Слике страница

Article 28

All States have the duty to co-operate in achieving adjustments in the prices of exports of developing countries in relation to prices of their imports so as to promote just and equitable terms of trade for them, in a manner which is remunerative for producers and equitable for producers and consumers.


Common responsibilities towards the international community

Article 29

The sea-bed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as the resources of the area, are the common heritage of mankind. On the basis of the principles adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970, all States shall ensure that the exploration of the area and exploitation of its resources are carried out exclusively for peaceful purposes and that the benefits derived therefrom are shared equitably by all States, taking into account the particular interests and needs of developing countries; an international régime applying to the area and its resources and including appropriate international machinery to give effect to its provisions shall be established by an international treaty of a universal character, generally agreed upon.

Article 30 The protection, preservation and the enhancement of the environment for the present and future generations is the responsibility of all States. All States shall endeavour to establish their own environmental and developmental policies in conformity with such responsibility. The environmental policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect the present and future development potential of developing countries. All States have the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. All States should co-operate in evolving international norms and regulations in the field of the environment.


Final provisions

Article 31

All States have the duty to contribute to the balanced expansion of the world economy, taking duly into account the close interrelationship between the wellbeing of the developed countries and the growth and development of the devel


54-738 0 - 75 - 28

oping countries, and the fact that the prosperity of the international community as a whole depends upon the prosperity of its constituent parts.

Article 32

No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights.

Article 33 1. Nothing in the present Charter shall be construed as impairing or derogating from the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations or actions taken in pursuance thereof.

2. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of the present Charter are interrelated and each provision should be construed in the context of the other provisions.

Article 34

An item on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States shall be inscribed in the agenda of the General Assembly at its thirtieth session, and thereafter on the agenda of every fifth session. In this way a systematic and comprehensive consideration of the implementation of the Charter, covering both progress achieved and any improvements and additions which might become necessary, would be carried out and appropriate measures recommended. Such consideration should take into account the evolution of all the economic, social, legal and other factors related to the principles upon which the present Charter is based and on its purpose.

United Nations Office of Public Information
OPI/542—75-38308—February 1975—10M




Ten days ago our nation entered its two hundredth year. We begin our Bicentennial with justifiable pride in our past, a recognition of the challenges of the present, and great hope for the future.

The world in which we live is poised uneasily between an era of great enterprise and creativity or an age of chaos and despair. We have, on the one hand, developed weapons that could destroy us and our civilization; we have, on the other, created a world economy that could—for the first time in history-eradicate poverty, hunger and human suffering.

This complex of unprecedented opportunity and unparalleled danger is at the heart of the great challenge that has faced the United States with increasing urgency since the close of World War II. And it is our generation that must make the choices which will determine succes or failure. It is a burden that we can shoulder with fortitude or ignore with peril—but it is a burden we cannot shed.

Our nation has come to symbolize man's capacity to master his destiny. It is a proud legacy that has given hope and inspiration to the millions who have looked to us over the past two centuries as a beacon of liberty and justice.

Today's generation of Americans must be as true to its duty as earlier generations were to theirs. When weapons span continents in minutes, our security is bound up with world peace. When our factories, farms and financial strength are deeply affected by decisions taken in foreign lands our prosperity is linked to world prosperity. The peace of the world and our own security, the world's progress and our own prosperity are indivisible. The Structure of Peace

We have a proud foundation on which to build. We have maintained stability in the world, ensured the security and independence of scores of nations and expended blood and treasure in the defense of freedom. Our economic support helped our major allies regain their strength; we contributed to a global trading and monetary system which has sustained and spread prosperity throughout the world. With our encouragement, the new nations took their place in the international community and set out on the path of economic development. At our initiative many long-standing disputes were settled by peaceful means. Conflicts were contained and global war was avoided.

We have provided more economic assistance than any other nation in history, We have contributed more food, educated more people from other lands, and welcomed more immigrants and refugees. We have done so because we are a generous people for which we need not apologize—and because we have understood that our self-interest is bound up with the fate of all of mankind.

These successes have brought great change. The rigidities of the Cold War period have fragmented. Power and wealth, ideology and purpose have become diffused and have transformed the international scene. The reemergence of Europe and Japan, the rivalry among the Communist powers, the growth of military technologies, the rise and increasing diversity of the developing nations have produced a new global environment—a world of many centers of power, of persistent ideological differences clouded by nuclear peril and struggling for economic security and advance. The central focus of United States foreign policy is to help shape from this environment a new international structure, based on equilibrium rather than confrontation, linking nations to each other by practices of cooperation that reflect the reality of global interdependence.

Our task begins at home. To be strong and effective abroad, we must be strong and purposeful at home.

To preserve peace, our military strength must be beyond challenge. To promote global prosperity our domestic economy must prosper. To carry forward our international efforts we must be a united people, sure in our purposes and determined to build on the great achievements of our national heritage.

? Secretary Kissinger declined the Committee's invitation to testify. This address is being printed in lieu of his personal testimony.

Our first responsibility abroad is to the great industrial democracies with whom we share our history, our prosperity and our political ideals. Our alliances across the Atlantic and with Japan are the cornerstone of our foreign policy. To day they are more than responses to military threat, they are instrumentalities of social and economic cooperation as well.

The ultimate objective of our alliances has always been to ease, not to freeze, the divisions of the world. In the past few years the United States has taken a number of steps to resolve concrete problems with the Soviet Union and lay the basis for more positive endeavors. We have also forged a new relationship with the People's Republic of China. There can be no lasting international stability unless the major powers learn habits of restraint and feel a stake in international peace; all our hopes for a better world require that they use their power for the benefit of mankind.

The scores of new nations that have become independent since the Second World War are now major actors on the world scene. In their quest for their own progress, they present a challenge to the rest of the world to demonstrate that the international structure can give them a role, a fair share, dignity and responsibility.

