-19-

conference which can then fashion, with good will and
wisdom, a design for the new state of Namibia and its
relationship with its neighbors. We pledge our continued
solicitude for the independence of Namibia so that it may,
in the end, be a proud achievement of this Organization and
a symbol of international cooperation.

Less than a week ago the Rhodesian authorities
announced that they are prepared to meet with the nationalist
leaders of Zimbabwe to form an interim government to bring
about majority rule within two years. This is in itself an
historic break from the past. The African Presidents, in
calling for immediate negotiations, have shown that they are
prepared to seize this opportunity for a settlement. And the
government of the United Kingdom, in expressing its willingness
to assemble a conference, has shown its high sense of

-20-

responsibility and concern for the rapid and just independence
of Rhodesia.

Inevitably after a decade of strife, suspicions
run deep. Many obstacles remain. Magnanimity is never
easy, and less so after a generation of bitterness and racial
conflict. But let us not lose sight of what has been achieved:
a commitment to majority rule within two years; a commitment
to form immediately a transitional government with an African
majority in the Cabinet and an African Prime Minister; a
readiness to follow this with a constitutional conference to
define the legal framework of an independent Zimbabwe.

The United States, together with other countries,
has made major efforts; and we will continue to do what we

-21-

can to support the hopeful process that is now possible.

But it is those in Africa who must shape the future. The people of Rhodesia, and the neighboring states, now face a supreme challenge. Their ability to work together, their capacity to unify will be tested in the months ahead as never before.

There may be some countries who see a chance for advantage in fueling the flames of war and racial hatred. But they are not motivated by concern for the peoples of Africa, or for peace. And if they succeed they could doom opportunities that might never return.

In South Africa itself, the pace of change accelerates. The system of apartheid, by whatever name, is a denial of our common humanity and a challenge to the conscience of mankind. Change is inevitable. The leaders of South Africa have shown wisdom in facilitating a

-22-

peaceful solution in Rhodesia. The world community takes
note of it, and urges the same wisdom -- while there is
still time -- to bring racial justice to South Africa.

As for the United States, we have become
convinced that our values and our interests are best served
by an Africa seeking its own destiny free of outside intervention.
Therefore we will back no faction whether in Rhodesia or
elsewhere. We will not seek to impose solutions anywhere.
The leadership and the future of an independent Zimbabwe,
as for the rest of Africa, are for Africans to decide. The
United States will abide by their decision. We call on all
other non-African states to do likewise.

The United States wants no special position
in Africa,
or sphere of influence. We respect African unity. The

-23-

N)

rivalry and interference of non-African powers would make
a mockery of Africa's hard-won struggle for independence
from foreign domination. It will inevitably be resisted.

And it is a direct challenge to the most fundamental
principles upon which the United Nations is founded.

Every nation that has signed the Charter is
pledged to allow the nations of Africa, whose peoples have
suffered so much, to fulfill at long last their dreams of
independence, peace, unity and human dignity in their own
way and by their own decisions.

The United Nations, since its birth, has been
involved in the chronic conflict in the Middle East. Each
successive war has brought greater perils, an increased
danger of Great Power confrontation and more severe
global economic dislocations.

-24-

At the request of the parties, the United States has been actively engaged in the search for peace in the Middle East. Since the 1973 war, statesmanship on all sides has produced unprecedented steps toward a resolution of this bitter conflict. There have been three agreements that lessen the danger of war; and mutual commitments have been made to pursue the negotiating process with urgency until a final peace is achieved. As a result, we are closer to the goal of peace, than any time in a generation.

The role of the United Nations has been crucial. The Geneva Conference met in 1973 under its aegis, and the implementation of subsequent agreements has been negotiated in its working groups. Security Council resolutions form the only agreed

-25-

framework for negotiations. The UN Emergency Force, Disengagement
Observer Force, and Truce Supervision Organization are even
now helping maintain peace on the truce lines. I want to
compliment the Secretary General and his colleagues in New York,
Geneva, and on the ground in the Middle East, for their vigorous
support of the peace process at critical moments.

The United States remains committed to help the
parties reach a settlement. The step-by-step negotiations of
the past three years have now brought us to a point where
comprehensive solutions seem possible. The decision before us
now is how the next phase of negotiations should be launched.

The United States is prepared to participate in an

-26-

early resumption of the work of the Geneva Conference. We think
a preparatory conference might be useful for a discussion of the
structure of future negotiations, but we are open to other suggestions.
Whatever steps are taken must be carefully prepared so that once
the process begins the nations concerned will advance steadily
toward agreement.

