Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1554427",
    "label": "Second Debate: Kissinger as an Issue",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554427"
}

{
    "id": "1554427",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554427",
    "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": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554427",
    "collections": [
        "White House Special Files Unit Files",
        "Ford - Carter Debates Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Campaign debates",
        "International relations",
        "Presidential campaign, 1976",
        "Speeches, addresses, etc."
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/27/5544/1554427/content/library/document/0010/1554427.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/27/5544/1554427/content/library/document/0010/1554427.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/27/5544/1554427/content/library/document/0010/1554427.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554427",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/27/5544/1554427/content/library/document/0010/1554427.pdf",
    "mediaId": "3dc8eaae4b14f5b6",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 2, folder \"Second Debate: Kissinger as an Issue\"\nof the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nPRESS\nDEPARTMENT OF STATE\nSeptember 30, 1976\nNo. 485\nAs Prepared for Delivery\nADDRESS BY\nTHE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER\nSECRETARY OF STATE\nBEFORE THE\n31st SESSION OF THE\nUNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY\nNEW YORK CITY\nNEW YORK\nSEPTEMBER 30, 1976\nEMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY, SCHEDULED FOR APPROXIMATELY 12:00 NOON\n(EDT) THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30. NOT TO BE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED, QUOTED FROM\nOR USED IN ANY WAY.\nFor further information contact:\nDigitized from Box 2 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n#485\n-1-\nMr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, Foreign Ministers, distinguished\ndelegates:\nLet me first congratulate this body for electing Ambassador Amerasinghe\nof Sri Lanka to preside over this Thirty-first session of the General\nAssembly. He is a diplomat of great international stature, who among\nhis many distinctions, has provided indispensable leadership to the\ncrucial negotiations on the Law of the Sea.\nI would also like to pay tribute to the Secretary-General for his\ntireless efforts on behalf of the world community. He successfully\nembodies the charter's principles of fairness, impartiality and\ndedication to the causes of global peace and human dignity.\nThe United Nations was born of the conviction that peace is both\nindivisible and more than mere stability, that for peace to be lasting\nit must fulfill mankind's aspirations for justice, freedom, economic\nwell-being, the rule of law and the promotion of human rights. But\nthe history of this organization has been in considerable measure the\ngradual awareness that humanity would not inevitably share a single\napproach to these goals.\nThe United Nations has survived -- and helped to manage -- thirty years\nof vast change in the international system. It has come through the\nbitterness of the Cold War. It has played a vital role in the\ndismantling of the colonial empires. It has helped moderate conflicts,\nand is manning truce lines in critical parts of the world. It has\ncarried our unprecedented efforts in such areas as public health,\ndevelopment assistance and technical cooperation.\nBut the most important challenge of this organization lies still ahead: to\nvindicate mankind's positive and nobler goals and help nations achieve\na new understanding of community.\nWith modern communications, human endeavor has become a single experience\nfor peoples in every part of the planet. We share the wonders of science\nand technology, the trials of industrialization and social change, and\na constant awareness of the fate and dreams of our fellow men.\nThe world has shrunk, but the nations of the world have not come closer\ntogether. Paradoxically, nationalism has been on the rise at the precise\ntime when the most serious issues we all face can only be resolved\nthrough a recognition of our interdependence. The moral and political\ncohesion of our world may be eroding just when a sense of community has\nbecome indispensable.\nFragmentation has affected even this body. Nations have taken decisions\non a bloc or regional basis by rigid ideologies, before even listening\nto the debate in these halls; on many issues positions have been\npredetermined by prior conferences containing more than half the\nmembership of the United Nations. The tendency is widespread to come\nhere for battle rather than negotiation. If these trends continue, the\nhope for world community will dissipate and the moral influence of this\norganization will progressively diminish.\n-2-\n#485\nThis would be a tragedy. Members of this organization are today engaged\nin a multiplicity of endeavors to find just solutions for complex and\nexplosive problems. There is a fragile tranquility but beneath the\nsurface it is challenged by fundamental forces of change -- technological,\neconomic, social. More than ever this is a time for statecraft and\nrestraint, for persistence but also daring in the pursuit of peace and\njustice. The dogmas of perpetual strife produce only bloodshed and\nbitterness: they unleash the forces of destruction and repression and\nplant the seeds of future conflict. Appeals to hatred -- whether\non the basis of race or class or color or nationality or ideology --\nwill in the end rebound against those who launch them and will not\nadvance the cause of freedom and justice in the world.\nLet us never forget that the United Nations benefits the smaller and\nweaker nations most of all. It is they that would suffer most from its\nfailure. For without the rule of law, disputes will be settled as\nthey have been all too frequently and painfully in history -- by test\nof strength it is not the weak that will prevail in the world of chaos.\nThe United States believes that this Thirty-first General Assembly\nmust free itself of the ideological and confrontational tactics that\nmarked some of its predecessors and dedicate itself to a program of\ncommon action.\nThe United States comes to the General Assembly prepared to work on\nprograms of common action. We will offer concrete proposals. We will\nlisten to the ideas of others. We will resist pressure and seek\ncooperation.\nLet me now discuss the three principal challenges we face -- the problem\nof peace, the challenge of economic well-being, and the agenda of\nglobal interdependence.\nThe Problem of Peace\nThe age of the United Nations has also been an age of frequent conflict.