Some of our most troublesome problems have arisen over
differences concerning the respective rights and obligations of
private United States firms operating in foreign countries, and
the countries which host them. These differences are based
largely on differing conceptions of state sovereignty and state
responsibility.

On the one hand, in keeping with the Calvo Doctrine, most
nations of this hemisphere affirm that a foreign investor has
no right to invoke the protection of his home government. On the
other hand, the United States has held that nations have the
right to espouse the cause of their investors if they believe
they have been unfairly treated. This conviction is reflected in
the legislative provisions of the Gonzales and Hickenlooper
Amendments.

Realistically, we must admit that these two elements cannot
be easily or quickly reconciled. But the United States is
prepared to begin a process to this end and to mitigate their
effects. Even before a final resolution of the philosophical and
legal issues, we are ready to explore means by which disputes can
be removed from the forefront of our inter-governmental relations.

In our private meetings I shall make specific proposals to
establish agreed machinery which might narrow the scope of
disputes. For example, we might consider the establishment of a
working group to examine various procedures for fact finding,
conciliation, or the settlement of disputes. Other approaches are
possible, and I shall welcome the views of my colleagues. Let me
affirm here that a procedure acceptable to all the parties would
remove these disputes as factors in United States Government
decisions respecting assistance relationships with host countries.

- 9 -

We would be prepared to discuss with our Congress appropriate
modifications of our legislation.

* * * * *

But we cannot achieve our goals simply by remedying specific
grievances, or even by creating mechanisms that will eliminate
the sources of the disputes. A special community can only
emerge if we infuse it with life and substance.

We must renew our political commitment to a Western
Hemisphere system. Thomas Macaulay once observed, "It is not
the machinery we employ, but the spirit we are of that binds
men together." We are here because we recognize the need for
cooperation. Yet we can only cooperate if our people truly
believe that we are united by common purposes and a sense of
common destiny.

The United States will be guided by these principles:

- we will not impose our political preferences;

- we will not intervene in the domestic affairs
of others;

- we will seek a free association of proud peoples.

In this way, the Western Hemisphere community can make its
voice and interests felt in the world.

We realize that United States global interests sometimes lead
to actions that have a major effect on our sister republics. We
understand, too, that there is no wholly satisfactory solution to
this problem.

However, to contribute to the sense of community we all seek, the United States commits itself to close and constant consultation with its hemispheric associates on political and economic issues of common interest -- particularly when these issues vitally affect the interests of our partners in the Western Hemisphere.

In my view, the best way to coordinate policies is to make a systematic attempt to shape the future. I therefore recommend that today's meeting be considered the first of a series. The foreign ministers assembled here should meet periodically for an informal review of the international situation and of common Hemispheric problems. In the interval between our meetings, the heads of our planning staffs or senior officials with similar responsibilities should meet on a regular basis to assess progress on a common agenda. The principle of consultation on matters affecting each other's interests should be applied to the fullest extent possible.

Specifically:

- the United States is prepared to consult and adjust its positions on the basis of reciprocity, in the multilateral trade negotiations.

- the United States also recognizes a fundamental congruity of interests among the countries of the Hemisphere in global monetary matters. We favor a strong voice for Latin America in the management of a new monetary system -- just as we favor its effective participation in the reform of this system.

- 11 -

-- the United States is ready to undertake prior consultation in other international negotiations such as the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference and the World Population Conference.

The Western Hemisphere community should promote a decent life for all its citizens.

No community is worthy of its name that does not actively foster the dignity and prosperity of its peoples. The United States as the richest and most powerful country in the Hemisphere recognizes a special obligation in this regard.

Let me sketch here the program which President Nixon has authorized and which I shall discuss in greater detail with my colleagues this afternoon.

-- First, in trade. During the period of great economic uncertainty arising from the energy situation, it is essential that that nations behave cooperatively and not take protective or restrictive action. I pledge to you today that the United States will do its utmost to avoid placing any new limitations on access by Latin America to its domestic market.

In the same spirit we renew our commitment to the system of Generalized Tariff Preferences. We shall strongly support this legislation. Once it is enacted, we will consult closely with you on how it can be most beneficial to your needs.

-- Second, in science and technology. We want to improve our private and governmental efforts to make available needed technology, suited to varying stages of development in such vital areas as education, housing and agriculture. Private enterprise is the most effective carrier of technology across national borders,

- 12 -

but government, while not a substitute, can usefully appraise the
overall needs and spur progress. The United States therefore
recommends that we establish an Inter-American Commission on
Technology. It should be composed of leading scientists and
experts from all the Americas and report to governments on the
basis of regular meetings.

-- **Third, in energy.** This Hemisphere, linking oil-producing
and oil-consuming countries, is uniquely situated for cooperative
solutions of this problem. The United States is prepared to share
research for the development of energy sources. We will encourage
the Inter-American Development Bank to adapt its lending and
fund-raising activities to cushion the current strains. We are
also prepared to explore ways of financing oil deficits, including
the removal of remaining institutional impediments to your access
to United States capital markets.

-- **Fourth, in development assistance.** The United States
government in its Executive Branch is committed to maintain our aid
levels, despite rising energy costs. On the other hand, the
development problem can no longer be resolved simply by accelerating
official assistance. We need a comprehensive review and
recommendations on how all flows of capital and technology

-- whether from concessional assistance, world capital markets or
export credits -- can contribute most effectively to hemispheric
needs. I recommend charging an inter-American body with these tasks.

-- **Fifth, in reshaping the inter-American system.**
We must identify and preserve those aspects of the Rio Treaty and
the Organization of American States which have shielded the
Hemisphere from outside conflict and helped preserve regional peace.

- 13 -

Some form of institutional structure for peace and cooperation
is clearly necessary. However, we must reinforce the formal
structure of the OAS by modernizing its institutions and agreeing
on the principles of inter-American relations. The United States
is prepared to cooperate in creative adjustments to meet new
conditions.

Next Steps

A Spanish poet once wrote: "Traveler, there is no path;
paths are made by walking."

This is our most immediate need. We are not here to write a
communique but to chart a course. Our success will be measured by
whether we in fact start a journey. I suggest we move ahead in
three ways:

-- First, let us make clear to our peoples that we do
have a common destiny and a modern framework for
effective cooperation.

-- Second, let us agree on an agenda for the Americas,
a course of actions that will give substance to our
consensus and inspiration to our peoples.

-- Third, let us define a program to bring that agenda
to life.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleagues, four centuries ago
totally alien cultures met for the first time near here. We are
moving towards a world whose demands upon us are nearly as alien
to our experience as were the Spaniards and the Aztecs to each
other.

- 14 -

Today, if we are to meet the unprecedented challenge of an
interdependent world, we will also have to summon courage, faith,
and dedication. The United States believes we can build a world
worthy of the best in us in concert with our friends and neighbors.
We want future generations to say that in 1974, in Mexico, the
Nations of the Western Hemisphere took a new road and proclaimed
that in the Americas and the world they have a common destiny.

* * *

SPEECH BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

HENRY A. KISSINGER

AT THE CONFERENCE OF TLATELOLCO
MEXICO CITY, MEXICO

FEBRUARY 21, 1974

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues and friends,

When I listened to the previous speakers, I was seized by an uncharacteristic feeling of humility. It became clear to me that in the art of epic oratory, the U.S. is an underdeveloped country.

We owe our host country and its leaders a profound debt of gratitude for sponsoring this meeting and for the excellence of the arrangements which they have made. Personally, I have spent many happy days in this great country. And I have had the privilege of the advice, wisdom and on occasion the tenacious opposition of the President of Mexico and his Foreign Minister who defend their concept of justice and their national interest with passion and skill. I look forward to an equally frank, friendly, intense and constructive dialogue with all my colleagues at this conference.

On a plaque in Mexico's imposing Museum of Anthropology are etched phrases which carry a special meaning for this occasion:

"Nations find courage and confidence to face the future by looking to the greatness of their past. Mexican, seek yourself in the mirror of this greatness. Stranger, confirm here the unity of human destiny. Civilizations pass; but men will always reflect the glory of the struggle to build them".

We assemble in the splendid shadows of history's monuments. They remind us of what can be achieved by inspiration and of what can be lost when peoples miss their opportunity. We in the Americas now have a great opportunity to vindicate our old dream of building a new world of justice and peace, to assure the well-being of our peoples --and to leave what we achieve as a monument to our striving.

Our common impulse in meeting here is to fulfill the promise
of America as the continent which beckoned men to fulfill what
was best in them. Our common reality is the recognition of our
diversity. Our common determination is to derive strength from
that diversity, and forge our historical and geographical links
into shared purpose and endeavor.

In this spirit the United States offered a new dialogue last
October.

