(L)

I am most pleased to be here today, at the invitation of President
Perez. This symposium is symbolic of the effort of our two nations
to strengthen our ties, and to consult on issues of deep concern to
our two peoples. I come here not merely to demonstrate my
country's interest in its relationships with you, but to address
with you the global challenges to our common future.

The Western Hemisphere has for centuries symbolized man's
readiness to grasp his own destiny. When I placed a wreath at the
tomb of Simon Bolivar yesterday, I recalled the depth of his faith
and wonder at the future of the Americas. Today, more than a
century later, the promise of our Hemisphere is more alive than
ever -- and more important to each of our countries, and to the
world.

Today I want to discuss with you the challenges that history
has posed to our hemispheric friendship, the efforts we have

-2-

made in the recent period to address these challenges, and the
compelling responsibility we face today and tomorrow.

## Our Special Relationship

I have come to this continent because the United States believes that Latin America has a special place in our foreign policy.

This belief is the product of history. We won our national independence together in the same era. We confronted the similar challenges of pioneer peoples developing the resources of bountiful unexplored continents. We shaped democratic institutions and spurred economic growth, conscious that we benefitted greatly from our relationship with each other. We have long shared a common interest in shielding our Hemisphere from the intrusion of others.

We led the world in building international organizations to serve our cooperative endeavors for both collective security and economic progress.

-3-

The United States has always felt with Latin America a
special intimacy, a special bond of collaboration, even in the
periods of our isolation from world affairs. Even now, when our
countries are major participants in world affairs, when our
perceptions of contemporary issues are not always identical,
there remains a particular warmth in the personal relationships
among our leaders and a special readiness to consider the views
of our neighbors. On many issues of United States policy --
economic, political or security -- the American people and
Congress give special consideration to our hemispheric ties.

The problem we face today is that history -- and indeed the
very growth and success we have all achieved -- have complicated
our relationship. What used to be a simple perception of hemispheric
uniqueness, and a self-contained exclusive relationship, has become

-4-

enmeshed in the wider concerns we all now have in the rest of the
world.

-- The United States is conscious of a global responsibility to
maintain the world balance of power, to help resolve the
age-old political conflicts that undermine peace, and to
help shape a new international order encompassing the
interests and aspirations of the 150 nations that now comprise
our planet. And so our vision now reaches beyond the
Western Hemisphere. We have major alliances with the
Atlantic Community and Japan, as well as this Hemisphere; we
have growing ties of friendship with many nations. In a
nuclear age, we have an inescapable responsibility to
manage and stabilize our relations with the major Communist
powers, and to try to build a safer and more constructive future.

-5-

The problem of peace in this generation means for us,
the United States, a permanent involvement in world
affairs in all their dimensions -- maintaining security,
promoting a healthy trade and monetary system and economic
development, and creating a stable and just and universal
system of political relations.

-- At the same time, Latin American nations have grown in
power and influence and become major forces in their own
right on the world scene. This is one of the most striking
events of this era. Your economies are among the most
advanced of the developing world. But your role is not a
product of economic strength alone; its roots are deeper --
your traditions of personal and national dignity, concern
for legal principle, and your history of peace. Your sense

-6-

of regional identity has become more important -- to you --
and to the world. We accept and respect these developments,
and the new organizations, like SELA, which now speak to
your own collective interests. We trust that they will not
be used for confrontation, for that could complicate our
relations and hinder solutions to problems. We are
confident that the increased sense of Latin American identity,
and the institutions which serve it, can be a constructive
and vital force for cooperation on a wider basis. This will be
our attitude toward these institutions.

-- The countries of Latin America have done more than grow
internally and strengthen their regional associations.

They have established new ties outside the Hemisphere --
trade relations with the European Community, and Japan,

-7-

and a growing sense of solidarity with developing nations in Africa and Asia. Such global involvement is inevitable; inevitably also, it creates new and conflicting pressures on more traditional friendships.

-- The challenge of economic development has become a world-wide concern and is being addressed on a global, and not simply hemispheric basis. Venezuela is now co-chairman of the Conference on International Economic Cooperation and has discharged this responsibility with great wisdom. Similarly, the energies of the United States are increasingly focused on international organizations and issues of global scope. We have made major and comprehensive proposals to the UN General Assembly Special Session, the World Food Conference, and the Conference on International Economic Cooperation.

-8-

Recent events have taught us all that global prosperity
is indivisible; no nation can prosper alone.

-- Finally, the United States continues in this era to feel
a special concern for its hemispheric relations. Our
profound conviction is that if we cannot help to solve the
burning issues of peace and progress with those with
whom we have such long-standing ties of sentiment and
experience of collaboration, we have little hope of helping
to solve them elsewhere. To put it positively, we feel
strongly that our cooperation as equals in this Hemisphere
can be a model for cooperation in the world arena.

The challenge we face is that we must reconcile these distinct
but intersecting dimensions of concern. We must define anew the nature
and purposes of our hemispheric condition. We must understand

-9-

its meaning and its promise. We must adapt it to
our new global condition. We must summon it, develop
it, and use it for our common objectives.

The United States values its bilateral ties with
your countries, without any intention of pursuing them
in order to break up your regional solidarity. We
want to preserve our hemispheric ties and adapt
them to the moral imperatives of this era, without
hegemony, free of complexes, aimed at a better
future.

All the nations of the Hemisphere are mature countries.

The variety of intersecting relationships and concerns

-10-

reflects the vitality of our nations and the increasingly important
roles we play in the world. We in the Americas are granted
by history a unique opportunity to help fashion what your
together's
Foreign Minister has called a "new equilibrium" among all nations.

## Dialogue and Progress

The experience of our recent past has much to teach us.

During the early 1960's, the Alliance for Progress stimulated great expectations of rapid development. The enthusiasm with which our countries embraced the Alliance Charter clearly exceeded our collective perserverance and understated the magnitude of the challenge. But great human and financial resources were mobilized; new institutions were created that remain basic instruments for cooperation. And ultimately the Alliance left an even greater moral imprint. By the end of the 1960's, internal development and social change had

(c)S

-11-

become an imperative for all governments in Latin America, regardless of political coloration. The United States is proud of its contribution.

In this decade, this Hemisphere has been swept up in the tides of the global economy that now have an increasing significance to our national plans and expectations.

At Vina del Mar in 1969, the nations of Latin America staked out a new agenda of issues reflecting what we have since come to call interdependence -- the conditions of world trade, multinational corporations, and technology transfer -- as well as more traditional issues such as economic assistance. In the spirit of inter-American cooperation, the United States attempted to respond. My government endorsed, and worked for, measures to improve Latin America's access to our markets and those of other industrial countries, to improve the flow of private capital,

-12-

to reform the inter-American system and
to ensure consideration for Latin American concerns in international
forums.

Less than a month after becoming Secretary of State in 1973,
I called for a new dialogue between Latin America and the United
States to reinvigorate our relations by addressing together the
new challenges of an interdependent world. I believed that in the
past the United States had too often sought to decide unilaterally
what should be done about inter-American relations. I felt that Latin
America must have a stake in our policies if those policies were to be
successful. I said that we were ready to listen to all Latin American
concerns in any forum.