\nWe have been spared a third world war, but cannot assume that this\ncondition will prevail forever, or without exertion. An era of\nthermonuclear weapons and persistent national rivalries requires our\nutmost effort to keep at bay the scourge of war. Our generation must\nbuild out of the multitude of nations a structure of relations that frees\nthe energies of nations and peoples for the positive endeavors of\nmankind, without the fear or threat of war.\nCentral to American foreign policy are our sister democracies -- the\nindustrial nations of North America, Western Europe, the Southern\nPacific and Japan, and our traditional friends in the Western Hemisphere.\nWe are bound to these nations by the ties of history, civilization,\nculture, shared principles and a generation of common endeavors.\nOur alliances, founded on the bedrock of mutual security, now reach\nbeyond the common defense to a range of new issues: the social\nchallenges shared by advanced technological societies; common approaches\nto easing tensions with our adversaries; and shaping positive relations\nwith the developing world. The common efforts of the industrial\ndemocracies are not directed at exclusive ends but as a bridge to a\n-3-\n#485\nbroader, more secure and cooperative international system and to\nincreasing freedom and prosperity for all nations.\nThe United States is proud of its historical friendships in the Western\nHemisphere. In the modern era they must be -- and are -- based on\nequality and mutual benefit. We have a unique advantage: the great\ndialogue between the developed and the developing nations can find its\nmost creative solution in the hemisphere where modern democracy was\nborn, and where cooperation between developed and developing, large\nand small, is a long-standing tradition.\nThroughout history, ideology and power have tempted nations to seek\nunilateral advantage. But the inescapable lesson of the nuclear age\nis that the politics of tests of strength has become incompatible\nwith the survival of humanity. Traditional power politics becomes\nirrational when war can destroy civilized life and neither side can\ngain a decisive strategic advantage.\nAccordingly, the great nuclear powers have particular responsibilities\nfor restraint and vision. They are in a position to know the full\nextent of the catastrophe which could overwhelm mankind. They must\ntake care not to fuel disputes if they conduct their rivalries by\ntraditional methods. If they turn local conflicts into aspects of a\nglobal competition, sooner or later their competition will get out of\ncontrol.\nThe United States believes that the future of mankind requires\ncoexistence with the Soviet Union. Tired slogans cannot obscure the\nnecessity for a more constructive relationship. We will insist that\nrestraint be reciprocal not just in bilateral relations but around the\nglobe. There can be no selective detente. We will maintain our\ndefenses and our vigilance. But we know that tough rhetoric is not\nstrength; that we owe future generations more hopeful prospects than a\ndelicate equilibrium of awesome forces.\nPeace requires a balance of strategic power. This the United States\nwill maintain. But the United States is convinced that the goal of\nstrategic balance is achievable more safely by agreement than through\nan arms race. The negotiations on the limitation of armaments are\ntherefore at the heart of US/Soviet relations.\nUnprecedented agreements limiting and controlling nuclear weapons\nhave been reached. An historic effort is being made to place a ceiling\non the strategic arsenals of both sides in accordance with the\nVladivostok accord. And once this is achieved we are ready to seek\nimmediately to lower the levels of strategic arms.\nThe United States welcomes the recent progress that has been made in\nfurther curtailing nuclear weapons testing and in establishing a regime\nfor peaceful nuclear explosions for the first time. The two treaties\nnow signed and awaiting ratification should be the basis for further\nprogress in this field.\nTogether with several of our European allies, we are continuing efforts\nto achieve a balanced reduction in the military forces facing each\nother in Central Europe. In some respects this is the most complex\n-4-\n#485\nnegotiation on arms limitation yet undertaken. It is our hope that\nthrough patient effort reciprocal reductions will soon be achieved.\nthat enhance the security of all countries involved.\nThe United States remains committed to the work of the Geneva\nDisarmament Committee. We welcome the progress there on banning\nenvironmental modification for destructive purposes. We will\nseriously examine all ideas, of whatever origin, to reduce the burdens\nof armaments. We will advance our own initiatives not for purposes\nof propaganda or unilateral advantage but to promote peace and\nsecurity for all.\nBut coexistence and negotiations on the control of arms do not take\nplace in a vacuum. We have been disturbed by the continuing\naccumulation of armaments and by recent instances of military\nintervention to tip the scales in local conflicts on distant continents.\nWe have noted crude attempts to distort the purposes of diplomacy and\nto impede hopeful progress toward peaceful solutions to complex issues.\nThese efforts only foster tensions; they cannot be reconciled with the\npolicy of improving relations.\nAnd they will inevitably be resisted. For coexistence to be something\nbetter than an uneasy ármistice, both sides must recognize that\nideology and power politics today confront the realities of the nuclear\nage and that a striving for unilateral advantages will not be accepted.\nIn recent years, the new relationship between the United States and\nthe People's Republic of China has held great significance for global\nsecurity.\nWe came together out of necessity and a mutual belief that the world\nshould remain free of military blackmail and the will to hegemony.\nWe have set out a new path -- in wide-ranging consultations, bilateral\nexchanges, the opening of offices in our respective capitals and an\naccelerating movement toward normalization. And we have derived\nreciprocal benefits -- a clear understanding of the aspirations of\nour peoples, better prospects for international equilibrium, reduced\ntensions in Asia and increased opportunities for parallel actions on\nglobal issues,\nThese elements form the basis for a growing and lasting relationship\nfounded on objective common interests. The United States is committed\nto strengthen the bonds between us and to proceed toward the normalization\nof our relations in strict conformity with the principles of the\nShanghai Communique. As this process moves forward each side must\ndisplay restraint and respect for the interests and convictions of the\nother. We will keep Chinese interests in mind on all international\nissues and will do our utmost to take account of them. But if the\nrelationship is to prosper, there must be similar sensitivity to our\nviews and concerns.