far better terms for the resources they export to the industrial West. They have thus acquired important economic and political weight. Their increasingly assertive and coordinated policies can be modified by negotiation, but they cannot be ignored. New relationships must be found in which, as they and the industrial world discover their mutual interdependence, bargains will be struck which all can accept as equitable.

We recognize the importance of building peaceful and constructive relations among the major power centers of the Northern Hemisphere, including large adversary states, and we applaud the creative labors of Secretary Kissinger to this end. But such relations, vital though they are to world peace, are not sufficient. The oil crisis is a glaring reminder of how global interests are intertwinedand how impermanent are equations of national power. The resources also highlights the plight of the "Fourth World," now more than ever in need of a new humanitarianism on the part of both the old and newly rich nations. We support the United Nation's policy of humanitarian criteria for aid, technical assistance and services, and oppose political, racial or religious motivation for excluding peoples or nations from UN assistance programs.

The structure of peace remain dangerously incomplete if great power relations are cemented at the expense of, or in indifference to, the underprivileged majority of mankind. Only an inclusive world order can be secure. Seen in this light, the General Assembly's repeated demands upon the West appear not as irritating trifles but as ominous symptoms of the breakdown of the old international economic and social order and the absence of a new and more equitable order to replace it.

TOWARD A NEW PARTNERSHIP

The more lasting-though too little noticed-moral of Ambassador Scali's famous December speech lies not in its complaints against the majority, justified though these were in many ways, but in its eloquent appeal for a common rededication to making the United Nations work:

"The reasons for which the World Organization was founded remain as valid and as compelling today as they were in 1945. If anything, there is added reason: the specters of nuclear holocaust, world depression, mass famine, overpopulation and a permanently ravaged environment.

"If we are to succeed, we (the members of the UN) must now renew our commitment to the central principles of tolerance and harmony upon which the United Nations was built. We must redouble our efforts to use this Organization as the world's ultimate instrument for compromise and negotiation." Significantly, in the debate that followed a number of speakers of the Third World responded in a similar vein, appealing for consultation and compromise on both sides. If these appeals are sufficiently heeded, the debate of December 1974 may prove to have been the prologue to a new entente between the founders of the United Nations and its new majority.

The dialogue within such an entente will have many issues to resolve, some of them already prominent in the UN's agenda. Most of the key issues in the dialogue-such as trading rules, access to and prices of oil and other resources, national control over foreign private investment, the conflicts of the Middle East and Southern Africa--are inherently difficult. But given sufficient priority, they can be made manageable. Further neglected, on the other hand, these issues could soon become tangled in a Gordian knot of confrontation politics beyond the capacity of diplomacy to untie. To avert an impasse profoundly dangerous to peace, and to construct a more inclusive world order which all UN members will have a stake in upholding, the dialogue now begun must be pursued-with increased energy, patience, insight, and a determination not to fail.

II. SPECIFIC ISSUES

1. THE MIDDLE EAST

Today as throughout its existence, the United Nations remains deeply involved in efforts to mitigate and resolve the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The UN played an indispensable role in halting the war of October 1973, policing the cease-fire and disengagement of forces in the Suez and Golan areas, and initiating the first direct negotiating contact ever achieved between the major parties to the conflict. The periodic renewal of the two peacekeeping

forces by the Security Council is a hopeful sign of the solidity of these steps. Pending a definitive settlement, the UN's humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees also remains of special importance, as it has been for many years.

There is widespread agreement that peace in the Middle East is essential to peace in the world. We therefore support all efforts for a negotiated settlement consistent with the following principles :

Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, matched by termination of all Arab claims or states of belligerency, along with respect for, and acknowledgement of, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every state in the area.

Recognition of Palestinian national aspirations and termination of their protracted refugee status, matched by firm acknowledgement of the right of all states in the area to live in peace, free from guerrilla or terrorist action or any other threats or acts of force.

Feedom of navigation for all countries through international waterways of the region without discrimination.

The final borders between Israel and its neighbors to be guaranteed by international agreement and if necessary by the US and other great powers.

We deplore the failure of the General Assembly-and parties to the dispute to implement these principles.

