SECRETARY'S CALENDAR OF EVENTS - Thursday, December 11, 1975

Brussels, Belgium

<table><tr><td>7:45</td><td>Wake-up call</td></tr><tr><td>7:55</td><td>Saw Jerry Bremer</td></tr><tr><td>8:10</td><td>Saw Jerry Bremer</td></tr><tr><td>8:15</td><td>Breakfast with Ambassador Bruce</td></tr><tr><td>9:20</td><td>Departed for NATO Headquarters</td></tr><tr><td>9:45</td><td>Bilateral meeting with Secretary General Luns in Luns' private office, Room OA 202<br>Messrs. Bruce, Sonnenfeldt, Hartman and Holmes (Notetaker); Dep. Sec. Gen. Amb. Pansa, Dr. E. Jung, Asst. Sec. Gen. for Pol. Affairs, Mr. S.I.P. Van Campen, Dir. Priv. Office of Sec. Gen.</td></tr><tr><td>10:45</td><td>Ceremonial opening of North Atlantic Council followed by Plenary Session, Room 16.</td></tr><tr><td>1:00</td><td>Luncheon hosted by Secretary General Luns at Salon Des Ambassadeurs, NATO Headquarters. Amb. Bruce, Messrs. Sonnenfeldt and Hartman</td></tr><tr><td>2:15</td><td>Meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Rumor, Amb. Plaja, Messrs. Sonnenfeldt, Hartman and Collins (Notetaker), plus interpreter - photographer (2:50)</td></tr><tr><td>2:55</td><td>Restricted Session - North Atlantic Council</td></tr><tr><td>6:30</td><td>Secretary departed NATO Headquarters</td></tr><tr><td>6:45</td><td>Secretary arrived Hilton Hotel</td></tr><tr><td>6:48</td><td>Saw Jerry Bremer</td></tr><tr><td>6:50</td><td>Called Mrs. Kissinger</td></tr><tr><td>8:02</td><td>Saw Jerry Bremer</td></tr><tr><td>8:06</td><td>Called General Haig (inc.)</td></tr></table>

[Y]

SECRETARY'S CALENDAR OF EVENTS - Friday, DECEMBER 12, 1975

BRUSSELS AND LONDON

7:15 Wake-up call

7:30 Saw Jerry Bremer

8:00 Hosted breakfast for Turkish Foreign Minister in Secretary's suite. Messrs. Hartman, Eagleton (Notetaker), Yavuzalp, Barutcu, and Eralp (interpreter), Mrs. Sophie Porson-interpreter. (Photographers and press)

9:40 Departed Hilton Hotel for NATO Headquarters

10:00 Resumption of NAC in restricted session followed by reconstitution of plenary session for approval of communique

1:10 Press Conference

2:00 Host luncheon for Foreign Minister Genscher at Ambassador Firestone's residence
Guests: Messrs. Sonnenfeldt, Hartman, Heichler (Notetaker), Obst (interpreter); van Well, Verheugen, Dannenbreng

3:15 Quadripartite Meeting at Ambassador Firestone's residence. Messrs: Sonnenfeldt, Hartman, Heichler (notetaker), Obst (interpreter)

5:40 Depart for airport

6:20 Departed Brussels

6:00 Arrived Heathrow Airport (one hour time change)

7:05 Arrived The Claridge Hotel

7:15 Saw Jerry Bremer

7:45 Ambassador Freeman arrived

7:57 Secretary and Mrs. Kissinger departed for the Theater with Ambassador John Freeman followed by Dinner at the Tiberia Restaurant

[Y]

SECRETARY'S CALENDAR OF EVENTS - Saturday, December 13, 1975

London, England

8:00 Secretary awakened

8:17 Saw Jerry Bremer

8:30 Breakfast

8:53 Saw Mr. Sonnenfeldt

9:17 Departed for Embassy - Opening of Chiefs of Mission Conference

12:30 Departed Embassy for Carlton Gardens - Lunch with Callaghan

2:55 Departed Carlton Gardens

3:02 Arrived Hotel

3:14 Saw Jerry Bremer

3:16 Departed for Ballroom 1 for meeting with British Editors

4:36 Returned to Suite

6:58 Saw Jerry Bremer

7:03 Departed Hotel for Reception by Ambassador Richardson at Residence

7:10 Arrived Reception

8:05 Departed Residence for Hartwell Residence

8:30 Arrived Hartwell Residence

12:04 Returned to The Claridge Hotel

12:11 Called General Scowcroft

12:35 Saw Jerry Bremer

1:30 Retired

SECRETARY'S CALENDAR OF EVENTS - Tuesday, December 16, 1975

Paris, France

7:15 Wake-up

8:05 Breakfast with Manuel Perez-Guerrero, Venezuelan
Minister of State for International Affairs (8:40)

9:30 Arrived Raphael Suite

9:40 Meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Miyazawa
at Raphael Suite

10:00 Meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Rumor and
EC Commission President Francois-Xavior Ortoli
at Raphael Suite

10:30 CIEC Conference - opening ceremonies

12:45 Departed Conference

12:40 Arrived Ambassador Rush's Residence

12:50 Saw Jerry Bremer

1:14 Saw Jerry Bremer

1:15 Met with Brazilian Foreign Minister Silveira
at Ambassador Rush's Residence (photographers)

1:50 Lunch with Brazilian Foreign Minister Silveira
at Ambassador Rush's Residence

3:10 Departed for CIEC Conference

4:55 Departed Hotel Majestic

5:00 Arrived Ambassador Rush's Residence

5:03 Saw Jerry Bremer

5:07 Saw Jerry Bremer

5:25 Called Mrs. Kissinger

Tuesday, December 16, 1975 - (continued)

<table><tr><td>5:30</td><td>Meeting with Saudi Arabian Petroleum Minister Ahmed Yamani at Ambassador Rush's Residence</td></tr><tr><td>6:20</td><td>Meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister De Areliza (6:55)</td></tr><tr><td>7:05</td><td>Called General Scowcroft</td></tr><tr><td>7:20</td><td>Saw Jerry Bremer</td></tr><tr><td>7:35</td><td>Called Bob Funseth</td></tr><tr><td>7:45</td><td>Departed for Elysée for Dinner with Mrs. Kissinger</td></tr><tr><td>10:47</td><td>Returned to Ambassador Rush's Residence</td></tr><tr><td>11:05</td><td>Called General Scowcroft</td></tr><tr><td>12:10</td><td>Retired</td></tr></table>

SECRETARY'S CALENDAR OF EVENTS - Wednesday - December 17, 1975

Paris - Washington

<table><tr><td>7:15</td><td>Wake up call</td></tr><tr><td>7:55</td><td>Saw Jerry Bremer</td></tr><tr><td>8:00</td><td>Called Assistant Secretary Hartman</td></tr><tr><td>8:04</td><td>Breakfast with Algerian Foreign Minister Bouteflika</td></tr><tr><td>9:30</td><td>Saw Assistant Secretary Hartman</td></tr><tr><td>9:32</td><td>Departed residence for Hotel Raphael</td></tr><tr><td>10:00</td><td>Meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Chavan</td></tr><tr><td>10:15</td><td>Meeting with SYG Waldheim</td></tr><tr><td>10:30</td><td>Meeting with Peruvian Foreign Minister De La Flor</td></tr><tr><td>10:45</td><td>Meeting with Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, MacEachen</td></tr><tr><td>11:15</td><td>Attended CIEC Conference session</td></tr><tr><td>12:30</td><td>Departed Hotel Raphael for Iraqi Embassy</td></tr><tr><td>12:40</td><td>Meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Sa'dun Hammadi</td></tr><tr><td>1:20</td><td>Lundh with Pierre Salinger at Maxims</td></tr><tr><td>3:10</td><td>Arrive residence</td></tr><tr><td>3:20</td><td>Picture taking session with Virginia Merlin from Paris Match (Mrs. Kissinger included)</td></tr><tr><td>3:29</td><td>Saw Jerry Bremer</td></tr><tr><td>3:30</td><td>Met with Zaire State Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Bula</td></tr><tr><td>4:05</td><td>Met with Nigerian Commissioner Garba</td></tr></table>

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 11, 1975

No. 602

ARRIVAL STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

DECEMBER 11, 1975

I simply want to say that I am delighted to be in Brussels for the meetings of the NATO Council; that in the affairs of the United States, the North Atlantic Alliance is the key element of our foreign policy; and that our close association with the industrialized democracies, especially with our friends in the North Atlantic area, is the key to whatever we may do in other parts of the world.

