PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

September 24, 1973

No. 343

<table><tr><td>CORRECTED COPY</td></tr><tr><td>AS DELIVERED</td></tr><tr><td>TEXT</td></tr></table>

ADDRESS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE 28TH UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY

SEPTEMBER 24, 1973

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I come before you today -- confirmed in office but two days ago -- as probably the world's most junior Foreign Minister. That President Nixon should ask me as my first official act to speak here for the United States reaffirms the importance that my country attaches to the values and ideals of the United Nations.

It would be idle to deny that the American people, like many others, have sometimes been disappointed because this Organization has not been more successful in translating the hopes for universal peace of its architects into concrete accomplishments.

But despite our disappointments, my country remains committed to the goal of a world community. We will continue to work in this Parliament of Man to make it a reality.

Two centuries ago, the philosopher Kant predicted that perpetual peace would come eventually -- either as the creation of man's moral aspirations or as the consequence of physical necessity. What seemed utopian then looms as tomorrow's reality; soon there will be no alternative. Our only choice is whether the world envisaged in the Charter will come about as the result of our vision or of a catastrophe invited by our short-sightedness.

The United States has made its choice. My country seeks true peace, not simply an armistice. We strive for a world in which the rule of law governs and fundamental human rights are the birthright of all. Beyond the bilateral diplomacy, the pragmatic agreements and dramatic steps of recent years, we envisage a comprehensive, institutionalized peace -- a peace which this Organization is uniquely situated to foster and to anchor in the hearts of men.

This will be the spirit of American foreign policy.

This attitude will guide our work in this Organization.

We start from a bedrock of solid progress. Many of the crises that haunted past General Assemblies have been put behind us. Agreement has been

For further information contact:

PR #343

[c]

-2-

reached on Berlin; there is a ceasefire in the Middle East; the Viet-Nam war has been ended. The rigid confrontation that has dominated international life and weakened this Organization for a quarter of a century has been softened.

The United States and the Soviet Union have perceived a commonality of interest in avoiding nuclear holocaust and in establishing a broad web of constructive relationships. Talks on strategic arms limitation have already produced historic accords aimed at slowing the arms race and ensuring strategic stability; we have, today, resumed negotiations on this subject. The positive results we hope for will enhance the security of all mankind.

Two decades of estrangement between the United States and the People's Republic of China have given way to constructive dialogue and productive exchanges. President Nixon has met with the leaders of that nation; we have agreed to an historic communique that honestly sets forth both our differences and our common principles; and we have each opened a Liaison Office in the capital of the other.

Many other countries have seized the initiative and contributed -- in substance and spirit -- to the relaxation of tensions. The nations of Europe and North America are engaged in a conference to further security and cooperation. The two German states have taken their place in this Assembly. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have begun to move toward a welcome reconciliation. North and South Korea are at last engaged in a dialogue which we hope will lead to a new era of peace and security.

Yet these achievements, solid as they are, have only made less precarious the dangers and divisions inherited from the post-war era. We have ended many of the confrontations of the Cold War; yet, even in this room, the vocabulary of suspicion persists. Relaxation of tensions is justified by some as merely a tactical interlude before renewed struggle. Others suspect the emergence of a two-power condominium. And as tension between the two original blocs has eased, a third grouping increasingly assumes the characteristics of a bloc of its own -- the alignment of the non-aligned.

So the world is uneasily suspended between old slogans and new realities, between a view of peace as but a pause in an unending struggle and a vision of peace as a promise of global cooperation.

In 1946 James Byrnes, the first Secretary of State to address this Assembly, spoke of how the United Nations could help break down habits of thinking in national isolation and move toward "universal understanding and tolerance among all peoples."

The United States will never be satisfied with a world of uneasy truces, of offsetting blocs, of accommodations of convenience. We know that power can enforce a resigned passivity, but only a sense of justice can enlist consensus. We strive for a peace whose stability rests not merely on a balance of forces, but on shared aspirations. We are convinced that a structure which ignores humane values will prove cold and empty and unfulfilling to most of mankind.