In this spirit the countries of the Americas responded in
Bogota last November.

We meet here as equals --representatives of our individual
modes of life, but united by one aspiration-- to build a new
community.

We have an historic foundation on which to build; we live in
a world that gives our enterprise a special meaning and
urgency.

On behalf of President Nixon, I commit the United States to
undertake this venture with dedication and energy.

## The U. S. Commitment

One concern has dominated all other as I have met privately
with some of my colleagues in this room. Does the United States
really care? Is this another exercise of high-sounding decla-
rations followed by long periods of neglect?

These questions --not unrelated to historical experience
--define our task. On behalf of my colleagues of the American
delegation and myself let me stress that we are here to give
effect to a new attitude and to help shape a new policy. The
presence of so many distinguished leaders from the United States
Congress underlines the depth of the United States concern for
its neighbors and the determination

of our government to implement our agreements through a partnership
between the Executive and Legislative branches.

The time has come to infuse the Western Hemisphere relation-
ships with a new spirit. In the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, the United States declared what those outside this
hemisphere should not do within it. In the 1930's we stipulated
what the United States would not do.

Today we meet on the basis of your agenda and our common needs.
I agree with one of my distinguished colleagues who said on arrival
that the time had come to meet as brothers, not as sons. Today
-- together -- we can begin giving expression to our common
aspirations and start shaping our common future.

In my view, our fundamental task at this meeting -- more
important even than the specifics of our agenda -- is to set a
common direction and infuse our efforts with new purpose. Let us
therefore avoid both condescension and confrontation. If the
United States is not to presume to supply all the answers, neither
should it be asked to bear all the responsibilities. Let us
together bring about a new commitment to the inter-American
community.

Let us not be satisfied with proclamations but chart a program
of work worthy of the challenge before us.

Let us create a new spirit in our relations -- the spirit of
Tlatelolco.

An Interdependent World

A century ago a U.S. President described to the Congress of
his time the difficulties facing the country: "It is a condition
which confronts us -- not a theory."

The condition we confront today is a world where inter-
dependency is a fact, not a choice.

The products of man's technical genius -- weapons of
incalculable power, a global economic system, instantaneous
communications, a technology that consumes finite resources at an
ever expanding rate -- have compressed this planet and multiplied
our mutual dependence. The problems of peace, of justice, of
human dignity, of hunger and inflation and pollution, of the
scarcity of physical materials and the surplus of spiritual despair,
cannot be resolved on a national basis. All are now caught up in
the tides of world events -- consumers and producers, the affluent
and the poor, the free and the oppressed, the mighty and the weak.

The world and this Hemisphere can respond in one of two ways.

There is the path of autarchy. Each nation can try to exploit
its particular advantages and skills, and bargain bilaterally for
what it needs. Each nation can try to look after itself and
shrug its shoulders at the plight of those less well endowed.

But history tells us that this leads to ever more vicious
competition, the waste of resources, the stunting of technological
advance, and -- most fundamentally -- growing political tensions
which unravel the fabric of global stability. If we take this
route, we and our children will pay a terrible price.

- 5 -

Or we can take the path of collaboration. Nations can recognize that only in working with others can they most effectively work for themselves. A cooperative world reflects the imperatives of technical and economic necessity, but above all the sweep of human aspirations.

The United States is pledged to this second course. We believe that we of the Americas should undertake it together. This Hemisphere is a reflection of mankind. Its diversity reflects the diversity of the globe. It knows the afflictions and frustrations of the impoverished. At the same time, many of its members are leaders among modernizing societies. Much has been done to overcome high mortality rates, widespread illiteracy, and grinding poverty. This Hemisphere uniquely includes the perceptions of the post-industrial societies, of those who are only beginning to sample the benefits of modernization and of those who are in mid-passage.

The Americas reach out to other constellations as well. The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean share much of the stirrings of the Third World. The United States is engaged in the maintenance of peace on a global basis. Pursuing our separate ways narrowly, we could drift apart towards different poles. Working together, we can reinforce our well-being and strengthen the prospects for global cooperation.

So let us begin in this Hemisphere. If we, here in this room, fail to grasp the consequences of interdependence, if we cannot make the multiplicity of our ties a source of unity and strength, then the prospects for success elsewhere are dim indeed. The world community which we seek to build should have a Western Hemisphere community as one of its central pillars.

- 6 -

President Echeverría foresaw the gathering force of interdependence in 1972 when he set forth his Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States as a guide for the conduct of relations among countries at different levels of economic development. Last September before the United Nations General Assembly I endorsed that concept. At first, some were concerned because they saw the Charter as a set of unilateral demands; it has since become clear that it is a farsighted concept of mutual obligations. In the emerging world of interdependence, the weak as well as the strong have responsibilities, and the world's interest is each nation's interest.

We can start by making the concept of the Charter a reality in the Western Hemisphere.

## The United States View of the American Community

The United States will do its full part to see that our enterprise succeeds. We can make a major contribution, but it would be in nobody's interest if we raised impossible expectations, leaving our peoples frustrated and our community empty.

We will promise only what we can deliver. We will make what we can deliver count.

I have carefully studied the agenda for this meeting you prepared in Bogota. I will respond in detail to its specifics in our private sessions. But I will say here that I have come to a greater understanding of the deeply felt motivations behind the phrases of this agenda.

You are concerned:

-- that the United States has put aside its special commitment to the Hemisphere;

-- that we will allow old issues to go unresolved while new ones are created;

-- that we seek not community but dominance;

-- that our relationship does not adequately contribute to human welfare in the hemisphere, that it is often irrelevant to your needs and an obstacle to their fulfillment.

In response let me outline the direction the United States proposes to its friends in rededicating itself to a new era of Western Hemisphere relationships. I look forward to hearing your own views so that together we can make the Western Hemisphere Community a reality.

The United States will do its utmost to settle outstanding differences. During the past year, the United States and Mexico solved the long-standing Colorado River salinity dispute. Two weeks ago Panama and the United States -- taking account of the advice of their partners at Bogota -- signed a document that foreshadows a new relationship. And just 48 hours ago, Peru and the United States settled a dispute over compensation for the exercise of Peru's sovereign right to nationalize property for public purposes.

The United States is prepared to work with the other nations of this hemisphere on methods to eliminate new disputes or to mitigate their effect.

On the one hand, in keeping with the Calvo Doctrine, most
nations of this hemisphere affirm that a foreign investor has
no right to invoke the protection of his home government. On the
other hand, the United States has held that nations have the
right to espouse the cause of their investors. This conviction
is reflected in the legislative provisions of the Gonzales and
Hickenlooper Amendments.

Realistically, we must admit that these two conceptions cannot
be quickly reconciled. But the United States is prepared to begin
a process to this end immediately and to mitigate their effects.
Even before a final resolution of the philosophical and legal
issues, we are ready to explore means by which disputes can be
removed from the forefront of our inter-governmental relations.

In our private meetings I shall make specific proposals to
establish agreed machinery which might narrow the scope of
disputes. We might consider the establishment of a working
group to examine various procedures for fact finding, conciliation,
or the settlement of disputes. Other approaches are possible, and
I shall welcome the views of my colleagues. Let me affirm here
that a procedure acceptable to all the parties would remove these
disputes as factors in United States decisions respecting assistance
relationships with host countries.

But we cannot achieve our goals simply by remedying specific
grievances. A special community can only emerge if we infuse it
with life and substance.

- 10 -

However, to contribute to a sense of community we all seek, the United
States here commits itself to close and constant consultation with its
hemispheric associates on political and economic issues of common interest --
particularly when these issues vitally affect the interests of our partners
in the Western Hemisphere.

In my view, the best way to coordinate policies is to make systematic
attempt to shape the future. I therefore recommend that today's meeting be
considered the first of a series. The foreign ministers assembled here should meet
periodically for an informal review of the international situation and of common
Hemispheric problems. In the interval between our meetings, the heads of our
planning staffs or senior officials with similar responsibilities should meet on
a regular basis to assess progress on a common agenda. The principle of
consultation on matters affecting each other's interests should be applied to the
fullest extent possible.

Specifically:

-- The United States is prepared to consult and adjust its
positions on the basis of reciprocity, in the multilateral
trade negotiations.

-- The United States also recognizes a fundamental congruity
of interests among the countries of the Hemisphere in global
monetary matters. We favor a strong voice for Latin America in
the management of a new monetary system -- just as we favor its
effective participation in the reform of this system.

-- The United States is ready to undertake prior consultation
in other international negotiations such as the Law of the Sea
Conference, the World Food Conference and the World Population
Conference.

The Western Hemisphere should promote a decent life for all its citizens.

