after some internal debate, we have agreed to join a number of commodity agreements. Some have already been concluded, and we have agreed to discuss others. We have signed [inaudible]. We do not consider that our voting percentage in fact constitutes a veto. And in any event, having joined the agreement, it would be our intention to realize its objective, which is to prevent extreme fluctuations of the prices and to enable the producers of the primary commodities to stabilize their income. I frankly am not aware of the fact that Bolivia has indicated that it would not ratify the agreement, and I would regret it if it were true because one of the principal reasons for our joining the agreement is precisely to help countries like Bolivia. We ourselves are not tin producers.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I have read in a publication of the United States Information Service entitled "Latin American in a Changing World," and have noted that in all of your public statements during the course of your visits to Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, you have made references to the matter of human rights, and to the need for the observation of human rights in order to promote peace and encourage progress amongst the peoples of the world. How, Mr. Secretary, do you think that the United States can require -- demand -- of countries that do not respect such human rights, that they do so, as has been on occasion suggested by Democratic Senator Kennedy, and I suggest that this is not on my part an effort to interfere in the internal politics of another country?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Before I answer the last expression, may I thank everybody for the extreme courtesy with which the interview has been conducted -- a method that I am considering introducing in the Department of State -- and I hope that the American correspondents here have paid great attention to the politeness with which everything has been conducted here.

PR 291

- 4 -

Now, to answer your question. I think the problem of human rights
is not primarily a question of preserving the peace, because peace
can also be preserved in the absence [inaudible]. The problem of
human rights arises from the moral positions of the Western Hemi-
sphere, in that all of the founding documents of all of our republics
have called attention to the importance of human dignity and personal
freedom. This is the hemisphere to which people came to escape
oppression elsewhere, and we can only be true to our history and to the
human imperatives of our time by implementing the demands for the re-
spect for human dignity. I will make a statement on this subject at
the meeting in Santiago, and I will indicate the United States position
with respect to it, and what methods we believe can be used for the
time being to advance the cause of human rights in the Western Hemi-
sphere. But I do believe that this hemisphere has a special obligation
by virtue of its tradition and by virtue of its basic belief to promote
the advancement of human rights.

* * * * *

PR #293

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PR #293

-2-

The Human Rights Challenge in the Americas

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

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

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

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

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

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

PR #293

-3-

The rights of man have been authoritatively identified both in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the OAS's American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. There will, of course, always be differences of view as to the precise extent of the obligations of government. But there are standards below which no government can fall without offending fundamental values — such as genocide, officially tolerated torture, mass imprisonment or murder, or comprehensive denials of basic rights to racial, religious, political, or ethnic groups. Any government engaging in such practices must face adverse international judgment.

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

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

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

The United States believes this Commission is one of the most important bodies of the Organization of American States. At the same time, it is a role which touches upon the most sensitive aspects of the national policies of each of the member governments. We must ensure that the Commission functions so that it cannot be manipulated for international politics in the name of human rights. We must also see to it that the Commission becomes an increasingly vital instrument of Hemispheric cooperation in defense of human rights. The Commission deserves the support of the Assembly in strengthening further its independence, even-handedness, and constructive potential.

PR #293

[lc]

-4-

The Reports of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, the Commission should not focus on some problem areas to the neglect of others. The cause of human dignity is not served by those who hypocritically manipulate concerns with human rights to further their political preferences, nor by those who single out for human rights condemnation only those countries with whose political views they disagree.

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

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

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

PR #293

[lc]

-5-

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

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

Through adopting this proposal, the nations of the Americas would make plain our common commitment to human rights, increase the reliable information available to us and offer more effective recommendations to governments about how best to improve human rights. In support of such a broadened effort, we propose that the budget and staff of the Commission be enlarged. By strengthening the contribution of this body, we can deepen our dedication to the special qualities of rich promise that make our Hemisphere a standard-bearer for freedom-loving people in every quarter of the globe.

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

## The Necessity for Concern and Concrete Action

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

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

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

*****

June 9, 1976

As Prepared for Delivery

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER

SECRETARY OF STATE

PRIOR TO

THE LUNCHEON GIVEN IN HIS HONOR

BY THE

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA

SANTIAGO

June 9, 1976

Embargoed for release until 1:00 p.m. (EDT), Wednesday, June 9, 1976. Not to be previously published, quoted from, or used in any way.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your highly compli-
mentary remarks. While it is the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States that has brought me to
Santiago at this time, I am happy to have this chance to
meet with you and to visit this important institution.