\nOn this basis, the progressive development of our relations with the\nworld's most populous nation will be a key element of the foreign policy\nof the United States.\n-5-\n#485\nThe world today is witness to continuing regional crises. Any one\nof them could blossom into larger conflict. Each one commands our\nmost diligent efforts of conciliation and cooperation. The United\nStates has played, and is prepared to continue to play, an active\nrole in the search for peace in many areas: southern Africa, the\nMiddlle East, Korea and Cyprus.\nRacial injustice and the grudging retreat of colonial power have\nconspired to make southern Africa an acid test of the world's hope for\npeace and justice under the charter. A host of voices have been heard\nin this chamber warning that if we failed quickly to find solutions\nto the crises of Namibia and Rhodesia, that part of the globe could\nbecome a viscious battleground with consequences for every part of\nthe world.\nI have just been to Africa at President Ford's request, to see what\nwe could do to help the peoples of that continent achieve their\naspirations to freedom and justice.\nAn opportunity to pull back from the brink now exists. I believe that\nAfrica has before it the prize for which it has struggled for SO long --\nthe opportunity for Africans to shape a future of peace, justice,\nracial harmony and progress.\nThe United Nations since its inception has been concerned with the\nissue of Namibia. For thirty years, that territory has been a test of\nthis institution's ability to make its decisions effective.\nIn recent months, the United States has vigorously sought to help\nthe parties concerened speed up the process toward Namibian independence.\nThe United States favors the following elements: the independence of\nNamibia with a fixed, short, time limit; the calling of a constitutional\nconference at a neutral location under United Nations aegis; and the\nparticipation in that conference of all authentic national forces\nincluding specifically SWAPO. Progress has been made in achieving all\nof these goals. We will exert our efforts to remove the remaining\nobstacles and bring into being a conference which can then fashion,\nwith good will and wisdom, a design for the new state of Namibia\nand its relationship with its neighbors. We pledge our continued\nsolicitude for the independence of Namibia SO that it may, in the end,\nbe a proud achievement of this organization and a symbol of international\ncooperation.\nLess than a week ago the Rhodesian authorities announced that they\nare prepared to meet with the nationalist leaders of Zimbabwe to form\nan interim government to bring about majority rule within two years.\nThis is in itself an historical break from the past. The African\nPresidents, in calling for immediate negotiations, have shown that they\nare prepared to seize this opportunity for a settlement. And the\nGovernment of the United Kingdom, in expressing its willingness to\nassemble a conference, has shown its high sense of responsibility and\nconcern for the rapid and just independence of Rhodesia.\n-6-\n#485\nInevitably after a decade of strife, suspicions run deep. Many\nobstacles remain. Magnanimity is never easy, and less so after a\ngeneration of bitterness and racial conflict. But let us not lose\nsight of what has been achieved: a commitment to majority rule within\ntwo years; a commitment to formimmediately a transitional government\nwith an African majority in the cabinet and an African prime minister\na readiness to follow this with a constitutional conference to define\nthe legal framework of an independent Zimbabwe.\nThe United State, together with other countries, has made major efforts;\nand we will continue to do what we can to support the hopeful process\nthat is now possible. But it is those in Africa who must shape the\nfuture. The people of Rhodesia, and the neighboring states, now face a\nsupreme challenge. Their ability to work together, their capacity to\nunify will be tested in the months ahead as never before.\nThere may be some countries who see a chance for advantge in fueling\nthe flames of war and racial hatred. But they are not motivated by\nconcern for the peoples of Africa, or for peace. And if they succeed\nthey could doom opportunities that might never return.\nIn South Africa itself, the pace of change accelerates. The system of\napartheid, by whatever name, is a denial of our common humanity and\na challenge to the conscience of mankind. Change is inevitable.\nThe leaders of South Africa have shown wisdom in facilitating a\npeaceful solution in Rhodesia. The world community takes note of it,\nand urges the same wisdom -- while there is still time -- to bring\nracial justice to South Africa.\nPR #485\n-7-\nAs for the United States, we have become convinced that our values and\nour interests are best served by an Africa seeking its own destiny free\nof outside intervention. Therefore, we will back no faction whether in\nRhodesia or elsewhere. We will not seek to impose solutions anywhere.\nThe leadership and the future of an independent Zimbabwe, as for the rest\nof Africa, are for Africans to decide. The United States will abide\nby their decision. We call on all other non-African states to do likewise.\nThe United States wants no special position or sphere of influence. We\nrespect African unity. The rivalry and interference of non-African\npowers would make a mockery of Africa's hard-won struggle for independence\nfrom foreign domination. It will inevitably be resisted. And it is a\ndirect challenge to the most fundamental principles upon which the United\nNations is founded.\nEvery nation that has signed the Charter is pledged to allow the nations\nof Africa, whose peoples have suffered SO much, to fulfill at long last\ntheir dreams of independence, peace, unity and human dignity in their\nown way and by their own decisions.\nThe United Nations, since its birth, has been involved in the chronic\nconflict in the Middle East. Each successive war has brought greater\nperils, an increased danger of great power confrontation and more severe\nglobal economic dislocations.\nAt the request of the parties, the United States has been actively engaged\nin the search for peace in the Middle East. Since the 1973 war, states-\nmanship on all sides has produced unprecedented steps toward a resolution\nof this bitter conflict. There have been three agreements that lessen\nthe danger of war; and mutual commitments have been made to pursue the\nnegotiating process with urgency, until a final peace is achieved. As a\nresult, we are closer to the goal of peace than any time in a generation.