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.
Source Description
This file includes a transcript of a speech Henry Kissinger gave to the United Nations General Assembly.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1554427
label
Second Debate: Kissinger as an Issue
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554427
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Second Debate: Kissinger as an Issue
description
This file includes a transcript of a speech Henry Kissinger gave to the United Nations General Assembly.
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Ford - Carter Debates Files
subjects
Campaign debates
International relations
Presidential campaign, 1976
Speeches, addresses, etc.
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554427
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
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
3dc8eaae4b14f5b6
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Second Debate: Kissinger as an Issue"
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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
September 30, 1976
No. 485
As Prepared for Delivery
ADDRESS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE
31st SESSION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
NEW YORK CITY
NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY, SCHEDULED FOR APPROXIMATELY 12:00 NOON
(EDT) THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30. NOT TO BE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED, QUOTED FROM
OR USED IN ANY WAY.
For further information contact:
Digitized from Box 2 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
#485
-1-
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, Foreign Ministers, distinguished
delegates:
Let me first congratulate this body for electing Ambassador Amerasinghe
of Sri Lanka to preside over this Thirty-first session of the General
Assembly. He is a diplomat of great international stature, who among
his many distinctions, has provided indispensable leadership to the
crucial negotiations on the Law of the Sea.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Secretary-General for his
tireless efforts on behalf of the world community. He successfully
embodies the charter's principles of fairness, impartiality and
dedication to the causes of global peace and human dignity.
The United Nations was born of the conviction that peace is both
indivisible and more than mere stability, that for peace to be lasting
it must fulfill mankind's aspirations for justice, freedom, economic
well-being, the rule of law and the promotion of human rights. But
the history of this organization has been in considerable measure the
gradual awareness that humanity would not inevitably share a single
approach to these goals.
The United Nations has survived -- and helped to manage -- thirty years
of vast change in the international system. It has come through the
bitterness of the Cold War. It has played a vital role in the
dismantling of the colonial empires. It has helped moderate conflicts,
and is manning truce lines in critical parts of the world. It has
carried our unprecedented efforts in such areas as public health,
development assistance and technical cooperation.
But the most important challenge of this organization lies still ahead: to
vindicate mankind's positive and nobler goals and help nations achieve
a new understanding of community.
With modern communications, human endeavor has become a single experience
for peoples in every part of the planet. We share the wonders of science
and technology, the trials of industrialization and social change, and
a constant awareness of the fate and dreams of our fellow men.
The world has shrunk, but the nations of the world have not come closer
together. Paradoxically, nationalism has been on the rise at the precise
time when the most serious issues we all face can only be resolved
through a recognition of our interdependence. The moral and political
cohesion of our world may be eroding just when a sense of community has
become indispensable.
Fragmentation has affected even this body. Nations have taken decisions
on a bloc or regional basis by rigid ideologies, before even listening
to the debate in these halls; on many issues positions have been
predetermined by prior conferences containing more than half the
membership of the United Nations. The tendency is widespread to come
here for battle rather than negotiation. If these trends continue, the
hope for world community will dissipate and the moral influence of this
organization will progressively diminish.
-2-
#485
This would be a tragedy. Members of this organization are today engaged
in a multiplicity of endeavors to find just solutions for complex and
explosive problems. There is a fragile tranquility but beneath the
surface it is challenged by fundamental forces of change -- technological,
economic, social. More than ever this is a time for statecraft and
restraint, for persistence but also daring in the pursuit of peace and
justice. The dogmas of perpetual strife produce only bloodshed and
bitterness: they unleash the forces of destruction and repression and
plant the seeds of future conflict. Appeals to hatred -- whether
on the basis of race or class or color or nationality or ideology --
will in the end rebound against those who launch them and will not
advance the cause of freedom and justice in the world.
Let us never forget that the United Nations benefits the smaller and
weaker nations most of all. It is they that would suffer most from its
failure. For without the rule of law, disputes will be settled as
they have been all too frequently and painfully in history -- by test
of strength it is not the weak that will prevail in the world of chaos.
The United States believes that this Thirty-first General Assembly
must free itself of the ideological and confrontational tactics that
marked some of its predecessors and dedicate itself to a program of
common action.
The United States comes to the General Assembly prepared to work on
programs of common action. We will offer concrete proposals. We will
listen to the ideas of others. We will resist pressure and seek
cooperation.
Let me now discuss the three principal challenges we face -- the problem
of peace, the challenge of economic well-being, and the agenda of
global interdependence.
The Problem of Peace
The age of the United Nations has also been an age of frequent conflict.
We have been spared a third world war, but cannot assume that this
condition will prevail forever, or without exertion. An era of
thermonuclear weapons and persistent national rivalries requires our
utmost effort to keep at bay the scourge of war. Our generation must
build out of the multitude of nations a structure of relations that frees
the energies of nations and peoples for the positive endeavors of
mankind, without the fear or threat of war.
Central to American foreign policy are our sister democracies -- the
industrial nations of North America, Western Europe, the Southern
Pacific and Japan, and our traditional friends in the Western Hemisphere.
We are bound to these nations by the ties of history, civilization,
culture, shared principles and a generation of common endeavors.