We commend our government for its continuing efforts to promote a peace settlement consistent with these principles and we deeply regret that the bilateral negotiations involving Israel and Egypt, aimed at further partial steps toward peace, failed during March despite the intensive mediation of Secretary Kissinger. It is now critically important that the Security Council, as an interim measure, extend the life of the UN Disengagement Observer Force in the Golan Heights, whose current mandate expires May 30. However, the temporary character of UN buffer forces only points up the urgency of regaining the lost momentum of peace negotiations. We appeal to all the parties and all concerned governments, our own included, to strive unremittingly, through every available channel including the Geneva Conference soon to be resumed under UN auspices, to reconcile the wide differences that still remain.

Americans deeply desire and need friendship with all countries of the Middle East. We again appeal to the parties, and to all states concerned, to hasten the conclusion of a negotiated peace that will be fair and honorable for all. That this will involve painful concessions on all sides is obvious. It should be even more obvious that such concessions will be far less painful than the alternative of continued and mounting violence in that explosive area, whose conflicts have for far too long threatened the peace of the entire world.

2. THE U.N. AND INDOCHINA

The searing experience of past US intervention in Indochina must warn against any attempt to reverse present tragedies by still further interventions. We urge that the U.S. as a long-range policy seek to develop constructive relations with all governments in the area, and work within the prudent limits of its influence and resources to improve the lot of the peoples of Indochina. We further propose that the U.S. join with other nations in seeking an international guarantee, if possible through the Security Council, for the independence, neutrality, and security of all states of Southeast Asia.

Meanwhile the immediate need is to relieve the desperate plight of refugees and other suffering civilians, men, women, and children, in the stricken areas. We commend the private voluntary agencies and U.N. agencies now engaged in this humanitarian work, and the U.S. Government for its support of their efforts. We note especially that UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees are providing humanitarian services throughout Indochina. We urge that all U.N. humanitarian programs in the area be kept under strict international control and not become subservient to the political purposes of any of the parties to the conflict. We also urge our government, and all Americans of good will, to increase their support for these U.N. efforts so that they may meet the greatly increased demands upon them.

3. CYPRUS

For over 20 years the U.N. has been involved in attempts to settle the strife between Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus. Since 1964 a U.N.

peacekeeping force has stood guard in the island republic to discourage further incidents. Last July the fragile truce collapsed when the then Greek government launched a coup in Nicosia. Turkey quickly reacted by invading and occupying 40 percent of the island, precipitating severe fighting and suffering for many thousands of refugees on both sides.

Despite renewed attempts at a negotiatied solution, the outlook for a settlement again darkened this year when the Turkish Cypriot community announced in February a "separated federated state" in the part of the island they occupy. In March the Security Council adopted a resolution reaffirming the independence and integrity of Cyprus and urging a resumption of talks under the auspices of the Secretary-General, the return of refugees and the withdrawl of Turkish troops. We strongly support this U.N. diplomatic effort now in progress. The need for creative diplomacy on the Cyprus issue is highlighted by mounting dangers of a new war in the sensitive region of the Eastern Mediterranean.

U.S. policy in this tragic episode is open to severe criticism. After the July coup in Nicosia, the U.S. is reported to have actively discouraged any countermove including use of the Security Council. No such move was made and Turkish apprehensions deepened, setting the stage for the invasion. When the initial Turkish invasion was expanded, after the events which gave rise to it had been reversed, the U.S. did not effectively oppose Turkey's use of U.S. weapons, acquired under NATO programs, to pursue its aims in Cyprus. In the circumstances, we believe the action of Congress in cutting off military aid to Turkey was justified. Any modification of this action should be designed solely to strengthen the President's hand in promoting negotiations for a permanent settlement.

We pay tribute to the courage and effectiveness of the U.N. peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, in mitigating civilian suffering during and since the 1974 fighting, in some cases at great risk and cost in casualties. We also pay tribute to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees for his program of humanitarian aid in Cyprus, and commend our government for its contribution of $10.9 million to this cause.

4. PEACEKEEPING AND PEACEMAKING

The United Nations scored major achievements for peace in halting the Middle East war of October 1973 and in creating the two new international peacekeeping forces-UNEF-II and UNDOF-to stand guard between opposing forces in the Suez and Golan areas. The vote of the Soviet Union to create these forces, its participation in their financing, and the inclusion in UNEF of a battalion from a member of the Warsaw Pact, are all without precedent in the history of UN peacekeeping. They demonstrate-contrary to some predictions-that the UN's capacity to improvise peacekeeping forces in an emergency was not destroyed by the bitter controversy of the 1960s. On the contrary, time, circumstances, and years of patient dialogue evidently convinced the Soviet Union and others that such impartial forces have a part to play on the world scene.

