they also contain the possibility of a new and challenging area of international cooperation. An important first step will be to consider our approach together with other industrial countries. Other industrialized countries, the United Kingdom in particular, have advanced a number of proposals to this end. Raw material policy will be a primary focus of the upcoming OECD ministerial, and we expect the OECD to undertake a major study of the issue. The United States is prepared to deal with the raw materials question with economic realism, political imagination, and understanding for the concerns of the developing world. Food Let me turn now to another issue on which international action has already begun-and must now be accelerated. This is the problem of food. Last November the World Food Conference was convened in Rome at American initiative. On behalf of President Ford I announced a proposal for a long-term international effort to eliminate the scourge of hunger. For we regard our good fortune and strength in the field of food as a global trust. We recognize the responsibilities we bear by virtue of our extraordinary productivity, our advanced technology, and our tradition of assistance. And we are convinced that the global response will have an important influence on the nature of the world that our children inherit. The Rome conference reached basic agreement on a comprehensive program in basic areasexpanding the food production of the major producers, accelerating production in the developing countries, improving the means of food distribution and financing, enhancing the nutritional quality of food production, and developing a system of reserves to ensure against food emergencies. A framework for international cooperation was established. Fortunately good crops this year will ease food supply problems. But we cannot let this lull us into complacency about the longer term. We cannot escape the reality that the world's total requirements for food are growing dramatically, not easing. The current gap between what developing countries produce themselves and what they need is about 25 million tons; at present rates of growth, the is expected to double or triple 10 years gap from now. There is no escape from the world's duty to deal with the problem of hunger with urgency. To maintain the momentum begun at Rome action is needed now in three areas. · First, for the short term, until a major expansion of world production is brought about, food aid will continue to be vital. The United States sees this as a responsibility not only of major food producers but of all financially capable nations. The United States has provided more than 4 million tons of food aid in all but one of the 20 years of our food aid program. We will do our utmost to maintain this standard of performance. ⚫ Secondly, food aid can only be a stopgap measure. The long-term solution will require that food production be increased to its full potential. Food production in the developing countries can draw on a great deal of underutilized land resources. American assistance will henceforth place primary emphasis on research, fertilizers, better storage, transport, and pest control. We shall concentrate our aid capital in this sector of economic development. Third, we must meet emergency shortages and protect world supplies in the face of crop failures and other catastrophes. To do so we have proposed an international system of nationally held grain reserves. We must start now to build them. fully. Let me discuss this issue of reserves more Before 1972 the world had come to depend upon a few major producers-particularly the United States-to maintain the necessary grain reserves. Now after 3 years of shortages and emergencies, adequate reserves no longer exist. The United States has therefore removed all governmental restraints on production. Our farmers have gone allout to maximize their output. The world must take advantage of better crops this year to reconstitute stocks. But this is not enough. In meetings later this month the United States will formally propose a comprehensive international system of reserves, based on the following principles. on a fair allocation of reserve holdings taking into account wealth, grain productive capacity, and trade. There should be agreed international rules or guidelines to encourage members to build up reserves in times of good harvest. Each participating country should be free to determine how its reserves will be maintained and what incentives to provide for their buildup, holding, and draw-downs. • Rules or guidelines should be agreed in advance for the draw-down of reserves, triggered by shortfalls in world production. There must be a clear presumption that all members would make reserves available when needed and, conversely, that reserves would not be released prematurely or excessively and thus unnecessarily depress market prices. has served the world well. Future prosperity in this United States and throughout the globe depends on its continued good performance. We are prepared to engage in a constructive dialogue and to work cooperatively on the great economic issues. We cannot accept unrealistic proposals. But we must act to strengthen the system in areas where it does not function well. These issues are not technical; they go to the heart of the problem of international orderwhether the major industrial nations and the developing nations can resolve their problems cooperatively or whether we are headed for an era in which economic problems and political challenges are solved by tests of strength. Will the world face up to the imperative of interdependence? Or will it be engulfed in contests of nations or blocs? The role which the United States takes will be crucial. Will we fulfill our responsiblity of leadership? If we know our own interest we will. For the United States still represents the single greatest concentration of economic wealth and power to be found on the planet. But what is asked of us now most of all is not our resources but our vision and will. The American people have always believed in a world of cooperation rather than force, of negotiation rather than confrontation, and of fulfillment of the aspirations of peoples for progress and justice. Such a world will never come about without our active contribution. The opportunities open to us are immense, if we have the courage and faith to seize them. We have a stake in the world's success. It will be our own success. If we respond to the challenge with the vision and determination that the world has come to expect from America, our children will look back upon this period as the beginning of America's greatest triumphs. [Department of State Press Release No. 257, May 14, 1975] QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOLLOWING ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER, SECRETARY OF STATE, BEFORE THE KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COUNCIL, MISSOURI, MAY 13, 1975 Mr. LINSCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will ask the Secretary a few of the questions that I have here that are representative really of the groups of the many that we do have. The first question that I have asks: What is the Soviet Union's long-range foreign policy towards the Middle East and the Suez Canal? And, two, are we really going to take our ship back from Cambodia, or is this a verbal ploy? Secretary KISSINGER. Well, let me take the second question first. With respect to the ship, we have called it an act of piracy. We have said that we demand the release of the ship and the crew, and the failure to release the ship and the crew could have serious consequences. We are now giving diplomacy a chance. Until this has been done, I do not think it would be useful to make any statements. But I can assure you that the statement released by the White House on behalf of the President