-- First, in trade. During the period of great economic uncertainty
arising from the energy situation, it is essential that nations behave
cooperatively and not take protective or restrictive action. I pledge to you
today that the United States will do its utmost to avoid placing any new limitations
on access by Latin America to its domestic market.

-- Second, in science and technology. We want to improve our private and
governmental efforts to make available needed technology, suited to varying
stages of development in such vital areas as education, housing and agriculture.
Private enterprise is the most effective carrier of technology across national
borders, but government can usefully appraise the overall needs and spur progress.
The United States therefore recommends that we establish an Inter-American
Commission on Science and Technology. It should be composed of leading scientists
and experts from all the Americas and report to governments on the basis
of regular meetings.

-- Third, in energy. This hemisphere, linking oil-producing and oil-
consuming countries, is uniquely situated for cooperative solutions of this
problem. The United States is prepared to share research for the development of
energy sources. We will encourage the Inter-American Development Bank to adapt

- 12 -

-- Fourth, in development assistance. The United States government in its Executive Branch is committed to maintain our aid levels, despite rising energy costs. On the other hand, the development problem can no longer be resolved simply by accelerating official assistance. We need a comprehensive review and recommendations on how all flows of capital and technology -- whether from concessional assistance, world capital markets or export credits -- can contribute most effectively to hemispheric needs. I recommend charging an inter-American body with these tasks.

-- Fifth, in reshaping the inter-American system. We must identify and preserve those aspects of the Rio Treaty and the Organization of American States which have shielded the Hemisphere from outside conflict and helped preserve regional peace.

## Next Steps

13

-- Second, let us agree on an agenda for the Americas; a course of actions that will give substance to our consensus and inspiration to our peoples.

-- Third, let us define a program that brings that agenda to life.

Today, if we are to meet the unprecedented challenge of an interdependent world, we will also have to summon courage, faith, and dedication. The United States believes we can build a world worthy of the best in us in concert with our friends and neighbors. We want future generations to say that in 1974, in Mexico, the Nations of the Western Hemisphere took a new road and proclaimed a common destiny.

I am reminded of the closing words of the remarkable book by an author whose human insight we recognize in spite of very real and very deep political differences. "People condemned to a hundred years of solitude do not have a second opportunity on earth." We are meeting in a moment of opportunity for the Americas. We can choose community or solitude, fulfillment or frustration.

One hundred years hence, let men say we chose community.

********

NEWS

RELEASE

BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Department of State
Office of Media Services

Speech Text:

SECRETARY KISSINGER PROPOSES
NEW PROGRAM FOR THE AMERICAS

February 21, 1974

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

An address by Secretary of State Kissinger
before the Inaugural Session of the Conference
of Tlatelolco, February 21, 1974.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues and friends.

We owe our host country and its leaders a profound debt of gratitude for
sponsoring this meeting. Personally, I have spent many happy days in this
great country. And I have had the privilege of the advice, wisdom, and on oc-
casion the tenacious opposition of your President and Foreign Minister. I look
forward to an equally frank, friendly, intense but constructive dialogue at this
conference.

On a plaque in Mexico's imposing Museum of Anthropology are etched phrases
which carry special meaning for this occasion:

"Nations find courage and confidence to face the future looking to the greatness of their past. Mexican, seek yourself in the mirror of this greatness. Stranger, confirm here the unity of human destiny. Civilizations pass; but we will always reflect the glory of the struggle to build them."

We assemble in the splendid shadows of history's monuments. They remind us of what can be achieved by inspiration and of what can be lost when peoples miss their opportunity. We in the Americas now have a great opportunity to vindicate our old dream of building a new world of justice and peace, to assure the well-being of our peoples -- and to leave what we achieve as a monument to our striving.

Our common impulse in meeting here is to fulfill the promise of America as the continent which beckoned men to fulfill what was best in them. Our common reality is the recognition of our diversity. Our common determination is to derive strength from that diversity. Our common task is to forge our historical and geographical links into shared purpose and endeavor.

In this spirit the countries of the Americas responded in Bogotá last November.

We meet here as equals -- representatives of our individual modes of life,
but united by one aspiration -- to build a new community.

We have an historic foundation on which to build. We live in a world that

PR 62

## The U.S. Commitment

One concern has dominated all others as I have met privately with some of my colleagues in this room. Does the United States really care? Is this another exercise of high-sounding declarations followed by long periods of neglect? What is new in this dialogue?

These questions -- not unrelated to historical experience -- define our task. On behalf of my colleagues and myself let me stress that we are here to give effect to a new attitude and to help shape a new policy. The presence of so many distinguished leaders from the United States Congress underlines the depth of the United States concern for its neighbors and the determination of our government to implement our agreements through a partnership between the executive and legislative branches.

The time has come to infuse the Western Hemisphere relationships with a new spirit. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States declared what those outside this hemisphere should not do within it. In the 1930's we stipulated what the United States would not do. Later we were prone to set standards for the political, economic, and social structures of our sister republics.

Today we meet on the basis of your agenda and our common needs. We agree with one of my distinguished colleagues who said on arrival that the time had come to meet as brothers, not as sons. Today ---together -- we can begin giving expression to our common aspirations and start shaping our common future.

In my view, our fundamental task at this meeting -- more important even than the specifics of our agenda -- is to set a common direction and infuse our efforts with new purpose. Let us therefore avoid both condescension and confrontation. If the United States is not to presume to supply all the answers, neither should it be asked to bear all the responsibilities. Let us together bring about a new commitment to the inter-American community. Let us use the specific issues we discuss here as a road map for the future.

## An Interdependent World

A century ago a U.S. President described to the Congress the difficulties facing the country: "It is a condition which confronts us -- not a theory."

The condition we confront today is a world where interdependence is a fact, not a choice.

The products of man's technical genius -- weapons of incalculable power, a global economic system, instantaneous communications, a technology that consumes finite resources at an ever-expanding rate -- have compressed this planet and multiplied our mutual dependence. The problems of peace, of justice, of human dignity, of hunger and inflation and pollution, of the scarcity of physical materials and the surplus of spiritual despair, cannot be resolved on a national basis. All are now caught up in the tides of world events -- consumers and producers, the affluent and the poor, the free and the oppressed, the mighty and the weak.

The world and this hemisphere can respond in one of two ways.

- 3 -

There is the path of autarchy. Each nation can try to exploit its particular advantages in resources and skills, and bargain bilaterally for what it needs. Each nation can try to look after itself and shrug its shoulders at the plight of those less well-endowed.

But history tells us that this leads to ever more vicious competition, the waste of resources, the stunting of technological advance, and -- most fundamental -- growing political tensions which unravel the fabric of global stability. If we take this route, we and our children will pay a terrible price.

The United States is pledged to this second course. We believe that we of the Americas should undertake it together. This hemisphere is a reflection of mankind.

Its diversity reflects the diversity of the globe. It knows the afflictions and frustrations of the impoverished. At the same time, many of its members are leaders among modernizing societies. Much has been done to overcome high mortality rates, widespread illiteracy, and grinding poverty. This hemisphere uniquely includes the perceptions of the post-industrial societies, of those who are only beginning to sample the benefits of modernization and of those who are in mid-passage.

The Americas reach out to other constellations as well. The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean share much of the stirrings of the third world. The United States is engaged in the maintenance of peace on a global basis. Pursuing our separate ways narrowly, we could drift apart towards different poles. Working together, we can reinforce our well-being and strengthen the prospects for global cooperation.

So let us begin here in this hemisphere. If we, here in this room, fail to grasp the consequences of interdependence, if we cannot make the multiplicity of our ties a source of unity and strength, then the prospects for success elsewhere are dim, indeed. The world community which we seek to build should have a Western Hemisphere community as one of its central pillars.

President Echeverría foresaw the gathering force of interdependence in 1972 when he set forth his Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States as a guide for the conduct of relations among countries at different levels of economic development. Last September before the United Nations General Assembly I endorsed that concept. At first, some were concerned because they saw the charter as a set of unilateral demands; it has since become clear that it is a farsighted concept of mutual obligations. In the emerging world of interdependence, the weak as well as the strong have responsibilities, and the world's interest is each nation's interest.

We can start by making the concept of the charter a reality in the Western Hemisphere.

## The United States' View Of The American Community

I have carefully studied the agenda for this meeting you prepared in Bogotá. I will respond in detail to its specifics in our private sessions. But I will say here that I have come to a greater understanding of the deeply felt motivations behind the phrases.

- 4 -

You are concerned:

-- that the United States has put aside its special commitment to the
hemisphere;

In response let me outline the direction the United States proposes to its
friends in rededicating itself to a new era of Western Hemisphere relationships.
I look forward to hearing your own views so that together we can make the Western
Hemisphere community a reality.