\nThe role of the United Nations has been crucial. The Geneva Conference\nmet in 1973 under its aegis, and the implementation of subsequent agree-\nments has been negotiated in its working groups. Security Council reso-\nlutions form the only agreed framework for negotiations. The UN Emergency\nForce, Disengagement Observer Force, and Truce Supervision Organization\nare even now helping maintain peace on the truce lines. I want to com-\nplimert the Secretary General and his colleagues in New York, Geneva,\nand on the ground in the Middle East, for their vigorous support of the\npeace process at critical moments.\nThe United States remains committed to help the parties reach a settle-\nment. The step-by-step negotiations of the past three years have now\nbrought us to a point where comprehensive solutions seem possible. The\ndecision before us now is how the next phase of negotiations should be\nlaunched.\nThe United States is prepared to participate in an early resumption of\nthe work of the Geneva Conference. We think a preparatory conference\nmight be useful for a discussion of the tructure of future negotiations,\nPR #485\n-8-\nbut we are open to other suggestions. Whatever steps are taken must\nbe carefully prepared SO that once the process begins the nations con-\ncerned will advance steadily toward agreement.\nThe groundwork that has been laid represents an historic opportunity.\nThe United States will do all it can to assure that by the time this\nAssembly meets next year it will be possible to report significant\nfurther progress toward a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.\nSince the General Assembly last met, overwhelming tragedy has befallen\nthe people of Lebanon. The United States strongly supports the sover-\neignty. unity and territorial integrity of that troubled country. We\noppose partition. We hope that Lebanese affairs will soon be returned\nto the hands of the people of Lebanon. All members of the United Nations,\nand all the conflicting parties in Lebanon, have an obligation to support\nthe efforts of the new President of Lebanon to restore peace and to turn\nenergies to rebuilding the nation. And the agencies of the United\nNations system can play an important role in the reconstruction effort.\nThe confrontation between North and South Korea remains a threat to\ninternational peace and stability. The vital interests of world powers\nintersect in Korea; conflict there inevitably threatens wider war.\nWe and many other UN members welcome the fact that a contentious and\nsterile debate on Korea will be avoided this fall. Let this opportunity\nbe used, then, to address the central problem of how the Korean people\ncan determine their future and achieve their ultimate goal of peaceful\nreunification without a renewal of armed conflict.\nOur own views on the problem of Korea are well known. We have called\nfor a resumption of a serious dialogue between North and South Korea.\nWe have urged wider negotiations to promote security and reduce tensions.\nWe are prepared to have the United Nations Command dissolved so long as\nthe Armistice Agreement -- which is the only existing legal arrangmeent\ncommiting the parties to keep the peace -- is either preserved or re-\nplaced by more durable arrangements. We are willing to improve relations\nwith North Korea, provided that its allies are ready to take similar steps\ntoward the Republic of Korea. We are ready to talk with North Korea\nabout the Peninsula's future, but we will not do so without the partici-\npation of the Republic of Korea.\nLast fall the United States proposed a conference including all the parties\nmost directly concerned -- North and South Korea, the United States, and\nthe People's Republic of China -- to discuss ways of adapting the Armistice\nAgreement to new conditions and replacing it with more permanent arrange-\nments. On July 22, I stated our readiness to meet immediately with\nthese parties to consider the appropriate venue for such a conference.\nI reaffirm that readiness here today.\nIf such a conference proves impracticable right now, the United States\nwould support a phased approach. Preliminary talks between North and\nSouth Korea, including discussions on the venue and scope of the con-\nPR #485\n-9-\nference, could start immeditely. In this phase the United States and\nthe People's Republic of China could participate as observers or in an\nadvisory role. If such discussions yielded concrete results, the United\nStates and China could join the talks formally. This, in turn, could\nset the stage for a wider conference in which other countries could\nassociate themselves with arrangements that guarantee a durable peace on\nthe Peninsula.\nWe hope that North Korea and other concerned parties will respond affir-\nmatively to this proposed procedure or offer a constructive alternative\nsuggestion.\nThe world community is deeply concerned over the continuing stalemate\non the Cyprus problem.\nDomestic pressures, nationalistic objectives, and international rivalries\nhave combined to block the parties from taking even the most elementary\nsteps toward a solution. On those few occasions when representatives of\nthe two Cypriot communities have come together, they have fallen into in-\nconclusive procedural disputes. The passage of time has served only to\ncomplicate domestic difficulties and to diminish the possibilities for\nconstructive conciliation. The danger of conflict between Greece and\nTurkey has spread to other issues, as we have recently seen in the Aegean.\nAll concerned need to focus on committing themselves to achieve the over-\nriding objectives -- assuring the well-being of the suffering Cypriot\npeople, and peace in the eastern Mediterranean.\nA settlement must come from the Cypriot communities themselves. It is\nthey who must decide how their island's economy, society, and government\nshall be recontructed. It is they who must decide the ultimate relation-\nship of the two communities and the territorial extent of each area.\nThe United States is ready to assist in restoring momentum to the nego-\ntiating process. We believe that agreeing to a set of principles might\nhelp the parties to resume negotiations. We would suggest some concepts\nalong the following lines:\na settlement should preserve the independence, sovereignty and\nterritorial integrity of Cyprus;\n-- the present dividing lines on Cyprus must be adjusted to reduce\nthe area currently controlled by the Turkish side;\n-- the territorial arrangement should take into account the\neconomic requirements and humanitarian concerns of the two Cypriot\ncommunities, including the plight of those who remain refugees;\n-- a constitutional arrangement should provide conditions under\nwhich the two Cypriot communities can live in freedom and have a\nlarge voice in their own affairs; and\nPR #485\n-10-\n-- security arrangements should be agreed that permit the with-\ndrawal of foreign military forces other than those present under\ninternational agreement.