Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1554428",
    "label": "Second Debate: National Security Council Briefing Book (1)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554428"
}

{
    "id": "1554428",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554428",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Second Debate: National Security Council Briefing Book (1)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554428",
    "collections": [
        "White House Special Files Unit Files",
        "Ford - Carter Debates Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Israel",
        "Latin America",
        "Africa",
        "North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (4/4/1949 - )",
        "Arms control",
        "Arms transfers",
        "Campaign debates",
        "Foreign aid",
        "Foreign economic affairs",
        "Presidential campaign, 1976",
        "Terrorism",
        "United States-Soviet relations"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/28/5544/1554428/content/library/document/0010/1554428.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/28/5544/1554428/content/library/document/0010/1554428.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/28/5544/1554428/content/library/document/0010/1554428.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554428",
    "naId": 1554428,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-30",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/28/5544/1554428/content/library/document/0010/1554428.pdf",
    "mediaId": "9a0aa1151c7ab587",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 2, folder \"Second Debate: National Security\nCouncil Briefing Book (1)\" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R.\nFord 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.\nDigitized from Box 2 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE PRESIDENT\n1\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 30, 1976\nMR. PRESIDENT:\nRe: Second Debate\nAttached is a briefing book\nprepared by Brent Scowcroft\nand Bill Hyland. It pro-\nvides a general overview\nof your policies.\nWe are preparing cards with\nsuggested language for use\nduring the debate.\nMike\nMike Duval\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN s.d\nGENERAL\nHE\nTHE FORD RECORD IN FOREIGN POLICY\nFORD POSITION\nIn the past two years, we have accomplished a great deal through\ndynamic diplomacy and firm leadership in seeking solutions to many\ncomplex international political and economic issues. Let's review the\nrecord. First:\n-- We are at peace; no Americans are fighting on any battlefield.\n- - Our relations with allies in Europeand Asia have never been stronger.\n- - We are the acknowledged leader of the free world.\nWe are unsurpassed in our military strength\nWe have led the world out of economic recession\nWe have set the course for achieving solutions to the most\npressing problems before us: energy, food, population, and trade\nand monetary matters.\n- We have succeeded as peacemakers as represented most notably\nby our efforts in the Middle East (Sinai II) and in Africa.\n-- We have shown strength and the determination to use force\nwhere necessary (Mayaguez and Korea).\n-- We have reaffirmed our commitment to the security and survival\nof Israel with more than $4. 2 billion in assistance.\n-- We have maintained a sound relationship with the Soviet Union.\n-- I have established relationships of trust with leaders throughout\nthe world in more personal meetings with Heads of State and Governments\nthan any other President in a corresponding period of time.\n2\n-- In short, we have restored the United States to a position of\nrespect and trust in the eyes of our friends and allies and our enemies.\nWe are on the move again internationally and leading the world to solutions\nin each of its major problem areas:\nArms control\nEconomic stability and growth (trade, commodities)\nPeaceful settlement of disputes\nProtection of the environment and other resources (Law of the\nSea)\nFORD GOALS\nOur foreign policy has been very successful.\nWe are at peace. We are firmly allied with the great democracies.\nWe are reducing tensions with our opponents. We are using our position of\nworld leadership to resolve bitter conflicts. We have taken the lead in\ndirecting world attention and action toward the new international issues --\nfood, environment, energy, economic growth.\nMy overriding duty as President is to preserve the security and\nwell being of the United States, to ensure that peace is preserved, and\nthat we pass on to our children a safer, better world. We cannot afford\nto retreat and withdraw from our responsibilities. I will do not what is\npopular, but what is right.\nAnd what is right? I have five major goals:\n1. First, we must remain strong; our national defense cannot be\nweakened by mindless cutting of vital weapons programs and resources;\na weak America is a recipe for international disaster. We will lose the\nrespect of our adversaries and the confidence of our allies. This\nguarantees chaos or worse.\n2. Our strength is essential, but it is not enough. We must remain\nclosely linked to the great democratic countries that are our allies.