DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L.C]

June 23, 1975

No. 342

As Prepared for Delivery

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AT 10:00 P.M. EDT MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1975. EMBARGOED FOR WIRE
TRANSMISSION UNTIL 6:00 P.M. EDT MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1975. NOT TO BE PREVIOUSLY PUB-
LISHED, QUOTED FROM OR USED IN ANY WAY.

ADDRESS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE
SOUTHERN COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
AND THE ATLANTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

June 23, 1975

CONSTANCY AND CHANGE IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

We meet at a time when America, as so often before in its history, is
turning a time of testing into a period of renewal.

Less than three months ago under the impact of our disappointments in
Indochina some were questioning the very nature of our involvement in
world affairs. The Executive and the Congress seemed to be heading for
a stalemate on foreign policy.

But paradoxically our setbacks have brought home to us -- as well as the
rest of the world -- how essential America is to the peace and prosperity
of mankind. And at home the dialogue between our two coequal branches
of government is taking place in a more constructive atmosphere.

We have every reason to face our future with confidence. The United
States still stands as the greatest democracy the world has ever known.
Our institutions have withstood extraordinary turmoil and dissension
and have emerged vital and strong. Whatever our disappointments we have
reason for pride in our achievements. If there is peace in the world
today, our sacrifice has been decisive; if there is to be progress, our
contribution will be essential.

We have learned irrevocably the central fact of the modern world; our
security, our well-being, our very existence are intimately bound up
with the kind of international environment we shall succeed in building.

PR #342

-2-

If the weakness of free peoples tempts aggression, the lives of Americans will be in danger. If the disunity of free peoples invites economic chaos, the well-being of Americans will be in jeopardy. As the energy crisis surely has taught us, we live in an interdependent world -- a world in which words such as "isolation" and "withdrawal" grow ever more anachronistic.

Thus we are not about to reverse the course of the last 30 years, retreat from our commitments, and leave our friends and allies to fend for themselves in the vacuum our actions would inevitably create. We shall not invite chaos. On the contrary, before us is a new opportunity to achieve peace and progress greater than even our recent past.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has undertaken a role of world leadership which has had the support of both parties and all Administrations. That policy has preserved peace and freedom; it has sustained global stability and the global economy. Indeed it is our very accomplishments that have created the new conditions -- and problems -- which we must now face.

- America's assistance to the post-war recovery of Western Europe and Japan, and our defensive shield, promoted the resurgence of those allies as strong and independent pillars of the free world.

- The international economic system -- the trading and monetary relationships created by American leadership at Bretton Woods in 1944 -- has fostered economic progress not only in the industrial democracies but in every quarter of the globe.

- The inexorable process of decolonization which we encouraged, and our pioneering efforts in technical and economic assistance for development, have helped scores of new nations launch their own national progress.

Foreign policy is a process. It knows no plateaus. What does not become a point of departure for a new advance soon turns first into stagnation and then into retreat. Thus the achievements of the past generation have created the agenda for the next decades:

- The growing strength and self confidence of our allies requires the adaptation of our alliances from American tutelage to equal partnership.

- The growing destructiveness of nuclear weapons requires an alternative to policies of confrontation and an easing of international tensions.

- The interdependence of the world economy must lead to increased cooperation among the industrialized nations and a greater recognition of the concerns of the developing countries.

PR #342

-3-

This agenda is vast. But there are not many periods of history when man can see clearly the outline of his own future and shape it to his ends. We have it in our power to lay the foundation of a new international structure -- in which nations no longer fear domination, in which negotiation replaces confrontation, and in which the fulfillment of basic human needs becomes a central concern on the agenda of international diplomacy.

A world of over 140 nations is a world of unimagined diversity and complexity. But it is also a world of enormous potential. A world of pluralism, of spreading ideas, of independent states free to choose their destiny, is a world of hope and an opportunity for fresh creation.

And the United States will always be mindful of its responsibilities. We have learned our limits, but we have not forgotten our possibilities. We are the world's largest democratic nation; we are the greatest single concentration of economic and military power; we are the nation with the most experience at organizing international cooperation; we are the major influence in global communication. If we do not lead, no other nation that stands for what we believe in can take our place.

## The Elements of America's Strength

What then is required of us? What are the elements of our strength?

First of all, we must maintain the bedrock of our security. While foreign policy must reach beyond military concerns, there can be no substitute for maintaining our own defenses and the objective conditions of our security. An equilibrium of power is essential to any stable international order. A world in which the survival of nations is at the mercies of others is a world of insecurity, instability, and oppression.