The groundwork that has been laid represents an
historic opportunity. The United States will do all it can to
assure that by the time this Assembly meets next year it will be
possible to report significant further progress toward a just
and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Since the General Assembly last met, overwhelming
tragedy has befallen the people of Lebanon. The United States
strongly supports the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity
of that troubled country. We oppose partition. We hope that

-27-

Lebanese affairs will soon be returned to the hands of the people of Lebanon. All members of the United Nations, and all the conflicting parties in Lebanon, have an obligation to support the efforts of the new President of Lebanon to restore peace and to turn energies to rebuilding the nation. And the agencies of the United Nations system can play an important role in the reconstruction effort.

The confrontation between North and South Korea remains a threat to international peace and stability. The vital interests of world powers intersect in Korea; conflict there inevitably threatens wider war.

We and many other UN members welcome the fact that a contentious and sterile debate on Korea will be avoided this fall. Let this opportunity be used, then, to address the central problem of how the Korean people can

-28-

determine their future and achieve their ultimate goal of
peaceful reunification without a renewal of armed conflict.

Our own views on the problem of Korea are well known. We have called for a resumption of a serious dialogue between North and South Korea. We have urged wider negotiations to promote security and reduce tensions. We are prepared to have the United Nations Command dissolved so long as the Armistice Agreement -- which is the only existing legal arrangement committing the parties to keep the peace -- is either preserved or replaced by more durable arrangements.

We are willing to improve relations with North Korea, provided that its allies are ready to take similar steps toward the Republic of Korea. We are ready to talk with North Korea about the peninsula's future, but we will not do so without

-29-

(N)

the participation of the Republic of Korea.

Last fall the United States proposed a conference
including all the parties most directly concerned -- North
and South Korea, the United States, and the People's Republic
of China -- to discuss ways of adapting the Armistice Agreement
to new conditions and replacing it with more permanent
arrangements. On July 22, I stated our readiness to meet
immediately with these parties to consider the appropriate
venue for such a conference. I reaffirm that readiness here
today.

If such a conference proves impracticable right
now, the United States would support a phased approach.
Preliminary talks between North and South Korea, including
discussions on the venue and scope of the conference could
start immediately. In this phase the United States and the

-31-

-30-

People's Republic of China could participate as observers or in an advisory role. If such discussions yielded concrete results, the United States and China could join the talks formally. This, in turn, could set the stage for a wider conference in which other countries could associate themselves with arrangements that guarantee a durable peace on the peninsula.

We hope that North Korea and other concerned parties will respond affirmatively to this proposed procedure or offer a constructive alternative suggestion.

The world community is deeply concerned over the continuing stalemate on the Cyprus problem.

Domestic pressures, nationalistic objectives, and international rivalries, have combined to block the parties

-31-

from taking even the most elementary steps toward a solution.

On those few occasions when representatives of the two Cypriot communities have come together, they have fallen into inconclusive procedural disputes. The passage of time has served only to complicate domestic difficulties and to diminish the possibilities for constructive conciliation. The danger of conflict between Greece and Turkey has spread to other issues, as we have recently seen in the Aegean.

All concerned need to focus on committing themselves to achieve the overriding objectives -- assuring the well-being of the suffering Cypriot people; and peace in the Eastern Mediterranean.

A settlement must come from the Cypriot communities themselves. It is they who must decide how their island's economy, society, and government shall be reconstructed. It

- 32 -

is they who must decide the ultimate relationship of the two
communities and the territorial extent of each area.

The United States is ready to assist in restoring
momentum to the negotiating process. We believe that agreeing
to a set of principles might help the parties to resume negotiations.

We would suggest some concepts along the following lines:

-- A settlement should preserve the independence,
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus;

-- The present dividing lines on Cyprus must be
adjusted to reduce the area currently controlled by the Turkish side;

-- The territorial arrangement should take into
account the economic requirements and humanitarian concerns of
the two Cypriot communities, including the plight of those who
remain refugees;

-- A constitutional arrangement should provide

- 33 -

conditions under which the two Cypriot communities can live in
freedom and have a large voice in their own affairs; and

-- Security arrangements should be agreed that permit
the withdrawal of foreign military forces other than those present
under international agreement.

I have discussed this approach with the Secretary-General
and with several Western European leaders. In the days ahead,
the United States will consult along these lines with all interested
parties. In the meantime, we urge the Secretary-General to
continue his dedicated efforts.