\n3. We must use our strength and our leadership to find ways to\nreduce the danger of confrontation and conflict with our opponents - we\n- 2 -\nhave a duty to bring the dangerous competition in strategic nuclear weapons\nunder control and to reduce these weapons. I intend to complete the\nagreement I worked out with General Secretary Brezhnev to accomplish\nthis goal.\n4. We must continue to use our influence to resolve the tensions that\ncan erupt into dangerous conflicts, such as in the Middle East and in Africa.\n-- 1977 can be a year for major progress for peace in the Middle\nEast and Africa.\n-- We have made a major breakthrough to southern Africa, because\nthe US took the initiative.\n5. Finally, we have to face the new challenges that will be with us\nfor the remainder of the century:\n-- to provide the leadership essential to achieving sustained growth\nin the international economy and stability in the international monetary system.\n-- to ensure adequate energy and the steady expansion of the world\neconomy without inflation.\nWe are the world's leading country. We must continue to exercise\nworld leadership -- for the security and well being of our own people and\nfor all mankind.\nIt is our duty to bear the burden of leadership, to help build a world\nthat is safer, more prosperous, and more just. That is what our foreign\npolicy is all about.\nGERALD\n- 2 -\nThese are the objectives of our policy. Every Ame rican can\nbe proud of what this country has done, and is doing. I am tired of hearing\nour country denounced as immoral by people who clearly don't know what\nthey're talking about.\nMORALITY IN FOREIGN POLICY\nWe\nFORD POSITION\nWe hear a lot of talk about morality in foreign policy.\nI agree -- American foreign policy, if it is to have public\nsupport, must represent the ideals of the American people. Our policy\ndoes.\n-- I believe that seeking agreements that push back the specter\nof nuclear war is a moral policy.\n-- I believe that mediating conflicts, as in the Middle East, is\na moral policy.\n-- I believe that organizing world cooperation to boost food\nproduction, or to promote economic advancement in the poorer countries,\nis a moral policy.\n-- I believe that improving the solidarity and promoting the\nsurvival of the democratic nations, as we did at the two Economic Summit\nmeetings I attended, is a moral policy.\n-- I believe that standing loyally by our allies when they seek to\ndefend themselves against aggression is a moral policy.\nAnd we have seen, just in the last couple of weeks, in Africa, the\nUnited States engaged in helping achieve solutions that avert bloodshed and\nwidening war. We are seeking racial justice -- majority rule and minority\nrights. We are seeking an end to killing and a cooperative effort of progress.\nHUMAN RIGHTS\nFORD POSITION\nThe objectives of freedom for all men and women, the dignity\nand security of the individual, and the sanctity of law must always be\na fundamental element in our foreign policy.\nMy Administration has spoken out forcefully for human rights\nand supports strengthening the international protection of human rights,\nincluding the right to emigrate.\nAs we pursue these goals, if we really care about results, we\nmust avoid moral arrogance and self-righteousnesss. We must recognize\nthe great differences between our own history and our culture and those\nof other nations. And we must take into account the external and internal\nthreats other governments must deal with.\nLet's take an example. Korea is often cited as a repressive\ncountry where we supply assistance to a dictatorship. But let's look for\na moment at Korea's circumstances. It faces more than 400, 000 hostile,\nmodern, well-trained North Korean troops across the DMZ. In fact, it\nis virtually surrounded by the Soviet Union, the PRC and North Korea and\nis subject to severe externally-supported subversion and frequent aggressive\nacts by North Korea. We can and have made known our views on human\nrights to Korean leaders but it would be capricious and irresponsible to\nthem with\nthreaten /withdrawal of our support until they measure up to our standards --\n- 2 -\nparticularly in view of the threats they face. Experience has proven\nthat results in this area are best achieved by quiet diplomacy, not extortion\nor threats.\nGERALD\nKISSINGER\nQUESTION:\nThe Republican National Convention adopted a plank\ncalled morality in foreign policy, that has been widely\ninterpreted as a repudiation of Henry Kissinger. And\nin the primary campaign, the Secretary was attacked\nfor his handling of policy, mainly on the grounds that\nhe was too soft on the Soviets, that he conducted secret\npolicies, without any moral principle for a foundation.\nHow do you explain the growing controversy about\nKissinger and what changes in policy would you make\nif Kissinger leaves in your next term?\nFORD POSITION:\nEvery President ought to want the strongest advisers he can\nhave. This is especially true in foreign policy, where the United\nStates has an enormous responsibility as the keystone of western\nsecurity and the bulwark of the international economy. He needs a\nSecretary of the highest caliber, strong, intelligent, articulate, to\nadvise him and to implement his policies. Washington chose\nJefferson. Harry Truman chose Dean Acheson, who you remember\nwas not exactly popular at the time. Now I want a strong Secretary\nof State and Henry Kissinger is just that.