The United States will do its utmost to settle outstanding differences.
During the past year, the United States and Mexico solved the long-standing
Colorado River salinity dispute. Two weeks ago Panama and the United States --
taking account of the advice of their partners at Bogotá -- signed a document
that foreshadows a new relationship. And just 48 hours ago, Peru and the United
States settled a dispute over compensation for the exercise of Peru's sovereign
right to nationalize property for public purposes.

Some of our most troublesome problems have arisen over differences concern-
ing the respective rights and obligations of private United States firms opera-
ting in foreign countries, and the countries which host them. These differences
are based largely on differing conceptions of state sovereignty and state responsi-
bility.

On the one hand, in keeping with the Calvo doctrine, most nations of this
hemisphere affirm that a foreign investor has no right to invoke the protection
of his home government. On the other hand, the United States has held that na-
tions have the right to espouse the cause of their investors if they believe they
have been unfairly treated. This conviction is reflected in the legislative pro-
visions of the Gonzalez and Hickenlooper amendments.

In our private meetings I shall make specific proposals to establish agreed
machinery which might narrow the scope of disputes. For example, we might con-
sider the establishment of a working group to examine various procedures for fact-
finding, conciliation, or the settlement of disputes. Other approaches are
possible, and I shall welcome the views of my colleagues. Let me affirm here
that a procedure acceptable to all the parties would remove these disputes as
factors in United States Government decisions respecting assistance relationships
with host countries. We would be prepared to discuss with our Congress appropriate
modifications of our legislation.

But we cannot achieve our goals simply by remedying specific grievances, or
even by creating mechanisms that will eliminate the sources of disputes. A special
community can only emerge if we infuse it with life and substance.

We must renew our political commitment to a Western Hemisphere system.
Thomas Macaulay once observed, "It is not the machinery we employ but the spirit
we are of that binds men together." We are here because we recognize the need
for cooperation. Yet we can only cooperate if our people truly believe that we
are united by common purposes and a sense of common destiny.

[1C]

- 5 -

-- We will not impose our political preferences;

-- We will not intervene in the domestic affairs of others;

-- We will seek a free association of proud peoples.

In my view, the best way to coordinate policies is to make a systematic attempt to shape the future. I therefore recommend that today's meeting be considered the first of a series. The Foreign Ministers assembled here should meet periodically for an informal review of the international situation and of common hemispheric problems. In the interval between our meetings, the heads of our planning staffs or senior officials with similar responsibilities should meet on a regular basis to assess progress on a common agenda. The principle of consultation on matters affecting each other's interests should be applied to the fullest extent possible.

Specifically:

-- The United States also recognizes a fundamental congruity of interests among the countries of the hemisphere in global monetary matters. We favor a strong voice for Latin America in the management of a new monetary system -- just as we favor its effective participation in the reform of this system.

-- The United States is ready to undertake prior consultation in other international negotiations such as the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference, and the World Population Conference.

The Western Hemisphere community should promote a decent life for all its citizens. No community is worthy of its name that does not actively foster the dignity and prosperity of its peoples. The United States, as the richest and most powerful country in the hemisphere, recognizes a special obligation in this regard.

In the same spirit we renew our commitment to the system of generalized tariff preferences. We shall strongly support this legislation. Once it is enacted, we will consult closely with you on how it can be most beneficial to your needs.

- 6 -

stages of development in such vital areas as education, housing, and agriculture. Private enterprise is the most effective carrier of technology across national borders. But government, while not a substitute, can usefully appraise the overall needs and spur progress. The United States therefore recommends that we establish an inter-American commission on technology. It should be composed of leading scientists and experts from all the Americas and report to governments on the basis of regular meetings.

-- **Third**, in energy. This hemisphere, linking oil-producing and oil-consuming countries, is uniquely situated for cooperative solutions of this problem. The United States is prepared to share research for the development of energy sources. We will encourage the Inter-American Development Bank to adapt its lending and fund-raising activities to cushion the current strains. We are also prepared to explore ways of financing oil deficits, including the removal of remaining institutional impediments to your access to United States capital markets.

-- **Fourth**, in development assistance. The United States Government in its Executive Branch is committed to maintain our aid levels, despite rising energy costs. On the other hand, the development problem can no longer be resolved simply by accelerating official assistance. We need a comprehensive review and recommendations on how all flows of capital and technology -- whether from concessional assistance, world capital markets or export credits -- can contribute most effectively to hemispheric needs. I recommend charging the inter-American body with these tasks.

-- **Fifth**, in reshaping the inter-American system. We must identify and preserve those aspects of the Rio Treaty and the Organization of American States which have shielded the hemisphere from outside conflict and helped preserve regional peace.

## Next Steps

Today, if we are to meet the unprecedented challenge of an interdependent world, we will also have to summon courage, faith, and dedication. The United States believes we can build a world worthy of the best in us in concert with our friends and neighbors. We want future generations to say that in 1974, in Mexico, the nations of the Western Hemisphere took a new road and proclaimed that in the Americas and the world they have a common destiny.

DECLARATION OF TLATELOLCO

February 24, 1974

I

At the request of President Nixon, Secretary of State Kissinger invited the Foreign Ministers and other representatives of Latin America and the Caribbean attending the 28th Session of the United Nations General Assembly to meet with him on October 5, 1973. At that time the Secretary of State suggested the initiation of a new dialogue to deal with matters of concern to the Americas.

Mindful of this important initiative, the Government of Colombia extended an invitation to Dr. Kissinger to participate actively and personally in such a dialogue at an opportune time. Dr. Kissinger immediately accepted this invitation. Thereafter, the Government of Colombia convoked the "Conference of Foreign Ministers of Latin America for Continental Cooperation," held in Bogotá from November 14-16, 1973. On that occasion the Foreign Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean agreed it would be advantageous to initiate a dialogue on the following topics:

Cooperation for Development

Coercive Measures of an Economic Nature

Restructuring of the Inter-American System

Solution of the Panama Canal Question

Structure of International Trade and the Monetary System

Transnational Enterprises

Transfer of Technology

General Panorama of the Relations between Latin America and the United States of America

In accordance with the agreement reached at the "Conference of Foreign Ministers of Latin America for Continental Cooperation," and with the concurrence of the Government of the United States of America, the Government of the United Mexican States convoked the Conference of Tlatelolco. This Conference took place in Mexico City from February 18-23, 1974.

The agenda of the Conference of Tlatelolco comprised the eight items listed above, with the addition of two others suggested by the Secretary of State in accordance with the agreement reached in Bogotá regarding "the willingness of the participating countries to discuss any other matters the United States of America wishes to propose." The topics suggested by the Government of the United States were "Review of the International Situation" and "The Energy Crisis."

Attending the Conference of Tlatelolco were the Foreign Ministers of Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States of America, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The Conference was held in two parts, one with exclusively Latin American and Caribbean participation from February 18-20 and the other from February 21-23, with the participation of Secretary of State Kissinger. In the first phase of the Conference of Tlatelolco, the Latin American and Caribbean Foreign Ministers agreed on procedures for the initiation of the new dialogue, which Secretary Kissinger had proposed be founded on "friendship based on equality and respect for the dignity of all," and upon methods for delineating the "bases for a new dialogue between Latin America and the United States." The Secretary of State agreed to these procedures.

-8-

[LC]

II

The Conference took place in an atmosphere of cordiality, free from the old rigidities which have so often obstructed our dialogue in more traditional forums. The participants met as equals, conscious that the policy initiated here may be of deep historical significance. But for it to be so we must recognize that we are at a turning point and be prepared to dedicate ourselves to new horizons of understanding and cooperation.

The Foreign Ministers agreed that the Americas have arrived at an historic moment — a time of unprecedented opportunity for achieving the goals of justice, peace, and human dignity which have for so long been the essential promise of the new world.

They recognized that in the modern age the demands of technology and the drive of human aspirations make impossible the narrow pursuit of purely national interests.

They agreed, as well, that interdependence has become a physical and moral imperative, and that a new, vigorous spirit of inter-American solidarity is therefore essential.

Relations between the countries of the Americas must be placed in the context of today's world; a world characterized by interdependence, the emergence onto the world stage of the developing countries, and the need to overcome inequalities. The existence of a modern inter-American system, the affirmation of the reality of Latin American unity, and the similarity of the problems of Latin America and those of other developing countries are the foundation for a dialogue and a frank and realistic relationship with the United States.

Inter-American relations should be based on an effective equality between states, on non-intervention, on the renunciation of the use of force and coercion, and on the respect for the right of countries to choose their own political, economic, and social systems. Inter-American relationships, thus redefined by an authentic political will, would create the necessary conditions for living together in harmony and working cooperatively for expanded and self-sustaining economic development.