I look forward to very fruitful, very friendly and very constructive discussions. I want to thank you all for coming out at such a late hour.

* * * * * * * *

For further information contact:

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 15, 1975

No. 608

NATO MINISTERIAL MEETING
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM 11th and 12th DECEMBER, 1975

COMMUNIQUE

1. The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial session in Brussels on 11 and 12 December, 1975.

2. Ministers noted that there had been encouraging features in the development of East-West relations during recent months. They reaffirmed their determination to persevere in their efforts to place relations with the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries on a more stable basis.

At the same time they noted that the beneficial effects of detente can develop only in so far as all the countries concerned do their best to reduce the risk of confrontation in both the political and military fields.

In the political sphere, detente requires tolerance and mutual understanding, and accordingly demands that the natural contest of political and social ideas should not be conducted in a manner incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Final Act of Helsinki. Furthermore, Ministers considered that attempts to take advantage of tension in any part of the world could have a negative impact on detente.

In the military sphere, Ministers viewed with concern, as on previous occasions, the continued rapid growth of the power of the land, air and naval forces of the Warsaw Pact, which exceeds its apparent defensive needs. They emphasized that detente and security are closely linked. In these circumstances they stressed the need to preserve the defensive strength of the Alliance which is important as a deterrent not only against military aggression but also against political pressure.

Ministers reaffirmed that the solidarity of the Alliance and the security which it provides are essential conditions for the improvement of East-West relations, and they restated the determination of their Governments, expressed in the Ottawa Declaration, to maintain and improve the efficiency of their forces.

3. Ministers welcomed the adoption of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe which provides guidelines for an evolution of relations between the participating states and between their peoples towards greater understanding and cooperation. They noted the fact that the results of the Conference apply throughout Europe, including, subject to Quadripartite rights and responsibilities, Berlin. The Allies attach high priority to the full implementation of the Final Act by all signatories in improving relations between states, in applying confidence building measures, in encouraging closer economic cooperation, and in

PR #608

-2-

lowering barriers between people. Noting that only a short time had elapsed since Helsinki, Ministers hoped that substantial progress would be seen during the coming months.

In accordance with the provisions of the Final Act, the Allies concerned have already notified all CSCE participants of a number of military maneuvers and have invited observers. The Allies look for the implementation of such measures also by the members of the Warsaw Pact.

4. Ministers heard a report from the United States Secretary of State on the continuing U.S. efforts towards the further limitation of strategic offensive arms. The Ministers expressed satisfaction with the substantial progress made since the Vladivostok Summit towards a SALT II Agreement. They expressed the hope that further efforts would lead to the conclusion of a satisfactory agreement. The Ministers also expressed appreciation for continuing consultations within the Alliance with respect to strategic arms limitation.

5. Ministers of the participating countries reviewed the state of the negotiations in Vienna on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions. They recalled that it is the aim of these negotiations to contribute to a more stable relationship and to strengthening of peace and security in Europe.

These Ministers stressed again that the existing disparities in ground force manpower and tanks are the most destabilizing factor in Central Europe and that any agreement must deal adequately with these disparities. They reconfirmed, therefore, the Allied proposal to establish in the area of reductions approximate parity in ground forces in the form of a common collective ceiling for ground force manpower on each side. A first phase reductions agreement concerning United States and Soviet ground forces as proposed by the participating Allies would be an important and practical step towards this goal.

With a view to achieving these objectives, they approved important additional proposals and authorized their presentation at the appropriate moment in Vienna.

These Ministers reiterated their resolve to pursue vigorously all the Allied objectives in order to assure undiminished security for all parties. They proceed on the premise that the additional proposals will lead to the achievement of these objectives.

These Ministers noted with satisfaction that Allied solidarity has continued to prove itself in these negotiations. They reaffirmed the principle that NATO forces should not be reduced except in the context of a Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions agreement with the East.

6. The Ministers took note of the Declaration made by the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States on 14 October, 1975, that

PR #608

the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers for. Berlin and Germany
as a whole remain unaffected by the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and
Mutual Assistance concluded by the USSR and the GDR on the 7 October, 1975.
They shared the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
that its policy to work for a state of peace in Europe in which the German
nation will regain its unity through free self-determination, is fully
consistent with the Final Act of Helsinki.

Ministers underlined the essential connection between the situation relat-
ing to Berlin and detente, security and cooperation throughout Europe.

They emphasized in particular, that traffic and ties between Western
sectorsof Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany and the representation
abroad of the interests of those sectors by the Federal Republic of Germany
continue to be important elements of the viability of the city.

7. Ministers reviewed developments in the Mediterranean area since their last meeting. They expressed concern at the possible dangers of new tensions that could affect the balance of forces in this region. They reaffirmed the importance they attach to the continuation of efforts designed to achieve an overall settlement resulting in a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

Ministers took note of the report on the situation in the Mediterranean
prepared on their instructions. They requested the Council to keep this
question under review and to report back to them again at the next meeting.

8. The issue of the present fisheries dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom was raised and discussed.

9. Ministers discussed various aspects of problems related to armaments and standardization with the aim of improving the military capability of the Alliance and of making more effective use of available resources, especially in view of the increasing pressures in national budgets. They agreed that the examination of these questions would be pursued by the Council and the other competent bodies of the Alliance in accordance with established procedures. They agreed to form for a limited time an ad hoc committee under the Council to prepare a specific program of action covering the interoperability of military equipment.

10. Ministers took note of the progress achieved by the Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS). They endorsed resolutions on coastal water pollution and oil spills, noting the determination of the member countries to continue to combat pollution of the seas and to enhance the quality of the marine environment. Ministers noted and endorsed the initiation of a pilot study open to interested nations on the relationship between food and health, and the continuation of other studies relating to the environment and to energy. They noted the important contribution of the CCMS to effective international cooperation in areas of major concern to our societies.

PR #608

-4-

11. Ministers reaffirmed the attachment of their nations to the democratic principles on which their free institutions are founded. They expressed their confidence in the ability of their countries to surmount the problems of our time. They considered the cohesion and vitality of the Alliance to be a sure source of mutual support and solidarity.

12. The next Ministerial session of the North Atlantic Council will be held in Oslo on 20 and 21 May, 1976.

*****************************

[10]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 11, 1975

No. 603

REMARKS TO PRESS
BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND
GREEK FOREIGN MINISTER DIMITRIOS BITSIOS
FOLLOWING BILATERAL MEETING
U. S. MISSION TO NATO
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
DECEMBER 11, 1975

**QUESTION:** (Unintelligible) on the Cyprus situation?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The Foreign Minister and I had a very friendly talk and reviewed the Cyprus situation and general relationships between Greece and the United States. With respect to the Cyprus situation, the United States feels that the time for negotiations is here and that there are really no further obstacles to negotiations. We strongly support resumption of the intercommunal talks between the two communities and a solution based on justice and equity and respecting the sense of dignity of both communities. And we will use all our efforts in that direction.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Prime Minister, would you agree that there are no obstacles to negotiations with Turkey?

**FOREIGN MINISTER BITSIOS:** I would say there are no more obstacles of the kind that the Turkish Government was putting forward before. You remember - elections and all of that. And I fully agree on the line which the Secretary of State took. We think that it is high time that the negotiations be resumed, for a solution. The situation cannot go on in Cyprus like that. I think the representatives of the communities must sit down for meaningful negotiations.

**QUESTION:** Does that mean that you now expect meaningful negotiations to get underway?

**FOREIGN MINISTER BITSIOS:** You must be two, that's inevitable. I explained to you our position.

**QUESTION:** The Turks have been interested in enlarging the intercommunal talks. How do you regard that proposal?

**FOREIGN MINISTER BITSIOS:** I have made a statement last Saturday.

**QUESTION:** And could you repeat that statement for us today?

**FOREIGN MINISTER BITSIOS:** I don't see any reason why we should change the existing forum.

**QUESTION:** But that forms an obstacle then, because you have one position and the Turks have another.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 12, 1975

No. 604

REMARKS TO THE PRESS
BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND
TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTER IHSAN SABRI CAGLAYANGIL
FOLLOWING BILATERAL MEETING
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
DECEMBER 12, 1975

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The Foreign Minister and I had a very constructive talk in the atmosphere of friendship that characterizes the relationship between the United States and Turkey. We discussed bilateral relationships and I am very hopeful that we will solve the question of the American bases in Turkey and the mutual defense relationship in the very near future. With respect to the Cyprus problem, we, I am very hopeful that negotiations can be started in the near future, I believe that the differences between the parties are relatively--the procedural differences between the parties are relatively small and that a solution can be found this afternoon when the Foreign Minister of Turkey and the Foreign Minister of Greece meet to resume the communal talks in an appropriate setting. So I am very pleased with this talk.

**FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL:** (in French) I share the opinion of my colleague. I think that we have had a very constructive negotiation, especially in bilateral relations. I hope, after having had a negotiation with my Greek colleague, that perhaps we can advance a little in our relations.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Minister, do you speak English?

**FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL:** My English is very poor. I am very sorry.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** That's a trick to give time to think while I talk.
(Laughter)

**QUESTION:** Why are you confident Mr. Secretary about the bases question?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Because we reviewed the issues that divide us or that are still unsolved, and I believe that they are manageable. I am going to meet with our Ambassador to Turkey tomorrow in London and we will be giving him new instructions. And I have invited the Foreign Minister of Turkey to come to the United States at the end of January and I am extremely hopeful that whatever differences remain will be solved on that occasion.

**FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL:** (Statement in Turkish.)

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Valeriani, ask a question on that.

**QUESTION:** In what language?

-2-

PR 604

FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL: (Interpreter's translation from Turkish.)
In relation to our bilateral relations with the United States, I join the
views expressed by Secretary of State Kissinger and I hope that in the
near future we can solve these problems and find a compromise.

QUESTION: (in French). When do you have the meeting with the Greek
Minister?

FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL: (in French) Today at 3 o'clock.

QUESTION: (in French) Here?

FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL: No, at NATO.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Nice of you to have come.

FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL: Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL: (Says farewell in Turkish).

QUESTION: (Repeats Turkish) farewell.)

FOREIGN MINISTER CAGLAYANGIL: Bravo. No need to translate.

QUESTION: (inaudible question on negotiations on Cyprus)

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I am quite confident that we can get the communal
talks started again in order that some real impetus will now be given
to them. It is more than just resumed.

QUESTION: Will you be able to report back to the President who can
report to Congress that you have got real progress going now?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I think we have something.

* * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

December 12, 1975

No. 605

INTERVIEW OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BY GERMAN TELEVISION
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
DECEMBER 12, 1975

**QUESTION:** The NATO states will make the offer in Vienna also to withdraw nuclear weapons from Western Europe. Isn't this a dangerous concession?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Let me explain it in English. I do not believe that it goes too far, because we will be offering a category of weapons which, due to modernization, some have become dispensable, in return for withdrawal of substantial Soviet ground forces. But the United States remains firmly committed to a strong local defense in Europe, and the United States will under no circumstances participate in anything that will lead to the denuclearization either of Europe or of any part of Europe.

**QUESTION:** You are just leaving the *Deutschland-Essen* [Allied meeting on Berlin and Germany]. The responsibility of the Western states was underlined during that meeting. Does this hide the fear that the friendship agreement between the Soviet Union and Berlin would influence the representation of the four powers?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It is not directed at any particular event. It is a permanent feature of the four power relationship that the freedom of Berlin is central to all of our policies and of course the pre-condition for any relaxation of tensions.

**QUESTION:** One of the most important conditions to keep the alliance capable of defense is to unify weapons. What do you think of the declaration of the European states in this matter?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, we strongly favor it, and we are pleased that the Europeans will discuss the problem first among themselves and then will solve it in close coordination with the United States. And I think it is a significant step towards the strengthening of NATO.

**QUESTION:** How serious is the offer of the United States to buy weapons in Europe?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It is a serious offer. It, of course, depends on the ability of the Europeans to rationalize their production and to produce them at comparable prices. Both should be possible.

**QUESTION:** Were you disappointed over what came out of the Helsinki Conference?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Frankly, not particularly. I didn't expect too much, and I was not disappointed.

[L.C.]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 12, 1975

No. 606

PC#80

PRESS CONFERENCE BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOLLOWING NATO MINISTERIAL MEETING
BRUSSELS, DECEMBER 12, 1975

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Ladies and gentlemen, the U.S. delegation considers this meeting to have been very successful. It was conducted in the spirit of friendship and close consultation which characterizes the relationship in the North Atlantic Community. The communique speaks for itself and, therefore, I will go straight to your questions.

**QUESTION:** There are reports in both the *New York Times* and *Washington Post* today of United States contribution of $50 million to Angola in recent months. Could you respond to those reports?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I have not had the privilege of reading either of these distinguished newspapers today, and I will not go into any details. I have stated the other day that the United States cannot be indifferent to massive Soviet supplies of arms and is in contact with other interested African countries.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, on that point, could you amplify this aspect of it? Do you have any concern that there will develop in Angola, if there is not already, a war of proxy between the major powers? And in addition to that, how would you distinguish between the degree of major power involvement in Angola and the Vietnam situation, the Vietnam history?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The United States wishes that the situation in Angola be handled as an African problem and it would support a solution in which no outside power participates and in which the Organization of African Unity will cooperate with the parties inside Angola to find an African solution. The United States did not become concerned until there had already taken place substantial Soviet involvement and the introduction of massive outside equipment and later the introduction of Cuban forces. I think, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there should not be a war by proxy of the great powers. I do not think it is a situation analogous to Vietnam because in Vietnam the conflict had a much longer and more complicated history, but the United States cannot be indifferent to what is going on in Angola.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you frequently say that the United States should not be indifferent. But in what manner would the United States respond? Can you tell us what sort of counter-measures the United States might take in this situation?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The United States favors a solution in which all of the parties in Angola can negotiate with each other free of outside interference and in which the problem of Angola is handled as an

-2-

PR#606

African issue. The United States will support any solution in this direction. Failing that the United States will try to prevent one party by means of massive introduction of outside equipment from achieving dominance.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, on a previous occasion you mentioned the possibility that the Angolan involvement of the Soviet Union couldn't help but affect other aspects of the Soviet-American relationship. Do you see it at any point as endangering the entire policy of detente?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Incidentally, I ought to make one thing clear. The press reports yesterday gave the impression that all of the afternoon session was devoted to Angola. The afternoon session yesterday was devoted to East-West relations, in which Angola played a relatively minor role. So, this is a NATO meeting. This is not a meeting of African problems, and I think this should be clearly understood. It cannot but affect relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, as I stated publicly before, if the Soviet Union engages in a military operation or massively supports a military operation thousands of miles from Soviet territory in an area where there are no historic Russian interests and where it is, therefore, a new projection of Soviet power and Soviet interests. But again let me emphasize to you, ladies and gentlemen, that this was a NATO meeting, in which Angola played a relatively insignificant role and was used only as an illustration of more general problems.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary General (sic), did you talk about Spain, or did you propose bringing Spain closer to NATO?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** We did not have an opportunity to go into the problem of Spain and the future relationship of Spain in any formal sense. The United States favors a closer relationship of Spain both to the Atlantic organization as well as to Western Europe.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you could expand a bit, amplify this extreme concern the United States has over Angola. Why is this situation so different? You referred to distance, but after all the Soviet Union has massively armed many countries in the world and I don't remember this type of strong talk from the United States. What is it about Angola -- ?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Should I point out again to you, ladies and gentlemen, that this was a NATO meeting? You may have received certain briefings yesterday. The subject was not Angola. The subject was the Western alliance and, while I am glad to answer questions on Angola, I want to point out that it is being raised by you, ladies and gentlemen, much more acutely than it was raised by us.

**QUESTION:** This has continued as a process now of several weeks where the United States has been extremely concerned publicly.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It makes a difference whether the Soviet Union is arming a country or whether it is arming a faction in a country. It makes a difference whether the Soviet Union is operating in an area of traditional relationships or whether it is attempting to establish a new pattern of dominance.

