Hydle 5/29/76

THE SECRETARY OF STATE

REMARKS TO THE
94th REPUBLICAN CLUB

June 1, 1976

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

You are to be commended for your willingness to examine
for yourself one of the principal issues of the current political
campaign.

It was said that President Johnson always walked around
with his pockets stuffed with public opinion polls about himself.
I never do that, not only because of my indifference to public
acclaim, but perhaps more importantly, because my tailor
says it ruins the line of my suits.

One of the strange aspects of the current Republican
primary season for me has been getting attacked from the
right. During the Viet-Nam era I was usually under attack

-2-

from the left. After the Cambodian incursion in 1970, several
old colleagues from Harvard came down to see me in my
White House office and told me that if I didn't change my
policy on Indochina, they would see that I didn't get my
Harvard position back. Now that I'm being attacked by
Governor Reagan, they must have concluded I can't be all
bad. I've been receiving some feelers indicating that I
might be welcome there after all -- as an undergraduate
student in remedial political science.

There are, of course, those who think I have been
useless or worse as Secretary of State. On the way over
here I just learned that some source within the State
Department is saying I've been kept on there for more than
two years even though I can't type, take dictation, or even
answer the phone.

-3-

But if you feel that I'm too heavy a cross for the
Republican party to carry into the fall, you can take some
comfort from the fact that at least I'm not eligible to run
for President myself.

## A Successful Republican Foreign Policy

But aside from personalities -- and as you know I have
made clear that on the whole I would prefer to leave at the
end of this administration -- I would contend that the
Republican Administration's record of the past seven and a
half years in foreign policy is a good one, a record that will
stand the test of the political campaign, and the test of
history:

- We have ended direct American participation in
the Indochina War, and recovered from the setback
which we suffered there in connection with the
defeat of friendly regimes;

-4-

-- We have moved away from the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a series of arms control agreements and negotiations, while maintaining our military strength, our alliances and protecting our vital interests;

-- We have broken out of our isolation from several hundred million Chinese people, helping to shift the balance of power in Asia and in the world, while maintaining our ties with the Republic of China;

-- We have strengthened our coordination with the industrial democracies on political, military, and economic issues of fundamental concern to the American people;

-5-

-- We have turned away from confrontation with the Third World countries over international economic issues, and toward cooperation on the basis of practical dialogue on adjustments in the present international economic system, while continuing to oppose one-sided United Nations actions and totalitarian or anti-American behavior by Third World countries or blocs;

-- We have played the vital role in obtaining military disengagement agreements between Israel and her Arab neighbors, while maintaining our support for the survival and security of Israel, and reestablishing friendly relations with many Arab countries from whom we had been estranged for decades.

-6-

Against the background of that record, I would like to
talk about three matters which have arisen in connection with
the Republican campaign, and may continue into the fall
-- our relations with the Soviet Union, the Panama Canal
negotiations, and our role in Southern Africa.

## Relations with the Soviet Union

In our relationship with the Soviet Union, successive
Administrations have had to come to terms with the fact that
the USSR has been growing into the world's second nuclear
superpower. No Administration, no Congress, no consensus
of American or world public opinion, has supported any
American attempt to "roll back" Soviet power, because of
the risks of general war. All Administrations, with Congressional

-7-

and public support, have sought to maintain our military
strength and that of our alliances, in order to contain
Soviet power and discourage aggressive Soviet behavior.

During the past seven and a half years the Republican
Administration has sought to maintain our strength, and
the will to use it, but also to move beyond the balance of
terror toward agreements and understandings to control
the nuclear arms race, limit the possibilities for
confrontation, and cooperate on economic and other areas
which give us direct benefits, and institutionalize
constraints against a return to the cold war.

We believe that both strength and negotiations are
essential elements of any successful relationship with the
Soviets, and that while one can always argue about the

-8-

balance of benefits which we and the Soviets receive, the

American people recognize that we must not abandon either

track of our policy, and that the Administration cannot pursue

the policy effectively if the Congress strikes both the carrot

and the stick from its hands.

## The Panama Canal

During the current campaign, there has been a lot of nonsense about the Panama Canal Treaty negotiations.

We must put aside the legalistic arguments about
sovereignty -- which, in fact, we have never possessed nor
claimed -- and concentrate instead on what are America's real
interests in the Canal. We want a Canal that is open to all
the world's shipping, and remains neutral in international
political disputes; that operates fairly, efficiently,

-9-

profitably, and at rates fair to shippers; that is as secure
as possible from sabotage or military threat. And we want
full and fair treatment for our citizens who have served ably
and faithfully in the Canal Zone.

The only way we can protect these interests is through
a new, modernized agreement and partnership with the
Panamanian Government. We have agreed with Panama on
the principles which will underlie this partnership. The United
States will have the rights, facilities, and lands necessary to
continue operating and defending the canal, and Panama will
have jurisdiction over the Canal Zone and will participate,
over time, in the canal's operation and defense.

-10-

Just as the useful life of the Canal cannot be expected to be perpetual, so the treaty will be, not perpetual, but for a fixed period. Since larger ships today cannot use the Canal, the Treaty will provide for its expansion, by subsequent agreement, as needed.

I want to emphasize that the Department of Defense and the Department of State have collaborated closely in establishing the American negotiating position and in reaching the agreement in principle with Panama, and that Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff regard the partnership we are trying to forge as the most practical means to preserve for us the military value of the Canal.

-11-

What counts for the United States are the use and defense
and the possible future expansion of the Canal, throughout its
useful life -- not some arid dispute over sovereignty, not
some jingoistic march into the past.

## Southern Africa

My recent trip to Africa was an attempt to bring American
policy toward Africa into line with international realities:

- The beginning of war in Rhodesia, a war in which the illegal white-dominated Rhodesian regime cannot hope to prevail, which might spread throughout Southern Africa, and which invites the spread of Soviet and Cuban influence;

- The increasing economic importance of black Africa to the United States, as a trade partner and supplier of energy and other raw materials.

-12-

We want to place our influence on the side of a peaceful
transition to majority rule in Rhodesia, in which respect for
minority rights is maintained and the opportunity for Soviet
and Cuban influence is limited. My trip, and what I said in
Africa, cannot assure that outcome, but it offers that
possibility. My talks with African leaders confirmed their
own preference for a peaceful and African solution to the
problems of the region, and we believe it is no coincidence
that the Cubans have now said they will withdraw their troops
from Angola. I believe that this was good foreign policy, and
therefore ultimately good politics.

Exchange of Toasts
at luncheon by the Secretary
of State & Mrs. Kissinger
in honor of Their Majesties,
the King and Queen of Spain
-T. Jefferson Rm., 8th Flr.,
Thursday, June 3, 1976

2:32 p.m.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Your Majesties,
Mr. Foreign Minister, ladies and gentlemen:

It is a great personal joy for me to be able
to welcome Their Majesties and all our Spanish friends
to the State Department.

We have negotiated for many years with the
Spanish Foreign Office, and we know its tenacity and
its heroic obstinacy (laughter); but we're delighted
that we have achieved a successful result, and any year
now the Congress is going to approve the treaty that
we have negotiated. (Laughter.)

I notice that the Spanish delegation has been
very carefully chosen. Your Ambassador undoubtedly reported
that when the Irish Prime Minister visited that it was alleged
that Christopher Columbus was really an Irishman
(laughter) through a line of reasoning too complicated
to explain now (laughter); so I notice that you have brought

2

a descendant of Christopher Columbus with you to put
to rest that story that was put out on the occasion
of the Irish visit.

Your Majesties are visiting the United States
on an occasion when Spain is engaged again in one of the
great efforts of its history. I told His Majesty, in
the subtle diplomatic style for which I'm noted
(laughter), that when he started yesterday in the
Congress to speak about Spanish history I turned to
the Attorney General and I said, "Good God, this is
going to be a long speech!" (laughter). But as one
looks at Spanish history, one is struck by the tre-
mendous physical achievements. But what has always
impressed me is the spiritual effort that moved
Spaniards to all parts of the globe and which caused
small groups of Spaniards to change the destiny of
mankind.

Spain is once again engaged in an effort where
it is trying to find the balance between freedom and
authority, where after many decades it is again trying
to relate itself to the rest of Europe and to the

3

North Atlantic community.

Your Foreign Minister alleges -- though I have no clear recollection (laughter) -- that I have said to him that the Spanish word for "compromise" is "civil war" (laughter), but it is true that heroes are not normally the most compromising individuals and Spain has had a heroic history. But at this time, when Spain is trying to define what all Western societies are constriving for -- the relation between individual liberty and social cohesion, between freedom and responsibility -- we want you to know that the United States is working with you in friendship, and with a sense that the contribution of Spain in this period can be as great and as distinguished as in the proudest periods of Spanish history.