Our alliances, founded on the bedrock of mutual security, now reach
beyond the common defense to a range of new issues: the social
challenges shared by advanced technological societies; common approaches
to easing tensions with our adversaries; and shaping positive relations
with the developing world. The common efforts of the industrial
democracies are not directed at exclusive ends but as a bridge to a
-3-
#485
broader, more secure and cooperative international system and to
increasing freedom and prosperity for all nations.
The United States is proud of its historical friendships in the Western
Hemisphere. In the modern era they must be -- and are -- based on
equality and mutual benefit. We have a unique advantage: the great
dialogue between the developed and the developing nations can find its
most creative solution in the hemisphere where modern democracy was
born, and where cooperation between developed and developing, large
and small, is a long-standing tradition.
Throughout history, ideology and power have tempted nations to seek
unilateral advantage. But the inescapable lesson of the nuclear age
is that the politics of tests of strength has become incompatible
with the survival of humanity. Traditional power politics becomes
irrational when war can destroy civilized life and neither side can
gain a decisive strategic advantage.
Accordingly, the great nuclear powers have particular responsibilities
for restraint and vision. They are in a position to know the full
extent of the catastrophe which could overwhelm mankind. They must
take care not to fuel disputes if they conduct their rivalries by
traditional methods. If they turn local conflicts into aspects of a
global competition, sooner or later their competition will get out of
control.
The United States believes that the future of mankind requires
coexistence with the Soviet Union. Tired slogans cannot obscure the
necessity for a more constructive relationship. We will insist that
restraint be reciprocal not just in bilateral relations but around the
globe. There can be no selective detente. We will maintain our
defenses and our vigilance. But we know that tough rhetoric is not
strength; that we owe future generations more hopeful prospects than a
delicate equilibrium of awesome forces.
Peace requires a balance of strategic power. This the United States
will maintain. But the United States is convinced that the goal of
strategic balance is achievable more safely by agreement than through
an arms race. The negotiations on the limitation of armaments are
therefore at the heart of US/Soviet relations.
Unprecedented agreements limiting and controlling nuclear weapons
have been reached. An historic effort is being made to place a ceiling
on the strategic arsenals of both sides in accordance with the
Vladivostok accord. And once this is achieved we are ready to seek
immediately to lower the levels of strategic arms.
The United States welcomes the recent progress that has been made in
further curtailing nuclear weapons testing and in establishing a regime
for peaceful nuclear explosions for the first time. The two treaties
now signed and awaiting ratification should be the basis for further
progress in this field.
Together with several of our European allies, we are continuing efforts
to achieve a balanced reduction in the military forces facing each
other in Central Europe. In some respects this is the most complex
-4-
#485
negotiation on arms limitation yet undertaken. It is our hope that
through patient effort reciprocal reductions will soon be achieved.
that enhance the security of all countries involved.
The United States remains committed to the work of the Geneva
Disarmament Committee. We welcome the progress there on banning
environmental modification for destructive purposes. We will
seriously examine all ideas, of whatever origin, to reduce the burdens
of armaments. We will advance our own initiatives not for purposes
of propaganda or unilateral advantage but to promote peace and
security for all.
But coexistence and negotiations on the control of arms do not take
place in a vacuum. We have been disturbed by the continuing
accumulation of armaments and by recent instances of military
intervention to tip the scales in local conflicts on distant continents.
We have noted crude attempts to distort the purposes of diplomacy and
to impede hopeful progress toward peaceful solutions to complex issues.
These efforts only foster tensions; they cannot be reconciled with the
policy of improving relations.
And they will inevitably be resisted. For coexistence to be something
better than an uneasy ármistice, both sides must recognize that
ideology and power politics today confront the realities of the nuclear
age and that a striving for unilateral advantages will not be accepted.
In recent years, the new relationship between the United States and
the People's Republic of China has held great significance for global
security.
We came together out of necessity and a mutual belief that the world
should remain free of military blackmail and the will to hegemony.
We have set out a new path -- in wide-ranging consultations, bilateral
exchanges, the opening of offices in our respective capitals and an
accelerating movement toward normalization. And we have derived
reciprocal benefits -- a clear understanding of the aspirations of
our peoples, better prospects for international equilibrium, reduced
tensions in Asia and increased opportunities for parallel actions on
global issues,
These elements form the basis for a growing and lasting relationship
founded on objective common interests. The United States is committed
to strengthen the bonds between us and to proceed toward the normalization
of our relations in strict conformity with the principles of the
Shanghai Communique. As this process moves forward each side must
display restraint and respect for the interests and convictions of the
other. We will keep Chinese interests in mind on all international
issues and will do our utmost to take account of them. But if the
relationship is to prosper, there must be similar sensitivity to our
views and concerns.
On this basis, the progressive development of our relations with the
world's most populous nation will be a key element of the foreign policy
of the United States.
-5-
#485
The world today is witness to continuing regional crises. Any one
of them could blossom into larger conflict. Each one commands our
most diligent efforts of conciliation and cooperation. The United
States has played, and is prepared to continue to play, an active
role in the search for peace in many areas: southern Africa, the
Middlle East, Korea and Cyprus.
Racial injustice and the grudging retreat of colonial power have
conspired to make southern Africa an acid test of the world's hope for
peace and justice under the charter. A host of voices have been heard
in this chamber warning that if we failed quickly to find solutions
to the crises of Namibia and Rhodesia, that part of the globe could
become a viscious battleground with consequences for every part of
the world.