-3-

PR#606

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, the last time you attended a NATO meeting, just before it you expressed your conviction that Portugal would not easily remain a member of the Alliance because it was going Communist. What is your assessment now? What has been Soviet behavior with respect to Portugal and what does that mean in terms of Angola?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I hope that the non-American members here noted the single-mindedness with which the American press pursues its obsessions. Now, first let me make clear I did not say the last time that Portugal could not easily remain a member of NATO because it was going Communist. I said it the other way around. I said if Portugal went Communist, it could not easily remain a member of NATO. I believe that, on the whole, the situation in Portugal has improved. The danger of Portugal going Communist seems less. The possibility of a pluralistic evolution seems better. So, therefore, this particular danger which I referred to last time is not as acute as it was then.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you didn't answer about the Soviet Union's role in Portugal.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I think that the Soviet Union's role in Portugal is not as acute as its role in Angola.

**QUESTION:** Will the U.S. bases in Turkey reopen? And when? And to what extent do you consider them inoperative ever since they were closed?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Closed bases are generally inoperative, but I had a very good talk with the Foreign Minister of Turkey this morning. I expect that the negotiations about the bases will soon be given a new impetus and I have invited the Foreign Ministers to come to Washington by the end of January. I hope that we will be able to conclude the negotiations by then.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I assume that you mentioned the Middle East in your discussion. If this is correct, are you happy about the state of affairs in the Middle East now as a result of your step-by-step diplomacy? Isn't there any change of heart from the part of the United States regarding the Palestinians and the PLO to accelerate the process of peace in the Middle East?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I don't think the Middle East was designed to inspire happiness and, therefore, I cannot say I have reached that state of contentment with it. With respect to the Palestinians, I have not repeated the American position for 48 hours and never in Brussels. So let me say that the United States cannot change its position until the Palestinians recognize the existence of Israel and until they accept the Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. At that point we will look at our position again.

**QUESTION:** Do they have to recognize Israel before Israel recognizes them or must this come simultaneously? For you cannot ask the Palestinians. It's fair enough that both of them recognize each other at the same time, isn't it?

-4-

PR#606

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It is in the context that the United States can look at its position, but not under present circumstances -- in the context that I have given.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, do you think that the stands of Greece and Turkey are more conciliatory now for the solution of the problems between the two countries and that of Cyprus?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Having talked to the Foreign Ministers of both Greece and Turkey, I have the impression that the conditions for a resumption of the communal talks are good. Of course, they will meet each other this afternoon and it would be a rash man who would predict what happens when an actual interaction occurs between Greek and Turkish representatives. My impression is that the conditions for a resumption of communal talks are good and that both Foreign Ministers recognize the importance of making rapid progress towards a settlement. We believe that a package deal is necessary and that it should take into account the sense of dignity of both communities. We will use our influence in that direction.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, have you got any new evidence from the Soviet Union which makes you confident that you will be ready to go in four or five weeks, as you had said you would, on SALT? Also, what assurance is there that the conflicts within the United States Government on SALT will be resolved within four or five weeks?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I wouldn't describe the discussions in the American Government as "conflict". The issues are technically complicated and require careful study. I am confident that we will come up with a solution that will have support of all the agencies. As I have pointed out, going to Moscow is based on the presupposition that both sides will be prepared to modify their positions; and, therefore, it is based on the assumption, indeed in the knowledge, that the Soviet Union, as well as we, will be prepared to modify the last positions which each side took. I'm quite confident that the date that has been indicated, or the approximate date, will be maintained.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you said that Angola was a minor issue in the discussion and the main topic was East-West relations. So, after this discussion, what is your assessment of the present status of East-West relations?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** There are worrying elements such as Angola. There remains, nevertheless, the necessity to attempt to improve relations between East and West on the basis of reciprocity and there is a recognition on the part of all allies that the process of improvement of relations requires an undiminished concern for Western security.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you said yesterday that the United States supports the resumption of the inter-communal talks, but you also mentioned something about a way of relating other interested parties to it at a later state. What would you envisage by that?

-5-

PR#606

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The most interested parties, of course, are the Governments of Greece and Turkey, and this is a question that the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey will deal with this afternoon. It is my impression, having talked to both of them, that they are approaching a consensus on this and I expect that this problem will be solved. But I'd leave it up to them to announce the details.

**QUESTION:** Yesterday you expressed your concern about the Communist pressure on the southern countries of the Alliance. What is your opinion on the Italian situation and, also in your opinion, what would be the consequences for the Alliance of having participation of the Italian Communists in the government which, as you know very well, is not terribly improbable for the future?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I did not yesterday express any opinion on the questions which you raised. Of course, we consider the Italian domestic situation a matter for Italians to decide -- all the more so as our advice is likely to have the opposite effect from the one we wish to bring about. But if I were forming a government in Italy, which is unlikely, I would not move in the direction of an "historic compromise".

**QUESTION:** Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

* * * * * * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L.C]

December 15, 1975

No. 607

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT FUERTH, WEST GERMANY

DECEMBER 15, 1975

Mr. Foreign Minister, Mr. Minister-President, Mr. Lord Mayor, Distinguished Guests, Friends:

This is not the first time in the last thirty-five years that I have paid a sentimental visit to Fuerth. I enjoyed a brief but warm stay in 1959. I have often exchanged letters with your distinguished Lord Mayor and his predecessor, and have been encouraged and strengthened by their good wishes in many periods of my public life. When the honor I am now receiving was first offered to me, I accepted with pleasure.

I am proud to be here as the Secretary of State of perhaps the only country in the world where it is possible for an adopted son to have the opportunity for responsibility and service that I have enjoyed. I am happy to share this occasion with my family, my parents, who have never lost their attachment to this city in which they spent the greater part of their lives. I believe that my visit here exemplifies the extraordinary rebirth of friendship between the American people and the German people.

This is why the central role in this event of my colleague and friend Hans-Dietrich Genscher means so much to me. The partnership that he and I carry out every day in international affairs is given a deeper quality by the personal affection and comradeship that exists between us.

Our generation has witnessed -- and has no excuse ever to forget -- the dark force of brutality and raw power at large in the modern world. As I stand here today, suffering is still dominant in many parts of the globe. Of all the species on this planet, man alone has inflicted on himself the great part of his own anguish.

Yet our generation more than any other also has the possibility and indeed the imperative of something better. We live in a world of some 150 sovereign nations, in an era of both instant communication and ideological competition and in the shadow of nuclear cataclysm. No longer can we afford to submit to an assumed inevitability of history's tragedy. The interdependence of states links our societies, our economies and our destinies; we will either progress together or we will decline together. Much has happened from which we can take hope and courage. Free societies have come closer to the dream of well-being and justice than any earlier period has witnessed. Our two nations have moved from bitter conflict to peace and from peace to reconciliation and common endeavor. We have been leaders in the quest for peace -- in Europe, and in the world.

Our common challenge is to help build an international structure of relationships which keeps continents stable and nations secure, which ties nations to each other by bonds of mutual interest, which fosters the habits of restraint and moderation in international conduct, which gives free rein to man's striving for freedom and justice. Our goal is a peace which all --

-2-

PR 607

the small as well as the large -- have a share of shaping, a peace that will endure because all -- the strong as well as the weak -- have a stake in making it last.

We know that such a peace will not come -- nor can it be maintained -- without effort and courage. We must be conciliatory without weakness, and tolerant without moral confusion; we must temper strength with wisdom, and seek justice while respecting the sense of justice of others. Posterity will not forgive either truculence -- or the failure to act firmly in defense of interests and principles. Posterity will not forgive either illusions -- or the failure to grasp opportunities that come fleetingly and may never return.

In our search for a peaceful world we must never forget:

-- that freedom must be vigilantly defended;

-- that stability depends on restraint among as well as within nations;

-- that no nation or group of nations can achieve satisfaction of its needs alone;

-- that the best must not become the enemy of the good;

-- and, above all, that every great achievement is an ideal before it becomes a reality.

Thus in its deepest sense this simple ceremony, which shows to what extent we have overcome an unhappy past, symbolizes as well the future for which we must strive -- a world of nations which find pride in their reconciliations, not their power; an era in which convictions are the source of moral strength rather than of intolerance or hatred.

One of America's first and greatest leaders, Benjamin Franklin, expressed a universal hope of human society: "...God grant that not only the love of liberty, but a thorough knowledge of the rights of men, may pervade all nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, 'this is my country'."

Human history has not yet reached this ideal. But we must persevere until what is now unfamiliar becomes natural, what is now a vision of peace becomes a reality and our legacy to our children.

In this spirit -- and on behalf of my family as well -- I accept your distinction and shall treasure it. I am honored and moved, and grateful.

* * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 15, 1975

No. 610

STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
UPON ARRIVAL AT ONLY AIRPORT
PARIS, FRANCE
DECEMBER 15, 1975

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Good evening. We have two international problems or two major international problems: the problem of peace and war, which concerns primarily East-West relations, and the problem of development and social justice, which deals primarily with North-South issues.

The conference that I am attending here will attempt to deal with the problem of the economic development of the entire world: the problem of social justice.

The United States is coming to it in a cooperative spirit and the realization that our economies are all inter-dependent and that our destinies are inter-linked. We will deal with it with a sense of responsibility and attempt to shape a better future, and we hope that our colleagues will approach it with the same attitude. Thank you.

* * * * *

The Secretary
of State

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Speech

December 16, 1975

Paris, France

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

ENERGY, RAW MATERIALS, AND DEVELOPMENT:
THE SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND

*Secretary Henry A. Kissinger before the Conference on International Economic Cooperation.*

The challenge of our time is to build a stable and just international structure. This task has two principal dimensions. There is the imperative of peace—the more traditional problems of building security, resolving conflicts, easing tensions. These issues dominate the agenda of relations between East and West. No less urgent is the imperative of justice—the compelling requirements of global economic progress and social advance. These are now the major issues in the relationship between North and South. They too carry the potential for either conflict or order. Neither the goal of peace nor that of social justice can be achieved in isolation. We must succeed in both quests or we will succeed in neither.

Social justice and economic progress are our concerns at this conference. We meet here to launch the dialogue that has been so often urged and so long awaited. The convening of this meeting should itself be a reason for hope. For we believe it represents a commitment to the path of conciliation. It demonstrates a recognition that consumer and producer, industrial and agricultural, developed and developing, rich and poor must together address the challenges of the global economy.

The United States will work with dedication and energy for a positive outcome. We will do so in our own self-interest and in the interest of a more just and prosperous community of nations.

We will do our utmost to help mobilize the world's resources and the talents of men and women everywhere in the service of economic progress and common well-being.

In the past 2 years we have all learned that no nation or group of nations can solve its economic problems in isolation. In a world which is becoming increasingly interdependent, we have witnessed that inflation and recession affect us all. We have seen that no country can achieve redress by exporting its economic difficulties or by exacting an exorbitant economic price from others.

But our deepest challenge is political. Economic distress magnifies the problems of government in all our countries, clouding the prospects of social peace and democratic institutions. We have seen that national economic problems thus become international; they spawn clashes of interest and protectionist pressures that strain the fabric of collaboration, even among traditional friends. We have all come to understand that, if unresolved, the competing claims of developed and developing, consumer and producer, will thwart any effort to build a stable and progressive international structure.

Our future depends now not on blind economic forces but on choices that statesmen make. The world's nations can struggle in national or ideological contention—or they can acknowledge their interdependence and act out of a sense of community. The United States has chosen the path of cooperation.

The United States, as the world's strongest

PR 612

2

economy, has demonstrated its resilience: we are on the road to recovery. We might best survive any new round of economic warfare. But it is my country's conviction that tests of strength benefit no nation. The approach that we took at the Seventh Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly in September reflects our vision of a more positive future.

The special session reached consensus on an impressive range of economic problems. This commitment to cooperation can become a benchmark in human affairs—if its spirit is carried forward. We owe our people solutions, not slogans. So let us set to work. Let us implement the consensus of the special session and take up its unfinished tasks. Let us make this conference a decisive step toward their achievement.

## The Road to This Conference

We are here because 2 years ago the international structure was gravely tested by a crisis in energy. No problem on the international agenda is more crucial to the world economy. As this conference demonstrates, it has led us to a much broader consideration of the range of related issues.

The unprecedented expansion of the global economy in the decades since World War II relied upon the plentiful supply of energy at reasonable prices. It produced economic growth, fostered industrialization, and encouraged development in every quarter of the globe.

Thus the energy crisis—caused by a combination of the 1973 embargo and the fivefold increase in the price of oil—has dealt a serious blow to global stability and prosperity.

Inflation, recession, and payments balances significantly worsened in all the industrialized world and in those developing nations which had realized substantial progress toward industrialization. The poorest of the developing countries, struggling to make modest steps toward progress, were dealt the cruelest blow of all. Their hopes for growth were—and continue to be—thwarted. Their development planning has been disrupted. Even their agricultural production has been undermined by the increased cost of petrochemical fertilizers. For the vast majority of the developing world economic justice was poorly served.

In response to the energy crisis, the United States sought first to reach a consensus among the industrialized nations. We worked together to as-

sure basic security against future arbitrary disruptions in oil supply and against potential oil-induced financial difficulties. We pledged ourselves to long-term cooperation in energy conservation and the development of alternative energy supplies. We agreed not to resort to protectionist measures, and we began unprecedented cooperation in our economic policies as dramatized by the recent economic summit in Rambouillet [November 15-17, 1975].

These actions were not taken in a spirit of confrontation. Most are prudent steps of self-protection which have effect only if confrontation is provoked by others. Others involve an urgent program for the development of alternative sources to the benefit of all.

But the collaboration of the industrial countries has always been conceived as only part of a larger program for economic progress. From the beginning, we have foreseen an effort to develop a constructive dialogue leading to close and mutually beneficial long-term economic ties with oil-producing nations—so that our investment and technical support would contribute to their development, and their prosperity would contribute to the worldwide expansion of trade and development. We recognize that the only durable basis for constructive relations is an economic system which fosters the prosperity of all. Each of us has a stake in the progress of others.

Last April, at the invitation of the President of France, we agreed to begin this discussion. The industrial nations wanted to focus on energy. The oil-producing and other developing nations wanted to give equal priority to a wider range of development issues, including prices and markets for other raw materials, and to international financial questions. The industrial nations regarded these issues as too varied and complex to be addressed effectively in a single forum. The April preparatory conference failed to reconcile these positions.

To demonstrate its desire for a constructive and cooperative solution the United States worked closely with other participants in developing a mutually satisfactory arrangement: energy, the concerns of the less developed countries about raw materials, development, and related financial matters would be addressed as part of a discussion of global economic problems, while maintaining enough distinction between them for a useful dialogue.

3

The United States is committed to a serious and wide-ranging program of cooperation with the developing world. My country understands full well, and has shown in its many proposals, that this dialogue must encompass issues of concern to all sides—including the needs of the many nations not in attendance here. For us, this clearly requires a discussion of the effects of energy prices on the world economy. For cooperation depends on mutual respect, mutual understanding, and mutual benefit.

To this end, at the Seventh Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly 3 months ago, the United States made a series of proposals in several areas:

* To insure the economic security of developing countries against shortfalls in export earnings, food shortages, and natural disasters;

* To accelerate their economic growth by improving their access to capital markets, technology, and foreign investment;

* To better the conditions of trade and investment in key commodities on which many of their economies are dependent, and to set an example in the vital area of food;

* To improve the world trading system and make it better serve development goals, and realize through the multilateral trade negotiations a strengthening of developing country participation; and

* To address the especially urgent needs of the poorest countries devastated by current economic conditions.

The Seventh Special Session ended on a note of conciliation and cooperation. The spirit of the session was carried forward to the October preparatory conference in Paris where the declaration laid the basis for our meeting today.

This will be the attitude of the United States here. Progress has been made in many areas, and this conference must move us forward.

## The Work of the Commissions

The four commissions that this conference is establishing have much work before them:

* The Commission on Energy should promote an effective world balance between energy demand and supply. It should work for practical cooperation among industrialized and developing countries to develop new energy supplies. And it should lay the foundations of a mutually beneficial long-term relationship between energy producers and consumers.

* The Commission on Raw Materials should work to establish the conditions for stable, long-run supplies of raw materials vital to global progress at prices that are remunerative to producers and fair to consumers.

* The Commission on Development should strive to accelerate economic development in all nations, especially the poorest. In particular, it should bring together industrial nations and oil-wealthy nations to provide financial support for the development initiatives of the U.N. Special Session.

* The Commission on Finance should address financial issues as they relate to the work of the other three commissions. It should seek to strengthen the sense of shared financial responsibility for the health and growth of the international economy.

With a cooperative approach, the commissions can give direction and impetus to related activity in other forums and organizations, under whose jurisdiction a number of these issues fall. They can serve as clearing houses for information and motivate other organizations doing similar work. They can identify areas where necessary work is not being done, and devise new initiatives where needed.