\nYour judgment and mine on the performance of the Secretary\nof State ought to be based upon results -- the extent to which United\nStates interests abroad are secured and American ideals and value S\nreflected in our relations with other countries. On both counts,\nHenry Kissinger has been enormously successful. Respect for the\nUnited States internationally has never been higher. We are the\n- 2 -\nacknowledged and respected political military and economic leader\nof the free world. Our strength is unsurpassed. On every major\nissue of our time, the world looks to the United States for solutions\nas the sure, steady, inspirational defender of principle and the bastion\nof hope for the preservation of self-government, individual freedom\nand human rights.\nSecretary Kissinger's record speaks for itself. Let's\nremember the oil embargo: Kissinger went to the Middle East and\nnot only got the embargo lifted, but promoted the first real steps\ntoward peace in 20 years. And he negotiated another such step in\nthe Middle East last year. He engineered the opening to China, which\nwas a major breakthrough in American policy. Recently, he has been\nthe prime mover in heading off a bloody conflict in Africa. In short,\nhe has always worked brilliantly and tirelessly for peace. What is\nmore moral and in tune with our fundamental principles than that?\nAny strong active man will be criticized. That is not the issue.\nThe important questions are, is he good, is he effective? On those\ncentral questions, Henry Kissinger is second to none.\nSECRECY\nFORD POSITION\nMy record in foreign policy is there for all to see. There are no\nsecret deals. The agreements we have reached have been disclosed --\nin keeping with all the new requirements.\nThere have been more White House meetings with Congressmen, more\nspeeches and testimony by a Secretary of State, than at any time in the\nrecent past.\nDiplomacy can't be conducted without confidentiality during negotiations,\nand Governor Carter knows it. An Administration can't be run without\nenabling people to state their views candidly and freely. The Supreme\nCourt has recognized this.\nThe Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in secret, and its pro-\nceedings weren't published for 30 years. Because that's the only way you\ncan have free and candid discussion and negotiation.\nfor example,\nAfter the Sinai Agreement, /every single document connected with that was\nturned over to the foreign affairs committees of the Congress -- even docu-\nments that were not relevant to the American commitment that was being\nmade. Some said there was fuller disclosure of that negotiation to the\nCongress than they had ever seen before.\nTERRORISM\nFORD POSITION\nBased on our belief that the United Nations is the best forum\nto achieve the solution to what is truly an international problem, the\nUS introduced a draft convention to the United Nations General Assembly\nin 1972, designed to prevent the spread of terrorist violence; few nations\nsupported us then. But we have persisted. Last summer the US along\nwith the UK, introduced a resolution in the Security Council after the\nEntebbe incident calling for the condemnation of hijacking and all other\nterrorist acts and calling upon all countries to take every necessary\nmeasure to prevent and punish terrorist acts. The most pressing need\nis to deny sanctuary to hijackers and other terrorists. We will pursue\nour efforts toward this end with our Allies and friends, and with any\nnation that is willing to cooperate to end terrorism.\nTERRORISM\nQ: What steps has the Administration taken to combat international\nterrorism?\nA:\nBased on our belief that the United Nations is the best forum to achieve\nthe solution to what is truly an international problem, the US intro-\nduced a draft convention to the United Nations General Assembly in\n1972 designed to prevent the spread of terrorist violence; few nations\nsupported us then. But we have persisted. Last summer US along\nwith the UK introduced a resolution in the Security Council after the\nEntebbe incident calling for the condemnation of hijacking and all other\nterrorist acts and calling upon all countries to take every necessary\nmeasure to prevent and punish terrorist acts. We believe that world-\nwide cooperation is needed to deny sanctuary to hijackers and other\nterrorists and thus help eliminate this problem. We will pursue our\nefforts with our Allies and friends, and with any nation that is willing\nto cooperate to end terrorism. We will also do whatever we can\nusing our own resources to insure that these international criminals\nno longer threaten innocent lives.\nTERRORISM\nQ.\nCan the U.S. rely solely on the U.N. to solve the problem of\nterrorism?\nA.\nNo. We are working closely with many other nations on a bilateral\nbasis as well as taking steps on our own.\nOur bilateral approach has been met with an excellent response\nfrom our Allies and friends, especially in the important area of\nintelligence exchanges. We have also learned from the unfortunate\nexperiences of some countries and have been able to help them on\nsome of the technical aspects of preventing terrorism. Exchange\nvisits by U.S. and foreign experts and government officials charged\nwith combatting terrorism have also proved mutually beneficial.