I have just been to Africa at President Ford's request, to see what
we could do to help the peoples of that continent achieve their
aspirations to freedom and justice.
An opportunity to pull back from the brink now exists. I believe that
Africa has before it the prize for which it has struggled for SO long --
the opportunity for Africans to shape a future of peace, justice,
racial harmony and progress.
The United Nations since its inception has been concerned with the
issue of Namibia. For thirty years, that territory has been a test of
this institution's ability to make its decisions effective.
In recent months, the United States has vigorously sought to help
the parties concerened speed up the process toward Namibian independence.
The United States favors the following elements: the independence of
Namibia with a fixed, short, time limit; the calling of a constitutional
conference at a neutral location under United Nations aegis; and the
participation in that conference of all authentic national forces
including specifically SWAPO. Progress has been made in achieving all
of these goals. We will exert our efforts to remove the remaining
obstacles and bring into being a conference which can then fashion,
with good will and wisdom, a design for the new state of Namibia
and its relationship with its neighbors. We pledge our continued
solicitude for the independence of Namibia SO that it may, in the end,
be a proud achievement of this organization and a symbol of international
cooperation.
Less than a week ago the Rhodesian authorities announced that they
are prepared to meet with the nationalist leaders of Zimbabwe to form
an interim government to bring about majority rule within two years.
This is in itself an historical break from the past. The African
Presidents, in calling for immediate negotiations, have shown that they
are prepared to seize this opportunity for a settlement. And the
Government of the United Kingdom, in expressing its willingness to
assemble a conference, has shown its high sense of responsibility and
concern for the rapid and just independence of Rhodesia.
-6-
#485
Inevitably after a decade of strife, suspicions run deep. Many
obstacles remain. Magnanimity is never easy, and less so after a
generation of bitterness and racial conflict. But let us not lose
sight of what has been achieved: a commitment to majority rule within
two years; a commitment to formimmediately a transitional government
with an African majority in the cabinet and an African prime minister
a readiness to follow this with a constitutional conference to define
the legal framework of an independent Zimbabwe.
The United State, together with other countries, has made major efforts;
and we will continue to do what we can to support the hopeful process
that is now possible. But it is those in Africa who must shape the
future. The people of Rhodesia, and the neighboring states, now face a
supreme challenge. Their ability to work together, their capacity to
unify will be tested in the months ahead as never before.
There may be some countries who see a chance for advantge in fueling
the flames of war and racial hatred. But they are not motivated by
concern for the peoples of Africa, or for peace. And if they succeed
they could doom opportunities that might never return.
In South Africa itself, the pace of change accelerates. The system of
apartheid, by whatever name, is a denial of our common humanity and
a challenge to the conscience of mankind. Change is inevitable.
The leaders of South Africa have shown wisdom in facilitating a
peaceful solution in Rhodesia. The world community takes note of it,
and urges the same wisdom -- while there is still time -- to bring
racial justice to South Africa.
PR #485
-7-
As for the United States, we have become convinced that our values and
our interests are best served by an Africa seeking its own destiny free
of outside intervention. Therefore, we will back no faction whether in
Rhodesia or elsewhere. We will not seek to impose solutions anywhere.
The leadership and the future of an independent Zimbabwe, as for the rest
of Africa, are for Africans to decide. The United States will abide
by their decision. We call on all other non-African states to do likewise.
The United States wants no special position or sphere of influence. We
respect African unity. The rivalry and interference of non-African
powers would make a mockery of Africa's hard-won struggle for independence
from foreign domination. It will inevitably be resisted. And it is a
direct challenge to the most fundamental principles upon which the United
Nations is founded.
Every nation that has signed the Charter is pledged to allow the nations
of Africa, whose peoples have suffered SO much, to fulfill at long last
their dreams of independence, peace, unity and human dignity in their
own way and by their own decisions.
The United Nations, since its birth, has been involved in the chronic
conflict in the Middle East. Each successive war has brought greater
perils, an increased danger of great power confrontation and more severe
global economic dislocations.
At the request of the parties, the United States has been actively engaged
in the search for peace in the Middle East. Since the 1973 war, states-
manship on all sides has produced unprecedented steps toward a resolution
of this bitter conflict. There have been three agreements that lessen
the danger of war; and mutual commitments have been made to pursue the
negotiating process with urgency, until a final peace is achieved. As a
result, we are closer to the goal of peace than any time in a generation.
The role of the United Nations has been crucial. The Geneva Conference
met in 1973 under its aegis, and the implementation of subsequent agree-
ments has been negotiated in its working groups. Security Council reso-
lutions form the only agreed framework for negotiations. The UN Emergency
Force, Disengagement Observer Force, and Truce Supervision Organization
are even now helping maintain peace on the truce lines. I want to com-
plimert the Secretary General and his colleagues in New York, Geneva,
and on the ground in the Middle East, for their vigorous support of the
peace process at critical moments.
The United States remains committed to help the parties reach a settle-
ment. The step-by-step negotiations of the past three years have now
brought us to a point where comprehensive solutions seem possible. The
decision before us now is how the next phase of negotiations should be
launched.
The United States is prepared to participate in an early resumption of
the work of the Geneva Conference. We think a preparatory conference
might be useful for a discussion of the tructure of future negotiations,
PR #485
-8-
but we are open to other suggestions. Whatever steps are taken must
be carefully prepared SO that once the process begins the nations con-
cerned will advance steadily toward agreement.