Latin America chose to conduct the dialogue on a strictly
multilateral basis, presenting common positions to the United States.

(lc)

-13-

First in Bogota, then in Mexico City, the agenda of issues that had been set out at Vina del Mar was updated to account for changed circumstances and new concerns. At Tlatelolco, and again in Washington, I joined my fellow Foreign Ministers in informal meetings, supplementing our regular encounters in the OAS and United Nations. A thorough and heartening dialogue took place. For the next twelve months, United States and Latin American representatives met in a continuous series of political and technical discussions. These meetings were interrupted almost precisely a year ago, in reaction to certain provisions of the United States Trade Act of 1974 -- the very act that implemented the system of generalized preferences first proposed in Vina del Mar.

All of us have something to learn from this experience.

First, we can now see that the New Dialogue, as it was conducted, only partially met the psychological requirements of our

-14-

modern relationship.

The United States was prepared to work with the other nations of the Hemisphere to improve and perfect the undeniable community that has existed under the name of the Inter-American System for almost a century. Yet the explicitness of our approach to the concept of community led many in Latin America to think that the United States wanted to maintain or create a relationship of hegemony. This misunderstanding obscured the reality that the Hemisphere was in transition, between dependence and interdependence, between consolidation and political growth, and that the old community based on exclusivity was being transformed into a more open community based on mutual interests and problem solving.

The United States, perhaps underestimating the psychological weight of history, had conceived of dialogue as a means of adjusting

-15-

its policies through compromises arising from a common search for
solutions with Latin America.

The Latin American nations still seemed to think that the United
States, with its great strengths and responsibilities, could act
unilaterally to resolve all issues, that any compromise was surrender,
that Latin America should propose and the United States should respond.

The United States, on the other hand, looked upon dialogue as a pro-
longed process of give-and-take, in which progress would come
incrementally, as our representatives analyzed the problems and
negotiated solutions.

Latin America demanded quick results: each meeting became a
deadline by which time the United States had to show "results" or be
judged lacking. But as economic difficulties beset us all in a period of
world recession, it became obvious that if Latin American aspirations
were expressed to the people of the United States in terms of categorical

-16-

and propagandistic demands, they could not elicit a sufficiently positive response.

Both sides oversimplified the nature of the problem: the Latin American nations did not always perceive that the issues were among the most difficult that the international community has faced, because they go to the heart of the structure and interaction of entire societies. The United States did not sufficiently take into account that Latin America had experienced years of frustration in which lofty promises by the United States had been undone by the gradualism of the American political system, which responds less to abstract commitments than to concrete problems. Hence the charge of neglect on one side and the occasional feeling on the other side, of being beseiged with demands.

But if the New Dialogue has not yet yielded results, it nevertheless expresses a constructive mode of dealing with our problems

-17-

and realizing the aspirations of the Hemisphere. The United States
is prepared to make a major effort to invigorate our hemispheric
ties. My trip here underlines that purpose.

We have learned something basic about the Hemisphere itself.

In the past, both the United States and Latin America have acted
as if the problems of the Hemisphere could be solved exclusively
within the Hemisphere. Today, the Americas -- North and South --
recognize that they require a global as well as a regional vision if they
are to resolve their problems. For the United States a homogeneous
policy toward an entity called "Latin America" presents new problems,
in terms both of global concerns and of the real diversity of Latin
America. Nor can the burden of adjustment to a new hemispheric
equilibrium be borne wholly by the United States. We are prepared
to make a major contribution, and we are willing to cooperate

-18-

fully with Latin American regional institutions that come into
being to this end.

But both sides need a new approach. The United States is
prepared to give more systematic consideration to Latin America's
quest for regional identity. On the other hand, Latin America must
overcome its own apprehensions about our policies. In the past,
whenever we emphasized the regional aspects of our relationships, we
have been accused of forcing problems into an inter-American system
which we dominated; when we emphasized the bilateral mode, we were
accused of a policy of divide and rule. Each side must understand the
problems and purposes of the other.

We thus all know our challenge. We must now turn it into our
opportunity. As far as the United States is concerned, we are pre-
pared to make a major effort to build upon our historic ties a
cooperative effort to construct a better future.

- 19 -

Interdependence and Our Common Future

Where do we go from here? What is the answer?
Wherein lies the purpose of our relationship in the
modern era?

Our starting point must be to recognize that
an era of interdependence makes collaborative
endeavor more, not less important, to any country
that wishes to preserve control over its own
national destiny.

We in this Hemisphere won our glory in
fighting for national independence and defending
it in the face of foreign threats; we

-20-

have built societies embodying the tradition of democracy;

we have dedicated our human energies to the development of our

natural resources, with impressive results.

Yet even as we celebrate our birth as nations and our
centuries of achievement, we encounter a new challenge to our
independence. It comes not from foreign armies, but from gaps
and strains revealed within the very international economic system
that each of our nations, in its own way, has done much to create.

Since the Enlightenment, which produced the faith in reason
and progress that inspired our revolutions, we have all believed
that the growth of a global economy would nurture a world community
bringing universal advancement. Yet now we find that the inter-
national system of production -- which still has the potential to
provide material progress for all -- has become subject to

(i)

- 21 -

uncertainties and inefficiencies and international conflicts.

Nowhere is this challenge more vivid than in Latin America.

With the higher stage of development that your economies have reached has come the awareness of greater vulnerability to fluctuations in export earnings, to increases in the costs of imports, and to the ebb and flow of private capital. Yet your more complex and more open economies can also respond more vigorously to, and profit more readily from, positive trends in the world economic system.

Interdependence for the Americas is therefore a positive force, and an opportunity. We must manage it, harness it, and develop it for our common benefit.

Our economic dilemmas give rise, in our times, to political imperatives. Rapidly changing external events affect

- 22 -

all our peoples profoundly -- their livelihoods, their material
standards, their hopes for the future, and most fundamentally,
their confidence that our systems of government can
successfully encounter the challenges before us. And the
requirement for action is political will.

- 23 -

Our societies derive their strength from the consent and dedication of our peoples. Can our democratic system cope with the strains of social change and the frustrations of what is inevitably a long historical process? Can nations find the wisest path in an era when our problems are too vast to be solved by any nation acting alone? Will we succumb to the temptation of unilateral actions, advantageous in their appearance but not their reality? Can we reconcile our diversity and the imperative of our collaboration?

I believe we have every cause for optimism. The requirements of interdependence make patent the genius of our special hemispheric traditions, our values, and our institutions. Pluralism and respect for the rights of others are indispensable to the harmony of the international order.

- 24 -

For to seek to impose radical changes without the consent of
all those who would be affected is to ignore political reality.

Equally, to deny a voice to any who are members of the international
community is to ensure that even positive achievement will
ultimately be rejected.