\nI have discussed this approach with the Secretary-General and with\nseveral Western European leaders. In the days ahead, the United States\nwill consult along these lines with all interested parties. In the\nmeantime, we urge the Secretary-General to continue his dedicated\nefforts.\nEconomic Development and Progress\nThe economic division of our planet between the Northern and Southern\nHemispheres, between the industrial and developing nations, is a dominant\nissue of our time. Our mutual dependence for our prosperity is a reality,\nnot a slogan. It should summon our best efforts to make common progress.\nWe must commit ourselves to bring mankind's dreams of a better life to\ncloser reality in our lifetime.\nThere are many reasons why cooperation has not made greater strides:\n-- The industrial democracies have sometimes been more willing to\npay lip service to the challenge of development than to match\nrhetoric with real resources.\n-- The oil-producing nations command great wealth, and some have\nbeen generous in their contribution to international development.\nBut the overall performance in putting that wealth to positive\nuses has been inadequate to the challenge.\n-- The countries with non-market economies are quite prepared to\nundertake verbal assaults, but their performance is in inverse\nratio to their rhetoric. Their real contribution to development\nassistance has been minimal. Last year, for example, the non-market\neconomies provided only about four percent of the public aid flowing\nto the developing nations.\n-- The developing nations are understandably frustrated and impatient\nwith poverty, illiteracy and disease. But too often they have made\ndemands for change that are as confrontational as they are unreal-\nistic. They sometimes speak of new economic orders as if growth\nwere a quick fix requiring only that the world's wealth be properly\nredistributed through tests of strength instead of a process of\nself-help over generations. Ultimately, such tactics lose more than\nthey gain, for they undermine the popular support in the industrial\ndemocracies which is imperative to provide the resources and market\naccess -- available nowhere else -- to sustain development.\nThe objectives of the developing nations are clear; a rapid rise in the\nincomes of their people; a greater role in the international decisions\nwhich affect them; and fair access to the world's economic opportunities.\nPR #485\n-11-\nThe objectives of the industrial nations are equally plain: an efficient\nand open system of world trade and investment; expanding opportunities and\nproduction for both North and South; the reliable and equitable develop-\nment of the world's resources of food, energy, and raw materials; a\nworld economy in which prosperity is as close to universal as our imagin-\nation and our energies allow.\nThese goals are complementary; indeed they must be, for neither side can\nachieve its aims at the expense of the other. They can be realized only\nthrough cooperation.\nWe took a major step forward together a year ago, at the Seventh Special\nSession of this Assembly. And we have since followed through on many\nfronts.\n-- We have taken steps to protect the economic security of develop-\ning nations against cyclical financial disaster. The newly expanded\ncompensatory finance facility of the International Monetary Fund has\ndisbursed over $2 billion to developing nations this year along.\n-- An IMF Trust Fund financed by gold sales has been established\nfor the benefit of the low-income countries.\n-- Replenishments for the World Bank, the Inter-American Development\nBank and the Asian Development Bank will provide additional resources\nfor development.\n-- Wordwide food aid has expanded. We have committed ourselves to\nexpand the world supply of food. With a United States contribution\nof $200 million, we have brought the International Fund for Agricul-\nture Development close to operation.\n-- The major industrial nations have moved to expand trade oppor-\ntunities for the developing world. We have joined in a solemn pledge\nto complete by next year the liberalization of world trade through\nthe Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations. For its part,\nthe United States has established a system of generalized preferences\nwhich has stimulated billions in exports from developing nations\nto the United States in 1975.\nThe United States continued this process by putting forward a number of\nnew proposals at the Fourth Ministeral United Nations Conference on Trade\nand Development in May 1976. We proposed a comprehensive plan to improve\nthe capacity of the developing countries to select, adapt, improve and\nmanage technology for development. We committed ourselves to improve-\nments in the quality of aid, proposing that a greater proportion of aid\nto poor countries be on a grant basis and united to purchases from donor\nnations. We agreed to a serious effort to improve markets of eighteen\nbasic commodities.\nThese measures undertaken since we met here just a year ago assist -- not\nwith rhetoric and promises, but in practical and concrete ways -- the\npeoples of the world who are struggling to throw off the chains of poverty.\nPR #485\n-12-\nMuch remains to be done:\nFirst, the application of science and technology is at the very heart of\nthe development process. The United States, conscious of its pioneering\nrole in technology, has put forward three basic principles, which we will\nsupport with funds and talent:\n-- to train individuals who can identify, select and manage the\nfuture technology of the developing world;\n-- to build both national and international insitutions to create\nindigenous technology, as well as adapt foreign designs and inven-\ntions; and\n-- to spur the private sector to make its maximum contribution to\nthe development and transfer of technological progress.\nTo achieve these goals, we are today extending an invitation to the\nWorld Conference on Science and Technology for Development now scheduled\nfor 1979 to meet in this country. In preparation for that meeting, we\nhave asked members of the industrial, academic and professional scientific\ncommunities throughout the United States to meet in Washington in November.\nThey will review the important initiatives this country can take to expand\nthe technological base for development, and they will strive to develop\nnew approaches.\nSecond, the Ministerial Meeting of the Conference on International\nEconomic Cooperation in Paris should be given new impetus. We are making\nseveral new proposals:\n-- We will seek to help nations facing severe debt burdens. For\nacute cases we will propose guidelines for debt renegotiation. For\ncountries facing longer-term problems, we will propose systematic\nexamination of remedial measures, including increased aid.