The Foreign Ministers reaffirmed the principle that every State has the right to choose its own political, economic, and social system without foreign interference and that it is the duty of every State to refrain from intervening in the affairs of another.

The new opportunities for cooperative development call for a revision of the concept of regional security, which cannot, and should not, be based solely on political-military criteria, but must also encompass a practical commitment to peaceful relations, cooperation, and solidarity among states.

To this end, inter-American cooperation should be supplemented by the establishment of a system of collective economic security that protects the essential requirements of integral development; that is to say, parallel progress in the social, economic, and cultural fields.

By mandate of the United Nations General Assembly, a group of countries representing diverse economic systems is engaged in examining the possibilities of restructuring international economic relations, through the preparation of a draft Charter on the Economic Rights and Duties of States. This charter can create the general framework for facing specific problems through practical and fair regulations and mechanisms.

The Conference of Tlatelolco agreed that a just application of the principles of the charter can foster the internal and external conditions necessary for the American nations to satisfy their own needs and ensure their full development on an equitable basis. The Conference also recognized that peace and progress, in

[n]

- 9 -

order to be solid and enduring, must always be based on respect for the rights of others, and the recognition of reciprocal responsibilities and obligations among developed and developing countries.

### III

In the course of permanent dialogue that has been successfully initiated at the Conference of Tlatelolco, a continuing effort should be made to reach, as soon as possible, joint solutions to the pending questions included in the Bogotá document, which served as the basis for this Conference.

### IV

The Conference goes on record as follows:

(1) The Foreign Ministers recognized that the success of the Conference of Tlatelolco emphasizes the value of the new dialogue of the Americas. Mindful of the growing interaction between themselves and the rest of the world and that their countries have different needs and different approaches on foreign policy, the Foreign Ministers were nevertheless agreed that the relations between their countries which history, geography, and sentiment have produced and continued to sustain, call for an expansion of the processes of consultation between their governments.

As an initial step in this continuing process of consultation, they agreed to continue on April 17, 1974, at Atlanta, Georgia, in the United States of America, the dialogue initiated in Mexico. In the same spirit they agreed to consult with the view to seeking, as far as possible, common positions in appropriate international consultations, including multilateral trade negotiations.

(2) The Conference welcomes the agreement reached in Panama City on February 7, 1974, by the Governments of Panama and the United States of America, by which they established the guiding principles for their current negotiations leading to a new Canal treaty. The Conference holds that this agreement is a significant step forward on the road to a definitive solution of that question.

(3) The Foreign Ministers agreed that, if progress toward a new inter-American solidarity is to be made, solutions must be found not only to existing differences, but means must also be provided for the solution of problems that may arise.

(4) In this spirit, the Foreign Ministers of Latin America have taken due note and will continue to examine the suggestion advanced by the Secretary of State of the United States of America with respect to the controversies that may arise from matters involving private foreign investment.

The Secretary of State of the United States proposed the establishment of a fact-finding or conciliation procedure that would limit the scope of such controversies by separating the issues of fact from those of law. This could provide an objective basis for the solution of disputes without detriment to sovereignty.

He further proposed the creation of an inter-American working group to study the appropriate procedures that might be adopted.

(5) With regard to the problems of transnational corporations, the Foreign Ministers discussed the different aspects of their operation in Latin America and have agreed to continue the examination of the matter at a later meeting.

(6) The Foreign Ministers agreed on the need for intensifying work on the restructuring of the inter-American system.

- 10 -

JET

(7) The Foreign Ministers agreed that one of the principal objectives is the accelerated development of the countries of the Americas and the promotion of the welfare of all their peoples. In this regard, the United States accepts a special responsibility; and the more developed countries of the Americas recognize that special attention should be paid to the needs of the lesser developed.

They further agreed that development should be integral, covering the economic, social, and cultural life of their nations.

(8) The United States offered to promote the integral development of the region in the following fields:

### Trade

(A) Make maximum efforts to secure passage of the legislation on the system of generalized preferences during the present session of Congress, and then work with the other countries of the hemisphere to apply these preferences in the most beneficial manner.

(B) Avoid, as far as possible, the implementation of any new measures that would restrict access to the United States market.

### Loans for Development

(A) Maintain, as a minimum, present aid levels despite growing costs.

(B) Cooperate throughout the region and in international institutions to facilitate the flow of new concessional and conventional resources toward those countries most affected by growing energy costs.

(C) Examine with others in the Committee of Twenty and the IADB all restrictions on the entry of hemispheric countries to capital markets in the United States and other industrialized countries.

(9) The Foreign Ministers further declare:

(A) They reaffirm the need of Latin American and Caribbean countries for an effective participation of their countries in an international monetary reform.

It was acknowledged that the net transfer of real resources is basic, and that ways to institutionalize transfers through adequate mechanisms should be considered.

It was reaffirmed that external financial cooperation should preferably be channeled through multilateral agencies, and respect the priorities established for each country, without political ties or conditions.

(B) With respect to "transfers of technology," the Foreign Ministers agreed to promote policies facilitating transfers of both patented and unpatented technical knowledge among the respective countries in the fields of industry as well as education, housing, and agriculture, taking into account conditions prevailing in each country and in particular the needs of the Latin American and Caribbean countries for introduction of new manufactures for greater utilization of the human and material resources available in each country, for increased local technical development, and for creation of products for export. It was further agreed that transfers of technology should be on fair and equitable terms without restraint upon the recipient country. Particular emphasis is to be placed upon sharing knowledge and technology for development of new sources of energy and possible alternatives.

- 11 -

(10) The Foreign Ministers agreed that it would be desirable to establish an inter-American Commission of Science and Technology. They left over for later decision whether this Commission should be adapted from existing institutions or whether a new body should be formed.

V

In adopting this document, the Foreign Ministers expressed their confidence that the spirit of Tlatelolco will inspire a new creative effort in their relations. They recognized that they are at the beginning of a road that will acquire greater significance through regular meetings and constant attention to matters under study.

The Conference expresses its satisfaction over the fact that the mutual understanding which has prevailed throughout encourages the hope that future conferences of a similar nature, within a permanent framework devoid of all rigid formality, will produce fruitful results for the benefit of the peoples of the Americas.

Tlatelolco DF, February 24, 1974

February 22, 1974 (7:00 p.

SECRETARY'S REMARKS ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE COMMUNITY

The remarks of the preceding speakers reflect the seriousness with which they take the task to which we have set ourselves. The consensus that seems to have emerged out of these remarks is that all agree as I do that this dialogue has been extremely useful and could, if we follow it up in the spirit in which it has been conducted, mark a new era in our relationship. It has also become clear to me that there is considerable concern about a word I introduced into my speech of a Western Hemisphere Community. As I will indicate in a few minutes, we should not spend an excessive amount of time on the word "community" but since it reflected a serious intention and since serious questions have been asked with respect to it, let me explain what we had in mind.

The distinguished Foreign Minister of Venezuela asked if it is a new concept reflecting a new reality or whether it expresses a former reality in new terms or exactly how we should define it, all of which implies that we are seeking a juridical expression for our relationship that can be then expressed in legal obligations which we in turn or others may use as a basis of claims. This was not our intention.

-2-

For as long as I have been connected with government,
my friends from Latin America have complained about the neglect
of them by the United States and for as long as I have been
in government my friends from Latin America have told me
that the United States had some special obligations towards
Latin America. It is also a fact that we are united in the
Organization of American States. It is obviously a fact that
we are here. Why is this group of Foreign Ministers together?
What term shall be given to reality of institutional links
that have grown up over the decades of sad historical exper-
iences and of common concerns is not a matter of profound
importance to me.

What is of importance for all of us in this room is
to be clear in our minds whether we do have a special relation-
ship, whatever noun we give it or whether we do not have such
a relationship. We cannot both claim special concerns and no
special relationship. That will be impossible to sustain over
a long period of time.

I must say many very profound things have been said
and I was very much impressed and moved by the comments of the
Foreign Minister of Guyana, and I am proud to note that the
distinguished Foreign Minister of Brazil has assigned him
to our sphere, and I gladly claim him. I must say I would

-3-

rather have him on my side than against me.

Now let me make a few philosophic observations, not
related to the word "community" but to the reality of our
presence here. It was said that the quest for unity sometimes
hides the aspiration for hegemony and that community can easily
lead to dominion. That is true, and there are historical
precedents for this, but if it is true that we live in a world
of interdependence I think one should not state the opposition
in absolute terms. On some issues community exists through the
facts of life, and on some issues independence exists as a fact
of life. The problem really of practical foreign policy is how
to reconcile these two concerns; but I want to make a more funda
mental point. The fundamental point I want to make has to do
with the question of whether it is really true as Aristotle said
that between unequals there can be no reciprocal relationship.
I think we must first of all distinguish reciprocity and
equivalence, and we must define more precisely what we mean
by equality. When we talk of reciprocity in the United States
delegation, we do not mean that we must get an equivalent
quid pro quo for everything we do. It does mean that we
believe a healthy relationship requires some commitment on
the other party. I think it is the only basis for a digni-
fied relationship. Clearly, serious reciprocity, paradoxically,

-4-

in relations between developed and less developed countries must involve a differential in favor of the less developed countries, but it cannot involve an absence from any responsibility by the less developed countries.