America's military strength has always been used to defend, never to oppress. At home, we have already adapted our defense budget to accord with our national priorities. In terms of its portion of the Federal budget and of the Gross National Product, our defense spending is at the lowest level in 25 years. Yet the trend of military programs of our potential adversaries is in the direction of expansion. Therefore there is an irreducible minimum below which we cannot go without allowing important interests of the United States and its allies to be endangered. We will seek prudent measures of arms control to enhance our security. But this Administration is determined never to allow the military defenses of the United States to be dismantled.

We strive to create the conditions for accommodation and reconciliation of differences with adversaries. But conciliation must not flow from weakness; flexibility is a virtue only in those who are thought to have an alternative.

Secondly, we have also learned that all our objectives -- our security, our well-being, the cohesion of our alliances, and the health of the international environment -- depend to a remarkable degree on the health

PR #342

-4-

of the American economy. This is, rightly, an immediate concern of every American; it is also the engine of economic growth worldwide, and therefore an international responsibility.

The recession and inflation of the last two years have had ominous international consequences -- which now we are on the way to remedying. Recession and inflation eat away at the well-being and hopes of groups on the margin of prosperity. They breed disunity at home, drain the energies of nations away from international concerns, and complicate the harmony of international relations. At home, they undermine social peace, confidence in government, and the vitality of democratic processes. Abroad, economic strains tempt the governments of the industrial nations into protectionism or measures of rivalry and threaten an era of bloc economic warfare between rich nations and poor.

Yet no government acting alone has a possibility of correcting the fundamental economic conditions that beset it. In the modern world, our economies are tied together; we prosper or decline together. The restoration of growth offers our best hope of accommodating the aspirations of all who compete for betterment of their own future. It frees resources for meeting all national needs. It restores faith in democratic institutions and democratic leaders.

The position of the American economy is central. As the President said in his State of the Union address in January: "A resurgent American economy would do more to restore the confidence of the world in its own future than anything else we can do." We shall do what is required.

Finally, our national strength depends on our unity as a people. There is no limit to what free men can accomplish acting together.

In the last quarter of this century, we are no longer preponderant. We can no longer overwhelm our problems with our resources; the diversity and complexity of the world no longer offer moral simplicity. We are, therefore, called upon, as never before, to show purpose, coherence, flexibility and imagination in the conduct of our foreign affairs.

We must be one nation, one government. Our institutions must moderate special interests in the definition of a national interest. We must have the self-discipline to shape our domestic debates into a positive, not a destructive process. We must attack our problems and not each other. We can no longer afford disunity, disarray, or disruption in the conduct of our foreign affairs.

The consensus which sustained an enlightened involvement in foreign affairs for more than a generation is one of our most precious national resources. We are on the way to restoring our unity and therefore our capacity to act as a confident nation. We shall spare no effort to continue this process so that we will face our third century and its challenges as a united people.

PR #342

-5-

Today's Agenda

Let me now turn to our agenda and describe the design of our policy.

Alliances: Our allies and friends remain our first international priorit

What unites us and our allies are not simply the treaties signed a gener-
ation ago but the inescapable necessities of the present world. In
recent weeks we have reaffirmed our commitment to our alliances. We
have made clear that the United States will stand by its obligations
in Asia as well as in Europe. But what gives life to our alliances is
not verbal reaffirmation but the reality of common action in response
to common problems. We must find common purpose in challenges beyond
the necessities of military defense.

This is why last week I outlined, on behalf of the President, the agenda
for our close relationship with Japan and Asia. This is why on his
trip to Europe the President outlined the issues facing all the nations
of the Western Alliance. The tasks which the President set before the
NATO Summit could serve as the agenda for all our alliances:

-- we must maintain a strong, modern and credible defense; an
alliance that does not have the vigor and dedication to
defend itself fails in its primary purpose;

-- we must improve the quality and integrity of our political relations; participation and responsibility must be un-qualified if they are to be credible;

-- we must improve our political consultation to develop common policies to deal with common problems;

-- we must work together in setting a productive and realistic agenda for the easing of tensions;

-- we must look to the health of our democratic institutions;

-- we must understand that the industrialized societies hold the key to the world's new problems of population, food, energy development, raw materials.

