-14-

EQUALLY DEMANDING RESPONSIBILITY OF INFLUENCING THE CONDUCT
OF SOVIET LEADERS IN THE DIRECTION OF PEACE BY WISE AND
DECISIVE WESTERN ACTION.

THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP PRIDES ITSELF ON ITS APPRECIATION
OF WHAT IT CALLS THE OBJECTIVE FACTORS, WHICH IS A MARXIST
WAY OF DESCRIBING THE REALITIES OF THE CORRELATION OF FORCES.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FREE NATIONS IS TO MAKE THE
SACRIFICES NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BOTH THE REALITY AND THE
PERCEPTION OF A STABLE BALANCE.

THOUGH WE CANNOT SURPASS THE SOVIET UNION IN ALL CATEGORIES
OF MILITARY POWER, THE FREE NATIONS CANNOT FALL BEHIND IN
EVERY SIGNIFICANT CATEGORY WITHOUT SUFFERING PROFOUND POLITICAL
CONSEQUENCES. DIPLOMACY, NO MATTER HOW IMAGINATIVE, CANNOT
OPERATE FROM IMPOTENCE. MATCHING SOVIET POWER IN REALISTIC
WAYS THAT REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR AGGRESSION IS THE PRE-
CONDITION OF ALL EFFECTIVE/POLICY.

foreign

-15-

THIRD, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE SECURITY OF EUROPE AND ASIA HAS BEEN LARGELY PRESERVED BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN COMMITMENT OF FORCES AND MATERIEL. AT A TIME OF EMERGING STALEMATE IN STRATEGIC WEAPONS, THE UNITED STATES MUST TAKE _special_ CARE NOT TO CREATE NEW REGIONAL VACUUMS. IF THE SENSE OF SECURITY OF OUR FRIENDS IS UNDERMINED, WE RISK DRAMATIC SHIFTS IN DOMESTIC STRUCTURES AND _CONSEQUENTLY_ IN POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS. THE WORLD WILL BE NEITHER SAFER NOR MORE HUMANE IF AMERICA CHOOSES TO WITHDRAW ITS POWER UNILATERALLY FROM AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFRONTATION. ON THE CONTRARY, OUR RETREAT IS LIKELY TO HAVE CONSEQUENCES EXTENDING FAR BEYOND THE COUNTRIES MOST IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED.

FOURTH, THE DESTRUCTIVENESS OF MODERN WEAPONS IMPOSES A SOBERING OBLIGATION ON THE POLICYMAKERS OF THE TWO NUCLEAR SUPERPOWERS. UNDER NO FORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCE COULD THE UNITED STATES -- OR THE SOVIET UNION -- AVOID TENS OF MILLIONS DEAD IN A STRATEGIC NUCLEAR EXCHANGE.

-16-

NO LEADERS IN HISTORY HAVE FACED SO AWESOME A PROSPECT.
BOTH SIDES CONTINUE TO ARM BECAUSE NEITHER CAN RISK IN-
FERIORITY, AND THEREFORE NEITHER CAN STEP OFF THE TREADMILL
FIRST. BUT THE EFFORT TO HEDGE AGAINST ALL CONTINGENCIES,
NO MATTER HOW FARFETCHED, LEADS THE COMPETITION INTO EVER
MORE EXOTIC DIMENSIONS OF WEAPONRY AND COMPOUNDS POLITICAL
TENSIONS BY THE WORST-CASE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ABOUT THE
OPPONENT'S INTENTIONS AND PLANNING. PARADOXICALLY, AN
UNRESTRAINED STRATEGIC ARMS RACE CAN CREATE AN OVERALL
WEAKNESS BY DIVERTING DEFENSE RESOURCES INTO STRATEGICALLY
UNPRODUCTIVE AREAS, AWAY FROM FORCES FOR REGIONAL DEFENSE,
WHERE AN IMBALANCE COULD INDEED BE TURNED RAPIDLY AND
DRAMATICALLY TO OUR DISADVANTAGE.

all
FOR/THESE REASONS, THE UNITED STATES HAS SOUGHT --
THROUGH ADMINISTRATIONS OF BOTH PARTIES -- ARMS CONTROL
AGREEMENTS WHICH BUILD SOME MUTUAL RESTRAINT INTO NUCLEAR

-17-

RIVALRY. IT IS IN THE AMERICAN INTEREST, AND THE GLOBAL
INTEREST, THAT A BALANCED, LONG-TERM STRATEGIC ARMS
LIMITATION AGREEMENT BE ACHIEVED, CAPPING THE ARMS RACE
AND BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF REDUCTIONS.

NO # PRESIDENT CARTER IN HIS QUEST FOR ARMS LIMITATION
AND REDUCTION DESERVES THE SUPPORT OF EVERY AMERICAN.

WHETHER REDUCTIONS SHOULD BE SOUGHT IN ONE MAJOR STEP OR SEVERAL;
WHETHER THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS CONDUCTED OVER A PERIOD
OF YEARS BY THE TOP LEADERS OF BOTH COUNTRIES SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE OR BUILT UPON ARE MATTERS OF TACTICAL JUDGMENT. WHAT
IS BEYOND DISPUTE IS THE IMPERATIVE OF CONTROLLING NUCLEAR
ARMS AND THE ULTIMATE NECESSITY OF SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN
THE ARSENALS OF THE SUPERPOWERS. THEREFORE, WE MUST NOT BE
UNSETTLED BY TEMPORARY DISAPPOINTMENTS -- WE HAVE HAD THESE

Indeed, I have participated in some of them.

BEFORE. / THE PROBLEM IS AS DIFFICULT AS THE TECHNOLOGY WHICH
SPAWNED IT, AND ITS SOLUTION IS BOUND TO BE COMPLICATED AND
THEREFORE TIME-CONSUMING. NEGOTIATIONS MUST PROCEED IN A

-18-

CALM, NON-CONFRONTATIONAL, WAY WITHOUT SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINES OR RHETORICAL BATTLES THAT PUBLICALLY STAKE THE PRESTIGE OF BOTH SIDES. THE LIMITATION OF ARMS IS NOT A FAVOR ONE SIDE DOES FOR THE OTHER; IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL NECESSITY. A REASONABLE, BALANCED AGREEMENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SECURITY CONCERNS OF BOTH SIDES IS ACHIEVABLE. THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD HAVE WIDE NONPARTISAN BACKING IN BRINGING IT TO A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION.

## II. GLOBAL STRUCTURE AND INTERNATIONAL PEACE: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

OVER THE PAST THREE DECADES AMERICA'S ROLE OF LEADERSHIP HAS PROVED TO BE OF PIVOTAL IMPORTANCE IN THE SEARCH FOR WORLD ORDER. THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN SETTLING INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, IN BRINGING A TURBULENT WORLD CLOSER TO A [PEACEFUL] INTERNATIONAL ORDER, OWES NO LITTLE TO OUR EFFORTS, OUR UNDERSTANDING AND OUR PERSEVERANCE.

-19-

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES

THE FIRST PRIORITY OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY MUST BE TO MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN THE ALLIANCES THAT BIND US TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES. THE ESSENCE OF THESE RELATIONSHIPS IS NOT THE FORMAL LEGAL COMMITMENTS -- IMPORTANT AS THEY ARE -- BUT THE COMMON VALUES AND COMMON INTERESTS THAT GIVE MEANING TO THEM AND THE FREQUENT AND CLOSE CONSULTATION WHICH NURTURE THEM. IN RECENT YEARS, OUR COOPERATION WITH OUR PRINCIPAL ALLIES IN THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY AND JAPAN HAS BEEN BROADENED [BEYOND SECURITY] TO EMBRACE ECONOMIC COOPERATION, COORDINATION OF EAST-WEST DIPLOMACY AND CONSULTATION ON OUR RELATIONS WITH THE THIRD WORLD. THE NEW ADMINISTRATION WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THE MONTH TO BUILD ON THE FOUNDATIONS LAID DOWN BY PRESIDENT FORD -- IN THE INCREASED HARMONIZATION OF OUR GROWTH POLICIES, IN THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE, [INCLUDING

-20-

THE ISSUES OF DEBT AND COMMODITIES, IN EAST-WEST ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND ON ENERGY. PRESIDENT CARTER'S FORTHCOMING MEETINGS IN LONDON WITH THE LEADERS OF THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES FOLLOWED BY A NATO SUMMIT HOLD THE HOPEFUL PROSPECT THAT THEY WILL GENERATE A NEW AGENDA OF COMMON ACTION FOR THE FREE PEOPLES. NOTHING COULD DEMONSTRATE BETTER THAT FREE SOCIETIES REMAIN DYNAMIC AND ABLE TO MASTER THEIR OWN DESTINY.