We believe that Spain should become a member of NATO as soon as possible, and we encourage all efforts to bring Spain closer to the European Community. And we were very moved, Your Majesty, by your address yesterday to the Congress, in which you spoke of the principles in which the Monarchy is trying and is going to move Spain on this road internally and in its foreign relations.

4

So I would like to ask everyone here to drink
a toast to the long and fruitful reign of Their Majesties
and to what we hope will be another Golden Age for Spain.

(Standing toast)

(Applause)

FOREIGN MINISTER JOSE MARIA DE AREILZA:

Your Majesties, Mr. Secretary of State,
Mrs. Kissinger --

On behalf of the King and Queen of Spain,
may I thank you for the warmth of your welcome in your
country and for your very moving and meaningful expressions
of friendship.

Their Majesties have come to the United States
at the most auspicious time in the history of your great
country -- the Bicentennial of your independence as a
nation.

This is an occasion which evokes deep feelings
of admiration throughout the whole civilized world. But
nobody perhaps can be so deeply moved as we are --
Spaniards -- who are conscious of the links between your
history and ours from the first days of exploration of
this continent. Our great pride, however, is the assistance

5

Spain rendered two centuries ago to the American colonies
struggling for their independence.

This early friendship between our two peoples,
united in a common cause, has seen since then periods
of great friendship and cooperation and also interludes
of differences.

Today, we find our two countries enjoying
profound identity of interests which beckon our peoples
to a new era of understanding and cooperation.

I would like to recall on this occasion the
story of their first executive agreements between Washington
and Madrid in 1953 -- so effective for free world defense --
and that have been renegotiated and upgraded to a treaty
providing a higher and more equitable level of recip-
rocity.

During the thirteen years which elapsed
between the first agreement and the signing of this new
treaty, Spain has been pleased to cooperate meaningfully
in completing the strategic mechanism of Western European
defense, with its armed forces participating in a coor-
dinated vigilance over the geopolitical area in which
Spain has its own national interests.

During this period, Mr. Secretary, military
and economic aid received from your country have been

6

accompanied by the establishment of cultural and tech-
nological links and exchanger of all kinds.

But we would be less than frank, as we meet
here, if we were to present this as a totality of our
thoughts regarding our political relationships. In
the interdependent world of today bilateral, reciprocal
relationships, however close, are not enough.

To feel real and meaningful relationships,
a nation possessing common interests with its neighbors
must be also included in one or another of the great
regional groupings which today both unite and divide
the world community and in which are the true centers
of power and decision of the future.

We Spaniards are an Atlantic country with
vital and historic links with the American continent.
Centuries ago this "New World" depended heavily on the
Crown of Spain.

But we are also an essential part of Europe --
economically, politically, culturally and strategically.
Quite obviously, nothing that happens in the "Old World,"
nothing in the present or in the future, can leave us
indifferent or uninvolved.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the
political unification of Europe interests us greatly
and directly, and its defense strategy likewise affects

and involves us in an ever-increasing measure.

It is understandable, Mr. Secretary, that
a degree of ideological conformance might be demanded
of members in the alliance. We can also admit that
the defense and protection of the "political integrity"
of member nations might be construed as a proper
objective of the alliance.

But, Mr. Secretary, Spain's resources and
political and spiritual devotion to the aims of the
Atlantic community cannot be successfully questioned.
Yet, today, let me say very frankly, there are those
in the community still who deny political reality and
who close their eyes to what is going on in Spain,
what the Government of the Monarchy is doing and still
base their prejudices on outworn beliefs.

Those who deny change also fail to appreciate
the importance of our military strength, free from the
dangerous political influences afflicting some of the
military mechanisms in the Western community.

Spain today looks forward. It looks to the
future. Is it not time perhaps that our neighbors like-
wise reassess past positions and consider now the
contribution which Spain is able to make to the balance,

8

stability and defense of the way of life common to
all Western Europe.

You, Mr. Secretary, said in your magnificent
speech in Boston some months ago, as we understood it,
that the links that unite the great industrial democracies
in the world are based on the principles of the defense
of moral values and a way of living -- principles that
stem from a belief in liberty and the hope for a better
future for mankind.

Today, we are in Spain a strong, modern
industrial society; and we intend also to become an
industrial democracy. It is our belief that therein lies
the greatest political possibility for the development
of a socially responsible economic system.

The transition towards an effective democracy
is, as you know, a complicated and difficult task. It
is not free of dangers, nor can it be achieved at once,
overnight. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that
"the ground of liberty is to be gained by inches."

A Greek author, a favorite of yours, Mr.
Secretary, said two thousands years ago: "Courageous
are those who, seeing clearly what awaits them, be it
glory or danger, go out to meet it whatever may befall."
It is in this spirit that the Monarchy and the King of
Spain are approaching the policy of constitutional reform
in my country, through popular referendum, which is going

8

9

to decide the will of the people and the reform within a
few months.

Mr. Secretary, on the occasion of this
Bicentennial of your great nation, we have read again
and meditated upon the philosophical and moral content
of your founding documents, the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution. It seems to us that in the
set of principles contained therein -- namely, political
equality, the consensus of the governed, national
sovereignty, the necessary authority and government by
the people -- there is also a subtle balance between the
ideas of democracy and those of liberty. We believe
that the liberties of men are the objective and democracy
is the instrument which makes them possible, protects
them, and is their guarantee. It is in that spirit --
which we understand to be the Spirit of '76 -- that we
are working today in Spain. Paraphrasing a well-known
sentence of your great President Wilson, who in 1919
asked for a "world safe for democracy," we would like to
achieve today a democracy -- a Spanish democracy -- that
will ensure liberty.

Achievement of this goal too often has to
overcome those who would abuse liberty to destroy democracy.

10

This struggle between truly democratic forces and those who would misuse liberty has seen an alarming decrease in the modern world in the number of real democracies. And unhappily only a small number of truly democratic nations remain, as you know, in our international community of today.

We intend to belong to this small group of nations because we are committed to the idea that the freedom of man in indispensable to the progress of the human spirit. Freedom indeed is the life-breath of the human spirit. Without it, it is meaningless to speak of social order and rule of law.

Mr. Secretary, the Spanish Monarchy has a clear goal and intent from which it will not deviate: It is to be the instrument of unity and social cohesion of our people. It intends to guarantee equality and liberty to every citizen, thereby insuring progress and justice in our country.

As an element of political stability, in the critically strategic area of the world which Spain occupies, the Monarchy can contribute in a significant way to world peace.

In this respect the interests of our two countries, both guided by the principles of strict respect for each other's sovereignty, can complement each other in a very positive way.

11

We earnestly hope, Mr. Secretary, that the
treaty which we have signed in January will be in the
future an effective and realistic instrument for the
exercise of these national mutual interests, that the
areas of our collaboration will be ever growing, and
that the warmth and depth of our relationship will
serve as an example for freedom-loving peoples everywhere
throughout the world.

Thank you.

(Applause)

HIS MAJESTY KING JUAN CARLOS I OF SPAIN:

All right, Mr. Secretary, I'm not going to
talk about history (laughter). I would just like to
Present to you, to the Department of State, this
sculpture of the first Ambassador of Spain to the United
States from Spain, and a friend of George Washington,
Gardoqui. And I would like, ladies and gentlemen, for
you to raise your glasses to the President of the United
States and to the people of America.

(Standing toast) "To the President."

(Applause)

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUNE 3, 1976

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WILLIAM E. SIMON
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
AND
ALAN GREENSPAN
CHAIRMAN OF THE
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

ROOM 450
THE OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING

12:20 P.M. EDT

MR. NESSEN: Sorry to keep everyone waiting.

The purpose of this briefing, which is on the record and for immediate release, is to give you an opportunity to ask questions about the summit meeting to be held in Puerto Rico later this month.

As you see, the briefers are the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury and the President's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Dr. Kissinger would like to begin by giving you a brief history of how the summit meeting came about.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: My problem, ladies and gentlemen; is that I have to go to a lunch I am giving for the King of Spain so if I should leave in the middle of my statement (Laughter) you will understand the reason.

Let me give you a brief summary of the origin of these series of meetings. They grew out of a proposal originally made by the French President last year that the leaders of the industrial democracies had an obligation to make clear to their peoples that they were in control of their futures.

They had the resources and they had the economic systems to achieve economic recovery, security and political cooperation and, therefore, they met at Rambouillet last year, at that time under the impact of an economic crisis in many of the countries.

MORE

(VER)

- 2 -

They decided to cooperate in major fields and, in fact, at Rambouillet a very significant agreement was concluded in the monetary field which then was consummated a few weeks later in Jamaica.