Therefore the traditions of this Hemisphere -- democracy,
justice, human and national dignity, and free cooperation -- are
precisely the qualities needed in the era of global interdependence.
National unity without freedom is sterile; technological progress
without social justice is corrupt; nationalism without a
consciousness of the human community is a negative force.

Therefore, our permanent quest for progress in this
Hemisphere must take into account global as well as regional
realities. It must reflect the differing interests of each country.
And our global efforts respectively must draw on the vitality of

- 25 -

our own relationships as a source of dynamism, strength, and
inspiration.

The United States has attempted to make a constructive
contribution, in this context.

Last September in New York, addressing the Latin American
Foreign Ministers attending the UN General Assembly, I pointed
out that several of our initiatives before the Seventh Special
Session had been designed to be particularly relevant to Latin
American concerns. And I pledged that in the necessary
negotiations in other forums, and in all aspects of our relations,
we would remember that each Latin American country was
different, and we would be responsive to the distinctive national
interests of our friends in the Hemisphere.

My New York comments raised contradictory speculations.
The explicit introduction of global considerations into our Latin

- 26 -

American policy was variously interpreted as implying either
that the United States denied the existence of a special
relationship with Latin America, or that it sought to build
on that relationship to constitute a new bloc in world affairs.
The recognition of the uniqueness of each country, and
particularly my statement that "no single formula" could
encompass our desire for warm and productive relations with
each nation in the Hemisphere, were interpreted by some to
imply that the United States was about to embark on a new
crusade to maintain its power through a policy of special
bilateral deals designed to divide the countries of Latin America
against each other and preclude their ties with countries outside
the Hemisphere.

These speculations reflect the suspicions and uncertainties
of a fluid global environment. They reflect problems we must

- 27 -

jointly overcome. They do _not_ reflect United States policy.

The fundamental interests of the United States require
an active and constructive role of leadership in the task of
building peace and promoting economic advance. In this
Hemisphere, the legacy of our history is a tradition of civilized
cooperation, a habit of interdependence, that is a sturdy foundation
on which to seek to build a more just international order. And it
is absurd to attempt to create a broader world community by
tearing down close cooperative relations that have already
existed in our part of the globe.

Therefore the United States remains committed to our
**common** pledge at Tlatelolco to seek "a new, vigorous spirit of
inter-American solidarity". This must mean today not an
artificial unanimity or unrealistic pleas for unilateral action.

- 28 -

As we agreed at Tlatelolco, interdependence has become a
physical and moral imperative: It is a reality of mutual dependence
and a necessity of cooperation on common problems. To face real
problems, we must now deal effectively among ourselves, we must
identify our real needs and priorities; given the Hemisphere's
diversity, that can often be achieved bilaterally and subregionally
better than regionally.

In this spirit of working solidarity, the United States
pledges itself:

- to take special cognizance of the distinctive requirements
  of the more industrialized economies of Latin America,
  and of the region as a whole, in our efforts to build a
  more equitable international order. We believe the
  major Latin American countries need concessional

- 29 -

foreign assistance less than they need support for
their drive to participate in the international economy
on a more equal footing with the industrialized nations.
To help overcome fluctuations in export earnings
and continued import and debt-servicing needs, we
have secured a Development Security Facility in the
IMF and a substantial increase in access to IMF
resources. To facilitate access to long-term development
capital on commercial terms, we have proposed a new
International Investment Trust and have begun a program
of technical assistance to countries entering established
capital markets.

In a similar vein, we support expanded
capitalization of international financial institutions

-30-

such as the International Finance Corporation and the
Inter-American Development Bank. A U. S. contribution
of $2.25 billion to a new multi-year replenishment of
the Inter-American Development Bank is now before the
U. S. Congress. President Ford has given his full support.

To promote the growth and market stability of
commodities of importance to Latin America, we favor
producer-consumer cooperation in specific commodities,
and a reduction in the barriers to increased processing
of raw materials in exporting countries.

We are prepared to undertake two other practical steps:

The nations of Latin America have shown considerable
interest in the transfer of modern technology.

- 31 -

We support this, in principle and in practice. The
challenge here, as elsewhere, is to develop mechanisms
to achieve practical results. It may be that SELA can
turn to this question and suggest the means by which we
could cooperate. We are prepared to respond positively.

In addition, we must recognize that the private
sector, private initiative and private capital can play
important roles in the development and application of
new scientific and technological advances to local needs
and conditions. The degree to which private capital is
prepared to devote its considerable resources of talent and
knowledge to this task will depend on the climate for its
participation. It is for this reason that we state again
our willingness to discuss codes of conduct, which

- 32 -

can provide guidelines for the behavior of
trans-national enterprises. No subject is more
sensitive -- or more vital -- for the private
sector has played the critical role in bringing
about growth; its resources exceed by far those
now available for governmental aid. Yet for it to be
effective the proper environment must be created.
This is a major test for our cooperative efforts.

To increase trading opportunities, we now permit
many industrial products of developing countries to enter
the United States without duty. And we favor special and
differentiated treatment in the multilateral trade
negotiations through concentration on products of
interest to Latin America. This is already apparent
in the talks we have had on tropical products. On all

- 33 -

such multilateral issues we are prepared to have
prior consultation with the nations of Latin America.

-- to maintain direct assistance to the neediest nations
in this Hemisphere still oppressed by poverty and natural
disaster. The great bulk of our bilateral concessional
assistance to Latin America, nearly $300 million
annually, is now allocated to the region's poorest
nations, to meet basic needs in health, education and
agriculture. At this moment, the United States has
joined other countries in a massive response to the
devastating earthquake in Guatemala. In addition,
we continue to support expansion of multilateral
concessional assistance through the Fund for Special
Operations of the Inter-American Development Bank and

- 34 -

the soft loan windows of other international financial
institutions active in Latin America. These activities,
supplemented by new programs in agricultural
development and to assist balance of payments
shortfalls, make an important contribution to our
common responsibility toward the neediest.

In this regard let me mention the critical
problem of food -- which is especially important
to Latin America, where food production over
recent years has barely kept pace with production.

Following my proposal of a year ago, the
Inter-American Development Bank established
the International Group for Agricultural Development
in Latin America. This Hemispheric agricultural

- 34 A -

consultative group will consist of major donors and
all Latin American nations and focus on overcoming
constraints to agricultural growth and rural
development in the Hemisphere. The first meeting
is scheduled for May, in Mexico, and preparatory
work will begin next week.

The United States attaches great importance
to this effort. It is crucial if Latin America is to
fulfill its potential as a food surplus region. It can
be another powerful example of how inter-American
cooperation can show the way toward solving
mankind's most urgent problems.

- to support Latin American regional and subregional efforts
  to organize for cooperation and integration. The United
  States has provided technical and financial assistance

- 35 -

arise in the future. In addition, we see in SELA a
new possibility for cooperation among the nations of
Latin America on common regional problems and
projects. We welcome SELA, and will support its
efforts at mutual cooperation as its members may
deem appropriate.