Let me turn to the question of equality. We live in a very novel historical period. Throughout history economic, military and political power were roughly commensurable to each other. It almost never happened that a nation was economically strong and militarily weak. It never happened that a nation was politically strong and militarily impotent. Today the various categories of power have become incommensurable with each other. You can have nations that are economic giants, like Japan, that are military pigmies. You can have nations that are military giants that cannot give political effect to their decisions. It would have been unthinkable in traditional diplomacy, speaking here to friends, that nations of a few million, like some of the oil producing countries, could change the style of life of nations of hundreds of millions by a unilateral decision. It could not have happened at any other period of history. It is happening now.

Now, therefore, when one speaks of equality one must not simply measure military power; one has to look also at economic power, moral power and political power. Another aspect of foreign policy at this moment is the decisive role

for many societies of public opinion. I think it is fair to say that a policy that cannot be endorsed by the public over a period of time can have no long range reality, no matter how much power there is behind it.

Frankly, I have the impression that the word "community" creates domestic problems for many in this room in the sense that if they sign a document that has the word "community" in it, they must then answer all the questions that the distinguished Foreign Minister of Venezuela has raised and others have raised around this table. Therefore, it is fair that they should ask us what we mean by it. But what we mean by it is not a legal concept nor is it a concept that we can use for hegemony or dominion. This concern about hegemony is not new to us. We have encountered it in our discussions with our European friends, who in physical terms are much stronger than some of the nations assembled here. I have always pointed out, as I will point out to you, that in the present period one does not achieve hegemony by signing a document. Supposing we all sign a document here with the word "community" and next year some of you go off to a conference in Algiers and sign the declarations that are foreseeable. Will the United States be able to waive the declaration of Mexico at you and say you have done something illegal? The reality is that either we can create a spirit of community

CONTRIBUTION

(W)

-6-

or we can't. If we can we don't need the document and if we can't the document won't help us.

Hegemony in this period is not achieved by treaties or by documents so, on the other hand, we have to give some moral content to what we have done here. We have to answer the question, why are we here? The great danger of hegemony in the world right now, if I may say so, is not documents we ask anyone to sign -- the great danger of hegemony is that the methods that have been used in the international monetary field will be used in the foreign policy field. To put it crudely, if every nation floats its own foreign policy and works without restraints or treaties and obligations, and insists that its specific weight must carry the day, then you have the real danger of hegemony. The great temptation for the super powers at this moment, in my judgment, is not whether they can get a few more declarations signed -- the great temptation is to operate unilaterally -- so I am here not in order to achieve a commitment by my colleagues to support American foreign policy. Such a commitment would be unenforceable and operationally not useful. My purpose is to see whether this hemisphere with its tradition of countries working together can contribute to a structure of restraint in the world achieved in some norm of consultation. When I put the

-7-

international item on the agenda, and the energy item, it
was not to get the support of this group for our position,
it was to symbolize to this group that we were serious about
consultations and that we were prepared to share our super-
power knowledge without particular commitment from our col-
leagues here. We have to find some solution to this question.
We have brought here a senior delegation from our Congress as
a token of our determination to give concrete effect to what
we agreed -- but the reality for us is that, when you list
the items that we have discussed, transnational corporations,
investment disputes, Panama Canal, scientific exchange -- none
of them has a great symbolic meaning in the United States, as
all of your Ambassadors accredited in Washington will tell you.
We don't want simply to sign a declaration which six months
later, no one can possibly remember. We should do it in a way
or in the name of something that gives continuity to it. That
was the intention behind using the word "community".

It is the wish of the American delegation that we end
this conference in the spirit that we are beginning a process
and that what we agreed to, will really happen. So this was
the reasoning behind the word "community".

Having said this I must also realize that this is not
something that we can promote in a document. It either exists

-8-

or it doesn't exist. Therefore, in the spirit in which we
have been meeting here I withdraw the word "community" and
I will instruct my representative on the drafting committee
to remove it.

On the other hand, I think we have an obligation to
give some moral content to our meeting here and to end it
with something other than a fact finding body for investment
disputes. That new dialogue must have been about something,
and the reason that we feel, as I sense, that something new
has been started here, has to be more than the transfer of
technology. What that word is, what the direction is, I am
open minded about and I would therefore suggest that some
of my colleagues use their ingenuity to come up with some
phraseology that is appropriate to the occasion. I think
somewhere in the document we ought to mention that we talked
in a spirit of community, but not as an existing political
institutional term. My major concern is not to justify a draft-
ing exercise -- I have been at enough international conferences
to know that the last night one spends all one's energy pro-
ducing a document, the content of which three months after-
wards one doesn't remember. The most important thing we
have to do here is to see whether we can create a living
reality and that has to be more than the technical issues we

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

February 23, 1974

No. 66

#12

PRESS CONFERENCE BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOLLOWING THE CONFERENCE OF TLATELOLCO
MEXICO CITY, MEXICO
FEBRUARY 23, 1974

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I will move very quickly to your questions. Let me make a few general comments first.

To begin with, on behalf of all my colleagues on the American delegation, I would like to thank the Government of Mexico, especially President Echeverria and Mr. Rabasa, for the spirit with which they called this Conference and the extraordinary manner in which it was organized, and for the progress to which they contributed in the relationship of the countries of the Western Hemisphere. We came here very much aware of the concern of our friends in Latin America and in the Caribbean, that the U.S. had not paid sufficient attention to their problems. Our basic purpose was to start a new dialogue and therefore yesterday we went through the agenda of Bogota point by point, giving our reaction and the possibilities of achieving them. It has been our view as well as that of all of my colleagues, the Foreign Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean, that our meeting here should start a process and not another proclamation that would be forgotten a few months after it was issued. I believe we are on the way to accomplishing this, and I believe that I speak for my colleagues, but I certainly speak for myself when I express our gratification for having had this opportunity, and our conviction that what was started here will lead to a new relationship between the US and Latin America and the Caribbean. Having said this, I'll take your questions.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, could you define for us if there is no such definition after this Conference is over — the characteristics, the perspectives of the essential characteristics of the change that may take place in the relations of the Hemisphere as a result of the meeting, and the attitude and the limitations of the delegations attending this meeting with regard to the discussion of the agenda programmed for this conference?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** What is growing out of this Conference is a better comprehension of the problems and challenges that we in the Western Hemisphere face. Secondly, there has grown out of the Conference a determination to deal with these problems cooperatively and in a spirit of solidarity. We have recognized that many of these issues require more careful detailed study that we could give at this meeting. We are therefore going to start mechanisms that will enable us to continue working on these problems, and we are going to meet at regular intervals at

For further information contact:

PR #66

-2-

various levels to give effect to this determination. The attitude of the delegation at the meeting has been extraordinarily constructive. We did not repeat the conventional platitudes. Our friends from Latin America and the Caribbean did not hesitate to tell us honestly what their concerns were, and this is what the meeting was all about. For us to pretend that there are not concerns in Latin America would have been an insult to the intelligence of everyone assembled here. We discussed in frankness and we on the US delegation, backed up by one of the most distinguished Congressional delegations that has attended any international conference, stated honestly what we believe it is possible to do, what it will take immediately, what it will take a longer time to achieve, and what under the present circumstances we do not perceive can be done at all. I come away with a spirit of great confidence that we have started a new relationship, and I am glad to express on this occasion my appreciation for the constructive attitude shown by every single delegation at the meeting.