Now, the measures that were discussed then have substantially taken hold. Economic recovery is underway in most of the countries. We have been reviewing within our Government throughout the spring the cooperation between the industrial democracies and so, when President Giscard came over here, President Ford suggested to him that the time might be appropriate to review the recovery that had been made, to see how the industrial democracies could chart the future, not so much under the impact of a crisis, but from the point of view of what kind of a world they wanted to help bring about.

He asked me on my trip to Europe to take up this subject with Chancellor Schmidt and Prime Minister Callahan and with their agreement then approach the other parties for this summit meeting that will take place in Puerto Rico.

The fact is that if you look at the world today, the industrial democracies have the resources to achieve the well being of their populations in a degree that is not equaled in any other system in any other part of the globe.

As events have turned out, the whole process of development in the Third World depends entirely -- I would say almost exclusively -- on the industrial democracies.

The relationship of the East-West economic relations is importantly driven by the economies of the industrial democracies. What has been lacking is sufficient cooperation and synchronization of policies that sometimes have prevented the achievement of opportunities.

Cooperation has been improving, but we are attempting to regularize, by these periodic meetings, so this should be seen as one of a series of meetings that will take place between the industrialized democracies and which was started at Rambouillet, is continuing in Puerto Rico and will undoubtedly continue at other important points, maybe at somewhat the same interval.

This is all the background I wanted to give. My associates and I will be glad to answer questions.

Q Mr. Secretary, if the real purpose of this --

MORE

- 3 -

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I was amazed he didn't get
up when you said, "Mr. Secretary." (Laughter)

SECRETARY SIMON: Secretary Number One and
Secretary Number Two. (Laughter)

Q. Either one. (Laughter)

If the real purpose of this summer conference
in the tropics is totally divorced from any U.S. partisan
political considerations, will President Ford invite
Governors Reagan, Carter and Brown and Senator Church to
be present and participate with him at all news conferences?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: If the President invited
all of the candidates, I think we would have difficulty
finding adequate hotel space. (Laughter)

But, I think when there is a Democratic candidate,
he will be briefed, as has been the tradition in every
campaign, and we do not believe that the cohesion of
the industrialized democracies, the economic progress of
their peoples and their relations to other parts of the
world is a partisan issue that should be handled on the
basis that you suggest.

SECRETARY SIMON: Can I add to that, Father, if
I could for a second?

Excuse me, Henry.

The charge of politics as far as a summit is
concerned implies that the President should not be doing
these very important things like running the country and
making the decisions for our future stability and every-
thing we are attempting to accomplish, that indeed all
the problems have disappeared, the problems of dealing
with an economic recovery in a noninflationary way, of
insuring cooperation in critical financial and monetary
issues, of moving forward on multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the North-South issue, all the other issues that
require attention from heads of State.

I must admit that naturally people are going to
make the head of State look well, but I consider the
charge of politics a poor substitute for thought.

Q. On another subject here, please, the
President's statement here said the Rambouillet conference
has led to less inflation and to more jobs for millions
upon millions of people. Can you give us some specific
examples of what was done at Rambouillet that has directly
brought more jobs for millions upon millions of people?

MORE

- 4 -

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Can I let my economic adviser answer that?

Q I should have said Secretary Number Two.
I am sorry. (Laughter)

SECRETARY SIMON: We talk about directly and we talk about the adoption of economic policies that are going to be bringing about sustained progress, and I am talking about underlying sustained progress and economic expansion in a noninflationary way.

We recognize the independence of nations that we have discussed so much. We recognize that noninflationary economies at home require proper domestic policies first and foremost and a discussion among the world leaders, recognizing that only the stability, as we agreed at Rambouillet, on the international monetary issues, stability in international monetary and financial markets are going to come when we achieve the underlying stability in our own domestic economies.

How can that be achieved? How can we indeed have the shared prosperity that we all speak of, enlarging the pie, rather than, as some suggest, redistributing that pie that presently exists?

It is very difficult, obviously, to say that this agreement or that agreement pointed to specifically more jobs, but setting the tone for confidence, confidence of the individuals and countries that their leaders, their elected and appointed leaders are indeed dealing with these problems. It is an intangible, I will admit, but we all know how important confidence is in this country when one looks at consumer spending and the rest and how important that is.

Q Mr. Secretary, you said the kind of tone that has brought millions upon millions of people to work. Is that what you are saying?

SECRETARY SIMON: I beg your pardon?

Q Are you saying that the sort of tone, a tone was set at Rambouillet, a tone of confidence and leadership that had the concrete result of putting millions and millions of people to work? Is that what you are saying?

SECRETARY SIMON: I am saying sure, that a tone was set, not only a tone, but an agreement of what kind of policies we are going to have to sustain in each of our individual countries to assure that these millions and millions of people are going to be put to work on a permanent basis.

MORE

(L.C)

- 5 -

Q Mr. Secretary, what are the specific issues you think will be discussed at Rambouillet? Why do they come up now rather than two months from now?

SECRETARY SIMON: I think probably one of the more important issues in my area -- and I would like Henry also to respond to this -- is the pace of the economic recovery worldwide. Certainly, as we have discussed here, the pace of economic recovery in the United States, it came not only sooner than we expected, the recovery itself, but its pace has been stronger than we expected.

This raises a danger of renewed inflation, which we all know could abort a recovery. We have to make sure that policies are adopted here--that this danger is recognized for us, as I said to this other gentleman--have a sustained durable expansion and these are the policies we are fighting for here.

All these issues, - recognizing again the interdependence, will be discussed among the world leaders, what policies they are adopting.

We still have the problem of the terrible price of oil in the world that is affecting the economies. The North-South dialogue obviously is going to be discussed, our programs to assist the developing nations.

All of these problems have not disappeared and for the world political leaders to address themselves to these important topics I don't consider to be unusual, I consider it to be highly constructive.

Q What are you going to be able to do at Puerto Rico that addresses the problem of the terrible price of oil?

SECRETARY SIMON: The one thing I don't wish to imply is that important announcements are going to come out of this that are going to instantly solve all the problems that we confront in the world today because clearly they are not. But, a renewed desire, obviously a commitment on the part of the oil consuming world to cooperate in their energy policies, in trade restrictions, which indeed we discussed at Rambouillet I, the trade restrictions of the OECD pledge, the desire to move forward quickly with satisfactory resolution in the multilateral trade negotiations -- all of these are very important items on the future agenda and just because again we have an election year in the United States we should not postpone those important discussions.

MORE

- 6 -

Q. You didn't list exchange rates. Does that mean that this is fairly quiescent now and you are not going to list it?

SECRETARY SIMON: Oh, no. When I say we didn't list it, as you know certain agreements were reached at Rambouillet which paved the way for the agreement at Jamaica for the international monetary reform. It was agreed most importantly at both fora that it was the underlying conditions where the attention had to be focused to bring a stability to exchange rates.

I am sure the instability that has existed in certain currencies today as a result of the divergence of inflation rates in various countries will be discussed. But, the causes of these are universally recognized and we believe that we are dealing with them individually.

Now, every country that had to adjust to the oil price increase, to the terrible inflation on its own, has adjusted at a different rate, and these are problems that we have to discuss in a very frank fashion.

Q. What can you do about the internal economic conditions in individual countries that are causing them to have exchange rate problems? What can the U.S. do?

SECRETARY SIMON: It is not a matter of us attempting to do something about the particular economic problems in another country but recognizing that we have an economy that represents about 28 percent of the world's GNP, recognizing that we have an important responsibility because our policies obviously affect the other economies of the world. This feeling is shared by the countries that we are going to be visiting with and a frank and open discussion of the economic recovery, the economic problems that each of us face individually and how it affects each other collectively and what policies we are taking to remedy the terrible problems that we face, all of these are extremely helpful.

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the question of the pace of the recovery and its possible implications for the inflation rate, are we going to seek any sort of agreement or pledge from the other countries regarding the pace of recovery in their nations?

SECRETARY SIMON: No, I don't think that has been anticipated at all, Art.

MORE

Q A discussion?

SECRETARY SIMON: A general discussion again of the policies we are pursuing to make sure that the economic expansion, the very healthy and balanced economic expansion that we have underway now becomes durable and lasting and noninflationary.

Q Can you comment on whether you think we need to synchronize the policies of the industrialized nations more on the North-South dialogue--more than they were at the just concluded UNCTAD conference?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: First of all, with respect to some of the points that Bill made, when we met at Rambouillet for the first time, one of the grave concerns of all of the other countries there was the pace of the American economic recovery and they felt they had to talk us into a more rapid rate of recovery so that the mere fact that when we presented rather detailed explanations of where we were going to go, which turned out to be underestimates, and the fact that we have been the entrance in many respects of their own recovery.

It contributed to a degree of confidence that promoted recovery -- decisions in those countries that contributed to their own recoveries.

Now, with respect to the North-South dialogue, we think it is imperative that the industrialized democracies cooperate more effectively in the process of development. But ten to 15 years ago one used to talk about the competition between the Socialist countries and the industrialized democracies in the developing world.

