Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1554428
label
Second Debate: National Security Council Briefing Book (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554428
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Second Debate: National Security Council Briefing Book (1)
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Ford - Carter Debates Files
subjects
Israel
Latin America
Africa
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (4/4/1949 - )
Arms control
Arms transfers
Campaign debates
Foreign aid
Foreign economic affairs
Presidential campaign, 1976
Terrorism
United States-Soviet relations
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554428
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-30
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-09-01
month
9
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9a0aa1151c7ab587
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Second Debate: National Security
Council Briefing Book (1)" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 2 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE PRESIDENT
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1976
MR. PRESIDENT:
Re: Second Debate
Attached is a briefing book
prepared by Brent Scowcroft
and Bill Hyland. It pro-
vides a general overview
of your policies.
We are preparing cards with
suggested language for use
during the debate.
Mike
Mike Duval
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN s.d
GENERAL
HE
THE FORD RECORD IN FOREIGN POLICY
FORD POSITION
In the past two years, we have accomplished a great deal through
dynamic diplomacy and firm leadership in seeking solutions to many
complex international political and economic issues. Let's review the
record. First:
-- We are at peace; no Americans are fighting on any battlefield.
- - Our relations with allies in Europeand Asia have never been stronger.
- - We are the acknowledged leader of the free world.
We are unsurpassed in our military strength
We have led the world out of economic recession
We have set the course for achieving solutions to the most
pressing problems before us: energy, food, population, and trade
and monetary matters.
- We have succeeded as peacemakers as represented most notably
by our efforts in the Middle East (Sinai II) and in Africa.
-- We have shown strength and the determination to use force
where necessary (Mayaguez and Korea).
-- We have reaffirmed our commitment to the security and survival
of Israel with more than $4. 2 billion in assistance.
-- We have maintained a sound relationship with the Soviet Union.
-- I have established relationships of trust with leaders throughout
the world in more personal meetings with Heads of State and Governments
than any other President in a corresponding period of time.
2
-- In short, we have restored the United States to a position of
respect and trust in the eyes of our friends and allies and our enemies.
We are on the move again internationally and leading the world to solutions
in each of its major problem areas:
Arms control
Economic stability and growth (trade, commodities)
Peaceful settlement of disputes
Protection of the environment and other resources (Law of the
Sea)
FORD GOALS
Our foreign policy has been very successful.
We are at peace. We are firmly allied with the great democracies.
We are reducing tensions with our opponents. We are using our position of
world leadership to resolve bitter conflicts. We have taken the lead in
directing world attention and action toward the new international issues --
food, environment, energy, economic growth.
My overriding duty as President is to preserve the security and
well being of the United States, to ensure that peace is preserved, and
that we pass on to our children a safer, better world. We cannot afford
to retreat and withdraw from our responsibilities. I will do not what is
popular, but what is right.
And what is right? I have five major goals:
1. First, we must remain strong; our national defense cannot be
weakened by mindless cutting of vital weapons programs and resources;
a weak America is a recipe for international disaster. We will lose the
respect of our adversaries and the confidence of our allies. This
guarantees chaos or worse.
2. Our strength is essential, but it is not enough. We must remain
closely linked to the great democratic countries that are our allies.
3. We must use our strength and our leadership to find ways to
reduce the danger of confrontation and conflict with our opponents - we
- 2 -
have a duty to bring the dangerous competition in strategic nuclear weapons
under control and to reduce these weapons. I intend to complete the
agreement I worked out with General Secretary Brezhnev to accomplish
this goal.
4. We must continue to use our influence to resolve the tensions that
can erupt into dangerous conflicts, such as in the Middle East and in Africa.
-- 1977 can be a year for major progress for peace in the Middle
East and Africa.
-- We have made a major breakthrough to southern Africa, because
the US took the initiative.
5. Finally, we have to face the new challenges that will be with us
for the remainder of the century:
-- to provide the leadership essential to achieving sustained growth
in the international economy and stability in the international monetary system.
-- to ensure adequate energy and the steady expansion of the world
economy without inflation.
We are the world's leading country. We must continue to exercise
world leadership -- for the security and well being of our own people and
for all mankind.