NOT ONE OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES IS ABLE TO SOLVE ITS INTERNATIONAL OR DOMESTIC PROBLEMS IN ISOLATION. WORLD ORDER AS WELL AS DOMESTIC STABILITY DEPENDS ON THEIR COOPERATION -- A COOPERATION THAT WILL INEVITABLY BE TESTED BY A SERIES OF CHALLENGES ALREADY UPON US.

-- FOR TWO DECADES OUR ALLIES HAVE AVOIDED FACING
the
THE FACT THAT AN APPROACHING NUCLEAR STALEMATE
REQUIRES GREATER ATTENTION TO REGIONAL DEFENSE.
THE STALEMATE IS NOW UPON US. THE PROBLEM OF

-21-

BUILDING ADEQUATE FORCES FOR LOCAL DEFENSE CAN NO LONGER BE EVADED. FOR DETENTE IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ADEQUATE DEFENSE [EFFORTS]; IT CAN ONLY GROW OUT OF THEM.

-- THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES SHOULD DEVELOP FURTHER THE MECHANISM OF THEIR OWN COOPERATION AND WORK IN CLOSE PARALLEL IN MAJOR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, ESPECIALLY ON THE COORDINATION OF THEIR OWN ECONOMIC POLICIES AND ON FURTHER REFORMS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

-- EAST-WEST DIPLOMACY REQUIRES SYNCHRONIZED POLICIES. IF THE SOVIET UNION IS ENCOURAGED BY OUR DIVISIONS TO PRACTICE DETENTE DIFFERENTIALLY -- IMPROVING RELATIONS WITH SOME ALLIES WHILE THREATENING OTHERS -- THE RELAXATION OF TENSIONS BECOMES A TOOL OF POLITICAL WARFARE. ONLY SOLIDARITY AMONG THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES CAN TURN DETENTE INTO A LONG-TERM

-23-

IT MAKES NO SENSE TO PERMIT THE NATIONS OF THE EAST TO EXPAND THEIR DEBTS TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES WITH NO REGARD FOR ANYTHING BUT AD HOC COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES SHOULD EXAMINE THEIR CREDIT AND TRADE POLICIES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO WORLD ORDER. AT THE URGING OF THE UNITED STATES, THE OECD IS NOW EXAMINING THE QUESTION.

-- IN THE FIELD OF ENERGY, IMPORTANT NEW INSTITUTIONS FOR COMMON ACTION HAVE BEEN CREATED IN RECENT YEARS. THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (IEA) BRINGING TOGETHER MOST MAJOR CONSUMING COUNTRIES, HAS DEVELOPED IMPORTANT PROGRAMS FOR CONSERVATION, ALTERNATIVE SOURCES AND EMERGENCY SHARING. BUT the FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT A COHERENT NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY HAS DEPRIVED THE LARGEST

-24-

CONSUMING NATION -- THE UNITED STATES -- OF
EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND HAS HELD BACK
INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS. THE ENERGY PROGRAM OF
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION TO BE PUT FORWARD BY
APRIL 20 COULD GIVE A TREMENDOUS IMPETUS TO
THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME OF A COHERENT
ATTACK ON THE ENERGY CRISIS BY THE MAJOR
CONSUMING NATIONS.

-- THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF ITS ENORMOUS
POWER MUST BE ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE TO THE CONCERNS
OF OUR ALLIES, INCLUDING ESPECIALLY THE INTANGIBLES
complicated
OF FRAGILE DOMESTIC STRUCTURES. BECAUSE OF
occasional
THE ENORMOUS DISPARITY OF POWER AND THEIR VERY
REAL ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE, SOME OF OUR FRIENDS
MAY YIELD TO AMERICAN PROPOSALS WHICH THEY
PERCEIVE AS INEVITABLE, EVEN IF THEY HAVE PROFOUND

RESERVATIONS ABOUT THEM. CHANGES IN EMPHASIS
OF AMERICAN CONCERNS -- REAL OR PERCEIVED --
CAN HAVE MAJOR DOMESTIC CONSEQUENCES WHICH CAN
MAKE A DANGEROUS TREND IRREVERSIBLE.

-- BY THE SAME TOKEN, OUR ALLIES OWE US A SERIOUS
HEARING FOR PROPOSALS WE PUT FORWARD IN THE
GENERAL INTEREST. THE UNITED STATES IS SURELY
RIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN EMPHASIZING THAT THE
UNCONSTRAINED PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE GRAVEST DANGERS FOR
ALL MANKIND. WE MUST NOT LET FUTURE GENERATIONS
SAY OF US THAT WE DOOMED THEM TO PERPETUAL PERIL
BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT SUBORDINATE COMMERCIAL
ADVANTAGE TO THE NECESSITIES OF HUMAN SURVIVAL.
THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES, WORKING TOGETHER,
MUST SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE

-26-

OR THEY WILL BECOME THE PRISONERS OF EVENTS
WHICH CAN THEN NEVER BE UNDONE.

-- BUT THE DEEPEST PROBLEM BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES IS PSYCHOLOGICAL AND MORAL. THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES MUST ANSWER COMPELLING QUESTIONS: IN SOCIETIES OF IMPERSONAL the younger INSTITUTIONS -- HOW DO WE INSPIRE A-NEW GENERATION WITH A SENSE OF PURPOSE? HOW DO WE MOBILIZE FAITH WITHOUT TURNING TO DEMAGOGUERY, AND HOW DO WE FOSTER DOMESTIC UNITY WITHOUT IMITATING TOTALITARIANISM? HOW IN AN AGE OF RAPID MASS COMMUNICATION DO WE AVOID FALSE SIMPLIFICATIONS OR EXTREMIST PANACEAS? THE FUTURE OF FREE SOCIETIES DEPENDS ON THE ANSWERS THEY GIVE AND THE ANSWERS CANNOT BE MEANINGFULLY GIVEN BY ANY ONE NATION ALONE.

-27-

EAST-WEST RELATIONS

JUST AS WE MUST BE CONSCIOUS OF THE NEED TO FOSTER
COOPERATION WITH OUR ALLIES, SO MUST WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE CAN BE NO DURABLE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM WITHOUT
A STABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
THE SOVIET UNION. IN THE NUCLEAR AGE THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN TWO COMPETITIVE IDEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS RAISES
THE PROBLEM OF US-SOVIET RELATIONS TO THE LEVEL OF
LIFE AND DEATH. FOR AS FAR AHEAD AS WE CAN SEE, THE
INESCAPABLE NECESSITY OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY WILL
BE TO CONDUCT THE US-SOVIET RIVALRY -- AND PROMOTE OUR
VALUES AND INTERESTS -- IN THE SHADOW OF NUCLEAR DANGER.
NO SINGLE AGREEMENT CAN EVER TOTALLY REMOVE THE DANGER.
NO SETBACK CAN BE PERMITTED TO STAND IN THE WAY
OF TRYING AGAIN.

OUR GENERATION HAS BEEN TRAUMATIZED BY THE LESSONS OF WORLD WAR II, WHEN AN IMBALANCE OF POWER PRODUCED UPHEAVAL AND WAR. WE MUST TAKE CARE THAT THIS EXPERIENCE IS NOT REPEATED. BUT WE MUST ALSO REMEMBER THAT EQUILIBRIUM ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. WORLD WAR I, WHICH UNDERMINED THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF EUROPE AND THE WORLD, ERUPTED IN SPITE OF A BALANCE OF POWER. THE MAJOR NATIONS DRIFTED FROM CRISIS TO CRISIS CONFIDENT THAT EACH CRISIS BACKED BY ACCUMULATING ARSENALS WOULD BE RESOLVED, BECAUSE EACH PREVIOUS CRISIS HAD BEEN RESOLVED; UNTIL FINALLY POLITICAL LEADERS LOST CONTROL over OF THEIR MILITARY DECISIONS OVER AN ISSUE NOT DIFFERENT FROM MANY THAT HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY DEFUSED BEFORE. WE CANNOT PERMIT THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN, FOR NONE OF OUR SOCIETIES WILL BE THE SAME AFTER A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST.

WE MUST CONSISTENTLY AND PERSEVERINGLY MAINTAIN A DUAL POLICY:

-29-

-- FIRST, TO MAKE CLEAR BY OUR STRENGTH AND DETERMINATION THAT ATTEMPTS TO SPREAD SOVIET INFLUENCE BY MILITARY MEANS AND OTHER FORMS OF ADVENTURISM WILL BE RESISTED.