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

While we have not always seen eye-to-eye, we have
avoided ideological postures; our thinking and yours have
evolved. In the process we have moved closer to each other.

-2-

We in the United States have listened and learned as ECLA has led the movement for economic integration among the developing countries of the Hemisphere. We have worked with you on trade and development. And we have agreed with your shift in emphasis toward trade expanding development strategies.

Development in Latin America has not stood still. The rate of progress varies from country to country, but for most it has been substantial. It is not too much to say that ECLA has made a substantial contribution to this progress. In recent years new problems have buffeted the region. Greatly increased oil prices and the world recession have added enormously to pressures on the already heavily burdened balance of payments of many nations.

The United States, as you know, has offered a number of important proposals for coping with current international economic difficulties and assisting long-term growth. At the UNGA Seventh Special Session we put forth suggestions, and agreement was reached on a number of measures designed to enhance economic security, and to cope with the cycles that in the past have devastated export earnings and undermined development. And we dealt with other issues relating to trade, technology and capital flows.

-3-

In Nairobi I advocated a comprehensive plan for addressing major commodity issues and set forth additional proposals for dealing with technology and other requirements of development. We called for urgent study of our proposal for an International Resources Bank intended to help overcome deficiencies in capital flows for the development and production of minerals in developing countries. I continue to regard this as a matter that must be acted upon.

At the OAS General Assembly I am describing our views as to how initiatives already launched on a global basis can be given a Latin American dimension. Our discussions there are off-the-record and informal, but the Ministers are allowed to present papers and make them public. I am providing you with a copy of a paper I delivered today in which I have made a series of comments and recommendations regarding cooperation for development. ECLA will plan an important role with regard to some of the arrangements suggested on the vital issues, such as in the preparations for the 1979 Conference on Science and Development.

The nations of the Western Hemisphere are bound by historical ties, related interests, and common values. The United States consequently has supported and been interested in the work of ECLA since its founding in 1948. I wish you, Mr. Secretary, and your staff the very best as you carry on your important work.

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

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

Second, ours is a hemisphere of peace. In no other region of the world has international conflict been so rare, nor peaceful and effective cooperation so natural to the fabric of our relationships.

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

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

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

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

Finally, and of immediate importance, we are achieving a new and productive balance, based on real interests, in our relations within the Americas, within other groupings, and with the rest of the world. All of us have ties outside the Hemisphere. But our interests elsewhere do not impede our Hemispheric effort. Our traditions of independence and diversity have served us well.

This is both a strength and a challenge to us now, as this Assembly takes up the issue of development.

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

PR #296

-2-

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

But we do not intend to delay our efforts while we await the processes of inter-
national institutions and conferences. The United States Administration will begin now.

- First, to give special attention to the economic concerns of Latin America in every area in which our Executive Branch possesses the power of discretionary decision.

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

- Third, to consider special arrangements in the Hemisphere in economic areas of particular concern to Latin America, such as the transfer and development of technology.

- In addition, we will put forth every effort to bring about the amendment of the US Trade Act to eliminate the automatic exclusion of Ecuador and Venezuela from the Generalized System of Preferences.

The United States is prepared to proceed in these four areas whatever may occur in
other development forums. But this Assembly offers an excellent opportunity to
advance our joint progress. The United States believes that there are three major
issues that this Assembly should address: commodities, trade, and technology.
These involve:

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

- expansion of the trade opportunities and capabilities that are an essential part of the development strategies of all countries in the Hemisphere; and

- improved arrangements for the development, acquisition and utilization of higher technology to speed the modernization of the Hemisphere.

Let me address each of these issues in turn:

## Commodities

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

At the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development last month, we joined in the common commitment to search for concrete, practical solutions in the interests of both producers and consumers.

PR #296

-3-

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

One key element, however, is missing from the final catalogue of Nairobi's proposals: machinery to spur the flow of new investment for resource production in the developing countries. The US made a proposal aimed at that problem — an international resources bank. A resolution to study the IRB was rejected by a vote that can best be described as accidental. Ninety nations abstained or were absent. Those nations of Latin America that reject such self-defeating tactics can make a special contribution to ensure that the progress of all is not defeated by the sterile and outmoded confrontational tactics of a few.

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

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

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

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

Third, I propose that the consultative group take a new look at the problem of ensuring adequate investment in commodities in this Hemisphere under circumstances that respect the sovereignty of producers and provide incentive for investment. We should examine all reasonable proposals, especially those which would help to assure effective resource development financing. If global solutions are not possible, we are willing to consider regional mechanisms.