It is our duty to bear the burden of leadership, to help build a world
that is safer, more prosperous, and more just. That is what our foreign
policy is all about.
GERALD
- 2 -
These are the objectives of our policy. Every Ame rican can
be proud of what this country has done, and is doing. I am tired of hearing
our country denounced as immoral by people who clearly don't know what
they're talking about.
MORALITY IN FOREIGN POLICY
We
FORD POSITION
We hear a lot of talk about morality in foreign policy.
I agree -- American foreign policy, if it is to have public
support, must represent the ideals of the American people. Our policy
does.
-- I believe that seeking agreements that push back the specter
of nuclear war is a moral policy.
-- I believe that mediating conflicts, as in the Middle East, is
a moral policy.
-- I believe that organizing world cooperation to boost food
production, or to promote economic advancement in the poorer countries,
is a moral policy.
-- I believe that improving the solidarity and promoting the
survival of the democratic nations, as we did at the two Economic Summit
meetings I attended, is a moral policy.
-- I believe that standing loyally by our allies when they seek to
defend themselves against aggression is a moral policy.
And we have seen, just in the last couple of weeks, in Africa, the
United States engaged in helping achieve solutions that avert bloodshed and
widening war. We are seeking racial justice -- majority rule and minority
rights. We are seeking an end to killing and a cooperative effort of progress.
HUMAN RIGHTS
FORD POSITION
The objectives of freedom for all men and women, the dignity
and security of the individual, and the sanctity of law must always be
a fundamental element in our foreign policy.
My Administration has spoken out forcefully for human rights
and supports strengthening the international protection of human rights,
including the right to emigrate.
As we pursue these goals, if we really care about results, we
must avoid moral arrogance and self-righteousnesss. We must recognize
the great differences between our own history and our culture and those
of other nations. And we must take into account the external and internal
threats other governments must deal with.
Let's take an example. Korea is often cited as a repressive
country where we supply assistance to a dictatorship. But let's look for
a moment at Korea's circumstances. It faces more than 400, 000 hostile,
modern, well-trained North Korean troops across the DMZ. In fact, it
is virtually surrounded by the Soviet Union, the PRC and North Korea and
is subject to severe externally-supported subversion and frequent aggressive
acts by North Korea. We can and have made known our views on human
rights to Korean leaders but it would be capricious and irresponsible to
them with
threaten /withdrawal of our support until they measure up to our standards --
- 2 -
particularly in view of the threats they face. Experience has proven
that results in this area are best achieved by quiet diplomacy, not extortion
or threats.
GERALD
KISSINGER
QUESTION:
The Republican National Convention adopted a plank
called morality in foreign policy, that has been widely
interpreted as a repudiation of Henry Kissinger. And
in the primary campaign, the Secretary was attacked
for his handling of policy, mainly on the grounds that
he was too soft on the Soviets, that he conducted secret
policies, without any moral principle for a foundation.
How do you explain the growing controversy about
Kissinger and what changes in policy would you make
if Kissinger leaves in your next term?
FORD POSITION:
Every President ought to want the strongest advisers he can
have. This is especially true in foreign policy, where the United
States has an enormous responsibility as the keystone of western
security and the bulwark of the international economy. He needs a
Secretary of the highest caliber, strong, intelligent, articulate, to
advise him and to implement his policies. Washington chose
Jefferson. Harry Truman chose Dean Acheson, who you remember
was not exactly popular at the time. Now I want a strong Secretary
of State and Henry Kissinger is just that.
Your judgment and mine on the performance of the Secretary
of State ought to be based upon results -- the extent to which United
States interests abroad are secured and American ideals and value S
reflected in our relations with other countries. On both counts,
Henry Kissinger has been enormously successful. Respect for the
United States internationally has never been higher. We are the
- 2 -
acknowledged and respected political military and economic leader
of the free world. Our strength is unsurpassed. On every major
issue of our time, the world looks to the United States for solutions
as the sure, steady, inspirational defender of principle and the bastion
of hope for the preservation of self-government, individual freedom
and human rights.