Urgent, cooperative action is needed on all these issues. Alliances
must be adjusted to changing security requirements or they will disin-
tegrate. They must reflect common political objectives and a common
strategy for attaining them, or their defensive capability will lack a
sense of purpose. Therefore, we attach great importance to improved
political consultations. And we must never forget that strong domestic
institutions ultimately provide the best protection against subversion
as well as the sinews for defense against aggression.

PR #342

-6-

Progress has been made but much work remains. On the central problem of economic growth, allied leaders have begun to coordinate national economic policies to an unprecedented degree.

On the vital subject of energy, the industrial nations created the International Energy Agency, to pool the efforts of the major consumers. We have agreed on safeguards against new oil emergencies; we have established a $25 billion solidarity fund to ensure against monetary dislocations due to the massive payments imbalances caused by energy costs; we have launched new programs of conservation of existing supplies and the development of alternative sources. We are building the foundation for a constructive dialogue with the energy producers looking toward a fair and equitable long-term economic relationship.

This remains a priority concern. We are determined to end our vulnerability to external decisions or external pressures. As the economies of the industrialized nations begin again to expand, the necessity for energy conservation and development of new energy sources becomes more urgent. Without determined efforts now, the expansion of demand will give free rein to the producers' ability to maintain or raise the price of oil or to use the supply of energy for political purposes.

The national interest demands a comprehensive and effective energy program. The President will work with the Congress to obtain it; but if that effort fails he will exercise the authority he has to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

In our political relations, we and our allies both have an obligation to a common interest. We do not assist others in their defense as an act of charity but in our mutual interest. For us to terminate military assistance or even sales to an ally is basically self-defeating. We weaken the political ties, endanger our collective defense, and also fail to achieve whatever purpose the aid restriction was meant to serve. For this reason, the President has strongly opposed the Congressional cut-off of military aid to Turkey and is now working hard with the Congress to bring about its immediate restoration.

-7-

PR #342

By the same token, no country should imagine that it is doing us a
favor be remaining in an alliance with us. Any ally whose perception
of its national interest changes will find us prepared to adapt or
end our treaty relationship. No ally can pressure us by a threat of
termination; we will not accept that its security is more important
to us than it is to itself.

We assume that our friends regard their ties to us as serving their
own national purposes, not as privileges to be granted and withdrawn
as means of pressure. Where this is not the mutual perception, then
clearly it is time for change. Where it is the common view, the U.S.
will remain a steady friend. We regard our alliances as the corner-
stone of our foreign policy and the essential pillars of the structure
of international stability.

**Easing of Tensions:** However fundamental our alliances, we recognize that a peace that rests solely on a balance of forces and off-setting blocs is fragile and sterile. We are committed, therefore, to continue the effort to improve relations with the Communist powers. In the thermonuclear age, there is no alternative to a serious effort to ease tensions on a reliable and reciprocal basis.

Therefore, in the past few years we have taken a number of practical
steps to regularize our relations with the Soviet Union. The objective
has been, in our own interest, to reduce the danger of war and to
encourage new patterns of relations and international conduct.

This process proceeds on several levels. We have negotiated balanced
and effective agreements to limit strategic weapons on both sides and
in other areas of arms control.

In our bilateral relations, we have reached a number of agreements for
economic and technical cooperation, agreements that provide benefits to
both sides and give both sides a stake in the continuation of a
positive relationship.

In resolving political conflicts in vital areas where we are both
engaged directly, such as Europe, we have reached an agreement in 1971
to make Berlin more secure. We are now engaged in comprehensive
negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions and on the
broader questions of security and cooperation in Europe.

In other areas of the world such as the Middle East, South and South-
east Asia, the course of U.S.-Soviet relations has been uneven. There
have been cases where tensions have, in our view, been exacerbated
needlessly. Thus, while we have made significant progress in our
relations with the Soviet Union over the past six years, we have done
so without illusion. The USSR remains our ideological and political
rival. Should it seek to use detente as a device for selective
exploitation of strategic opportunities the entire fabric of our
evolving relationship will be brought into question.