PR #296

-4-

Trade

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

Today, at this Assembly, we can begin to consider ways in which our commitment to trade cooperation can contribute to economic progress in our Hemisphere.

The United States sees three key areas which this Organization could usefully address:

- the need for provide opportunities for developing countries to expand and diversify exports of manufactured and semi-processed goods;

- the need to promote the Hemisphere's trade position through the Multilateral Trade Negotiations at Geneva; and

- the need for effective regional and subregional economic integration.

Let me turn to each of these three points.

No single element is more important to Latin America's trade opportunities than the health of the United States economy.

I can confirm to you today that our economy is in full recovery, with prospects brighter than they have been for years.

The preferences system contained in the United States Trade Act has been in effect since January. It gives Latin American countries duty-free entry on more than $1 billion worth of its exports to the United States. Even more important, it provides vast opportunities for Latin America to diversify into new product areas in its exports to the United States.

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

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

- the Executive Branch will bend every effort to accommodate the export interests of Latin America in all matters in which we have statutory discretion. President Ford's recent choice of adjustment assistance rather than import restrictions in response to the petition of the US footwear industry clearly demonstrates the commitment of the United States Government to a liberal trade policy and the use of the Trade Act to expand trade in the Hemisphere;

PR #296

[Lc]

-5-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some permanent, expert forum is necessary. We therefore propose that within the OAS there be established a special inter-American commission for trade cooperation. If the suggestion for a special General Assembly on cooperation for development prospers, we think that Assembly should set guidelines for the functioning of the commission. We see the commission as an opportunity, in major part through the Multilateral Trade

R #296

-6-

Negotiations in Geneva, to bring together those policy-level officials most familiar with the actual trade problems and opportunities for trade creation, under a firm mandate to seek innovative means of cooperating to expand exports — expanding, in short, on a regular and long-term basis the catalogue of trade-expansion proposals I have elaborated above.

## Technology

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

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

At this point, what are the new directions we should take together? We have three proposals:

The United States believes we in the Hemisphere should:

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

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

  * open a technology exchange service for Latin America to provide information on US laws and regulations relating to technology flows and to sources of public and private technology;

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

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

- Develop new regional and sub-regional structures of consultation and cooperations on problems of technology.

PR #296

-7-

To this end, the United States proposes:

First, that we establish a consultative group under the OAS to address and provide recommendations on information problems that Latin America faces in acquiring technology.

Second, that the OAS, in line with the UNCTAD IV consensus, establish a regional center on technology. The center would facilitate cooperative research and development activities, drawing on both public and private sources. It could stimulate exchanges of qualified technical personnel. And it could begin to attack the problem of incentives to the thousands of technologically trained Latin Americans now living abroad to return to and serve with their own countries.

In the view of the United States, such a center should be a cooperative enterprise requiring commitment and contributions in funds, technological resources and personnel from all of the countries that take part.

To get us underway, I propose that we convene a group of experts to examine the need, feasibility, characteristics and role of an inter-American technology center and report to us before the next OAS General Assembly.

## The Importance of Cooperative Development

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

We in this Hemisphere have a special opportunity and responsibility to advance the recent favorable mood, and the practical achievements, in cooperation between the developed and developing nations. We start from a firmer foundation today; our prospects for working together are brighter than ever before — more so in this Hemisphere than in any other region of the world. We should have reason for confidence in our ability to advance our own people's well-being, while simultaneously contributing to a more prosperous world. It is in this sense that I have sought today to advance our practical progress in important areas.

The United States stands ready to give its sister republics in the Hemisphere special attention in the great task of cooperation for development. We shall make a major effort to prepare for the special session on development. We shall listen to your proposals, work with you in a serious and cooperative spirit of friendship, and commit ourselves to carry on the great heritage of the Americas as we go forward together.

*****

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

June 10, 1976

No. 298

STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
UPON ARRIVAL IN MEXICO CITY, MEXICO

JUNE 10, 1976

Mr. Foreign Minister, it is a great pleasure for my wife and myself to be again in Mexico, a country where we have spent many happy days. I have had the great privilege of spending a great deal of time in Mexico, both as a visitor and officially. And there are close personal and official ties between us.

I am very happy to have an opportunity to exchange ideas with the Foreign Minister and with your distinguished President. The relationship between Mexico and the United States is complex, but it is close.

We are two independent nations that are cooperating where our interests coincide without pressure on the basis of equality. Our consultations are so matter-of-course that we need no formal documents to reflect them.