\nIn addition to these bilateral actions, we are taking steps on our\nown. The Departments of State and Justice have established special\nunits to seek solutions to the problem of terrorism. State has also\ntaken steps to enhance the security of our missions overseas. In\ncooperation with local political officials, the FBI, Customs, and other\nFederal law enforcement agencies have focused on the practical\nproblems of preventing and reacting to terrorist incidents. For\nexample, the security measures implemented at U.S. airports over\n- 2 -\nthe last few years, though causing some inconvenience, have\nresulted in a marked reduction in hijacking attempts in this country.\nThe recent hijacking of the TWA plane was the first in some four\nyears, but it shows that we need to improve our security and redouble\nour efforts. I have asked the FAA to look into airport security again\nand report the findings to me. As you know, the hijackers of the TWA\nplane did not in fact carry weapons onto the aircraft and this certainly\nwas a major factor in the successful conclusion of that hijacking.\nWe believe our bilateral and unilateral measures are effective means\nof deterring terrorism. We will continue, however, to institute new\nprocedures and, in concert with other countries, strengthen our measures\neven further in the years ahead.\n.\nUS/SOVIET RELATIONS\nFORD POSITION\nUS and Soviet Union are the two strongest nuclear powers. We have\nan obligation to our people to reduce the danger of confrontation and nuclear\nwar. It is my intention, while preventing Soviet expansionism, to move\nbeyond constant confrontation and crisis and to develop a more stable\nwith them.\nrelationship/ That requires, before all else, unquestioned military\nstrength. We have deep differences, we have fundamentally different\nsystems, but from a position of strength, we can seek to reduce tensions,\nto resolve issues peacefully. We won't solve every problem; we will\nresist when challenged, but we will seek to resolve issues in a constructive\nand mutually beneficial way.\nWe will not go back to the cold war. Relations with the Soviets require\nhard bargaining. We will not be taken advantage of, but we will seek to\nreduce tensions so that every issue does not lead to dangerous confrontation.\nWe have made real progress.\n-- In November 1975, we reached at Vladi vostok an agreement on\nlimiting strategic nuclear weapons. We agreed to limit both sides to an\nequal number of missiles and bombers. This was a major breakthrough --\nendorsed by the Senate in an overwhelming vote last May.\n-- We have further limited nuclear testing, for the benefit of the\nentire world.\n-- We have undertaken negotiations for mutual reduction of forces in\nCentral Europe.\n-2-\n-- We also have achieved a good agreement on grain sales to Russia.\nThey will buy at least six million tons.a year for five years. This gives us\na stable market for our farmers and avoids the drastic price fluctuations\nwhich have plagued us in recent years.\n-- We have a number of joint projects, in areas such as medicine,\nhousing, agriculture, the environment, science, in which we exchange\nexperience for the benefit of both people.\nOur relationship with the Soviet Union is complex. We have made\nprogress and have had setbacks. The way is not easy but our obligation\nto mankind compels us to try to find some way to live together.\n3\nQUESTION:\nHaven't relations with Russia deteriorated badly under\nyour Administration?\n-- The Soviets haven't cooperated in the Middle East. They\nintervened in Angola. Now they are attacking Kissinger\nin Africa. SALT has not made any progress. You elimi-\nnated the word detente, and the Soviets failed to live up to\nthe Helsinki Agreements. They have continued a major\nmilitary effort.\nFORD REBUTTAL\nWe have to see relations with the Soviet Union in historical perspective.\nFor decades we were bitter enemies. Only recently has there been a\nrelaxation of extreme tensions. So it is not surprising that the record is\nmixed. There are several aspects to our relations:\n1. Strategic nuclear competition is the most dangerous aspect; we have\nto bring nuclear weapons under control. In this I have made substantial\nprogress in negotiations for a new strategic arms agreement.\n2. For the area of direct military confrontation -- NATO -- the situation\nis stable. We have undertaken negotiations for the mutual reduction of forces.\n3. In other areas of the world, we expect Soviet restraint, not the\nprovoking of tensions or promoting proxy wars. The record in third world\nareas is mixed, but we have no chance of succeeding if we do not stand firm\nwhen challenged. The Congress cannot back down, such as in Angola, and\nthen blame the Soviets for continuing when they are unopposed -- or for taking\nrisks in other areas.\n4. Finally, in bilateral relations we have encouraged common interests\nin trade, in scientific cooperation. There has been progress. Trade is\nnow almost $2 billion, with more than $1 billion in grain sales by American\nfarmers.\n4\nSo, overall, the record has been on the plus side during my term.\nI saw Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko on Friday, and we agreed that\nthere is still strong mutual interest in making more progress.\n5\nQUESTION:\nYou are accused of slapping on too many grain embargoes.\nIf the Soviets confront us on some issues, would you apply\nnew embargoes?