At the same time, it is vital to maintain our perspective. We must never
lost sight of the fact that war between nuclear superpowers risks the

-8-

PR #342

(L)

extinction of mankind. We are ideological opponents; technology
drives our competition; political conflict around the world pulls us
into rivalry. If humanity is not to live constantly at the edge of
an abyss and eventually to be consumed by its technology, we must
take care to nurture mutual restraint which has been so painfully
built up, guarding against the tendency to use our improving relation-
ship with the USSR as the whipping boy for our frustrations. Detente
can never be a substitute for our own efforts; where our own efforts
flag we should not blame the resultant setbacks on our adversaries.
International events in a turbulent world, and domestic conditions in
many countries are sufficient explanation for many problems. We
should not exaggerate Soviet influence by blaming all difficulties on
them. The experience of Indochina should have taught us that it is
easier to start confrontations than to sustain them. Tough rhetoric
is not the same as sustained strong action. We will defend our
vital interests and those of our allies uncompromisingly. But we
can do so effectively over an extended period of time only if our
people know that we have first pursued untiringly all conceivable
alternatives to confrontation.

The principal item on the U.S.-Soviet agenda today is SALT -- the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. We are actively engaged in working out a new agreement based on the principles already agreed by the President and General Secretary Brezhnev in Vladivostok last November. If we can resolve the issues that still remain between us -- and I believe we can -- we will for the first time in history have placed a ceiling on the nuclear arms race.

Our new relationship with the People's Republic of China is now a
durable feature of the world scene. It serves our respective interests
and the broader interests of peace and stability in Asia and around
the world. No stable international order is conceivable without the
participation of this one-quarter of the human race. As you know,
President Ford plans to visit China, thereby confirming the durability
of our relationship and further advancing the ties between our two
countries on the basis of the Shanghai Communique.

The Middle East: Our present agenda necessarily includes those areas
of crisis which pose a danger of wider conflagration. To help moderate
conflicts where our good offices are desired, is an American tradition
that goes back at least to the beginning of this century. History
has shown that the breakdown of peace around the globe can touch
our lives directly, and there are some disputes for which we have a
special responsibility such as the Middle East crisis.

That troubled area still poses grave dangers of war and of world-wide
economic dislocation. The mistrust of decades is not easy to overcome.
The international implications of chronic crisis in the area and the moral and
strategic commitments of outside powers compound the basic intractability
They also require continued movement towards a lasting settlement. An
active American role is imperative:

-- because of our historical and moral commitment to the survival

PR #342

-9-

and well-being of Israel;

-- because of our important interests in the Arab world -- an area of more than 150 million people sitting astride the world's largest oil reserves;

-- because the eruption of crisis in the Middle East would severely strain our relations with our allies in Europe, and Japan;

-- because continuing instability risks a new international crisis over oil and a new setback to the world's hopes for economic recovery, threatening the well-being not only of the industrial world, but of most nations of the globe; and

-- because a crisis in the Middle East poses an inevitable risk of direct U.S.-Soviet confrontation and has done so with increasing danger in every crisis since the beginning.

We can never lose sight of the fact that U.S. foreign policy must do its utmost to protect all its interests in the Middle East. Given our inescapable involvement -- economic, political and military -- there is no alternative to the full and active engagement of the United States in the diplomacy of peace in the Middle East.

Since October 1973, we have made major efforts to help the warring parties to resolve their differences. Unprecedented progress has been made. Disengagement agreements have been negotiated between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Syria which have been carried out by all sides. While deep suspicions remain, these agreements may have demonstrated to the parties that there is an alternative to war. We welcome the opening of the Suez Canal; we believe the Syrian decision to extend the United Nations mandate for six months was helpful; and the recent decision of the Israeli Government to thin out and withdraw some of its forces and equipment in the Sinai is a constructive move.

But we must not be lulled into inaction by the relative quiet of recent weeks; the fundamental issues remain unresolved. It would be imprudent to view recent steps -- valuable as they are -- as an indication that further progress is no longer urgent. Events have been calmed in the last few months in considerable part by the expectation -- and our pledge -- that the American effort would resume. We are now at a point where there must be a turn either toward peace or toward new crises.

We consider diplomatic stagnation an invitation to confrontation. We will not be deflected from our course by temporary disappointments or strong passions. The President has stated repeatedly that the United States will not accept stalemate or stagnation. We urge all parties to take seriously these words which were carefully chosen.

In recent weeks President Ford has held important consultations with King Hussein, President Sadat, Prime Minister Rabin and Deputy Prime Minister Khaddam of Syria. We expect to come to an early judgment on how best to proceed.

-10-

PR #342 (c)

The United States will pursue whichever course seems most promising. We are open-minded whether interim agreements or an early convening of the Geneva Conference offer the best method. Each course has its recognized advantages, pitfalls and risks. We are not committed to a particular approach, we are committed to progress.