On many issues in this world - the problem of peace, the problem of development, the future of the Western Hemisphere, the issues of human rights - the views of Mexico are of the greatest importance to us and, in many respects, we can work closely together.

This is my first opportunity to work with your distinguished Foreign Minister in his new capacity, though I have known him as one of the ablest diplomats at the United Nations, especially when he did not agree with us and used his extraordinary skill to achieve his ends.

I look forward to my talks here, and I would like to tell you that it is always a great personal joy for me to visit your great and beautiful country.

Thank you.

* * * * * *

For further information contact:

The Secretary
of State

Speech

June 11, 1976

Mexico City

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO:
INDEPENDENCE AND INTERDEPENDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

nations. Both bear the personal mark of President Echeverria:

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

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

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

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

PR 301-A

2

## Global Challenge of Peace, Prosperity, Justice

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

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

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

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

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

that the world community listens to their concerns.

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

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

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

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

3

system. Mexico's energetic promotion of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States—which you yourself inspired, Mr. President—itself symbolizes the need for a new awareness that interdependence is not a slogan but a reality. And since the Revolution of 1910, Mexico has presented the international community with the example of a proudly independent nation committed to progress and social justice. Today Mexico's voice is heard and heeded in the leading councils of the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4

## Bilateral Bond

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

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

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

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

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

We share Mexico's concern over your large

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

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

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

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

5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# The Department of State BULLETIN

Published weekly, the *Department of State Bulletin* provides information on developments in foreign relations and on the work of the Department and Foreign Service. It contains statements and addresses made by the President, the Secretary of State, the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, and other principal officers of the government, together with selected press releases on foreign policy issued by the White House and the Department. Information is included on treaties and international agreements to which the United States is or may become a party.

## How To Obtain

The *Bulletin* is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402: 52 issues, domestic $42.50; foreign $53.15, single copy 85¢. A sample copy for prospective subscribers may be obtained without charge from the Office of Media Services, Room 4831, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20520.

## SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

ENTER MY SUBSCRIPTION TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN (DSB)

@ $ 42.50 Add $ 10.65 for foreign mailing. No additional postage is required for mailing within the United States, its possessions, Canada, Mexico, and all Central and South American countries except Argentina, Brazil, Belize, French Guiana, Guyana, and Surinam. For shipments to all other foreign countries include additional postage as quoted for each periodical or subscription service. Prices are subject to change without notice.

Send Subscription to:

NAME—FIRST, LAST

COMPANY NAME OR ADDITIONAL ADDRESS LINE

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE

☐ Remittance Enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)

☐ Charge to my Deposit Account No.

MAIL ORDER FORM TO:

Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government
Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402

☆ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1975-O-108-016

PR #300

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Ladies and Gentlemen, having read some of your commentaries, I know you have many questions. I would like, however, to take this opportunity to express again my very great joy to be in this country which I love so much and of which I have so many happy, personal memories and with which we've been so closely tied officially. Especially I would like to express my appreciation to my good friend, your distinguished President, whose contribution to peace and progress and justice is well-known around the world and from whose friendship and frank opinions we have all benefited greatly. And now I'll be glad to answer your questions.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, what do you want to obtain from Mexico? Do you want Mexico to be subjected to you, or do you want its friendship? [Laughter]

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** You have to remember America is a pragmatic people, and I know you are a heroic people, so I am not here to attempt anything so foolhardy as to attempt the subjugation of Mexico and that has never succeeded. In all seriousness, the thing in the national problem in the world today is that for the first time in history international relations have become global. For the first time world peace has to be built on the basis of a community of nations that feel that they have a sense of participation and a sense of justice. That can only be done by the voluntary cooperation of other countries and in this sense, Mexico and the United States — that have had a very complicated history and in which paternalism was not always asked — have a special opportunity to demonstrate how two great people can cooperate on the basis of equality. And, if we do not cooperate on the basis of equality, we can achieve nothing.

**QUESTION:** When you speak of the dictatorship of the majorities, could we apply the same concept to the majorities in the United States with reference to their own political life?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course, there is a difference between the domestic, the conduct of domestic affairs and the conduct of international affairs. In domestic affairs, in a democratic country, it has proved to be the most equitable system to let the majority determine the decisions of the people. This works especially in countries where the minority has an opportunity to become the majority. In countries where there is a permanent minority and a permanent majority, along racial lines, it also has its problems. Internationally, when we have used the word of the dictatorship of the majority, we have applied it to situations in which a numerical grouping of countries composed of countries of very unequal status, whose total population might be very small, attempted to impose their will on a minority, without whose willing cooperation it is not possible to achieve anything. I believe that in the problems of development especially, but in all international problems, the art of foreign policy is to obtain the willing cooperation of all those without whose cooperation progress is not possible. And, if one is looking for parliamentary-type victories in a situation in which there is no ability to enforce those victories, one is working essentially for propaganda and not for substance. And, therefore, we have internationally expressed concern about unofficial majorities. On the other hand, we are prepared to work out cooperative solutions, and I believe in the international field one should proceed by consensus and not by imposition — either imposition by power or imposition by majority.