Secretary Kissinger's record speaks for itself. Let's
remember the oil embargo: Kissinger went to the Middle East and
not only got the embargo lifted, but promoted the first real steps
toward peace in 20 years. And he negotiated another such step in
the Middle East last year. He engineered the opening to China, which
was a major breakthrough in American policy. Recently, he has been
the prime mover in heading off a bloody conflict in Africa. In short,
he has always worked brilliantly and tirelessly for peace. What is
more moral and in tune with our fundamental principles than that?
Any strong active man will be criticized. That is not the issue.
The important questions are, is he good, is he effective? On those
central questions, Henry Kissinger is second to none.
SECRECY
FORD POSITION
My record in foreign policy is there for all to see. There are no
secret deals. The agreements we have reached have been disclosed --
in keeping with all the new requirements.
There have been more White House meetings with Congressmen, more
speeches and testimony by a Secretary of State, than at any time in the
recent past.
Diplomacy can't be conducted without confidentiality during negotiations,
and Governor Carter knows it. An Administration can't be run without
enabling people to state their views candidly and freely. The Supreme
Court has recognized this.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in secret, and its pro-
ceedings weren't published for 30 years. Because that's the only way you
can have free and candid discussion and negotiation.
for example,
After the Sinai Agreement, /every single document connected with that was
turned over to the foreign affairs committees of the Congress -- even docu-
ments that were not relevant to the American commitment that was being
made. Some said there was fuller disclosure of that negotiation to the
Congress than they had ever seen before.
TERRORISM
FORD POSITION
Based on our belief that the United Nations is the best forum
to achieve the solution to what is truly an international problem, the
US introduced a draft convention to the United Nations General Assembly
in 1972, designed to prevent the spread of terrorist violence; few nations
supported us then. But we have persisted. Last summer the US along
with the UK, introduced a resolution in the Security Council after the
Entebbe incident calling for the condemnation of hijacking and all other
terrorist acts and calling upon all countries to take every necessary
measure to prevent and punish terrorist acts. The most pressing need
is to deny sanctuary to hijackers and other terrorists. We will pursue
our efforts toward this end with our Allies and friends, and with any
nation that is willing to cooperate to end terrorism.
TERRORISM
Q: What steps has the Administration taken to combat international
terrorism?
A:
Based on our belief that the United Nations is the best forum to achieve
the solution to what is truly an international problem, the US intro-
duced a draft convention to the United Nations General Assembly in
1972 designed to prevent the spread of terrorist violence; few nations
supported us then. But we have persisted. Last summer US along
with the UK introduced a resolution in the Security Council after the
Entebbe incident calling for the condemnation of hijacking and all other
terrorist acts and calling upon all countries to take every necessary
measure to prevent and punish terrorist acts. We believe that world-
wide cooperation is needed to deny sanctuary to hijackers and other
terrorists and thus help eliminate this problem. We will pursue our
efforts with our Allies and friends, and with any nation that is willing
to cooperate to end terrorism. We will also do whatever we can
using our own resources to insure that these international criminals
no longer threaten innocent lives.
TERRORISM
Q.
Can the U.S. rely solely on the U.N. to solve the problem of
terrorism?
A.
No. We are working closely with many other nations on a bilateral
basis as well as taking steps on our own.
Our bilateral approach has been met with an excellent response
from our Allies and friends, especially in the important area of
intelligence exchanges. We have also learned from the unfortunate
experiences of some countries and have been able to help them on
some of the technical aspects of preventing terrorism. Exchange
visits by U.S. and foreign experts and government officials charged
with combatting terrorism have also proved mutually beneficial.
In addition to these bilateral actions, we are taking steps on our
own. The Departments of State and Justice have established special
units to seek solutions to the problem of terrorism. State has also
taken steps to enhance the security of our missions overseas. In
cooperation with local political officials, the FBI, Customs, and other
Federal law enforcement agencies have focused on the practical
problems of preventing and reacting to terrorist incidents. For
example, the security measures implemented at U.S. airports over
- 2 -
the last few years, though causing some inconvenience, have
resulted in a marked reduction in hijacking attempts in this country.
The recent hijacking of the TWA plane was the first in some four
years, but it shows that we need to improve our security and redouble
our efforts. I have asked the FAA to look into airport security again
and report the findings to me. As you know, the hijackers of the TWA
plane did not in fact carry weapons onto the aircraft and this certainly
was a major factor in the successful conclusion of that hijacking.