Our ultimate goal is clear — to find solutions that will take into account the territorial integrity and right to live in security and peace of all states and peoples in the area. To reach that goal will require concessions by all parties. We are determined to persevere in pursuit of what we consider the fundamental national interest of the United States — the security and economic well-being of our country, of our allies and above all of the peoples in the area that demand it.

**Developing Nations:** In recent years, the problems of the new nations of the developing world have grown more urgent.

The strength of the dollar, the expansion of trade, the free flow in investment, the supply and price of energy, food, and other vital raw materials all depend on the vitality of the international economic system. But no economic system can be stable if scores of nations consider themselves outside and hostile to it. The present global economic system is large enough to encompass the well-being of consumers and producers, rich and poor. But if it does not, we face a generation of economic warfare. The United States is prepared to work, with understanding and imagination, for these changes. But there must be a process of mutual accommodation that safeguards the interests of all nations. We will not submit to blackmail, bloc pressures or ideological rhetoric. We will defend our interests. But we will listen to reasoned debate and consider carefully productive suggestions for reform.

The United States has already taken the lead with new proposals on a range of issues vital to the developing world:

- To fight the scourge of hunger, this Government, recognizing that America's food aid cannot provide a long-term solution to the global food problem, called for the World Food Conference which met last November in Rome. At that Conference we engaged other nations in a multilateral commitment to raise food production, to improve agricultural financing and distribution, and to the establishment of an international system of nationally-held grain reserves.

- One hundred and forty nations are now engaged in an unprecedented negotiation on a comprehensive new law of the sea. At stake are the reach of territorial sovereignty, the safety of the shipping lanes, and access to vast resources. Success in these negotiations would represent an unprecedented achievement in international cooperation affecting three quarters of the surface of our planet and enormous mineral and other wealth. The United States will make a major effort to bring it to a successful conclusion at the final session next March.

- On the broader question of raw materials, the developing countries seek a stable and fair income from commodities which are central to their development programs. We in turn seek reliability of supply for our industries. The U.S. has therefore proposed new inter-

- 11 -

PR #342

national rules and procedures on access to supplies and markets; discussions on new arrangements for commodity trade on a case-by-case basis; and new ways of financing commodity development in producing countries.

All these issues will be raised at a Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly this September. Working closely with Congress, we are now preparing concrete detailed and we hope creative proposals for that session. We intend, while fully protecting our nation's interests, to deal with controversial issues with realism, imagination, and understanding. We hope that others will meet us in the same spirit.

## Challenge at Home

We have before us a vast agenda. The peace and prosperity of future generations depend on decisions we make now. The choice is relatively straightforward: either we use our strength and opportunities for good, or others will surely use their own strength for ends incompatible with our values. The problems we face are of such magnitude, their answers so complex -- and the opportunities so far-reaching -- that the last quarter of the 20th Century will either be remembered as another period of American leadership and creativity, or as a time of growing chaos and despair. Therefore it is time to put an end to the self-doubt and cynicism which have marked, and marred, American life for so much of the past decade. It is time to remind ourselves that America has accomplished great things in the past and that there are still greater things to be accomplished.

In our pluralistic society, national action depends on the support of citizens everywhere -- not only in government but in the professions, in business and labor, in the universities, in the cities and on the farms all over America. These people, in their millions, have supported an enlightened international involvement for more than a generation, for they knew in their hearts that the greatest nation on earth could no longer remain isolated from the world around it. Again today, at another time of decision, it will be the American people who will decide, as they should, the direction their country will take.

There can be no doubt about the outcome. The American people will decide to keep their country the pillar of stability and the vision of hope that it has been for two centuries. They will support our leadership in the search for a new, lasting, just and peaceful international order.

Throughout our history America has proved capable of renewal and great-ness. The colonists who came to the shores of a wilderness; the founding fathers, who created the world's only revolution that never declined into tyranny; the pioneers whose eyes never left the horizon; the men of enterprise who made American productivity and efficiency the world's standard; the soldiers and statesmen of our century who built a world power both great and constructive; and the creative minds of a democratic society who have given the breath and inspiration of freedom to men and women everywhere -- these are the foundations

-2-

We have learned invariably the central fact of the
modern world; our security, our well being, our very
existence are intimately bound up with the kind of international
environment we shall succeed in building. If the weakness
of free peoples tempts aggression, the lives of Americans

-3-

will be in danger. If the disunity of free peoples
invites economic chaos, the well-being of Americans will
be in jeopardy. As the energy crisis surely has taught
us, we live in an interdependent world -- a world in
which words such as "isolation," and "withdrawal" grow
ever more anachronistic.