We commend all governments involved, including our own, for these creative steps. And we salute the valor of soldiers from 11 countries serving under UN colors-both in the Middle East and in UNFICYP, the invaluable UN force in Cyprus-over 400 of whom have become casualties in the service of peace since October 1973. We urge our government to give vigorous support to existing UN peacekeeping forces.

It cannot be assumed, however, that these steps guarantee the UN's peacekeeping capacity in future emergencies. It is important that the recent progress toward agreed peacekeeping principles, reported by the General Assembly's Committee of 33 on Peacekeeping Operations, be followed up vigorously, supported by continued close consultation between the United States and the Soviet Union. Wisely, these efforts are now aimed at a set of general principles rather than at detailed guidelines. Such principles must provide adequate operating flexibility for the Secretary-General's command of a peacekeeping force under the general oversight of the Security Council; strong safeguards against premature dismissal by a host government; and equitable sharing of costs. We believe an agreement on such principles might be reached if the US and Soviet governments placed peacekeeping on the agenda for the next summit meeting, and we urge that this be done.

A still more basic need is for more ready and consistent application of the Charter obligation (article 33) to settle international disputes by peaceful means. Such means can often be, but need not be, provided within the UN framework.

The essential point is the willingness of the parties to reach a settlement, and the proper contribution of the UN is to promote that willingness in every way possible. The good offices of the Secretary-General and his representatives have been of great value in this way more often than is generally known.

We point out once again the deplorable neglect of the International Court of Justice. Judicial settlement is one major means, specified in the UN Charter, for peaceful resolution of disputes among nations. But the intended role of the World Court as judge among nations has been frustrated from the start by the refusal of member states to accept its jurisdiction where their interests were involved. Unfortunately, one of the worst examples in this respect was set long ago by the United States when the Senate enacted the Connally Reservation. We appeal once again to the US Senate to show world leadership by repealing that unfortunate clause, so enfeebling to the world order of which our country has been a leading advocate.

A particularly grievous challenge to the peacemakers is the new upsurge of international terrorism against innocent third parties. It is an evil which responsible authorities in conflict situations are often either unable or unwlling to control. We are deeply disappointed at the unreadiness of many member states to deal firmly with such outrages against human beings. We urge our government to persist in pressing this essentially humanitarian issue in season and out, until a solution is achieved.

5. SOUTHERN AFRICA

The transformation of Portugal's African empire in 1974 dramatically heightened international pressure on the remaining areas of the "white redoubt" in Southern Africa. In the United Nations, a long-expected move to expel South Africa from the United Nations was stopped only by a triple Western veto in the Security Council. Thereupon the General Assembly voted over Western objection to exclude the South African delegation from the rest of the 29th session-an unprecedented step which raises questions of the utmost gravity for the future of the organization.

These steps put a new and sudden strain on the already fragile relations between the United States and the Third World majority in the UN. Discord over Southern Africa is now a main factor in the crisis of conference that threatens the organization, even while some signs begin to emerge of a more moderate South African position on both Rhodesia and Namibia.

The damage was not done overnight. The US delegation, explaining its votes on these issues, stressed the principles of universality, due process and fair play-and once more reiterated its much-reiterated detestation of apartheid. But such verbal expressions had long since been drained of their credibility in Third World eyes by Washington's failure to exert effective economic or diplomatic persuasion on South Africa or the leaders in Rhodesia to mend their policies. For over three years the best-advertised American policy toward Southern Africa has been the lamentable Byrd Amendment, by which Congress opened US commercial market to imports of Rhodesian chrome the alleged strategic need for which proved non-existent. Thus we placed ourselves and still remain, in contempt of our Charter obligation to comply with Security Council orders against trade with that outlaw country.

No single aspect of United States foreign policy has been more needlessly damaging to our country's posture in the United Nations than the long-standing habit of condemning apartheid in our statements while condoning it in our actions. If we seriously wish to build a partnership with the Third World majority in the UN, we must lose no time in bringing our policies on this issue into line with our pronouncements. To that end:

1. Congress and the Administration should give top legislative priority to repeal of the Byrd Amendment permitting chrome imports from Rhodesia-thereby restoring full US compliance with the Security Council's mandatory economic sanctions against the Smith regime in Rhodesia.