We believe our bilateral and unilateral measures are effective means
of deterring terrorism. We will continue, however, to institute new
procedures and, in concert with other countries, strengthen our measures
even further in the years ahead.
.
US/SOVIET RELATIONS
FORD POSITION
US and Soviet Union are the two strongest nuclear powers. We have
an obligation to our people to reduce the danger of confrontation and nuclear
war. It is my intention, while preventing Soviet expansionism, to move
beyond constant confrontation and crisis and to develop a more stable
with them.
relationship/ That requires, before all else, unquestioned military
strength. We have deep differences, we have fundamentally different
systems, but from a position of strength, we can seek to reduce tensions,
to resolve issues peacefully. We won't solve every problem; we will
resist when challenged, but we will seek to resolve issues in a constructive
and mutually beneficial way.
We will not go back to the cold war. Relations with the Soviets require
hard bargaining. We will not be taken advantage of, but we will seek to
reduce tensions so that every issue does not lead to dangerous confrontation.
We have made real progress.
-- In November 1975, we reached at Vladi vostok an agreement on
limiting strategic nuclear weapons. We agreed to limit both sides to an
equal number of missiles and bombers. This was a major breakthrough --
endorsed by the Senate in an overwhelming vote last May.
-- We have further limited nuclear testing, for the benefit of the
entire world.
-- We have undertaken negotiations for mutual reduction of forces in
Central Europe.
-2-
-- We also have achieved a good agreement on grain sales to Russia.
They will buy at least six million tons.a year for five years. This gives us
a stable market for our farmers and avoids the drastic price fluctuations
which have plagued us in recent years.
-- We have a number of joint projects, in areas such as medicine,
housing, agriculture, the environment, science, in which we exchange
experience for the benefit of both people.
Our relationship with the Soviet Union is complex. We have made
progress and have had setbacks. The way is not easy but our obligation
to mankind compels us to try to find some way to live together.
3
QUESTION:
Haven't relations with Russia deteriorated badly under
your Administration?
-- The Soviets haven't cooperated in the Middle East. They
intervened in Angola. Now they are attacking Kissinger
in Africa. SALT has not made any progress. You elimi-
nated the word detente, and the Soviets failed to live up to
the Helsinki Agreements. They have continued a major
military effort.
FORD REBUTTAL
We have to see relations with the Soviet Union in historical perspective.
For decades we were bitter enemies. Only recently has there been a
relaxation of extreme tensions. So it is not surprising that the record is
mixed. There are several aspects to our relations:
1. Strategic nuclear competition is the most dangerous aspect; we have
to bring nuclear weapons under control. In this I have made substantial
progress in negotiations for a new strategic arms agreement.
2. For the area of direct military confrontation -- NATO -- the situation
is stable. We have undertaken negotiations for the mutual reduction of forces.
3. In other areas of the world, we expect Soviet restraint, not the
provoking of tensions or promoting proxy wars. The record in third world
areas is mixed, but we have no chance of succeeding if we do not stand firm
when challenged. The Congress cannot back down, such as in Angola, and
then blame the Soviets for continuing when they are unopposed -- or for taking
risks in other areas.
4. Finally, in bilateral relations we have encouraged common interests
in trade, in scientific cooperation. There has been progress. Trade is
now almost $2 billion, with more than $1 billion in grain sales by American
farmers.
4
So, overall, the record has been on the plus side during my term.
I saw Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko on Friday, and we agreed that
there is still strong mutual interest in making more progress.
5
QUESTION:
You are accused of slapping on too many grain embargoes.
If the Soviets confront us on some issues, would you apply
new embargoes?
FORD REBUTTAL
In 1975 we faced a situation where the Soviets had a poor harvest.
They were going to be in the market for large purchases of grain. I
wanted to avoid a situation where they bought millions and millions of
tons in a very short period and drastically drove up prices in this country.
This would have been unfair to our consumers and to the farmers who sold
early when the market was low. So, I took action and halted sales
temporarily until we could see what our own supply situation would be.
That situation will not arise again. I have negotiated a long term
agreement which levels out the peaks and valleys of Soviet grain purchases.