## Economic Development and Progress

The economic division of our planet between the northern
and southern Hemispheres, between the industrial and developing
nations is a dominant issue of our time. Our mutual dependence
for our prosperity is a reality, not a slogan. It should summon

- 34 -

our best efforts to make common progress. We must commit
ourselves to bring mankind's dreams of a better life to closer
reality in our lifetime.

There are many reasons why cooperation has not made
greater strides:

-- The industrial democracies have sometimes been
more willing to pay lip service to the challenge of development than
to match rhetoric with real resources.

The oil producing nations command great wealth, and
some have been generous in their contribution to international
development. But the overall performance in putting that wealth
to positive uses has been inadequate to the challenge.

-- The countries with non-market economies are quite
prepared to undertake verbal assaults, but their performance is
in inverse ratio to their rhetoric. Their real contribution to

- 35 -

development assistance has been minimal. Last year, for example,
the non-market economies provided only about four percent of the
public aid flowing to the developing nations.

-- The developing nations are understandably frustrated
and impatient with poverty, illiteracy and disease. But too often
they have made demands for change that are as confrontational as
they are unrealistic. They sometimes speak of new economic orders
as if growth were a quick fix requiring only that the world's wealth be
properly redistributed through tests of strength instead of a process of
self-help over generations. Ultimately, such tactics lose more than
they gain, for they undermine the popular support in the industrial
democracies which is imperative to provide the resources and market
access -- available nowhere else -- to sustain development.

The objectives of the developing nations are clear; a

- 36 -

rapid rise in the incomes of their people; a greater role in the
international decisions which affect them; and fair access to the
world's economic opportunities.

The objectives of the industrial nations are equally plain:
an efficient and open system of world trade and investment;
expanding opportunities and production for both North and South;
the reliable and equitable development of the world's resources of
food, energy, and raw materials; a world economy in which
prosperity is as close to universal as our imagination and our
energies allow.

These goals are complementary; indeed they must be, for
neither side can achieve its aims at the expense of the other. They
can be realized only through cooperation.

We took a major step forward together a year ago, at the
Seventh Special Session of this Assembly. And we have since

- 37 -

followed through on many fronts.

We have taken steps to protect the economic security of
developing nations against cyclical financial disaster. The newly-
expanded compensatory finance facility of the International Monetary
Fund has disbursed over two billion to developing nations, this
year alone.

An IMF Trust Fund financed by gold sales has been
established for the benefit of the low income countries.

Replenishments of the World Bank, the Inter-American
Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank will provide
additional resources for development.

Worldwide food aid has been expanded. We have committed
ourselves to expand the world supply of food. With a United States
contribution of $200 million, we have brought the International

- 38 -

Fund for Agriculture Development close to operation.

-- The major industrial nations have moved to expand trade opportunities for the developing world. We have joined in a solemn pledge to complete by next year the liberalization of world trade through the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations. For its part, the United States has established a system of generalized preferences which has stimulated billions in exports from developing nations to the United States in 1975.

The United States continued this process by putting forward a number of new proposals at the fourth ministerial United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in May 1976:

We proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the capacity of the developing countries to select, adapt, improve and manage technology for development. We committed ourselves to

- 39 -

improvements in the quality of aid, proposing that a greater
proportion of aid to poor countries be on a grant basis and untied
to purchases from donor nations. We agreed to a serious effort
to improve markets of eighteen basic commodities.

These measures undertaken since we met here just a year
ago assist -- not with rhetoric and promises, but in practical and
concrete ways -- the peoples of the world who are struggling to
throw off the chains of poverty.

Much remains to be done:

First, the application of science and technology is at
the very heart of the development process. The United States,
conscious of its pioneering role in technology, has put forward
three basic principles, which we will support with funds and talent:

-- to train individuals who can identify, select and manage
the future technology of the developing world;

- 40 -

- to build both national and international institutions to
create indigenous technology, as well as adapt foreign designs
and inventions; and

- to spur the private sector to make its maximum
contribution to the development and transfer of technological progress.

To achieve these goals, we are today extending an
invitation to the World Conference on Science and Technology for
Development now scheduled for 1979 to meet in this country. In
preparation for that meeting, we have asked members of the
industrial, academic and professional scientific communities
throughout the United States to meet in Washington in November.
They will review the important initiatives this country can take to
expand the technological base for development, and they will strive
to develop new approaches.

- 41 -

Second, the ministerial meeting of the Conference on
International Economic Cooperation in Paris should be given new
impetus. We are making several new proposals:

-- We will seek to help nations facing severe debt
burdens. For acute cases we will propose guidelines for debt
renegotiation. For countries facing longer term problems, we
will propose systematic examination of remedial measures,
including increased aid.