-- to negotiate on the basis of parity and dignity our
specific differences with each and every state, both
bilaterally and, where appropriate, multilaterally.

We intend to solve problems before they become
conflicts. We stand ready to consult with other
governments over investment disputes when those
disputes threaten relations between our governments.

As you all know, the United States and Panama are

- 36 -

continuing to move forward in their historic negotiations on a
Panama Canal treaty to establish a reliable long-term relationship
between our two nations. In the interim between now and the
final Law of the Sea Conference we will continue to attempt
to find solutions to issues relating to fisheries and the seas
which have complicated our relations in the past. It is the
earnest hope of my country that within a year a Treaty of
Caracas will be signed on the Law of the Sea.

-- to enforce our commitment to mutual security, and the
Bolivarian ideal of regional integrity against those who would
seek to undermine solidarity, threaten independence,
or export violence. Last July at San Jose, the nations
of the Americas agreed upon revisions to the Inter-
American Treaty of Reciprocal Alliance, the Rio Treaty.

- 37 -

In so doing they reaffirmed their commitment to take
collective action against aggression -- whether it comes
from without or within the Hemisphere. The United States
regards this treaty as a solemn international obligation.
We are resolved to carry out the commitment it places
upon us.

-- to work to modernize the Inter-American System to respond
to the needs of our times, to give direction to our common
actions. The member states have already taken a
major step forward in revising and reaffirming the
Rio Treaty. In the months ahead, the OAS will be
considering the report of its Special Committee on Reform.
More is at stake than the text of the Charter; the member
states are also beginning to focus on the structure and

- 38 -

processes of the Organization itself. The United States
believes that the OAS has an important future of
service to the Hemisphere. We stand ready to
work with others to modernize and strengthen it,
to make it a more effective instrument for regional
cooperation.

The application of these principles is a matter of common
concern. We have had a special relationship for 150
years and more; the very intimacy of our ties imposes
upon us the duty of rigorous and responsible self-assessment.
We should set ourselves concrete deadlines - to complete the
process before the end of this year.

- 39 -

We should use the months ahead constructively and productively. It is time that all of us in the Hemisphere put aside slogans and turn from rhetoric to resolve. Let us go beyond the debate whether the United States is patronizing or neglecting or seeking to dominate its neighbors. Let us not dispute whether the Latin American nations are being unreasonable or peremptory or seeking to line up against their northern partner.

Instead, let us focus on our goals and the need for common effort and get down to serious business. Many forums and forms are available. I propose that we identify the most fruitful areas for our common effort and set ourselves the goal of major accomplishment this year. At the OAS meeting in June, we can review where we stand and discuss what further needs to be

- 40 -

done. At the last General Assembly, we adopted the informal
style of the New Dialogue, successfully, to facilitate open and
frank discussions of major issues. I propose that we do so
again, and that we concentrate, at this next ministerial meeting,
on the nature of our fundamental relationship.

Our common problems are real enough; a common
response will give living reality to the heritage and promise
of the Hemisphere and the enduring truth that the nations of
this Hemisphere do indeed have -- and will continue to have --
a special relationship.

## The United States and Venezuela

The ties between the United States and Venezuela illustrate
the sound foundation upon which we can build. Our democracies,
our economic strength, our tradition of trust and working together

- 41 -

give us hope; it is our duty to go forward together. This is the
strong desire of my country.

We have set an example together. Our collaboration is
traditional, extensive, intensive, and -- patently -- mutually
beneficial.

Venezuela is a country at peace in a continent at peace. Its
considerable energies can happily be directed toward the highest
aspirations of human well-being, in the spirit of its democratic
ideals. Now those ideals have been given new strength by the
acquisition of new prosperity and power.

Last December in Paris, 27 nations gathered in Conference
on International Economic Cooperation -- a milestone in the world's
struggle to manage the challenges of interdependence.

Decisions in CIEC are to be taken by consensus rather than by
majority vote. The structure of the Conference reflects the

- 42 -

diversity of nations. It is not a club of the powerful: the
developing countries as well as the industrialized participate on
a fully equal basis. It is representative, but not so unwieldy as to
frustrate all practical action. It is a tribute to common sense,
and to the strength of our collective commitment to achieve real
solutions and real progress for our peoples and for the world.

Appropriately, Venezuela -- whose leaders have long
projected a vision of greater democracy among nations as well as
within their own country -- is now co-chairman of CIEC.

Since the early days of our nation when Francisco de Miranda befriended George Washington, Venezuela's and the United States' struggle for liberty, national dignity, and progress have been intertwined. Only a few miles up this coast at Puerto Cabello, there is a monument to ten North Americans who lost their lives

- 43 -

in the first attempt by Miranda to win Venezuelan independence.

And Henry Clay, whose statue stands in Caracas, expressed the enduring wish of my nation when he wrote to Simon Bolivar in 1828: "... the interest which was inspired in this country by the arduous struggles of South America, arose principally from the hope, that, along with its independence, would be established free institutions, insuring all the blessings of civil liberty."

We have a right to be proud, for these hopes are a living reality. Few societies have transformed themselves so profoundly and so rapidly as our two countries. And those transformations have been neither aimless nor ideological, but the dynamic product of institutions created by free peoples.

The challenge for both our nations now is to draw new inspiration from the long tradition that unites us, to bring into harmony the

- 44 -

diverse roles we are destined to play in world affairs. There is
little we can accomplish apart; there are tremendous things we
can achieve together.

Venezuela and the United States have built an economic
relationship that is sturdy and valuable to both sides -- and is
increasingly so. Venezuela has for decades been an important
and reliable supplier of energy to the United States -- through
World War II and the recent oil embargo. The United States
private sector has participated actively in the dynamic growth of the
Venezuelan economy.

We recognize that we often have differing perspectives
and differing interests. At times, the favor of our respective
convictions has led us to disagree even when our interests basically
coincided. Venezuela and the United States can debate without

- 45 -

confrontation. We can discuss without rancor, as friends.

And most importantly we can pursue our respective goals with a
dignity born of mutual respect.