We got a solid package. The Soviets will buy each year at least six
million tons of grain, and eight million if they want. Now we can plan on
that. There will not be any inflationary effect on prices. If the Soviets
want more grain, they can negotiate to buy it. So we have protected our
markets, but also guaranteed sales of $4-5 billion, rather than storing
grain at subsidized prices to rot.
GERALD
THE US-SOVIET NAVAL BALANCE
FORD POSITION
-- The United States Navy is unsurpassed today as it has been since
World War II.
-- However, in the past decade, the Soviet Navy has developed from
a force principally dedicated and structured for defense of the Soviet
homeland to a force capable of challenging U.S. naval power worldwide.
-- The capabilities of this force are improving, although still
primitive in important areas.
-- There are important geopolitical reasons why we must maintain
maritime superiority over the Soviet Union. Hawaii, the commonwealths
of Puerto Rico and Guam, several territories and 41 of our 43 allies lie
overseas.
-- Our ability to reinforce U.S. and Allied forces in time of conflict
is heavily dependent on sea power. Nearly all of our major allies are
also dependent on the seas. The standard of living and well-being of our
citizens are closely linked to world trade.
-- Thus, we must maintain the freedom of the seas and the ability
to control vital sea lanes in both peace and war.
-- The Soviet maritime objective is simpler. It is to be able to disrupt
our use of the seas, to expand their influence through naval visits around
the world and homeland coastal defense.
2
-- These differing maritime objectives lead to forces which differ
in composition and size. Much of the debate over the past two years
has focused on various numbers games which overlook this fact. What
is important is to determine whether our Navy can continue to carry out
its objective of keeping the sea lanes open.
-- We can do so today. I have been concerned, however, about
the trends in the U.S. -Soviet naval balance.
-- Throughout my 27 years of public service in the Congress and
in the White House, my record is one of total commitment to a strong
national defense. The two defense budgets I have submitted to Congress
have reflected that commitment.
-- Over the past decade the Congress has hacked away at the defense
budget, cutting a total of $50 billion. Last year, this Congress cut almost
$7 billion from the first budget I submitted.
-- This year, I decided that we should meet the Congressional
challenge head-on. I submitted a budget that would keep our forces strong
and capable of carrying out any of the missions assigned to them. While
cuts were again made, they were smaller than in previous years and
resulted in the largest appropriation for defense in our Nation's history.
-- Included in my two budget submissions were significant increases
in naval shipbuilding. In January, I also directed that the National Security
Council initiate a review of our overall shipbuilding program. Based on
3
an imterim report from the review group, in May I submitted a supplemental
budget request for $1. 1 billion in additional shipbuilding. The Congress has
failed to act on that request. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that we
must build more, capable ships. I will continue to press for additional
naval shipbuilding.
-- The program I have submitted over the past two years includes
an additional nuclear-powered carrier, Trident submarines to maintain
deterrence of nuclear war, and a mix of nuclear-powered strike cruisers
and conventionally-powered guided missile destroyers. These ships will
be equipped with anti-ship missiles to engage hostile surface combatants
at long range. We are also counting on a new class of guided missile
frigates for the sea control mission. To maintain the qualitative superiority
of our attack submarine force, additional LOS ANGELES class submarines
are included. Finally, in keeping with the concept of a balanced fleet,
additional modern support ships are provided.
-- This shipbuilding program, when combined with existing units,
will maintain our superiority at sea. Failure to fund this program adquately
will severely degrade our national security. I do not intend to let that
happen.
BERALD
of
ALLIANCES
FORD POSITION
Nothing is more fundamental to American foreign policy than
our alliances with Europe and with Japan. This is the cornerstone
of our policies, and has been since Presidents Truman and Eisenhower.
One hour after I took office I met with Ambassadors from NATO
countries to pledge my Administration to the Western Alliance. That
Alliance is the essential deterrent against attack. US troops (200, 000)
play a crucial role and cannot be unilaterally reduced or withdrawn
without devastating impact.
I have made it a priority task to strengthen that Alliance. We
have increased combat troop strength and made good progress in
standardization of equipment. We have increased the contribution of
the member nations. The military strength and cohesion of our alliances
maintain the global balance of power and enhance the security and
freedom of all nations.