-- SECOND, TO MODERATE SOVIET CONDUCT BY ENGAGING THE SOVIET UNION IN CONSTRUCTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.

ALL POLICY MUST START WITH CONTAINMENT OF SOVIET POWER, BUT CONTAINMENT CANNOT BE AN END IN ITSELF. WE MUST BUILD UPON AN EQUILIBRIUM OF POWER HABITS OF MUTUAL RESTRAINT, COEXISTENCE, AND, ULTIMATELY, COOPERATION. WE HAVE AN HISTORIC OUR PEOPLE AND TO OBLIGATION TO/MANKIND TO ENGAGE THE SOVIET UNION IN SETTLEMENTS OF CONCRETE POLITICAL ISSUES, IN DEVELOPING PRACTICES OF CONSULTATION, IN EXPANDING COOPERATIVE RELATIONS IN MANY TECHNICAL AREAS, AS WELL AS IN WORKING TOGETHER TO PUSH BACK THE SPECTER OF NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE.

BUT THE SOVIET UNION MUST UNDERSTAND THAT TRUE DETENTE CAN ONLY BE BUILT ON STRICT RECIPROCITY. ATTEMPTS TO USE IT

-30-

FOR UNILATERAL ADVANTAGE, TO DEMORALIZE THE FREE COUNTRIES

relaxation of tensions
BY SCORING GEOPOLITICAL GAINS UNDER THE COVER OF DETENTE,

WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO CONFRONTATION.

RESTRAINT MUST BE A MUTUAL OBLIGATION MUTUALLY IMPLEMENTED.

WHATEVER THE DETAILS OF THE CURRENT INVASION OF ZAIRE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE ACROSS A SOVEREIGN BORDER FROM A COUNTRY IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS INSTALLED BY SOVIET ARMS AND THE MILITARY PERSONNEL OF A SOVIET CLIENT STATE. IT COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE -- AND IT COULD NOT CONTINUE -- WITHOUT THE MATERIAL SUPPORT OR ACQUIESCENCE OF THE SOVIET UNION [-- WHETHER OR NOT CUBAN TROOPS ARE PRESENT]. SUCH IRRESPONSIBLE ACTS SET A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. IF ALL AFRICAN PROBLEMS ARE TO BE SETTLED HEREAFTER BY RADICAL MEANS WITH WEAPONS BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE, A CATASTROPHIC RACE WAR IN SOUTHERN AFRICA WILL BECOME MORE AND MORE LIKELY WITH PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR US BOTH AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD. IF ATTACKS ACROSS SOVEREIGN BORDERS ARE SUPINELY ACCEPTED BY THE

-31-

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, SOONER OR LATER EVENTS WILL GET OUT
OF CONTROL.

WE OWE IT TO OUR CHILDREN TO BEQUEATH TO THEM A WORLD
WITH MORE HOPE THAN A MERE BALANCE OF TERROR CONSTANTLY
CONTESTED. THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION HAVE IT IN
THEIR POWER TO BRING ABOUT EITHER AN HISTORIC BREAKTHROUGH
TO PEACE OR AN UNIMAGINABLE HISTORIC CATASTROPHE. THERE CAN
BE NO DOUBT OF THE CHOICE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT IF
CONFRONTATIONS PROVE UNAVOIDABLE DESPITE OUR BEST EFFORTS,
OUR PEOPLE WILL RESIST WITH A DETERMINATION STRENGTHENED BY
THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT EXPLORED EVERY AVENUE
TO PEACE.

VITAL ALSO FOR INTERNATIONAL STABILITY IS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
AFTER THE BREAKTHROUGH IN 1971, THE TWO COUNTRIES COMMITTED
THEMSELVES TO MOVE TOWARDS NORMALIZATION. IT IS A PROCESS

-32-

THAT WE MUST CONTINUE, FOR WE SHARE A COMMON CONCERN ABOUT PREVENTING EXPANSIONIST TENDENCIES OF OTHER STATES. THUS, A CENTRAL FACTOR OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IS THE GEOPOLITICAL BALANCE. THE UNITED STATES MUST PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO CHINESE PERCEPTIONS OF THIS BALANCE. OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA MUST BE CAREFULLY FOSTERED THROUGH CONSULTATION, STRENGTHENED TIES AND RECIPROCAL EFFORTS TO FULFILL EXISTING MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS.

## THE NORTH-SOUTH CHALLENGE

> [AT THE CORE OF THE CHALLENGE OF WORLD ORDER TODAY IS THE EVOLVING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL AND THE DEVELOPING NATIONS.]

IN MILITARY TERMS THE GLOBE IS STILL ESSENTIALLY BIPOLAR, BUT ECONOMICALLY POWER IS DISPERSED AMONG MANY NATIONS AND REGIONS. THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT SUSTAINED WORLD PROSPERITY FOR A GENERATION IS NOW BEING

-33-

TESTED BY NEW FORCES ON A GLOBAL SCALE. THE GULF BETWEEN
THE INDUSTRIAL NATIONS AND THE DEVELOPING WORLD HAS BECOME
A CENTRAL FOCUS OF INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY. A WORLD IN
WHICH A FEW WEALTHY NATIONS STAND OUT LIKE ISLANDS OF WEALTH
IN AN OCEAN OF HOPELESS POVERTY AND INCREASING MISERY CANNOT
ENDURE UNCHALLENGED FOR LONG.

A PARADOX OF OUR TIME IS THE PERVASIVE SPREAD OF
NATIONALISM AND ITS SIMULTANEOUS -- AND GROWING -- INADEQUACY.
NEW BLOCS HAVE SPRUNG UP -- THE SO-CALLED NON-ALIGNED -- AT
THE SAME TIME THAT WE SEE NEW TENSIONS *WITHIN* THESE BLOCS.
PARADOXICALLY, IDEOLOGY TENDS TO POLARIZE NATIONS AT THE VERY
MOMENT WHEN REALITY DEMANDS THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE LESS
DEVELOPED BE ACHIEVED THROUGH PRAGMATIC COOPERATION WITH THE
world
INDUSTRIAL NATIONS. TACTICS OF CONFRONTATION BY SOME OF THE
SO-CALLED THIRD WORLD AFFRONT THE VERY PUBLICS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES WHOSE VOTE, SUPPORT AND POLITICAL
UNDERSTANDING ARE ESSENTIAL.

-34-

THE UNITED STATES HAS PLAYED -- AND I AM SURE WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY -- A ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE. IT DOES SO AS A MATTER OF SELF-INTEREST AS WELL AS MORAL CONVICTION. THE UNITED STATES COULD SURVIVE IN A WORLD OF ECONOMIC WARFARE [AND IRRECONCILABLE DIVISION] BETTER THAN ANY OTHER NATION. BUT OUR HOPES FOR AN INTERNATIONAL ORDER BASED ON PEACE, JUSTICE AND PROGRESS WOULD BE SHATTERED.

[THE OBJECTIVES OF THE DEVELOPING NATIONS ARE CLEAR: THEY WANT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, A ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THEM, AND A FAIR SHARE OF GLOBAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS. THE INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS, FOR THEIR PART, WANT TO SEE WIDENING PROSPERITY, AN OPEN WORLD SYSTEM OF TRADE AND INVESTMENT, EXPANDING MARKETS, AND RELIABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORLD'S ENERGY RESOURCES AND RAW MATERIALS.]

ECONOMIC REALITY MAKES THESE GOALS COMPLEMENTARY. POLITICAL REALITY MAKES THEM ACHIEVABLE ONLY BY INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION.]

-35-

[LQ]

OUR GENERATION IS CHALLENGED TO ADAPT GLOBAL ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS AND PRACTICES TO NEW NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS -- TO BROADEN AND REFORM THE GLOBAL ECONOMY TO REFLECT THE NEW ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REALITIES OF OUR TIME.

THE DEVELOPING NATIONS NEED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES NOT BREASTBEATING CONFESSIONS OF GUILT BUT INTELLIGENT AND REALISTIC PROPOSALS THAT MERGE THE INTERESTS OF BOTH IN AN EXPANDING WORLD ECONOMY. THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES MUST BETTER COORDINATE THEIR OWN EFFORTS, AVOIDING EITHER DUPLICATION OR COMPETITIVE CURRYING OF FAVOR WITH INCREASINGLY UNREALISTIC PROMISES. THEY SHOULD WORK OUT A CLEAR LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT, BRINGING TOGETHER THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN A COHERENT WHOLE -- AID, TRADE, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, FINANCIAL POLICY, AND THE NATIONAL EFFORT OF THE DEVELOPING COUNTRY. THE

-36-

[L]

INDUSTRIAL NATIONS SHOULD NOT NEGOTIATE ONLY ON AN AGENDA
PUT FORWARD BY OTHERS, BUT SHOULD OFFER A COMPREHENSIVE
PROGRAM TO MEET THE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE ONCE AND FOR ALL,
ONE ADEQUATE TO THE TOTAL TASK AND WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL
NATIONS ARE PREPARED TO SUPPORT OVER THE LONG PULL.

THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, FOR THEIR PART, [MUST ABANDON
THE TACTICS OF PRESSURE BECAUSE IN THE END THESE TACTICS
WILL BE SELF-DEFEATING AND WHAT THEY NEED CAN BE GAINED ONLY
have learned that
BY INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, SHOCKS TO THE WORLD ECONOMIC
SYSTEM, WE HAVE LEARNED, REDOUND TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
POORER NATIONS MOST OF ALL. THE INCREASE IN OIL PRICES,
FOR EXAMPLE, ABSORBS MOST OF THE EXTERNAL AID OF THE
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FROM ALL SOURCES.

-37-

A FOUNDATION HAS BEEN LAID. THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE
IS WELL BEGUN. THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES, WHOSE ROLE IS
CRUCIAL TO DEVELOPMENT, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE A
POSITIVE NETWORK OF RELATIONS, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL, FOR
THE NEXT GENERATION. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STATES-
MANSHIP AND FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE [TO
THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET].

### III. WORLD PEACE AND AMERICAN IDEALS

AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS SEEN THEIR COUNTRY AS MORE THAN
JUST ANOTHER NATION-STATE PURSUING A PRIVATE VISION OF ITS
OWN PARTICULAR GRANDEUR AND MATERIAL SUCCESS. WE HAVE ALWAYS
HAD A SENSE OF BROADER MISSION AND PURPOSE -- TO EMBODY THE
IDEAL OF FREEDOM, TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE HUNGRY AND HAVEN TO
THE OPPRESSED FROM OTHER LANDS, TO SERVE THE CAUSE OF
DEMOCRACY AS AN EXAMPLE AND A CHAMPION. ALL THAT THIS NATION
HAS DONE IN THE SEARCH FOR PEACE, IN BUILDING COOPERATION,

-38-

IN PROMOTING WORLD PROSPERITY, IS ROOTED IN THE CONVICTION
THAT ONLY IN LIBERTY AND JUSTICE CAN MANKIND EVER
ACHIEVE ITS HIGHEST GOALS.

AS AMERICA GREW IN STRENGTH, IT ALSO BECAME
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ITS POWER. [WE HAVE OSCILLATED BETWEEN
DENYING ITS IMPORTANCE, BEING ASHAMED OF IT, AND
EXPECTING TOO MUCH FROM IT. CONSCIOUS OF OUR
UNIQUENESS AND TAKING FOR GRANTED THE BENEFITS CONFERRED
ON US BY DISTANCE, WE ATTRIBUTED OUR SUCCESS AT HOME
TO OUR MORAL VALUES MORE THAN TO OUR MATERIAL GOOD
FORTUNE. WE SHUNNED INVOLVEMENT IN A WORLD LESS PURE.]

UNTIL THE END OF WORLD WAR II, OUR MORAL IMPULSE
PRODUCED ISOLATIONISM. WE IMAGINED THAT GENEROSITY IN
RELIEF EFFORTS AND PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD ECONOMIC
ORDER WERE AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT.

-39-

OUR TRADITION OF LAW LED US TO PROMOTE LEGAL SOLUTIONS
TO INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT -- ARBITRATION, ADJUDICATION,
DISARMAMENT AGREEMENTS, NEUTRALITY LEGISLATION,

[INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR COLLECTIVE SECURITY.]

WE BELIEVED THAT POLITICAL CONFLICT HAD ACCIDENTAL AND
NOT FUNDAMENTAL CAUSES -- THE AMBITIONS OF SHORT-SIGHTED
MEN RATHER THAN THE IMPERATIVES OF SURVIVAL. [MANY
ARGUED THAT WEAPONS -- OR "MUNITIONS MAKERS" --
INSTEAD OF BEING MEANS OF DEFENSE, CAUSED WARS, AND
THAT INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES WERE SORDID AND UNNECESSARY.
THE FAILURE OF OTHER NATIONS TO MEET OUR STANDARDS OF
DEMOCRACY AND LIBERTY ONLY INTENSIFIED OUR REVULSION AT
ANY INVOLVEMENT OR CONCERN FOR THEIR SECURITY.]

WHEN AROUSED TO JOIN AND TRIUMPH IN TWO WORLD WARS,
WE CLOTHED OUR OWN CLEAR SECURITY INTEREST IN PREVENTING
EUROPE FROM FALLING UNDER THE DOMINATION OF ONE
CONTINENTAL POWER IN THE MANTLE OF ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE:

-40-

[10]

A "WAR TO END ALL WARS" OR "TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY". [BUT] IN PEACETIME, [AND STILL TODAY,] AMERICA HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN LOATH TO FACE A WORLD OF IMPERFECT SECURITY, ALLIANCES OF NECESSITY, less than total solutions RECURRENT CHALLENGES, /AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL STRUCTURE THAT WOULD SECURE THE PEACE.

OUR MORAL IMPULSE HAS HAD MANY CONTRADICTORY RESULTS -- EXUBERANT CAMPAIGNS TO REFORM A REPROBATE WORLD, SELF-FLAGELLATION BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE WORLD, OR WITHDRAWAL BECAUSE WE ARE TOO the world GOOD FOR IT. THE MOST SERIOUS ERRORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN THIS CENTURY -- OF ISOLATION AND OF OVERINVOLVEMENT --[BOTH] OCCURRED WHEN AMERICA'S MORAL ZEAL GREW OUT OF BALANCE WITH ITS PRAGMATIC TRADITION.

IN FACT, AMERICA HAS BEEN MOST SUCCESSFUL WHEN IT COMBINED BOTH IDEALISM AND PRAGMATISM. THOUGH THE MORAL

-41-

[L]

IMPULSE AND THE PRAGMATIC INCLINATION HAVE BEEN IN TENSION WITH ONE ANOTHER THROUGH MANY PERIODS OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE, OUR ENDEAVORS IN THE WORLD PROSPERED MOST WHEN THEY WERE CREATIVELY COMBINED -- FROM THE DAYS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WHO UNDERSTOOD THE EUROPEAN BALANCE OF POWER AND USED IT WITH SOPHISTICATION TO SECURE OUR INDEPENDENCE, TO THE GREAT AMERICAN INITIATIVES AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

Ours

IT IS NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN IDEALS AND SECURITY.

WE CANNOT SERVE EITHER UNLESS WE SERVE BOTH. WE MUST BE TRUE TO OUR PRINCIPLES, OR [ELSE] WE WILL LOSE OUR BEARINGS IN THE WORLD. BUT WE MUST ALSO SURVIVE IN A WORLD OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS AND COMPETING WILLS AND VARYING PERCEPTIONS OF RIGHT OR WRONG.

OUR CHALLENGE IS TO STEER A COURSE BETWEEN RHETORICAL PRESCRIPTION AND A CALLOUS ACCEPTANCE OF INHUMANITY. HUMAN RIGHTS IS CLEARLY A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT OF

-42-

INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE, AND AN OBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL
LEGAL STANDARDS -- IMPORTANTLY AS A RESULT OF

AMERICAN INITIATIVES. BUT OUR EFFORT MUST
BE RELATED TO THE FULL MOSAIC OF OUR POLICY GOALS -- TO
GIVE IT A PLACE AND MEANING IN TERMS OF EVERYTHING ELSE
WE DO IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

THIS IS BY NO MEANS AN EASY TASK. AMERICANS WILL
BE WRESTLING WITH IT AS LONG AS WE ARE ENGAGED IN
FOREIGN POLICY, WHICH IS TO SAY, FOREVER. WE MUST
PRESERVE BOTH OUR TRADITIONAL ASPIRATION TO BRING ABOUT
CHANGE, AND OUR TRADITIONAL PRACTICAL SENSE ABOUT HOW TO
DO IT. WE MUST SEE TO IT THAT OUR POLICY FOSTERS
CONSTRUCTIVE AMERICAN ENGAGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE
WORLD, NOT AN IMPULSE TO RETURN TO ISOLATIONISM OR A
undifferentiated
DRIVE FOR/INTERVENTION.

