Abbildungen der Seite

All these efforts to build peace and promote progress reflect our common belief in freedom and our common hope of a better future for all mankind.


Our ties with the great democracies are thus not an alliance of convenience, but a union of principle in defense of democratic values and our way of life. It is our ideals that inspire not only our selfdefense but all else that we do. And the resilience of our countries in responding to all our modern challenges is a testimony to the spirit and moral strength of our free peoples.

As we look to the future there is no higher priority in our foreign policy than sustaining the vitality of democracy and the unity of democracies.

Our responsibilities are, first, our common defense. We must maintain it because it is the stability of the military balance that has brought about whatever hope there is of easing tensions in Europe and in Asia.

Our security is a precondition of all else that we do. On this foundation we will face, over the coming period, a broad range of tasks beyond the traditional enterprise of collective defense.

In the coming decade the collaboration of the industrial democracies can be the dynamic force in the building of a more secure and progressive international order. New steps have been taken in the last few years and further steps will be taken to strengthen European unity; this has the strong support of the United States. The new institutions and programs of collective energy strategy are in place. We have discussed and developed common approaches to the new dialog with the developing nations.

In recent months the Rambouillet economic summit and the Jamaica meeting to reform the international monetary system demonstrated that the future of our cooperation among the industrial democracies will be as fruitful as in the past.


In this regard I would like to mention an important item of business before the committee-approval of our participation in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Financial Support Fund. At little cost this mechanism will provide a financial safety net, combat protectionism, and promote our cooperation on energy policy. It is vital for the industrial nations' independence. Seven other ŎECD members have ratified it, and the rest are expected to do so by the middle of this year. I hope the Congress will move quickly to do the same.

Let me turn next to the basic problems of peace and equilibrium.


Of the challenges that the democracies face, none are more fundamental than the issues of peace and war.

There are three principal aspects to this problem: relations with the major Communist powers; the effort to resolve regional conflicts and

disputes peacefully; and the increasing danger of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Thirty years ago the United States enjoyed a tremendous preponderance in economic power and a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Today, because of the inevitable recovery and growth of our allies and our adversaries alike, the United States finds itself in a world of a relative kind of equilibrium. With our allies we have learned to share responsibility and leadership, and this has enhanced our collaboration in every dimension of common endeavor. With our adversaries we face the imperative of coexistence in an age of thermonuclear weapons and strategic parity. We must defend our interests, our principles, and our allies, while insuring at all times that international conflict does not degenerate into cataclysm. We must resist expansionism and pressures, but, we must, on this foundation seek to build habits. of restraint which will, over the long term, lead to a reliable reduction of tensions.

We have established a new and durable and hopeful relationship with the People's Republic of China. This new relationship has made an important contribution to peace in Asia and in the world. President Ford is committed to continue the process of normalization of our relations in accordance with the principles of the Shanghai communique.

And this country in the last several years has opened up positive relations with countries in Eastern Europe. Two American Presidents have visited Poland, Yugoslavia, and Romania to demonstrate that in our view European security and the relaxation of tensions apply to Eastern, as well as Western, Europe.

But, in an age when two nations have the power to visit utter destruction on the whole planet in hours, there can be no greater imperative than assuring a rational and secure relationship between the nuclear superpowers. This is a challenge without precedent. In the age of strategic equality, humanity could not survive such a repetition of history because war would mean mutual suicide.

Therefore, with respect to the Soviet Union, the United States faces the necessity of a dual policy. We must preserve stability but not rest upon it. We must resist and deter adventurism. But at the same time we must keep open the possibility of more constructive relations between the United States and the Soviet Union-resolving political disputes by negotiation, working out stable agreements to limit strategic arms on both sides; and, when political conditions permit it, developing bilateral cooperation in economic and other fields.

We have an obligation to mankind to work for a more secure world. We have an obligation to the American people to insure that a crisis, if it is imposed upon us, does not result from any lack of vision by the United States.

We face a long-term problem, and we must fashion and maintain a long-term policy. An equilibrium of power is indispensable to any hope for peace. But a balance of power constantly contested is too precarious a foundation for our long-term future. We must maintain a steady and confident course that our adversaries respect, our allies support, and our people believe in.


By whatever name we call it, the United States-Soviet relationship must be founded on certain fundamental principles, which this country has affirmed consistently.

First, we will maintain our military strength. The United States must maintain an equilibrium of power in all significant categories. Second, this country is prepared to negotiate solutions to political problems. Both superpowers share a basic responsibility to insure that the world is spared the holocaust of a nuclear war. Strategic arms limitation is, therefore, a permanent, mutual, and fundamental interest. Both sides have vital interests, but they have an overriding interest in avoidance of major conflict. Therefore, long-term peace can only be founded on the practice and habit of restraint. Exploiting local crises for unilateral gain is not acceptable. This Nation will not seek confrontations lightly; but we are determined to defend peace by resistance to pressures and irresponsible actions.

If we preserve security on this basis, opportunities exist for creative diplomacy to engage the Soviet Union more firmly and constructive participation in the international system.

[ocr errors]

Of course, differences are inevitable as to the practical application of these principles. But, as President Kennedy said, **in the final analysis our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

As the United States and the Soviet Union have taken important steps toward regulating their own competition, the problem of local conflicts persists and, indeed, to some extent increases. The world begins to take for granted the invulnerability of global stability to local disturbances. But tolerance of local conflict tempts world conflagration. We have no guarantee that some local crisis will not explode beyond control. We have a responsibility to prevent such crises.