\n-- We will advance new ideas for expanded cooperation in energy\nincluding a regular process of information exchange among energy\nproducers and users, and an expanded transfer of energy-related\ntechnology to energy-poor developing nations.\nThird, the industrial democracies have been far too willing to wait for\nthe demands of the developing countries rather than to advance their own\nproposals. Now, however, the OECD countries, at the suggestion of the\nUnited States, have agreed to examine long-range development planning\nand to develop a more coherent and comprehensive approach to global\ngrowth and economic justice.\nFourth, natural disaster each year takes thousands of lives and costs\nbillions of dollars. It strikes most those who can affort it the least\n-- the poorest peoples of the world. Its toll is magnified by a large\narray of global issues -- overpopulation, food scarcity, damage to the\necology, and economic underdevelopment. The United Nations has a unique\nPR #485\n-13-\ncapacity to address these global concerns and thus improve man's odds\nagainst nature. We urge this body to take the lead in strengthening\ninternational cooperation to prevent and alleviate natural calamity.\nOur dream is that all the children of the world can live with hope and\nwidening opportunity. No nation can accomplish this alone; no group of\nnations can achieve it through confrontation. But together there is a\nchance for major progress -- and in our generation.\nInterdependence and Community\nIt is an irony of our time that an age of ideological and nationalistic\nrivalry has spawned as well a host of challenges that no nation can\npossibly solve by itself:\n-- The proliferation of nuclear weapons capacilities adds a new\ndimension of danger to political conflicts, regionally and globally.\n-- As technology opens up the oceans, conflicting national claims\nand interests threaten chaos.\n-- Man's inventiveness has developed the horrible new tool of terror\nthat claims innocent victims on every continent.\n-- Human and civil rights are widely abused and have now become an\naccepted concern of the world community.\nLet me set forth the United States' position on these topics.\nThe growing danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons raises stark\nquestions about man's ability to ensure his very existence.\nWe have lived through three perilous decades in which the catastrophe\nof nuclear war has been avoided despite a strategic rivalry between a\nrelatively few nations.\nBut now, a wholly new situation impends. Many nations have the potential\nto build nuclear weapons. If this potential were to materialize, threats\nto use nuclear weapons, fed by mutually reinforcing misconceptions, could\nbecome a recurrent feature of local conflicts in every quarter of the\nglobe. And there will be growing dangers of accidents, blackmail, theft\nand nuclear terrorism.\nUnless current trends are altered rapidly, the likelihood of nuclear\ndevastation could grow steadily in the years to come.\nWe must look first to the roots of the problem:\n-- Since the 1973 energy crisis and drastic rise in oil prices,\nboth developed and developing nations have seen in nuclear energy a\nmeans both of lowering the cost of electricity and of reducing\nreliance upon imported petroleum.\nPR #485\nPRESIDENT HAS States\n-14-\n-- In an age of growing nationalism some see the acquisition and\nexpansion of nuclear power as symbols of enhanced national prestige.\nAnd it is also clear that some nations, in attaining this peaceful\ntechnology, may wish to provide for themselves a future option to\nacquire nuclear weapons.\nA nation that acquires the potential for a nuclear weapons capability\nmust accept the consequences of its action. It is bound to trigger off-\nsetting actions by its neighbors and stimulate broader proliferation,\nthereby accelerating a process that ultimately will undermine its own\nsecurity. And it is disingenuous to label as \"peaceful\" nuclear devices\nwhich palpably are capable of massive military destruction. The spread of\nnuclear reactor and fuel cycle capabilities, especially in the absence\nof evident economic need and combined with ambiguous political and military\nmotives, threatens to proliferate nuclear weapons with all their dangers.\nTime is of the essence. In no area of international concern does the\nfuture of this planet depend more directly upon what this generation\nelects to do -- or fails to do. We must move on three broad fronts:\nFirst, international safeguards must be strengthened and strictly enforced.\nThe supply and use of nuclear materials associated with civilian nuclear\nenergy programs must be carefully safeguarded so that they will not be\ndiverted. Nuclear suppliers must impose the utmost restraint upon them-\nselves and not permit the temptations of commercial advantage to override\nthe risks of proliferation. The physical security of nuclear materials --\nwhether in use, storage or transfer -- must be increased. The Interna-\ntional Atomic Energy Agency must receive the full support of all nations\nin making its safeguards effective, reliable and universally applicable.\nAny violator of the IAEA safeguards must face immediate and drastic\npenalties.\nSecond adherence to safeguards, while of prime importance, is no guaran-\ntee against future proliferation. We must continue our efforts to forge\ninternational restraints against the acquisition or transfer of repro-\ncessing facilities which produce separated plutonium and of enrichment\nfacilities which produce highly enriched uranium - both of which are\nuseable for the construction of nuclear weapons.\nThird we must recognize that one of the principal incentives for seeking\nsensitive reprocessing and enrichment technology is the fear that\nessential non-sensitive materials, notably reactor-grade uranium fuel,\nwill not be made available on a reliable basis. Nations that show their\nsense of international responsibility by accepting effective restraints\nhave a right to expect reliable and economical supply of peaceful nuclear\nreactors and associated non-sensitive fuel. The United States, as a\nprincipal supplier of these items, is prepared to be responsible in this\nregard.\nIn the near future, President Ford will announce a comprehensive American\nprogram for international action on nor-proliferation that reconciles\nglobal aspirations for assured nuclear supply with global requirements for\nnuclear control.\nPR #485\n-15-\nWe continue to approach the proliferation problem in full recognition\nof the responsibility that we and other nuclear powers have -- both in\nlimiting our weapons arsenals and in ensuring that the benefits of peace-\nful nuclear energy can be made available to all states within a shared\nframework of effective international safeguards. In this way, the atom\ncan be seen once again as a boon and not a menace to mankind.