**QUESTION:** When you speak about a historic community for Latin America and the US, do you mean that together you will receive the benefits and also confront the world conflicts?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** First, let me make clear what we mean by the word "community." We don't mean a juridical structure with formal rules that require formal support. For example, the US delegation put on the agenda of the Conference two topics: the energy crisis and a review of international affairs. We did this not in order to obtain the approval of the other countries at this Conference. We did it in the spirit that the US, with its global concerns, was engaged in many problems around the world whose consequences would affect Latin America and the Caribbean, and that having the privilege of being assembled with our colleagues of Latin America and the Caribbean they were entitled to hear our view, what our plans were, and what our considerations were. We did not ask them for joint action or endorsement. Now with respect to the consultation we foresee, we have no intention of forming a political bloc. It is not our intention to create an obligation for mutual political support. It is our intention to give some reality to a relationship that has existed for generations, that has led to the Organization of American States and that indeed has brought us together here — the Foreign Ministers of all countries of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of Canada. This means that as far as the US is concerned we have a special obligation to take seriously the concerns of our friends from Latin America and the Caribbean. It means that we will make serious efforts to meet their legitimate complaints and to listen to all of their concerns in a spirit of cooperation. It means also that we are prepared in international forums before we make final decisions to listen to the views of our colleagues from Latin America and the Caribbean. As far as the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are concerned, it would seem to us, of course, natural that through the processes of consultation they will hear our point of view. What they will do with respect to that is their own sovereign decision. But there are enough blocs in the world without our attempting to organize another one. We are talking about an attitude, a spirit, a sense of cooperation. We are prepared to give it effect through actions which I have explained both in my public speech and in the private sessions, but we are not asking for a juridical system, and that idea has never been put forward by the American delegation.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, two of the tings you came here to discuss — the energy crisis and US policy toward the Middle East — I wonder if you could look ahead to the trip you have coming up in two days and tell us as specifically as you can what you hope to accomplish? Tell us what effect or added difficulty the uncertainty in the Israeli Government has?

PR #66

-3-

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** With all respect, I believe that to this group I should answer primarily the questions that concern the Conference. Briefly, what I put before my colleagues was our view of where the international situation stood. The Middle East was only one of the topics which also included the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks and our general approach to foreign policy. So, what I expect to accomplish in the Middle East I think I should leave for another press conference. Primarily it is to get talks started between Syria and Israel.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you have been characterized as the great eliminator of the failures of the foreign policy of your country. What is the reason, then, of your coming here to present to the Foreign Ministers, as if it were a new concept, the thesis of the hemispheric community which is exactly the same as Pan-Americanism, inter-Americanism and the Alliance for Progress, which are the oldest skeletons kept in the closet of the Department of State?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I have come here in response to the request of many of the colleagues from the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean in order to express what the United States is willing to do in response to their concerns. Our proposals and their future depend entirely on our colleagues from Latin America and the Caribbean. There will be no American pressure to implement any of the proposals which we have made. And indeed if you analyze our proposals, the vast majority of them concern complaints that have been made about our actions, and there have been very few reciprocal requests we have made of our colleagues from Latin America and the Caribbean. It is our conviction that the great problem of the world today, the big problem of world peace, is to bring about a structure in the world in which the nations of the world feel they have had a share in building it and therefore they have an obligation to help maintain it. It can be brought about only through dialogue and consensus. It cannot be brought about by pressure. Then one has to ask oneself, in the name of what are we meeting and for what purpose? This is the objective of this Conference. It is our intention to go beyond the formulas of previous periods to a living reality. That living reality can make sense only if it has the willing support growing out of its own convictions of our friends in Latin America and the Caribbean. I can say flatly there will be no American pressure, direct or indirect, to bring it about.

**QUESTION:** Alright, I'll repeat the question, Sir. If this is not an OAS Conference, in the spirit of what you have been talking about as the Western community and the cooperative efforts of the countries, is there any plan or was there anything discussed with the Ministers and with you related to Canada and Cuba being invited in the future?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** There was discussion of both problems. The US of course has no objection to the participation of Canada. For the purposes of this Conference, while we listen with respect to the views expressed by some of our colleagues, we believe that the primary objective of this Conference was to introduce a new spirit and a new dialogue into the relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean. As for the US, we did not believe this would be an appropriate forum to discuss Cuba.

**QUESTION:** Who is responsible for the definite resolution that would permit American automobile companies established in Argentina to sell cars to Cuba and when will it be able to obtain a definite resolution?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The issue of the sale by American companies licensed in foreign countries, specifically Argentina, to Cuba is now under study in the United States Government. No final determination has been made, and of course when it is made we will discuss it first with the Government of Argentina. But no final decision has been made.

PR #66

-4-

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, I understand that you have reiterated your commitment to the Latin American and Caribbean foreign ministers over a consultation with them for any possible future change in the US position toward Cuba. Can you now elaborate to the point of telling us whether this will be a personal consultation in the form of a committee or meeting, or if this will be just a notification to them of an impending change?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The form of consultation has not been decided, but it will be something other than the notification of an impending change. Those countries that have taken a position similar to ours are entitled to express their views in case there are any other considerations on the part of the United States Government.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, the United Nations recognized last year that there was a colonial status in Puerto Rico. What form will your new dialogue with that American colony take?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course the United States does not accept the proposition that Puerto Rico has colonial status, and I do not believe this is an appropriate subject for this dialogue.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, do you think that the commitment signed in Tlatelolco by the Latin American ministers will start a permanent political and economic dialogue of justice in America?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** It is our belief that a political and economic dialogue with Latin America and the Caribbean is very important. We are prepared to undertake with open mind and to give very serious consideration to the concerns of Latin America and the Caribbean, and we are confident that this will be one of the results of this meeting here in Mexico.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you have spoken so warmly of the spirit of this conference also with the Europeans — the Western Europeans — and would you like to recommend it for continuing Atlantic dialogue?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course, each relationship has its historical mood and its particular necessities, but I would think that the spirit that has been shown here, with the differences that exist, and I must say with all the legacy of the past, is one that was very positive, and the general attitude of mutual respect and open discussion is one that we are of course prepared to follow in relations with our European allies. I tend to believe the Europeans are ready to some extent, but the difference is that the machinery in relation to our European allies is more formalized, and this permitted here a more informal discussion which was [completely] useful.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, if the Conference of Foreign Relations Ministers is of a regional nature and it has a local importance for this Hemisphere, what would its importance be in the world scene?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course, the United States is committed to easing tensions wherever it is within our power to do so and independent of any other relationship that exists in this hemisphere. Nevertheless, to the extent that we can contribute in any conference or in any forum to a world which is built on consensus, where the nations of the world feel that they have a stake and where the dialogue is based on mutual respect for dignity of all nations, it must contribute to the general peace in the world.

PR #66

-5-

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, to get back to Western Europe and Latin America for a moment, considering the events of the last year — your AP speech, the speech before the AP writers last April, the meeting with Mr. Pompidou, the European negotiations and now the meeting here — has your experience here at this Conference made you reexamine the desire of countries in Western Europe and different Latin American pressures for bilateral relations of their own on an extensive basis and to have broad access to international forums such as the United Nations?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** No, I believe that inevitably in any dialogue with other countries there is a tendency to emphasize those issues on which there is controversy. With respect to Western Europe, the basic principles that we thought should be expressed about the relationship across the Atlantic will be concluded within the next few weeks and will result in the kind of document that we had in mind. With respect to Latin America, we aim for a much less formal procedure because Latin America is not as organized as a unit as Europe is and because our historical relationship has been somewhat different. Inevitably, the concern of different parts of the world in local foreign policy varies, and inevitably the most intensive dialogues that are possible are on those issues that are of most immediate concern to the countries involved and that too differs as between Western Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean, but no one ever supposed that to move from a two-power world to a world in which many nations are attempting to play a role — and many regions are attempting to organize themselves — no one ever thought that this could be expressed in one document or that a day would come when you could say this process is completed. It has to be a living process, and dealing with free people, a complicated process — and we think that it is one that has to be continued and will be continued.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, could you tell us which is your personal attitude toward the reunion of Cuba to the Organization of American States?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I have stated the United States position with respect to this on many previous occasions, and we believe that this issue can only be addressed in a wider context and not at this particular moment.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, could you tell us what would be the immediate steps to start the implementation of the points discussed in this Conference and which would be the main economic, political, social, historical, or legal obstacles to be conquered, in order to achieve the purpose of this Conference?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Of course, the basic objective of this Conference was to introduce a new spirit into inter-American relations. I believe that that has been achieved. Then, the problem is how to give effect to this new spirit in a series of complete fields. Some of these fields are extremely complicated: the issue of transnational corporations; the issue of investment issues and how to deal with them; the issue of how we can take account of the concern in Latin America and the Caribbean with respect to American legislation such as the Hickenlooper-Gonzalez amendment and how this concern relates to some of the investment issues. All of this cannot possibly be settled at this meeting. However, we have agreed that on the occasion of the OAS meeting the Foreign Ministers meeting here will meet again in an informal atmosphere and continue our deliberations on issues on which we never expected to come to a final conclusion here. Other issues, such as the concept of economic collective security, which is of great concern in Latin America and the Caribbean, is one whose basic objectives the United States can accept; but, having stated it, the problem is how to give it concrete meaning. The United States has agreed already last September, and has reiterated here, that the concept put forward by the President of Mexico for a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties can be a useful instrument by which the nations

PR #66.