But alliances must mean more than military defense. We want
to use Western unity for peace; we want to reduce military tensions and
confrontation in Central Europe where almost two million men face each
other. We want to promote cooperation between Western and Eastern
Europe;by expanding trade, exchanges of people, and ideas we can
create more peaceful relations. Finally, we work together with the
-2-
industrial democracies because we have major common interests
in such global problems as energy, trade, commodities, and
relations with less developed countries.
In the Far East, our security pact with Japan is indispensable
to stability in Asia. It is with gratification I say that relationship
has never been stronger.
I have met twice in summit conferences with leaders of Europe
and Japan to work out solutions of world-wide inflations and recessions,
and we have made solid progress.
In all areas -- military, political, and economic -- we must
in our own self-interest cooperate with our Allies. We cannot lapse
back into isolationism -- we know what that has cost in the past.
We face new and unprecedented problems, particularly in global
economics, so closer relations among the industrial democracies is
indispensable.
CYPRUS - GREECE - TURKEY
GERALD
FORD POSITION
The US has made a major effort to reconcile the conflict between
Greece and Turkey and find a solution to the Cyprus crisis.
Unfortunately, the Turkish arms embargo passed by Congress
in February 1975, severely disrupted and damaged our ability to remain
even-handed. It blocked progress toward reconciliation. As a result,
our early efforts at a diplomatic solution to the Cyprus problem met with
little success and valuable time was lost.
Nevertheless, we have worked with all parties to find a fair
solution. We believe:
-- A settlement must preserve the independence, sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Cyprus;
-- Ensure that both communities on the island can live in freedom
and have a large voice in their own affairs;
Refugses
-- Any dividing lines must allow for the economic requirements
of the Greek-Cypriot community and take account of its self-respect;
-- - There must be provision for the withdrawal of foreign military
forces.
We have pressed our views at the highest levels in Athens and
Ankara and supported the efforts of United Nations Secretary General
Waldheim to bring the sides together. The United States, through the UN
-2-
High Commissioner for Refugees, has contributed some $25 million
in each of the past two years to help to alleviate these problems.
In the Aegean, the US has been actively urging Greece and Turkey
to agree upon some pacific procedure for the resolution of their differences
over sovereignty in the Aegean Islands and surrounding waters.
On August 25, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution co-
sponsored by the United States, which asked Greece and Turkey:
-- to resume direct discussions toward resolving their differences;
-- to consider all appropriate forums, including the International
Court, in which elements of the Aegean dispute might be settled.
The Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers will be meeting in
New York to continue discussions and we will remain active in urging
both parties to settle the outstanding issues in the Aegean.
US-GREEK SECURITY AGREEMENT
FORD POSITION
On April 15, the United States and Greece initialed a "framework"
security agreement, including approximately $700 million in US assistance
for Greece over the next four years. The negotiations on the details of
the US-Greek Security Agreement are continuing. We are hopeful that the
few remaining differences will soon be settled and that the agreement will
soon be sent to the Congress for its approval.
We believe that vital US and NATO security interests are at stake in
this agreement. Aid to Greece is not given as "rent" for our bases, as
some would suggest, but rather as a contribution to our common security.
The agreement does not include any obligation to armed military
intervention in regional disputes. The public exchange of letters between
the Secretary of State and the Greek Foreign Minister on April 15 under-
scores the concern with which we would view a resort to force by any
nation in resolving the problems of the area.
US-TURKISH DEFENSE COOPERATION AGREEMENT
FORD POSITION
On June 16, I sent the new US-Turkish bilateral Defense Cooperation
Agreement (DCA) -- signed by Secretary of State Kissinger and Turkish
Foreign Minister Caglayangil in Washington on March 26 -- to the Congress
for approval.
The agreement with Turkey reflects the vital defense interests we
share as NATO allies in the Eastern Mediterranean. The DCA makes
an important contribution to the national security interests of the United
States and for this reason is very much welcomed.