PR #300

-2-

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, do you have information that Cuba is, in fact, withdrawing its troops from Angola and, if this is the case, does this inspire you to resume your efforts to improve relations with Cuba?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** We have had information through the Swedish Prime Minister and other statements that were made to various other countries that Cuba intends to withdraw troops at a rather slow rate from Angola. We have not yet been able to achieve a conclusive confirmation, especially a confirmation of whether there is a net return or whether there is a rotation. So, at this point it would be premature for us to draw any conclusions. We had, in principle, been prepared to explore the normalization of relations with Cuba as long as Cuba conducted its affairs as a national Latin American or Western Hemisphere state and not as a country exporting revolutionary activities. The introduction of large, military, organized contingents in Angola has created a very serious situation in our relationship with Cuba. At this moment the withdrawal is of too small proportions to permit us to draw any conclusions. I would say that the precondition for any improvement in our relations with Cuba is the total withdrawal of all organized military units from Angola.

**QUESTION:** I have two questions to ask of you, Mr. Secretary. You have made reference to the fact that the United States would never permit another situation like the situation of Angola; that is to say, that it would not permit the interference of Cuban troops in any country and also in countries of Latin America. How is it that the United States can determine what the internal policy of a country is to be and what it will permit and not permit internationally? Secondly, I would like to refer to President Echeverria's visit in 1971 to the United Nations, when he proposed the admittance into the United Nations of the People's Republic of China. At that time, the United States opposed the suggestion that was made by President Echeverria, and the United States said that the two Chinas should be admitted. At that point, President Echeverria responded that sovereignty is indivisible and that, therefore, there could only be one China. Now, with reference to all of this, I would like to know how you view President Echeverria at this particular point because of this reply and this stand. Is there any resentment on your part?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** With respect to the first question, we do not assume the right to intervene in the domestic policies of other countries. For example, in Mozambique, the group that took over — got the government of Mozambique — is, in its political views, as different from our predominant views as the MPLA in Angola. Nevertheless, we recognized it as soon as it came into office and have established improved relations with the Government of Mozambique. We are prepared and are making every effort to improve the relationship further. The situation in Angola is not an internal affair. It is the massive introduction of at least 15,000 Cuban combat troops in a country thousands of miles away from Cuba, in a civil war situation. When I say we do not wish to see any more Angolas, I do not mean the internal struggles of Angola. I mean the introduction of outside military forces, supported by the Soviet Union, encouraged by the Soviet Union, and acting as surrogates for the Soviet Union. This is what the United States will oppose. Now with respect to President Echeverria, I think you must have seen from our greetings that we consider each other personal friends. I have very high regard for President Echeverria and great respect for the role that Mexico has played internationally. Of course, Mexico being an independent, sovereign country, which is not governed by weak-minded individuals, has its own views on

PR #300

[ic]

-3-

a number of international problems. Those views do not always coincide with ours. When we differ, we intend to discuss our differences. Sometimes we succeed in eliminating the differences. But sometimes we do not.