Like a masterpiece by Soto or Otero, our relationship is
therefore a shimmering and changing pattern of reality. My discussions
with your distinguished President Carlos Andres Perez and Foreign
Minister Escovar have convinced me that the farsighted prophesy
of the Liberator speaks for both our countries. Bolivar envisioned
a world "imbibing the American principles and seeing the effects of
liberty on the prosperity of the American peoples . . . . "

We have it in our power to transform such a world from
a dream into a practical reality. All great achievements began
as dreams. With realism, reason, and the will to work together,
we can ensure that the dreams of Bolivar and Jefferson, of

[LC]

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 18, 1976

No. 72

PC 88

PRESS CONFERENCE
BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
CARACAS, VENEZUELA
FEBRUARY 17, 1976

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you said during the course of the meeting at La Guzmania, the Presidential mansion, that one of the purposes of your trip to Latin America and the result thereof would be to propose to the U. S. Congress the elimination of the discriminatory clause in the Trade Act that negatively affects Venezuela and Ecuador. What specifically do you propose to tell Congress so that Congress may accept your suggestion? The second question is that you announced that the type of activity that Cuba has engaged in in the case of Angola is something that could not take place. However, Cuba has just approved a new Constitution wherein it supports the struggle for independence of other countries. What do you propose to do in this respect?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** With respect to the first question, the Administration has repeatedly emphasized to the Congress that it opposes the discriminatory aspects of the Trade Act as they apply to Venezuela and Ecuador, and several amendments have been introduced including one by Senator Bentsen from Texas in the Senate which we understand is being considered these days by the Senate Finance Committee to remove this particular discriminatory aspect. When I return, I will of course report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to the House International Relations Committee and I will emphasize in strong terms to both of them the unfortunate impact that these discriminatory pieces of legislation have had on our relationship in Latin America. Of course it occurs occasionally that the Congress does not see things my own way, though it is hard for me to conceive. But we think with respect to these discriminatory laws that the prevalent mood in the Congress agrees with the position that I have advanced here. Second, with respect to Cuba, I do not know what the meaning of that phrase is in the Cuban Constitution. Cuba has every right to support politically and ideologically whatever it chooses. However, I am convinced that once the American people understand that Cuba assumes the right to intervene militarily in the affairs of other parts of the world, we will not stand idly by. This is a matter which we have brought before the American public, which we will continue to bring before the American public, and before the Congress.

**QUESTION:** I would like to ask you what are the reasons for the delay in the efforts to establish a relationship with Latin America on the part of the U. S. Why has this delay been so extended? Is it that the U. S. can concern itself only when it has more time on its hands than it needs for its other pressing matters, or is there any specific reason for this attention span?

For further information contact:

-2-

PR 72

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** First of all, there has not been a delay in that, as soon as I became Secretary of State, I proposed within a month, what came to be called the New Dialogue, and a series of meetings took place between the Foreign Ministers of the Western Hemisphere, and then a series of meetings of working groups which were interrupted last year as a result of actions which were not the decision of our Administration, but were the result of the interplay of a Congressional act and the reaction of Latin American countries, particularly Ecuador and Venezuela, which refused to attend the meeting which was scheduled for Buenos Aires. This was one reason why I did not take a trip which had been scheduled for a meeting of Foreign Ministers; and then there were two other events last year that created a crisis which unfortunately had to be dealt with urgently. One was a critical situation or a need for rapid negotiations in the Middle East which caused me to postpone a trip, and then the other was the collapse of Viet-Nam which also was not foreseen. I regretted it profoundly and I stayed in close contact with my colleagues in the Western Hemisphere. It is sometimes the case that urgent problems take precedence over important problems, but it does not mean that there is any lack of interest or lack of concern in our relationships.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I am the correspondent for Prensa Latina. My question is: Does the inclusion of a visit (to Brazil) in the course of your present trip to Latin America mean that the U. S. Administration continues to believe in President Nixon's statement that wherever Brazil leans or goes, the rest of Latin America might follow; or are you going down there to ask them for an explanation of what the relationship may have been with the "Frente de Liberacion de Angola" (MPLA)?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** With respect to the first part of your question, we consider Brazil an extremely important country, a great country with which we maintain friendly relations. What the impact is on other Latin American countries is for other Latin American countries to decide, and we believe that there are many authentic leaders in Latin America, and the U. S. will not appoint one Latin American country as the leader of Latin America. This is up to the countries of Latin America to decide in working out their own internal relationships. We believe we can have friendly and constructive and close relations with many of the countries of Latin America. Secondly, with respect to the MPLA, the U. S. has stated repeatedly that our opposition was not to the MPLA. The U. S. has stated repeatedly that we are prepared to work with any authentic African movement or any government that emerges out of authentic African governmental processes. We recognized immediately the FRELIMO in Mozambique which, in its orientation, is substantially parallel to that of the MPLA. Our objection in Angola was the massive introduction of thousands of Cuban soldiers and massive introduction of Soviet military equipment which had the practical consequence of imposing a minority government on a country by foreign arms and foreign expeditionary forces sent from thousands of miles away. As far as the MPLA is concerned, in its African manifestation we have repeatedly stated that we could work with it. Now I am obviously not going to Brazil or to any other country on this trip to call them to account for actions they have a right to take in the sovereign exercise of their foreign policy. Therefore, this is not an issue which I will raise. I am not here to discuss the past. I am here to discuss the future.

**QUESTION:** There has been speculation, Dr. Kissinger, regarding the talks held with President Perez, that you discussed the possibility or the need of exploiting and developing the Orinoco Tar Basin in exchange for technology.

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** First of all, let me say that the very extensive talks I had with your President were extremely helpful to me in understanding

-3-

PR 72

the problems of Venezuela and in understanding the possibilities that exist for Western Hemisphere cooperation. We discussed a wide variety of subjects. The President raised with me the issue of the Tar Belt and described to me the plans he has for analyzing how it can contribute to Venezuelan development. He did not ask me for my opinion on the subject and he simply described his own development plans with respect to this, and I listened to it with interest and pointed out that we had similar possibilities, and we were developing, we were looking into, the problem of technology for ourselves. But there was no discussion whatsoever about an exchange of technology between Venezuela and the United States or any conditions placed on how Venezuela should go about developing its own national resources.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, the people of the Americas have been following with interest and have been alert to the progress of the conversations that are being held between the United States and Panama. How do you see these conversations at present? What do you see as the outcome?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** We are engaged in very serious negotiations to see whether a mutually satisfactory new treaty can be negotiated. These negotiations are taking place and they are making progress, and they will be conducted with great seriousness by the United States, as they have been also by the Government of Panama.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, there is a report in the Venezuelan press that you asked President Perez if he would lower the price of Venezuelan oil in a way similar to that which Iran has done. Was that subject raised in your discussions at all?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** That subject did not come up. The question of energy was discussed, not with specific reference to Venezuela's oil prices, but with respect to the general problem of the relation of energy to other aspects of the international economy, such as is being discussed at the Paris Conference.

**QUESTION:** There are views that have been expressed through the media in Venezuela, and have also been reflected in communications through the news agencies, regarding the extraordinary security precautions taken on the occasion of the visit of the Secretary of State to Venezuela. My question is: Could you explain to us whether you had, through the U. S. Department of State, any information or news regarding the possibility of an attempt on your life? Or has this display of U. S. security agents been simply a demonstration of friendship toward Latin American countries?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I never look at information about the security situation so I am not familiar with any particular information with respect to security. I also do not control a number of security agents that accompany me. I suppose they feel that I am easily lonely and therefore try to prevent my usual melancholy from expressing itself...I will probably live to regret this. Let's make this the last question.

**QUESTION:** Dr. Kissinger, it is known that once the strength and the skill of the Cuban army became apparent in Angola, that American Ambassadors were asked to consult with their foreign governments. Does that mean that some kind of joint policy or agreement is being worked out with reference to future military interventions like Cuba, should there by any?