All of us—allies and adversaries, new nations and old, rich and poor—are part of a world community. Our interdependence on this planet is becoming the centeral fact of our diplomacy. Energy, resources, environment, population, the uses of space and the seas—these are problems whose benefits and burdens transcend national boundaries. They carry the seeds of political conflict over the coming generation; they challenge the capacities of the international community with new requirements for vision and statesmanship.

Much of our current agenda is therefore global in nature and must be dealt with on a global basis. Within a few weeks there will be two major meetings of the most prominent international organization, the United Nations. A Special Session of the General Assembly will be devoted to economic issues and the 30th regular session of the General Assembly will address the broad range of international problems.

Therefore, I would like to use this occasion to place before you and our fellow members of the United Nations a candid assessment of how the United States Government views the contemporary UN—its capacities and its limitations, its promise and the trends which threaten future progress. The record of the United Nations

Thirty years after the founding of the United Nations, is achievements have been substantial and its promise is great. Most of the world is at peace. Beyond the absence of armed conflict, there has been a transition from a preoccupation with security to a new concern for the economic and social progress of all mankind. Yet, at the very time when interdependence impels international cooperation and when the membership of the UN is most universal, the international organization is being tested by a new clash of ideologies and interests, and by insistent tactics of confrontation. Such tendencies diminish the prospect for further achievement and threaten the very institution itself.

Let me place these tendencies in historical perspective. The end of the Second World War brought on a period of idealism and hope. Victory in war against tyrannical regimes—by nations united for that purpose seemed as much a triumph for liberty as for peace. The end of the colonial era was shortly to begin, and was clearly in prospect. The awesome power of nuclear weapons ironically gave hope that the imperatives of collective security and peaceful settlement of disputes would at least impress themselves on mankind. The League of Nations had failed, but the cost of another failure now seemed so overwhelming that it was possible to hope that the nations of the world would be obliged to make the United Nations succeed.

No nation embraced this hope more genuinely than the United States. No country more seriously looked for the United Nations to replace force and domination with cooperation. No government more earnestly sought to create a world organization with a capacity to act. It is worth recalling that a year after the San Francisco Conference, when the United States was the sole possessor of nuclear weapons, we offered to turn this entire technology over to the United Nations.

Even then American spokesmen were careful to insist that there were realistic limits to the scope of the new organization. Of these limits the most important, even if perhaps the easiest to overlook, is that the UN is not a world govern

ment; it is an organization of sovereign states. It is not an entity apart from its membership. It reflects the world context in which it operates: its diversity, its imperfections, its many centers of power and initiative, its competing values, its worldly compound of nobility and tragedy.

The founders' hope for peace rested not on a naive belief in the perfectibility of man but on the hope that the major powers, given a dominant role in the Security Council, would be able to concert together to keep the peace. This hope, of course, proved stillborn when the UN became an arena for the confrontations of the Cold War.

A generation later, its record in maintaining the peace shows both success and failure. There have been local wars, yet there has been no general war. More than once, small conflicts which had led in the past to great ones have been contained through the efforts of the United Nations.

Time and again-in the Eastern Mediterranean, in the Middle East, in the Congo, in Kashmir—the peacekeeping role of the UN has proved indispensable for settlement, guarantees and prevention of major power intervention. While a far cry from the concept of collective security orginially envisioned, these operations have proven valuable and increasingly indispensable. They represent the most advanced manifestations of international cooperation for security yet achieved.

The United Nations has understood the principle that peace is not the same as the status quo, but must embrace procedures for peaceful change. Whether by special commissions or mediators or through the expanded role of the Secretary General within his broad responsibilities under Article 99 of the Charter, the UN has offered a flexible instrument of pacific settlement on a score of occasions since its founding.

The UN has provided a forum for debate and negotiation on regional or global problems and for multilateral efforts for arms control and disarmament. The talks provide a safety valve and a sounding board ; in the corridors quiet progress is often being made.

We found early on that there were limits to United Nations action on behalf of peace and security. Its writ can run no further than the agreement of its members. And on the sweeping issues of war and peace, it is the great powers, by virtue of their size, military strength, economic power and political influence, who bear the principal responsibility for world stability and security. Of late, as the great powers are learning the practices of coexistence there is hope that the UN can find renewed possibilities for effective action in accordance with the vision of its founders.

The United Nations, originally concerned primarily with issues of peace and security, has been the focus of increasing attention to economic and social issues. The UN Charter contains a commitment “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” Today, roughly nine-tenths of expenditures within the UN system relate to economic and social cooperation. We welcome this evolution and have contributed generously to it.

Indeed it is in these fields, that the work of the UN has been most successful and yet the most unheralded. Its specialized agencies have been effectively involved with countless areas of human and international concern: speeding decolonization; spreading education, science, and technology ; organizing global cooperation to combat hunger and disease, to protect the environment, and to limit population growth; regulating international transport and communication and peaceful nuclear power; advancing human rights and expanding international law among nations and in outer space and on the seas; preserving the priceless cultural heritage of mankind. It is striking, and of great importance for the future, that the United Nations has been able to respond creatively to so many of the challenges of the modern age.

Thus the UN is of considerable importance for the world's future. It has accommodated our traditional security and political concerns to the new conditions of international diplomacy; it has extended its reach—even before most nations did—toward the new agenda that now confronts the world community. The UN is both a symbol of our interdependence, and our most universal instrument for common progress.

In this connection, I want to pay tribute to the outstanding leadership given to the UN by its Secretary General Kurt Waldheim. He is tireless and totally dedicated to peace, fairness and the future of the United Nations. The rapidity and efficiency with which he organized and dispatched peacekeeping forces to

« ПретходнаНастави »