The groundwork that has been laid represents an historic opportunity.
The United States will do all it can to assure that by the time this
Assembly meets next year it will be possible to report significant
further progress toward a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Since the General Assembly last met, overwhelming tragedy has befallen
the people of Lebanon. The United States strongly supports the sover-
eignty. unity and territorial integrity of that troubled country. We
oppose partition. We hope that Lebanese affairs will soon be returned
to the hands of the people of Lebanon. All members of the United Nations,
and all the conflicting parties in Lebanon, have an obligation to support
the efforts of the new President of Lebanon to restore peace and to turn
energies to rebuilding the nation. And the agencies of the United
Nations system can play an important role in the reconstruction effort.
The confrontation between North and South Korea remains a threat to
international peace and stability. The vital interests of world powers
intersect in Korea; conflict there inevitably threatens wider war.
We and many other UN members welcome the fact that a contentious and
sterile debate on Korea will be avoided this fall. Let this opportunity
be used, then, to address the central problem of how the Korean people
can determine their future and achieve their ultimate goal of peaceful
reunification without a renewal of armed conflict.
Our own views on the problem of Korea are well known. We have called
for a resumption of a serious dialogue between North and South Korea.
We have urged wider negotiations to promote security and reduce tensions.
We are prepared to have the United Nations Command dissolved so long as
the Armistice Agreement -- which is the only existing legal arrangmeent
commiting the parties to keep the peace -- is either preserved or re-
placed by more durable arrangements. We are willing to improve relations
with North Korea, provided that its allies are ready to take similar steps
toward the Republic of Korea. We are ready to talk with North Korea
about the Peninsula's future, but we will not do so without the partici-
pation of the Republic of Korea.
Last fall the United States proposed a conference including all the parties
most directly concerned -- North and South Korea, the United States, and
the People's Republic of China -- to discuss ways of adapting the Armistice
Agreement to new conditions and replacing it with more permanent arrange-
ments. On July 22, I stated our readiness to meet immediately with
these parties to consider the appropriate venue for such a conference.
I reaffirm that readiness here today.
If such a conference proves impracticable right now, the United States
would support a phased approach. Preliminary talks between North and
South Korea, including discussions on the venue and scope of the con-
PR #485
-9-
ference, could start immeditely. In this phase the United States and
the People's Republic of China could participate as observers or in an
advisory role. If such discussions yielded concrete results, the United
States and China could join the talks formally. This, in turn, could
set the stage for a wider conference in which other countries could
associate themselves with arrangements that guarantee a durable peace on
the Peninsula.
We hope that North Korea and other concerned parties will respond affir-
matively to this proposed procedure or offer a constructive alternative
suggestion.
The world community is deeply concerned over the continuing stalemate
on the Cyprus problem.
Domestic pressures, nationalistic objectives, and international rivalries
have combined to block the parties from taking even the most elementary
steps toward a solution. On those few occasions when representatives of
the two Cypriot communities have come together, they have fallen into in-
conclusive procedural disputes. The passage of time has served only to
complicate domestic difficulties and to diminish the possibilities for
constructive conciliation. The danger of conflict between Greece and
Turkey has spread to other issues, as we have recently seen in the Aegean.
All concerned need to focus on committing themselves to achieve the over-
riding objectives -- assuring the well-being of the suffering Cypriot
people, and peace in the eastern Mediterranean.
A settlement must come from the Cypriot communities themselves. It is
they who must decide how their island's economy, society, and government
shall be recontructed. It is they who must decide the ultimate relation-
ship of the two communities and the territorial extent of each area.
The United States is ready to assist in restoring momentum to the nego-
tiating process. We believe that agreeing to a set of principles might
help the parties to resume negotiations. We would suggest some concepts
along the following lines:
a settlement should preserve the independence, sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Cyprus;
-- the present dividing lines on Cyprus must be adjusted to reduce
the area currently controlled by the Turkish side;
-- the territorial arrangement should take into account the
economic requirements and humanitarian concerns of the two Cypriot
communities, including the plight of those who remain refugees;
-- a constitutional arrangement should provide conditions under
which the two Cypriot communities can live in freedom and have a
large voice in their own affairs; and
PR #485
-10-
-- security arrangements should be agreed that permit the with-
drawal of foreign military forces other than those present under
international agreement.
I have discussed this approach with the Secretary-General and with
several Western European leaders. In the days ahead, the United States
will consult along these lines with all interested parties. In the
meantime, we urge the Secretary-General to continue his dedicated
efforts.
Economic Development and Progress
The economic division of our planet between the Northern and Southern
Hemispheres, between the industrial and developing nations, is a dominant
issue of our time. Our mutual dependence for our prosperity is a reality,
not a slogan. It should summon our best efforts to make common progress.
We must commit ourselves to bring mankind's dreams of a better life to
closer reality in our lifetime.
There are many reasons why cooperation has not made greater strides:
-- The industrial democracies have sometimes been more willing to
pay lip service to the challenge of development than to match
rhetoric with real resources.
-- The oil-producing nations command great wealth, and some have
been generous in their contribution to international development.
But the overall performance in putting that wealth to positive
uses has been inadequate to the challenge.