The United States deeply believes

-- that justice cannot be confined by national frontiers;

-- that truth is universal, and not the peculiar possession of a single people or group or ideology;

PR #343

[LC]

-3-

-- that compassion and humanity must ennoble all our endeavors.

In this spirit we ask the Assembly to move with us from detente to cooperation, from coexistence to community.

Our journey must begin with the world as it is and with the issues now before us. The United States will spare no effort to ease tensions further and to move toward greater stability.

-- We shall continue, in the spirit of the Shanghai Communique, our search for a new relationship with the People's Republic of China.

-- We shall work to promote positive trends elsewhere in Asia. The uncertain peace in Indochina must be strengthened; the world community cannot afford, or permit, a relapse into war in that region.

-- We shall continue to pursue vigorously the building of constructive relations with the Soviet Union.

-- We shall strive to promote conciliation in Europe. In the negotiations beginning next month we shall seek a reduction of the military forces that have faced each other for so long across that divided continent.

-- We shall give new vigor to our policy of partnership in the Western Hemisphere.

-- We shall honor our pledge to promote self-determination, economic development, and human dignity across the continent of Africa.

-- We shall press on with strategic arms limitation talks. We consider them crucial for security and stability in this period.

-- We shall search for solutions to the worldwide problem of conventional weapons, which drain our resources and fuel the fires of local conflict.

In these efforts, the United States will be guided by fundamental principles:

-- We have no desire for domination. We will oppose -- as we have consistently opposed throughout this century -- any nation that chooses this path. We have not been asked to participate in a condominium; we would reject such an appeal if it were made.

-- We will never abandon our allies or our friends. The strengthening of our traditional ties is the essential foundation for the development of new relationships with old adversaries.

-- We will work for peace through the United Nations as well as through bilateral relationships.

We recognize our special obligation, as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, to assist in the search for just solutions in those parts of the world now torn by strife such as the Middle East. While we cannot substitute for the efforts of those most directly involved, we are prepared to use our influence to generate a spirit of accommodation and to encourage the parties toward practical progress.

[c]

PR #343

-4-

But progress on the traditional agenda is not enough. The more we succeed in solving political problems the more other and perhaps deeper challenges emerge. As the world grows more stable we must confront the question of the ends of detente. As the threat of war recedes the problem of the quality of life takes on more urgent significance.

We are in fact, members of a community drawn by modern science, technology, and new forms of communication into a proximity for which we are still politically unprepared. Technology daily outstrips the ability of our institutions to cope with its fruits. Our political imagination must catch up with our scientific vision. This is at the same time the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity of this Organization:

> The pollution of the skies, the seas and the land is a global problem.

The increased consumption of cereals and protein has reduced world food reserves to dangerously low levels.

The demand for energy is outrunning supply, and the need for technological innovation is urgent.

The growth of the world's economy is inhibited by restrictive trading blocs and an insufficiently flexible international monetary system.

The exploitation of the resources of the ocean beds which is essential for the needs of burgeoning populations requires global cooperation lest it degenerate into global contention.

Challenges of this magnitude cannot be solved by a world fragmented into self-contained nation states or rigid blocs.

I do not intend, today, to cover the whole agenda of international cooperation. Rather, I shall speak briefly of some illustrative areas of common action. I pledge the readiness of the United States to solve these problems cooperatively and to submit proposals aimed at their resolution.

## 1. A world community requires the curbing of conflict.

The United Nations, in its 28-year history, has not always been idle in this sphere. In Indonesia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, the Congo, and in Cyprus, it has shown its ability for effective fact-finding, mediation and peacekeeping missions. This central aspect of the United Nations' work must be strengthened. On a small planet, so bound together by technology and so interdependent economically, we can no longer afford the constant eruption of conflict and the danger of its spread.

Yet, in recent years, we have found ourselves locked in fruitless debates about the inauguration of peacekeeping operations and over the degree of control the Security Council would exercise over peacekeeping machinery -- an impasse which ensured only that permanent peacekeeping machinery would not come into being. Each peacekeeping unit we have formed to cope with an emergency has been an improvisation growing out of argument and controversy.