-- We will advance new ideas for expanded cooperation
in energy including a regular process of information exchange
among energy producers and users, and an expanded transfer of
energy-related technology to energy-poor developing nations.

Third, the industrial democracies have been far too
willing to wait for the demands of the developing countries rather
than to advance their own proposals. Now, however, the OECD

- 42 -

countries at the suggestion of the United States, have agreed to
examine long-range development planning and to develop a more
coherent and comprehensive approach to global growth and
economic justice.

Fourth, natural disaster each year takes thousands of
lives and costs billions of dollars. It strikes most those who
can afford it the least -- the poorest peoples of the world. Its
toll is magnified by a large array of global issues -- overpopulation,
food scarcity, damage to the ecology, and economic underdevelopment.

The United Nations has a unique capacity to address these global
concerns and thus improve man's odds against nature. We urge
this body to take the lead in strengthening international
cooperation to prevent and alleviate natural calamity.

Our dream is that all the children of the world can live
with hope and widening opportunity. No nation can accomplish

- 43 -

this alone; no group of nations can achieve it through confrontation.

But together there is a chance for major progress -- and in our
generation.

## Interdependence and Community

It is an irony of our time that an age of ideological
and nationalistic rivalry has spawned as well a host of challenges
that no nation can possibly solve by itself:

- The proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities
  adds a new dimension of danger to political conflicts,
  regionally and globally.

- As technology opens up the oceans, conflicting
  national claims and interests threaten chaos.

- Man's inventiveness has developed the horrible new tool
  of terror that claims innocent victims on every continent.

- Human and civil rights are widely abused and have now

(N)

- 44 -

become an accepted concern of the world community.

Let me set forth the United States' position on these topics.

The growing danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons raises stark questions about man's ability to ensure his very existence.

We have lived through three perilous decades in which the catastrophe of nuclear war has been avoided despite a strategic rivalry between a relatively few nations.

But now, a wholly new situation impends. Many nations have the potential to build nuclear weapons. If this potential were to materialize, threats to use nuclear weapons, fed by mutually reinforcing misconceptions, could become a recurrent feature of local conflicts in every quarter of the globe. And there will be growing dangers of accidents, blackmail, theft and nuclear terrorism.

- 45 -

Unless current trends are altered rapidly, the likelihood
of nuclear devastation could grow steadily in the years to come.

We must look first to the roots of the problem:

- Since the 1973 energy crisis and drastic rise in oil prices, both developed and developing nations have seen in nuclear energy a means both of lowering the cost of electricity and of reducing reliance upon imported petroleum.

- In an age of growing nationalism some see the acquisition and expansion of nuclear power as symbols of enhanced national prestige. And it is also clear that some nations, in attaining this peaceful technology, may wish to provide for themselves a future option to acquire nuclear weapons.

A nation that acquires the potential for a nuclear weapons capability must accept the consequences of its action: it is bound

- 46 -

to trigger offsetting actions by its neighbors and stimulate broader
proliferation, thereby accelerating a process that ultimately
will undermine its own security. And it is disingenuous to label
as "peaceful" nuclear devices which palpably are capable of massive
military destruction. The spread of nuclear reactor and fuel cycle
capabilities, especially in the absence of evident economic need and
combined with ambiguous political and military motives -- threatens
to proliferate nuclear weapons with all their dangers.

Time is of the essence. In no area of international concern
does the future of this planet depend more directly upon what this
generation elects to do -- or fails to do. We must move on three
broad fronts:

First, international safeguards must be strengthened and
strictly enforced. The supply and use of nuclear materials associated

- 47 -

with civilian nuclear energy programs must be carefully safeguarded
so that they will not be diverted. Nuclear suppliers must impose
the utmost restraint upon themselves and not permit the temptations
of commercial advantage to override the risks of proliferation.

The physical security of nuclear materials -- whether in use,
storage or transfer -- must be increased. The International
Atomic Energy Agency must receive the full support of all
nations in making its safeguards effective, reliable and universally
applicable. Any violator of IAEA safeguards must face immediate
and drastic penalties.

Second, adherence to safeguards, while of prime
importance, is no guarantee against future proliferation. We
must continue our efforts to forge international restraints against
the acquisition or transfer of reprocessing facilities which produce

- 48 -

separated plutonium and of enrichment facilities which produce
highly enriched uranium -- both of which are useable for the
construction of nuclear weapons.