-- The countries with non-market economies are quite prepared to
undertake verbal assaults, but their performance is in inverse
ratio to their rhetoric. Their real contribution to development
assistance has been minimal. Last year, for example, the non-market
economies provided only about four percent of the public aid flowing
to the developing nations.
-- The developing nations are understandably frustrated and impatient
with poverty, illiteracy and disease. But too often they have made
demands for change that are as confrontational as they are unreal-
istic. They sometimes speak of new economic orders as if growth
were a quick fix requiring only that the world's wealth be properly
redistributed through tests of strength instead of a process of
self-help over generations. Ultimately, such tactics lose more than
they gain, for they undermine the popular support in the industrial
democracies which is imperative to provide the resources and market
access -- available nowhere else -- to sustain development.
The objectives of the developing nations are clear; a rapid rise in the
incomes of their people; a greater role in the international decisions
which affect them; and fair access to the world's economic opportunities.
PR #485
-11-
The objectives of the industrial nations are equally plain: an efficient
and open system of world trade and investment; expanding opportunities and
production for both North and South; the reliable and equitable develop-
ment of the world's resources of food, energy, and raw materials; a
world economy in which prosperity is as close to universal as our imagin-
ation and our energies allow.
These goals are complementary; indeed they must be, for neither side can
achieve its aims at the expense of the other. They can be realized only
through cooperation.
We took a major step forward together a year ago, at the Seventh Special
Session of this Assembly. And we have since followed through on many
fronts.
-- We have taken steps to protect the economic security of develop-
ing nations against cyclical financial disaster. The newly expanded
compensatory finance facility of the International Monetary Fund has
disbursed over $2 billion to developing nations this year along.
-- An IMF Trust Fund financed by gold sales has been established
for the benefit of the low-income countries.
-- Replenishments for the World Bank, the Inter-American Development
Bank and the Asian Development Bank will provide additional resources
for development.
-- Wordwide food aid has expanded. We have committed ourselves to
expand the world supply of food. With a United States contribution
of $200 million, we have brought the International Fund for Agricul-
ture Development close to operation.
-- The major industrial nations have moved to expand trade oppor-
tunities for the developing world. We have joined in a solemn pledge
to complete by next year the liberalization of world trade through
the Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations. For its part,
the United States has established a system of generalized preferences
which has stimulated billions in exports from developing nations
to the United States in 1975.
The United States continued this process by putting forward a number of
new proposals at the Fourth Ministeral United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development in May 1976. We proposed a comprehensive plan to improve
the capacity of the developing countries to select, adapt, improve and
manage technology for development. We committed ourselves to improve-
ments in the quality of aid, proposing that a greater proportion of aid
to poor countries be on a grant basis and united to purchases from donor
nations. We agreed to a serious effort to improve markets of eighteen
basic commodities.
These measures undertaken since we met here just a year ago assist -- not
with rhetoric and promises, but in practical and concrete ways -- the
peoples of the world who are struggling to throw off the chains of poverty.
PR #485
-12-
Much remains to be done:
First, the application of science and technology is at the very heart of
the development process. The United States, conscious of its pioneering
role in technology, has put forward three basic principles, which we will
support with funds and talent:
-- to train individuals who can identify, select and manage the
future technology of the developing world;
-- to build both national and international insitutions to create
indigenous technology, as well as adapt foreign designs and inven-
tions; and
-- to spur the private sector to make its maximum contribution to
the development and transfer of technological progress.
To achieve these goals, we are today extending an invitation to the
World Conference on Science and Technology for Development now scheduled
for 1979 to meet in this country. In preparation for that meeting, we
have asked members of the industrial, academic and professional scientific
communities throughout the United States to meet in Washington in November.
They will review the important initiatives this country can take to expand
the technological base for development, and they will strive to develop
new approaches.
Second, the Ministerial Meeting of the Conference on International
Economic Cooperation in Paris should be given new impetus. We are making
several new proposals:
-- We will seek to help nations facing severe debt burdens. For
acute cases we will propose guidelines for debt renegotiation. For
countries facing longer-term problems, we will propose systematic
examination of remedial measures, including increased aid.
-- We will advance new ideas for expanded cooperation in energy
including a regular process of information exchange among energy
producers and users, and an expanded transfer of energy-related
technology to energy-poor developing nations.
Third, the industrial democracies have been far too willing to wait for
the demands of the developing countries rather than to advance their own
proposals. Now, however, the OECD countries, at the suggestion of the
United States, have agreed to examine long-range development planning
and to develop a more coherent and comprehensive approach to global
growth and economic justice.
Fourth, natural disaster each year takes thousands of lives and costs
billions of dollars. It strikes most those who can affort it the least
-- the poorest peoples of the world. Its toll is magnified by a large
array of global issues -- overpopulation, food scarcity, damage to the
ecology, and economic underdevelopment. The United Nations has a unique
PR #485
-13-
capacity to address these global concerns and thus improve man's odds
against nature. We urge this body to take the lead in strengthening
international cooperation to prevent and alleviate natural calamity.
Our dream is that all the children of the world can live with hope and
widening opportunity. No nation can accomplish this alone; no group of
nations can achieve it through confrontation. But together there is a
chance for major progress -- and in our generation.
Interdependence and Community
It is an irony of our time that an age of ideological and nationalistic
rivalry has spawned as well a host of challenges that no nation can
possibly solve by itself:
-- The proliferation of nuclear weapons capacilities adds a new
dimension of danger to political conflicts, regionally and globally.