-4-

PR 72

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** We are not in the process at this moment of organizing a joint policy with respect to any future Cuban move. We are stating, however, the view of our Administration that this is an unacceptable mode of behavior and we state this view in response to questions. We are not volunteering it and we are not asking any government to take any specific action at this moment.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, according to cables originating from Washington, you are quoted as stating that countries receiving U. S. aid would have to agree with the United States in international forums. Should that be considered simply a notice or a threat?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It may be that you have your Harvard professors confused, but we are not buying votes in the United Nations. Our attitude towards countries will have to be determined by their overall relations to us and not by each individual vote in the United Nations.

**QUESTION:** Dr. Kissinger, my country, Ecuador, is one that has been claiming a 200-mile territorial sea together with Peru and Chile in order to develop our fisheries and other natural resources in the sea. It is my understanding that the Congress of the United States is in the process of approving a similar law to protect a similar 200-mile area along the coast of the U. S. The second question that I have is: If the United States should approve such a law, providing for 200 miles, would this mean the end of the presence of tuna boats fishing along our coastal borders?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** With respect to the 200-mile zone, the United States, in the Law of the Sea Conference, supports a 200-mile economic zone, not territorial sea, but a 200 mile economic zone, and we hope that we can delay Congressional action on this matter until we can determine what will happen at the Law of the Sea Conference that is beginning in the middle of March. I do not want to speculate what our fishermen will do. The principle of the economic zone is that countries can regulate the fishing by licenses and other means. It does not mean that they are necessarily excluded. The strong hope of our Administration is that there will be an international agreement which is equally applicable to all countries rather than a series of unilateral laws, with different shades of interpretation.

* * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L.C]

February 18, 1976

No. 73

JOINT PRESS RELEASE
BY THE
UNITED STATES AND VENEZUELA
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE VISIT OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
TO VENEZUELA
FEBRUARY 18, 1976

Caracas -- The U. S. expressed its deep commitment to seek a new, vigorous spirit of inter-American solidarity, believing that the common experience and aspirations of the nations of the Americas provide a unique advantage, and that hemispheric cooperation is central to the effort to build a greater world community.

To build upon the special strength of hemisphere cooperation in addressing the new global challenges of interdependence, Venezuela and the United States agreed today to new and closer cooperation in energy research, educational development, and control of smuggling and unlawful use of dangerous drugs. The two countries also agreed to begin discussions looking toward the negotiation of a science and technology agreement.

Foreign Minister Ramon Escover Salom and U. S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger announced that Venezuela had accepted the United States invitation to send a team of highly qualified energy experts to survey in depth United States research in energy technology -- coal, nuclear, solar, oil shale extraction, geothermal and wind.

In January 1975, the then Secretary of Interior Thurston Morton proposed in Boston at the first U. S.-Venezuelan Symposium on bilateral relations that Venezuela share the benefits of advanced United States research in energy technology in view of the strong and mutual interests of both in the energy field. The officials said that the forthcoming trip of the Venezuelan energy experts would be the first step in implementing what has become known in Venezuela as "the Morton offer".

The two Ministers further agreed to undertake new programs in the area of educational development and planning, consisting of a high level exchange of scholars and cooperative research projects. The Venezuelan Foreign Minister informed the Secretary of State of the Scholarship Fund which Venezuela has placed at the disposal of Latin American and Caribbean countries.

The Ministers discussed details of a bilateral narcotics agreement to provide for intensified cooperative efforts to stem the unlawful use of and smuggling of narcotics and dangerous drugs. It is expected that this agreement will be signed in the near future.

Drawing upon their close bond as nations committed to democracy, Venezuela and the United States affirm their belief that the institutions and processes of democracy are essential if mankind's future is to be enhanced by freedom, equal justice and human dignity.

* * * * *

ARRIVAL STATEMENT - LIMA

It is good to see once again my dear friend Miguel Angel, and to be here at last in Peru. This statement

I come at a time when the long history of common experience and hope between the nations of this Hemisphere are increasingly recognized to be a precious advantage as each of us, independently, turns to address both our national priorities and the new global challenges of interdependence.

I have come convinced that Peru and the United States are essential participants in the task that history has placed before us. Though our societies differ in many ways, and though we have our differences on the issues of the day, I know that we have the will and the ability to solve our problems amicably. We each have our own special concerns -- for the well-being of our own peoples and for our commitments to other nations, both within the Hemisphere and around the globe. But our heritage of civility and shared endeavor gives us a special

2.

responsibility to preserve and build upon our
achievements, and our potential for common
progress.

Ultimately our objectives are the same: peace,
justice, conciliation among nations, and the ever-
widening horizons that have inspired our peoples
since the founding of our nations.

My country understands, accepts and respects
the achievement of your revolution. I am here to
deepen that understanding and to explore what forms
it can take for the future as we seek together to
advance the interests of our peoples and fulfill
the destiny of our nations.

TOAST - LIMA

Mr. Foreign Minister, colleagues, ladies and
gentlemen:

Though this is my first visit to Peru, I feel I
am among old friends. In September 1973, Miguel
Angel de la Flor was the first Foreign Minister
I met after becoming Secretary of State. Since
then, Miguel Angel and I have seen each other
regularly, at the United Nations, at the OAS, in
Mexico, and most recently in Paris, where Peru
was elected co-chairman of the Raw Materials
Commission of the Conference on International
Economic Cooperation.

Once I admired his uniform suspecting that he
wore it to intimidate me. Miguel Angel replied he
would make a special exception for me, as a
civilian, to join his legion -- to join him at the
head of the greater battle facing mankind: the
struggle against poverty and underdevelopment.

2. (SD)

Mr. Minister:

The United States this year celebrates its bicentennial; Peru is the cradle of civilization in South America.

Yet it is only relatively recently that both our countries have found themselves deeply engaged in world affairs. And it is still more recently that we have begun to understand that the conduct of foreign policy in the world is a challenge as multi-faceted and unending as it is inescapable.

The United States fully accepts the awesome responsibilities that inevitably fall as the strongest free nation of the world. We see ourselves as the defender of democracy and the independence of smaller nations against aggression. We see ourselves, together with the other nuclear superpowers, as obligated to maintain global stability and to seek realistic ways to reduce the international tensions.

3. (M)

But our responsibilities do not end with the control of nuclear weapons or the containment of East-West conflicts. Our vital interests and security -- and our highest moral convictions -- are directly affected by the evolving relationship between North and South, rich and poor, industrialized and developing. We are therefore committed, in our own enlightened self-interest, to foster a new and more progressive international system, based on coexistence and cooperation, to replace the colonial and bipolar orders that successively have been eroded by history.

I have come to Peru convinced that the nations of Latin America and the United States are essential participants in the task that history has assigned to this generation. Unlike most other nations in the world, we of the Americas share a common experience. This palace was built when our countries were both colonies. We both won our independence in revolutions which took place in the early part of the modern era.

4. (CY)

Unlike most other nations, we have shared a civility of peace and of mutual respect -- long before the present evolution of the world's division into industrialized and developing nations. Therefore, we start as friends, rather than enemies.

