Abbildungen der Seite

The CHAIRMAN. This question is often put to me by officials of other governments that are visiting here. In fact, I would say over the last 2 years I have probably had this identical question put, maybe 50 times. It is a two part question.

First, is the United States going isolationist and second, will the United States keep its commitments abroad? I answered definitely no, on isolationism, and definitely yes, on the other proposition. Were those the correct answers in your opinion?

Secretary KISSINGER. I think these are the correct answers. But, beyond the commitments, the involvement of the United States is not determined only by legal documents, but also by our perception of the requirements of our security, the security of our allies and other countries, and by our understanding of the elements of the world equilibrium. Between the legal commitments and our role in the world, there is a gray area that has to be filled in by any administration as conditions develop, in cooperation with the Congress.

I think the answers, insofar as they go, are correct. I would agree

with them.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to repeat what I said when you finished your statement. I thought it was a very fine, forceful statement, and constitutes a very fine charter for us to follow. I want to express my appreciation, and that of the committee, for this very fine presentation that you have given us.

Anything further?

Senator SYMINGTON. I have some questions.

Senator CASE. I had one or two, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SYMINGTON. Go ahead, Senator Case.

Senator CASE. Oh, no, after you.

The CHAIRMAN. One of you go. Let me say this, Senator Symington slipped me a note a little while ago when we were talking about the Middle East which said, how about something for Midwest America.

Senator CASE. I think that Senator Symington ought to take this round, Mr. Chairman, if that is all right, because he is entitled to it on his own part and also because I have to have a picture taken with some school kids who are outside in the anteroom.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Senator. I know that it is secondary to your thought, and I thank you.


Mr. Secretary, you stated that "At Vladivostok in 1974, President Ford reached agreement on the outline of a comprehensive agreement putting an equal ceiling on strategic forces on both sides for a 19-year period. The issues that remain in completing that agreement are soluble." Do you think we are making any real progress?

Secretary KISSINGER. Well, the status of the negotiations is that we have put a proposal to the Soviet Union and we are awaiting their response and, therefore, I cannot give you a clear-cut answer until we have their response.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.


You also say, "The United States will never stand for violation of a solemn treaty or agreement." In my opinion the most dangerous thing that has happened, since World War II from the standpoint of our own security, is the arrangement that the Germans have made with the Brazilians, giving them a full nuclear fuel cycle, which as we know means a technical capability to make nuclear weapons. Was there no violation of any agreement or treaty in that unfortunate development?

Secretary KISSINGER. No, there is no violation of a treaty or an agreement. It is a question of national policy or public policy.

Senator SYMINGTON. I remember, you told us in the committee that we had done our best to stop it. But, later on, in a public statement, the Chancellor of Germany said he had not had any criticism from anybody, at any time. I would hope you will tell him that if he is interested in us putting up these billions to defend his country, he had better start telling the truth.

Secretary KISSINGER. Well, I am glad to see that other countries have communication problems between their departments.

Senator SYMINGTON. Was that what it was, a communication problem?

Secretary KISSINGER. I do not know, but we certainly made our view clear to the Foreign Minister, which he confirmed.


Senator SYMINGTON. One point worried me. I am talking now as Chairman of the Arms Control Subcommittee of this Committee, and as Chairman of the Military Applications and National Security Subcommittee of the Joint Committee. You said in a statement before the Government Operations Committee, that the so-called controls of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] were "adequate." Last summer I went to the IAEA with experts from this committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Joint Committee; and we decided, after spending some days over there, that the concept of any meaningful control was a joke, and that from the standpoint of actual thrust, you might say, the IAEA was quite comparable in a different subject, to the problem we face today with the United Nations.

Would you comment on whether we can, in any way, make the controls of the IAEA meaningful and if there is any way that we could prevent a country like Libya from applying, getting all of the information available, and then as you know, under the contract or agreement that they sign for the Nonproliferation Treaty, are allowed to withdraw in 90 days?

Secretary KISSINGER. From the Nonproliferation Treaty, but not from the IAEA safeguard.

Senator SYMINGTON. Well, they can withdraw from that.

Secretary KISSINGER. Yes, but not without penalty-not without being cut off from all nuclear fuel.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you think the penalties are meaningful? Secretary KISSINGER. Well, Senator, you made the statement to me last week after my testimony before the Government Operations Com

mittee and I have not seen the safeguards challenged before on technical grounds, and I have now asked my people to look into this.

I would rather study their report before I give you a final answer on it, because I had always assumed that the safeguards were adequate. Senator SYMINGTON. I appreciate that because you say something in your statement that I could not agree with more. "It is a challenge to statesmanship to see beyond the immediate economic gains for unrestrained competition in nuclear exports and to act to halt a mushrooming danger."


You say in your statement "In the global dialogue among the industrial and developing worlds, the Communist nations are conspicuous by their absence, and indeed, by their irrelevance." Now, for some months we have been hearing about this classified meeting of seven countries in London.

Secretary KISSINGER. Yes.

Senator SYMINGTON. And, we seem to be having trouble about it, and the story has been leaked out to the press that one of the troubles about it is the intransigence of the Soviet Union.

In the first place, I think the fact that they

Secretary KISSINGER. Are you talking about the nuclear exporters meeting?