-- As technology opens up the oceans, conflicting national claims
and interests threaten chaos.
-- Man's inventiveness has developed the horrible new tool of terror
that claims innocent victims on every continent.
-- Human and civil rights are widely abused and have now become an
accepted concern of the world community.
Let me set forth the United States' position on these topics.
The growing danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons raises stark
questions about man's ability to ensure his very existence.
We have lived through three perilous decades in which the catastrophe
of nuclear war has been avoided despite a strategic rivalry between a
relatively few nations.
But now, a wholly new situation impends. Many nations have the potential
to build nuclear weapons. If this potential were to materialize, threats
to use nuclear weapons, fed by mutually reinforcing misconceptions, could
become a recurrent feature of local conflicts in every quarter of the
globe. And there will be growing dangers of accidents, blackmail, theft
and nuclear terrorism.
Unless current trends are altered rapidly, the likelihood of nuclear
devastation could grow steadily in the years to come.
We must look first to the roots of the problem:
-- Since the 1973 energy crisis and drastic rise in oil prices,
both developed and developing nations have seen in nuclear energy a
means both of lowering the cost of electricity and of reducing
reliance upon imported petroleum.
PR #485
PRESIDENT HAS States
-14-
-- In an age of growing nationalism some see the acquisition and
expansion of nuclear power as symbols of enhanced national prestige.
And it is also clear that some nations, in attaining this peaceful
technology, may wish to provide for themselves a future option to
acquire nuclear weapons.
A nation that acquires the potential for a nuclear weapons capability
must accept the consequences of its action. It is bound to trigger off-
setting actions by its neighbors and stimulate broader proliferation,
thereby accelerating a process that ultimately will undermine its own
security. And it is disingenuous to label as "peaceful" nuclear devices
which palpably are capable of massive military destruction. The spread of
nuclear reactor and fuel cycle capabilities, especially in the absence
of evident economic need and combined with ambiguous political and military
motives, threatens to proliferate nuclear weapons with all their dangers.
Time is of the essence. In no area of international concern does the
future of this planet depend more directly upon what this generation
elects to do -- or fails to do. We must move on three broad fronts:
First, international safeguards must be strengthened and strictly enforced.
The supply and use of nuclear materials associated with civilian nuclear
energy programs must be carefully safeguarded so that they will not be
diverted. Nuclear suppliers must impose the utmost restraint upon them-
selves and not permit the temptations of commercial advantage to override
the risks of proliferation. The physical security of nuclear materials --
whether in use, storage or transfer -- must be increased. The Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency must receive the full support of all nations
in making its safeguards effective, reliable and universally applicable.
Any violator of the IAEA safeguards must face immediate and drastic
penalties.
Second adherence to safeguards, while of prime importance, is no guaran-
tee against future proliferation. We must continue our efforts to forge
international restraints against the acquisition or transfer of repro-
cessing facilities which produce separated plutonium and of enrichment
facilities which produce highly enriched uranium - both of which are
useable for the construction of nuclear weapons.
Third we must recognize that one of the principal incentives for seeking
sensitive reprocessing and enrichment technology is the fear that
essential non-sensitive materials, notably reactor-grade uranium fuel,
will not be made available on a reliable basis. Nations that show their
sense of international responsibility by accepting effective restraints
have a right to expect reliable and economical supply of peaceful nuclear
reactors and associated non-sensitive fuel. The United States, as a
principal supplier of these items, is prepared to be responsible in this
regard.
In the near future, President Ford will announce a comprehensive American
program for international action on nor-proliferation that reconciles
global aspirations for assured nuclear supply with global requirements for
nuclear control.
PR #485
-15-
We continue to approach the proliferation problem in full recognition
of the responsibility that we and other nuclear powers have -- both in
limiting our weapons arsenals and in ensuring that the benefits of peace-
ful nuclear energy can be made available to all states within a shared
framework of effective international safeguards. In this way, the atom
can be seen once again as a boon and not a menace to mankind.
Another issue of vast global consequence is the Law of the Sea. The
negotiations which have just recessed in New York represent one of the
most important, complex and ambitious diplomatic undertakings in history.
Consider what is at stake:
-- Mankind is attemtping to devise an international regime for nearly
three quarters of the earth's surface.
-- Some 150 nations are participating, reflecting all the globe's
diverse national perspective, ideologies, and practical concerns.
-- A broad sweep of vital issues is involved: economic development,
military security, freedom of navigation, crucial and dwindling
living resources, the ocean's fragile ecology, marine scientific
research, and vast potential mineral wealth.
-- The world community is aspiring to shape major new international
legal principles: the extension of the long-established territorial
sea; the creation of a completely new concept of an economic zone
extending two hundred miles; and the designation of the deep seabed
as the "common heritage of mankind."
We have travelled an extraordinary distance in these negotiations in
recent years -- thanks in no small part to the skill and dedication of
the distinguished President of this Assembly. Agreement exists on key
concepts: a twelve-mile territorial sea; free passage over and through
straits; a two-hundred mile economic zone; and important pollution con-
trols. In many fields, we have replaced ideological debates with serious
efforts to find concrete solutions. And there is growing consensus that
the outstanding problems must be solved at the next session.