\nFORD REBUTTAL\nIn 1975 we faced a situation where the Soviets had a poor harvest.\nThey were going to be in the market for large purchases of grain. I\nwanted to avoid a situation where they bought millions and millions of\ntons in a very short period and drastically drove up prices in this country.\nThis would have been unfair to our consumers and to the farmers who sold\nearly when the market was low. So, I took action and halted sales\ntemporarily until we could see what our own supply situation would be.\nThat situation will not arise again. I have negotiated a long term\nagreement which levels out the peaks and valleys of Soviet grain purchases.\nWe got a solid package. The Soviets will buy each year at least six\nmillion tons of grain, and eight million if they want. Now we can plan on\nthat. There will not be any inflationary effect on prices. If the Soviets\nwant more grain, they can negotiate to buy it. So we have protected our\nmarkets, but also guaranteed sales of $4-5 billion, rather than storing\ngrain at subsidized prices to rot.\nGERALD\nTHE US-SOVIET NAVAL BALANCE\nFORD POSITION\n-- The United States Navy is unsurpassed today as it has been since\nWorld War II.\n-- However, in the past decade, the Soviet Navy has developed from\na force principally dedicated and structured for defense of the Soviet\nhomeland to a force capable of challenging U.S. naval power worldwide.\n-- The capabilities of this force are improving, although still\nprimitive in important areas.\n-- There are important geopolitical reasons why we must maintain\nmaritime superiority over the Soviet Union. Hawaii, the commonwealths\nof Puerto Rico and Guam, several territories and 41 of our 43 allies lie\noverseas.\n-- Our ability to reinforce U.S. and Allied forces in time of conflict\nis heavily dependent on sea power. Nearly all of our major allies are\nalso dependent on the seas. The standard of living and well-being of our\ncitizens are closely linked to world trade.\n-- Thus, we must maintain the freedom of the seas and the ability\nto control vital sea lanes in both peace and war.\n-- The Soviet maritime objective is simpler. It is to be able to disrupt\nour use of the seas, to expand their influence through naval visits around\nthe world and homeland coastal defense.\n2\n-- These differing maritime objectives lead to forces which differ\nin composition and size. Much of the debate over the past two years\nhas focused on various numbers games which overlook this fact. What\nis important is to determine whether our Navy can continue to carry out\nits objective of keeping the sea lanes open.\n-- We can do so today. I have been concerned, however, about\nthe trends in the U.S. -Soviet naval balance.\n-- Throughout my 27 years of public service in the Congress and\nin the White House, my record is one of total commitment to a strong\nnational defense. The two defense budgets I have submitted to Congress\nhave reflected that commitment.\n-- Over the past decade the Congress has hacked away at the defense\nbudget, cutting a total of $50 billion. Last year, this Congress cut almost\n$7 billion from the first budget I submitted.\n-- This year, I decided that we should meet the Congressional\nchallenge head-on. I submitted a budget that would keep our forces strong\nand capable of carrying out any of the missions assigned to them. While\ncuts were again made, they were smaller than in previous years and\nresulted in the largest appropriation for defense in our Nation's history.\n-- Included in my two budget submissions were significant increases\nin naval shipbuilding. In January, I also directed that the National Security\nCouncil initiate a review of our overall shipbuilding program. Based on\n3\nan imterim report from the review group, in May I submitted a supplemental\nbudget request for $1. 1 billion in additional shipbuilding. The Congress has\nfailed to act on that request. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that we\nmust build more, capable ships. I will continue to press for additional\nnaval shipbuilding.\n-- The program I have submitted over the past two years includes\nan additional nuclear-powered carrier, Trident submarines to maintain\ndeterrence of nuclear war, and a mix of nuclear-powered strike cruisers\nand conventionally-powered guided missile destroyers. These ships will\nbe equipped with anti-ship missiles to engage hostile surface combatants\nat long range. We are also counting on a new class of guided missile\nfrigates for the sea control mission. To maintain the qualitative superiority\nof our attack submarine force, additional LOS ANGELES class submarines\nare included. Finally, in keeping with the concept of a balanced fleet,\nadditional modern support ships are provided.\n-- This shipbuilding program, when combined with existing units,\nwill maintain our superiority at sea. Failure to fund this program adquately\nwill severely degrade our national security. I do not intend to let that\nhappen.\nBERALD\nof\nALLIANCES\nFORD POSITION\nNothing is more fundamental to American foreign policy than\nour alliances with Europe and with Japan. This is the cornerstone\nof our policies, and has been since Presidents Truman and Eisenhower.