2. We should lend vigorous diplomatic support to the Security Council's unanimous resolution of December 17 calling on South Africa to prepare promptly to withdraw from Namibia, to recognize that country's unity and territorial integrity, and to cooperate with the UN in transferring political power to the Namibian people.

3. As a corollary to these steps, we should consult actively with leading statesmen of Africa on steps to assure that majority rule in Southern Africa will be achieved as much as humanly possible in conditions of interracial harmony and peaceful progress.

In advocating these steps we do not ignore the tragic prevalence of racial, tribal or ethnic discrimination as well as interferences with the expression of popular will, practiced by governments of many nations in every quarter of the globe, with little or no protest from the UN. We believe the US should be impartial in condemning and opposing actively these evils wherever they exist.

6. ARMS CONTROL, ZONES OF PEACE, AND DISBARMENT

In the past year the world has drifted into a period of accelerating danger from the increase of nuclear weapons. "Vertical" proliferation, especially the United States and the Soviet Union, continues at a very high level due to the meager results of the SALT negotiations to date. "Horizontal" proliferation may become more tempting to a score or more countries with the necessary technical and financial base and even to terrorist groups. India's nuclear explosion in May 1974 was an alarming signal that this long-foreseen danger has now materialized. Man's remaining chance to limit the universal spread of nuclear weaponry may soon be irrevocably lost.

Key negotiations this year bearing on this immense problem include the review conference on the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, meeting during May in Geneva, and the next round of SALT negotiations for lower limits on strategic delivery systems. We urge our government to pursue both these avenues with determination-and to bear in mind that non-nuclear nations cannot be expected to forgo nuclear weapons permanently unless the superpowers reduce their own nuclear arsenals. For the same reasons we urge strong international controls against clandestine diversion of nuclear material for weapons purposes. We urge the highest priority for the conclusion of the long-sought comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests. No step could do more to dampen the threat of further proliferation, both vertical and horizonal. Twelve years ago, in the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the United States joined in pledging to pursue "the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time." Ever since, a principal obstacle to a ban on underground tests has been US insistence on a system of on-site inspection which advances in seismic detection have now rendered unnecessary. The bilaterial ban on weapons tests above 150 kilotons— even if this threshold were substantially lowered-cannot be a full substitute for a comprehensive multilateral test ban.

US inflexibility on this technical issue has caused many to question the reality of this country's commitment to a complete test ban. A new affirmative US policy on this subject is now more than ever essential if the nuclear arms race is to be brought under control while there is still time.

Exceeding even the nuclear weapons issue in sheer magnitude is the stillescalating expenditure of the world's governments on "conventional"—i.e., nonnuclear-armaments. An aspect of this problem that may lend itself to international management is the unconscionable export of weapons, chiefly by the major powers, to less-developed countries. In recent years international arms sales to such countries have grown alarmingly in both quantity and quality, with the US sometimes even arming both sides in the same conflict.

Many customers in this arms trade can ill afford such a diversion of national treasure from economic development. Even where financing is easy as it is now for the oil-exporting counties-there is a danger of new tensions if competitive arms imports were to destabilize political relations in sensitive regions like the Persian Gulf. We believe this issue is overdue for international debate in the UN. We urge our government to consider in all seriousness whether its policy of arms exports contributes to international security or the reverse.

We support further exploration of a fully audited and verified reduction of military budgets, pursuant to the recommendations of the General Assembly. We also urge that the US take the lead in obtaining a negotiated international reduction of armaments, so that the resources thus saved can be dedicated to the elimination of the world food crisis and the solution of other grave economic and social problems, including those of the US.

We further suggest the major powers should take far more seriously the spreading interest of smaller powers in region "zones of peace." The oldest of these, the Latin American Nuclear-Free Zone, is well advanced (although the Soviet Union still refuses its cooperation and that of the US and France is incomplete). We see much to be gained by a similar evolution in the Indian Ocean Zone of Peace recently proclaimed by the General Assembly. All the nuclear powers except China have unwisely in our view-hung back from

54-738 O-75-29