In those cases, each country pursued its own policy. Nothing has happened so far, and nothing is likely to happen that I can foresee that will affect the basic friendship that exists between Mexico and the United States. We do not have resentment of President Echeverria. We have the highest regard for him, and I personally have great affection for him.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about negotiations regarding conditions in Mexican jails, conditions that Americans are held in? Are they going well, and what are those conditions?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The distinguished Foreign Minister of Mexico and his associates and my associates and I had, as you know, an extensive discussion yesterday evening on a large number of bilateral issues. The problem of prisoners was part of that discussion. I think it is important to point out that in fact more Mexicans are held in American prisons than Americans in Mexican prisons. And we discussed how to alleviate the general situation of individuals being held in prison in a foreign country. The Mexican side presented a number of rather ingenious and interesting proposals which we would like to study carefully and on which we are going to begin, in the near future, intensive bilateral discussions. I can say that the discussions yesterday were conducted in a very constructive spirit, with the recognition by each side of the sovereignty of the other, but also with an attitude of good will to settle what is a very complicated problem; and I am hopeful that we can make progress on this.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to mention that during the third UNCTAD which took place in Santiago de Chile, President Echeverria proposed a charter, the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. This was in April 1972. Later on, in December 1974 and against the will and vote of the United States, this Charter was approved by 120 countries within the United Nations. My question is the following: do you not believe that an attitude such as this one taken by the United States is going to bring on the unpopularity of the United States within the United Nations?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course, we cannot finally make our foreign policy on the basis of popularity or unpopularity, any more than any other nation can. We have to follow our best judgment of what we consider to be in the national interest and in the world interest. With respect to the proposal of President Echeverria for a charter, I was very attracted to the concept. And in two speeches at the United Nations General Assembly, I supported the concept that President Echeverria put forward and so did the United States Government. In the elaboration of the Charter a number of provisions were included that we felt were simply not acceptable and were against some basic principles of our foreign policy and of our foreign economic policy. We would have been prepared, if it had been possible to arrange, to vote on different items in the charter, rather than for the charter as a whole. We had offered to vote on individual items, in which case we could have supported, I think, 98 percent of the charter and simply voted against the provisions with which we disagreed, if we had not been also forced to vote on the entire charter. So, it is a concept which we supported. There are three or four provisions in it with which we disagreed. The majority of the provisions we could have supported,

PR #300

-4-

and it was one of those issues where, I believe, with a different parliamentary management, we could have achieved a more satisfactory outcome. But I would like to say now that the United States did not oppose the concept of the charter, nor does it oppose the overwhelming majority of the provisions in the charter. And we, at the time that it was proposed, took an opportunity to commend President Echeverria for his initiating it.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, is the United States concerned that Cuba is trying to expand its influence in the Caribbean, particularly by influencing the Governments of Jamaica and Guyana?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I would like to make a distinction between the diplomatic activities of a country and the military activities of Cuba, Cuban diplomatic activities and Cuban political efforts to gain influence in matters that are subject to our foreign policy. And we are sufficiently self-confident that we believe that we can sustain a political competition with a country like Cuba. Our concern is the military infiltration or the movement of military units by Cuba. This we would oppose. We have seen no evidence of the movement of organized Cuban military units within the Western Hemisphere. As for other Cuban influence, this is a matter that we will deal with in diplomatic channels.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the implications of the entrance of other Arab armies into Lebanon with the Syrians? And, additionally, could you give us some feeling as to what you feel the implications are of a possible military defeat of the PLO in Lebanon? Would it make renewed negotiations easier or more difficult?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The primary American interest in Lebanon is to bring an end to the fighting and to end the suffering of the Lebanese people that has gone on too long and that has exacted an enormous and exorbitant toll of human life. At an earlier period, we endorsed the idea of an Arab force as one means of bringing about security. In this particular case, we do not know the composition of the force, nor do we know the attitude of the Syrian Government towards the force. And we are attempting to clarify these issues and also the role that that force is going to play before we take a final position, that we would generally support efforts that have a promise to end the fighting. As for the exact military situation, who is winning — the United States does not look at this problem from the point of view of what helps the negotiating process. We have no clear view of what the military situation is, since we are receiving very confused reports. Our primary objective is to put an end to the fighting, to do it in a manner that respects the sovereignty and integrity of Lebanon, enables the Moslem and Christian communities to live side-by-side with each other; and our attitude towards specific measures will be governed by those principles.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I have two questions to ask. The first question is: what is your opinion in reference to the Junta, a military Chilean Junta? Does your presence in Chile signify in any way your support for the Government of Augusto Pinochet. And my second question is the following: do you foresee that the moment will come when the United States and Russia will come to a confrontation in any one of the countries outside the United States and Russia that are having a difficult time?

PR #300

-5-

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I visited Chile together with the Foreign Ministers of every other Western Hemisphere country except Mexico to attend the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, as I have every year since I became Secretary of State. While I was in Chile, I stated the basic position of the United States with respect to human rights throughout the Western Hemisphere and called attention to the fact that the constituent documents of every one of the American republics calls attention to the protection of the individual, as you would expect in a hemisphere to which millions fled from oppression. I had an opportunity to discuss our views with respect to Chile in that statement, and I had an opportunity to discuss the matter privately also with the Chilean Government.

At the same time, for Latin Americans you will understand that it is more in conformity with the dignity of my oath to enable them to make their decisions as Chilean decisions, and we have been told that there will be a constitutional act forthcoming that takes into greater account the concern for human rights that many countries in the Western Hemisphere have expressed. And we want to wait for this constitutional act before we express any judgment. With respect to the relationship of the United States and the Soviet Union, we are ideological opponents. We confront each other politically and ideologically in various parts of the world.