\nOne hour after I took office I met with Ambassadors from NATO\ncountries to pledge my Administration to the Western Alliance. That\nAlliance is the essential deterrent against attack. US troops (200, 000)\nplay a crucial role and cannot be unilaterally reduced or withdrawn\nwithout devastating impact.\nI have made it a priority task to strengthen that Alliance. We\nhave increased combat troop strength and made good progress in\nstandardization of equipment. We have increased the contribution of\nthe member nations. The military strength and cohesion of our alliances\nmaintain the global balance of power and enhance the security and\nfreedom of all nations.\nBut alliances must mean more than military defense. We want\nto use Western unity for peace; we want to reduce military tensions and\nconfrontation in Central Europe where almost two million men face each\nother. We want to promote cooperation between Western and Eastern\nEurope;by expanding trade, exchanges of people, and ideas we can\ncreate more peaceful relations. Finally, we work together with the\n-2-\nindustrial democracies because we have major common interests\nin such global problems as energy, trade, commodities, and\nrelations with less developed countries.\nIn the Far East, our security pact with Japan is indispensable\nto stability in Asia. It is with gratification I say that relationship\nhas never been stronger.\nI have met twice in summit conferences with leaders of Europe\nand Japan to work out solutions of world-wide inflations and recessions,\nand we have made solid progress.\nIn all areas -- military, political, and economic -- we must\nin our own self-interest cooperate with our Allies. We cannot lapse\nback into isolationism -- we know what that has cost in the past.\nWe face new and unprecedented problems, particularly in global\neconomics, so closer relations among the industrial democracies is\nindispensable.\nCYPRUS - GREECE - TURKEY\nGERALD\nFORD POSITION\nThe US has made a major effort to reconcile the conflict between\nGreece and Turkey and find a solution to the Cyprus crisis.\nUnfortunately, the Turkish arms embargo passed by Congress\nin February 1975, severely disrupted and damaged our ability to remain\neven-handed. It blocked progress toward reconciliation. As a result,\nour early efforts at a diplomatic solution to the Cyprus problem met with\nlittle success and valuable time was lost.\nNevertheless, we have worked with all parties to find a fair\nsolution. We believe:\n-- A settlement must preserve the independence, sovereignty\nand territorial integrity of Cyprus;\n-- Ensure that both communities on the island can live in freedom\nand have a large voice in their own affairs;\nRefugses\n-- Any dividing lines must allow for the economic requirements\nof the Greek-Cypriot community and take account of its self-respect;\n-- - There must be provision for the withdrawal of foreign military\nforces.\nWe have pressed our views at the highest levels in Athens and\nAnkara and supported the efforts of United Nations Secretary General\nWaldheim to bring the sides together. The United States, through the UN\n-2-\nHigh Commissioner for Refugees, has contributed some $25 million\nin each of the past two years to help to alleviate these problems.\nIn the Aegean, the US has been actively urging Greece and Turkey\nto agree upon some pacific procedure for the resolution of their differences\nover sovereignty in the Aegean Islands and surrounding waters.\nOn August 25, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution co-\nsponsored by the United States, which asked Greece and Turkey:\n-- to resume direct discussions toward resolving their differences;\n-- to consider all appropriate forums, including the International\nCourt, in which elements of the Aegean dispute might be settled.\nThe Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers will be meeting in\nNew York to continue discussions and we will remain active in urging\nboth parties to settle the outstanding issues in the Aegean.\nUS-GREEK SECURITY AGREEMENT\nFORD POSITION\nOn April 15, the United States and Greece initialed a \"framework\"\nsecurity agreement, including approximately $700 million in US assistance\nfor Greece over the next four years. The negotiations on the details of\nthe US-Greek Security Agreement are continuing. We are hopeful that the\nfew remaining differences will soon be settled and that the agreement will\nsoon be sent to the Congress for its approval.\nWe believe that vital US and NATO security interests are at stake in\nthis agreement. Aid to Greece is not given as \"rent\" for our bases, as\nsome would suggest, but rather as a contribution to our common security.\nThe agreement does not include any obligation to armed military\nintervention in regional disputes. The public exchange of letters between\nthe Secretary of State and the Greek Foreign Minister on April 15 under-\nscores the concern with which we would view a resort to force by any\nnation in resolving the problems of the area.\nUS-TURKISH DEFENSE COOPERATION AGREEMENT\nFORD POSITION\nOn June 16, I sent the new US-Turkish bilateral Defense Cooperation\nAgreement (DCA) -- signed by Secretary of State Kissinger and Turkish\nForeign Minister Caglayangil in Washington on March 26 -- to the Congress\nfor approval.\nThe agreement with Turkey reflects the vital defense interests we\nshare as NATO allies in the Eastern Mediterranean. The DCA makes\nan important contribution to the national security interests of the United\nStates and for this reason is very much welcomed.