through developing and consolidating the policy of peaceful coexistence between states of different orders and outlawing war as a means of solving international problems. Parliamentarians have great opportunities, he felt, to influence government policies and to mobilize parliamentary and public opinion in the name of peace, security and friendship among nations. The best way to serve mankind is through seeking peace and disarmament, recognizing the legitimate interests of all nations and determining to turn international detente into an irreversible process.

Mr. Jivkov stated that the People's Republic of Bulgaria would continue to conduct a consistent policy of peace and cooperation with all forces that stood for freedom, independence and good neighborly relations. He wished the Interparliamentary Conference great success in its responsible activities aimed at consolidating world peace, security and cooperation among peoples and furthering the process of detente in international relations.

Mr. Jivkov then declared the conference open.

PLENARY SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE

GENERAL DEBATE

Starting at 3:05 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, September 21, and ending at 12:45 p.m. on Friday, September 22, four plenary sessions of the conference held the statutory general debate on the political, economic and social situation of the world and the activities of the Union combined this year with debate on the draft resolution on the role of parliaments in furthering relaxation of international tensions and progress in the field of disarmament, including nuclear weapons and new weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Milko Tarabanov, President of the Conference, presided. In addition to the Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Questions, International Security and Disarmament, Mr. C. Lapointe (Canada), 74 speakers from 51 national groups addressed the agenda item.

Representative Edward J. Derwinski, a delegate from the United States, spoke during the Second Plenary Session, Thursday morning, September 22. (See Annex B.) He stated that a central foreign policy issue in the United States is the U.S. relationship with the Soviet Union. Two issues lay at the core of any differences between the United States and the Soviet Union. One was the issue of human rights and the other the content of a new SALT agreement.

Representative Derwinski stated that the American stand on human rights was not aimed at any one country. It rested on basic American beliefs and was not meant to be disruptive of normal relations between

states.

Whatever the differences in respect to strategic arms control, it was not the purpose of the United States to compromise Soviet security in any way. Representative Derwinski pointed out that U.S. proposals had added new elements to the arms control picture and were aimed at reaching agreements which would not be overturned by the next technological breakthrough. Such an agreement would be of advantage to the entire world.

Representative Derwinski went on to note that U.S. policy toward developing countries is evolving in cooperative directions. The U.S. is committed to an ongoing dialogue. However, there also needs to be confidence that the developing countries will respond in kind.

He pointed to the need for understanding in finding a way out of the Middle East impasse. While the U.S. cannot compel or impose a settlement on the parties to the Middle East dispute, it is trying to improve the atmosphere in which communications between the opposing parties can take place.

Representative Derwinski also discussed U.S. policy toward Southern Africa which is comprised of assistance for economic development, recognition of African nationalism, and the promotion of racial justice. The U.S. deplores the introduction of foreign military personnel into Africa and hopes that outside intervention can be limited.

Other topics discussed during the general debate included the following: progress since the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe with a view to the upcoming followup in Belgrade, regional, strategic and conventional arms limitation, the rights of national minorities, the Sahelian drought, problems of southern Africa, the situation in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and Chile, nuclear proliferation and the need for international cooperation and safeguards, and world resource problems.

The Committee on Political Questions, International Security and Disarmament met beginning Tuesday morning, September 27, at 10:00 a.m. It immediately considered amendments offered by the U.S., U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav National Groups.

Representative Bob Wilson represented the U.S. Group during the Committee session and succeeded in gaining the approval of most of the amendments offered by the U.S. Group. Specifically obtained was Committee approval of language at several points in the resolution that stressed the need for international controls and inspection in connection with any arms control or disarmament agreement. The United States representative was unable to gain, however, Committee acceptance of an amendment of the U.S. Group that would have eliminated the provision calling for an arms embargo on countries which occupy foreign territories in defiance of UN resolutions. This section remained in the final resolution by a Committee vote of 30-26 with 4 abstentions. The Soviet Union failed in its efforts to delete the word "hegemony" from the resolution. The most significant amendment from the Yugoslav group would in effect have urged a restriction of the use of U.S. military forces in Western Europe. Another amendment offered by the Yugoslav group would have exempted peaceful nuclear explosions from a test ban agreement. Both were defeated in Committee.