\nAnother issue of vast global consequence is the Law of the Sea. The\nnegotiations which have just recessed in New York represent one of the\nmost important, complex and ambitious diplomatic undertakings in history.\nConsider what is at stake:\n-- Mankind is attemtping to devise an international regime for nearly\nthree quarters of the earth's surface.\n-- Some 150 nations are participating, reflecting all the globe's\ndiverse national perspective, ideologies, and practical concerns.\n-- A broad sweep of vital issues is involved: economic development,\nmilitary security, freedom of navigation, crucial and dwindling\nliving resources, the ocean's fragile ecology, marine scientific\nresearch, and vast potential mineral wealth.\n-- The world community is aspiring to shape major new international\nlegal principles: the extension of the long-established territorial\nsea; the creation of a completely new concept of an economic zone\nextending two hundred miles; and the designation of the deep seabed\nas the \"common heritage of mankind.\"\nWe have travelled an extraordinary distance in these negotiations in\nrecent years -- thanks in no small part to the skill and dedication of\nthe distinguished President of this Assembly. Agreement exists on key\nconcepts: a twelve-mile territorial sea; free passage over and through\nstraits; a two-hundred mile economic zone; and important pollution con-\ntrols. In many fields, we have replaced ideological debates with serious\nefforts to find concrete solutions. And there is growing consensus that\nthe outstanding problems must be solved at the next session.\nBut there is hardly room for complacency. Important issues remain which,\nif not/settled, could cause us to forfeit all our hard-won progress. The\nConference has yet to agree on the balance between coastal state and\ninternational rights in the economic zone; on the freedom of marine\nscientific research; on arrangements for dispute settlement; and, most\ncrucially, on the regime for exploitation of the deep seabeds.\nThe United States has made major proposals to resolve the deep seabed\nissue. We have agreed that the seabeds are the common heritage of all\nmankind. We have proposed a dual system for the exploitation of seabed\nminerals by which half of the mining sites would be reserved for the\ninternational authority and half could be developed by individual nations\nand their nationals on the basis of their technical capacity. We have\noffered to find financing and to transfer the technology needed to make\ninternational mining a practical reality. And in light of the many un-\nPR #485\n-16-\ncertainties that lie ahead, we have proposed that there be a review --\nfor example, in 25 years -- to determine whether the provisions on seabed\nmining are working equitably.\nIn response some nations have escalated both their demands and the\nstridency with which they advocate them.\nI must say candidly that there are limits beyond which no American\nAdministration can, or will, go. If attempts are made to compel\nconcessions which exceed those limits, unilateralism will become inevitable.\nCountries which have no technological capacity for mining the seabeds in\nthe foreseeable future should not seek to impose a doctrine of total\ninternationalization on nations which alone have this capacity and which\nhave voluntarily offered to share it. The United States has an interest\nin the progressive development of international law, stable order and\nglobal cooperation. We are prepared to make sacrifices for this -- but\nthey cannot go beyond equitable bounds.\nLet us therefore put aside delaying tactics and pressures and take the\npath of cooperation. If we have the vision to conclude a treaty con-\nsidered fair and just by mankind, our labors will have profound meaning\nnot only for the regimen of the oceans but for all efforts to build a\npeaceful, cooperative and prosperous international community. The\nUnited States will spend the interval between sessions of the Conference\nreviewing its positions and will approach other nations well in advance\nof the next session at the political level to establish the best possible\nconditions for its success.\nA generation that dreams of world peace and economic progress is plagued.\nby a new, brutal, cowardly and indiscriminate form of violence -- inter-\nnational terrorism. Small groups have rejected the norms of civilized\nbehavior and wantonly taken the lives of defenseless men, women, and\nchildren -- innocent victims with no power to affect the course of\nevents. In the year since I last addressed this body, there have been\n11 hijackings, 19 kidhappings, 42 armed attacks and 112 bombings per-\npetrated by international terrorists. Over 70 people have lost their\nlives and over 200 have been injured.\nIt is time this Organization said to the world that the vicious murder\nand abuse of innocents cannot be absolved or excused by the invocation\nof lofty motives. Criminal acts against humanity, whatever the pro-\nfessed objective, cannot be excused by any civilized nation.\nThe threat of terrorism should be dealt with through the cooperative\nefforts of all countries. More stringent steps must be taken now to\ndeny skyjackers and terrorists a safe haven.\nAdditonal measures are required to protect passengers in both transit\nand terminal areas, as well as in flight.\n# 485\n-17-\nThe United States will work within the International Civil Aviation\nOrganization (ICAO) to expand its present technical assistance to\ninclude the security of air carriers and terminal facilities. We urge\nthe universal implementation of aviation security standards adopted\nby ICAO. We are prepared to assist the efforts of other governments to\nimplement those standards.\nThe United States will support new initiatives which will ensure the\nsafety of the innocent. The proposal of the distinguished Foreign\nMinister of the Federal Republic of Germany, against the taking of\nhostages, deserves the most serious and sympathetic consideration of\nthis Assembly.\nThe United States will do everything within its power to work\ncooperatively in the United Nations and in other international bodies to\nput an end to the scourge of terrorism. But we have an obligation to\nprotect the lives of our citizens as they travel at home or abroad, and\nwe intend to meet that obligation. Therefore, if multilateral efforts\nare blocked by those determined to pursue their ends without regard\nfor suffering or death, then the United States will act through its\nown legislative processes and in conjunction with others willing to\njoin us.\nTerrorism is an international problem. It is inconceivable that an\norganization of the world's nations would fail to take effective action\nagainst it.\nThe final measure of all we do together, of course, is man himself.\nOur common efforts to define, preserve and enhance respect for the rights\nof man thus represent an ultimate test of international cooperation.