\nThis administration has fully supported early and favorable\nconsideration by both Houses of the Congress. On September 14, Administration\nwitnesses testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor\nof early acceptance. The Turkish Foreign Minister reportedly has said\nthat any amendment to the DCA by the Congress would amount to rejection\nof the accord and that US operations at the joint defense bases in Turkey\nwould not be resumed. We will continue to urge the Congress to take\nfavorable action.\nEASTERN EUROPE\nFORD POSITION\nMy policy toward Eastern Europe is quite clear. It is reflected in\nmy visits to Poland and Yugoslavia and Romania.\nWe strongly support the national independence and autonomy of\npeoples everywhere, including the peoples of Eastern Europe. I am\ntotally opposed to so-called spheres of influence -- or \"dominion\" of\nEastern Europe -- by any power.\nWe have implemented this policy by practical actions: We have a new\ntrade agreement with Romania. I met with Polish First Secretary Gierek\nin Washington in October 1974 and again in Warsaw in July 1975, and we\nagreed on the improvement of relations between our two countries. We\nhave provided for the further development of commercial economic,\ncultural, scientific and technological cooperation. Trade between us has\nincreased over the last two years by 27 percent to over $800 million a year.\nI have also met in Belgrade with President Tito last summer.\nIn all these efforts, I have stressed my hope for closer cooperation\nbetween Eastern and Western Europe. That was one of the objectives\nof the Helsinki Summit of July 1975, which was supported by all Europeans\nand the Vatican.\nI believe that this policy and the actions we have taken to implement it are\ncreative and cooperative toward the nations of Eastern Europe. It is the policy\nthat embraces our most important ideals as a nation and it is one I intend to\ncontinue.\nARMS SALES\nFORD POSITION\nAssisting friendly countries in strengthening their self-defense\ndoes not threaten peace, it strengthens world stability. By the end of\nthe troubled 1960's it was obvious that the U.S. could not and should\nnot try to be the world's policemen. Instead, we must be able to\nrely on our allies to assume greater regional security responsibilities.\nWherever countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia have assumed\nthe major responsibility for maintaining stability in their regions,\nthe United States has not had to do so. But we do have a clear interest\nin helping such friends help themselves, as a means of reducing our\ndirect involvement.\nLet's take Iran, which has been the subject of controversy.\nThat country has a common border with the Soviet Union on the north.\nIt borders Iraq on the west, which is heavily supplied by the Soviet\nUnion. It delivers oil through the narrow straits of the Persian Gulf.\nSo it is not surprising that Iran wants to be able to defend itself.\nThey have ordered fighters for air defense and destroyers and patrol\ncraft for naval defense. Naturally, they want the most modern\nequipment for their money. And they could buy from other suppliers.\nSo I think it is clearly in the U.S. interest to be cooperative with\nIran. And we must remember that during the oil embargo Iran continued\ndelivering oil to the U.S.\nARMS\nCONTROL\nSALT\nFORD POSITION\nIn the nuclear age, there is no higher duty of the President\nthan to push back the danger of nuclear war that would kill hundreds\nof millions. A critical step is to bring nuclear weapons under\ncontrol, and limit them. We did this in 1972 with two agreements:\n(1) A treaty to limit anti-ballistic missile defense to only two sites,\nand (2) A five-year agreement to freeze the number of ICBM's and\nsubmarine-launched missiles.\nShortly after I took office I agreed to meet with General\nSecretary Brezhnev to work out a long-term agreement. We agreed\non a basic framework in November 1974 in Vladivostok. That agree-\nment will run through 1985, and accomplishes three positive steps:\n1. First, we agreed to equal limits on the total numbers of\nmissiles and bombers at 2400 -- this is slightly more than we have,\nso we are building up to it - but the Soviets will have to reduce to\nget to the ceiling.\n2. Second, we agreed to an equal limit on missiles with multiple\nwarheads (1320).\n3. Finally, and most important, we agreed on the need to\nreduce the numbers of strategic weapons.\nThis is major progress. And recently (in May) the Senate\nendorsed completing this Agreement as soon as possible by a vote of\n- 2 -\n89 to 7. We are now close to a final treaty, which is being worked\nout in Geneva.\nI spoke with Foreign Minister Gromyko on this last Friday,\nand I am optimistic about being able to complete the remaining work.\nThe remaining issues are tough ones, but I think they can be solved.\n3\nQuestion: It has been almost two years since you agreed on SALT\nwith Brezhnev in Vladivostok, but there is no agreement.\n-- Some say you are afraid to complete the agreement,\nbecause it will be opposed by conservatives such as\nGovernor Reagan.\nOthers say you cannot get agreement within your own\nAdministration, that Kissinger wants an agreement but\nthe Defense Department and Arms Control Agency are\nopposed.