-43-

[lc]

IV. **CONCLUSION**

AT THIS MOMENT, WE HAVE, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
MORE THAN A DECADE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO FORWARD AS
A UNITED PEOPLE. NO LONG AND COSTLY WAR, NO
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, CLOUDS OUR PROSPECT. WE ARE
PUTTING BEHIND US THE DESTRUCTIVE CYNICISM AND
VILIFICATION THAT HAS FOR SO LONG STAINED OUR
POLITICAL LIFE. IT IS GOOD THAT THIS IS SO. IF
AMERICA IS TO CONTRIBUTE TRULY TO PEACE IN THE
WORLD, IT MUST BE AT PEACE WITH ITSELF. WHILE WE MAY
DISAGREE SOMETIMES ABOUT MEANS, WE ALL SHARE THE SAME
DREAM OF SEEING PEACE, PROGRESS AND JUSTICE BECOME
THE INHERITANCE OF ALL MANKIND.

MOST OF THE WORLD LIVES WITHOUT THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY
AND WELLBEING THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED. THEREFORE, WE BEAR
A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY. ON OUR SHOULDERS, AND THOSE OF

-44-

OTHER FREE NATIONS, REST THE BEST HOPES FOR THE HUMAN CONDITION IN AN AGE OF TURMOIL.

[WESTERN CIVILIZATION HAS MET SUCH TESTS BEFORE. IN THE LATE 15TH CENTURY, EUROPE WAS IN A PERIOD OF DOUBT, PREOCCUPIED WITH A SENSE OF IMMINENT DISASTER. THE CITIES WHICH HAD SPARKED ITS REVIVAL FOLLOWING THE ISLAMIC CONQUESTS WERE IN DECLINE. ITS TERRITORY WAS BEING DIMINISHED BY THE DEPREDATIONS OF A POWERFUL INVADER FROM THE EAST. ITS SPIRITUAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL CENTER -- ITALY -- WAS A PREY TO ANARCHY AND DISMEMBERMENT.]

AND YET EUROPE AT THAT VERY MOMENT WAS ALREADY WELL LAUNCHED ON ONE OF THE WORLD'S PERIODS OF GREATEST POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL ADVANCE. THE RENAISSANCE, THE GREAT DISCOVERIES, THE REVIVAL OF HUMANISTIC VALUES, THE INDUSTRIAL AND DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTIONS, WERE ALL TO BRING ABOUT THE DYNAMISM OF THE WESTERN CIVILIZATION OF WHICH WE, ALL THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES, ARE HEIRS.]

-45-

[SIMILARLY TODAY,] THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES, LED BY THE UNITED STATES, POSSESS THE ASSETS TO MEET THEIR CHALLENGES. OUR NATIONS HAVE BEEN THE VANGUARD OF THE MODERN AGE. OUR SOCIETIES HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES THE VAST LABORATORY OF THE EXPERIMENT OF MODERNIZATION. ABOVE ALL, IT IS THE DEMOCRACIES THAT ORIGINATED -- AND KEEP ALIVE TODAY -- THE VISION OF POLITICAL FREEDOM, SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING FOR ALL PEOPLE'S. NONE OF US LIVES UP TO THIS VISION IDEALLY, OR ALL THE TIME. BUT THE RIGOROUS STANDARD BY WHICH WE JUDGE OURSELVES IS WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM TOTALITARIAN SOCIETIES OF THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT.

SO AS A NEW ADMINISTRATION LAUNCHES ITSELF WITH ENERGY AND CONVICTION, IT WILL HAVE BEHIND IT A NATION TEMPERED BY TRAGEDY BUT CONFIDENT OF THE FUTURE, AWARE OF ITS LIMITS BUT UNAFRAID OF ITS REACH, AND INSPIRED BY THE FAITH THAT THOUGH

Draft VII: 4/1/77

FRANK C. NASH MEMORIAL LECTURE

April 5, 1977

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Frank Nash Memorial Lecture commemorates not only an outstanding public servant but also a vital public principle.

It was established to bring together the realms of defense and
and diplomacy, the disciplines of security policy and foreign
policy. Their unity has not always been understood, particularly
in a nation such as ours whose history, until recently, brought
little experience with sustained involvement in international
affairs, and which has always preferred to prevail by the force
of its moral example rather than the strength of its arms.

Frank Nash -- as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Inter-
national Security Affairs, as arms control negotiator, and in his
many other assignments at the highest levels of government --
grasped that unity, and embodied it in his own distinguished
career.

-2-

He understood that the vast military strength
of the United States is meant to serve our goals
in the world, buttressing our efforts to build a
durable and just peace. But he also saw that
international security is the essential prerequisite
for a world that meets our highest ideals; for nations
cannot devote their energies to improving the lives
of their peoples if they live in constant fear for their
survival, integrity, and independence. Frank Nash knew
that the world's hopes both for security and for a
more humane future rest significantly upon the dedication,
fortitude and vision of the United States.

This responsibility has now fallen to a new
Administration. Knowing the heavy burdens of office --
and knowing how warmly advice from professors is
received -- I have no desire to add to the problems of

my successors. They have my sympathy and my best
wishes, It is important that they succeed. All of
us as citizens share a stake in their success. Their
achievements are the nation's achievements; their setbacks
are the nation's setbacks.

As one who witnessed foreign policy as both an
academic observer and as a practitioner, I know the
difference between the two perspectives. Policymakers
have the burden of choice, of decision, amid fast-moving
events, before the outcome is known and before all the
facts are certain. They are responsible if the worst
occurs, not only the best. They must decide among
alternatives, and must be conscious -- even if the outsider
is not -- of what consequences are being avoided as well
as what consequences ensue. Nothing is easier than to
pass judgment after the fact; nothing is more difficult
than to bear responsibility for the fate of a nation in

-4-

a world of turbulence, uncertainty and challenge.

We have not had an administration that completed a normal term without assassination, war and upheaval. Since the second term of President Eisenhower. The impact of these convulsions on our national self-confidence has been traumatic. President Carter takes office with the best chance in two decades to lead the nation toward its goals in conditions of hope. He inherits great opportunities for major progress -- in relations with allies, in SALT, in the Middle East, in Africa, in relations with China, and with the developing countries. He confronts a world of great peril. We all must do our best to help his administration succeed, for the damage done to our institutions of leadership -- and to our foreign policy -- will be profound and perhaps irreparable in case of failure.

-5-

I have always believed that the nation's foreign
policy ought to be bipartisan. Our country's course
in the world is a common national enterprise that
transcends party and personality. It involves our
country's future and indeed the future of freedom in the
world. Our foreign policy if it is to be vital must
reflect permanent values and interests. To suggest that
our foreign policy is dependent on the fluctuating political
fortunes of our parties would make the United States a
major factor of unpredictability and instability in a world
that cries out for continuity and hope. The problem
of building peace and justice is unending; it cannot be
completed by any one Administration. Those out of power
must not pretend that problems which are objectively
complex would have been less complicated in a different
administration. But neither should those in government
pretend that history began with their oath of office.

-6-

In the turmoil of the past decade, some of the
basic truths about America's role in the world have
occasionally been forgotten. Those who have the
privilege of serving this country can have no greater
goal than to assure the survival, the prosperity and
the moral growth of the people they serve. They cannot
jeopardize its survival, for that would thwart all other
purposes. But they must also strive to reach beyond,
toward higher aims. It is essential that we treat these
burdens and dilemmas with compassion; all who take part
in our national dialogue must recognize that there is no
monopoly of virtue and that differences are more likely
to be nuances than absolutes of black and white.

Therefore, I will discuss with you some of the
permanent problems that confront this nation -- problems
that any administration in office would face, and will face.

-7-

-- first, the permanent requirements of global
equilibrium and international security;

-- secondly, the present requirements of global
structure -- our relations with allies,
adversaries and the so-called non-aligned.

-- and thirdly, our need as a people to find the
long-term balance between our ideals, our
capacities and our responsibilities.

I. The Balance of Power and International Security

Our generation has witnessed a series of profound
transformations of the international order. The colonial
era that centered on Europe and lasted a century has
disintegrated; the bipolar ideological confrontation between
East and West known as the Cold War has changed its
character.

We live today in a world of some 150 sovereign nations,
with many and diverse centers of power, political, military

-8-

and economic. The Communist world has splintered
into bitter rivalries over doctrine and national
aims. As our allies have grown in strength and self-
assurance, our alliances with Western Europe and Japan
have become a balanced partnership of like-minded
democratic nations. The oil-producing countries have
become a significant economic force. The so-called
non-aligned have formed a bloc of their own, which yet
masks serious differences of national perspective and
interest. We live in a world of rampant nationalism,
ideological rivalry, diffuse economic power, regional
political conflicts and proliferating nuclear weapons.