Nowhere is there greater urgency than in the Middle East. The agreements negotiated between the parties over the past few years, in accordance with U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, are unprecedented steps toward an ultimate peace. These efforts must and will continue. Both sides must contribute to the process; the United States remains committed to assist. The elements for further progress toward peace exist. Stagnation runs a grave risk of further upheaval, of benefit to neither side, and of grave implications for the peace and economic well-being of the world.


Proliferation of nuclear weapons technology could add a more ominous dimension to a world in which regional political conflicts persist. The dangers so long predicted may be coming closer at hand. As I said to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1974:

The world has grown so accustomed to the existence of nuclear weapons that it assumes they will never be used. In a world where many nations possess nuclear

68-012 0-76-vol. 2- -2

weapons, dangers would be vastly compounded. It would be infinitely more difficult, if not impossible, to maintain stability among a large number of nuclear powers. Local wars would take on a new dimension. Nuclear weapons would be introduced into regions where political conflict remains intense and the parties consider their vital interests overwhelmingly involved. There would, as well, be a vastly heightened risk of direct involvement of the major nuclear powers.

Therefore, halting proliferation is a major foreign policy objective of this administration as it has been for all previous administrations since the dawn of the nuclear age. As I explained to your colleagues on the Senate Government Operations Committee just a week ago, we have intensified our efforts-in international bodies, with other nations that are principal exporters of nuclear materials, with potential nuclear powers-and with the Congress-to insure that the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy can be spread widely without at the same time spreading the perils of holocaust.


We now turn to the issue of shaping a world community. The upheavals of the 20th century have bequeathed to us another fundamental task-to adapt the international structure to the new realities of our time. We must fashion constructive long-term relationships between the industrial and developing nations, rich and poor, north and south; we must adapt and reinvigorate our friendships in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, taking into account their new role and importance on the world scene; and together with all nations we must address the new problems of an interdependent world which can only be solved through multilateral cooperation.

Therefore, just as we must go beyond maintaining equilibrium if we are to insure peace, so we must transcend tests of strength in north-south relations and seek to build a true world community. The United States will resist pressure tactics, one-way morality, and propagandistic assaults on our dignity and on our common sense. We will defend our interests and convictions without apology.

But we know, too, that world order depends ultimately on cooperative efforts and concrete solutions to the problems in our relations. The price and supply of energy, the conditions of trade, the expansion of world food production, the technological basis for economic development-these are concerns that affect all nations and that can be satisfactorily addressed only on the basis of mutual respect and in a framework of international collaboration.

We have much reason for confidence. It is the West-and overwhelmingly this country-that has the resources, the technology, the skills, the organizational ability, and the goodwill that are the key to the success of these international efforts.

Therefore, we have begun the dialog with the developing nations. We have undertaken it with a strong contribution from the Congress and in the spirit of the highest ideals of the American people. This must continue.

The United States-at the Seventh Special Session of the General Assembly, at the World Food Conference which was called at our initiative, and in the Conference on Economic Cooperation now underway in Paris-has presented a wide range of proposals for practical cooperation that could shape a constructive long-term

economic relationship between the developed and the developing countries. In every area of concern, we have proposed methods of cooperation among all countries, including the other industrial countries, the newly wealthy oil producers, and the developing countries. Many of our proposals of last September have already been implemented. More must be done. If we are met in a constructive spirit, we will respond.

The United States has longstanding friendships on a bilateral basis with the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, which we seek to adapt, improve, and build upon.

The importance of Latin America to the United States is steadily increasing as elements of the global economy, as participants in the world's political forums, and in their new role as the most developed of the developing nations.

The United States must adapt to these changing realities, and it has begun to do so. The Americas must build upon the precious heritage of our tradition of cooperation. This is the formula for our future progress.

Our relations with Asia are crucial as well, for in Asia the interests of all the major powers in the world intersect. The stability of the region will be central to world peace over the coming decades as it has been in the past decades.

Very soon, I will visit another area of great change and importance, namely Africa. Our African policy over the coming decade will be guided by these principles and concerns. We want to see Africa attain prosperity for its people and become a major participant in the international economic system; we support the desire of African nations to chart their own course in domestic, regional, and international affairs-to choose their own social system and a nonalined foreign policy; and we want to see self-determination, racial justice, and human rights spread through Africa.

As President Ford has recently made clear again, majority rule in Rhodesia and Namibia is the unequivocal commitment of the United States. We want to see the African continent be free of great power rivalry or conflict. We have our own interest in seeing that local conflicts in Africa not be exploited and exacerbated by outside forces intervening for unilateral advantage.

There are many urgent and unprecedented issues that can be addressed only on a global basis and whose resolution will fundamentally shape the future of this planet. A central example is the Conference on the Law of the Sea, which resumes its work this week in New York. In this unprecedented negotiation, over 100 nations are seeking to write new rules of law governing the use of the world's oceans. The implications for international security, for the use of vast resources, for scientific research, and for the protection of the environment, are considerable. The United States will continue its work with others to assure that the oceans become an arena of global cooperation and enrichment rather than global conflict.


We must extend the scope and reach of international institutions for cooperation.

« ZurückWeiter »