\nFORD REBUTTAL\nThe Vladivostok Agreement was a basic framework. The main\nissue then was whether the ceilings would be equal, or whether the\nSoviets should get a bonus because we had bases overseas and the British\nand French have strategic nuclear weapons. We settled that overriding\nissue on favorable terms. The ceilings are equal. This could only be\nresolved at the Summit because it was a political decision. There has\nbeen major progress on a wide range of issues since then.\nmajor\nThere are only two/is'sues left. They are difficult for two\nGERALD\nreasons:\n-- First, the Soviets have a bomber that is not truly a long-range\nbomber, but is better than a medium range one. So the question is how\ndo you deal with a weapon which does not fall into a neat category?\nThis is still being discussed, and we are seeking ways to resolve it\nin a way which meets the requirements of both sides.\n-- Second, there are the cruise missiles -- a sort of winged\nmissile -- that already exist for short ranges of about 150 miles but\ncould be developed to go much further. We are debating how to limit\n4\nthese kinds of weapons, which are quite new. Some are strategic\nweapons; others are purely tactical. They can be launched from\nairplanes, surface ships, submarines, and from land. We are\nseeking new formulations to cope with this new and unusual weapon.\nStrategic arms limitation is too important an issue to use it\nfor partisan politics. We will make an agreement as soon as we\nhave terms which are in the national interest and both sides are\nin accord, but I will neither rush an agreement to make a headline\nnor delay for fear of criticism.\n5\nQUESTION:\nMany people say that the SALT Agreements were\nhastily negotiated by Kissinger so that Nixon could\nuse them for the elections of 1972. They point out\nthat the Soviets have taken advantage of loopholes and\nhave even cheated. How can we have confidence in\na new agreement?\nFORD REBUTTAL\nBoth sides have lived up to the agreements. This is a new\nexperience; these are the first such agreements in our history. It\nis not surprising that there have been some uncertainties and\nambiguities. As a matter of fact, the 1972 agreement foresaw just\nsuch problems and established a joint commission to deal with them.\nIt has worked well.\nThe National Security Council and the Intelligence Agencies\nhave special groups to monitor these agreements very closely. They\nreport to me regularly and in some cases we have taken action and\nraised with the Soviets actions that have worried us. In each case,\nwe have settled the issues. In fact, in one case the Soviets volunteered\nto us that they had not met the agreed schedule on dismantling of older\nmissiles. We already knew of this, and gave them conditions for\nsettling the matter which they accepted. So, with good intelligence and\ncareful monitoring we can see to it that agreements are kept.\nNUCLEAR ENERGY AND NON-PROLIFERATION\nFORD POSITION:\nNuclear energy offers great potential to substitute for our\ndwindling oil supply and to provide electric power with little\nenvironmental impact. Nuclear energy is one of the world's great\nalternative sources of power, and it is our obligation as the tech-\nnologically most advanced country to exploit its potential for the\nbenefit of the entire world.\nHowever, in addition to its tremendous benefits, nuclear\nenergy also has unparalleled potential for evil. It not only can be\ntransformed into explosives of unimaginable destructiveness, but\nsome of its forms are highly toxic and highly indestructible, posing\nsubstantial problems of environmental contamination.\nThe U.S. has been the world's leader in devising protection\ndangers\nfrom the / of nuclear energy while developing its potential for\ngood. As a result of our efforts:\n-- There are 100 countries belonging to the Non-Proliferation\nTreaty, which precludes possession of nuclear weapons,\n-- The International Atomic Energy Agency has been established\nto provide international inspection and safeguards over the\nworld's nuclear facilities.\n-- The export guidelines of the major nuclear supplier nations\nhave been concerted in order that commercial competition\n- 2 -\ndoes not undercut non-proliferation objectives,\n-- We remain the most important international nuclear\nsupplier -- and it is from this role and its relationships\nthat we have influence and control over the nuclear\npolicies of recipient countries,\n-- We have programs to dispose, permanently and safely,\nof the radioactive wastes produced by these plants,\n-- In order to assure that the construction and utilization of\nnuclear power plants is carried out under completely\nsafe conditions, we established the federal Nuclear\nRegulatory Commission to oversee and regulate the\nsiting, engineering, and operation of these plants.\nI am satisfied that these actions have been very effective in\npreventing proliferation and improving safety. However, the problem\nis so crucial that I am not willing to rely on past policies. I have a\ncomplete review of non-proliferation under way at this time, and\nexpect soon to announce further objectives and initiatives to put a\ncap on the possibility of the spread of nuclear weapons, while retaining\nthe benefit represented by nuclear energy."
}