The resolution as amended was adopted unanimously by the Committee and full Conference in the final plenary sitting on September 30.

CONTINUED STUDY OF A NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER

General debate began at 2:30 p.m. Friday afternoon, September 23, on subjects concerning the continuing study of a new international economic order and, in particular, the contribution of the developed

countries to the establishment of mechanisms for cooperation among the developing countries and transfers of technology for development.

According to Mr. T. Larue (France), the Rapporteur, speaking on behalf of his co-rapporteurs, the Interparliamentary Union has been studying various ways of developing the world economy in parallel with the General Assembly of the U.N. and the UNCTAD. Following the comprehensive resolution of the 1963 conference, the focus has been on cooperative mechanisms among developing countries and on problems raised by the transfer of technology.

The report of the Economic and Social Committee of the IPU highlighted the need for Third World countries to develop special financing measures and for developed countries to remove discriminatory practices against developing countries. Action against the practices of multinational corporations, an end to vast expenditure on armaments, reduction of the considerable costs of the transfer of technologies and an international code of conduct for the transfer of technology were also felt necessary.

Disappointment over the results of the Paris Conference on International Economic Cooperation was also noted in the committee report.

After Mr. Larue's report, 34 speakers from 32 national groups took part in the plenary debate. Discussion in the general debate noted the widening gap between the rich and the poor nations and the slow pace of progress towards a new international economic order brought about by the lack of political will. Disappointment was expressed that the activities of multinational corporations seldom made much impact on the technological training of the people involved.

Recommendations were made that the problems of primary products be considered as a special case and that international patent law be revised.

Representative Edward Derwinski, speaking on behalf of the U.S. delegation, said that the advanced industrial countries were the primary source of capital and technology needed for the industrialization of the less developed economy. Foreign activities of private corporations based in the industrial countries have been the major mechanisms for the transfer of industrial technology, he felt. Similarly the advanced countries provided the major market for exports from the developing countries. United States policies were of particular importance since the U.S. is the largest exporter of capital and technology and the largest industrial market in the world. The main principle of U.S. foreign trade and investment policy has been the promotion of free international markets as a means for ensuring a rational use of world resources.

The final resolution produced by the drafting committee and adopted 57 to 0 with 1 abstention by the full Economic and Social Committee carried few changes from the resolution submitted by the Executive Committee, At issue in the drafting session were amendments proposed by eight national groups, those of Canada, France, India, Italy, Spain, U.S., U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.

Added during the drafting process was an amendment offered by the American delegation that urged that developed countries support

programs in developing countries that benefit the lives of the poorest of their people in accordance with the New Directions guidelines of current U.S. law. Also adopted were amendments that indicated disappointment over the Paris Conference and the importance of the U.N. General Assembly and its bodies as an adequate and necessary framework for dialogue between developed and developing countries. More specific language was included concerning behavior of multinational corporations.

Representatives Del Clawson and John Cunningham participated in meetings of the Economic and Social Committee and of the drafting committee on behalf of the U.S. group.

In the final plenary session a representative from the Mexican delegation requested a vote on whether to have a separate vote on specific portions of the draft resolution. By a vote of 42 in favor to 767 opposed the motion was rejected.

The resolution was adopted by the Conference.

LAW OF THE SEA

The Sixth Plenary Session meeting, convening on Saturday morning, September 24, at 10:05 a.m., considered the draft resolution on the Law of the Sea. The rapporteur, Mr. E. Oehler (Switzerland), opened discussion by acknowledging that failure of the UN Conference on Law of the Sea lent greater urgency to the issue. He also noted that nations which had acted unilaterally had established national law that would probably conflict with the eventual international law of the

sea.