-6-

of the world and the nations of the Hemisphere can be put into practice to this aspiration for economic security and progress, by which the rights and obligations of all nations can be expressed. That too is a process that will continue in truth at the next meeting of the UN committee and will be perhaps completed at the sessions of the General Assembly in the fall.

So there are many points before us. For example, the US has offered at this meeting that we study and give special attention to the petitions made by the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean for inclusion in our list after the Trade Act has passed. However, the Trade Act remains to be passed. We have offered consultations prior to various international negotiations such as the multilateral trade negotiations and to take the Latin American and Caribbean points of view into account during the negotiations. We have agreed in principle here. It has to be put into practice later. And let me say right now, however eloquent I am or however vague the final declaration that emerges here, all of us here have been to enough international conferences to know that the documents are soon forgotten if they are not turned into a living reality, and if they do not lead to a new spirit and a new attitude.

The test of what we achieve here is not the assessment of our final declaration which we are certain will be satisfactory, but rather our ability to put in practice what I have tried to describe here and therefore some of the decisions will be taken in the months and years ahead.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, in 1965 the US intervened militarily in the Dominican Republic in response to military action that occurred there. If a similar thing were to occur, would you support an invasion of North American troops onto Dominican soil?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** I stated in my opening address two things that should be kept in mind: (1) the US will not interfere in the domestic affairs of its sister republics, and (2) what we say here counts.

I'll take two more questions.

**QUESTION:** Returning to the matter of the sale of automobiles from Argentina, do you believe that the US has the right to make a decision in this case? Doesn't this constitute a violation of the sovereignty of Argentina?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** The issue that has to be considered is the relationship of a decision of the Organization of American States. The general legislation of the US with respect to companies with headquarters in the US and the sovereign right of a country to determine its own laws, I discussed this issue with the Foreign Minister of Argentina in a spirit of attempting to find a constructive solution, and until we have made a decision that we can communicate to the Argentine Government which it has a total sovereign right to accept or reject, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to engage in a public debate. But I do want to say that the discussions that took place between us were in a spirit of co-operation and friendship.

**QUESTION:** Mr. Secretary, you have just stated that the US will not intervene in the internal affairs of any Latin American country. Does this mean that in this meeting there will be changes or that the Mutual Military Aid Treaty will be abrogated between the United States and the Latin American countries?

PR #66

-7-

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Of course, this depends on many things. We
would not interpret treaties that have been freely entered into by
sovereign countries as an interference in their domestic affairs. As I
pointed out in my speech, there are a number of realities that we all
have to face. The US, by its size, its weight, its power, is inevitably
going to affect the Latin American and Caribbean countries. The conduct
of foreign policy of any nation to some extent involves an attempt to
influence the action of other nations. It is true of the foreign policy
Latin America and the Caribbean accords us, and so it is of our foreign
policy toward them. What I have tried to say here is that we will not
attempt to make our foreign policy depend on a particular domestic
structure of individual countries; that, beyond what is implicit in the
relationship of nations to each other that I have just defined, we will
not interfere in the domestic affairs of other states; and that our objec-
tive is to bring about a world in which the nations feel that it is also
their world and not one that has been imposed upon them. But that is a
monumental task that will take many years to achieve and in which, after
all, the nations themselves can judge for themselves whether this reflects
their real aspirations or not.

Thank you very much.

* * * * *

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

February 24, 1974

No. 67

CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS
DECLARATION OF TLATELOLCO
MEXICO CITY, MEXICO
FEBRUARY 24, 1974

I

Mindful of this important initiative, the Government of Colombia extended an invitation to Dr. Kissinger to participate actively and personally in such a dialogue at an opportune time. Dr. Kissinger immediately accepted this invitation. Thereafter, the Government of Colombia convoked the "Conference of Foreign Ministers of Latin America for Continental Cooperation," held in Bogota from November 14-16, 1973. On that occasion the Foreign Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean agreed it would be advantageous to initiate a dialogue on the following topics:

* Cooperation for Development

* Coercive Measures of an Economic Nature

* Restructuring of the Inter-American System

* Solution of the Panama Canal Question

* Structure of International Trade and the Monetary System

* Transnational Enterprises

* Transfer of Technology

* General Panorama of the Relations between Latin American and the United States of America

The agenda of the Conference of Tlatelolco comprised the eight items listed above, with the addition of two others suggested by the Secretary of State in accordance with the agreement reached in Bogota regarding "the willingness of the participating countries to discuss any other matters the United States of America wishes to propose." The topics suggested by the Government of the United States were "Review of the International Situation" and "The Energy Crisis."

PR #67

-2-

Attending the Conference of Tlatelolco were the Foreign Ministers of Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela.

II

The Conference took place in an atmosphere of cordiality, free from the old rigidities which have so often obstructed our dialogues in more traditional forums. The participants met as equals, conscious that the policy initiated here may be of deep historical significance. But for it to be so we must recognize that we are at a turning point and be prepared to dedicate ourselves to new horizons of understanding and cooperation.

The Foreign Ministers agreed that the Americas have arrived at an historic moment — a time of unprecedented opportunity for achieving the goals of justice, peace and human dignity which have for so long been the essential promise of the new world.

Relations between the countries of the Americas must be placed in the context of today's world; a world characterized by interdependence, the emergence on to the world stage of the developing countries, and the need to overcome inequalities. The existence of a modern inter-American system, the affirmation of the reality of Latin American unity, and the similarity of the problems of Latin America and those of other developing countries are the foundation for a dialogue and a frank and realistic relationship with the United States.

PR #67

-3-

Inter-American relations should be based on an effective equality between states, on non-intervention, on the renunciation of the use of force and coercion, and on the respect for the right of countries to choose their own political, economic and social systems. Inter-American relationships, thus redefined by an authentic political will, would create the necessary conditions for living together in harmony and working cooperatively for expanded and self-sustaining economic development.

The Foreign Ministers reaffirmed the principle that every State has the right to choose its own political, economic and social system without foreign interference and that it is the duty of every State to refrain from intervening in the affairs of another.

The new opportunities for cooperative development call for a revision of the concept of regional security, which cannot, and should not, be based solely on political-military criteria, but must also encompass a pratical commitment to peaceful relations, cooperation and solidarity among states.

To this end, inter-American cooperation should be supplemented by the establishment of a system of collective economic security that protects the essential requirements of integral development; that is to say, parallel progress in the social, economic and cultural fields.

By mandate of the United Nations General Assembly, a group of countries representing diverse economic systems is engaged in examining the possibilities of restructuring international economic relations, through the preparation of a draft charter on the economic rights and duties of states. This charter can create the general framework for facing specific problems through practical and fair regulations and mechanisms.

The Conference of Tlatelolco agreed that a just application of the principles of the charter can foster the internal and external conditions necessary for the American nations to satisfy their own needs and ensure their full development on an equitable basis. The Conference also recognized that peace and progress, in order to be solid and enduring, must always be based on respect for the rights of others, and the recognition of reciprocal responsibilities and obligations among developed and developing countries.

### III

PR #67

-4-

solutions to the pending questions included in the Bogota document, which served as the basis for this Conference.

IV

(1) The Foreign Ministers recognized that the success of the Conference of Tlatelolco emphasizes the value of the new dialogue of the Americas. Mindful of the growing interaction between themselves and the rest of the world and that their countries have different needs and different approaches on foreign policy, the Foreign Ministers were nevertheless agreed that the relations between their countries, which history, geography and sentiment have produced and continued to sustain, call for an expansion of the processes of consultation between their governments.

PR #67

-5-

They further agreed that development should be integral, covering the economic, social and cultural life of their nations.

Trade

Loans for Development

(C) Examine with others in the Committee of Twenty and the IADB all restrictions of the entry of hemispheric countries to capital markets in the United States and other industrialized countries.

PR #67

-6-

It was reaffirmed that external financial cooperation should preferably be channeled through multilateral agencies and respect the priorities established for each country, without political ties or conditions.

(B) With respect to "transfers of technology," the Foreign Ministers agreed to promote policies facilitating transfers of both patented and unpatented technical knowledge among the respective countries in the fields of industry as well as education, housing and agriculture, taking into account conditions prevailing in each country and in particular the needs of the Latin American and Caribbean countries for introduction of new manufactures for greater utilization of the human and material resources available in each country, for increased local technical development and for creation of products for export. It was further agreed that transfers of technology should be on fair and equitable terms without restraint upon the recipient country. Particular emphasis is to be placed upon sharing knowledge and technology for development of new sources of energy and possible alternatives.

V

In adopting this document, the Foreign Ministers expressed their confidence that the spirit of Tlatelolco will inspire a new creative effort in their relations. They recognized that they are at the beginning of a road that will acquire greater significance through regular meetings and constant attention to the matters under study.

* * * * *