This administration has fully supported early and favorable
consideration by both Houses of the Congress. On September 14, Administration
witnesses testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor
of early acceptance. The Turkish Foreign Minister reportedly has said
that any amendment to the DCA by the Congress would amount to rejection
of the accord and that US operations at the joint defense bases in Turkey
would not be resumed. We will continue to urge the Congress to take
favorable action.
EASTERN EUROPE
FORD POSITION
My policy toward Eastern Europe is quite clear. It is reflected in
my visits to Poland and Yugoslavia and Romania.
We strongly support the national independence and autonomy of
peoples everywhere, including the peoples of Eastern Europe. I am
totally opposed to so-called spheres of influence -- or "dominion" of
Eastern Europe -- by any power.
We have implemented this policy by practical actions: We have a new
trade agreement with Romania. I met with Polish First Secretary Gierek
in Washington in October 1974 and again in Warsaw in July 1975, and we
agreed on the improvement of relations between our two countries. We
have provided for the further development of commercial economic,
cultural, scientific and technological cooperation. Trade between us has
increased over the last two years by 27 percent to over $800 million a year.
I have also met in Belgrade with President Tito last summer.
In all these efforts, I have stressed my hope for closer cooperation
between Eastern and Western Europe. That was one of the objectives
of the Helsinki Summit of July 1975, which was supported by all Europeans
and the Vatican.
I believe that this policy and the actions we have taken to implement it are
creative and cooperative toward the nations of Eastern Europe. It is the policy
that embraces our most important ideals as a nation and it is one I intend to
continue.
ARMS SALES
FORD POSITION
Assisting friendly countries in strengthening their self-defense
does not threaten peace, it strengthens world stability. By the end of
the troubled 1960's it was obvious that the U.S. could not and should
not try to be the world's policemen. Instead, we must be able to
rely on our allies to assume greater regional security responsibilities.
Wherever countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia have assumed
the major responsibility for maintaining stability in their regions,
the United States has not had to do so. But we do have a clear interest
in helping such friends help themselves, as a means of reducing our
direct involvement.
Let's take Iran, which has been the subject of controversy.
That country has a common border with the Soviet Union on the north.
It borders Iraq on the west, which is heavily supplied by the Soviet
Union. It delivers oil through the narrow straits of the Persian Gulf.
So it is not surprising that Iran wants to be able to defend itself.
They have ordered fighters for air defense and destroyers and patrol
craft for naval defense. Naturally, they want the most modern
equipment for their money. And they could buy from other suppliers.
So I think it is clearly in the U.S. interest to be cooperative with
Iran. And we must remember that during the oil embargo Iran continued
delivering oil to the U.S.
ARMS
CONTROL
SALT
FORD POSITION
In the nuclear age, there is no higher duty of the President
than to push back the danger of nuclear war that would kill hundreds
of millions. A critical step is to bring nuclear weapons under
control, and limit them. We did this in 1972 with two agreements:
(1) A treaty to limit anti-ballistic missile defense to only two sites,
and (2) A five-year agreement to freeze the number of ICBM's and
submarine-launched missiles.
Shortly after I took office I agreed to meet with General
Secretary Brezhnev to work out a long-term agreement. We agreed
on a basic framework in November 1974 in Vladivostok. That agree-
ment will run through 1985, and accomplishes three positive steps:
1. First, we agreed to equal limits on the total numbers of
missiles and bombers at 2400 -- this is slightly more than we have,
so we are building up to it - but the Soviets will have to reduce to
get to the ceiling.
2. Second, we agreed to an equal limit on missiles with multiple
warheads (1320).
3. Finally, and most important, we agreed on the need to
reduce the numbers of strategic weapons.
This is major progress. And recently (in May) the Senate
endorsed completing this Agreement as soon as possible by a vote of
- 2 -
89 to 7. We are now close to a final treaty, which is being worked
out in Geneva.
I spoke with Foreign Minister Gromyko on this last Friday,
and I am optimistic about being able to complete the remaining work.
The remaining issues are tough ones, but I think they can be solved.
3
Question: It has been almost two years since you agreed on SALT
with Brezhnev in Vladivostok, but there is no agreement.
-- Some say you are afraid to complete the agreement,
because it will be opposed by conservatives such as
Governor Reagan.
Others say you cannot get agreement within your own
Administration, that Kissinger wants an agreement but
the Defense Department and Arms Control Agency are
opposed.