\nWe Americans, in the year of our Bicentennial, are conscious -- and\nproud -- of our own traditions. Our founders wrote 200 years ago of\nthe equality and inalienable rights of all men. Since then the ideals\nof liberty and democracy have become the universal and indestructible\ngoals of mankind.\nBut the plain truth -- of tragic proportions -- is that human rights\nare in:jeopardy over most of the globe. Arbitrary arrest, denial of\nfundamental procedural rights, slave labor, stifling of freedom of\nreligion, racial injustice, political repression, the use of torture,\nand restraints on communications and expression -- these abuses are too\nprevalent.\nThe performance of the United Nations system in protecting human rights\nhas fallen far short of what was envisaged when this organization was\nfounded. The principles of the Universal Declaration are clear enough.\nBut their invocation and application, in general debates of this body\nand in the forums of the Human Rights Commission, have been marred by\nhypocracy, double standards, and discrimination. Flagrant and consistent\ndeprivation of human rights is no less heinous in one country or one\nsocial system than in another. Nor is it more acceptable when practiced\n# 485\n-18-\nupon members of the same race than when inflicted by one race upon\nanother.\nThe international community has a unique role to play. The application\nof the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be\nentrusted to fair and capable international bodies. But at the same\ntime let us ensure that these bodies do not become platforms from which\nnations which are the worst transgressors pass hypocritical judgment on\nthe alleged shortcomings.\nLet us together pursue practical approaches:\n-- to build on the foundations already laid at previous assemblies\nand at the Human Rights. Commission to lessen the abominable\npractice of officially sanctioned torture.\n-- to promote acceptance of procedures for protecting the rights\nof people subject to detention, such as access to courts, counsel,\nand families; prompt release or fair and public trial.\n-- to improve the working procedures of international bodies\nconcerned with human rights so that they may function fairly and\neffectively.\n-- to strengthen the capability of the United Nations to meet\nthe tragic problems of the ever growing number of refugees whose\nhuman rights have been stripped away by conflict in almost every\ncontinent.\nThe United States pledges its firm support to these efforts.\nConclusion\nMr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished delegates:\nThe challenge to statesmanship in this generation is to advance from the\nmanagement of crises to the building of a more stable and Just\ninternational order -- an order resting not on power but on restraint\nof power, not on the strength of arms but on the strength of the\nhuman spirit.\nGlobal forces of change now shape our future. Order will come in one\nof two ways: through its imposition by the strong and the ruthless\nor by the wise and farsighted use of international institutions through\nwhich we enlarge the sphere of common interests and enhance the sense\nof community.\nIt is easy and tempting to press relentlessly for national advantage.\nIt is infinitely more difficult to act in recognition of the rights of\nothers. Throughout history, the greatness of men and nations has been\nmeasured by their actions in times of acute peril. Today there is no\nsingle crisis to conquer. There is instead a persisting challenge\nof staggering complexity -- the need to create a universal community\n#485\n-19-\nbased on cooperation, peace and justice.\nIf we falter, future generations will pay for our failure. If we\nsucceed, it will have been worth of the hopes of mankind. I am\nconfident that we can succeed.\nAnd it is here, in the assembly of nations, that we should begin.\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\n1\nW\nscow, HY, MCF, LL\nAM-ISSUES-KISSINGER SKED 10-3\nBY HENRY KEYS\nWASHINGTON (UPI) -- NAMED OR NOT. SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY A.\nKISSINGER WILL BE A PRINCIPAL TOPIC IN WEDNESDAY'S FOREIGN POLICY\nEBATE BETWEEN PRESIDENT FORD AND JIMMY CARTER.\nC-RTE- HAS ALREADY TARGETED KISSINGER. ALTHOUGH NOT BY NAME. AS\nIN THE CONDUCT OF U. S. FOREIGN POLICY.\nUNDER THE NIXON-FORD ADMINISTRATION, THERE HAS EVOLVED A KIND OF\nSECRETIVE 'LONE RANGER' FOREIGN POLICY, A ONE-MAN POLICY OF\nINTERNATIONAL ADVENTURE,\" HE TOLD THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION IN\nNEW YORK JUNE 23.\n\"A FOREIGN POLICY BASED ON SECRECY INHERENTLY HAS HAD TO BE\nCLOSELY GUARDED AND AMORAL, AND WE HAVE HAD TO FOREGO OPENNESS,\nCONSULT-TION AND A CONSTANT ADHERENCE TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND\nHIGH MORAL STANDARDS.\"\nCARTER HAS REPEATED THE THEME THAT THERE IS NEED FOR OPEN\nDISCUSSION OF FOREIGN POLICY OPTIONS WITH CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN\nPEOPLE.\nBUT FORD, WHO HAS SAID HE WANTS KISSINGER TO STAY ON IN HIS\nC-BINET AS LONG AS KISSINGER WISHES TO, CAN CITE SOME IMPRESSIVE\nSTATISTICS ON THE NUMBER OF THE SECRETARY'S SPEECHES AND HIS\nAPPEARANCES BEFORE CONGRESSIONA COMMITTEES. THERE ARE ALSO THOSE\nNEWS CONFERENCES AND BRIEFINGS BY THE UBIQUITOUS \"SENIOR OFFICIAL\"\nWHO IS ALWAYS TRAVELLING WITH KISSINGER ABROAD.\nSO FAR THIS YEAR, KISSINGER HAS TESTIFIED 20 TIMES BEFORE\nCO GRESSIONAL COMMITTEES -- 15 AT OPEN SESSIONS AND FIVE TIMES aT\nCLOSED HEARINGS. HE HAS HAD AT LEAST 38 INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH\nMEMBERS OF CONGRESS EITHER ON CAPITOL HILL OR OVER LUNCH OR BREAKFAST\nAND IN HIS OFFICE. HE HAS HOSTED AND SPOKEN AT 10 FORMAL STATE\nDEPARTMENT LUNCHES AND DELIVERED 34 MAJOR ADDRESSES, 20 OF THEM TO\nPUBLIC GATHERINGS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND 14 BEFORE NATIONAL\nAND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.\nHE HAS ALSO HELD 33 NEWS CONFERENCES IN THE UNITED STATES AN 25\n-BROAD AND PARTICIPATED IN FIVE OTHERS WITH INTERNATIONAL LEADERS.\nADDED TO THIS IS A DIZZYING BUT UNRECORDED NUMBER OF BACKGROUND\nBESSIONS WITH REPORTERS ON HIS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD, IN\nTHE LOBBIES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, -N?\nEVE ON THE DOORSTEP OF HIS GEORGETOWN HOME.\nUPI 10-03 12:16 PED\nFord ce youga C\nTuro u M- upos He\nWrocns Bijedic upes\n1975Γ, KOLCETO noce-\nrigabu 10rocas.\n=c Sepex, upesia\nu upto\njaroszewicz 1975 npes\nSince Kissinger became Secretary of State\nhe has:\n-- Appeared before Congressional Committees\n83 times. In addition he has met informally\nwith Members of Congress innumerable times\n(40 times this year).\n-- Held 85 press conferences and many more\nbackground briefings with the press.\n-- Given 50 formal speeches in every region\nof the U.S.\n80 congressional breakfasts"
}