[c]

PR #343

-5-

We should delay no longer. The time has come to agree on peacekeeping guidelines so that this Organization can act swiftly, confidently and effectively in future crises. To break the deadlock, the United States is prepared to consider how the Security Council can play a more central role in the conduct of peacekeeping operations. If all countries concerned approach this problem with a desire to achieve a cooperative solution, the United Nations can achieve a major step forward during this session.

2. A world community must have the widest possible membership.

The exclusion of any qualified state denies representation not only to governments, but to peoples. Membership in this body should be a step toward reconciliation, not a source of conflict. The time has come for North and South Korea to be offered their rightful places here, without prejudice to a future evolution toward unification.

In this spirit also, we support the permanent membership of Japan in the Security Council.

3. A world community must assure that all its people are fed.

The growing threat to the world's food supply deserves the urgent attention of this Assembly. Since 1969, global consumption of cereals has risen more rapidly than production; stocks are at the lowest levels in years. We now face the prospect that -- even with bumper crops -- the world may not rebuild its seriously depleted reserves in this decade.

No one country can cope with this problem. The United States therefore proposes:

-- That a World Food Conference be organized under United Nations auspices in 1974 to discuss ways to maintain adequate food supplies, and to harness the efforts of all nations to meet the hunger and malnutrition resulting from natural disasters.

-- That nations in a position to do so offer technical assistance in the conservation of food. The United States is ready to join with others in providing such assistance.

4. A world community cannot remain divided between the permanently rich and the permanently poor.

Let us therefore resolve that this Assembly, this year, initiate a search -- drawing on the world's best minds -- for new and imaginative solutions to the problems of development. Our search must be candid and realistic, but it must also be free of peremptory demands, antagonistic propositions, ideological confrontation, or propagandistic rhetoric -- or we will surely fail.

The United States is prepared to join in this new search, providing freely of the experience gained over two decades. We have learned not to exaggerate our capacity to transform nations -- but we have also learned much about what progress is possible.

PR #343

-6-

We will participate without preconditions, with a conciliatory attitude and a cooperative commitment. We ask only that others adopt the same approach.

In this spirit the United States is willing to examine seriously the proposal by the distinguished President of Mexico for a Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States. Such a document will make a significant and historic contribution if it reflects the true aspirations of all nations; if it is turned into an indictment of one group of countries by another it will accomplish nothing. To command general support -- and to be implemented -- the proposed rights and duties must be defined equitably and take into account the concerns of industrialized as well as of developing countries. The United States stands ready to define its responsibilities in a humane and cooperative spirit.

5. Finally, a world community must harness science and technology for the benefit of all.

We must begin to match our remarkable technological skills with our equally remarkable technological needs. We must find the means for the cooperative and judicious development of our energy resources. We must responsibly confront the problems of population growth, which are fast pushing humanity towards the limits of what our Earth can sustain. We must embark on a new scientific revolution to increase agricultural productivity in all lands. No field of human endeavor is so dependent upon an open world for its advancement, no field is so in need of international cooperation to cope with its potential dangers.

Mr. President, fellow delegates:

Are we prepared to accept the imperatives of a global society and infuse our labors with a new vision? Or, shall we content ourselves with a temporary pause in the turmoil that has wracked our century? Shall we proceed with onesided demands and sterile confrontations? Or, shall we proceed in a spirit of compromise produced by a sense of common destiny? We must move from hesitant cooperation born of necessity to genuine collective effort based on common purpose.

It is a choice no country can make alone. We can repeat old slogans or strive for new hope. We can fill the record of our proceedings with acrimony or we can dedicate ourselves to dealing with man's deepest needs. The ideal of a world community may be decried as unrealistic -- but great constructions have always been ideals before they can become realities. Let us dedicate ourselves to this noblest of all possible goals and achieve at last what has so long eluded us: true understanding and tolerance among mankind.