Senator SYMINGTON. Yes. It is not a Communist nation-it is entirely a different nation that is giving us the most trouble in preventing the people of the world from getting the truth about the incredible new danger to the world posed by proliferation of radioactive materials such as plutonium or enriched uranium.

I would not want the record to show, unless I am wrong, in which case you can correct me, that the Soviet Union is blocking the people of the world from knowing about what is going on at this meeting, which could be deciding, so to speak, whether we are going to have an Armageddon or whether we are not. Would you comment?

Secretary KISSINGER. Well, the Soviet Union has been very responsible at this nuclear exporters meeting because being a large nuclear power, they are perhaps better aware of the dangers of the unrestricted use of nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear weapons than many other countries. At the same time I think progress has been made at the nuclear exporters meeting on many of the key issues.

The one issue that is not resolved is the complete fuel cycle, and particularly the reprocessing plant. These countries are meeting again, in June, and we are hopeful that further progress can be made. So, Í would not want to leave the impression that any of the countries participating have been totally uncooperative.


Senator SYMINGTON. Have the French agreed to withdraw their offer to South Korea to give a reprocessing facility?

Secretary KISSINGER. Korea decided not to proceed, so, I think the issue is moat.

Senator SYMINGTON. But, the French would not put the pressure on them. They asked us to do it; did they not?

Secretary KISSINGER. Well, we had the consultations with South Korea.

Senator SYMINGTON. I only asked that because through your entire statement, we run into this word, "allies" and I think about the statement, I can protect myself against my enemies, but God protect me against my friends. I believe you, yourself, have had some experiences along those lines.


I just have one more question which has been submitted to me by a member of the press and a friend, "please ask Senator Symington to ask the question about the CIA saying Israel has 10 to 20 nuclear devices." Would you comment on that, or is the CIA an independent agency, now, from the State Department, or would you prefer not to comment?

Secretary KISSINGER. Well, I have never seen the precise statement that was made.

Israel had said that it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, and I do not know the precise context in which this CIA statement was made.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not either. So, I can only ask the question as it was presented.

Secretary KISSINGER. At any rate, whenever that statement was made, they were acting as an independent agency. Senator SYMINGTON. One more question.


When do you think we are going to get some information to the people of this country and of the other countries so that they will understand what is going on in this effort to control proliferation that has been going on in London?

Are we the ones holding it up?

Secretary KISSINGER. No, we considered it a major achievement to assemble the seven nuclear exporters, many of whom had previously resisted any effort to get an international consensus. They are also concerned about giving the impression of forming a sort of directorate, and it is to take account of the convictions of some of these countries that we have agreed to proceed by simply stating the restrictions that we would observe and that we have reason to believe, as a result of these discussions, that all other seven will also observe, and I think that as an initial step considerable progress has been made.


Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you very much. I just have one more question. Up in Hannibal, Mo., last Saturday night a young newspaper man asked me what détente meant. I told him I would ask you today. I want to fulfill my obligation. Would you be good enough to tell us?

Secretary KISSINGER. Well, détente is--once again I want to make clear, you are imposing on me

Senator CASE. I did not find the word in the statement of the Secretary, did you?

Secretary KISSINGER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator SYMINGTON. I did not say that you said it in the statement. I said that a young man asked me, and I thought you were more of an expert on it than the Senate, or at least more than I.

Secretary KISSINGER. If I am found talking about détente by a television camera without explaining how that came about, the wrong impression of disobedience might be created.


Secretary KISSINGER. What it means is: It is the term which has been used to describe our relationship with the Soviet Union, and it is based on the element of resistance to expansion, but keeping in mind that we also have an obligation to produce, to bring about a more secure and stable world. It is a dual policy that tries to couple resistance to aggression with a world which does not rely only on a balance of terror for its security.

I believe it is in the interest of the American people and in the interest of mankind and, indeed, there is no alternative to it.

What word we give this policy I do not consider important. But that the United States must both resist aggression and build a better world, this must be an imperative of our foreign policy.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I must leave. Can you stay and continue, you and Senator Case?

Senator SYMINGTON. Sure.

Senator CASE. Of course.

The CHAIRMAN. I have an appointment which I must go to. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator CASE. Mr. Secretary, would you like to take a little time.


Secretary KISSINGER. No, no, I am fine, just getting some instructions from Mr. McCloskey.

Senator CASE. I know, I often benefit by the same kind of interest on the part of my associates.


Just to bring my point into focus, I will quote a couple of sentences with which I fully agree.

It is we who maintain a global balance of power that keeps the peace. There is the continuing need to moderate and resolve regional conflicts which threaten global economic or political stability. The world needs desperately our strength and our purpose. Without American strength, there can be no security; without American convictions, there can be no progress.

Relating this, first, to the matter of Angola, just because the Secretary has his own view about this and we have ours, and whenever a thing is raised it seems to me it is almost necessary for us to present our thing in a sentence or two. We did not disagree that it is terribly serious that the Russians are exerting power so far away from their normal orbit, and that it was a matter of great concern that they should do this, especially with the use of Cuban mercenaries, adding

68-012 0-76-vol. 1

« ZurückWeiter »