At the same time, we also possess nuclear weapons, and we have the capacity to destroy humanity. And, therefore, we have an obligation, unprecedented in history, to conduct our competition in a way that reduces and, in time, eliminates the dangers of nuclear war. It is, therefore, the basic policy of our Government to use every opportunity to seek to bring about a world that is based on something more stable than a balance of terror, and in which we strive for conditions of peace that depend on something other than a pure equilibrium of power. No responsible American leader can do anything else. And this is a political duty, and it is a moral duty that any American leader, of whatever party, will have.

[Secretary turns to next questioner] I know she's been waiting to destroy me for 45 minutes. [Laughter]

**QUESTION:** I have two questions to ask. I want to know why it is that you consider that the participation of Cuba or the solidarity shown by Cuba in the Angola case is intervention and why you do not consider that the participation of the United States in the Chilean case is [not] similar intervention. Aside from that, I want to point out that you signed the peace agreements in Paris in the Viet-Nam case, and that it was for this reason that you were awarded the Nobel Prize. The agreements have not been complied with. I would like to know whether you are ready to give back the Prize until the agreements are complied with.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I knew that the question would not be entirely friendly when I recognized you. The Cuban action in Angola was the introduction of massive organized military units into a civil war. The United States' position was that all outside countries, including the United States, should stay out of that civil war and that the parties in that civil war should settle their disputes. And half of the countries of the Organization of African Unity agreed with our point of view. With respect to the situation in Chile, it will be impossible ever to catch up with the mass of misleading information that has been put out in many

PR #300

-6-

quarters. Basically, what the United States attempted to do was to enable the democratic parties and newspapers of Chile to survive until the 1976 elections in the face of confiscatory taxation. And that was the principal thrust of the American effort in Chile. With respect to the Viet-Nam peace agreement, I think there must be limits to hypocrisy. The only clause of the peace agreement that the Vietnamese are still talking about is the clause that speaks about the principle that the United States would assist North Vietnamese economic recovery. Every other clause of that agreement has been systematically, flagrantly, totally violated by the North Vietnamese. And I have never yet seen an international situation in which one government had the colossal nerve to insist that the one provision that still exists must be observed when it has totally violated every other provision of the agreement. And, therefore, if North Viet-Nam wants to talk to us, we have indicated a willingness to talk, especially after they have fulfilled the requirement of the Paris Accord with respect to the mission in action. But it is absurd to insist that the one remaining clause of the Paris Accord should be observed when all others have been flagrantly violated by the Vietnamese.

* * * * *

DEPARTMENT OF STA

O 121810Z JUN 76 ZFF-4

FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO

TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5536

RUEHLC/ CANCUN

DEPT FOR S/PRS, NCS FOR MR. SCOWCROFT AND WHITEHOUSE FOR
MR. NESSEN, RUEHFO FOR IPS/PL

E.O. 11652: N/A

TAGS: OVIP (KISSINGER, HENRY A.)

SUBJECT: SECRETARY'S VISIT: SECRETARY'S RESPONSE TO PLANESIDE QUESTIONS

BEGIN TEXT

Q. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF A SECOND MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT FORD AND PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA? MIGHT THIS OCCUR DURING THE INAUGURATION OF THE (MEXICAN TRADE) FAIR IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS?

A. WE ARE ALWAYS DELIGHTED TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA AND, I THINK, ANOTHER MEETING IS QUITE POSSIBLE. UNTIL OUR OWN NOMINATIONS ARE FINISHED WE CANNOT MAKE SPECIFIC PLANS BUT, WE WOULD HOPE TO SEE PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA AGAIN. AND I ALSO WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TAHNK PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA, THE GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO, AND THE PEOPLE OF MEXICO FOR THE VERY WARM RECEPTION WE HAVE HAD HERE. WE ALWAYS MEET AS EQUALS AND AS FRIENDS, AND WE EXPRESS OUR VIEWS FRANKLY. AND WE ALWAYS MAKE PROGRESS TOWARDS SOLVING OUR MUTUAL PROBLEMS AND ALSO, I HOPE, PROGRESS TOWARDS SOLVING COMMON PROBLEMS OF ALL MANKIND. SO, MY WIFE AND I HOPE TO COME BACK SOON.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE TELEGRAM

Q. THERE IS ABOUT TO BE A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT BOTH IN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES WILL ALSO CHANGE?

A. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT THINK THERE WILL BE A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. (LAUGHTER.)

Q. A CHANGE OF PRESIDENT?

A. I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE A CHANGE OF PRESIDENTS. BUT, THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES ARE BASED ON LONG HISTORY, BASIC PRINCIPLE AND BASIC INTERESTS, AND THEY WILL BE CARRIED OUT BY WHOEVER LEADS OUR COUNTRY.

(END TEXT. REMAINDER OF EXCHANGE LOST DUE TO NOISE OF PLANE ENGINES.)

JOVA

UNCLASSIFIED

[Lc]

+ St elements

UNCLASSIFIED

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L]

June 16, 1976

NO. 305

STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
ON THE MURDERS IN BEIRUT OF
FRANCIS E. MELOY, JR.
US AMBASSADOR TO LEBANON
ROBERT O. WARING
ECONOMIC COUNSELOR, AMERICAN EMBASSY, BEIRUT
AND
MR. ZOHAIR MOGHRABI
THE AMBASSADOR'S CHAUFFEUR

JUNE 16, 1976

I learned this morning with profound sorrow of the kidnapping and brutal murder of our Ambassador to Lebanon, Francis E. Meloy, Jr., the Economic Counselor of our Embassy in Beirut, Robert O. Waring, and the Ambassador's Lebanese chauffeur, Zohair Moghrabi. Ambassador Meloy and Mr. Waring were -- as part of our intensive effort to bring peace to Lebanon -- on their way to a meeting with President-elect Sarkis. They disappeared enroute; the three bodies were later found, and their identities confirmed.

The President's statement expressed the shock and revulsion that all of us feel at this tragic, cowardly, and senseless act. It also expresses our determination not to be deterred, by brutal and vicious action, from the search for peace. But equally no nation or group should believe that the United States will not find ways to protect its diplomatic personnel.

I have commented before on the particularly monstrous injustice in violent death coming to those engaged in the work of peace. The vicious cycle of violence and counterviolence which has engulfed Lebanon for months has now cost the American people two of their ablest public servants.

The two American diplomats had served their country long and faithfully at many posts throughout the world. Ambassador Meloy, at the President's request, had gone to Beirut only a few weeks ago from his previous post in Guatemala, on very short notice, fully realizing the dangers and challenges of this important assignment. Mr. Waring had performed brilliantly

PR #305

[LC]

- 2 -

in Beirut over the past year under the most difficult and hazardous circumstances. Mr. Moghrabi has worked for our Embassy for over 20 years with distinction and courage.

These men had faced the necessity of living with constant, mortal danger in order to carry out their mission. They served the cause of peace and died for their cause. They did so with the dedication and disregard of personal safety which we have come to expect of our distinguished Foreign Service.

The men, sadly, are gone. But duty remains. These senseless murders remind us of the urgency of that duty, and of the need for a world free of terror and living with a consciousness of peace. We shall not forget that, and we shall be inspired by the courage and sacrifice of our colleagues.

* * * * *

iii

## INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

1

HUMAN RIGHTS

Secretary Kissinger on June 8, 1976.

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

## Human Rights Challenge in the Americas

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

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

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

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

## Reports of the OAS Human Rights Commission

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

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

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

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

4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Necessity for Concern and Concrete Action

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

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

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

5

COOPERATION
FOR DEVELOPMENT

Secretary Kissinger on June 9, 1976.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me address each of these issues in turn.

Commodities

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

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

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

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

7

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

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

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

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

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

Third, I propose that the consultative group
take a new look at the problem of insuring ade-
quate investment in commodities in this hemi-
sphere under circumstances that respect the

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

Trade

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

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

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

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

* The need for effective regional and subregional economic integration.

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

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

8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9

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

## Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Importance of Cooperative Development

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

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

11

OAS REFORM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12

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

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

## Structure

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

* The promotion of cooperation for development;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Membership

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

13

Financing

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

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

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

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

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

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

15

PANAMA CANAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16

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

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

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

17

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

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

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

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

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

U.N. ECONOMIC
COMMISSION FOR
LATIN AMERICA

18

[10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 ÉTOILES LUXE

HOTEL DE CRILLON
PARIS

This is not in the public statements book because the Department is not supposed to have a copy of the unofficial transcript. When the questions within are answered, the Committee will print it and H will keep the only copy needed.

TÉLÉPHONE 265 24 10

TÉLÉG. CRILONOTEL PARIS 123

TÉLEX 290204 CRILLON

iii

# INTRODUCTION

HUMAN RIGHTS

2

(10)

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

3

4

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