-4-

-- America's assistance to the postwar recovery
of Western Europe and Japan, and our defensive
shield, promoted the resurgence of those allies
as strong and independent pillars of the free
world.

-- The international economic system -- the

-5-

-- The inexorable process of decolonization
which we encouraged, and our pioneering efforts
in technical and economic assistance for develop-
ment, have helped scores of new nations launch
their own national progress.

-6-

-- The growing strength and self confidence of our allies requires the adaptation of our alliances from American tutelage to equal partnership.

-- The growing destructiveness of nuclear weapons requires an alternative to policies of confrontation and an easing of international tensions.

-- The interdependence of the world economy must lead to increased cooperation among the industrialized nations and a greater

-7-

-8-

-9-

First of all, we must maintain the bedrock of our
security. While foreign policy must reach beyond military
concerns, there can be no substitute for maintaining
our own defenses and the objective conditions of our
security. An equilibrium of power is essential to any
stable international order. A world in which the survival
of nations is at the mercy of others is a world of insecurity,
instability, and oppression.

-10-

national priorities. In terms of its portion of the federal
budget and of the Gross National Product, our defense
spending is at the lowest level in 25 years. Yet the trend
of military programs of our potential adversaries is in the
direction of expansion. Therefore there is an irreducible
minimum below which we cannot go without allowing important
interests of the United States and its allies to be endangered.
We will seek prudent measures of arms control to enhance
our security. But this Administration is determined never to
allow the military defenses of the United States to be dismantled.

We strive to create the conditions for accommodation
and reconciliation of differences with adversaries. But
conciliation must not flow from weakness; flexibility is a
virtue only in those who are taught to have an alternative.

- 11 -

Secondly, we have also learned that all our objec-
tives -- our security, our well-being, the cohesion
of our alliances, and the health of the international
environment -- depend to a remarkable degree on the
health of the American economy. This is, rightly, an
immediate concern of every American; it is also
the engine of economic growth worldwide, and therefore
an international responsibility.

- 12 -

- 13 -

- 14 -

In the last quarter of this century, we are one
nation among many. We are no longer preponderant.
We can no longer overwhelm our problems with our
resources; the diversity and complexity of the world
no longer offer moral simplicity. We are, therefore,
called upon, as never before, to show purpose,
coherence, flexibility and imagination in the conduct
of our foreign affairs.

- 15 -

The consensus which sustained an enlightened
involvement in foreign affairs for more than a
generation is one of our most precious national resources.
We are on the way to restoring our unity and therefore
our capacity to act as a confident nation. We shall
spare no effort to continue this process, so that we will face
our third century and its challenges as a united people.

Today's Agenda

- 16 -

**Alliances:** Our allies and friends remain our first international priority.

What unites us and our allies are not simply the treaties signed a generation ago but the inescapable necessities of the present world. In recent weeks we have reaffirmed our commitment to our alliances. We have made clear that the United States will stand by its obligations in Asia as well as in Europe. But what gives life to our alliances is not verbal reaffirmation but the reality of common action in response to common problems. We must find common purpose in challenges beyond the necessities of military defense.

- 17 -

This is why last week I outlined, on behalf of
the President, the agenda for our close relationship with
Japan and Asia. This is why on his trip to Europe the
President outlined the issues facing all the nations
of the Western Alliance. The tasks which the President
s et before the NATO Summit could serve as the agenda
for all our alliances:

-- we must improve the quality and integrity
of our political relations; participation and
responsibility must be unqualified if they
are to be credible;

- 18 -

-- we must work to the health of our democratic
institutions;

- 19 -

requirements or they will disintegrate. They must reflect
common political objectives and a common strategy for
attaining them; or their defensive capability will lack
a sense of purpose. Therefore, we attach great
importance to improved political consultations. And we
must never forget that strong domestic institutions ultimately
provide the best protection against subversion as well as
the sinews for defense against aggression.

- 20 -

- 21 -

- 22 -

In our political relations, we and our allies both
have an obligation to a common interest. We do not
assist others in their defense as an act of charity but in
our mutual interest. For us to terminate military
assistance or even sales to an ally is basically self-
defeating. We weaken the political ties, endanger our
collective defense, and also fail to achieve whatever
purpose the aid restriction was meant to serve. For
this reason, the President has strongly opposed the
Congressional cut-off of military aid to Turkey and is
now working hard with the Congress to bring about its
immediate restoration.