Since Peru's revolutionary process began, and continuing now under the leadership of President Morales Bermúdez [Mo-ra-leys Ber-moo-dez], Peru has brought fresh vision to many contemporary international issues. That projection, like our own, derives from the recognition that international realities are no less essential to the formulation of national policy and to the attainment of national well-being than domestic realities.

Peru has chosen a non-aligned path. The United States accepts nonalignment as a legitimate national course. Indeed, our global interest is well served by a world of thriving independent states, secure in their national destinies against the hegemonic designs of any nation.

5. (D)

Yet too often nations which chose non-alignment to shield themselves from the pressures of powerful global blocs have tended to form a rigid, ideological, confrontationist bloc of their own. The variety of the world's nations is too great, and our common problems too urgent for such outmoded practices; they only deepen our divisions and impair our mutual progress.

I am confident that our common dedication to cooperation, already implicit in our respective efforts to reform the Inter-American System, and to bring the Law of the Sea Conference to a useful conclusion this year, will intensify in the future.

My discussions here today enable me to better appreciate Peru's drive to shape an interdependent world that gives full scope to independence. This afternoon, I saw many signs of the greatness of the rich civilization that flourished in this land before the European conquest. And through my

6. (N)

friendship with your Foreign Minister, I have come to
appreciate the aspirations and the new dynamism of
revolutionary Peru.

I can, therefore, understand why Peru has
elected not to model itself on other nations but to
draw on its own strengths in seeking fulfillment of its
national destiny. Inspired by its unique past and the
genius of its people, Peru has chosen its own path,
that is neither capitalist nor communist. Rather,
recalling Tupac Amaru [Tooʻ-pack Ah-máh-Roo],
Peru is struggling to fulfill what Basadre [Bah-sah-dray]
has called the "promise of Peruvian history."

The United States, itself committed to the ideal of
equality of opportunity, is fully sympathetic with
Peru's struggle to create a social democracy attuned
to the needs of all its peoples. Though we differ -- in
ideology, in culture, in income and wealth, in
governmental structure -- our two nations can none-
theless cooperate to achieve goals they hold in common.

7.

Indeed, the partnership of two strong countries is the most fruitful partnership of all.

For such cooperation to be meaningful, there must first be understanding. We must respect each other's perspectives, each other's necessities, each other's seriousness. This is not a theoretical consideration. Our legal and political requirements have come into conflict a number of times since your revolutionary process began. Not without effort -- on both sides -- we have managed to surmount most of those conflicts.

If we do not continue to seek to compose difficulties between us honorably and to mutual advantage, if our realism gives way to passion, we run the risk of deceiving ourselves and of losing what we seek to achieve for our peoples. There is common ground, on the basis of equality. There can be shared success, on the basis of solutions to common problems. The United States for its part will spare no effort to resolve any differences that arise on the basis of

-10-

-- MBFR is important for defusing situation on central European front. We have tabled Option III but do not expect rapid progress.

-- We have whole range of bilateral agreements in the economic, scientific and cultural fields. The grains arrangement is one of the most important. Each, like SALT and MBFR, is conducted in a spirit of realism and determination to ensure overall equality of benefit.

Recent difficulties have arisen in our determination to contain Soviet expansion:

-- Angola, against a background of growing Soviet military capabilities and U. S. disarray causes major concern that we will have to make a stand against Soviets

-11-

at some later point -- a stand that could be much more costly
than Angola would have been.

-- We are determined, however, that Angola not be a
precedent.

-- In this context, we have to keep a particularly close
watch on Yugoslavia as it moves towards the post-Tito period.

We are also keeping channels open to Eastern Europe to
ensure that relaxation of tensions also has meaning for the
peoples of that region.

Our opening to China, against the background of Sino-
Soviet rivalry, has created a major new element in inter-
national relations -- one of great value to our global and
Asian position.

-12-

-- Our bilateral ties to China generally are on course.

-- But the key for any Chinese government is a credible U. S. global posture. And there is a growing Chinese concern that the U. S. is no longer a reliable counterweight to the USSR. They watch our domestic problems closely.

-- Normalization of relations (especially Taiwan) is important to them but secondary to their geopolitical concerns.

-- The post-Chou Chinese domestic situation is obviously one of strain and fluidity. So far the issues seem to center around domestic, not foreign policy, but we will have to be alert to changes in their posture.

-13-

C. <u>Regional Conflicts</u>

Regional conflicts can pose a threat to world peace,
specific U. S. interests and the U. S. global posture. The
primary responsibility lies with the parties directly
concerned, but we must often become involved to some degree.

The Middle East is the most striking example. We have
no choice but to take a leading role in view of the risks for
global peace, our commitment to Israel and our improving
ties with the Arab nations, the threat of U. S. -Soviet
confrontation and possible economic dislocation.

-- We have made substantial progress and remain ready
to play a further constructive role. We will not allow
stagnation.

-14-

-- The problems ahead are very difficult -- Palestinians,
territory, Jerusalem, guaranteeing Israeli security.

-- [Review current state of play on each of these and
the overall negotiating situation.]

There are other serious regional situations, including the
following:

-- Our interests also require a Cyprus settlement, but
our role is less direct. We have hopes for progress
in the bilateral negotiations especially now that the
arms embargo is lifted.

-- In Spanish Sahara we are playing only an indirect role.

-- Looking to the future, Southern African problems are
the darkest cloud, especially in the aftermath of Angola.

-15-

D. North-South Issues

North-South issues are of growing concern to the whole range of U. S. interests. We are focusing increasing attention on them.

-- We seek to protect our interests in access to natural resources, especially oil, and to secure opportunities for mutually profitable investment and trade.

-- We have a profound humanitarian interest in the plight of the poorest.

-- Politically we must find ways of accommodating the interests of the new nations without disrupting international order.

-16-

- In particular, we must work with nations such as Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia who are asserting a larger role in terms of economic or political power.

We have seized the leadership in meeting these challenges:

- Seventh Session UNGA proposals provide a framework for the reconciliation of our economic interests with those of the LDCs.

- We are concentrating attention on the problems of the poorest; especially in the food area (e.g., Rome proposals).

- CIEC provides a framework for discussion of mutual problems.

-17-

We can only work on basis of mutual respect and cooperation,

however, whether in oil pricing or voting at the UN.

-- Our new approach to multilateral diplomacy seeks to put our relationships on a realistic and mutually beneficial basis. The departure of Moynihan will not change this.

-- We will resist attacks on the U. S. or bloc voting or irresponsible conduct in international forums.

-- At the same time we will demonstrate that we genuinely seek to make progress on global issues.

-18-

E. **New Agenda**

Finally, the new agenda of issues poses novel challenges
to which we are responding. They reflect growing
interdependence and require global solutions:

-- in the Law of the Sea negotiations;

-- in curbing the international flow of narcotics;

-- in countering international terrorism;

-- in seeking to curb population growth;

-- in preserving the environment, and

-- in resisting the spread of nuclear weapons

(e.g., Korea).