The United States will support progress on a broad range of topics in the context of the four commissions. But we have a special interest in the following areas:

*First, the price of oil and the security of oil supply as they affect the international economy;

*Second, the serious balance-of-payments problems of developing countries;

*Third, the conditions of international investment;

*Fourth, the issues of key commodities, especially food;

*Fifth, the problems of trade; and

*Sixth, the urgent needs of the poorest countries.

Let me discuss each of these in turn.

4

## Energy

First, energy. The application of science and technology to tap the vast energy potential imprisoned beneath the earth, radiated by the sun, generated by the movement of wind and water across the earth's surface or locked in the core of matter, is fundamental to the hopes of millions to pull themselves above a bare struggle for existence. For the expansion of the global economy for both developed and developing countries depends heavily on our harnessing and efficiently employing the world's energy resources.

Some nations are particularly well endowed with these resources; some have the scientific and technological expertise to explore and utilize that potential. The international flow of energy, investment capital required to produce it, and goods produced from fuels have become in effect a global energy system which sustains all our economies. Only through international cooperation can all nations benefit from these processes and can the world economy harness its energy resources most effectively.

The United States is committed to a cooperative approach. We have much to offer. We have produced more energy than any other nation in the history of mankind; our energy science and technology are the most advanced and we have tremendous potential for future energy development in our country and abroad. The United States also has much to gain from cooperation. Our energy needs are the world's largest; our ability to raise living standards for all our citizens depends on greater energy production and the more efficient use of energy resources.

This dialogue and this conference have these tasks:

* First, it is time to reach a common evaluation of the relationship between changes in energy prices and the stability and performance of the world economy. The abrupt and arbitrary increase in the price of oil has been a major factor in rates of inflation and unemployment unprecedented since the 1930's. It has led to serious balance-of-payments deficits, indirectly through global recession and directly through higher-priced imports.

By extraordinary effort the industrial countries, on the whole, put their payments back in balance over the last year, although at a high cost to the well-being of their peoples. Thus the im-

mediate burden of the massive petrodollar deficit is now borne largely by the developing countries which have little or no oil resources.

Developing countries by definition tend to have less of a margin to reduce consumption, to restructure energy use, or to shift to alternative sources when the oil price rises. They are the most vulnerable—and the most wounded.

A lower oil price would make possible more rapid economic recovery around the globe. It would assist the developing countries by easing their enormous balance-of-payments burden and their debt burden, and increasing foreign demand for their exports. A lower price, along with stability of supply, would also benefit producer nations over the long term by easing the urgency for consuming countries to develop alternative supply sources.

Conversely, any further increase in prices would seriously hamper economic recovery, retard international trade, compound the internal difficulties of many countries, weaken the ability of the advanced nations to assist the developing, and strain the fabric of international cooperation.

It is time for a serious discussion of this issue. We are prepared to make a sustained effort to achieve understanding.

* Second, we must collaborate to find new sources of energy and intensify our conservation efforts. All consuming countries, developed and developing, must use energy more efficiently and develop more abundant supplies. Producers need to prepare their economies for the day when they will have exhausted their easily accessible oil reserves.

Individually, the industrialized countries are accelerating the development of their own energy sources. The United States is developing its conventional fuels and also new sources, including nuclear power, to replace fossil fuels. We have committed massive resources to research and devoted our best talents to this effort; we expect it to result in a substantial increase in U.S. energy production. In Europe, major efforts have been launched along the same lines, with the North Sea as the most dramatic example of the potential. The development of alternative energy sources is vital.

In the near future, the industrial countries will take the first steps toward welding these national programs into a coherent cooperative program. These programs are designed to promote

5

conservation and to accelerate the development of alternative energy supplies through large-scale joint projects and cooperation in research and development. We will demonstrate our commitment to the maximum development of new energy by agreeing not to permit imported oil to be sold in our internal markets below a common minimum safeguard price.

This effort will bring a better balance to the world energy market. But as it gathers support, it will bring important benefits to developing as well as industrial countries. The programs that the industrial countries are undertaking, and those that many developing countries have within their potential to undertake, can lead to additional and more secure supplies of energy, which can be a spur to their prosperity and development. All nations will have access to a larger pool of energy resources, and there will be less competition for oil. The efforts of developing countries to increase their own production of energy, if supported, can be the single most important step they take to secure their development for future generations.

At the Seventh Special Session of the General Assembly, the United States proposed an international energy institute. Through such an organization, the developed countries and OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] countries can assist poorer developing nations to utilize energy more efficiently, increase their own production, and improve allocation and distribution of existing resources. It could identify current or new energy technologies most relevant to their special needs. The institute can help oil-producing countries to improve the use of their own energy.

Using the most advanced techniques of analysis, the institute could help assess all countries' energy resources and requirements. Staffed by experts drawn from government, industry, and academic life in both industrialized and developing countries, it could provide training for local and regional technicians or specialists in energy problems. It could become a central point of contact where policymakers and experts could exchange ideas on plans and programs. We see the institute as a first bridge between the massive effort the industrialized countries have now launched to develop alternative sources of energy and the effort which the developing countries must now undertake.

In addition, the United States has suggested a number of other means by which the talents and

experience of the developed nations, collectively and individually, can assist developing states to find and exploit new energy sources and conserve their national patrimony. We will advance these proposals in the Energy Commission. We anticipate a full exchange of views on their scope and substance.

Oil producers and nations with the technology to help develop oil resources share an interest in cooperation on conservation and exploration. But this cooperation will be easier to forge in a stable energy market with a more appropriate structure of energy prices.

● Third, the United States seeks a greater participation and contribution of the oil-producing countries in the international economy. With the extraordinary transfer of wealth that has taken place, it is in the common interest that the oil-producing nations be constructive members-not challengers-of the world economic system; that investment and the latest technology be made available to them on a reimbursable basis for their development programs; and that the flow of goods and services be enhanced between producing and consuming countries.

We believe that these three issues-a better understanding of the effects of oil price increases on the world economy, cooperation on conservation and new production, and the orderly integration of OPEC economies into the global economy-are priority tasks for the energy forum.

## Balance of Payments

The balance-of-payments problems of developing countries are an immediate and urgent task for this conference to address, closely related to the energy issue. Current projections indicate that the developing world in 1976 will be collectively in deficit by about $35 billion. Bilateral and multilateral aid, along with direct investment, will finance roughly $25 billion of this. The question is whether borrowing from international capital markets can again this year make up the remainder. If not, some countries will be forced to reduce imports, cut back development programs, and further mortgage their future. The deficits of the developing countries thus could endanger not only their own well-being but also the stability of the

6

international trade and financial system.

A multitude of ideas and proposals are already before us. Let us address steps that can be taken now.

* First, the members of the IMF [International Monetary Fund] should promptly agree on the details of the trust fund which the United States has proposed to furnish concessional financing for the poorest countries. It would provide these countries additional resources of $1-$2 billion a year, using the profits from IMF gold sales as well as national contributions. We are well on the way to resolving outstanding issues on IMF gold; let us take final action on the trust fund in January.

* Second, the members of the IMF should complete negotiations next month on the new development security facility. The United States made this major proposal to provide more substantial financing to countries facing temporary shortfalls in export earnings due to the world business cycle or commodity fluctuations. We proposed this on September 1; its realization in January would be an impressive demonstration of international resolve and responsiveness.

* Third, the IMF should approve on one-third increase in member quotas, thus expanding its potential financing for all members.

Final approval can and must be taken on each of these proposals at the meeting of the IMF Interim Committee in Jamaica in early January. Together with substantial unused regular drawings still available to developing countries, these measures will add significantly to the capacity of developing countries to sustain their needed imports and their development programs. But however substantial these facilities, they may not be enough. Once the trust fund and these other proposals have been implemented in January, we must determine how best to respond to the remaining balance-of-payments problems of the developing countries.

The United States is committed to finding a constructive solution. Our specific response will depend in part on whether there is a general across-the-board financing problem or one concentrating on a few countries. One promising approach would be to expand the credit that developing countries can draw from the IMF by liberalizing the rules governing access to regular IMF resources. The IMF

Board could, for example, increase the size of each credit drawing, base them on expanded new quotas, or add a new drawing beyond those now available. Decisions on such proposals will need to be based on close analysis of their effect on the financial integrity of the IMF. Secretary [of the Treasury William E.] Simon will present our analysis and proposals for increased use of the IMF at the Interim Committee meeting.