FORD REBUTTAL
The Vladivostok Agreement was a basic framework. The main
issue then was whether the ceilings would be equal, or whether the
Soviets should get a bonus because we had bases overseas and the British
and French have strategic nuclear weapons. We settled that overriding
issue on favorable terms. The ceilings are equal. This could only be
resolved at the Summit because it was a political decision. There has
been major progress on a wide range of issues since then.
major
There are only two/is'sues left. They are difficult for two
GERALD
reasons:
-- First, the Soviets have a bomber that is not truly a long-range
bomber, but is better than a medium range one. So the question is how
do you deal with a weapon which does not fall into a neat category?
This is still being discussed, and we are seeking ways to resolve it
in a way which meets the requirements of both sides.
-- Second, there are the cruise missiles -- a sort of winged
missile -- that already exist for short ranges of about 150 miles but
could be developed to go much further. We are debating how to limit
4
these kinds of weapons, which are quite new. Some are strategic
weapons; others are purely tactical. They can be launched from
airplanes, surface ships, submarines, and from land. We are
seeking new formulations to cope with this new and unusual weapon.
Strategic arms limitation is too important an issue to use it
for partisan politics. We will make an agreement as soon as we
have terms which are in the national interest and both sides are
in accord, but I will neither rush an agreement to make a headline
nor delay for fear of criticism.
5
QUESTION:
Many people say that the SALT Agreements were
hastily negotiated by Kissinger so that Nixon could
use them for the elections of 1972. They point out
that the Soviets have taken advantage of loopholes and
have even cheated. How can we have confidence in
a new agreement?
FORD REBUTTAL
Both sides have lived up to the agreements. This is a new
experience; these are the first such agreements in our history. It
is not surprising that there have been some uncertainties and
ambiguities. As a matter of fact, the 1972 agreement foresaw just
such problems and established a joint commission to deal with them.
It has worked well.
The National Security Council and the Intelligence Agencies
have special groups to monitor these agreements very closely. They
report to me regularly and in some cases we have taken action and
raised with the Soviets actions that have worried us. In each case,
we have settled the issues. In fact, in one case the Soviets volunteered
to us that they had not met the agreed schedule on dismantling of older
missiles. We already knew of this, and gave them conditions for
settling the matter which they accepted. So, with good intelligence and
careful monitoring we can see to it that agreements are kept.
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND NON-PROLIFERATION
FORD POSITION:
Nuclear energy offers great potential to substitute for our
dwindling oil supply and to provide electric power with little
environmental impact. Nuclear energy is one of the world's great
alternative sources of power, and it is our obligation as the tech-
nologically most advanced country to exploit its potential for the
benefit of the entire world.
However, in addition to its tremendous benefits, nuclear
energy also has unparalleled potential for evil. It not only can be
transformed into explosives of unimaginable destructiveness, but
some of its forms are highly toxic and highly indestructible, posing
substantial problems of environmental contamination.
The U.S. has been the world's leader in devising protection
dangers
from the / of nuclear energy while developing its potential for
good. As a result of our efforts:
-- There are 100 countries belonging to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, which precludes possession of nuclear weapons,
-- The International Atomic Energy Agency has been established
to provide international inspection and safeguards over the
world's nuclear facilities.
-- The export guidelines of the major nuclear supplier nations
have been concerted in order that commercial competition
- 2 -
does not undercut non-proliferation objectives,
-- We remain the most important international nuclear
supplier -- and it is from this role and its relationships
that we have influence and control over the nuclear
policies of recipient countries,
-- We have programs to dispose, permanently and safely,
of the radioactive wastes produced by these plants,
-- In order to assure that the construction and utilization of
nuclear power plants is carried out under completely
safe conditions, we established the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to oversee and regulate the
siting, engineering, and operation of these plants.
I am satisfied that these actions have been very effective in
preventing proliferation and improving safety. However, the problem
is so crucial that I am not willing to rely on past policies. I have a
complete review of non-proliferation under way at this time, and
expect soon to announce further objectives and initiatives to put a
cap on the possibility of the spread of nuclear weapons, while retaining
the benefit represented by nuclear energy.