-19-

In many of these areas and others it is the U. S. that
must take the lead and does take the lead. This is a role
that both our capacities and our own national interest
require of us.

The Domestic Backdrop

If we are to play our historical role it must be as a
united and determined nation.

Our performance in this regard, however, is a matter
of deep concern to our friends and even our adversaries.
It should also be to us.

-- We are torn apart by quarrels between the executive
and Congress.

-20-

-- Our abilities to conduct diplomacy discreetly as well as to maintain essential intelligence capabilities are being gravely undermined.

-- The national dialogue is increasingly marred by personal attacks or parochial viewpoints.

-- The public mood in general is one of uncertainty in the face of the great new complexity of foreign requirements, despite recognition of the role that world affairs play in our everyday life.

-- And we are facing the divisiveness of an election year.

-21-

But the world cannot wait for us to sort ourselves out.

It needs our capabilities and our leadership. If we fail to provide them we will be gravely damaging our national interests as well as global peace and prosperity.

Restoring a national cohesion, self-confidence and sense of purpose is the biggest challenge that we all face.

The Administration is seeking to find remedies:

- We offer full cooperation to Congress in exercising our respective Constitutional responsibilities.

- We are seeking to engage the public in a dialogue on foreign affairs.

- We are pursuing a policy of greater openness.

(wc)

-22-

-- We are not using foreign policy as a partisan political issue.

We need to work cooperatively with the Congress, however,
if the challenge is to be met:

-- The suspicions of a previous era must be set aside.

-- We need the resources to do our job, especially in the security field.

-- The executive branch must have scope to fulfill its
Constitutional duties in the foreign policy area.

-- The confidentiality needed for diplomacy must be preserved.

-- Foreign policy matters must not be used for narrow political or personal advantage.

-23-

We are in a new era of international relations imposing new
and dramatic requirements on this nation. Let us also move
into a new era of cooperation and understanding here at home
so that we can meet these requirements in the interest of all
Americans.

REMARKS TO THE PRESS BY THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER, SECRETARY OF STATE, FOLLOWING HIS TESTIMONY IN CLOSED SESSION BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1976

QUESTION: (to the Chairman) Can you tell us some of the topics that were covered?

CHAIRMAN HAYS: I think that we can safely say that we covered the whole world. The Secretary gave us a very helpful review of the problems as he saw them in all the critical spots of the world, and I think the members of the Subcommittee understand that if the United States is have any semblance of foreign policy there's got to be cooperation between the Congress and the Secretary, and I consider it to be a very useful exercise, and I think the Secretary was extremely forthcoming. He didn't duck any questions; he answered every one in detail and I got the general impression that some of the members of the Subcommittee who might have been suspicious of him -- I'll use a milder term than 'hostile' -- came away feeling that there's going to be a much better relationship between the Subcommittee and the State Department that we've ever had in the past -- that is for the whole Subcommittee.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We had a really very fruitful talk; the members of the Subcommittee raised questions on almost every part of the world and almost every aspect of our policy. I answered frankly; we exchanged ideas. It was less formal and structured than is usually the case, and I think it was much more productive. And I am very satisfied with this meeting.

QUESTION: Could you tell us some of the specific critical areas that were "critical spots," as Chairman Hays described them?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We discussed the East-West relations, the Middle East, aspects of my Latin American trip and the general relationship of the Executive to the Congress and possible means of cooperation between the Executive and the Congress.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Senator Goldwater suggested today that former President Nixon might be subject to prosecution under the Logan Act. Do you see any chance of that happening and if not, why not?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I have not read Senator Goldwater's speech, and I must tell you frankly that idea had not occurred to me, so I want to look at his speech before I --

QUESTION: It wasn't in a speech; it was in an interview.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I would like to look at his remarks before I

2

(lc)

make any comment.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, is there any possibility that you yourself will de-brief former President Nixon on his return from Peking?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: No decision has been made as to the manner in which the Administration is going to learn the content of the extensive talks that the former President has had with various Chinese leaders. And I am certain that the former President will get in touch with some responsible officials.

QUESTION: Are you telling him to get in touch --

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I am going to go to Palm Springs because my wife is there recuperating; I am going to spend the weekend with her. I have no present plans to meet with President Nixon who is still in China.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, also in China, after the meeting you had with some academic group in Cambridge before your Latin American trip, you are being quoted as saying, quote: China is slipping away from us, and that you are disappointed that the U.S. -Chinese relationship did not go farther and faster. Is this an accurate portrayal of your view?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: That is not an accurate portrayal of my feeling; I don't even remember any conversation with an academic group about China. I think that the basic principles of the Shanghai Communique, which have recently been reaffirmed again by the Acting Prime Minister of the People's Republic, also represent the basic principles that we wish to carry out in our relations with the People's Republic. And I have repeatedly stated that there is no policy to which we attach greater significance than the normalization of relations with --

QUESTION: We came away with the impression that you would have expected full diplomatic relations by now and that this is a source of your disappointment.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: First of all, I do not frankly remember the meeting to which you referred. I believe that relations with the People's Republic are developing at about the pace that was foreseen and particularly in the light of some of the domestic circumstances that have existed in both countries. But the main lines of our policy are determined by the national interest of both of our countries; it's been laid down in the Shanghai Communique and they will be carried out.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, do you think that the negotiations that the former President Nixon are now holding with Chinese leaders are in fact in the best interests of American foreign policy?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I would not consider the conversations that the former President is conducting to be negotiations.

3

(lc)

QUESTION: Well, let me --

SECRETARY KISSINGER: President Nixon is there as a private citizen at the invitation of the Chinese Government on a visit of the planning of which, of the preparation of which we did not participate in and of which we had no knowledge of until an hour before it was announced. We are interested, obviously, in learning what there is to know about the views of Chinese leaders; we believe that they should be communicated to us in the normal manner, and so we consider this a private visit but insofar as it gives the Chinese an opportunity to emphasize the importance they attach to a relationship with us, we welcome any statement that the Chinese make in this connection even if we would have chosen a different forum.

QUESTION: Is it useful, Mr. Secretary, that the first extensive meetings that are held with the new Acting Premier be held with Mr. Nixon, who at least in this country is not perceived as holding any official role whatsoever?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I don't think that I should be in a position to comment on the private decisions of former President Nixon. I --

QUESTION: I'm really asking you to comment in your role as Secretary of State.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: In my role as Secretary of State, we obviously prefer to deal with other governments through official channels.

CONGRESSMAN HAYS: If I can just say something -- I think Mr. Nixon went there because the Chinese invited him and because he saw an opportunity to hurt Mr. Ford in New Hampshire. And I think he's a little ungrateful, in view of the fact Mr. Ford pardoned him.

QUESTION: Do you agree with that, Mr. Secretary?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I won't make any comment.

QUESTION: Did you talk at all about any of the intelligence questions in relation -- between the Executive and Congress; that is --

SECRETARY KISSINGER: To all practical purposes, no.

THE PRESS: Thank you, sir.