We cannot emphasize enough the need for immediate action in this area to supplement the long-term proposals which have already been made. The responsibility does not lie with the industrialized countries alone. We cannot be expected to bear the major burdens for remedying balance-of-payments problems in which the actions of others play such a significant role. There is a collective obligation to act; there must be a joint program involving the industrialized, as well as the oil-producing, countries.

## Investment and Technology for Development

The balance-of-payments deficits of the developing countries will perhaps moderate as the global economy recovers from recession. But sustained economic growth requires the continuous application of capital, technology, and management skills to development needs.

Private investment has always been a major factor in the growth of the global economy. My own country has benefited from foreign investment throughout its history. Today more than ever the developing countries need this capital in addition to the limited supply of official development assistance.

To make this possible, governments of developing countries need better access to world capital markets. The United States has urged that technical assistance and expertise be provided to developing countries that are ready to enter long-term private capital markets for the first time. We have proposed a major expansion of the resources of the World Bank's International Finance Corporation [IFC] to strengthen the private sector in developing countries and to enhance their international competitiveness for private capital. We have recommended creation of an international investment trust to mobilize private portfolio capital for investment in local enterprises. And we are contributing to the work of the IMF/World Bank Development Committee to assist in removing

7

impediments to developing countries' access to capital markets.

But we also believe that one of the most important vehicles for transferring capital, technology, and management skills to where they are most needed is private enterprise. There simply is not enough governmental capital available. Because of ideological considerations, these private enterprises operate in an investment climate increasingly clouded by unpredictable national legislation and uncertain rules of the game. In this environment everybody suffers. Host countries are deprived of the capital resources, technology, and management which these enterprises uniquely provide, as well as a source of tax revenue. Home countries are deprived of the overseas markets, investment income, and the new ideas and techniques which come with foreign contact. And the enterprises themselves are squeezed at both ends, making overseas investment less worthwhile for them and reducing their contribution to home and host country alike and to the global product.

The United States has taken an active part in international efforts to facilitate international investment on a basis that serves the interests of all parties. We are willing to explore voluntary guidelines for the behavior of both transnational enterprises and governments. At the United Nations I stated four basic principles that should be included:

* Transnational enterprises must obey local law and refrain from unlawful intervention in the domestic affairs of host countries.

* Host governments must treat these enterprises equitably, without discrimination among them, and in accordance with international law.

* Both governments and businesses must respect the contractual obligations they freely undertake.

* Principles for transnational enterprises should apply to domestic enterprises where relevant.

But efforts should not be limited to general guidelines for investment. Other remedial measures are possible.

Taxation is one such area. Because they operate in multiple jurisdictions, transnational enterprises may sometimes be subject to either double taxation or inappropriate tax incentives. The result in either case is that investment patterns

are distorted. We must find ways to enable both host and home countries to coordinate their tax policies and make them more equitable to each other and to productive enterprises.

A second area for improvement is inter-governmental consultation on investment disputes. This is especially important to developing countries whose progress is dependent on a climate conducive to an adequate flow of investment. It is time to develop generally accepted international rules for the settlement of investment disputes and the arbitration of differences and other guidelines for dealing with problems arising between governments and enterprises. The United States recommends that the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes be given a greater role in solving important investment controversies.

International assistance for development must also focus on the advancement, selection, and application of modern technology. Many countries in the developing world are already on the path of industrialization. They have proved their capacity to take advantage of the vast storehouse of modern technology. The United States encourages this endeavor. We have long been in the forefront of the effort to train more managers, technicians, and researchers in the developing countries to carry this forward.

Most technology transfer takes place through international investment and the operations of transnational enterprises on a licensing, equity, or contract basis. The United States understands the concern of many developing countries not to become the repository of obsolescent technology. Technology must be suited to local needs, the terms and conditions must be mutually acceptable, and it must be effectively managed and utilized. Developing countries must be enabled to make their own informed choices of foreign or domestic technology, to adapt it to their own needs and conditions, and to manage its application skillfully. This technology transfer requires the development of human capabilities—the management and skills that constitute the infrastructure of technological development.

People—their training and their placement in a country's management systems—are the key to making technology a producing resource. International cooperation can make no greater contribution to development than to foster the training

8

of a corps of specialists in each country competent to select, bargain for, and manage technologies. We see this requirement as an important topic for consideration by the Commission on Development, and we will make concrete proposals to this end.

## Commodities

A healthy global economy requires that both producers and consumers find protection against the cycle of raw materials surplus and shortage which chokes growth and disrupts planning. We must insure more reliable supplies of vital commodities on terms fair to all.

The problem is most urgent in food, mankind's most critical need. The cycles of feast and famine, widely fluctuating prices of basic foodstuffs, and breakdowns in the system of storage and transportation continue to afflict mankind. These show few signs of abating. And in the long run, growth in demand for food threatens to outrun the expansion of supply.

As the world's largest producer and exporter of food, the United States recognizes its special responsibility: At home, we have been committed to policies of maximum food production and have removed all production restraints; internationally, we have proposed a system of grain reserves to help moderate fluctuations in world prices and supplies.

We believe that our grain reserves proposal can be a model for cooperation on other commodity problems. It takes into account the interests of producers and consumers. It makes special provision for the concerns of developing countries. Its reliance on buffer stocks minimizes the distortion of trade and improves the efficiency of the market. We now await the cooperation and commitment of others to help implement this proposal.

Most importantly, we are increasing our assistance to developing countries—not merely for short-term relief, but to help them boost their own agricultural production. Our bilateral aid programs in this area have been expanded greatly. We also strongly support the proposal first made by oil-exporting countries for an international fund for agricultural development. We have announced our willingness to make a contribution of $200 million, or one-fifth of the worldwide goal of $1 billion.

Other commodities are of critical importance

to many countries, either as producers or consumers. Many developing countries depend crucially on earnings from commodity exports to lift their people above subsistence levels, to support basic social programs, and to finance the beginnings of industrialization. The solution to commodity issues will affect not only the developing countries, but also the industrial countries—who are in fact the largest producers, consumers, and exporters of commodities. The economies of all countries are affected by the instabilities of the market—the vulnerability of agricultural commodities to the vagaries of weather and shifts in world demand; the sensitivity of agricultural and mineral markets to fluctuations in the business cycle in industrial countries; and the higher prices of critical energy imports.

At the Seventh Special Session a consensus was achieved that commodity issues should be approached cooperatively. The U.S. position is that a realistic and constructive approach will require that we:

* Establish producer-consumer forums for discussions of key commodities;

* Reduce obstacles to producers' access to markets and to consumers' access to supplies;

* Rely more on buffer stocks, where feasible and necessary, in preference to restrictions on trade and production;

* Improve the productivity and marketability of agricultural raw materials; and

* Expand worldwide production capacity in other key commodities.

We now stand ready to cooperate in establishing producer-consumer forums and discuss copper, bauxite, and other commodities. We plan to address the question of supply and market access in the multilateral trade negotiations [MTN] in the next several months. We have proposed that the IFC and the IBRD [International Bank for Reconstruction and Development] make available increased financing for mineral development and look forward to progress in the near future. We plan to support the U.N. Revolving Fund for National Resources Exploration. Finally, we have proposed establishment of an organization to finance and coordinate research on nonfood tropi-

9

cal products to improve their productivity and
competitiveness.

We look forward to additional discussion of
these measures in the Raw Materials Commission
of this conference.

Trade

An expanding and more open international
trading system is a principal factor in the growth
and development of both developed and develop-
ing nations. We are committed to the strengthening
of this system so it can better serve the needs of
the international community and include, impor-
tantly, the developing nations.

Trade enables nations to earn their own way.
It is the most consistent with national dignity and
with the efficiency of the economic system.

Over the last 5 years, in a major step of inter-
national cooperation, all the major industrial na-
tions have committed themselves to establish a
generalized system of tariff preferences, giving de-
veloping countries better access to the markets of
all industrial nations.

The United States will implement its general-
ized system of preferences in 2 weeks' time. Under
this system we will eliminate duties on 2,724 tariff
items, representing some 19 percent of dutiable
non-oil imports from eligible countries in 1974.
This will open up significant potential new markets
for the products of developing countries in the
United States.