Third, we must recognize that one of the principal
incentives for seeking sensitive reprocessing and enrichment
technology is the fear that essential non-sensitive materials,
notably reactor-grade uranium fuel, will not be made available
on a reliable basis. Nations that show their sense of international
responsibility by accepting effective restraints have a right to
expect reliable and economical supply of peaceful nuclear
reactors and associated non-sensitive fuel. The United States,
as a principal supplier of these items, is prepared to be responsible
in this regard.

In the near future, President Ford will announce a
comprehensive American program for international action on

- 49 -

non-proliferation that reconciles global aspirations for assured
nuclear supply with global requirements for nuclear control.

We continue to approach the proliferation problem in
full recognition of the responsibility that we and other nuclear
powers have -- both in limiting our weapons arsenals and in
ensuring that the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy can be
made available to all states within a shared framework of
effective international safeguards. In this way, the atom can
be seen once again as a boon and not a menace to mankind.

Another issue of vast global consequence is the
<u>Law of the Sea</u>. The negotiations which have just recessed
in New York represent one of the most important, complex
and ambitious diplomatic undertakings in history. Consider
what is at stake:

60

-50-

-- Mankind is attempting to devise an international regime for nearly three quarters of the earth's surface.

-- Some 150 nations are participating, reflecting all the globe's diverse national perspectives, ideologies, and practical concerns.

-- A broad sweep of vital issues is involved: economic development, military security, freedom of navigation, crucial and dwindling living resources, the ocean's fragile ecology, marine scientific research, and vast potential mineral wealth.

-- The world community is aspiring to shape major new international legal principles: the extension

-51-

of the long-established territorial sea; the
creation of a completely new concept of an
economic zone extending two hundred miles;
and the designation of the deep seabed as the
"common heritage of mankind."

We have travelled an extraordinary distance in these
negotiations in recent years -- thanks in no small part to the
skill and dedication of the distinguished President of this Assembly.
Agreement exists on key concepts: a twelve-mile territorial sea;
free passage over and through straits; a two-hundred mile
economic zone; and important pollution controls. In many fields,
we have replaced ideological debates with serious efforts to
find concrete solutions. And there is growing consensus that

-52-

the outstanding problems must be solved at the next session.

But there is hardly room for complacency. Important issues remain which, if not settled, could cause us to forfeit all our hard-won progress. The conference has yet to agree on the balance between coastal state and international rights in the economic zone; on the freedom of marine scientific research; on arrangements for dispute settlement; and, most crucially, on the regime for exploitation of the deep seabeds.

The United States has made major proposals to resolve the deep seabed issue. We have agreed that the seabeds are the common heritage of all mankind. We have proposed a dual system for the exploitation of seabed minerals by which half of the

-53-

mining sites would be reserved for the International Authority and half could be developed by individual nations and their nationals on the basis of their technical capacity. We have offered to find financing and to transfer the technology needed to make international mining a practical reality. And in light of the many uncertainties that lie ahead, we have proposed that there be a review, for example in 25 years, to determine whether the provisions on seabed mining are working equitably.

In response some nations have escalated both their demands and the stridency with which they advocate them.

-54-

I must say candidly that there are limits beyond which

no American administration can, or will, go. If attempts are

made to compel concessions which exceed those limits, unilateralism

will become inevitable. Countries which have no technological

capacity for mining the seabeds in the foreseeable future should

not seek to impose a doctrine of total internationalization

on nations which alone have this capacity and which have voluntarily

offered to share it. The United States has an interest in the

progressive development of international law, stable order and

global cooperation. We are prepared to make significant sacrifices for this --

but they cannot go beyond equitable bounds.

Let us therefore put aside delaying tactics and pressures

and take the path of cooperation. If we have the vision to conclude

-55-

a treaty considered fair and just by mankind, our labors will
have profound meaning not only for the regimen of the oceans
but for all efforts to build a peaceful, cooperative and
prosperous international community. The United States will
spend the interval between sessions of the Conference reviewing
its positions and will approach other nations well in advance
of the next session at the political level to establish the best
possible conditions for its success.

A generation that dreams of world peace and economic
progress is plagued by a new, brutal, cowardly and indiscriminate
form of violence -- international terrorism. Small groups
have rejected the norms of civilized behavior and wantonly taken
the lives of defenseless men, women, and children -- innocent

-56-

victims with no power to affect the course of events. In
the year since I last addressed this body, there have been
11 hijackings, 19 kidnappings, 42 armed attacks and 112
bombings perpetrated by international terrorists. Over
70 people have lost their lives and over 200 have been injured.