General debate concentrated on the issue of the scope and mandate of an international authority for the deep sea-bed. Twenty-six speakers from 25 National Groups addressed the agenda topic. Reference was also made to the danger of unilateral demands and the inequality of nations' facilities for exploring and exploiting the wealth of the oceans. Concern for the economic opportunity of landlocked states both in the deep sea bed and in coastal state economic zones was expressed. Encouragement was given to ensure the preservation of sea ecology, some suggesting that this be accomplished by way of a marine pollution control treaty. While recognition was given to the exclusive rights of coastal states to a 200 mile economic zone, some delegates urged that traditional freedoms of the high seas, e.g., the freedom of navigation, overflight, and laying of submarine cables and pipelines, should be preserved within the economic zone. It was pointed out that in certain cases these freedoms were being denied.

In the Committee on Parliamentary, Juridical and Human Rights Questions meeting at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 28, the draft resolution was considered and immediately referred to a drafting committee composed of India, U.S.S.R., Romania, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, Turkey, Switzerland and Iceland. Throughout that afternoon and the following morning the drafting committee reviewed and debated some 43 amendments offered by 9 delegations from Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia, India, Romania, Spain, U.S. and U.S.S.R. Key issues concerned the strength of authority to be recommended for a system of international cooperation concerning the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed, the degree to which noncoastal states

can fish in coastal states 200-mile economic zones, and the control of ocean pollution. The final resolution presented to the Committee was adopted by the Committee by a vote of 42-0 with 2 abstentions and by the full Conference unanimously. Representative David Bowen participated in committee consideration on behalf of the U.S. Group.

BEHAVIOR OF ISRAELI AUTHORITIES IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES

The Seventh and Eighth Plenary Sessions beginning on Saturday afternoon, September 24, at 3:05 p.m. and ending Monday, September 26, at 12:05 p.m. considered isssues and several draft resolutions proposed concerning Israeli behavior in occupied Arab territories.

Representative Edward Derwinski initiated the discussion by pointing out that the United States, while maintaining a long-standing commitment to the security and survival of Israel, had a broadly defined commitment to peaceful relations within the entire Mideast region. A major challenge facing the Carter Administration, he felt, is to maintain momentum towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The current situation carried the potential for renewed hostilities with far reaching political, economic and military consequences not only for Israel and its Arab neighbors but the world at large. Representative Derwinski found it significant that both sides acknowledged that purely military solutions are not foreseeable for the dispute and that only a negotiated settlement could bring peace to the Mideast. He urged delegates to do nothing to jeopardize the delicate diplomatic discussions which were going on in New York but to behave like statesmen and attempt to solve the problem with calm and dignity.

Other speakers pointed to allegations of torture of Arab prisoners in occupied territories, the illegality of the settlements, the confiscation of land, and the displacement, deportation, arrests and repression of the Arab population in the settled lands contrary to the Geneva Convention on protection of civilians during time of war. In general, statements were condemnatory of Israeli behavior. Certain delegates, however, felt that the situation could not be looked at without consideration of Israeli's right to exist and the just claims of the Palestinian people. Altogether a total of 36 delegates from 27 National Groups took part in the debate.

The Committee on Political Questions, International Security and Disarmament considered four draft resolutions on the issue laid before the Committee meeting on September 27, one submitted jointly by the Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Lebanese Groups, one jointly by the French, Italian, Greek. and Portuguese Groups, one by the Israeli Group, and one by the United States Group. (See Annex C for all draft resolutions.) The joint Arab resolution called for the IPU to send a fact-finding mission to investigate Israeli practices in the occupied territories and report to the next IPU conference on its findings. The Israeli draft called upon all Parliaments and Governments to refrain from action liable to increase tension and incite hostility in the Middle East. The European draft urged Israel to put an end to measures tending to aggravate the situation in Arab territories occupied since 1967.

The U.S. draft called for support for international efforts to effect a just and durable peace settlement, opposition to all disruptive activ