Tropical products are a promising area of ex-
port expansion for many developing countries. The
international trading system should encourage this
expansion. In the multilateral trade negotiations in
Geneva, work is beginning on a package of tariff
concessions on tropical products for early imple-
mentation. We attach much importance to this ef-
fort.

Tariff escalation—the process by which tariffs
are progressively increased on goods as they move
higher on the ladder of processing—is an obstacle
to the exports and industrialization of many de-
veloping countries. At the U.N. Special Session we
proposed that reduction, or in some cases elimina-
tion, of tariff escalation be an important goal for
the multilateral trade negotiations. The effort to
identify and negotiate specific changes will begin
next year.

This effort, however, is related in our view to
the issue of access to supply of raw materials. Con-
sumers cannot be expected to improve access to
their markets for finished products if they face re-
strictions on supplies of related raw materials. Thus
the Geneva negotiations must also improve access
to supply as well as access to markets.

Reducing or eliminating nontariff barriers to
trade is another major task facing the international
trading community. We will make a particular ef-
fort to negotiate special and differential treatment
for developing countries in this area.

An improved and strengthened world trading
system would not be complete, however, if it did
not insure greater sharing by developing countries
of both benefits and responsibilities. Developing
countries should gradually take on the normal obli-
gations of reciprocity and trade rules as they
progress.

The multilateral trade negotiations are the
most effective forum for pursuing all these objec-
tives.

The United States put forward proposals in
many of these areas at the recent meeting of the
Trade Negotiations Committee in Geneva as goals
for 1976. The developing countries will also bene-
fit from progress in all other areas of the negotia-
tions, which we now hope will be completed in
1977.

The United States is committed to a role of
leadership in the multilateral trade negotiations.
We will seek rapid progress for the benefit of both
developing and developed countries. I believe that
this conference and its relevant commissions
should endorse the work of the MTN. It should
provide continued support for the negotiations by
monitoring and contributing ideas to the work in
Geneva.

Global Poverty

Our deliberations here must address the plight
of the one-quarter of mankind whose lives are over-
whelmed by poverty and hunger and numbed by
insecurity and despair. This group has suffered im-
measurably from high prices of food and fuel.
Their export revenues have been seriously under-
mined by global recession.

In these regions less than one person in five is
literate; one baby in 10 dies in childhood, and in

10

some areas closer to one out of two; life expectancy is less than 50 years; and birth rates continue to be intolerably high. Public expenditures for education and health care are low—and their per capita income has been declining for the last 4 years.

And so today, alongside the Third World with its increasing power and assertiveness, there has come into being a fourth world, where human beings still struggle for bare existence.

In one international conference after another, we have all pointed to the fourth world with sincere intentions of giving immediate help, providing long-term assistance, and devising special arrangements. We have agreed that this is a major test of a just international structure. It is time for all of us here to act on our words. Three areas need immediate action.

* First, many of the poorest cannot finance balance-of-payments deficits because they cannot gain access to capital markets or because of high interest rates on what little finance they can obtain. The trust fund which the United States proposed in the IMF to provide up to $2 billion for emergency relief is of special benefit to them. Let us reach a consensus to create this trust fund at next month's IMF meeting in Jamaica.

* The second area for immediate action is food aid. No obligation is more basic than our insuring that the poorest are fed. This fiscal year the United States expects to provide more than 6 million tons of food aid—or more than 60 percent of the 10 million ton global target set by the World Food Conference and a 20 percent increase over last year's contribution. Others must donate their fair share.

* Third, the poorest countries need preferential and expanded access to official concessionary financial aid. The United States will do its part. More than 70 percent of our bilateral development assistance now goes to low-income countries. The concessional financing of the international financial institutions should also be expanded. At the Seventh Special Session, my government pledged to support the fifth IDA [International Development Association] replenishment and the regional development banks. We are making every effort to secure congressional appropriations for funds already committed. We hope that the traditional and

new donors will help the poorest through financial contributions to both bilateral and multilateral programs.

Let us urgently rededicate ourselves to action on behalf of the poorest among us. Such action is the responsibility of the entire world community—not just the industrial countries, but also the more affluent in the developing world. While no one commission will be dealing with the totality of problems of the fourth world, each commission has a responsibility to be conscious of the need for special consideration for the poorest.

## Conclusion

The nations and economies of the world are many; our differences are great. But our reasons for pulling together are far greater. Therefore our dialogue here must be candid but with a positive spirit and cooperative attitude. The prosperity, the progress, and indeed the security of the world may depend upon whether we succeed in finding realistic answers to the kinds of problems before us at this conference. For lasting peace around the globe will depend not only on containing conflict, but mounting progress. It requires not merely the preservation of stability, but the fulfillment of human aspirations.

The issues we face are often technical, but their implications could not be more profound. They go to the heart of our future. Only rarely in history does mankind consciously swing out from familiar, well-marked paths to move in new directions. Only rarely does humanity comprehend as clearly as we do today that change is imminent and that the direction to be taken is subject to human decision. The nations of the world face such an opportunity now.

We have the possibility of forging international relationships that will govern world affairs for the next several decades. We can bring together developed and developing, producer and consumer, in common endeavors—or we can go our separate ways, with every one of us paying the price for a lack of vision in lower standards of living and increased international tensions. Mutual interest should bring us together; only blindness can keep us apart.

The American people have always believed in

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[lc]

December 16, 1975

No. 614

INTERVIEW OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BY
ABC, NBC, CBS TELEVISION
HOTEL MAJESTIC
PARIS, FRANCE
DECEMBER 16, 1975

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, since you feel that the non-oil-producing countries bear the brunt of the high oil prices, do they have the duty to help the IEA bring the oil prices down?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The basic theme of my speech is not concerned with any one single problem. It has to do with the fact that economic progress for all countries has to be part of an overall approach in which energy prices, development, commodities, all play a significant role. The United States will make a major effort to bring about constructive world economy, but it needs the cooperation of other nations and my speech here was an appeal (inaudible).

**QUESTION:** Mr. Kissinger, you seem to be going (inaudible)...cause and effect on the crisis...

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I was pointing out that the developing countries that do not produce oil face special difficulties. That is a fact, but I also pointed out that the oil-producing countries and the industrialized countries together have an opportunity to remedy many of these difficulties. The basic theme of the speech was a pledge of cooperation by the United States and an appeal to cooperation by other nations.

**QUESTION:** And if the other nations are not forthcoming in their cooperation, will we have to reduce our share of the...

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** One nation cannot cooperate by itself, but I am hopeful that this conference will succeed, so we can face that problem if it should unexpectedly arise.

**QUESTION:** How do you think the producers will respond to your request that they make a greater contribution to the world economy?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** How can they resist me?

* * * * *

LcJ

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 17, 1975

No. 618

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND
THE HONORABLE ALLAN MACEACHEN
CANADIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
BEFORE A BILATERAL MEETING

PARIS, FRANCE

DECEMBER 17, 1975

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I didn't know we had any problems until a few days ago.

**SECRETARY MACEACHEN:** Well, do we have any?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** No.

**SECRETARY MACEACHEN:** I don't think so either.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** We have an excellent relationship.

**SECRETARY MACEACHEN:** I've been saying to you and to myself and to all others that the state of our relationship was excellent. In fact, I think it is better than it has been for some time.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I think the state of our relations is excellent. Between two countries of our size there are always some problems, but we are solving them in a spirit of cooperation and friendship. Our relations are good. The Prime Minister and the President's relations are very good also.

**SECRETARY MACEACHEN:** Well, that is, I am glad to say, this is the interpretation that the Prime Minister has put on all these comments that have been made recently in the House of Commons. And his interpretation is that his relations with the President are good and with you.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course, without problems life would be dull. But the problems we have...

**SECRETARY MACEACHEN:** Of course, there are problems and we have agreed that we want to consult about them and work them out.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I think that our relations haven't been better, at least since I have been in Washington. This is my assessment of the situation.

**SECRETARY MACEACHEN:** Well, I agree with that. I can only comment with respect to my own period in office and I think the atmosphere is better now than it was a year and a half ago.

* * * * *

Bruuraels.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium,
Renassat Van Elsande,
His Excellency

Henry A. Klaasinger

Warm regards,

next year.

I look forward to seeing you again

positive and useful.
at an important moment and were, I believe,
Ministerial meeting. Our deliberations came
the excellent arrangements made for the NATO
thanks to your government and yourself for
As I leave Bruuraels, please accept my

Dear Renassat: