tunity for the member governments to make observations to the p visional Organ of Consultation if they wish. To us this seems to inherent under the mechanisms of the Rio Treaty.

However, I wish to make very clear that our willingness to examine the matter does not imply a judgment on the substance the issue. I do not believe there is any kind of consensus on this qu tion. My government will decide its own position only after st of any proposals that may be advanced and only after the m thorough consultation with other member nations.

OEA/Ser. G, CP/ACTA 133/74, Sept. 19, 1974, pp. 101-102. For the full of the resolution, see Id., p. 167.

On November 12, 1974, at a Meeting of Consultation held at Qu Ecuador, a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica, Colombia and Ve zuela calling for the abolition of the trade and diplomatic sancti against Cuba was defeated when it failed by two votes to gain support of the required two-thirds majority (14 members) of OAS. The United States, which did not address the issue prior to vote, abstained. In explanation of vote, Deputy Secretary of St Robert S. Ingersoll, Chairman of the U.S. Delegation at the O Meeting of Consultation, said in part:

We have remained silent prior to the vote because we wished avoid even the appearance of influencing by our remarks or by actions the outcome of this Meeting of Consultation. Now, I th a word in explanation of our vote is in order.

As most of you are aware, the United States was initially oppo to a review of Resolution I at this time. We were persuaded by ot nations that the issue should be discussed. We voted for the vocation of this meeting. And we have carefully attended th sessions and considered the statements of each of the members.

The resolution convoking this meeting received unanimous proval in the Permanent Council of the OAS. It placed before the important question of sanctions against Cuba. Ten years h passed since Resolution I was enacted by the Ninth Meeting Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs. It is natural t we should review that decision.

We recognize that a majority now exists for lifting sancti On the other hand, we also recall that the measures contained Resolution I were adopted in 1964 by an overwhelming majority the OAS member states. Some states here today were, with g reason, among the most persuasive advocates of sanctions. For s of us, evidence of Cuban hostility is fresh in our minds. Though years have passed, the states of the Americas have still received clear satisfaction that Cuba has abandoned the export of revolut

our abstention should not be taken as a sign of anything other than the fact that the United States has voted in accordance with its own perception of this question at this time. We respect the views of the majority who have voted for this resolution. We have not voted no and we have not worked against the resolution. We also respect the views of those who entertain such serious reservations with respect to Cuba and who therefore have felt it necessary to vote against.

If this Meeting of Consultation has not produced a conclusive result, it has at least aired in a constructive way the fact that there is no easy solution to the problem of a country which deals with some on the basis of hostility and with others on the basis of a more normal relationship.

I should add that the United States looks forward to the day when the Cuban issue is no longer a divisive issue for us. Cuba has absorbed far too much of our attention in recent years. We need to turn our energies to the more important questions. We must not let a failure of agreement on the Cuban issue, at this time, . . . obscure our common interest in working together toward mutually beneficial relationships on the major issues of this decade.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, No. 1854, Jan. 6, 1975, pp. 8–9.

At a news conference held at Mexico City on February 23, 1974, Secretary of State Kissinger was asked: "Who is responsible for the definite resolution that would permit American automobile companies established in Argentina to sell cars to Cuba, and when will it be able to obtain a definite resolution?" Secretary Kissinger replied: "The issue of the sale by American companies licensed in foreign countries, specifically Argentina, to Cuba is now under study in the U.S. Government. No final determination has been made, and of course when it is made we will discuss it first with the Government of Argentina. But no final decision has been made."

At the same news conference, Secretary Kissinger was asked whether "the United States has the right to make a decision in this case? Doesn't this constitute a violation of the sovereignty of Argentina?" Mr. Kissinger replied: "The issue that has to be considered is the relationship of a decision of the Organization of America States. The general legislation of the United States with respect to companies with headquarters in the United States and the sovereign right of a country to determine its own laws-I discussed this issue with the Foreign Minister of Argentina in a spirit of attempting to find a constructive solution, and until we have made a decision that we can communicate to the Argentine Government, which it has a total sovereign right to accept or reject, I do not think it would be appro

569-769-75 -40

an ilma in 2. Kien Lave a sietet I a 20s -nference at the orezon of 1 Leng of 2 Tsem Fenster Foreig Jose M. Kien met radiata there have been pendng for the Trasum Deuter of ze Tuted States 1?pica* one or main Nora Aneriram zarus fr less lang to do * f trade and or as 5m Averina 10 a. Ee then read Se following watement.

The Department of te mnoën si slay that the entine mursidlares of American "ompanies tad been visi ar censes will be senet for the expert of moves form Aetna is required by that count. The anes of des Lenses is in exception to Le Calter Scaos regulations conceming foreign assets controls. which wentinue to be maintained.

At a news conference on April 26, 1974. Secretary of State Kissinger was askeri: “Mr. Secretary, having been granted export censes to Argentina to send cars to Cuba, is the enemic dental program still Lace, and what are you going to do about the Canadian locomotive companies which have already started shipping and are under the same obligation?" Secretary Kissinger replied: "The decision with respect to Argentina was to permit American companies that are chartered in foreign countries to comply with the laws of the countries in which they are located to deal with an anomaly of our legislation which makes American companies that are incorporated in foreign countries subject to U.S. law rather than to the law of the country in which they are domiciled in case there's conflict. It was not based on considerations of Cuba policy. Therefore the behavior of American companies in those countries will depend on the policies the countries pursue vis-a-vis Cuba. And our own view on that has not changed.” Mr. Kissinger was then asked: "But the policy is still viable! He replied: "We believe it is.”

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXX, No. 1812, Mar. 18, 1974, pp. 267, 270: No. 1×20, May 13, 1974, p. 517; No. 1821, May 20, 1974, p. 344. For the Dept. of the Treasury Cuban Assets Control Regulations, see 31 CFR 315.

Chapter 11

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH AFFAIRS

§ 1

Environmental Affairs

General Cooperation

The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany signed an Agreement for Cooperation in Environmental Affairs on May 9, 1974. The Agreement (entered into force March 26, 1975) is to remain in force for five years and may be renewed for further five-year periods. The Agreement provides that cooperation may be undertaken in mutually agreed areas pertaining to environmental quality management, including pollution problems of mutual concern; assessment of environmental quality, including techniques of monitoring and surveillance; discussion of policies, practices and organization; exchange of experience on design and cooperation in the development of environmental information systems; training in environmental protection; environmental impact evaluations; consultations on international environmental policy issues; and other activities, as agreed. The forms of cooperation may comprise meetings, technical symposia and conferences; implementation of agreed cooperative projects; exchange of information and data; visits by scientists, technicians, teachers or administrators; and coordination of specific research activities. The parties agreed to use their best efforts to harmonize their environmental policies and practices, and to promote international harmonization of measures to prevent and control pollution. They agreed to support steps to arrive at internationally agreed scientific criteria, particularly those relating to human health; to achieve agreement on levels of acceptable environmental quality; and to develop and disseminate information on the best technology available to abate pollution, and to encourage widespread use of such technology for pollution control.

The parties agreed further to use their best efforts to ensure that the cost of implementing pollution prevention and control measures would be included in the cost of goods and services which cause pol

lution in production or consumption, and to prevent environmental protective measures from being used as non-tariff barriers to trade. It was agreed that "Where trade distortions result from differences in the environmental practices and procedures of the two countries, the contracting parties will consult upon request with a view to mitigating such distortions."

Participants in the cooperative activities under the Agreement may include Government agencies, academic institutions, private economic enterprises, and citizen organizations. The Agreement provides further that scientific and technological information of a nonproprietary nature derived from the cooperative activities under the Agreement is to be made available to the world scientific community through "customary channels" and in accordance with the usual procedures of the participating agencies. The disposition of patents, know-how, and other proprietary property is to be provided for in detailed arrangements covering specific programs and projects.

See also Dept. of State Press Release, No. 182, May 9, 1974; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXX, No. 1825, June 17, 1974, pp. 673–675.

On October 8, 1974, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Poland's Ministry of Land Economy and Environment Protection signed an Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection. The two governmental agencies agreed to cooperate generally in the field of environmental protection, and particularly in the area of pollution abatement and control. The several problems listed in the agreement are air and water pollution, degradation of the biosphere, effects of pollutants on fauna and flora, noise abatement and vibration, harmful effects of transportation, ionizing radiation as a pollutant, protection of urbanized and industrialized environment, management of municipal and industrial wastes, and the effects of pollutants on human health.

The cooperation is to include joint scientific and technical research work, exchanges of specialists, exchanges of scientific and technical information and documentation, loans of equipment, making available professional literature, organization of conferences and symposia, lectures and exhibitions and other forms of cooperation which the two sides consider appropriate.

The Agreement also provides that further agreements for implementation of each task performed within the framework of the Agreement may be negotiated by the organizational units concerned, and are to be signed in the name of the two parties to the Agreement. The individual agreements are to describe the responsibilities of the concerned organizational units, activities to be carried out and their duration, level of funding, procedures for utilizing results of the activities,