But there is hardly room for complacency. Important issues remain which,
if not/settled, could cause us to forfeit all our hard-won progress. The
Conference has yet to agree on the balance between coastal state and
international rights in the economic zone; on the freedom of marine
scientific research; on arrangements for dispute settlement; and, most
crucially, on the regime for exploitation of the deep seabeds.
The United States has made major proposals to resolve the deep seabed
issue. We have agreed that the seabeds are the common heritage of all
mankind. We have proposed a dual system for the exploitation of seabed
minerals by which half of the mining sites would be reserved for the
international authority and half could be developed by individual nations
and their nationals on the basis of their technical capacity. We have
offered to find financing and to transfer the technology needed to make
international mining a practical reality. And in light of the many un-
PR #485
-16-
certainties that lie ahead, we have proposed that there be a review --
for example, in 25 years -- to determine whether the provisions on seabed
mining are working equitably.
In response some nations have escalated both their demands and the
stridency with which they advocate them.
I must say candidly that there are limits beyond which no American
Administration can, or will, go. If attempts are made to compel
concessions which exceed those limits, unilateralism will become inevitable.
Countries which have no technological capacity for mining the seabeds in
the foreseeable future should not seek to impose a doctrine of total
internationalization on nations which alone have this capacity and which
have voluntarily offered to share it. The United States has an interest
in the progressive development of international law, stable order and
global cooperation. We are prepared to make sacrifices for this -- but
they cannot go beyond equitable bounds.
Let us therefore put aside delaying tactics and pressures and take the
path of cooperation. If we have the vision to conclude a treaty con-
sidered fair and just by mankind, our labors will have profound meaning
not only for the regimen of the oceans but for all efforts to build a
peaceful, cooperative and prosperous international community. The
United States will spend the interval between sessions of the Conference
reviewing its positions and will approach other nations well in advance
of the next session at the political level to establish the best possible
conditions for its success.
A generation that dreams of world peace and economic progress is plagued.
by a new, brutal, cowardly and indiscriminate form of violence -- inter-
national terrorism. Small groups have rejected the norms of civilized
behavior and wantonly taken the lives of defenseless men, women, and
children -- innocent victims with no power to affect the course of
events. In the year since I last addressed this body, there have been
11 hijackings, 19 kidhappings, 42 armed attacks and 112 bombings per-
petrated by international terrorists. Over 70 people have lost their
lives and over 200 have been injured.
It is time this Organization said to the world that the vicious murder
and abuse of innocents cannot be absolved or excused by the invocation
of lofty motives. Criminal acts against humanity, whatever the pro-
fessed objective, cannot be excused by any civilized nation.
The threat of terrorism should be dealt with through the cooperative
efforts of all countries. More stringent steps must be taken now to
deny skyjackers and terrorists a safe haven.
Additonal measures are required to protect passengers in both transit
and terminal areas, as well as in flight.
# 485
-17-
The United States will work within the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) to expand its present technical assistance to
include the security of air carriers and terminal facilities. We urge
the universal implementation of aviation security standards adopted
by ICAO. We are prepared to assist the efforts of other governments to
implement those standards.
The United States will support new initiatives which will ensure the
safety of the innocent. The proposal of the distinguished Foreign
Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, against the taking of
hostages, deserves the most serious and sympathetic consideration of
this Assembly.
The United States will do everything within its power to work
cooperatively in the United Nations and in other international bodies to
put an end to the scourge of terrorism. But we have an obligation to
protect the lives of our citizens as they travel at home or abroad, and
we intend to meet that obligation. Therefore, if multilateral efforts
are blocked by those determined to pursue their ends without regard
for suffering or death, then the United States will act through its
own legislative processes and in conjunction with others willing to
join us.
Terrorism is an international problem. It is inconceivable that an
organization of the world's nations would fail to take effective action
against it.
The final measure of all we do together, of course, is man himself.
Our common efforts to define, preserve and enhance respect for the rights
of man thus represent an ultimate test of international cooperation.
We Americans, in the year of our Bicentennial, are conscious -- and
proud -- of our own traditions. Our founders wrote 200 years ago of
the equality and inalienable rights of all men. Since then the ideals
of liberty and democracy have become the universal and indestructible
goals of mankind.
But the plain truth -- of tragic proportions -- is that human rights
are in:jeopardy over most of the globe. Arbitrary arrest, denial of
fundamental procedural rights, slave labor, stifling of freedom of
religion, racial injustice, political repression, the use of torture,
and restraints on communications and expression -- these abuses are too
prevalent.
The performance of the United Nations system in protecting human rights
has fallen far short of what was envisaged when this organization was
founded. The principles of the Universal Declaration are clear enough.
But their invocation and application, in general debates of this body
and in the forums of the Human Rights Commission, have been marred by
hypocracy, double standards, and discrimination. Flagrant and consistent
deprivation of human rights is no less heinous in one country or one
social system than in another. Nor is it more acceptable when practiced
# 485
-18-
upon members of the same race than when inflicted by one race upon
another.
The international community has a unique role to play. The application
of the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be
entrusted to fair and capable international bodies. But at the same
time let us ensure that these bodies do not become platforms from which
nations which are the worst transgressors pass hypocritical judgment on
the alleged shortcomings.
Let us together pursue practical approaches:
-- to build on the foundations already laid at previous assemblies
and at the Human Rights. Commission to lessen the abominable
practice of officially sanctioned torture.