It is time this Organization said to the world that the
vicious murder and abuse of innocents cannot be absolved or
excused by the invocation of lofty motives. Criminal acts
against humanity, whatever the professed objective, cannot
be excused by any civilized nation.

The threat of terrorism should be dealt with through the
cooperative efforts of all countries. More stringent steps must
be taken now to deny skyjackers and terrorists a safe haven.

-57-

Additional measures are required to protect passengers in
both transit and terminal areas, as well as in flight.

The United States will work within the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) to expand its present technical
assistance to include the security of air carriers and terminal
facilities. We urge the universal implementation of aviation
security standards adopted by ICAO. We are prepared to assist
the efforts of other governments to implement those standards.

The United States will support new initiatives which will
ensure the safety of the innocent. The proposal of the
distinguished Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of
Germany, against the taking of hostages, deserves the most
serious and sympathetic consideration of this Assembly.

-58-

The United States will do everything within its power to work cooperatively in the United Nations and in other international bodies to put an end to the scourge of terrorism.

But we have an obligation to protect the lives of our citizens as they travel at home or abroad, and we intend to meet that obligation. Therefore, if multilateral efforts are blocked by those determined to pursue their ends without regard for suffering or death, then the United States will act through its own legislative processes and in conjunction with others willing to join us.

Terrorism is an international problem. It is inconceivable that an Organization of the world's nations would fail to take effective action against it.

-59-

The final measure of all we do together, of course, is man himself. Our common efforts to define, preserve and enhance respect for the rights of man thus represent an ultimate test of international cooperation.

We Americans, in the year of our Bicentennial, are conscious -- and proud -- of our own traditions. Our Founders wrote 200 years ago of the equality and inalienable rights of all men. Since then the ideals of liberty and democracy have become the universal and indestructible goals of mankind.

But the plain truth -- of tragic proportions -- is that human rights are in jeopardy over most of the globe. Arbitrary arrest, denial of fundamental procedural rights, slave labor stifling of freedom of religion, racial injustice, political repression,

(N)

-60-

the use of torture, and restraints on communications and
expression -- these abuses are too prevalent.

The performance of the United Nations system in protecting
human rights has fallen far short of what was envisaged when
this Organization was founded. The principles of the Universal
Declaration are clear enough. But their invocation and
application, in general debates of this body and in the forums
of the Human Rights Commission, have been marred by
hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination. Flagrant
and consistent deprivation of human rights is no less heinous
in one country or one social system than in another. Nor is
it more acceptable when practiced upon members of the same
race than when inflicted by one race upon another.

-61-

The international community has a unique role to play.

The application of the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be entrusted to fair and capable international bodies. But at the same time let us ensure that these bodies do not become platforms from which nations which are the worst transgressors pass hypocritical judgment on the alleged shortcomings of others.

Let us together pursue practical approaches:

- to build on the foundations already laid at previous

Assemblies and at the Human Rights Commission to lessen the abominable practice of officially sanctioned torture.

-62-

-- to promote acceptance of procedures for protecting the rights of people subject to detention, such as access to courts, counsel, and families; prompt release or fair and public trial.

-- to improve the working procedures of international bodies concerned with human rights so that they may function fairly and effectively.

-- to stengthen the capability of the United Nations to meet the tragic problems of the ever growing number of refugees whose human rights have been stripped away by conflict in almost every continent.

The United States pledges its firm support to these efforts.

-63-

## Conclusion

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished delegates:

The challenge to statesmanship in this generation is to advance from the management of crises to the building of a more stable and just international order -- an order resting not on power but on restraint of power, not on the strength of arms but on the strength of the human spirit.

Global forces of change now shape our future. Order will come in one of two ways: through its imposition by the strong and the ruthless or by the wise and farsighted use of international institutions through which we enlarge the sphere of common interests and enhance the sense of community.

-64-

It is easy and tempting to press relentlessly for national
advantage. It is infinitely more difficult to act in recognition
of the rights of others.

Throughout history, the greatness of men and nations has
been measured by their actions in times of acute peril. Today
there is no single crisis to conquer. There is instead a
persisting challenge of staggering complexity -- the need to
create a universal community based on cooperation, peace
and justice.

If we falter, future generations will pay for our failure.

If we succeed we will have been worthy of the hopes of
mankind.

I am confident that we can succeed.

And it is here, in the Assembly of Nations, that we should
begin.

* * *