Whatever competition goes on now, it is perfectly clear that the economic development depends overwhelmingly on the industrialized democracies.

But, their efforts are fragmented on a national basis within the industrialized democracies, on a national, on a bilateral basis with many of the developing countries, so there has to be a better degree of cooperation and coordination of these efforts, which is one reason why we supported President Giscard's proposal for an African development program.

Secondly, at international conference, it is simply not appropriate for the industrialized democracies to engage in essentially tactical competition on what sort of formulations they could come up with that get increasingly divorced from what can practically be accomplished.

MORE

- 8 -

I believe it is in the interest, above all,
of the developing countries, as well as of the developed
countries, that a more cooperative approach be developed
among the developing countries, and I believe that some
of the things that happened at UNCTAD underline this
necessity.

We believe that some considerable progress
was made at UNCTAD but more could have been made if there
had been a greater coherence among the industrialized
democracies.

Q Mr. Secretary, both yourself and Secretary
Simon say that, political considerations apart, but I
wonder in the timing of the conference if there was
concern to try to find a period when we are politically
quiescent, a plan for the Republican Convention, after
the Republican primaries, and I wonder beyond that are
there also international considerations? Did you want to
hold this after the Italian elections?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I didn't hear.

Q Did you also, beyond any domestic political
considerations, want to hold this summit after the Italian
elections?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: In terms of everybody's
schedule, it turned out that the end of June was the best
time. There were meetings, after all, between the
President and the French President in May. There are some
State visitors coming to the United States in July as a
result of our Bicentennial. August, we obviously are at
the height of a political season, so if decisions were
to be taken that could be implemented, it was desirable to
do it before the summer recesses in the various other
countries and this was the first time that turned out to
be convenient for everybody. There was no explicit dis-
cussion of relation to political processes.

Q Mr. Secretary, what is being done about
Puerto Rico's own economic situation and that the
situation that exists in New York cannot happen there and
what guarantees are going to be made that the Puerto
Rico bondholders will get paid first in case of any
problems?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I will have to let my
economic advisers answer that question.

Q Can Mr. Simon answer that? (Laughter)

MORE

SECRETARY SIMON: I would rather Henry answered that one. (Laughter)

SECRETARY KISSINGER: The summit takes place in Puerto Rico, but it is not primarily about Puerto Rico. In fact, it isn't about Puerto Rico at all. (Laughter)

Q But you are talking about our own economic situation here, which includes Puerto Rico.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We would think the economic problems of Puerto Rico, serious as they may be, are primarily internal problems of the United States and are not a subject for an international summit meeting.

Each of the leaders will present his view of the overall economic situation from the aspect of how it can contribute to the coordination of the industrial democracies but it has not been the tradition that they would raise essentially internal problems at such a summit.

Q Mr. Secretary, inasmuch as the Nairobi meeting rejected your proposal for an International Resources Bank, I am wondering, do you have the upcoming Puerto Rico session as an opportunity to get together and come up with another proposal?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: First of all, you have to look at what was rejected. By a vote of 33 to 31, with 90 nations either abstaining or not participating, a study of the proposal was not adopted.

Secretary Simon and I have issued a joint statement saying that this sort of procedure where we went out of our way to consider the views of the developing countries and by a technical majority, two-thirds of which came from Socialist countries that are not participating in any of these development efforts, that this is not a procedure that will help the dialogue.

To us the international Resources Bank was above all of benefit to the developing countries. It was of no particular benefit to the United States. At any prepatory meetings of the studies that are being foreseen as a result of UNCTAD, we will introduce this idea again and we expect it will be studied with care, together with a whole set of other proposals.

So, we believe that some progress was made at UNCTAD. A large number of the proposals we made were adopted. That particular proposal was defeated by a parliamentary maneuver that is not worthy of the process.

MORE

- 10 -

Q: You don't intend to revise it in any way?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I don't think it had anything to do with the merits of the issue and our concern was that the merits would not be given an opportunity to be expressed.

Q: Mr. Secretary, was any consideration given to inviting Canada to this meeting?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Canada is being invited to this meeting.

Q: Along that same line, have the protests from the Belgians and the Dutch arrived yet? (Laughter)

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Why limit it like that? Why limit it to these two countries?

Q: Because of the fact that was basically the reason Canada wasn't invited to Rambouillet. In other words, they were mad then and I assume they are mad now. Do you anticipate protests from them or have protests arrived?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: No protests have arrived and, given the confidence that these nations all have for each other, we don't expect any.

Q: Have you heard from any?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: No, we haven't heard from anybody yet.

Q: Mr. Secretary, was France consulted on the invitation to Canada?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Yes, all parties agreed to all the invitations.

Q: But the joint statement, Mr. Secretary, makes clear that the case of Canada is somewhat special. It says here that, in addition, given the close ties, etcetera, etcetera, that seems to imply a rather special case-- we will invite the Prime Minister this time around but not the next time necessarily. Is that a fair interpretation?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: These invitations are handled by consensus and this was the basis on which the invitation was agreed upon.

Q: We can take it this is a one-shot deal?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: No, the United States has always supported the participation of Canada at these meetings. We did so last time, and we did so this time, and we shall do so in the future.

MORE

(lc)

- 11 -

Q. Mr. Kissinger, can Mr. Greenspan answer a question?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: By all means.

Q. Mr. Greenspan, do you think that the recovery is so strong now that the dangers of reacceleration of inflation are imminent? Would you recommend at this conference that the major industrialized countries begin to move toward more restrictive monetary and fiscal policies?

MR. GREENSPAN: First I think what the evidence indicates is that the recovery in the United States as well as in many of the other industrialized countries is proceeding at a pace somewhat faster than was believed reasonable at Rambouillet. I would not say that implicit in that pattern is an imminent reignition of inflationary forces.

None the less, I think we are all aware on the basis of the past history of business expansions worldwide that there is the potential of imbalances emerging in the future. I would certainly expect that the summit meeting will address a number of the issues and in fact the whole concept of anticipating potential problems is something which I think is a key factor in this particular meeting.

Q. Along that line, at that time would you recommend or suggest that the major countries begin to consider moving toward more restraint in use of monetary and fiscal policies?

MR. GREENSPAN: I think you are talking about policy decisions that have to be and will be made by the individual countries. I think that the discussions that I presume will take place will largely be on issues of general broad interest but I would not imagine that we or anybody else will recommend to others what their specific actions should be in any individual case.

Q. Every time either you or Nessen or Mr. Simon speak to this question of accelerating recovery in the industrialized nations, the only one you ever cite by name is the United States. Can you get specific, what other countries are you talking about?

MR. GREENSPAN: The reason that we do that is that there are two elements involved. One is that it is fairly clear from the statistics that the recovery is fairly broad-based. In our case we can be very specific in stating the recovery has out-paced our expectations. It would be rather presumptuous of us to make statements about who was forecasting what in other countries, so that I would not want to say in all instances recovery is more or less than they anticipated.

MORE

- 12 -

Q What about from our point of view, as we saw how we thought they should be coming along?

MR. GREENSPAN: I would say in general the recoveries of most of the industrial countries are proceeding at a pace better than has been expected by our internal forecasts and by those of some of the international agencies such as the OECD.

Q If you are going to discuss potential imbalances in the future, is there any other way to deal with it than -- to go back to the last question -- some kind of trade expansion? What else can you discuss?

MR. GREENSPAN: I am not saying that should not be discussed as a series of options. I don't want to presume what in fact heads of States will discuss; they will discuss what they wish to discuss. I am merely indicating that when you are in a period such as we are in, the nature of one's discussion would clearly be similar to those which we would discuss ourselves.

Q But the extent of the recovery is one of the specific reasons cited as one of the specific reasons for this meeting?

MR. GREENSPAN: Yes, and I think the discussions would be around policies which will contribute to balanced expansion and the sustaining of the recoveries that are now under way.

Q Then you will talk about the adequacy of monetary and fiscal policies?

MR. GREENSPAN: The question you raised, Ed, was a very specific question about recommendations made by individuals to other individuals about what they should be doing. I would doubt that.

Q You say the recovery is faster than anticipated. Do you also consider it is faster than desirable?

MR. GREENSPAN: No, I do not.

Q Could I try you on this same question I tried on Secretary Simon? Can you point to anything specifically done at Rambouillet that has brought jobs to millions and millions of people? You are taking credit for that and I would like to know if you have anything specific to back it up?

MR. GREENSPAN: Let's understand what in fact creates jobs. First, what we are talking about is a very significant turn-around that is in the process world-wide. A number of the issues that are involved here are, for example, the expansion of capital investment, the developing of a broad state of improved confidence worldwide and what is implied in the statement is not only the jobs that have been created since then, which is a relatively short period, but implicitly the conditions being set in place which will contribute to the recovery in jobs and in employment in the period ahead.