* * * * * * * * * *

7th draft

[Y]

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:

I come before you today -- confirmed by the Senate and sworn in by
President Nixon two days ago -- as probably the world's most junior
Foreign Minister. The fact that I am here in this forum before I have even
had an opportunity to visit my new department underlines the importance
the United States attaches to this institution.

In 1946 another Secretary of State -- James Byrnes -- addressed this
Assembly. He spoke of how the United Nations "can help to break down
habits of thinking in national isolation and go far to bring about understanding
and tolerance."

Twenty-seven years later, that vision remains unrealized, but there
is now a new hope that we can move toward it together.

The architects of the United Nations -- fresh from a conflict in
which the dangers they had faced were overwhelming and the moral issues
unambiguous -- sought a structure that could cope with easily distinguishable
international threats. They planned for an organization in which the
Permanent Members of the Security Council, supported by a consensus of
nations, would act "to enforce the peace." The veto was not regarded as
an impediment to security, for the great powers were expected to be allies
in peace -- and for peace -- as they had been allies in war.

2

[N]

But fundamental changes swept the globe soon after this body was created, overtaking these original assumptions. The world split into two opposing camps -- each regarding the other as irretrievably hostile. A third grouping emerged at first defined by its refusal to take sides, but, in time, developing its own bloc characteristics, The founders of the United Nations had not foreseen that the Permanent Members would themselves be in confrontation, or that the world's most populous nation would not be represented at all. Nor had they expected that the rapid progress of decolonization would more than double the membership of this organization and change its character and concerns.

For more than two decades we moved from crisis to crisis. While there were brief interludes of hope, they proved to be illusory. The prospects for a safe and stable planet continually gave way to confrontation of purpose and battles of will. And the United Nations reflected the world outside.

Thus, most previous spokesmen for my country have addressed this Assembly against a backdrop of conflict and tension. One day short of twelve years ago, President Kennedy spoke here about the Berlin crisis. Other speakers followed in other years, with the threat of war dominating our concerns -- whether in the deserts of the Middle East or the jungles of Southeast Asia. And when President Nixon was last here in 1970, he devoted a major portion of his address to the precarious relationship then existing between the two nuclear giants.

3

[N]

Today we meet at a more promising time. Many of the crises that haunted past General Assemblies have been put behind us. Agreement has been reached on Berlin; there is a ceasefire in the Middle East; and the Vietnam War has been ended. The rigid confrontation that has dominated international life and weakened this organization for a quarter of a century has been softened, ~~by the currents of détente.~~

The United States and the Soviet Union have begun to build upon a community of interest both in avoiding nuclear cataclysm and in establishing a broader web of relationships. ~~We have met twice at the summit.~~ Talks on strategic arms limitations have already produced historic accords aimed at slowing the arms race and ensuring strategic stability, ~~we have, today, resumed negotiations to further~~ *until it will benefit all mankind.* these goals. Meetings between the leaders of our two countries have spurred a series of cooperative agreements.

Two decades of estrangement between the United States and the People's Republic of China have given way to constructive dialogue and productive exchanges. President Nixon has met with the leaders of that nation; we have agreed to an historic communique that honestly sets forth both our differences and our common aspirations; and we have each opened Liaison Offices in the capital of the other. Today, no major power is excluded from this chamber.

Others, too, have seized the initiative and contributed -- in substance and spirit -- to the relaxation of tensions. Four Power agreement on Berlin has removed that city as a potential source of conflict between East and West;

4

[Y]

the two German states have taken their place in this Assembly; the countries of the Asian subcontinent have begun to move toward reconciliation; North and South Korea are at last engaged in a dialogue which we all hope will lead to a more secure life for that divided people.

In short, we have learned to live with the world which emerged from the Second World War so contrary to the expectations of the founders of this organization. But while there have been major strides toward peace, much remains to be done, even within the framework we have known for twenty-five years:

- We have slowed the nuclear arms race, but we have neither stopped it nor reversed it.

- We have not yet found a way to control the technological advances that could, over time, threaten the stability of the agreements already made.

- We have left untouched the burgeoning inventories of conventional arms.

