9/16/74

STATEMENT
by
SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY A. KISSINGER
BEFORE
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

The nuclear age has focussed the world's fears of holocaust and its hopes for a stable peace on the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Throughout history men have sought peace and yet suffered war; all too often deliberate decisions or miscalculations have brought violence and destruction to the world. However tragic the consequences of violence may have been in the past, the issue of peace and war takes on unprecedented urgency when, for the first time in history, two nations have the capacity to destroy mankind. In the nuclear age, as President Eisenhower pointed out two decades ago, "there is no longer any alternative to peace."

The destructiveness of modern weapons defines the urgency of the quest for peace; the deep differences in philosophy and interests between the United States and the Soviet Union point up the scope and complexity of the task. These differences do not spring from misunderstanding, or personalities, or transitory factors:

-- They are rooted in history, and in the way the two countries have developed.

- 2 -

-- They are nourished by conflicting values and opposing ideologies.

-- They are expressed in sometimes conflicting national interests that produce political and military competition.

-- They are influenced by allies and friends whose association we value and whose interests we will not sacrifice.

Paradox confuses our perception of the problem of peaceful coexistence: if peace is pursued to the exclusion of any other goal, other values ~~will~~ be compromised and perhaps lost; but if unconstrained rivalry ~~will~~ leads to nuclear conflict, these values, along with everything else, ~~will~~ be destroyed in the resulting holocaust. The struggle for peace is a moral duty that confronts each of the nuclear powers quite impartially. However competitive they may be at some levels of their relationship, both must base their policies on the premise that neither can expect to impose its ~~political decisions~~ or will on the other at a tolerable risk. The challenge of our time is to reconcile the reality of competition with the imperative of coexistence.

a

There can be no peaceful international order without constructive American-Soviet relations. There will be no international stability unless both the Soviet Union and the United States conduct themselves with restraint and unless they use their enormous power for the benefit of mankind.

- 3 -

Thus we must be clear at the outset on what the term "detente" entails. It is the search for a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union reflecting the realities which I have just outlined. It is a continuing process not a final condition that has been achieved at any one point in time. And it has been promised by successive American leaders though by various means and in varying conditions.

Some fundamental principles guide this policy.

The United States cannot rely on Moscow's good intentions. But neither can we insist that all forward movement must await a convergence of American and Soviet intentions. We shall seek to serve peace through systematic application of resistance to pressure and incentives for moderate behavior regardless of Soviet intentions. The problem of maintaining is especially acute when the intentions of the two superpowers are not congruent.

We must maintain a strong national defense while recognizing that in the nuclear age the assessment of politically usable and politically usable power is more complex than historically.

We are not neutral with respect to the age-old antagonism between freedom and tyranny, but necessity imposes limits on our ability to produce internal changes in other countries.

We have an obligation to recognize that the preservation of human life and human society are moral values too.