MORE

[c]

- 13 -

0 Secretary Simon, I have a quote down from you earlier in the meeting where you said the charge for politics is a poor substitute for thought. What do you mean by that?

SECRETARY SIMON: By that I mean the notion sometimes when they take every action deemed by a fellow running for office, whose present responsibility is making the day-to-day decisions to run the country, it is very simple to say he made that decision or this decision, or he is making this trip or that trip for purely domestic political reasons. If you think about it for a minute -- and this is exactly what I mean -- had we taken inventory of the world problems, if you will, and we do have a full ration of them, doesn't it make good sense for the President of the United States to meet with the leaders of the industrialized world to discuss these problems?

You know, it used to be in this world that world leaders would get together to react to crises, and isn't it much better to anticipate problems that might exist in the future so that we will have the ability to act rather than just to continually react?

We found in the first session -- and again it is difficult, as this gentleman's question -- you know, to point to the specifics of what we achieved that accomplishes the instant resolution of the problem. As I said before, the economic policies in each domestic economy set the stage for the expansion but there is much we can do together that is going to assist in sustaining this. What Alan said, looking at the developing countries, how can we help the developing countries to enlarge their pie? Domestic investment in their countries, encouraging investment in their countries is the best way to improve productivity and the standard of living of their people. The oil problem, the trade problem, you would be surprised what a great misunderstanding exists even with the communication network in this world on issues that we take for granted. Even though we finance ministers communicate on a constant basis, there werean awful lot of misunderstandings, or potential misunderstandings avoided and clarified at the last session. You know, just the relationship, and I can think of one quite important one, New York City. We were in the midst of the big debate on New York City and the fiscal crisis, and default; and bankruptcy and what that means and there was a very great misunderstanding of the relationship of our cities to our States and Federal Government vis-a-vis the relationship of the major cities in Europe to their government.

MORE

- 14 -

Q Mr. Secretary, was any thought given to holding this conference after November 2 so you would avoid all of these thoughtless charges?

SECRETARY SIMON: No, when we first started to discuss this a couple of months ago, we said all right, it is desirable to have another meeting of the world leaders. If so, what could or should possibly be discussed as far as the issues. Are they of sufficient importance for us to have a review?

You know, at Rambouillet I, we made the decision future meetings would be held if we thought they would be useful, indeed. When we inventoried a list of potential discussions, again starting with the economic recovery that is now underway in all of our economies, clearly evident, and looking at the problem of inflation in the future, we picked a time that would be convenient for all.

Someone mentioned at the back of the room before about the Italian elections. If you will remember back when our discussions started about this, there were no Italian elections at that time.

Q Mr. Secretary, can you provide us with an estimate of how much this happening in Puerto Rico is going to cost the United States Treasury?

SECRETARY SIMON: No, Phil, I would find that very difficult to do. I don't even know. I will try and get that and see for you specifically. I will list it. We have not done that.

Q What is the site of the conference?

SECRETARY SIMON: I believe the conference is going to be held at Dorado.

Q The lack of response of the developing States to the IRB seems to indicate that the debt question is still front and center in the minds of many of these countries. What is the posture and feeling of this Government on the possibility of defaults and cancellations of debts among these States before the end of this year possibly?

SECRETARY SIMON: We have not seen any evidence and we have dealt with that in many public statements in recent times of default by the developing countries. What we have to do is separate the developing countries, those who have suffered temporarily, let's say, from the problems of inflation, the recession, the quadrupling of oil, those countries that have strong foundations to their economies.

MORE

- 15 -

When we look at the prodigies in the developing world, the Taiwans, the South Koreans, the Brazilians and their growth rate in recent years prior to the severe recession we all suffered, and our response and the initiatives, the compensatory finance, the expanded financing facilities that have been recommended and the adoption of many of those policies by the interim committee in Jamaica in January, plus our analysis of what their balance of payments problem is, we have seen, with the world recovery, with the economic recovery, increased demand for exports.

The developing countries are already benefiting from this increased demand. We have also seen an increase of approximately 20 percent in their commodity prices from those terribly depressed levels. All these are going to lessen, these two factors, the deficit in these countries.

I expect this, as the economic recovery continues, to solve the problem. Our analysis is, of the approximately $28 billion deficit that we see for this sector of the world, about $25 billion is going to be taken care of through normal capital flows, aid, private investment and normal export financing, perhaps a smidgen more, so pretty much it is taken care of.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END (AT 12:58 P.M. EDT)

PETERSON REMARKS

Pete, as I look around these modest surroundings to which
you have come -- and see the signs of your abstemious life
style -- I can only sympathize, and console you with the
observation of the Roman philosopher "Man's greatest wealth
is to live on little with a contented mind.

Pete has been, as most of you know, a valued friend and a
trusted advisor of mine for some years.

As one who has often counseled me, of course he knows
very well that I have something of a penchant for doing the
opposite of what advisors tell me I should do. Which makes
me wonder just a little bit at the vigor and passion with which
he has consistently advised me to stay on as Secretary of State.

-2-

I don't want to suggest that there's any relationship between
that and the fact that Pete has some times been mentioned as
a Republican entrant in the great Secretary of State Sweepstakes
now being run. But I can tell you, Pete, that you, since you
have paid me the ultimate compliment of imitating my physique,
will at least not have to be measured for the chair. Anyone
whose breadth is so generous that he cannot click his heels
will fit quite comfortably. (NB: re Peterson's remark about
Haldeman and Erlichman when he left Commerce)

One thing you will have to do, Pete, if you come in to my
office, is to change just about everyone on the immediate
staff. I don't have anyone in my office who can type, file, or
even answer the telephone properly. (NB: re the most notorious
quote from Hay's floozy)

-3-

One curious thing that Pete and I have in common is that we both run organizations whose ethnic traditions are somewhat different from our own personal backgrounds. I don't know about Lehman Brothers, but after a few years of me, I'm sure that most people in the State Department would welcome a return to the WASP tradition in Secretaries of State.

Pete and I were also closet cabinet Secretaries at the same time, he running the Council on International Economic Policy and I as the President's National Security Advisor. We worked closely together, and many of the innovations we were able to bring about in foreign economic policy resulted

-4-

from that collaboration. But I want the record to make
very clear that the wheat deal was all Pete's. It was a
tremendous tribute to his foresight and negotiating skill
that in one stroke he was able to put the United States in
the ranks of those countries where the price of bread for
the masses was an issue -- right along with pre-Revolutionary
France, and the Roman Empire in its waning days.

If he does come back into the Cabinet, I expect Pete
to continue in that grand tradition, upholding freedom and
free enterprise. And he'll have my wholehearted support. Even
if he does try to sell the Panama Canal to private enterprise to
see how well they could handle it.

A. It is a very eloquent statement. I am not aware that President Ford has ever indicated that he is opposed to any of the policies that he and I are jointly carrying out so that statement - that last statement is total nonsense. President and I working in complete unity and the policy we are pursuing in the Middle East has been pursued up to now on a step-by-step basis and will be pursued in the future by whatever methods are most likely to produce peace in the Middle East. With respect to the situation in Lebanon, The United States as the party that has access to more of the factions and other countries involved that almost anyone else in order has unceasingly used its efforts/to bring about a end of the conflict and a moderation of violence where the conflict couldn't be ended.

The quotation you ascribed to Ambassador Brown is totally incorrect. have I/checked it with him. The United States has attempted to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of Lebanon. It has supported every UN and other efforts and it has exerted all its efforts to bring an end to the conflict and to save human lives and when the record we've becomes known I think it will be understood that I played a creditable and important role.

Q. Can you tell us whether you and Mr. Waldheim have discussed a new initiative which you might make together to start again the diplomatic process in the Middle East?

A. There have been press reports that a specific new initiative is started which is incorrect there are ongoing talks on which we exchanged ideas. Of course, the Secretary General having been in the Middle East more recently than I could give me some of his first hand impressions but there is no specific new initiative there is the

and March and we exchanged ideas with respect to those.

Q. The Syrian intervention - what is this Government's point of view about that?

A. The US has consistently warned against foreign intervention as involving a significant risk of escalation. We have supported the program, the political program that Syria also supported at the end of January and that had led to an understanding among the parties. We still believe that with adaptations for what has happened in the interval this would be a reasonable basis to come to a solution but we believe that outside countries should show the greatest restraint because of the explosiveness of the situation.