For the first time in history the international system
is now truly global. And equally unprecedented, a
breakdown of international order has the potential to
destroy the planet. The overriding challenge of our time

is to help create new relationships -- among allies,
with adversaries, with the developing world -- to
build security and establish bonds of fruitful coopera-
tion. Out of ideological conflict we must distill a
concept of world order. Out of turbulence we must create
a global equilibrium.

The Balance of Power

Americans have never been at ease with the notion
of balance of power. Secure behind two great oceans, we
emphasized our nation's moral uniqueness and sought to
prevail above all by the superiority of our maxims. Until
the end of the Second World War, other nations took from
our shoulders the burden of difficult decisions -- of
acting against dangers while they were still marginal to
our security. But modern technology has destroyed the
option of dissociation. There are no other nations strong
enough to resist major aggression while we assess our peril.

-10-

Henceforth, security for free men depends on our
strength. Our cause should be just but justice is not
self-enforcing. We and those who depend on us can
achieve no positive ends unless we survive; and sur-
vival has its practical necessities. Equilibrium is the
pre-condition of security; security is the pre-condition
of peace; and peace is the pre-condition for the moral and
material progress of mankind. Diplomacy that ignores the
objective conditions of international equilibrium will be
doomed to disappointment and tragedy.

In the age of thermonuclear weapons and inter-
continental missiles, of incredibly complex military
technology and continuing scientific revolution, the
problem of assessing the requirements of security takes
on unprecedented complexity. Competition drives the forces
of both sides to higher and higher levels of numbers,
sophistication and destructive power. Beneath the umbrella

-11-

of strategic stalemate, political contention continues,
and new opportunities for regional aggression and
pressures grow.

In this environment, certain basic realities must
be understood.

First, the overall military balance _must_ be maintained.
No sovereign nation willingly entrusts its destiny to the
forebearance of others, especially those whose values
are antithetical. An imbalance of power against us,
real or perceived, will alter the calculations of
friends, foes, and neutrals about their prospects. The
West's ability to shape events will sharply diminish.

This nation has a vital stake in the global
balance of power not in spite of but precisely because we
care deeply about the cause of freedom and the fate of our

-12-

ideals. President Carter put it well in his Inaugural
Address: "We do not seek to intimidate, but it is clear
that a world which others can dominate with impunity would be
inhospitable to decency and a threat to the wellbeing
of all people."

Second, as the Soviet Union gains in industrial
strength and technological sophistication, its military
power inevitably increases. The gradual steady growth of
a country of continental size, determined to expand its
strength and willing to impose enormous sacrifices on its
people to do so, is neither new nor surprising. But the
uses of Soviet power, the conduct of Soviet leaders, can
be influenced, perhaps decisively, by Western action.

The Soviet leadership prides itself on its appreciation
of what it calls the objective factors, which is a
Marxist way of describing the realities of the balance
of forces. The responsibility of the free nations is to

-13-

make the sacrifices necessary to maintain this perception.

Whatever the Soviet leaders' long-term ambition, we and our allies have the resources to prevent an imbalance from arising. Though we cannot be ahead of the Soviet Union in every category of military power, it is intolerable for the free nations to be behind in every significant category of power without suffering profound political consequences. Diplomacy, no matter how subtle, cannot operate in conditions of impotence. Matching Soviet power in realistic ways that remove the incentive for aggression is the pre-condition of all effective policy.

Third, we must remember that regional defense has been maintained in Europe and in Asia largely because of the American commitment of forces and material. At a time of emerging stalemate in strategic forces, the United States must take care not to create new regional

-14-

vacuums. If the sense of security of our friends
is undermined, we risk dramatic shifts in political
alignments all over the world. The world will not be
a safer or more humane place if American power is
withdrawn unilaterally. On the contrary, an American
retreat not reciprocated by the other side is likely
to have consequences extending far beyond the fate
of the countries most immediately concerned.

Fourth, the unimaginable destructiveness of modern
weapons imposes a sobering obligation on the policy-
makers of the two nuclear superpowers. Under no
foreseeable circumstance could the United States -- or
the Soviet Union -- avoid tens of million dead in a
strategic nuclear exchange. No leaders in history have
faced a decision of this kind. The arms race continues
because an inferiority is intolerable, and because neither
side can step off the treadmill unilaterally. The attempt

-15-

to hedge against all contingencies, no matter how
farfetched, fuels both the arms race and political
tensions. Defense planning itself becomes enormously
difficult without some elements of predictability in
the fast-moving strategic weapons environment. An
unrestrained strategic arms race diverts defense resources
into unproductive areas, away from forces for regional
defense, where weaknesses and imbalances could indeed
be turned rapidly to our disadvantage.

For these reasons, the United States has sought --
through administrations of both parties -- arms
control agreements which build some mutual restraint
into nuclear rivalry. It is in the American interest,
and the global interest, that a balanced, long-term
strategic arms limitation agreement be achieved, capping
the arms race and beginning the process of reductions.
President Carter in his quest for arms limitation and

-16-

reduction deserves the support of all concerned with the
future of mankind.

We must not be discouraged by temporary setbacks,
which have been characteristic also of previous nego-
tiations. The problem is as difficult as the technology
which spawned it. Efforts must proceed in a calm,
measured way without headlines and without rhetoric.
THE limitation of arms is not a favor one side does for
the other. It should not need to be purchased by
abandoning basic convictions nor made more difficult by
turning it into a public test of manhood.

In negotiating arms limitation, we must keep in
mind that power has a psychological as well as a
physical component. American nuclear weapons have been
at the heart of NATO defense strategy since the Alliance
was created; the Security Treaty with Japan is founded on
the American nuclear guarantee. Horrendous as nuclear

-17-

weapons are, we must not raise doubt about our ultimate readiness to use them; otherwise we shall call into question the very security arrangements by which our friends have relied on the American nuclear shield and foresworn nuclear weapons themselves. We must not put nuclear weapons in a special category until other means of defense are in place to substitute for them in the maintenance of regional security.

## II. Global Structure and International Peace:

### Challenges and Opportunities

America's role of leadership has proved to be of pivotal importance. Progress has been made in bringing regions in turmoil closer to peace and bringing a turbulent world closer to a peaceful international order.

If we are to contribute wisely and effectively, we must define our interests and gauge our capacities with care.

As Walter Lippmann expressed it: "...a policy has been

formed only when commitments and power have been
brought into balance."

## Industrial Democracies

The industrial democracies, with over half of the world's resources but representing only a small minority in the council of nations, have a special responsibility. They need above all a common conception of their permanent and inescapable stake in the global condition and of the practical measures that their peoples will sustain.

Thus the first priority of American foreign policy must be to maintain the ties of alliance that bind us to the industrial democracies. The essence of these relationships is not the formal legal commitment but the common values and perception of common interests nurtured by frequent and close consultation. In recent years our cooperation with our principal allies in the

-19-

Atlantic Community and Japan has been broadened
beyond security to embrace economic cooperation and
coordination of East-West diplomacy and relations with
the Third World. President Carter should be supported
in continuing the practice of allied summit meetings
on economic and political issues that President Ford
began. The new administration has an opportunity to deepen
this collaboration so that it demonstrates to all our
peoples the vitality of free societies and our ability to
master our own destiny. President Carter's meetings with
the leaders of the other industrial democracies followed
by a NATO Summit open very hopeful prospects.

Inevitably at the beginning of an Administration,
allies observe sometimes with amazement, sometimes with
unease, how their desire for continuity is tested against
the desire to make a fresh start. This process, which is
the essence of the way free peoples deal with their
future, can result in great dynamism -- especially if we
restrain the temptation to dig up all the trees to

-20-

check whether their roots are still there.

The industrial democracies owe it to themselves
to spare no effort to maintain the vitality of their
relationships. They face great opportunities and grave
perils. The opportunity is that security and progress
depends on the dynamism of their cooperation. No one
of the industrial democracies is able to solve its
problems either international or domestic by its own
efforts. World order as well as domestic stability
depends on their cooperation. Together they face the
following tasks:

-- For two decades our allies have avoided facing
the problem that an approaching nuclear stalemate
requires greater efforts to strengthen regional
defense. The stalemate is now upon us. The
problem can no longer be evaded. Detente is

not a substitute for adequate defense efforts;
it can only grow out of them.

-- East-West diplomacy requires coordinated policies in all fields but especially in trade and credits. The industrial democracies should examine their credit and trade policies from the perspective of their contribution to world order.

-- The industrial democracies should develop further the mechanisms of their own cooperation and work in close parallel in major international conferences.

-- The industrial democracies require a clear long-range strategy for development.

-- Even as we strive for new approaches, the United States owes its allies an understanding of their concerns -- especially with respect to the impact of unilateral American decisions on their domestic fabrics. Because of the enormous disparity of

-22-

power and their very real economic dependence,
they may yield to American proposals which they
perceive as inevitable, even if they have profound
reservations. Changes in American troop deployment
can have major political consequences for them,
not always to be compensated for by reaffirmations
of American commitments. Changes in the American
attitude towards domestic developments and the tacit
encouragement of trends considered inevitable in
Washington can make a difficult situation irreversible.

-- By the same token, our allies owe it to us to take
seriously concerns we put forward in the general
interest -- even if they consider the tactics
impetuous. For example, the Administration is
surely right in emphasizing the view that the
unconstrained proliferation of nuclear technology

-23-

will inevitably lead to the gravest dangers
for all mankind. We must not let future generations
say of us that we doomed them to perpetual peril
because we would not relate commerical considerations
to the necessities of human survival. The industrial
democracies must set an example and solve this
problem in the very near future before they
become the prisoners of events.

-- Above all, the industrial democracies must
answer for their peoples a question on which the
future of freedom may well depend; otherwise
having debunked authority, our society may seek
refuge in false simplifications, or extremist
panaceas. How do we inspire a new generation with a
sense of purpose in societies of impersonal
institutions? How do we mobilize faith without turning
to demagoguery, and cooperation without encouraging
totalitarianism? Thus the deepest problem of
free peoples cannot be solved by any of them alone.

-24-

There can be no international peace and no durable inter-
national system without a stable relationship between the
United States and the Soviet Union. It is the intense moral con-
flict between two incompatible systems which, in the nuclear age,
raises the problem of US-Soviet relations to the level of life
and death.

As President Kennedy pointed out:

> "...in the final analysis our most basic common link is
> that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe
> the same air. We all cherish our children's future.
> And we are all mortal."

For as far ahead as we can see, the inescapable necessity
of American foreign policy will be to conduct the US-Soviet
rivalry -- and promote our values and interests -- in the
shadow of nuclear danger. This is a problem that cannot be
ended by one agreement. Its essence cannot be affected by one
diplomatic disappointment.

-25-

Our generation has been traumatized by the lessons of World War II, when an imbalance of power produced upheaval and war. We must take care that this experience is not repeated, but we must also remember that equilibrium alone is not sufficient. World War I, which undermined the political structure of Europe and the world, erupted in spite of an equilibrium of power. The major nations drifted from crisis to crisis confident in the efficacy of confrontation based on accumulated arms, because each previous crisis had been resolved; until finally political leaders lost control of their military decisions over an issue not different from many that had been successfully resolved previously. We cannot permit this to happen again, for none of our societies will be the same after a nuclear holocaust.

We are forced, therefore, to conduct a dual policy:

- first, to resist Soviet adventures and make clear by our strength and determination that attempts to

-26-

spread Soviet influence by military means will
be resisted.

— second, to moderate Soviet conduct by engaging the
Soviet Union in constructive participation in the
international system.

All policy starts with containment of Soviet power, but
containment is not an end in itself. We must build upon a
secure balance of power habits of mutual restraint, co-
existence, and ultimately, cooperation. We have an historic
obligation to mankind to engage the Soviet Union in settlements
of concrete political issues, in developing practices of con-
sultation, in expanding cooperative relations in many technical
areas, and in working together to push back the specter of
nuclear catastrophe. We owe it to our children to bequeath
to them a world with more hope than a mere balance of terror
constantly contested. And if confrontations should prove in-
evitable, our people will resist with the determination that

-27-

springs from the confidence that their government explored
every avenue to peace and from the confidence that there was
no decent alternative.

But the Soviet Union must understand the true nature of
this effort. True detente must be built on _strict_ reciprocity.
Attempts to use it for unilateral advantage, to demoralize the
free countries while scoring geopolitical gains, will be
countered and can only lead to confrontation. Restraint cannot
be the obligation of only one side. Whatever the details of
the current invasion of Zaire, it is clear that the attack
took place across a sovereign border from a country whose
government was installed by Soviet arms and Soviet proxy
military forces. It could not have happened and it would
not continue without the material support or acquiescence
of the Soviet Union -- _whether or not_ Cuban troops are present.
Such an action sets a dangerous precedent; it cannot continue

-28-

without sooner or later overstepping the bounds of American
tolerance. And resistance to hegemonial aspirations will
never be treated as a partisan issue in the United States.

Equally important for international stability is the
relationship between the United States and the People's Republic
of China. After the breakthrough in 1971, the two countries
committed themselves to move towards normalization. In the
meantime, they share a common concern about preventing hege-
monial ambitions to be realized. The US relationship with
the People's Republic of China must be carefully fostered through
consultation, strengthened ties and the reciprocal fulfillment
of existing obligations.

At the core of the challenge of world order today is the
evolving relationship between the industrial and the developing
nations.

In military terms the globe is still essentially bipolar,
but economic power is dispersed among many nations and regions.

-29-

The international economic system that sustained world
prosperity for a generation is tested by new forces and new
problems on a global scale. The gulf between the industrial
nations and the developing world is now a central concern of
international diplomacy. A world in which a few nations are
an island of wealth in an ocean of hopeless poverty and in-
creasing misery is bound to become a seedbed of revolutionary
upheaval.

A paradox of our time and a challenge to world order is
the pervasive spread of nationalism and its simultaneous --
and growing -- inadequacy. New blocs have sprung up -- the
so-called non-aligned -- at the same time that we see new
tensions *within* these blocs. Ideology produces pressures for
polarization while necessity teaches that the economic demands
of the less developed can only be met by pragmatic cooperation
between industrial and developing nations. Confrontational
tactics alienate the very peoples whose help is required if
Third World aspirations are to have any hope of being met.

-30-

If world order is to be achieved, these trends must be overcome. Progress and stability are possible only if the international system can embrace the interests and aspirations of the new nations. But this is possible only on the basis of cooperation, not confrontation.

The United States has played -- and I am sure will continue to play perhaps with even renewed emphasis -- a role of leadership in the North-South dialogue. It does so as a matter of self-interest as well as moral conviction. The United States could survive in a world of economic warfare and irreconcilable division better than any other nation. But our hopes for a world of peace and progress would be shattered.

The objectives of the developing nations are clear: They want economic development, a role in international decisions that affect them, and a fair share of global economic benefits. The industrialized nations, for their part, want to see widening prosperity, an open world system of trade and investment,

-31-

expanding markets, and reliable development of the world's
energy resources and raw materials. Economic reality makes these
goals complementary. Political reality makes them achievable
only by international collaboration.

The very diffusion of economic power in the modern era
is the fruit of open global economic institutions and practices.
The crises of recent years have taught us that the system's
progress is not automatic; it is fragile and vulnerable to
disruptions, both natural and man-made. But they have also
taught us that these institutions are flexible and that they
can be adapted to the needs of global prosperity. This
generation is challenged to adapt the system to new needs and
aspirations -- to broaden and reform the global economy to
reflect the new economic and political realities of our time.

The developing nations need from us, the industrial
democracies, not breastbeating confessions of guilt but in-
telligent and realistic proposals that merge the interests
of both in an expanding world economy. The industrial democracies

-32-

must coordinate their own efforts better, to avoid either
duplication or the competitive currying of favor with un-
realistic proposals. They should work out a clear long-term
strategy for development, bringing together with better
understanding the many key elements of the development process --
aid, trade, technology transfer, financial policy, and the
national effort of the developing country. The industrial
nations should not negotiate only on the agenda put forward
by others, but should offer their own creativity, experience,
and insight. The developing countries, for their part, must
not seek to extort by blackmail what can be gained in great
part freely by collaboration. Shocks to the world economic
system, we have learned, redound to the detriment of the poorer
nations most of all.

A foundation has been laid. The North-South dialogue is
well begun. The industrial democracies, whose role is crucial
to the process of development, have an opportunity to shape a

positive network of relations, economic and political, for
the next generation. This is an opportunity for statesmanship
and for a contribution of fundamental importance for the future
of the planet. President Carter's journey to Europe in a
month's time to meet with the other leaders of the industrial
democracies will be an important contribution to this process.

### III. World Peace and American Ideals

Americans have never seen their country as just another
nation-state pursuing its own grandeur and material success.
America has always had a sense of mission, believing it had
a purpose beyond itself -- to embody the ideal of freedom, to
give relief to the hungry and haven to the oppressed from
other lands, to serve the cause of democracy world-wide as an
example or a champion. All that this nation has done in the
search for peace, in building cooperation, in promoting world
prosperity, is rooted in the conviction that only in liberty
and justice can mankind aspire to its highest goals.

-34-

As America grew in strength, it grew restless with its power. We have oscillated between denying its importance, being ashamed of it, and expecting too much from it. Conscious of our uniqueness and taking for granted the benefits conferred on us by distance, we attributed our success at home to our moral values more than to our material good fortune. We shunned involvement in a world less pure.

Until the end of World War II, our moral aspirations produced isolationism. We imagined that generosity in relief efforts and participation in the world economic order were an adequate substitute for political engagement. Our tradition of law led us to promote legal solutions to international conflict -- arbitration, adjudication, disarmament agreements, neutrality legislation, international organizations for collective security. We believed that political conflict had accidental and not fundamental causes -- the ambitions of shortsighted men rather than the imperatives of survival. Many

-35-

argued that weapons -- or "munitions makers" -- instead of being
means of defense, caused wars, and that intelligence activities
were sordid and unnecessary. The failure of other nations to
meet our standards of democracy and liberty only intensified
our revulsion at any involvement or concern for their security.

I stress these convictions of an isolationist past because
some of the themes are recurrent in contemporary debates.

When aroused to join and triumph in two world wars, we
clothed our own clear security interest in preventing Europe
from falling under the domination of one continental power in
the mantle of abstract principle -- our genuine horror at
tyranny. But in peacetime, and still today, America has
traditionally been loath to face a world of imperfect security,
alliances of necessity, recurrent challenges, and the need for
a political structure that would secure the peace.

The contemporary challenge does not allow us the luxury
of involving ourselves in the world only at the last moment,

-36-

or of fluctuating wildly between isolation and overextension.

Barely four years have passed since our disengagement from Vietnam; where we were then being urged to foreswear the crusading spirit that drew us into another country's affairs, today many advocate global moral crusades. We must never lose sight of the fact that we must navigate between overextension and abdication, both compelled by essentially the same moral claims, one leading to crusades because the world is not good enough for us, and the other to withdrawal because we are too good for it. We should not forget that the most serious errors of American foreign policy in this century -- our isolation and our overinvolvement -- both stemmed from undifferentiated moral zeal.

We cannot choose between our ideals and global security.

We cannot serve either unless we serve both. We must be true to our principles, or else we will lose our bearings in the world.

But we must also survive in a world of sovereign nations and competing wills. Our morality must be a source of strength, not an alibi for inaction; for from it comes the courage to stay the course as we navigate amid ambiguity and complex choices.

In fact, America has been most successful when it combined both idealism and pragmatism. Though the moral impulse and the pragmatic inclination have been in tension with one another, through many periods of our national life, our endeavors in the world prospered most when they were creatively combined -- from the days of our Founding Fathers who understood the European balance of power and used it with sophistication to secure our independence, to the great American initiatives after the Second World War.

Clearly, as the world's leading democracy we have a profound concern with the cause of human freedom. But any national objective requires for its realization recognition

of what is possible and a readiness to pay the necessary price.

To be truly moral is to concern ourselves with the consequences of our action.

We must begin by recognizing that the goal of human rights is not new nor has it ever been an issue. The approach of the previous Administration was to link human values and political relations through quiet diplomacy. The combination of deliberately unpublicized efforts by government, and popular and Congressional expressions of concern, achieved considerable successes.

The Soviet exit tax on emigrants was withdrawn; Jewish emigration grew from 400 a year in 1968 to 35,000 by 1973, as a concomitant to improved US-Soviet political relations. The release of the courageous Soviet dissident Bukovsky in exchange for the Chilean Communist leader imprisoned in Chile was arranged through American intercession, as was the release of other

-39-

notable hardship cases. Hundreds of prisoners have been released from the jails of other nations. American policy helped enshrine basic principles of human rights in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe -- providing an indisputable legal basis for raising the issue of human rights in international forums.

The present Administration has chosen a more confrontational approach. This has clearly touched a responsive chord among the American people, and it has heartened courageous men and women around the world who yearn for a ray of hope.

But it would be a mistake to assume that this course occurs in a vacuum. We have, as a nation, many moral duties in the world, and they are all closely related. Maintaining the global equilibrium, to resolve political conflicts and ease tensions, promoting an open and progressive world economy, and championing human rights -- are all compelling and inescapable tasks for this country. Some of these issues are linked by

-40-

reality, others by policy. If they are linked by reality,
they cannot be unlinked by unilateral statements. A collapse
of the balance of power will undermine the cohesion of the
democratic alliances, thwart attempts to ease regional tensions,
weaken the world economy, and certainly set back the cause of
human rights. Policy toward the Soviet Union -- to take another
example -- cannot be treated in isolation from our policy toward
China; our relations with China, in turn, cannot be divorced
from our dedication to maintaining the geopolitical balance
around the world. The art of foreign policy is to understand
which policies are dependent on others and which can be con-
ducted in isolation, and if they are conducted in isolation, what
price we are willing to pay for them.

I am not inclined to believe that the recent deadlock in
SALT conversations was caused by the Administration's actions
on human rights -- indeed I do not believe that the deadlock

-41-

was a cosmic event but rather part of the inevitable develop-
ment of a negotiation. What concerns me more is that to the
degree that we unlink our policies, they will be deprived of
effectiveness; other nations may conclude that we will confine
ourselves to pronouncements which we will not back up. In that
case, over time it could lead to a demonstration of impotence.
Or else they may decide to establish a reverse linkage. They
may refuse to treat our pronouncements in isolation from our
overall relations, whatever our intention -- this has already
occurred in some countries of Latin America.

National discussion should therefore not focus on the goals
of human rights but on the efficacy of means. Any human rights
policy must answer the following questions:

What price in other relations are we prepared to pay for
our pronouncements? Specifically, what pressures, if any, are
we prepared to bring for our convictions?

-42-

If we try to keep it separate from our other policies --
if we are not willing to draw consequences -- what practical
result do we hope for from our declarations?

Will practical measures be taken against ideological
adversaries or only against friendly nations?

If we treat human rights as standing alone, do we not
risk over time producing a sense of impotence among those we are
seeking to help and a bond of community among the diverse nations
we criticize?

Will this effort over time foster constructive American
engagement and responsibility in the world, or the impulse of
American isolationism?

Our responsibility in the field of human rights, as with
any other objective, is to steer a course between quixotic
crusades and callous acceptance of brutality. Human rights
is now a legitimate subject of international discourse, but
it must be related to the mosaic of our entire policy and it

-43-

must be capable of practical expression over a period of time.

There is no simple formula. Americans will be wrestling with these dilemmas as along as we are engaged in foreign policy, which is to say, forever. We must preserve both our traditional aspiration to bring about change, and our traditional practical sense about how to do it. The Administration has done well to raise the issue in public consciousness. It now remains to integrate it into the spectrum of our foreign policy.

## IV. Conclusion

At this moment, we have, for the first time in more than a decade, an opportunity to go forward as a united people.

No long and costly war, no constitutional crisis, cloud our horizon or hinder our path.

Nothing is more essential than to put behind us the destructive cynicism and vilification that stained our political life for the last decade. For this nation to contribute truly to peace in the world, it must be at peace with itself. It is

-44-

time to remind ourselves that, while we may disagree sometimes
about means, as Americans we all share the same dream of seeing
peace, progress and justice become the inheritance of all man-
kind.

Most of the world lives without the blessings of liberty
and wellbeing that we take for granted. Therefore, we bear a
special responsibility. On our shoulders, and those of other
free nations, rest the prospects of human values.

Western civilization has met such tests before. In the
late 15th century, Europe was in a period of gloomy introspection,
preoccupied with a sense of despair and mortality. The cities
which had sparked its revival following the Islamic conquests
were in decline. Its territory was being diminished by the
depredations of a powerful invader from the East. Its spiritual,
economic, and cultural center -- Italy -- was a prey to anarchy
and dismemberment.

-45-

And yet Europe at that very moment was already well
launched on one of the world's periods of greatest political and
intellectual advance. The Renaissance, the great discoveries,
the revival of humanistic values, the industrial and democratic
revolutions, were all to bring about the dynamism of the Western
civilization of which we, all the industrial democracies, are
heirs.

Similarly today, the industrial democracies possess the
assets to meet their challenges. Our nations have been the
vanguard of the modern age. Our societies have proven
themselves the vast laboratory of the experiment of modernization.
Above all, it is the democracies that originated -- and keep alive
today -- the vision of political freedom, social justice, and
economic well-being for all peoples. None of us lives up to
this vision ideally, or all the time. But the rigorous standard
by which we judge ourselves is what makes us different from
totalitarian societies of the left or the right.

-46-

So as a new Administration launches itself with energy
and conviction, it will have behind it a people tempered by
tragedy but confident of its future, aware of its limits but
unafraid of its reach, and inspired by its conviction that
though the task may be unending, the striving for justice,
freedom, prosperity and decency is the moving force of all our
action.

Thank you.