yesterday, was not said idly. I repeat that we insist on the release of the ship and the crew. [Applause.] The other question is: What is the Soviet Union's long-range foreign policy towards the Middle East and the Suez Canal? The Soviet foreign policy is dominated by many factors. It is important for us to remember that the Soviet Union is ideologically hostile to the United States. And we recognize that the Soviet Union, if it has an opportunity, will fill vacuums. We are pursuing a policy of seeking to relax tensions, because we believe that we owe it to the American people to make clear that if there is a crisis, it will not have been caused by an American failure to seek out every opportunity for honorable solutions. On the other hand, we must recognize that this policy is not a substitute for our own efforts. If a vacuum exists, it will be filled. And therefore what the Soviet Union does in the Middle East depends importantly on what we are prepared to do in the Middle East as well as in other areas of the world. If we are ready to act with a sense of responsibility to the over-all balance of power, then I believe we can make progress towards peace in the Middle East. And this is our biggest effort at this moment. So, on the whole, I believe that progress towards peace can be made in the Middle East, but it cannot be done on the cheap. Mr. LINSCOTT. Thank you. The next question I have is: After the Arab-Israeli negotiations broke down, there was an apparent cooling of U.S.-Israeli relations. How is the temperature today? Secretary KISSINGER. My friend, Abba Eban, the former Foreign Minister of Israel, said to me once that the Israelis consider objectivity a hundred percent agreement with their point of view. [Laughter.] So, when you begin to slide towards the 95 percent mark, you get accused of tilting towards the other side. Our relations with Israel are friendly. We are engaged in close consultations about what steps to take next. Inevitably, the Israeli perspective is focused on its own survival and on the immediate problems of its area. We, on the other hand, have interests also in better relations with the moderate Arab countries, and in making sure that the situation in the Middle East does not explode into a war, which could bring on another massive recession, and a threat of confrontation with the Soviet Union. We believe that this is also in the long-term interest of Israel. So I believe that as we go through our present period of reassessment, that we will come out with a policy that will be generally approved by the American people, and will be compatible with the survival and security of Israel, as well as with our relations with the Arab world. And I think that our relations are basically good. [Applause.] Mr. LINSCOTT. The next question they ask, Mr. Secretary. Do you need Congressional approval to take military action in the matter of the Cambodian piracy affair? Secretary KISSINGER. There is no question that the War Powers Act and the restrictions-the special restrictions-that have been placed on military opera tions in Indochina complicate the flexibility of the President as compared to a number of years ago. On the other hand, it has generally been held that the President has inherent powers to protect American lives and American property when they are threatened. And I believe that the President-and I know that the President—is operating on this assumption today. Of course, before any steps are taken, we would discuss them with the leaders of the Congress. Mr. LINSCOTT. Will the forthcoming talks in Brussels bring about new dimensions of the U.S. Common Market relationships? Do you anticipate changes in the troops commitments? Secretary KISSINGER. After recent events, the United States cannot afford a withdrawal of troops from Europe without creating a totally wrong impression about our determination and about our willingness to play an international role. And therefore, this is an issue that we will not raise we do not expect to raise in Brussels. The purpose of the talks between the President and his colleagues will be to reaffirm the dedication of the Western democracies to common goals. It is not enough to do this simply with verbal declarations. It is important that we are joined together in some great common enterprises. We are already doing it in the field of energy. I have indicated today in the economic parts of my speech some of the other areas where joint efforts are possible. What united the Western countries in the '50s and '60s was not simply declarations, but joint efforts. We believe that such joint efforts can again be created. And therefore, we believe that the Western Alliance can emerge from the present period, more vital than before. Mr. LINSCOTT. Are we going to revise our policy of containment and limited war in view of its minimal success in Viet-Nam? Secretary KISSINGER. Well, we do have a policy of limited war. Our policy is to attempt to preserve the peace. I think we must learn from the experience of Viet-Nam that if the United States that the United States should think through all the implications of its commitments before it makes them. But also, if it makes them, that it cannot do so half-heartedly. We believe that we cannot commit the world to be at the mercy of other Communist superpowers. Now what precise conclusions we will draw from that, in any individual instance. I cannot now say-but as a basic principle of our foreign policy, we cannot be indifferent to changes in the world balance of power, and we are determined to resist them. [Applause.] Mr. LINSCOTT. One last question : Mr. Secretary, would you serve as Secretary of State under a Democratic President, if one were elected in 1976? [Laughter.] Secretary KISSINGER. I don't think that I will be-I would- -[Laughter.] I have the conviction from some of the statements of the various hard-working candidates that this is a decision that I would not have to make. [Laughter.] But I also have the conviction that they will not be in a position to make a concession. [Laughter. Applause.] APPENDIX 7 CONFERENCE OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON RAW MATERIALS, DAKAR, FEBRUARY 3-8, 1975 THE DAKAR DECLARATION The developing countries, meeting in Dakar on 4-8 February on the initiative of the Fourth Summit Conference of NonAligned Countries, carried out a detailed analysis of the fundamental problems of raw materials and development in the light of recent trends in international economic relations, and taking into account the decisions of the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on raw materials and development. They noted the trends in the international economic situation, which was marked by the perpetuation of inequalities in economic relations, imperialist domination, neo-colonialist exploitation and a total lack of solutions to the basic problems of the developing countries. Determined to pursue together and in unity a joint action to broaden the irreversible process which has been initiated in international economic relations and which has opened the way for the developing countries to put an end to their position of dependence vis-à-vis imperialism; Convinced that the only way for them to achieve full and complete economic emancipation is to recover and control their natural resources and wealth and the means of economic development in order to secure the economic, social and cultural progress of their peoples; Decide, in accordance with the principles and objectives of the Declarations and Programmes of Action of the Fourth Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries and the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, on the basis of a common course of action, to adopt the following declaration: 1. The present structure of international trade, which had its origins in imperialist and colonialist exploitation, and which |