Q. What about the results of the Fourth UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi?

A. The US has been strongly committed to the development process. We have made major efforts within our government to develop a forward-looking and complete program. We put one forward at the Seventh Special Session. I personally went to Nairobi to put forward another considerate step forward and we worked closely with the less developed countries to come up with a common approach to the commodities issue for example. Considerable progress was made on many issues. We believe that on one of our major proposals, the international resources bank, the parliamentary maneuvers that lead to the refusal of its study to not augment for the kind of dialogue which we would like to encourage. It isn't sensible that a proposal like this is rejected even for study by a vote of 33 to 31 with 90 nations who would be the chief beneficiaries not even expressing an opinion. And so we expressed our disappointment with the respect to that one particular vote and at the same time we want to say that some positive achievements were made at UNCTAD and that the United States would like to work in the spirit of cooperation with the other

nations on the problems of development, which we consider one of
the major problems of our time.

C. Do you foresee any reconvening of the Geneva Conference in the
Middle East at all in the near future?

A. I don't foresee it in the near future. It requires a great deal of preparatory work and the settlement of a lot of procedural issues on which we have not yet made final progress.

XXXWhat do you think of the proposal to send Maximo Puigdénau to the UN?

Q. Why don't you take with you to Santiago, Chile Mr. Waldheim to improve relations between the UN and Pinochet?

A. We had a discussion about the human rights problem in Chile and the United States will express its views on that problem at Santiago and elsewhere during my trip to Latin America.

Q. Mr. Secretary, Ambassador Moynihan recently said that he knew of instances where votes were sold and bought at the UN. Did he ever report this to you during his service as Ambassador and afterwards?

A. I have never heard any such reports.

Q. Would you say that the United States supports the political efforts by Syria to solve the Lebanese situation. Are you saying also that the US views with significant alarm the latest military moves into that country.

A. We were not consulted about the latest military move and we have no
our basic position has been to oppose outside intervention. At the same
time it is an extremely delicate situation in which we are still
trying to bring all of the factions together and in which we are
encouraging restraint by all of the parties - and we continue to
call for restraint by all of the parties.

Q. How active is that opposition?

A. Well, I don't know what the definition of active opposition is. We have stated clearly our view and as you have heard in the eloquent opening question we are being criticized both for opposing and supporting the Syrian intervention. Our position is that all parties should exercise the great restraint and that we are trying to act as an honest broker between the parties but of course we cannot by ourselves create the framework of goodwill. We can contribute our maximum effort which is what we are doing now.

Q. What do you predict will happen if Syria follows through with this military intervention?

A. Well, we hope that, as we understand the parties, the various factions in Lebanon are beginning to talk to each other. We can only urge the most rapid political solution because once there's an established government in Lebanon it can call for the withdrawal of one outside forces and then the situation can be returned to where the central government exercises authority and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon is preserved and the two communities can hopefully live side by side.

political

Q. Many leaders in the Republican and Democratic party are talking and saying very unamicium imphatically that your policies of detente are very much on the basis of unamericam appeasement, implying that you are the Chamberlain of the Western world.

A. Well, you know this a political year in the US and the rhetoric is not excessively restrained. The problem any American President and any American Secretary of State will face, the problem that in the nuclear age peace must be one of our paramount objectives. Our policy

-6-

[y]

and interests
has been to preserve both peace and the basic principles/of the
United States and its friends and the free peoples around the world.
I do not believe that anyone has been able to mention any agreement
that have been made that have been to the disadvantage of, of the US.
But we are dedicated to bringing about a more peaceful and a safer
world. We have this obligation to future generations and any
President and any Secretary of State has that duty.

Thank you.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L]

June 6, 1976

No. 285

STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
UPON ARRIVAL IN SANTO DOMINGO
THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

JUNE 6, 1976

Mr. Foreign Minister, it is a great honor for me to begin my second trip within this Hemisphere within four months with our friends in the Dominican Republic. President Ford has sent me on this journey to underline the special ties which the United States feels with its sister republic in the Western Hemisphere, the importance we attach to the dialogue that is growing up between us, and our conviction that if we here in the Western Hemisphere cannot solve the problems between developed and developing nations it is very difficult to solve them in the world at large.

We are tied together by a similar history, by a long tradition of cooperation and by the conviction that in this Hemisphere, above all others, human dignity and human rights must always be respected.

All these subjects will be discussed at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly which my colleague, your Foreign Minister, and I are planning to attend. But I am here to say also that in a world in which non-alignment is respected and in which we are prepared to cooperate with non-aligned nations, we nevertheless greatly value and appreciate those nations that have always been our friends.

We were greatly impressed and moved by the remarks of your distinguished President on February 27 in his Independence Day message when he said: "In an era in which a certain strident nationalism and certain pseudo anti-imperialist poses are fashionable, we are not ashamed of our friendship with the United States. We have identified with the destiny of that great nation."

We reciprocate this feeling and it is to strengthen that friendship between our two peoples and to deepen our relationship that I have come here. I look forward to my talks with your leaders and I thank you for the very gracious reception that Mrs. Kissinger and I have received.

* * * * *

For further information contact:

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L.C]

June 6, 1976

No. 286

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT A MEETING WITH
HIS EXCELLENCY JOAQUIN BALAGUER
PRESIDENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE

SANTO DOMINGO

JUNE 6, 1976

Mr. President, I am especially pleased that my visit to the Dominican Republic takes place during the year in which the United States celebrates its Bicentennial independence and your country celebrates the year of Duarte, the Father of your country.

The United States greatly appreciates the many activities in which the Dominican Republic has participated in our Bicentennial — the welcome you gave to our National Symphony Orchestra, the Fourth of July Mass you will celebrate in the great cathedral, the naming of a major avenue here in your capital for the United States. These are expressions of friendship and high regard which we value — feelings of good will which I can assure you are fully reciprocated by the people of the United States. As an expression of that friendship, the city of Miami next month will unveil in honor of the Duarte Centennial a statue of your great Dominican patriot.

Today I am here to commemorate our two nations' joint celebration and the special feeling which the people of the United States have for this land where Columbus's first settlement began the great epic of our Hemisphere.

Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to be able today to return to the Dominican Republic these three historic church bells — the oldest of which was cast on this island only some 50 years after Columbus made his first landfall here.

These bells were collected for the Chicago World Columbian Exposition of 1892 commemorating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of the New World. They have been donated for their return to the Dominican people by the Chicago Historical Society.

Please accept, Mr. President, these bells as an expression of the high value which the United States attaches to the friendship between our two countries and as a symbol of our commitment to continue to strengthen the ties between them.

* * * * *

[lc]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

June 6, 1976

No. 288

#100

PRESS CONFERENCE BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
THE PRESIDENTIAL PALACE
SANTO DOMINGO
THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
JUNE 6, 1976

**QUESTION:** There is one basic question: what is the real purpose of your visit to the Dominican Republic?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** As I indicated at the airport, this is my second visit to Latin America in four months, and I am trying to see as many countries of the Western Hemisphere as I can during this year to create a basis for a new relationship between the US and the countries of the Western Hemisphere. I am using the occasion of the General Assembly in Santiago to stop here to exchange views with an old friend of the US, a country that plays a central role in the Caribbean area and whose problems are characteristic of many of the smaller countries of this region. This is the basic purpose of my visit in Santo Domingo. The larger purpose is to establish a relationship between the US and its Western Hemisphere neighbors, to contribute to the dialogue between the developed and the developing nations and to help construct in this Hemisphere a model of what the relationship in the world at large can be over a period of time. In any case, it is a pleasure for me to visit a country with which we have no bilateral problems, and from which we don't want anything, and also to have the opportunity to visit a capital which has shown great friendship.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, today you stated that the matter of human rights is a matter that is vital for continued cooperation in the region. Does this mean that the United States will not provide economic assistance to Chile in view of the demonstrated and systematic violations of human rights by the Government of General Pinochet?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The US has made clear and will make clear again in Santiago its commitment to human rights, and it will make some specific proposals on how to advance them in the Western Hemisphere. We are not here to discuss questions related to interruption of economic assistance or economic matters.

PR #288

-2-

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I wonder whether you could please explain the new role of the Dominican Republic within the context of this new policy that you have expressed in the area of the Latin American continent and very specifically the role of this country in the Caribbean area. We have heard recently and there has been some evidence of efforts or trends to stop the establishment of blocs of producers of raw materials. On the other hand, we have heard of the role of an arms or ammunition factory that is being run by some Cuban exiles and there are rumors that the CIA has something to do with it. We would like to know what the role of this factory is in the Caribbean and with respect to Latin America and the area in general. There has been late news of arms shipments made to Chile and that this was a sale effected by the US through the Dominican Republic. Could you comment?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I have never heard of any arms sales to Chile by way of the Dominican Republic and that, in any case, would be against our laws. So I don't believe that this is possible. I have also never heard of an arms factory established by Cuban exiles, but there are many things under the sun that I haven't heard of, though it's very rare for me to admit it. The role of the Dominican Republic can be, as it has been traditionally, one of moderation and cooperation. We are not attempting to stop the formation of producer blocs but the producers cannot complain if the consumers then also create organizations of their own. Our basic theme is not to tell other countries how to organize themselves. Our basic theme is that the relation between producers and consumers cannot be settled by confrontation and if there is an attempt to settle them by confrontation, everybody will suffer, but most of all the poorest countries. And this is why we have made constantly proposals to encourage a dialogue and to take into account the concerns of the developing countries and why we believe that in the last 15 months considerable progress in that direction has been made.