- We have kept local conflicts from erupting into world conflict, but we have failed to remedy their causes. In Southeast Asia certain war has been replaced by uncertain peace. In the Middle East a tenuous ceasefire is continually threatened by outbursts of armed conflict.

- While relations between governments have improved, the realization of individual aspirations and liberties has not kept pace.

5

[Y]

This record makes clear that we meet at a moment when we have eased the worst threats to the peace of previous years; but we have not yet made the breakthrough to a world where such threats could never reappear. We have ended many of the confrontations of the Cold War; yet its slogans are still with us. Too often the relaxing of tensions is justified as merely a tactical pause before renewed struggle, and increased security can be exploited to pursue ideological hostility. So familiar has the post-war world become that even detente has grown unsettling; reducing the risks of war is interpreted by some as two-power condominium.

The United States remains committed to the vision that produced the United Nations. We are not content with a planet of managed crises, of uneasy truces, of offsetting blocs. We seek genuine peace, not an armistice. We shall strive for a world of cooperation, not merely of coexistence. We aim for an environment where settlements are based on justice, not strength. Our ultimate goal is for nations to share their hopes instead of controlling their fears, to build consensus instead of maintaining balance, to focus on common purposes and endeavors.

The first task is to expand the hopeful beginnings of recent years, for the risks of conflict must be eliminated wherever they arise if we are to move on to a new world where peace can be more profound than the absence of war. We will persevere with energy and conviction the course that has brought us so far.

7

[N]

In pursuing these tasks my country will continue to be guided by
some fundamental principles:

-- The United States has no aggressive [or hegemonic] designs.

It will oppose -- as it has consistently throughout this century --
any nation that does. We have not been asked to participate in
a condominium, and we would reject such an appeal if it were
made. We seek a detente shared universally by all here
represented.

-- We will never abandon our friends and allies. Rather, we will
continue to strengthen the ties that have bound us together in
partnership for almost three decades. Broadened relationships
with old friends are essential to the development of new relation-
ships with old adversaries.

-- We will work for peace through the United Nations as well as
in our bilateral relationships. To those nations now locked in
confrontation with their neighbors let it be said that the United
States recognizes its special obligation, as a Permanent Member
of the Security Council, to assist in the search for solutions just
in areas still torn by conflict and still in need of stability.
But my country cannot substitute its efforts for those
to all sides, ~~we~~ our
most directly involved. All nations have a responsibility to
their own interests, but they also have a stake in the general
-- and above all those ~~the conflicting parties~~ the contingencies parties --
peace. We will do what we can, but we can do little for those
who remain unwilling to compromise. We will, however,
strongly support any move towards
reunions, but only on condition that we engage all sides
to consider the futility of a policy based on instability.

8

[N]

-- We recognize that peace must touch people as well as nations, ~~and that~~ which ignores Political stability that fails to consider humane imperatives will be empty and cold. While the achievement of fundamental rights is primarily a matter for individuals and countries, it is also a concern of mankind. The United States will continue to promote universal respect for the dignity of man, and we will never be silent so long as the deprivation of human rights persists.

11

Therefore, let us begin by improving the institutional strength of the United Nations. A policy which excludes any qualified state denies representation not only to governments, but to people. The admission to membership of the two German states at this General Assembly is an historic step toward the objective of universal UN membership. It highlights the anomaly of non-membership for others. The time has come for North and South Korea to be offered their rightful places here, without prejudice to a future peaceful evolution toward unification. But it would be a sad commentary if the question of admission should become a source of conflict rather than another step toward reconciliation and normalization.

The United States also believes that the permanent membership of the Security Council should be expanded to include Japan.

Equally important is the United Nations' role in keeping the peace. The fact that this Organization was ill-prepared to deal with the problem of hostile confrontation between two ideological camps has obscured the vital part the United Nations can play in limited conflicts. We have for too long debated among ourselves how peacekeeping operations should be inaugurated and conducted, about the role of the Security Council, and the role of the permanent members. This Organization can make a major contribution to the settlement of disputes between nations. But it requires placing a common dedication to peace above individual efforts to achieve tactical successes.