-- to promote acceptance of procedures for protecting the rights
of people subject to detention, such as access to courts, counsel,
and families; prompt release or fair and public trial.
-- to improve the working procedures of international bodies
concerned with human rights so that they may function fairly and
effectively.
-- to strengthen the capability of the United Nations to meet
the tragic problems of the ever growing number of refugees whose
human rights have been stripped away by conflict in almost every
continent.
The United States pledges its firm support to these efforts.
Conclusion
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished delegates:
The challenge to statesmanship in this generation is to advance from the
management of crises to the building of a more stable and Just
international order -- an order resting not on power but on restraint
of power, not on the strength of arms but on the strength of the
human spirit.
Global forces of change now shape our future. Order will come in one
of two ways: through its imposition by the strong and the ruthless
or by the wise and farsighted use of international institutions through
which we enlarge the sphere of common interests and enhance the sense
of community.
It is easy and tempting to press relentlessly for national advantage.
It is infinitely more difficult to act in recognition of the rights of
others. Throughout history, the greatness of men and nations has been
measured by their actions in times of acute peril. Today there is no
single crisis to conquer. There is instead a persisting challenge
of staggering complexity -- the need to create a universal community
#485
-19-
based on cooperation, peace and justice.
If we falter, future generations will pay for our failure. If we
succeed, it will have been worth of the hopes of mankind. I am
confident that we can succeed.
And it is here, in the assembly of nations, that we should begin.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
1
W
scow, HY, MCF, LL
AM-ISSUES-KISSINGER SKED 10-3
BY HENRY KEYS
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- NAMED OR NOT. SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY A.
KISSINGER WILL BE A PRINCIPAL TOPIC IN WEDNESDAY'S FOREIGN POLICY
EBATE BETWEEN PRESIDENT FORD AND JIMMY CARTER.
C-RTE- HAS ALREADY TARGETED KISSINGER. ALTHOUGH NOT BY NAME. AS
IN THE CONDUCT OF U. S. FOREIGN POLICY.
UNDER THE NIXON-FORD ADMINISTRATION, THERE HAS EVOLVED A KIND OF
SECRETIVE 'LONE RANGER' FOREIGN POLICY, A ONE-MAN POLICY OF
INTERNATIONAL ADVENTURE," HE TOLD THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION IN
NEW YORK JUNE 23.
"A FOREIGN POLICY BASED ON SECRECY INHERENTLY HAS HAD TO BE
CLOSELY GUARDED AND AMORAL, AND WE HAVE HAD TO FOREGO OPENNESS,
CONSULT-TION AND A CONSTANT ADHERENCE TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND
HIGH MORAL STANDARDS."
CARTER HAS REPEATED THE THEME THAT THERE IS NEED FOR OPEN
DISCUSSION OF FOREIGN POLICY OPTIONS WITH CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
BUT FORD, WHO HAS SAID HE WANTS KISSINGER TO STAY ON IN HIS
C-BINET AS LONG AS KISSINGER WISHES TO, CAN CITE SOME IMPRESSIVE
STATISTICS ON THE NUMBER OF THE SECRETARY'S SPEECHES AND HIS
APPEARANCES BEFORE CONGRESSIONA COMMITTEES. THERE ARE ALSO THOSE
NEWS CONFERENCES AND BRIEFINGS BY THE UBIQUITOUS "SENIOR OFFICIAL"
WHO IS ALWAYS TRAVELLING WITH KISSINGER ABROAD.
SO FAR THIS YEAR, KISSINGER HAS TESTIFIED 20 TIMES BEFORE
CO GRESSIONAL COMMITTEES -- 15 AT OPEN SESSIONS AND FIVE TIMES aT
CLOSED HEARINGS. HE HAS HAD AT LEAST 38 INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS EITHER ON CAPITOL HILL OR OVER LUNCH OR BREAKFAST
AND IN HIS OFFICE. HE HAS HOSTED AND SPOKEN AT 10 FORMAL STATE
DEPARTMENT LUNCHES AND DELIVERED 34 MAJOR ADDRESSES, 20 OF THEM TO
PUBLIC GATHERINGS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND 14 BEFORE NATIONAL
AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
HE HAS ALSO HELD 33 NEWS CONFERENCES IN THE UNITED STATES AN 25
-BROAD AND PARTICIPATED IN FIVE OTHERS WITH INTERNATIONAL LEADERS.
ADDED TO THIS IS A DIZZYING BUT UNRECORDED NUMBER OF BACKGROUND
BESSIONS WITH REPORTERS ON HIS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD, IN
THE LOBBIES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, -N?
EVE ON THE DOORSTEP OF HIS GEORGETOWN HOME.
UPI 10-03 12:16 PED
Ford ce youga C
Turo u M- upos He
Wrocns Bijedic upes
1975Γ, KOLCETO noce-
rigabu 10rocas.
=c Sepex, upesia
u upto
jaroszewicz 1975 npes
Since Kissinger became Secretary of State
he has:
-- Appeared before Congressional Committees
83 times. In addition he has met informally
with Members of Congress innumerable times
(40 times this year).
-- Held 85 press conferences and many more
background briefings with the press.
-- Given 50 formal speeches in every region
of the U.S.
80 congressional breakfasts