We have a long flight ahead of us, so if I could ask for only two more questions.

**QUESTION:** What other fundamental or primary benefits are or could be offered to the Government of the Dominican Republic in the social and economic order in connection with your visit, Mr. Secretary?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I did not come here in order to make a commercial deal with the Dominican Republic. I came here to visit old friends, to discuss the general principles of Hemispheric cooperation and to deal with a few specific problems of direct import to our countries. I believe that the benefits to the Dominican Republic will develop from the general program of Hemispheric cooperation that we are trying to develop and our general readiness to deal with the special concerns of the Dominican Republic with an attitude of friendship. But you should not present this as if I had come here on a sort of commercial mission in which we asked something of the Dominican Republic and then paid a certain amount for it. This is not the sort of visit it was.

PR #288

-3-

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, do you feel you're in a position to affirm and state that the US will not repeat the type of activity that we were subjected to during the 1965 experience, that is to say that no new armed intervention will ever be carried out in our own territory or do you feel that circumstances could lead to a repetition of such type of activity?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** One of the celebrated candidates in the American political campaign has just announced that he has made a new discovery, which is never to answer a hypothetical question. I have so few opportunities to agree with him that I would like to record my agreement. But to answer your hypothetical question, we are not looking for opportunities for military intervention. And we are trying to build a relationship of cooperation in this Hemisphere.

May I use this occasion to thank the Dominican Government, its President, Foreign Minister, and all the people we have met for the extraordinarily warm reception that we have received here.

* * * * *

The Secretary
of State

Speech

June 6, 1976

Santo Domingo

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of Media Services

STRENGTHENING THE HEMISPHERIC BOND

*Secretary Henry A. Kissinger at a luncheon hosted by President Joaquin Balaguer.*

I appreciate very much the warm welcome you have given me.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to visit the Dominican Republic. This beautiful island holds a special meaning for all the peoples of the Americas. For here culminated the most momentous voyage of discovery in all human history and here began the modern history of our hemisphere.

A great chronicler of Columbus' voyages, the late Samuel Eliot Morison, pointed out that the most remarkable aspect of Columbus' enterprise was its incredible faith in its ultimate success. The journey that ended on your shores was, above all, the product of spiritual courage, of a daring to search for an objective whose very existence could only be proven through faith. Belief in the future is the very symbol and meaning of the Americas—the bold readiness to encounter the future and the confident faith that human exertion, when directed by principle and liberty, guarantees progress. With all our differences ours has always been the hemisphere in which a frontier has always been a challenge and not a limit—where man came to find dignity and human fulfillment.

It was in a spirit of commitment to our unique hemispheric bond, with a readiness for shared endeavor and faith in the success of our common future, that I visited Latin America four months ago. And it is in this spirit that I begin my second trip to Latin America this year here in the Dominican Republic—to continue the work we began in February, to strengthen by consultations and concrete proposals the impetus of improving relations between the United States and the nations of Latin America, and to help make our hemisphere a model of what interdependent nations can achieve by cooperative effort. To reach

that lofty objective, we will need faith; and if I may put it in terms which will be familiar to you, we will also need hope and occasionally a good bit of charity toward each other.

The United States has always regarded its relationship with Latin America as a central element in its national life—not solely as a matter of foreign policy, for too much of our history derives from Spanish-speaking settlers and too many of our citizens are of Latin origin, for such a relationship to be characterized as “foreign.”

The sources of our special bond are manifold: The epic of discovery and settlement; our peoples' struggles for national independence; our common interest in shielding our countries from external intrusion; our work together to build international structures for cooperation and economic progress; our commitment to human dignity; and above all our deep cultural and personal ties.

The depth of these bonds goes beyond institutions; they penetrate the soul. The United States has always felt with Latin America a special intimacy and close friendship. Today, when our countries are deeply involved in world affairs, even when our perceptions and interests are not always identical, we continue to draw upon a particular warmth in our personal relationships and an exceptional respect and regard for each other's views and concerns.

The partnership in our hemisphere—shaped by history, tradition, and common interest—was formalized, by and large, in a series of treaties and impelled by organizational machinery, dedicated to peace and security. This shared commitment, given form in the Organization of American States [OAS], is still indispensable to our partnership.

Today the evolution of the hemisphere and the world impel us to expand the range of our concerns beyond the traditional agenda of security and peace. It is fortunate that our relationship is so

[LC]

2

deep that it can comfortably accommodate the
broad range of human preoccupations.

We have come to understand that, while we
must remain strong in our dedication to the peace
and security of this hemisphere, we are at the same
time challenged by a new agenda of development
issues. The growing role of the nations of this
hemisphere in the global economy and in world
forums dealing with development issues and their
unique position as the most developed of the devel-
oping nations provide an unprecedented opportuni-
ty to shape the problems of independence.

To reflect these new perceptions, I pledged
last February that the United States would:

* Take special cognizance of the distinctive requirements of the more industrialized economies of Latin America and of the region as a whole—in the context of our efforts to help shape a more equitable international order;

* Assist directly the neediest nations in the hemisphere afflicted by poverty and natural disaster;

* Support Latin American regional and subregional efforts to organize for cooperation and integration;

* Negotiate on the basis of parity and dignity our specific differences with each and every state to solve problems before they become conflicts;

* Enforce our commitment to collective security and to maintain regional integrity against attempts to undermine solidarity, threaten independence, or export violence; and

* Work to modernize the inter-American system to respond to the needs of our times and give direction to our common action.

Since February the United States has worked
hard to make progress in each of these areas. We
have introduced trade, investment, and technology
proposals of special relevance to the countries of
this hemisphere at global forums in Paris and
Nairobi. We have responded to the courageous
efforts of the Guatemalan people to recover from
the earthquake that devastated their land. We have
provided fresh support to subregional cooperation
in Central America and are exploring ways of relat-
ing more effectively to the Andean Pact. And we
have not only intensified bilateral efforts with
several countries but have made a special effort to
prepare for the current meeting of the OAS Gener-
al Assembly, which provides a unique opportunity
to review our progress together and give it common
direction.

I look forward to discussing these and other
recent global and regional events with my col-

leagues at the General Assembly, and I shall be
putting forward additional proposals on a number
of key issues to further our efforts on a multi-
lateral regional basis as well.

A major element in this second trip is that it
builds naturally on the first: In February I was not
only able to state our aims but to listen to, and
gain some understanding of, your concerns—
concerns over trade, the transfer of technology,
and regional cooperation. The proposals we plan to
present at Santiago reflect that understanding and
respond to those concerns—and thus represent con-
crete steps in our longstanding partnership.

Two subjects that are high on the interna-
tional agenda are especially relevant-trade and
technology.

Trade

The United States is fully aware that trade is
the indispensable engine of growth for the nations
of the hemisphere and that the United States, and
the other developed countries, are the most signifi-
cant trading partners of the region. Trade is the
source of most of Latin America's foreign ex-
change and so is essential if Latin America is to
acquire the imported capital goods which are vital
to future industrialization. But trade is, at the same
time, the most serious point of national
vulnerability to external circumstance. Cycles of
boom and bust, fueled by abrupt fluctuations in
the prices of commodities like sugar and coffee, tin
and copper, have plagued the development struggle
in the Americas for decades.

We are dedicated to the search for effective
solutions to the problems of international com-
modity marketing, as I made clear in my statement
to the UNCTAD IV in Nairobi a few weeks ago.
And we are, as recent decisions by President Ford
under the Trade Act have shown, equally dedicated
to a more liberal global trading system in which
Latin America will have greater opportunity to
expand its earnings from nontraditional manufac-
tured export sales.

In February I pledged that the United States
would support Latin America's drive for broadened
participation in the international economy as a
means to assure stable growth. During this visit, at
the General Assembly, I shall:

* Make clear our determination to administer our Trade Act in ways constantly more favorable to Latin America's exports;

* Announce our willingness to explore with Latin America ways in which, through our own trade policies, we can offer incentives for more liberal trade and greater integration in Latin America;

(to)

3

* State our willingness next month at the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva to consider special safeguards treatment for certain developing countries and in other ways to press the trade interests of Latin America at the Geneva conference;

* Explore several means of expanding Western Hemisphere commodity production and exports; and

* Propose a new inter-American consultative mechanism on trade so that the inter-American system shall enjoy, for the first time, an open, continuing forum for dialogue on this, the most significant economic relationship of the nations of this hemisphere.

## Technology

Economic development, in the end, means simply the expansion of output and the improvement in efficiency of the workers, the farms, and the factories of our nations. In today's world it is impossible to conceive of any long-term growth in a nation which is without modern technology—the capability of exploiting the insights and discoveries of the modern scientific method for the betterment of man's conditions. Latin America's development aspirations turn on technology; but, as I emphasized during my visit in February, it must be technology compatible with the conditions of Latin America, nurtured by Latin Americans in Latin American institutions and capable of thrusting the economies of Latin America into the competitive forefront of the world's markets.

At the General Assembly this time, I shall:

* Announce measures to expand Latin America's access to our own National Technical Information Service;

* Detail an increased U.S. assistance program for the coming year for the development of indigenous technology capability within Latin America;

* Announce that we are opening a technology exchange service for Latin America, to service requests for information about public and privately owned technology in the United States;

* Indicate that we are prepared to mount a pilot program of practical technology exchanges between private Latin American and U.S. companies; and

* In general elaborate for Latin America the technology initiatives which I suggested in Nairobi recently and those which were approved in the technology resolution at UNCTAD IV.

These steps, which we are prepared to refine and implement in consultation with the other

countries of the hemisphere, will not only increase the prosperity of our individual countries; they will increase their capacity to define and maximize the benefits of international cooperation and progress. Above all they should strengthen the spirit of co-operation and partnership.

## Human Rights

The origins of our hemispheric traditions and the values of our civilization tell us, however, that material progress is not sufficient for the human personality. We of the Americas have a special obligation to ourselves and the world to maintain and advance international standards of justice and freedom.

In February I stated our conviction that basic human rights must be preserved, cherished, and defended in this hemisphere—for if they cannot be preserved, cherished, and defended here where the rights and promise of the individual have played such a prominent historic role, then they are in jeopardy everywhere.

During this trip I shall stress that the struggle for human dignity is central, both to national development and to international cooperation, and I shall propose a strengthened role for the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.

## Our Inter-American System

We have many forms of cooperation; our bilateral and global interactions are increasing constantly. To give them an added regional dimension, no organization is more important than the Organization of American States.

Last February I pledged that we would work to modernize the inter-American system to respond to the needs of our times and give direction to our common action. During my current trip I shall urge that we increase the frequency of our consultations through the General Assembly and eliminate those other elements of the OAS structure that have become anachronistic, and I shall propose that these reforms of the OAS be considered by a special intergovernmental working group on the charter.

Over the course of the next year, these steps should lead to a more flexible and responsive instrument of cooperation between the United States and the countries of Latin America and help bring the drawn-out reform debate to a successful conclusion.

These proposals will be offered as sincere, serious attempts to respond to Latin American suggestions.

History has proven time and again how difficult it is for those living in an age of revolutionary

4

change to perceive the forces taking shape around them, much less exercise influence over their direction and impact. I believe that we here in this hemisphere, because of our partnership of shared endeavor and straightforward consultation, are closer than any other group of nations to understanding the problems we face, more able to discuss them in the spirit of a long tradition of cooperation, and more willing to take the necessary steps to master our common destiny. With good will and firm commitment we can make a record of progress in this hemisphere on the crucial issues of an interdependent world which will be a model and an inspiration to nations everywhere.

The peoples of the Americas, who pioneered these unexplored continents and built nations under conditions of great adversity, know that progress does not come easily. But we know as well that cooperative and committed effort—and faith in the future—are the surest means to progress.

Mr. President, the year 1976 has a special meaning for both of us. In the United States it is a Bicentennial year of renewed dedication to our ideals. For you it is a year of homage to a great Dominican leader—Juan Pablo Duarte. Like Jeffer-
son and Bolivar, Juarez and Lincoln, Duarte has given the Americas a legacy of love of mankind and country.

You, Mr. President, a distinguished historian and a scholar of Duarte, have had an opportunity which was tragically denied to him. For nearly 10 years, you have been allowed to direct the fortunes of your country—to lead it away from political and economic unrest toward peace, prosperity, and liberty.

During the first four years of this decade alone, the people of the Dominican Republic en-

joyed a real annual increase in per capita income of nearly 8 percent, one of the highest rates of progress not just in this hemisphere but the world. This growth has enabled you to resist subsequent dislocations in the global economy and to make great strides in institutional development and culture as well.

In less fortunate times, when stability and confidence were threatened, you addressed a message to the young people of your country. You reminded them of the ideals and aspirations of Duarte and of their obligations as inheritors of his hope. You said:

> ... To chaos and to lack of confidence by some in our own future, we can offer in return political security in the present and in the future; to ignorant narrowness, we can offer our abundant confidence, our faith in progress, our permanent commitment to national conciliation and concord.

This is also a message to the hemisphere. It is a message of indomitable faith in the future worthy of the heritage and the proud achievement of this hemisphere.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to join me as I propose a toast on behalf of the President and people of the United States to His Excellency, Dr. Joaquin Balaguer, President of the Dominican Republic; to the enduring friendship between our two countries; to the prosperity and well-being of the Dominican people; and to the voyage to the future upon which we in the Americas have embarked and which will lead us to a new world of peace, dignity, justice, and progress for all our peoples.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S.A.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20520

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
STA-501

Third Class Bulk Rt.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

June 7, 1976

No. 290

STATEMENT BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOLLOWING CEREMONIES NAMING HIM
"ILLUSTRIOUS GUEST" OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
CITY HALL
SANTA CRUZ DE LA SIERRA, BOLIVIA

JUNE 7, 1976

Mr. Mayor, distinguished citizens of Santa Cruz, let me take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of my colleagues and myself for the great honor you have bestowed on me. The first visit of a Secretary of State to this country, tied to us by so many traditions of friendship, could not have been carried out in an atmosphere that is friendlier, that is warmer, and which is more likely to strengthen the bonds between our two countries.

Mr. Mayor, my colleagues and I only regret that your wife cannot be with us and we wish her a very speedy recovery.

We are meeting here in the fastest growing region of Bolivia, a region known for its hard-working and patriotic people, and a region that symbolizes the great promise that this country has for development and for progress.

I had the privilege this morning of meeting with your distinguished President Banzer, with whom we reviewed in a spirit of cordiality and friendship all the common problems which our two nations have, and I reaffirmed to him the great interest of the US in the progress, in the peace, and in the development of Bolivia.

It was particularly meaningful that we are meeting here in the country that is named after Bolivar, the great hero of the struggle for independence of Latin America. He knew, as the great leaders in North America did, that freedom and human dignity are the distinguishing characteristics of the Western Hemisphere, and that in this part of the universe, man has an opportunity to demonstrate what can be achieved through the voluntary relationships that make life worthwhile. There is no part of the world in which human relationships are more meaningful and in which the human personality is more fully developed than in

PR #290

-2-

Latin America, and of my two trips to Latin America now this year, I have found no people that is warmer and more generous than the people of Bolivia as expressed in the population of Santa Cruz.

Mr. Mayor, I would like to thank you and the people of Santa Cruz on behalf of my colleagues, my wife, for the great honor that you have done to us, for the reception we have received. It was a brief visit, but we shall not forget it.

* * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L.C]

June 7, 1976

NO. 291

MEETING WITH THE PRESS
BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
SANTA CRUZ, REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA

June 7, 1976

**QUESTION:** With whom did you confer last night and today and what were the subjects?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Before I answer the question I want to take this opportunity to thank the Bolivian Government on behalf of my colleagues for the reception we have had here. I already had an opportunity to express my views at City Hall. I would like to repeat again how touched we all have been by the very friendly reception we have had here.

In answer to your question, last evening I had a very brief talk with the Foreign Minister. This morning I met for about two hours with the President, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Finance Minister and two other of their associates, and I was accompanied by Under-Secretary Maw, Assistant Secretary Rogers and our Ambassador to Bolivia. We reviewed the topics that are covered in the Communique; that is, the Bolivian concern about access to the sea for which we have sympathy, progress of economic development, bilateral issues between the United States and Bolivia, and some substantial discussion on narcotics control which is a matter of great concern for both our countries. Also, Secretary Rogers met with the Minister of Finance last night to go into some more details on the economic subjects that were also discussed this morning.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary of State, two points I would like to ask you about and they concern -- they are matters of special concern to all Latin American countries. The first point refers to the landlocked nature of Bolivia and its desires to gain access to the sea. The second one refers to the matter of Panamanian desires to assert sovereignty over the Canal area. I would like to ask you specifically what steps the United States is contemplating to find a solution to these two problems and additionally what type of support is the United States intending when you say that the US does support Bolivia's desires to have access to the sea?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** With respect to the issue of Panama, three American Presidents have been negotiating with Panama, in order

**For further information contact:**